« السابقةمتابعة »
αμα κόνις, (κόπις) λόγου τ' ανοία, και φρενών "Ερινύς. Before understanding the propriety of changing kóvis into kómus, it is necessary to ascertain the precise meaning of the verb katapa. Donaldson, in his edition of the Antigone, translates the passage, “For now what light had beamed o'er the last root within the house of Edipus, again the deathful dust of gods that reign below is levelled o'er it, by foolish speech and frantic indignation." This translation does not seem to convey the precise meaning of the words. With what propriety can it be said that the “deathful dust of gods k. 7.1. is levelled o'er the light;" and "foolish speech and frantic indignation levelled o'er it?” because, λόγου ανοία and φρενών "Ερινύς are subjects of the same verb as kóvis or kóris, and the nouns which form the subjects are not in the dative case, as might be inferred from the translation. The learned editor, in his new Cratylus, takes the root to be the same as that of õuadós, and the original signification to be that of levelling, laying low. I have great doubts of the correctness of this affinity of the two words. It appears evident that the verb åpáw is connected with the adverb äua, together, gathered together ; and hence the verb, in Homer and other authors, always signifies to gather together, generally, the ears of corn in reaping; and then, to cut them down : metaphorically, to reap.-N. xvii. 531; Herodot. VI. 28; Æschyl. Ag. 1042; Aristoph. Eq. 392. Katają will thus signify, to cut down, cut off, and hence, to extinguish the light in the house of Edipus. Now, if katauậ should be taken in this latter sense, or even in the primary meaning, the noun kóvis is altogether inapplicable as the subject; but kóris assuredly is applicable, as denoting the instrument by which the light in the house of Edipus was cut off, was extinguished. The metaphorical expression is not more violent than similar ones in all the Attic poets, as opoalpov oikwv megeiv, Æschyl. Choëph. 913.
The next question is, who are the parties referred to by the Chorus in the above passage? There can be no doubt that Eteocles and Polynices are meant in the first place; the fatal duel, decided by the κόπις, is shadowed out by the words, κατ' αυ νιν φοινία θεών των νερtépwv åțą komis. But to whom are we to apply the following line, Lóryou úvota kai opevwv 'Epirus? Donaldson says, “It is clear that this is predicated of Antigone, whose inconsiderate language to Creon, coupled with the feeling of resentment at the violation of religious ordinances in the case of Polyneikes, had led to her condemnation." To me it is clear that both expressions cannot be predicated of Antigone. The Chorus might think that her language to Creon, in boldly avowing the pious act which she had accomplished, and defying his vengeance, was inconsiderate. But she gave no proofs, in that painful interview, of frantic indignation. Her language and demeanour were calm but determined. The pperwv "Epuvue unquestionably refers to Creon, who
had displayed a temper and disposition of the blackest kind, and of the most furious nature. The chorus durst not express openly the opinion of his tyrannical and violent conduct; as, according to the language of Antigone, he had gagged their mouths, opwol xoûtoi, ooi o únildovoi otoua, 507. Thus, by his cruel mandate, another of the scions of the house of Edipus was to be cut off ; another light extinguished. The lines may now be thus translated and paraphrased : For now the light that was shed over the last roots in the house of Edipus, that again the bloody sword of the infernal Gods has extinguished, by the mutual slaughter of his two sons, and the inconsiderate speech of Antigone, and the frantic rage of Creon, are working the same end.
εγώ δ' όπως συ μη λέγεις ορθώς τάδε,
yévolto uévtův xatépw kalūs éxov.--Antig. 676. In the two first lines there appear to me to be two errors, which have escaped the notice of the editors and commentators on this play. In the first, omws is said to be used for őrı, and is construed with the present indicative. Matthiæ, in his Grammar, $ 623, 3, quotes the above passage in confirmation of this construction. But he and the other editors appear to have considered the conditional negative un as qualifying the adverb opows. Now, I know of no example where this conditional particle qualifies such an adverb. I believe, where a negative is used, it is always the absolute negative où or oùk. un ought to be taken with otwe, and then it requires the subjunctive. I have no doubt that the genuine reading ought to be, εγώ δ' όπως συ μη λέγης ορθώς Thô€, But I, how you may not be saying these things correctly, a more guarded expression on the part of Hæmon, and more in conformity with the conditional statement in the following line, than the common, But I, that you are using this language not correctly, or justly.
