« EdellinenJatka »
This might rather be conceived as a feint, by which the editor might the more effectually screen himself from suspicion. It is a thing so common, (not that we at all approve of the practice,) that we almost wonder the idea should so totally have escaped your correspondent.
From the Emendations of the Fragments of Menander and Philemon, published in 1713, by an editor who signs himself PHILELEUTHERUS LIPsiensis, and now universally allowed to have been written by Dr. Bentley, we make the following extracts :
1. « Videamus igitur, quid eruditissimus Kusterus ad hunc locum [ad Suid. in ném Elv] afferat: Fragmentum, inquit, hoc Menandri corruptum est, quod sic emendandum et numeris suis restituendum esse optime me monuit vir: πολυμαθέστατος RICHARDυς BENTLEIUS:
Μικρά Παναθήναι επειδή δι’ αγορας πέμποντά σε, ,
Μοσχίων, μήτηρ εώρα της κόρης έφ' αρματος. quam lectionem in versione seculus, sum ;
Postquam minorum Panathenaorum pompam ducentem per forum te,
Moschion, ridit puella mate' in curru.
Ουδ' όσον άτταραγόν σε δεδοίκαμες-
Are we then, by virtue of your correspondent's way of reasoning, henceforth to deny, that these emendations were written by the man, who has, ever since their publication, been considered the author of them? Is the volume from this time to be esteemed the production of any person rather than of Dr. Bentley ? Unfortunately for your correspondent, there was no man at that day, whose shoulders were Atlantæan enough to bear the burden of that exquisite performance. It was made of « sterner stuff” than to have been held together by paper and pack-thread! Even your correspondent himself, in spite of his ingenuity, in spite of the boldness with which he makes his assertions, and in spite of the chance that there is in the world a title-page of similar plan and device to the title-page of the book in question, must allow that the Emendations of the Fragments of Menander und Philemon came from the pen of Dr. Bentley, and of no one else but Dr. Bentley
As to the remaining objection, which is certainly at first sight the most reasonable of the three, it is certain that Dr.Bentley was never at Rome, if ever upon the Continent at all. But may not this be referred to the same source as the passages just quoted from
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis? - What? convict the Doctor of, a falsehood ? It would be an untruth beyond a doubt ;--an evasion, to say the least of it, which amounts to little less than an untruth. But are not the passages from Phileleutherus Lipsiensis equally evasive? They are intended to say neither more nor less, than “ I am not the author of this book;" which is just as evasive, and just as false, as to say, “ Vidi ipse, cum Romæ essem,” &c.—So much for your correspondent's mode of proving that the Callimachus, which was printed at London in 1741, was not edited by Dr. Bentley
We now proceed to examine the second part of this elaborate article. “ It is plain enough then,” says your ingenious correspondent, “ who was not the author of this book, the question is, who was. I believe, though I cannot quite prove it, that the real editor was Richard Warren, S. T. P. of Jesus Coil. Cambridge, who in the very following year printed an edition of Hierocles on the Golden Verses, with the same types, and for the same editors, putting his initials to that book, which he had not done to the former. Nothing can be more similar than the two books in every external mark.
This proof, which your correspondent himself confesses to be only a partial one, is more exceptionable than the one which we have just dismissed. Your correspondent contends, that since these books are similar in every external mark, they must needs have been edited by the same person. Equally reasonable would it have been to have asserted, that all volumes in vellum-binding were edited or bound by the same person !
But hold ; let us examine these external marks, and, by carefully contrasting them, force out this strange similarity, which strikes so strong upon the imagination of your correspondent. We will therefore be at the pains of transcribing the two titles :
“ CALLIMACHI Hymni et Epigrammata : quibus accesserunt Theognidis carmina : necnon Epigrammata centum septuaginta sex ex Anthologiâ Græcà, quorum magna pars non antè separatim excusa est. His adjurícta est Galeni Suasoria ad artes. Notas addidit, atque omnia emendatè imprimenda curavit Editor. In Przefatione disseritur de Lingua Græcæ pronunciatione secundumne Quantitaten an Accentum melius procedat. 'O SO YOTE xozko gora Brozavíris. De seipso Callimachus. Londini, Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopole Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse. .P. Vaillant. J. Becroft. Lond. MDCCXLI.”
