Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

indefiniteness and uncertainty of any comparison of different institutions, and render it worthy of very little regard; such as the widely different limit employed at different hospitals to separate the chronic and recent cases, making an entirely different aspect to the same facts; the impossibility of ascertaining the standing of most cases precisely, the results appearing widely diverse if an individual be counted insane from the first diseased eccentricities and peculiarities presented, or from the outrageous explosion of madness only; the mode of calculating the percentages of cures, before or after deducting the deaths, both of which modes have been adopted; and lastly, the legal right in an institution to retain its subjects until all the means and appliances of moral and medical treatment can be employed, or its necessity of abandoning them prematurely, as is the case in all those institutions in which a current stipend is demanded, to impatient and penurious friends.

With respect to the ratio of mortality, in this hospital at least, no uncertainty can obtain, although in some institutions even this part of statistics cannot always be depended upon, as patients in failing health are not unfrequently returned by the solicitation of friends to die at home. It deserves to be remarked that the ratio of deaths, only 28 in 510, speaks volumes in favor of the general medical skill of the director, the salubrity of the establishment, and the entire safety of the decided and peculiar modes of medication understood to be pursued at this and the other large insane institutions of New England.

As an appendix, a few interesting pages are devoted to a form of alienated mind, which has recently been accurately described in the work of Dr. Prichard, although his views are by no means novel or original. It is that species of mental disease which is evinced in the conduct, and not in conversation; in unimpaired intellect, but perverted moral sense. Abundant specimens of this form of insanity may be seen in any lunatic asylum, or in society at large, and it is frequently presented in civil and criminal trials, where its elucidation forms the stumblingblock of courts and juries. These few pages, which we cannot but regret were not more extended, form no inconsiderable addition to the medical jurisprudence of insanity.

These Reports combine much valuable information in regard to the general construction and management of lunatic asylums. This is also the case in the annual reports of several other institutions, the whole presenting, although in a desultory and impracticable form, a mass of information in regard to the treatment of alienated mind, interesting and valuable in itself, and as peculiar to the American establishments, not to be found in 39 No. 98.

VOL. XLVI.

[ocr errors]

any written works on the subject. In some future number of this work the attempt may be made to concentrate and combine the important points deduced from the experience of our hospitals, in an article on the Construction and Management of Institutions for the Insane.

8. A Discourse on the Life and Character of the Hon. George Mathews, late Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. By the Hon. CHARLES WATTS, at the Request of the Members of the Bar of New Orleans. New Orleans. Benjamin Levy. 1837. 12mo. pp. 15.

THIS is a plain biographical sketch, very little in the style of panegyric. The facts of a life, not eventful, are detailed with modesty and distinctness, if not in a way calculated to produce a strong impression. The subject of the Discourse was a highly respectable judge of Louisiana, who died November 10th, 1836, in the sixty-third year of his age. In 1805, without any solicitation on his part, he was appointed by President Jefferson, judge of the territory of Mississippi, whence he was transferred to the territory of Orleans, in 1806. On the erection of Louisiana into a State, in 1812, he was appointed by Governor Clairborne judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and shortly afterwards, by the resignation of an associate on the bench, took the place of presiding judge. This honorable station he occupied till his death.

9. The Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, with Notes and a Critique on the Subject of the Play. By J. W. STUART, Professor of Greek and Roman Literature in the College of South Carolina. New York; Gould & Newman. 1837. 12mo. pp. 222.

THE Edipus Tyrannus is universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest masterpieces of the Athenian stage. In the regularity and perfectness of its plot, the polish of its style, and the appalling developement of its catastrophe, it is eminently calculated to excite the most lively interest of the scholar and the man of taste. It has scenes of passion which Shakspeare has hardly surpassed; touches of pathos and tenderness, in which the deepest feelings of the human heart are most beautifully expressed;

and over all, the cloud of inexorable destiny is gathering, from the very beginning, darker and thicker, until it bursts and pours its desolating storm upon the devoted heads of the royal house. With such claims upon the mind and heart, it is not surprising that this tragedy has been selected as a text-book, wherever Greek literature is taught, both in Europe and America; and Mr. Stuart has rendered a valuable service to scholars and teachers, by publishing the excellent edition, whose title we have copied above. The text is accurately, and even beautifully printed. This is followed by a copious English commentary, explaining difficult constructions and, grammatical peculiarities, and pointing out the structure of the plot. Allusions to customs and manners are illustrated at considerable length; and numerous references to parallel passages in other tragedies are given. The essay at the end of the volume contains a critique on the subject of Edipus, as treated by other authors, particularly by Seneca, Corneille, and Voltaire. This Critique shows a just taste, and a wide range of reading in general literature. We believe the volume, on the whole, will be considered as indicating very fair scholarship, great industry, and highly respectable talents.

There are, however, a few points, which we shall not hesitate to censure. It seems to us, that the notes abound too much in learned technicals, for common use. These "lang-nebbed " polysyllables have an imposing air, and pass with many for profound learning. But the fashion is gone by, with powdered wigs and hooped petticoats; and the cumbrous array of scholastic lore, once so common, has justly fallen into general disrespect. In the next place, Mr. Stuart has adopted an unusual mode of spelling certain classical names, which looks affected. We hardly recognise our old friends, Edipus, Eschylus, &c., in the disguise of Edipus, Eschylus; and no consistency is preserved, for Ælian is written as it should be, and Edipus is himself again, at the head of the critical essay. To adopt such whimsical peculiarities, contrary to the general usage of our language, and unaccompanied by the slightest advantage, is, we must needs say it, literary foppery.

