« PreviousContinue »
Antig. My father, hapless me! where he interred doth lie. Ism. This may not be, poor blinded fool, that canst not yet descry. Antig. Why chidest thou?
Ism. This simple fact
Antig. This simple fact again!
Ism. Unburied lies his corse, and where is hid from mortal ken.
Ism. Alas! unhappy girl! deserted and alone,
Where shall a maiden spend her life, forgotten and unknown?
Chor. Be not alarmed, my gentle friends
Antig. But whither shall I fly?
Chor. You have escaped before
Antig. From what?
Chor. From a like destiny.
Antig. Thought fills my mind
Chor. What thinkest thou?
Antig. How we shall reach our home
I cannot tell.
Chor. 'Tis weak to think of toils that ne'er shall come
Antig. Grief drowns my soul
Chor. And so before.
Antig. All bounds were overpass'dChor. Deep in a stormy sea of woes have ye been sternly castAntig. Yes, yes—
Chor. I cannot but assent.
Antig. Alas! I know not where our steps are bent-
ON THE WORD ἀλίαστος.
APOLLONIUS RHODIUS (Argon. a, 1326) has the line :
ἦ, καὶ κῦμ ̓ ἀλίαστον ἐφέσσατο νειόθι δύψας :
on which the scholiast explains áλíaorov by noλú. The passage, however, is an imitation of Hom. Пl. w, 96 :—
ἀμφὶ δ ̓ ἄρα σφι λιάζετο κῦμα θαλάσσης,
and shews that Apollonius connected ἀλίαστος with λιάζομαι. The meaning of the Homeric passage is, that "the wave ebbed, or made way for them." Kuμ' ȧXiaorov is, therefore, an "unebbing, unretiring wave:"
"This said, an únebbing wave he array'd him in, netherwards
DISCOVERY OF THE SEVEN MISSING BOOKS OF GALEN'S PRINCIPAL
A VERY interesting and valuable discovery has lately been made at Oxford, which it seems right to lay before our readers, though we are almost afraid that its importance will be better understood and more justly appreciated in France and Germany than in Great Britain. It is well known that Galen's principal anatomical work, called Пɛpi 'Avaroμк@v 'Eyxεiphoεwv, De Administrationibus Anatomicis, consisted originally of fifteen books, of which only eight and part of the ninth have come down to us. The contents of each book are mentioned by himself (De Libris Propriis, cap. 3, tom. xix. pp. 24, 25, ed. Kühn), from which account it appears that the last six treated of the eyes, tongue, œsophagus, larynx, os hyoides, the nerves belonging to these parts, the arteries, the veins, the nerves arising from the brain, those arising from the spinal marrow, and the organs of generation: so that Galen's account of several of the most important parts of the body is contained in the lost books. In Ackermann's Historia Literaria prefixed to Kühn's edition of Galen (p. lxxxiv.), we find the following notice:-"E Golii Arabico codice libros xi usque ad xv editurum se promiserat Thomas Bartholinus, De Libris Legendis, Dissert. iii. p. 75 [p. 58, ed. 1711]. Erant Galeni De Administr. Anatom. libri sex postremi cum adnotationibus Jacobi Golii in Bibliotheca Narcissi, Archiepiscopi Dublinensis, n. 1787." No further information on the subject could Ackermann (who was a most diligent and accurate inquirer) obtain; nor apparently could Kühn himself, who, in the last volume of his edition of Galen, corrects some errors and supplies some omissions. In turning over the pages of a very different work,
J. G. Wenrich's dissertation De Auctorum Græcorum Versionibus et Commentariis Syriacis, Arabicis, Armeniacis, Persicisque (Lips. 1842, 8vo.), we noticed that two copies of the Arabic translation were said (p. 245) to exist in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, one consisting of fifteen books, the other only of the last six. Upon referring to Uri's Catalogue of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Bodleian (p. 135), we found that the latter manuscript was said to be in the hand-writing of Golius himself, that it had belonged at one time to Narcissus Marsh, Archbishop of Dublin, and was therefore probably the very MS. spoken of by Ackermann; and the actual examination of the two MSS. in question has shewn us that the modern one was copied from the other, the pages of the original being marked in the margin of the transcript. The original MS. is written on oriental paper, and by an oriental scribe, and contains the complete work of Galen in fifteen books. It was bought at Constantinople for forty-eight florins (rather a large price), but by whom is uncertain, nor is any thing else known of its history, except that it once belonged to the Archbishop of Dublin, though it does not appear in the list of his MSS. contained in the Catalogus Librorum MSS. Angliæ et Hiberniæ, printed in 1697. It appears to have been seen and used by Golius (a celebrated Arabic scholar at Leyden), who must have known that the Greek copies of the work contained only nine books, and accordingly copied the remaining six with a view to publication. He did not, however, transcribe the remainder of the ninth book, which is wanting in the Greek copies, and which is about twice as long as the portion hitherto known in Europe. The MS. was either given as a present by Golius, or bequeathed as a legacy at his death in 1667, to Thomas Bartholinus the elder, professor of anatomy at Copenhagen, and was in his possession in the year 1672, when he wrote his work De Libris Legendis. Probably after his death in 1680 it came into the hands of Narcissus Marsh, Archbishop of Dublin, and appears in the catalogue quoted above. From him it came either by gift or legacy to the Bodleian Library at Oxford, where it still remains, together with the original MS. from which it was transcribed. It should be added that (as far as we are aware) no other copy of the Arabic translation is to be found in any European library; nor do any of the old Latin translations contain the last six books of the treatise.