“ HIEROCLIS, Philosophi Alexandrini in Aurea carmina Come mentarius. Græcè et Latine. Græca accuratiùs nunc recognita, et ad MSS. codicum fidem exacta, plurimisque in locis è Gudiani Medicai codicis collatione emendata, unà cum notis subjunctis. Edidit R. W.S.T. P. Coll. Jes. Cant. nuper Socius. Londini,
Typis Jac. Bettenham: Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopolæ L.D. Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse, P. Vaillant. J. Becroft. Lond. MDCCXLII."
Not the slightest trace of similarity do we find in these two titles, either with respect to Latinity, matter, or manner ; save and except only--that each of them ends with the clause, « Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopole Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse, P. Vaillant,” &c. &c. And is this all ?
Thus then, it should seem that for any thing your correspondent has said, Dr. Bentley himself might have been the editor of the London Callimachus. Not that we believe that he was, any more than Dr. Warren. The two objections to the supposition that Dr, Warren was its editor, which are advanced by your correspondent himself, are of themselves decisive. On the strength of these alone, Dr. Warren could not possibly have been the person.
After all, what is the probable conclusion we are to arrive at ? If we examine the style and manner in which the notes are written, the plan of the volume altogether, and the intrinsic worth of the whole, we shall easily see, that the method, the general substance, and the arrangement, are not Dr. Bentley's. Equally clear is it, that this volume came from the hands of some person on terms of close intimacy with the Doctor, as may be collected from several of his opinions, einendations, &c. being incorporated with those of the editor, as well as from the very high estimation in which the Doctor's character is every where held by the editor.
We are informed by Mr. Dibdin, that the edition of Cicero de Finibus, published by the Doctor's nephew, has been erroneously attributed to the Doctor himself. The same, we suspect, is the case with respect to the London Callimachus. The style and cast of the notes in both these volumes is very similar,—so much so, that we ourselves do not entertain a doubt about the matter. The former of them has nothing particular to recommend it; and it must be candidly confessed that the latter has as little. As to the encomium which Dr. Harwood has lavished upon it, who pronounces it “ not inferior to any edition of Callimachus,” this does not affect our opinion in the least. This extravagant and fulsome account of the work was not deduced from
examination into the merits of it, but is a miere translation from the Biblioteca Portatile degli Sutori Classici dall' Al. Mauro Boni e da Bartolommco Gamba, who call it “ Edizione non inferiore a verun' altra di Callimacho.”
Besides this, we are informed by Dr. Kippis, (see Class. Jour. No. ix. p. 282.] that the Doctor's nephew, Thomas Bentley,'
If we mistake not, we recollect to have seen a copy of this work, which ap. peared to have heen bound soon after its pablication, with the lettering on thie biuding expressive of the author being T. Bentley,
L. L. D. travelled through Europe at his uncle's expense, in order to collate all the MSS. of the Greek Testament, to which access could be obtained. The Vatican library could not have been overlooked by him on an occasion like this ; and hence it is that we may satisfactorily accoun: for the clause, “ Vidi ipse, cum Romæ essem,” &c.
Taking all this into consideration, we flatter ourselves that all such, as will give the question a fair and deliberate discussion, will readily incline to our way of thinking ; and that henceforth bibliographers will not desist from calling the London Callimachus Bentley's edition, although they may desist from calling it Dr. Richard Bentley's. 1812,
S. S. 1.
PINIONS which infancy has imbibed, and years have strengthened, it requires no moderate effort to shake off. This can only be effected by the fullest and clearest conviction of their futility.–Nature herself imperiously calls upon us, to repel an attempt to overthrow, what we have been long accustomed to believe, and which, whatever other claims it may want, time at least has rendered sacred.
A feeling of this sort, excited by lately perusing a paper, “ On the existence of Troy,” which appeared in the ninth number of the Classical Journal, has prompted me to offer a few remarks on that interesting subject, which you may perhaps think worthy of insertion.