The other error is in the use of uņte in the second clause in the line following. The genuine construction requires ούτε, not μήτε, after ούτε in the first clause. If, as the editors suppose, uute is used denoting a wish, then it should not have been accompanied with the connecting particle te. But the legitimate construction, when otte is used in the first clause, requires the same negative in the next. Thus in the same Play, 1. 185, ούτ' ην σιωπήσαιμι την ατην ορών στειχουσαν αστούς αντί της σωτηρίας, ούτ' αν φίλον ποτ' άνδρα δυσμενή χθονός θείμην euavtų.—But it is altogether inconsistent with the language afterwards used by Hæmon to his father, to make him say, as Donaldson has done in his translation, “and may I ne'er be skilled to tax with error these thy words." He shews no want of skill in taxing his father, in the course of the dialogue, with injustice and oppression
towards Antigone, his betrothed bride. In the expression used, if we read oőr' (ův) è loTuiunu deyelv, he speaks conditionally, not absolutely, as became a son to his father; and this is evident from what follows in the next line; " I might neither be able, nor have the knowledge, to state how you may not be using language consistent with justice ; but what, however, may be improper in me, may be proper in another.” In the first part of his speech, Hæmon expresses a dutiful obedience to his father, while at the same time he glances obliquely at his tyrannical conduct, and that his will alone must be the law. He then more urgently beseeches him to suppress his anger and change his purpose :-αλλ' είχε θυμού και μετάστασιν δίδου • γνώμη γαρ εί τις κάπ' εμού νεωτέρου πρόσεστι, φήμ’ έγωγε πρεσβεύειν πολύ φύνει τον άνδρα πάντ' επιστήμης πλέων,-709. To the remark of the Chorus, counselling Creon to listen to the advice of his son, the tyrant replies :
οι τηλικοίδε και διδαξόμεθα δη
φρονείν προς ανδρός τηλικούδε την φύσιν ; The whole of the ensuing dialogue between the father and the son shews the utter inconsistency of making Hæmon express a wish, that he may never have the knowledge to tax his father with error.
There is a similar false reading in the reply of Antigone to Creon, when he said that his every wish would be satisfied by her death,
τί δήτα μέλλεις και ως εμοί των σων λόγων
άρεστον ουδέν, μηδ' άρεσθείη ποτέ. 498. Donaldson's translation is :
“ Why loiter thou? the words which thou hast spoken
Displease me, all, and ne'er may such words please me!" The construction is faulty, and the sentiment equally faulty. It was neither consistent with the character of Antigone nor with her situation to say, and ne'er may such words please me! The reading should be, ovo' åpeo ein TOTé, the particle åv being understood, nor can they ever please me.
It seems strange that so good a scholar as Mr. Donaldson should have perversely and pertinaciously substituted the Ionic adverb eivera instead of oύνεκα, Or οθούνεκα, as used by the Attic poets in tragic dialogues ; eľveka may be used in the choral odes, but never in dialogue. I do not know his reasons for introducing it instead of the legitimate adverb; but I should suppose he would be imitated by no scholar who has paid attention to the dialects used by the tragic poets. Ionisms, no doubt, are occasionally found, but these are never introduced in dialogues nor speeches, except where the versification requires them.
G. DUNBAR. 14th June 1848.
NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
1. MYTHOLOGIÆ SEPTENTRIONALIS MONUMENTA EPIGRAPHICA LATINA.
Edidit varietate lectionis et annotatione instruxit Joannes de Wal. Trajecti ad Rhenum. 8. 1847. Tom. I. (London, Williams & Norgate.)