W. A. G.
NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
PINDARI CARMINA AD FIDEM TEXTUS BÖCKHIANI. Edidit Gul. Gifford Cookesley, M.A. Etonæ, 1842 & 1844. 8vo.
PINDARICA. Scripsit et Edidit Albertus De Jongh. Utrecht, 1844.
MR. COOKESLEY'S design in this edition of Pindar, of which only the Olympic and Pythian odes are yet published, is to supply a class-book for the higher forms of our public schools. In this unambitious view it will, we doubt not, prove a useful book, as the difficulties of the Theban bard are for the most part fairly met. But this is all the praise it can aspire to, for the editorial treatment is extremely meagre. We have but one original discussion of any point connected with Pindaric literature, and that is so unsatisfactory-as, indeed, Mr. Cookesley himself seems to be aware that we really think it might as well have been omitted. We allude to the remarks on the musical character of Pindar's poetry, and the office of his chorus, contained in the Introduction to the Pythian Odes. On these two points Mr. Cookesley tells us, "he thinks it due to the requirements of the public that he should state the result of such reflections and inquiries as he has been able to make, however unsatisfactory that result may be." As stated in his own words, the result fully bears out the epithet he applies to it. It is as follows: "I confess there seem to me so many difficulties on each of these subjects, that I hold it safer, for the present at least, to venture no opinion of my own." (P. 19.) Mr. Cookesley's inquiries, then, leave us just where they found us; and the pages in which they are pursued might be considered as so much waste paper, but that they are employed in conveying to the reader's mind an impression, which Mr. Cookesley is not yet prepared to establish as a fair and legitimate conclusion. Mr. Schönerstedt, the German teacher at Eton College, is put forward to combat the musical theory of Thiersch. And notwithstanding Mr. Cookesley's disclaimer of venturing any opinion of his own, he nevertheless very plainly intimates what kind of one he entertains in the following as well as other passages: "There is a dignity and stability in his (Pindar's) words which seem to reject, or perhaps I should more justly say to despise, the interference or influence of music. Imagine a first tenor at the
Opera having to sing the following noble lines to a highly artificial air!" (P. 8.) And Mr. C. then proceeds to quote three verses from the fourth Olympic ode. Now as Mr. C. states that we know positively nothing of Greek music, or of the vocal effects of Greek accent and quantity, this argument really appears to us quite futile. We take Mr. Cookesley's notion to be an utter misconception of Greek lyric poetry. Both music and dancing were implied in the very idea of a Greek chorus, nor could an ode exist without them. That this was so, we learn from several passages of Pindar himself. We may not, indeed, be able to discover the exact nature of that music and dancing; we may even admit that Thiersch's theory respecting the former may very possibly be wrong in its details; but surely it must have been something very different from modern recitative, which would make but a poor tune for a dancer.
The object of M. De Jongh's work, which appears to have been undertaken at the instance, or at least by the encouragement, of Van Heusde, the Platonist, is to illustrate the wisdom of Pindar. The subject is treated in the German style of criticism; and a dissertation of three chapters is employed in examining Pindar's moral and religious sentiments, and in comparing them with those of other Greek writers. Of Pindar's text, only five Olympic odes are given, each accompanied with a Latin version and notes. These last will afford an opportunity of making a few remarks on each editor's reading of the text; and for this purpose we will take the first Olympic.
V. 6. We think M. De Jongh's interpretation of phμn ai0hp, viz. vacuum sideribus cœlum, a great deal more poetical than the commonplace epithet, empty. Moreover, we believe it to be true, or why should the poet add ἐν ἡμέρᾳ?
V. 7. μýď avdáσopai. Mr. C. says that this is the Fut. 1. in the sense of the Imperative. Now, without quarrelling with an Imperative in the first person, we submit that this would run counter to the meaning of the whole passage. It would necessarily imply, that there was something more excellent which the poet might sing if he chose; whereas he has been establishing, by a rich profusion of comparisons, that such was not the case. On the other hand it will be said that, if Pindar used the Future here in its ordinary sense, he committed a solecism. We are not quite certain, however, that this was so; with regard, at least, to the practice of the older Greek writers, Lesbonax tells us that μn with the Future was used by the older Attics, that is, about the time of Antiphon, and also occasionally by Homer: and if this were so, there seems to be no good reason why Pindar also might not have employed such a syntax (Τῶν δὲ ̓Αττικῶν τὸ συντάσσειν τὸ μὴ μετὰ μέλλοντος χρόνου-μὴ πείσομαι-ἐστὶ δὲ τὸ σχῆμα τῶν περὶ