Your correspondent begins, by urging the strong improbability, that the states of Greece in that rude and helpless state of society, should have been able to collect, equip, transport, and maintain abroad, an armament exceeding in force any that they could draw together several centuries afterwards on far more momentous occasions.”—Now, I maintain, that a barbarous state can always bring into the field a greater number of men, than the same state advanced to a higher degree of civilization. In a barbarous state, every man, more or less, acquires a livelihood by dint of arms, and by dint of arms maintains possession of what he has thus acquired; hence, every one is, in some measure, a soldier. That such was the early condition of the Greeks, Thucydides asserts, nãoue yürę 'Endes icidngopógiu, donde τας άφράκτους τε οικήσεις, και ουκ ασφαλείς παρ' αλλήλους εφόδους. But when a nation has arrived at a higher degree of refinement; when industry, instead of violence, procures wealth, and the laws, instead of arms, secure the possession of it; when wants are multiplied; when what were formerly luxuries, become necessaries ; then the martial spirit evaporates, and the majority of the population is occupied in supplying the wants, or gratifying the inclinations of the remainder.
Arguing on these general principles, I should say, that Greece not only might furnish the army mentioned by Homer, but might have poured forth one much greater, had she found it necessary or convenient.--For we find it expressly mentioned by Thucydides, that the Grecian armies in his times, (which were immediately succeeding the expedition of Xerxes, brought forward by your correspondent) were niore numerous than that which Homer describes εικός δε νομίζεις την στρατιαν εκείνην, μεγίστην μέν γενέσθαι των προ αυτής, λείπομένην δε των ούν τη Ομήρου αυ ποιήσει εί τι χρή κανταύθα πιστεύειν, ήν εικός επί το μείζον μεν ποιητών όντα κοσμήσαι, όμως δε φαίνεται και ούτως ενδεστέρα. Nay, he further asserts that the Homeric armament was by no means great, when considered as a national force : neos càs pesyiotas γούν και ελαχίστας ναύς το μέσον σκοπούντι, ου πολλοί φαίνονται ξυνελθόντες, ώς από πάσης της Ελλάδος κοινή πεμπόμενοι.
But your Correspondent thinks it next to impossible, that the little states of which Greece was composed could have been brought to co-operate in the execution of a plan, concerted, not for their own defence, not to avert impending ruin, but merely for the destruction of an inoffensive neighbouring city, and that too, “under the command of a leader not much superior to themselves in either rank or power.” I confess, it would seem somewhat improbable, that a whole nation should voluntarily take up arms, solely for the recovery of the run-away wife of one of their princes; but Thucydides considers this not to have been the case, but that the power and influence of Agamemnon, whose empire he shows to have been by no means inconsiderable, compelled his countrymen to assemble and engage in the expedition. 'Αγαμέμνων τέ μοι δοκεϊ, των τότε δυνάμει προύχων, και ου τοσούτον τοίς Τυνδάρεω όρκοις κατειλημμένους τους Ελένης μνηστήρας άγων, τον στόλος άγειραι. And again, την στρατιάν ου χάριτι το πλείον ή φόβω ξυναγαγών ποιήσασθαι. . And probably the states of Greece would find little reluctance in complying with such a command, since they would be doing nothing more than their daily habits of life accustomed them to do; they would be engaging in a free-booting enterprise, with the prospect of greater profits than they usually acquired, and without much greater risk than they frequently underwent: for we seldom see Troy mentioned without some epithet to distinguish the magnitude of its wealih, or the magnificence of its ornaments; and the Greeks seem to have been in the habit of invading, in insig. nificant numbers, the very country they were now to invade in a more formidable body και οι γαρ "Ελληνες το πάλαι, και των βαρβάρων ούτε έν τη ηπείρα παραθαλάσσιοι, και όσοι νήσους είχον, επειδή ήρξαντο μάλλον περαιούσθαι ναυσιν επ' αλλήλους, έτράποντο προς ληστείαν.
The army therefore in general, I should conceive, cared little about the ostensihle object of their invasion, the recovery of Helen; but like Pene. lope's suitors, were
“Non tantum Veneris, quantum studiosa culinæ." But next, where “are we told that the army remained nine years inactive in an enemy's country, where they could procure subsistence only by plundering the whole of that part of Asia Minor.?” On the