"To read the ancients is to take a journey; journeys in time refresh and vivify perhaps more than journeys in space."-p. 358. Although these volumes are written in French, their style strikes us as wholly different from that of a Frenchman, and we have, indeed, observed in other instances that German French has about it a solemnity, a simplicity, and a force of eloquence, in perfect accordance with the German character. We love the Germans, for the same reason that Ancillon loves the ancients, for the freshness, the simplicity, and the noble purity of their minds. In them we are never disgusted with attempts to catch at ephemeral applause, with impertinent badinage, or with materialism assuming exclusively the name of philosophy. To the following passage (the last we have space to quote) we cordially agree. "The Liberals of a good sort in Germany love liberty as the first condition of intellectual life, and as the appendage of the liberty of man. In France the Liberals of a good sort love liberty as the principle and guarantee of all the advantages and pleasures of social life. The fact is, that every thing in Germany has a secret tendency towards the invisible world. In France it is just the reverse."-p. 357. In Germany the principle of the finite, the mechanical, calculating, materialist principle, does not, and is not likely to, predominate over men's minds. Can such an assertion be made of Great Britain, any more than France, with any degree of truth? We think not. ART. XIII.-Poeta Scenici Græci. Accedunt perditarum fabularum fragmenta. Recensuit Guil. Dindorfius. Leipsic & London. 1830. 8vo. pp. 960. MR. WILLIAM DINDORF, the Professor in the University of Leipsic, whose name is too well known in this country to require any comment, has published, in one_thick octavo volume, all the extant plays of Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, together with the extant fragments of their lost tragedies and comedies respectively. The plays of the different poets are arranged in a chronological order, and we observe that Mr. Dindorf is one of those critics who believe the Rhesus to be genuine, and the most ancient of the remaining plays of Euripides; and that he does not agree with Mr. Hermann, in supposing that it was the work of some Alexandrine scholar. As Mr. Dindorf had already published text editions of Eschylus, Sophocles, and Aristophanes, and as his brother, Mr. Lewis Dindorf, has edited Euripides, no very remarkable novelties in the recension of the text could be expected in this edition. The editor, however, with his accustomed diligence and acuteness, has in his preface suggested many improvements in the text of the four Greek dramatic poets, in addition to his former labours. We will select a few of these critical remarks. In the Prometheus of Æschylus, v. 354, Τυφῶνα θοῦρον, πᾶσιν ὃς ἀντέστη θεοῖς, where Porson corrected Τυφῶνα θοῦρον, ὅστις ἀντέστη Ocois, supporting his emendation with numerous instances of the in trusion of râç, Mr. Dindorf (after Wunderlich) reads-Tvora Coupov, πᾶσιν ὃς ἀνέστη θεοῖς, citing Iliad, Ψ. 634 : πὺς μὲν ἐνίκησα Κλυτομήδεα, Ηνοπος υἱὸν, Αγκαῖον δὲ πάλῃ Πλευρώνιον, ὅς μοι ἀνέστη. In Prom. 1056, the Medicean MS. has ri yàp éλλɛlwɛi μù rapɑwaiuv εἰ τοῦδ' ευτυχή. Mr. Dindorf restores, ἡ τοῦδε τύχη. On Sept. ad Theb. 562, Mr. Dindorf attempts to show that the particle av is sometimes lengthened by the Scenic poets. We confess that the small number, and the uncertainty of the instances which he adduces, are not, in our estimation, sufficient to weigh against the numberless examples of the contrary usage. It should be remembered, moreover, that the natural progress of all languages is to contract and shorten; and that some instances of this particle being lengthened would probably occur in Homer or the early epic poets, if its quantity had in later times been doubtful. Soph. Electr. 882, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὕβρει λέγω τάδ', ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνον ὡς παρόντα vv. Mr. Dindorf, following the traces of the manuscripts, reads→ ÉKεivov wc zapóvra vã, for vóɛi; and in like manner in Esch. Pers. 1054, καὶ στέρν ̓ ἄρασσε κἀπιβόα τὸ Μύσιον, he would get rid of the anapest by reading kariß. He likewise removes the anapest in Soph. Ed. C. 1466, by writing ορανία γὰρ ἀστραπή. Eurip. Electr. 