Obrázky na stránke

become a predominant race, not only at Lacedæmon and Mycenæ, but in other parts of Greece. The three names are all applied, in these pro-Hellenic times, to the general army collected under the influence of the king of Mycenae, the head of the Achæan race in the south. At Ithaca, we read only of Ithacans and Achæans, as if this latter race had established themselves there also, but had not been preceded by the same early tribes. That all this is to be attributed to the warlike habits of the tribes of the Phthiotis, seems nearly certain from the comparison of Thucydides's account with that of Pausanias, and from the two tribes, the Hellenes and Achæans proper, being both spoken of as belonging to the same districts, those, namely, which furnished the troops of Achilles. If we agree with Vico in believing that the renown of the warriors of ancient poetry is in fact merely the renown due to their nations, we shall see in the fame of Achilles another instance of the high military character of the tribes of the Phthiotis.

We wish that Mr. Coleridge had entered into these questions rather more fully; not merely with a view to the history of the language, but for the purpose of throwing more light upon a subject of great historical interest,-the relation which the nations assembled before Troy bore to the great monarchy of Mycena. A good comment upon the passage in Thucydides is still wanting in English literature. Before quitting this subject, we will just remark that the Hellenicism of the Ionians is, at the very least, a matter of doubt. Herodotus clearly considered them to be Pelasgians; Strabo speaks of Cothus, the reputed Ionian-Athenian founder of Chalcis, as a barbaric name*; which seems to intimate that it was Pelasgic; the repugnance between the Ionian and Achaian or Hellenic stems is well known, and to this, perhaps, may be traced Homer's slight notice of the Athenianst. We are also ignorant of the ground on which Mr. Coleridge asserts that the old Doric was at any time the language of Attica.


We think that Mr. Coleridge goes rather too far, when he asserts, that the Greek of the Iliad seems equal to the expression of every mode of feeling, and of every combination of circumstances.' It expresses, with unequalled strength and accuracy, all that is positive and palpable to sense, and many very simple feelings; but it does not seem very capable of grasping abstractions. It seldom happens that such ideas are suggested in Homer; the thoughts, as well as the

* Compare lib. x., p. 446, 447, with lib. vii., p. 321.

We believe that the genuineness of the passage cited by Mr. Coleridge, to show that the Athenians are called Ionians in Homer, is doubted by Heyne. It is N. 685. The abandonment of the passage would, however, decide very little.

language of the Homeric poems, belong to an age antecedent to their prevalence; but when the necessity does arise, we find generally an appearance of labour and difficulty in the expression. Yet it must be admitted that the most remarkable abstraction which occurs in the poems is shortly enough expressed in the Odyssey.

Τῶν νέες ὠκεῖαι ὡσὲι πτερὸν δὲ νόημα.

Od. n. 36.

The subject of the digamma is slightly discussed, and perhaps sufficiently so for the plan of Mr. Coleridge's book. Whatever we may think of the ponderous learning that has been brought to bear on this topic, one thing at least is certain, that the nature of that sound which the digamma is supposed to represent, is now much better understood*. We see it in every language more or less, sometimes in the full and open sound of the w, as in our own words, wine, wet, &c., or as in the German where it is nearer the kindred sound of v. The true pronunciation of the Homeric digamma cannot be ascertained; it may have had the sound of the w, as found in the English or German, or of the b, as found in Spanish, or in modern Greek, in which latter language b is pronounced exactly like our v. It is always a sound of the same kind, modified in the particular dialects of a language. In our own, in one instance, it has, by a comparatively recent corruption, been introduced even where its form never existed—in the word one.

Another form of this letter besides that which Mr. Coleridge gives (F), is found both on inscriptions and coins: we mean (c), which appears on the Heracleotic tablet, and on the coins of Axus. We agree with the author in believing that the written form of the digamma, whatever it might be, was as old as any of the characters of the language. With respect to the difficulty of applying the digamma to the Homeric poems, as they now exist, it is one which we must fairly acknowledge, but we would not on that account go quite so far as Mr. Knight, in expunging all the verses that are refractory. In endeavouring to reduce the Homeric words to the true standard of orthography, we should remember that other letters, gutturals particularly, are very often lost at the beginning of words. The word avas, for example, has more probably lost a x from the beginning than a digamma.

We have read the remarks on the Odyssey with very great

For example, duty is a digammated word, and in Homer must be pronounced Fidus. In the first pers. sing. oida, the digamma is still preserved in the form of o, and it is therefore wrong to write, as some do, Foida.

admiration. They appear to us to show the deepest and truest sense of the merits of that wonderful poem; and we know no work on the subject, in our language, which could sustain any comparison with this part of Mr. Coleridge's essay. We have very little indeed to offer, in the way of either objection or addition; yet we must dissent from the following remark. All the serious poetry of the ancients, in after-times, continued to be grounded on the fables, and to imitate the spirit of the Homeric age.' We believe the reverse to be the fact, as to the spirit. The noble, ideal, and statuelike creations of the tragedians, seem to us to be placed at the very opposite pole of poetry from the eager and passionate warriors of Homer. Both have been called heroic, no doubt; but the applications of the words are widely different. It is Augustus Schlegel, we think, who has said that the Elgin marbles furnish the best commentary upon the spirit of Greek tragedy; is the commentary applicable to the Iliad or Odyssey?

