Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

τον

sion, cædis; or, as the schol. brev. TOV EV Toque Savaтo. This might be justifiable in a tragic writer, and we will not say that it is wholly inadmissible in Homer. The ancient scholiasts have, however, preserved a variation, apns aḥxтnpa yEve Sa, which they mention as the reading of Zenodotus. Apa, in the sense of noxa or damnum, is a Homeric word, as appears by the following passages: II. xii. 334, xvi. 512, xxiv. 489. It is distinguished from apa, preces or dira, by its quantity, as well as signification; in the former, the first syllable is short; in the latter, long. In compliance with this evidence, apns is therefore substituted in the text of the present edition. This reading is preferred by Bentley. The corruption of the passage, M. Heyne supposes to have originated in the ignorance of some scribe, who might interpret the word APHE, which he found in his copy, Mars; and who concluded therefore, that the genitive apas was required by the grammatical construction of the sentence.

In the celebrated description of the shield of Achilles, we read in our present copies,

Παρ ποταμον κελάδοντα, περι ροδανον δονακης, Il. xviii. 576. These words, in the common Latin translations, are rendered, Preter fluvium resonantem, admodum rapidum, cannis abundantem. "Quoties in hunc locum incidi," says the editor, "offendi ad hæc duo sibi repugnantia, fluvium rapidum, eundemque cannis obsitum." But it is not clear that the words can bear even this sense. The only alteration which is admitted into the text is that of wapa for map, which is supplied by Eustathius, and the best MSS. Under the text, however, the latter part of the verse is printed thus, dia padarov dovana, per arundinetum mobile; a reading which supplies good sense in the place of confusion or absurdity, and' is supported by the glosses of the etymologist, Hesychius, and some of the scholiasts; from which it appears that there formerly existed a considerable variety in the lection of this verse,

After the constitution of the text, the next object is the grammatical interpretation. In this branch of the duty of an editor, the labours of the present writer have, on former occasions, been peculiarly successful and interesting,

The general perspicuity of Homer's writings will, perhaps, incline many to suppose that the office of his interpreter will not be attended with much difficulty or uncertainty. Yet, even in the easiest writers, many various constitutions of the syntax may often be proposed; from which it is the part of taste and skill to select and approve the most classical and elegant. The very facility of Homer's style is, perhaps, a reason why few writers are in general read with less critical exactness. We are carried along by the interest of the narration, and are willing to acquiesce in the first sense of a dubious passage which affords a continuity of thought, and enables us to proceed in the perusal without losing all connection between the ideas.

It may not be improper to notice, from the beginning of the Iliad, some errors, which, however gross, were yet for centuries current in the common interpretation of Homer.

V. 78. Η γαρ οἴομαι ανδρα χολωσέμεν, usually rendered "profecto enim suspicor virum iratum fore;" but xorow is not irascor, but irrito; the meaning of the passage therefore is, I think that I shall provoke the man, &c. The error of the common version is remarked in the note of the editor on this passage; but is retained in the Latin translation printed in the third volume.

V. 283. Λισσομ' Αχιλλης μεθέμεν χόλον ; in the Latin version, "precabor Achillem deponere iram," contrary to the syntax of the language, the verb

requiring an accusative of the object. The proper translation is,. Supplico tibi ut in Achillem deponas iram. See a note relative to the interpretation of this verse in Professor Porson's edition of the Orestes of Euripides, v. 663.

V. 289. Ατιν' ου πείσεσθαι οίω, usually translated, quæ minime persuasurum puto; but this would be ; Ta is in the middle voice, and is therefore to be rendered, obtemperaturum, or obtemperaturos. Professor Heyne

adopts the former, refering the word to Achilles; it might be connected with Tavras, from wao at the beginning of the line.

An error, similar to these, occurs in the common translation of Iliad, viii. 197; which may the more properly be observed, as it is not noticed even in the present edition: auroux

[ocr errors]

WHEN. "Speraverim equidem Achivos

hac ipsâ nocte naves conscensuros veloces;" but Homer, almost without exception, employs the future Enow in a transitive sense: Bμ is, therefore, not illos conscensuros, but me conscendere facturum. ExB Toma schol. brev. ad loc.