497, παλαιόν τε θησαύρισμα Διονύσου τόδε. Mr. Dindorf defends the shortening of the diphthong in raxaide by two examples, one from Sophocles, the other from Aristophanes. It is very difficult to form any safe judgment on short fragments, but we are doubtful whether in the verse of Sophocles we ought not to read Þoíßov naλαιὸν κῆπον Without the conjunction. The fragments of Eschylus and Sophocles appear in this volume in a much more correct and complete form than in any former edition. Mr. Dindorf states that he had not originally intended to add the fragments of Euripides and Aristophanes, as they had been so recently published by Mr. Matthiæ and himself; but that, in compliance with the wishes of his bookseller, he afterwards consented to introduce them. We rejoice that he was induced so to do, as the work is not only thereby rendered complete, but considerable improvements have been made upon Mr. Matthiæ's revision of the numerous and beautiful fragments of Euripides. Esch. fragm. 302. Eustathius, p. 641, 59, Οὔτε δῆμος οὔτ ̓ ἔτης avip." The same words are cited by the scholiast to Homer, whose words are given by Mr. Dindorf in Eurip. fragm. incert. 158. Compare in the Elean inscription (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 14.) aire Féraç αἴτε τελέστα αἴτε δάμος. Soph. fragm. 209: * γλῶσσ ̓ ἐν οἷσιν ἀνδράσιν τιμὴν ἔχεις, ὅπου λόγοι σθένουσι τῶν ἔργων πλέον. «V. i. 'H supplet Brunckius et exe scribit. Fort. yλwoo." Dindorf. Besides these suggestions there is the emendation of Jacobs, in his Lec See Foreign Review, vol. v. p. 235. tiones Stobenses—γλῶσσ ̓ ἐν κενοῖσιν ἀνδράσιν τιμήν ἔχει. But the article is necessary. Whether the emendation of Brunck or Mr. Dindorf is admitted, it seems that the sense requires ἐκεῖ for ὅπου. In Soph. fragm. 464, the following line occurs ἐνῆν δὲ συμμιγὴς ὀλαῖς παγκαρπία. Perhaps: ἐνῆν δ' ὀλαῖσι συμμιγής παγκαρπία. Soph. fragm. 584, from the Tyro :— τίκτουσι γάρ τοι καὶ νόσους δυσθυμίαι. In fragm. 588, Mr. Dindorf has, " Antiatticista, p. 89, 19, Δυσθυ μία: Σοφοκλῆς Τυροί.” The gloss of the grammarian probably refers to the above line preserved in Stobæus. Eurip. Eol. fragm. 2: ἃ μὴ γάρ ἐστι τῷ πένηθ ̓, ὁ πλούσιος δίδωσ ̓, ὃ δ' οἱ πλουτοῦντες οὐ κεκτήμεθα, This elision of in the dative case is not noticed by Dr. Elmsley in his note to the Heraclidæ, v. 693; and it appears to offer more difficulty than any of the passages there corrected. Cress. fragm. 9 : πλούτου δ' ἀπορρυέντος ἀσθενεῖς γάμοι The two last lines are thus cited in a fragment of the work of Aristotle περὶ εὐγενείας preserved in Stobæus, 86, 25, and Plutarch, περὶ εὐγε νείας, c. xiv.—καίτοι... οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμῶσιν ὁ Θέογνις οὐδ ̓ ὁ ποιητὴς ὁ ποιήσας ὡς τὴν μὲν εὐγένειαν αἰνοῦσιν βροτοί, In Stobæus the MS. A. and ed. Trinc. have ποιήσας ὡς ὅτι τὴν μὲν, whence Mr. Gaisford, transposing the words, has edited ποιήσας ὅτι, ὡς τὴν μὲν, &c. In Plutarch the word or is omitted. We think it more probable that one word arose from the other, and would read→→ οὐδ ̓ ὁ ποιητὴς ὁ ποιήσας ὡς τὴν μὲν εὐγένειαν, &c. Peleus, fragm. 3 : οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνθρώποισι τοιοῦτο σκότος, ὁ δυσγενὴς κρύψας ἂν εἴη σοφός. Mr. Dindorf does not mention the unfortunate conjectures of Mr. Gaisford and Mr. Matthiæ, κρύψας νομισθείη σοφός, and κρύψει ἂν εἰ κεἴη σοφός. We propose, as a more probable conjecture than any yet advanced, κρύψας ἂν οὐκ εἴη κακός. See Welcker ad Theognin. p. 29. Few mistakes are more frequent in manuscripts (and even in printed books) than the improper addition or omission of the negative. In this case the negative had probably fallen out, and a later transcriber restored the sense by changing κακὸς into σοφός, but in so doing spoiled the metre. Philoct. fragm. 12: πατρὶς καλῶς πράσσουσα τὸν εὐτυχοῦντ ̓ ἀεὶ μείζω τίθησι, δυστυχοῦντα δ' ἀσθενῆ. These senseless and unmetrical lines are preserved in Stobœus xxxviii. p. 230; where one MS. has δυστυχοῦσα for δυστυχοῦντα. Mr. Matthiæ conjectures τὸν τυχόντ ̓ ἀεὶ for τὸν εὐτυχοῦντ' ἀεὶ. Hence read: πατρὶς καλῶς πράσσουσα τὸν τυχόντ ̓ ἀεὶ μείζω τίθησι, δυστυχοῦσα δ' ἀσθενῆ. "Every man, whoever he may be, is raised by the prosperity, and depressed by the sufferings of his country." Eurip. Trag. incert. fragm. 55: μητέρα κατέκτα τὴν ἐμήν· βραχὺς λόγος· ἑκὼν ἑκοῦσαν, ἢ θέλουσαν οὐκ ἑκών. We would read ẞpaxùs ó λóyos. Compare Archel. fragm. 29 :— ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος, μὴ λέγ' εὖ· τὸ γὰρ λέγειν εὖ δεινόν ἐστιν, εἰ φέροι τινὰ βλάβην. Ibid. fragm. 