In reading the notes, a few things occurred to us, which, we think, will deserve Mr. Stuart's attention, in a second edition. The note on OTEμμivot, line 3, is wrong, as well as the remark upon the dative xhadow. The participle evidently agrees with the pronoun understood, and the dative is constructed with it, Decked with suppliant boughs. In the note to line 91, Mr. Stuart says, "Creon is unwilling to explain notatóriar, in the presence of the multitude. He has learned from Apollo, that dipus himself is the murderer to be punished," &c. This is most clearly a

mistake. Creon has received an oracular response, but it was conveyed in dark and ambiguous terms, and said not a word about Edipus. It merely intimated, that the .crime of murder was upon the land; and the wrath of the Gods would be withdrawn, when that murder was expiated. Of course, had Creon been clearly informed that Edipus was the murderer, the whole thing would have been settled at the outset. In line 148, the pronoun ö is referred, by Mr. Stuart, to Creon. The context shows, that Edipus is the person intended; and the verb ayyélleta may be strictly rendered in the present tense, For "he promises," i. e. Edipus. The object of the assembly was to entreat the king, whom they regarded as the first of men, to interpose his wisdom for their deliverance. This he had solemnly promised to do; and their object being attained, they withdrew. Line 160, "yaidozor, encircling this earth, i. e. the Baotian territory." The epithet seems to be a general one, and has no reference to any particular territory. In the long note to lines 227-9, an explanation of vnesehov is given, from which we wholly dissent. In connexion with nizhnua, it is translated, taking out an indictment. It means, evidently, suppressing an accusation, or keeping back, or keeping secret, a charge against himself. Line 231,"lov, a foreigner." It means simply another. Edipus has solemnly adjured the perpetrator to come forward and confess. He next adjures him who knows, üllov, another to be the murderer, to inform. Line 263, “Exɛivov xoăta, in reference to yέvos, i. e. the child of Laius, &c." We think the translation censured by Mr. Stuart, the right one. The pronoun plainly refers to Laius. It is the same pronoun that occurs twice within two lines, where it must refer to him; and besides, Edipus was as yet ignorant of the exposure of the child. pression about the calamities of the king, in the preceding line, does not refer to a child, but to the race or family, yivos, of Laius. "Evýλað túzn, ill-fortune has been driven in upon him." The verb is not from vehάvvw, as this version seems to imply, but from éválkouai, to leap upon. It is a most animated description of an unexpected or sudden attack of misfortune. Line 270, "Tvà yn agorov, any land capable of tillage;" agorov is not an adjective, but a noun meaning fruit; any fruits of the earth, is the proper translation. Line 306, “лéμœ avτéлɛμyev, a verb with its cognate noun in the accusative." ITEμyao is not a noun; there is no such noun in the Greek language; but a first aorist participle, in the dative plural, agreeing with quiv. Line 507, "Enì with the dative, signifying in the power of." It cannot mean that, here. The Sphinx was not in the power of Edipus. The chorus are speaking of the event

The ex

66

as something that had happened to Edipus, or in respect to him with which he had something to do. "Bagáron, pledge given." It means test, or trial. Line 525, "лoos Tou for tivos qáron, literally, by whom was it accused, which is the sense of quiro, in Hom. Od. xx. 309." The word has no such meaning, either here, or in the passage cited from Homer. In this line it means simply appeared. The line in the Odyssey occurs in a speech of Telemachus, after one of the suitors had thrown an ox-hoof at the unknown Ulysses, in which he tells the offender what he would have done to him, had the stranger been hit; therefore, he adds, by way of menace, untis μοι αεικέιας ἐνὶ οἴκῳ φαινέτω, let no one show his insolence, or insolent doings, in my house. Show is the proper translation here, and it cannot possibly mean accuse. The connexion of the words plainly indicates this, for Telemachus goes on to say, that he is no longer a boy, as he once was, but a man, and they will find it out. Line 624, “ οἷόν ἐστι τὸ φθονεῖν, what is your grudge, or the cause of your grudge, against me? In this interpretation, Mr. Stuart follows Hermann and others. But in our judgment it is incorrect. Creon knew already the ground of the hatred of Edipus; he was suspected of a conspiracy against him. It would have been idle for Creon then, to insist on the king's showing what was the cause of his grudge; that had already been shown. By translating the words literally, we have a meaning appropriate to the scene, and probable in itself. They may be rendered "what it is to hate." Lines 783-4, "oi Se Svagógus Toureidos yor, they impatiently reproached." Here a very common idiom is misunderstood. Edipus had been informing his supposed parents of an insult he had received at a feast. The words cited above describe the manner in which they received the tale, and mean, "they were indignant or impatient at the reproach," and not they reproached impatiently. Line 1428, "ubgos ispòs, in reference to the sprinkling by lustral water." The meaning is simply, "sacred shower." Creon is describing the horrible pollution of the crimes of Edipus, which neither earth, nor sacred shower (or rain), nor light will admit, and urges the attendants to remove him from sight. The epithet sacred is applied by the poets to all the powers and appearances of nature, and to all natural objects, such as mountains, rivers, lakes, the sea, light, heaven, &c.

We have selected only a few of the passages which we had marked, in reading, as objectionable. We are aware, that it is easy to find fault with a work of this kind, by seizing upon small inaccuracies, and by representing mere differences of opinion as radical errors. In fact, a formidable list of real mistakes may be

« ForrigeFortsett »