These errors are sufficiently gross; and they may serve as a specimen that some caution is necessary even in the perusal of Homer.

Π. i. 29. Την δ' εγω ου λύσω, πριν μιν και γηρας επεισιν. This verse is usually translated, "Hanc autem ego non liberabo, antequam ipsam et senectus invadat." M. Heyne renders it, "Hanc autem ego non liberabo; quin potius ipsam et senectus invadet." This is more agreeable to the usage of Homer, who, in the former sense of p, connects it with the infinitive or subjunctive mood. Plate, however, in his paraphrase of this pas sage, understands it in the common

sense.

In a writer of Homer's antiquity, dif. ficulties must occasionally occur from the use of obsolete forms and phrases. Some interesting descriptions on subjects of this nature are found in different parts of the observations.

Several of the excursus are devoted to the examination of grammatical questions. Some of these relate to the use of the particles, a curious, and sometimes an intricate, subject in the doctrine of Greek grammar.

"Ad tragicos," says the editor, “multæ extant virorum doctorum observationes, de particularum in iis usu; quæ tamen in Homericis non semper locum habent; neque omnino in doctrinâ de particulis ratio Homeri singularis aliqua ubique habita est. Cum autem particule in doctiore studio singularem curam sibi vindicent, operam quamvis molestam in his diligentius explorandis refugere non licet."

The particles, the structure of which forms the subject of several grammatical excursus, are the following; ax, o, 2 MEV, ira, jan, ivse jan, ws, wis av, ús xey, ús ei, ὡς οτε, ὡς τε, οποτε, όπως, ὅτε, ὁτάν, ότε κεν, αυτε. ευτάν.

It is a well known canon of Dawes, that oppa, ira, and similar words, signifying the final cause, are not joined promiscuously with the optative and subjunctive moods, but to the former, when the verb in the preceding clause is in a past tense; to the latter, when it is in

the present or future. Dawes miscell. crit. p. 85.

The learned commentator of Dawes remarks, that this is an acute and accurate distinction. He suggests, however, this exception, that the subjunctive sometimes follows these particles, when the verb of the preceding clause is in a past tense, as Thucydides, 1. ii. 3. §untheyovto— όπως μη φανεροί ωσιν.

The rule which M. Heyne proposes for the use of these particles in such con nections (Excurs. iii. ad lib. iv.) dif fers, in some degree, from that of our learned countryman.

"Oppe cum subjunctivo jungi, quoties de certo fine ac consilio agitur, quando reddi potest, ut, eo consilio ac voluntate, ut, dubitari nequit, v. c. Iliad I. 158, 185. Ofpx tamen sæpe cum optativo junctum legi, ita ut eodem sensu accipi et reddi potest, ut, eo consilio ut, nullo modo negari potest. Interdum ratio aliqua eliei potest, cur optativus, præferendus sit, si oratio est obliqua, aut pendens ex præcedente, aut consilium non habitum. Alibi multis argutiis opus est, ut plane certum aut ratum, sed potius in votis causam exputes, cur optativus prælatus sit subjunctivo, nisi forte quod ille elegantia, nescio cujus, sensum habet."

No mention is made in this excursus of the doctrine of Dawes. In the additions, printed at the end of the vo lume, it is thus noticed.

"Dawes juncture rw oppx et similium, iva, as, un, diversitatem in temporum positu quæsivit, proposita observatione, post præteritum esse optativum, post præsens, conjunc tivum.

consequentione temporum, tum, in oratione Verior ratio quærenda, primo, in salis, locum potiorem habet subjunctivus, rectâ vel obliquá; quoties est propositio caus subtilitas ista in Atticis regnat, in Ionico quoties est potentialis, optativus. Tamen poetâ non æque.”

We cannot but think the observation of Dawes on this subject, clear, useful, rule is indeed free from exceptions, and and generally applicable. No general perhaps, others might in this instance be

added even from the Attic writers to that of Mr. Burgess. We will specify one instance of the application of this

rule:

Πως μεν κροκόπεπλος απ' ωκεανοιο ρόπων
Ωρουθ' ιν' αθανατοισι φόως φερον ήδε βροτοίσιν.
Il. xix. 1, 2.
"Usus et ratio subtilior postulat
pp," says the editor, and so it is found

* For a similar instance, see Euripides, Hec. 27, with Hermann's note on the passage.