The author of this book defends himself against the accusation, which possibly might be made, that he has published a number of documents, which being printed in the well-known work of Orelli, Inscriptiones Latince, and in other works on Archæology, or in Transactions of different scientific Societies, are already in the hands of scholars. We think he need not be greatly afraid of such an objection, as he himself must be aware, that even by collecting the documents for his purpose from Orelli's Latin Inscriptions, and those other works whose aim is generally a very limited one both in respect of place and time, a certain merit must be conceded to his efforts; and those who are studying the origines of the nations of modern Europe, will undoubtedly hail this publication of a corpus inscriptionum of northern mythology during the latter centuries of the Roman empire.
The times of childhood of a people are always the obscurest to posterity; the documents of religion, or better mythology, which are for a long while mixed up with some true history, are scanty at such a period : so it was with the Greeks, the Romans, the Gauls, and the Germans. But the two latter have certainly an advantage in this respect; for some light was thrown upon the rude state of their first ages by the greatest and noblest Romans, Cæsar and Tacitus, who conquered the territories and studied the characters of their northern neighbours; and new sources for a better understanding of those dark periods are continually opened by digging up monuments, which the victorious Romans, or perhaps a military or civil office-bearer, had dedicated to a local deity on the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, in Gaul or Britain. In the book before us, the relics of this kind are for the first time systematically collected, and the first volume contains especially inscriptions from altar-tablets or monument-stones.
The collection comprehends altogether 346 inscriptions, some longer and some shorter, sometimes perfectly preserved, often very much worn out and destroyed by time and circumstances. Each piece is printed in the original capital letters, abbreviations and lines, fol
lowed by a copy in italics, so far as it can be made out by the assistance of conjectural criticism. The editor then adds a short statement, where the stone or fragment has been found, and what has been its history from that time down to the last edition.
After enumerating the different editions and works, in which the inscription has been treated of previously, the author generally gives some short annotations of a controversial and explanatory purport, where he displays a good deal of philological tact, chiefly in preferring an editor's aútoylav to the most learned treatises of other professors upon the same subject, and in bringing forward the best literary authority in support of his own particular views. The inscriptions are arranged after the letters of the alphabet, down to n. 290, from thence to n. 343 there follows a supplement of those which the editor either had omitted before by inadvertence, or which had not come into his hands till after he had composed his volume so far. The last three numbers are Latin inscriptions dedicated to Slavonic deities after the Roman fashion, and discovered in Slavonic territories. To the whole collection are added five very useful indices; the first, of the names of the different gods and goddesses; the second, of the persons who dedicated or erected the monuments; the third, of archæology and latinity; the fourth, of geographical and historical matter; and the last, of the places where the stones have been found. Every one, who is able to form a judgment of works of this kind, will at once agree with us as to the importance of the indices, even if one or the other defect occasionally should occur.
Critics will no doubt be found to object to M. de Wal having published his book in Latin, and not in his native language; but the author, who already some years ago had written a book upon a similar theme in Dutch, De Moedergodinnen (Deæ Maternæ,) felt altogether persuaded that his present subject was of a more universal character, and would be of equal interest to antiquarians in England, Italy, Germany, and France.
All that we regret is, that to the last index of Latin names of places the modern names have not been added, which would render the use of the book even more convenient, without our being obliged to open Ducange, Spruner's Atlas, or other lexicographical folios.
An objection against the ediitor's arrangement is of a more serious nature, and affects the matter itself. His book comprehends such a multifarious collection of inscriptions, which were found, and certainly erected also in the most distant parts of Europe,-at Aquileja, in North Italy, at Iuvavia (the ancient Salzburg,) on the Pannonian frontiers, in the Agri Decumates (the south-west corner of Germany between the Rhine, the Danube, and the Neckar,) in the lower Rhine-country, in France, Spain, England, and on the Roman walls in Scotland. We may ask, why has M. de Wal published his inscriptions pell-mell, only