صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

interpretation we must reject, because it is not borne out by the grammatical sense, and also because it makes the clause λέγω γὰρ καμέ still harsher and more inappropriate than it is according to Erfurdt.

Having thus endeavoured to shew the unsatisfactory character of the current interpretations, we proceed to give our own version, which we should not have supposed to be our own in an exclusive sense, if we had not thus found it at variance with all the commentaries and translations we have been able to consult. We connect the pronouns col and suoi (as Dativos Ethicos sive Relationis) with aɣadov, and paraphrase thus:-this proclamation, they tell me, has been issued by that Creon whom you and I-for I own I too thought him so-called the GOOD: or, by your and my GOOD Creon-yes, mine, for I own I thought him so.

This use of the Dative, familiar to every scholar, is a favourite construction of Sophocles,1 either with or without the particle &c. Thus, without &g, we have,—

Αj. 1358, τοιοίδε μέντοι φῶτες ἔμπληκτοι βροτοῖς.
Cd. R. 40, ἀλλ ̓ ὦ κράτιστον πᾶσιν Οἰδίπου κάρα.—
Ed. Col. 1446, ἀνάξιοι γὰρ πᾶσιν ἐστε δυστυχεῖν.
Ant. 904, καίτοι σ' ἐγὼ 'τίμησα τοῖς φρονοῦσιν εὖ.—

(So Aristoph. Ρaæ. 1179, οἱ θεοῖσιν οὗτοι κἀνδράσιν ῥιψάσπιδες.) And with ὡς, Αnt. 1161, Κρέων γὰρ ἦν ζηλωτός, ὡς ἐμοί, τότε. The trajection of the datives to the place they occupy after the substantive Kpéovra, (though this doubtless is the cause of the sense remaining so long unobserved,) will offend no scholar who has noticed the frequency of such dislocations in Greek, both in prose and in poetry. In this place it is even necessary, on account of the parenthetic clause λéyw yàp xàμé, which must immediately follow tuoi, yet cannot interpose between the epithet ἀγαθὸν and its substantive Κρέοντα.

And now, as Reviewer of the Anthologia Oxoniensis in the Christian Remembrancer, we are desirous of noticing the Article which appeared in No. XVII. of the Classical Museum in reference to that review.

We frankly allow that the learned and courteous Reviewer

1 We need hardly observe how liberally Plato employs such datives in every possible collocation.

of our Review (custos custodum) has shewn that we praised Mr. Jones's Latin version of Shakspeare in exaggerated and "inconsiderate" terms. Writing in haste, and pleased with the general flow of the translation, we too easily gave that gentleman credit for having found comic authority for pōl, tam familiariter, and an unusual sense of dudum, although our attention was attracted by the peculiarity of the two latter phrases. To the impropriety (which our critic has amply and learnedly shown,) of sartor being used to represent a "tailor and habitmaker," we cannot say we adverted at all. We have only to add, that although we should wish any criticism of ours to be just on each side, yet if, as in this instance, we fall into error, we would rather the falsus honor should be imputed through us, than the mendax infamia.

Having owned ourselves fairly unhorsed by our learned and friendly opponent in this field, he will perhaps allow us, en revanche, to try a tilt with him on another ground.

Speaking (p. 336,) of Mr. Goldwin Smith's translation of the lines,

E'en such is man, whose borrowed light
Is straight called in, and paid to-night."
"Sic importunis hominum lux credita fatis
Vespere debetur, nocte redacta perit,"

he says, "the Reviewer's correction, 'lux tua talis, Homo, est;
ab avaris credita fatis ;' leads to the conclusion, that he con-
ceived Mr. Smith to have meant in the ablative [ab] importu-
nis fatis;' liable, in absence of the preposition, to be mistaken
for the dative after credita,' against the sense." This is
not so.
We understood "fatis" to be meant as dative after
"debetur;" but we considered it awkwardly situated, as, at
first sight, it seems to depend, as a dative, on "credita," and
may, just possibly, be supposed an ablative in the same depen-
dence. We did not mean to say that a scholar, looking at the
translation side by side with the original, could mistake the in-
tended construction, but that, considered as an original, the
couplet was unperspicuous. We abandon our own correction,
with which at the time we were not quite satisfied; nor did we
mean it to be regarded as conveying that version of the couplet
which we would ourselves adopt; agreeing as we do with X.'s
objection to the substitution of debetur for repetitur or exigitur.