112

in some manuscripts. But the common reading is vindicated, and, in strictness, required by the canon of Dawes, and in its turn, gives support to his observa

tion.

The second excursus of the second book contains a disquisition on the use. of the final Nu.

Respecting the employment of this letter, M. Heyne says,

66

Usum ejus maxime per grammaticos increbuisse, satis constat, ita ut in senioribus scriptoribus et in codicibus, nullo cum judicio, nullâ certâ regulâ, No addatur, etiam ante consonantem, vel omittatur.

"Codicum omnino fides et usus in his
est nullus, nam etiam optimi, in ipso Ho-

nihil certi habuisse, quod sequerentur; ita-
que nec digna hæc habui, in quibus enotan-
dis operam perderein.

A remarkable irregularity sometimes takes place in Homer in the use of these particles, by the employment of a tense apparently indicative, where the subjunctive would commonly be used; for example, Iliad i. 363, der aμpw. Some of the grammarians inform us that these tenses are really in the sub-mero, ita variant, ut satis apparcat, librarios junctive mood, with the long vowel shortened by a figure which they call systole, "ac si, nomine reperto, caussa reperta sit." M. Heyne explains this difficulty from the uncertainty and irregularity which we may suppose to have existed in the grammar of the language, at the early period when Homer wrote; and remarks, that some traces of it remain even in the more polished dialect of the Attics. In Homer, however, this irregularity appears only in the present and future tenses; we do not at least recollect any example of it in a past tense, similar to these instances which occur in the Attic poets, os

λzy. Eschyl. p.v. 756, ed. Schutz, sxx-xx78vXσ Inv. Eur. Phan. 215. edit. Pors. Valckenaer would, however, read or interpret the latter of these passages differently.

The following verses of Quintus Calaber, iv. 30, 31, perhaps afford an example of this phraseology.

Ως οφελόν μενος μεν εθ' Εκτορος, οφρ' άμα παντας
Αργείους σφετέρησιν εν κλισίησιν φλεσσεν.

See

A similar instance occurs also in Theocritus on the use of these tenses. some ingenious remarks in Hermann's observations on Vigerus, p. 805.

We cannot follow our author through all the grammatical disquisitions which accompany his work; we may here particularly refer to the three following excursus, the second of the seventeenth book, grammatical observations on Homer; the first of the twenty-first book, on the Ionism of Homer; the first of the twenty-third book, on the imperfection of his grammar.

The Greek prosody is a subject of great extent and difficulty. That of the heroic poets presents, indeed, a field of much less compass than that of the lyric and dramatic writers, but it still allows a considerable scope for discussion

"Cum neque in his, neque in grammati cis, ulla certa fides sit, varietas et inconstantia usus in Homero me admonuit, ut regulas circumspicerem, quibus me ipsum regerem in admittendo vel omittendo illo Nu, non quasi rem ipsam satis gravem, de qua quæreretur esse judicassem, sed quia molestum est in omni re, certum rerum judicium si videas tibi hand adesse."

The use of this letter in the heroic poets, is either to avoid a hiatus, or to lengthen a short syllable ending in or 1, by producing a position. In the latter rule, two cases are included; 1st, where the syllable is in caurá; and 2dly, where it falls in thesi.

Respecting the former of these employments of the final N, there is no controversy. The hiatus, which, without the use of it, would so frequently occur, is evidently avoided by the poets, and especially by Homer, with the great

est care.

[ocr errors]

Where a short syllable in or stands in casurá, the insertion of the final N cannot, perhaps, be deemed necessary for the preservation of the verse, because instances occur of short syllables lengthened in that situation, without the possi bility of such a support. It still does not follow, that it might not, in some instances, be used, to give greater stability to the verse. Upon this principle the words Tous and Topos are written Trois and roos, when preceded by a sylla ble naturally short, but required by the law of the verse to be long, even though that syllable fall in cæsurà. And it will, perhaps, be found on examination, that a syllable ending with a short vowel, is rarely made long by the force of the pause, unless followed by the support of a liquid or double consonant.

