صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

S To the Editor of the Classical Museum. IR Having followed the remarks on this passage in your last numbers, may I be permitted to offer a very brief one of my own? I cannot think that the datives can be governed by the participle, but by the adjective, as suggested in the first article on the subject: because it is not probable that Antigone would select herself and her sister as the especial objects of a proclamation common to all; and because the position of goi, which only is to be considered, (kāuoi appearing to come in as an after thought,) is much more favourable to this regimen than the other. Is not the Tov dyadov highly ironical ? if so, all the words connected with it in regimen must be so too: and the easy sense will be evolved: “Such they say is the proclamation of your good Creon ; aye, and of my good Creon, for by all means I would call him so too.” G. R.

* To hold for. ** Too hallow; A.S. Engl. mould, cf. the poem the Grace in halig; halien is an accusative. “Against. Thorpe's Anal. p. 153, the wes molde

* Ne is, not is. " From A.S. for- imynt. * A.S. raedan, Germ. rathen; geldan, partic. forgolden, to requite; I advise thee. ” A.S. misdead; Germ. cf. Germ. unvergolten. ” A mistake missethat. ” The same like abowte. of the scribe, as the wrong rhyme * Old genit. femin. in which gender clearly shows, instead of unbout; A.S. the A.S. heofon occurred sometimes. unboht, i. e. gratis. * Pure A.S.; 7* Lat, fallere, French, faillir.

[ocr errors]

seem to have? In the 448th line we find uot alone used by Antigone in connection with &mpoas, for the purpose of denoting the particular reference or application which the general edict (Ti, ampvy.9évta) had, in her own mind, to herself: oi, Yáp ti uot Zeis jv & Knpū;as Titée." Dr. Kennedy objects to the obscurity of the hint contained, according to my interpretation, in the parenthetic clause, Aérote oap kāué; but this appears to me less objectionable than the greater obscurity which, if Dr. Kennedy interprets rightly, was cast over the meaning of the whole passage by an unusual and ambiguous collocation of words, that has hid the interpretation from all commentators till now. Nor does it seem necessary that Ismene should have instantly understood what was implied in that parenthesis; since, according to my view, Antigone was preparing her sister for such an explicit statement of her solemn meaning as would soon clearly shew why she spoke of herself as especially concerned with Creon's edict; and which commences with the 41st line. I confess myself unable to see why “such an emphasis and such a hint seems to destroy the beauty and propriety of Antigone's character.” Lastly, it seems to me improbable that Sophocles, who, in his (Edipus Coloneus, has represented Creon as the very opposite of good in the estimation of Ismene and Antigone, for his treatment of their father and of themselves, should, in another play, have represented them as having been accustomed, up to the time of their brothers' death, to call the same Creon, wat' éox#v, the Good. Sophocles could not have been so inconsistent, had he written the (Edipus Colonews before the Antigone. Will the fact of the latter having been composed first, sufficiently account for such an inconsistency? Or must we suppose that, by his goodness during the interval between their father's death and their brothers’, Creon had not only obliterated from the minds of Antigone and Ismene the remembrance of his former cruelty and violence, but had made himself admired and beloved by them both 2 But it cannot appear to any one more presumptuous than it does to myself, that I should dispute on any classical point with Dr. Kennedy, whose opinion, even if it were not presented as “shared by one of the best Greek scholars in England,” would be entitled to full fifty times more weight than mine. It is perhaps because my own mind was preoccupied by another interpretation of the passage in question, that I was not satisfied, and still am not, with that which Dr. Ken

[ocr errors]

nedy has no doubt is the true one. I leave then to others the further discussion of this passage, should any seem necessary. HENRY SYLVESTER RICHMOND.