[We also concur in his disapprobation of the elision "homo, est;" but we are not prepared to allow that talis must be considered an unallowable apodosis to ut, though not the ordinary correlative; indeed X. himself, instead of "sic" or "ita," adopts the informal apodosis "non aliter."]

The version proposed by X. is:

"Non aliter brevis hæc, homini quæ credita lux est,

Protinus exigitur, reddita nocte cadit."

Here the word "cadit," which X. considers an improvement, seems to us to injure the passage by confusing the metaphor. Life may be represented under the image of light; and light may be considered as a loan borrowed and repaid, or as a heavenly body that rises and sets; but light cannot in the same place be represented as a loan to be repaid, and as a heavenly body that rises and sets, in which latter sense alone it is used by Catullus in the beautiful lines cited by X.:1

"Nobis, cum semel occidit brevis lux,

Nox est perpetua una dormienda."

The couplet in question is not easily rendered to a scholar's full
contentment.
We submit the following attempts.

1. Mutua sic sumit repetitaque protinus ipsâ
Nocte brevis reddit commoda lucis homo.

[blocks in formation]

But does not "commoda" weaken the effect?

2. Sic, modo quam sumsit, repetitam rursus acerbe
Nocte brevem vitæ lampada reddit homo.

But is it allowable to call the light a torch here, when night is the time of payment?

3. Sic sibi mane datam, repetitam vespere lucem,

Quum noctis subeunt tempora, solvit homo.

But "mane" and "vespere" are not in the original.

4. Sic quam crediderant lucem, mox fata reposcunt,
Nec mora, quin ipsa nocte resignet homo.

Fata is not in the original, but might, we think, be introduced without much impropriety. Horace's "resigno quæ dedit" and "cuncta resigno," are ample authority for this verb, which is indeed equivalent to rescribo, I repay.

5. Sic capit usuram lucis, propereque redactam,

Quum jam noctis eunt tempora, solvit homo.

But we think redactam an unfit word, because it expresses, not merely the demand, but the actual recovery of a debt.

Omnem redegit Idibus pecuniam :
Quærit Kalendis ponere.-Hor. Epod. 2.

6. Sic capit usuram lucis, retroque petitam

Haud mora quin prima nocte resignet homo.-Or (ipsa nocte.)

3

Our own inclination favours this last version, in default, for the present, of something better. These are mere Nugæ Metricæ, but may, perhaps, be useful to some of our younger readers, for whose amusement we subjoin one or two more trifles, extracted from our Scrap-book:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Inscriptum in Albo Walhalla, ædis splendidissima, a Ludovico rege Bavarorum conditæ.

Qua suos lætum caput inter agros

[blocks in formation]

In honorem Ludovici Bavaria regis, inscriptum in Albo Gazophylacii
Monacensis, ubi Ducum Regumque Bavarorum Keiμýλia asservantur.
Augustum Flaccumque viro miraris in uno,
Rege tuo felix, urbs pia, vate tuo;

Finge hederas auro, lauros imitare smaragdis,
Ut decoret tantum justa corona caput.-1845.

4.

Πλέον ἥμισυ παντός.

Uno oculo mancum, crure uno, unoque lacerto,
Emeritum recipit fida Lycoris Hylan.
"Siccine," miles ait, "tali male virgine dignum,
Siccine me reducem læta, Lycori, vides?
Te petit Antinous, juvenum rosa, quem sibi mater
Quæque cupit generum, quæque puella virum.

• Regensburg, or Ratisbon.

7 Donaustauf.

« السابقةمتابعة »