Where a short syllable occurs in thesi, which the rules of the verse require to

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

·

be produced, the addition of the final N is generally esteemed necessary. It is, however, well known, that the late Mr. Wakefield was of a contrary opinion. Professor Heyne seems to incline to the same sentiment, if we may judge by the following observation: Il. xvii. 705, AM DYE TOLLY wey Opaounded, &c. Edd. ante Turnebum rov, sine, male, ait Ernesti. Immo vero, per se, nec bene, nec male. Si tamen antiqua sequeris, recte o scribitur. But it may be asked, does a short syllable ever occur (except in casuré) where a long one is required, to which the laws of the language do not allow the addition of the final ? Some few anomalies must be excepted.

The first excursus of the seventeenth book, is devoted to the consideration of several topics of prosody, and particularly to the collection and improvement of the scattered remarks of Clarke on this subject. On these it will not be necessary to enlarge.

To the observation, that a short vowel in Homer is frequently lengthened by the reduplication of the following consonant, M. Heyne refers that difficult irregularity, Ews rave, &c.; supposing that the original was as orTau, &c. This and similar passages are emended by Bentley, as tws cye raud', &c.

We proceed to the consideration of the hiatus, a subject in the prosody of Homer, which has seldom been treated with the attention which it deserves.

A slight inspection of the versification of Homer, will be sufficient to shew that he studiously avoided the hiatus. Of those instances which occur, many are removed by the insertion of the digamma, and most others, by some slight and obvious alteration.

We are informed by M. Heyne, that great attention was paid by Dr. Bentley to this subject, and that the passages which contain a hiatus, are studiously corrected by him in the margin of his

copy.

In the year 1801, was published by the late learned Gilbert Wakefield, a diatribe, under the title of "Noctes carcerariæ, sive de legibus metricis poetarum Græcorum, qui versibus hexametris scripserunt, disputatio." A principal object of that work, is the examination and establishment of the doctrine of the hiatus. The principles which Mr. Wakefield lays down on this subject, are, in

many respects, coincident with those of the present editor of Homer, and many of the emendations grounded on them, the same; they will, therefore, derive weight from the concurrence of such respectable authorities.

Hermann, who has touched upon this subject in his book " de Metris poetarum Græcorum et Romanorum," is inclined to treat the hiatus with more indulgence than it has experienced from other writ ers. He supposes that its ungrateful influence was, in many cases, diminished by the force of the accent of the preced ing syllable; and it is his opinion, that where it consists merely in the repetition of the same vowel, as in the words a de Tea, it produces no harsh effect. In the latter case, however, his sentiment certainly differs from that of most other judges of versification. Some of those hiatus which he defends, are also corrected by the insertion of the digamma, as Il. iv. 158, άua Tɛ apvwv.

Mr. Heyne accedes to the opinion of those who think that the hiatus, except under certain limited conditions, is wholly inadmissible. His remarks on this subject are found in the excursus which follows the observations on the fifteenth book.

From the definition of the hiatus, he excludes the following cases; 1st, where a long vowel or diphthong at the end of a word, preceding a vowel or diphthong at the beginning of the subsequent word, is made short, as έκηβόλου Απόλλωνος ; 2dly, where a long vowel or a diphthong, though followed by a vowel in the next word, remains long by the influence of the cæsura, as Il. ii. 229, H eti xxi nquocu

Devex; 3dly, where a long vowel or diphthong, though followed by a vowel, and in thesi, yet, contrary to the general practice, remains long, as Il. ii. 231, in κεν εγω δήσας αγαγώ, η άλλος Αχαιων.

The two former of these cases are clear, the latter is perhaps less obvious, The instances in which it occurs, except under certain limitations, are at least very rare, and it is contrary to analogy.

In compliance with this observation, Il. xv. 536, and in other places, for y ovos, M. Heyne, to avoid the hiatus, writes y OğUOTI, "diæresim sustuli, ne hiatus existeret, vocali ante vocalem positâ, monente quoque Bentleio."