[ocr errors]

This passage seems to me capable of yielding a satisfactory sense without the need of having recourse to the construction proposed by Dr. Kennedy, which is, to say the least, an unusual one. Let it be supposed that Antigone had said totaúrá page töv dyadov Kpéovta go? &mpièavi' exeuv. Every one would have seen then that the use of got was perfectly obvious, indicating that faint notion of the concern of the party addressed, in the statement made so common in similar cases; why should we not go a step further, and conceive that having used, inadvertently as it were, a pronoun which, though not necessarily implying more than this faint notion of her sister's concern with Creon's doings, might yet, as it stood, be taken to mark Ismene as the party chiefly interested. The speaker corrects the probable misapprehension by immediately adding an emphatic mention. of herself, Čuoi, not uot, to which he further calls attention in the following parenthesis, Aérow qāp kāué? I, at least, see nothing far-fetched in such an explanation; and if there should appear to be any thing of the kind, I believe it will be found to arise from the mere fact of an analysis having been attempted at all; an experiment which, if tried on any of the simpler forms of ordinary conversation, would produce a similar effect of apparent subtilty and refinement.

There is another passage in Sophocles, which might, I think, be advantageously discussed by the readers of the Classical Museum. It is from the OEdipus Tyrannus, 44, 45.

tes, tosauv ćureipovo, kai tās £vuspopás

[ocr errors]

Most of the commentators, I believe, agree with Wunder in making the general sense to be consilia hominum pendentium prosperum eventum habent, Tús Evupopds being taken with Tāv BovXevuátwv, as in Thuc. I. 140, Tús Evupopés ov 7paquàtwy, where the Schol. renders £vuspopäs by dropägets. Not to mention that one would wish to see {vu}opäs placed nearer to Bow}\evuátwv, an objection doubtless capable of being obviated, but still not wholly without force in a doubtful passage, the sentiment which the words are made to convey, appears to be a very flat one. The chorus had been exhorting GEdipus to suggest some remedy if he should have chanced to derive any from gods or men; and surely it is not very forcible immediately to back this appeal by the remark, that experienced men are generally found to have the issues of their counsels more prosperous; the power of kai being, I suppose, that not only are their plans well formed, but their success signal. My own suggestion, which I make with considerable hesitation, is to separate gwupopâs from Bowyevudter, and understand the latter as formed by usi\tata in the sense of ua M.Aov : “Since I see that, with men of experience, even casual knowledge is (often) more effective than counsels of reason;" a position at any rate sufficiently to the purpose, and agreeing well with the doubtful language held just before cite tow 9esov opjumv drovaas eit' dz’ drépès oiadd Tov. Some may wish to take ovu'popas with BovXevudrav as the carnal part of counsel, but the other explanation seems less forced. It might also be proposed to understand the passage, “since I see that, even with the experienced, our calamities are more vigorous than what counsel can do,” were it not that kai ought then rather to have conne before Totauv ćuzeipotat. And now, as this paper has already begun to assume a miscellaneous character, I wish to be allowed to correct two or three oversights, a specimen, I fear, of a much larger number in my recently published edition of the Agamemnon. However few, assuming your readers may be acquainted with the work, I should be sorry to stand accountable for any of the errors contained in it in the eyes even of a single individual, longer than I can possibly help. On 10, 11, I have raised the question, whether the accusative absolute is not merely a figment of the grammarians. I ought at least to have marked off the cases where the accusative occurs after &s in an apparently absolute sense, though here writers seem agreed that the words depend on some implied verb. The passage from Plat. Gorg. p. 495, c. quoted from Jelf (who treats it especially from the instances with tes, though he supposes tos éreov to be put for tos érepov oiaav,) probably belongs to this class, and so does not require the explanation I have given. In the note on v. 308, I inadvertently included ova among the illative particles which are found before the optative with or without à, evidently with only a small modification of the sense. I certainly did not mean to prejudge the question against the commentators, who contend that ova, as a conjunction, is never found with div. I retract also the qualified assent given in the note on v. 601, to the doctrine, that fiv diminishes the contingency of the optative. Another position adopted by Haupt on v. 902, about àv with the participle, appears to me now to be questionable in itself, and not required in this particular passage. The account given of oi and aj in a note on v. 491, is not strictly accurate, asserting, as it does, too broadly, that ot never denies with

« السابقةمتابعة »