57 :χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν· From Plutarch. The same verse is also cited by Aristotle, Polit. vii. p. 433, E. The fragments of Aristophanes are repeated, in an abridged form, from the late excellent edition of Mr. Dindorf, which has left little for either the diligence or ingenuity of succeeding critics. Of the fragments of Eschylus an edition is expected from Mr. Hermann, which, if we may judge from the dissertations on some of the lost plays published in his Opuscula, will be of the highest merit. In the mean time, the volume before us contains the best collection of the fragments of Eschylus and Sophocles now in existence; and the fragments of Euripides, though not given with such copious detail as in the work of Matthiæ, appear in a much purer form than in that edition. The paper is good, and the type, though small, very distinct. On the whole, we consider this volume as a most useful and laudable publication, and for the purposes of reference and occasional consultation, very convenient to all admirers of the ancient Greek drama. * ART. XIV.-Memoires d'une Femme de Qualité sur Louis XVIII., sa Cour, et son Regne. 4 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1829. THE mass of soi-disant Memoires secrets et inedits, published in France within the last few years, has, in this country at least, actually glutted even to nausea the natural propensity of mankind for that agreeable and erst favourite style of composition, which combines, or combined, the easy pleasures of light reading with the dignity of historical study. For our own part, we have looked upon all these innumerable pseudobiographies merely as so many historical novels, deprived, for the memoir-title's sake, of the story and the interest which fascinate our atten The descriptive title sins rather by incompleteness than positive falsehood, since what was unwritten was certainly unpublished, and what was unknown, even to its supposed authors, may well be called secret. tion, in the delightful productions we have latterly been accustomed to receive under the humbler name. As such, we have esteemed them undeserving our notice. The work now before us, however, (though in so far belonging to the same class that it is not written, we understand, by its presumed anonymous author,) distinguishes itself from its fellows in one very important point; as we are assured that the best-informed foreigners believe the Femme de Qualité in question to have really supplied the-what shall we say?-not facts; for the word would involve an assertion which we are by no means prepared to maintain; but the raw material, afterwards wrought into its present form by three or four gentlemen constituting a very respectable firm in the bookmanufacturing line. Now since, in compositions of this description, the substance is assuredly of far more consequence than the workmanship, or the auctorial claims and abilities of any memoir-scribbler of either sex, we deem the volumes in question worthy of some attention, as showing the view which Madame Olimpe, Comtesse Du Cayla, (so her editors initially entitle her) took, or wishes to give, of her royal friend. Respecting Madame Olimpe, Comtesse Du Čayla, herself, we hardly need remind the reader, that she was the reputed mistress of Louis XVIII. She herself, indeed, declares that the attachment was altogether Platonic, save as far as her ears were concerned, and insinuates, with French delicacy, proofs of, or reasons for, its being so, which our English delicacy forbids us even to allude to more distinctly. The lady further declares herself to have passed unscathed through ordeals where no such reasons are alleged to have guarded her virtue, preserving her maiden purity through sundry nocturnal interviews with that fanatic and unfortunate Bonapartist, Charles Labedoyere, and her nuptial fidelity through various suspicious intimacies with the Duke of Rovigo and others, the gallant duke himself not appearing to entertain any very high respect for the propriety of the lady's conduct. In fact, she confesses to only one failure of her virtue, and that was in favour of a noble Venetian Carbonaro, her love for whom, nevertheless, if stronger than her virtue, was weaker than her loyalty, for she betrayed to the king the secrets she wrung from Morosini's passion, and was thus remotely the cause of his suicide, which she wept for a whole week. Let us not, however, be understood to blame the lady's reserve. We fully agree with Madame de Genlis, that a memoir writer is not bound to tell the whole truth, provided he or she tell nothing but the truth; and we think a woman of incorrect conduct would doubly offend against public morality by proclaiming her frailties. What we quarrel with is the unnecessary mention of supposed intrigues for the purpose of asserting their purity. We know nothing, and had no desire to hear any thing, of her girlish amours, and we think it would have been in better taste to have left the reader to form his own opinion of her connexion with the gouty old king, unless indeed she could have boldly pronounced his affection for her to have been wholly paternal. She for ever represents the king's words and anecdotes to be such as she cannot repeat. |