The passage cited from the last book of the Odyssey, at p. 130, we confidently believe to be spurious, both from the internal evidence supplied by the first 204 lines of that book, and from the simplicity with which the last line of the 23d book, and the 205th line of the 24th book unite. We entertain also much doubt of the genuineness of the passage which speaks of the apotheosis of Castor and Pollux, p. 134.

There is much truth in the remarks at pp. 132-3, respecting the difference between the mythological action of the Iliad and that of the Odyssey; yet some passages occur in the latter, which strongly remind us of the vehement deities of the Iliad. Such is that where Posidaon discovers that the gods have jobbed the return of Odysseus during his absence. And with respect even to the attributes of Athene, not much of that which is found in the Iliad disappears in the Odyssey, though the intellectual attributes are made more prominent than before. We see her, in each poem, grasping the spear with which she crushes the ranks of warriors; and in the uvnoτngopovía she is as terrible and destructive as in any part of the Iliad.

We have little to remark on that part of the essay which relates to the minor poems; some of which Mr. Coleridge values rather more highly than we do. There are some beautiful specimens of translation, by Shelley, in this part of the work. Nothing is said of the theory which attributes the origin of the hymns to the custom of prefacing the recitation of parts of the great poems by an address to some divinity. Our readers will derive some information on this point from

the preface to Franke's edition; and we wish we could persuade Mr. Coleridge to make some addition of this kind to the next impression of his work.

The ages of Danaus and Erechtheus are laid down, at p. 222, with an approach to precision and a gravity which are rather amusing.

The next Greek poet to whom Mr. Coleridge is to devote his labours, is Hesiod. We trust that he will not neglect to give his readers some account of the Scholia, which contain so strange a mixture of curious information and laborious trifling. By way of a single instance, the whimsical scholia upon the word pws suggest some very curious considerations as to the changes which the meaning of this word underwent in different times.

We cannot forbear, before we conclude, from once more expressing our regret, that we have scarcely ever quoted Mr. Coleridge, except for the purpose of showing dissent from his views. But our principal object has been to entitle ourselves conscientiously to recommend a work, which is certain to afford much delight and much instruction. We could not have done so, without avowing whatever difference of opinion we entertained. A secondary object has been the hope, that some of our remarks may attract the author's attention, if he should have the opportunity, as we hope he may, of preparing a second edition of his work. In neither point of view have we seen it expedient to give any specimens of the beauties of the work. They are, however, to be found without difficulty; but we will terminate our remarks by an extract which seems to us highly characteristic. Though the passage may be rather too declamatory and ambitious in its tone, a fault of which there are some other instances in the book, the comparison which is applied to the two great poems is very striking and noble, and, to the best of our knowledge, original.


Born, like the river of Egypt, in secret light, they yet roll on their great collateral streams, wherein a thousand poets have bathed their sacred heads, and thence drunk beauty, and truth, and all sweet and noble harmonies. Known to no man is the time or place of their gushing forth from the earth's bosom, but their course has been amongst the fields and by the dwellings of men, and our children now sport on their banks and quaff their salutary waters.'



1. A New Greek and English Lexicon; principally on the Plan of the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider: the Words alphabetically arranged, distinguishing such as are Poetical, of dialectic Variety, or peculiar to certain Writers and Classes of Writers; with Examples, literally translated, selected from the Classical Writers. By James Donnegan, M. D. Second Edition, carefully revised, improved throughout, and greatly enlarged, by the Author. London. 1831.

2. A Greek and English Lexicon, for the Use of Schools and Colleges; containing a Variety of Critical, Philological, and Scientific Matter, not hitherto found in any Greek Dictionary. Also an English and Greek Lexicon, comprising a Number of Idiomatic Phrases for the Use of more advanced Students. By George Dunbar, A. M., F.R.S.E., and Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh, and E. H. Barker, Esq., of Thetford, Norfolk. Edinburgh. 1831.

THESE are rather long old-fashioned titles, but they have one merit at least, that of showing the pretensions of the books, and saving us some explanation. It is our intention to examine how far the contents of these two lexicons answer the description in the title-page, and how far they are likely to be useful to Greek students. That of Messrs. Dunbar and Barker promises most, as it contains a variety of matter not hitherto found in any Greek dictionary.' But before we commence our examination we have a few remarks to make. Within the last ten or fifteen years, the study of the Greek language has very much increased in these islands, which may be attributed partly to the increasing opinion of its utility as a branch of polite learning, and partly also to superior facilities for its acquirement. Among the latter we may enumerate the introduction of Greek and English lexicons into our common schools and our colleges; for imperfect and faulty as all our lexicons are, still it is better to have the explanation of the Greek words in the vernacular tongue, than to receive it through the medium of another dead language. The first Greek and English lexicon, for general use, that we are acquainted with, was that by Dr. Jones, first edition, 1823, second, 1826. In the year 1826, Mr. Pickering published in the United States a Greek and English lexicon,

« PredošláPokračovať »