The only instances in addition to this, which have been observed during a pe rusal of this book, of a long vowel or

diphthong, in thesi, followed by a vowel in the next word, without the insertion of the digamma, and yet remaining long, are in the following verses, 16, 23, 146, 161, 177, 271, 522, 742. One of these instances is the repetition of the words in verse 536: in five of them the latter half of the spondee is formed by a monosyllable, which we believe is the case in a majority of similar instances throughout the poem; in one, the hiatus may be defended by a pause in the verse; the only remaining example is in verse 522, uz Пavdou 'vov, for which one valuable manuscript reads Пavou, which may be defended by the patronymic Пaroids. We do not mean to say, that no examples occur of greater difficulty than these, the contrary is the fact, but they are not more numerous than the difficult examples of the other species of hiatus, and are probably reducible to fixed rules. This case of the hiatus is not regarded by Mr. Wakefield as admissible, who, in the following verse of Quint. Cal. (i. 135,) λy Exo, &c. proposes to read, more melodiously, Θελέγει εν λεχέεσσι.

As instances of emendation grounded on this doctrine of the hiatus, we select the following. Iliad ii. 90, as ev r'a αλις πεποτηαται αι δε τε ενθα. Of this verse Hermann says, "accentus adjumento non indigemus, quoniam in ejusdem vocalis repetitione, hiatus nihil duri habet." On the contrary, Mr.Wakefield pronounces of the same verse, "hoc hiatu monstrosiorem, nullum vidi," and he proposes to correct it by reading, δε τε τ' ενθα. Heyne would read, αι δε τοι syda. In Iliad ii. 87, for leve, read nüte dvě aσ (Bentley and Wakefield,) as Il. xvi. 160, και τ' αγεληδόν ιασι. Aσto, ev xparen, should evidently be ao

και κρατερη.

In any considerable. pause of the verse, a hiatus may, however, be tolerated. One case of this nature Mr, Wakefield has very minutely examined in the tract to which we have above referred. "Locum habet hic hiatus in hexametro carmine, post dactylici pedis loco tertio secundam syllabam. Specimini sit qui primus obversatur legentibus Iliada, i. 565.

Αλλ' ακέουσα καθησο, δ' επιπείθεο μυῳ.”

εμπ

This, with other similar exceptions, is admitted by M. Heyne, though in many instances with some reluctance, and is

in some rejected with an appearance of inconsistency: for instance, Il. xx. 20.

Εγνως Εννοσίγαιε, εμην εν στήθεσι βουληνα Hiatus, says M. Heyne, ab Homericâ poesi alienus; but in what respect does it differ from that in Il. iii. 376, κείνη δε τρυφάλεια αμ' εσπετο, which he regards as defensible?

We now arrive at the important subject of the digamma, the application of which to the poetry of Homer, is discovered from the uniformity of the hiatus which precedes certain words, avat, for example, and tw. This subject is treated in the second, third, and fourth excursus, annexed to the nineteenth book.

It is well known that there existed among the ancient Greeks a mode of pronouncing many words and syllables now beginning with a vowel, which, in prosody, produced the effect of a consonant. This letter, or aspiration, which disappeared from the use of the later Greeks, is commonly attributed to the Eolians, and is called the Eolic digamma, a name derived from its figure (F). These are facts known from the testimony of historians and grammarians. Traces, also, of this letter still remain both in the Greek language, and in that part of the Latin which is derived from it.

It is difficult to speak with certainty respecting the pronunciation of a language which has long since ceased to be in oral use. Yet there appear to be, in the present instance, some data, which give great probability to the common opinion, that the sound of the digamma was the same with that of the English w. It is said, by Quintilian and the grammarians, to have possessed the power of the Roman v, which was probably in all cases strictly a vowel, and before a consonant, therefore, had a sound resembling the modern w. This opinion is supported by the well-known story related by Cicero (de div. ii. 40.), from which it appears, that the sounds of the word cauneas, and cave ne cas, were so nearly similar as to be easily capable of confusion. The digamma is also said by Dionysius Halicarnassensis (Ant. Rom. L. i. p. 16, edit. Sylb.) to have had the same power with the Greek ov, a combination of letters, which, in the use of our continental neighbours, corresponds with our own w.

« ForrigeFortsett »