« EdellinenJatka »
delight so in their Negative Argumentations, I can help them with one more I believe, never any of the Fathers said it was Lawtul. What is the Reason? They were better Orators than so. It had been a cold Expression to tell them, that was Lawful which no Man Doubted to be Divine, whoever said it is Lawful to Fear God, and tis no Sin to believe in Christ?
Away with these Scrupulous and Contradictious Spirits. Let's make use of these Words of our Advocate Agnoscat Paier Filii sui verba, God said once from Heaven, This is my Beloved Son, hear him : When we Repeat this Prayer we might Return these Words again, this is thy Beloved Son, hear him. Who would Refuse that Petition which was Pen’d by him, who was first to promote it as our Advocate, and after to answer it as our Judge? And thus have I done with my Third and last observable Individuatio determinationis, the Pater Noster, when ye pray, say, Our Father. But now I have done with my Text, and seriously Refect upon my Former Discourse. To what end is all this? To what purpose do I labour thus to decide these Controversies? The Jews have been so wise as to Refer their Difficulties to the coming of Elias, and cannot we stay till the Synod be convened ? What if the Carthaginian and Milevitan Councils have determined for Set Forms, what if the Council of Toledo Enacted a Days Repetition of the Lord's-Prayer? Alas they pretended but to one Holy Ghost among them all? We are like to have divers Spirits in one. They were chosen but by the Clergy, These shall be Elected by a Representative Body of a whole Kingdom. Besides, they never had any yet out of America. We shall have some of Columbus's discoveries, and of the Spirit which moves upon the Pacifick Waters. Therefore to conclude in a Word, whosoever will not freely submit his Judgment with all the Obedience of Faith to the determination of such a Synod, he deserves no better than to be counted a Member of the Catholick Church.
Aristophanis Comedie ex optimis eremplaribus emendate studio,
Rich. Franc. Phil. Brunck, Argentoratensis, tom. 1. Lysistrata, Thesmosphoriazusa, Rane, Plutus, Latini, pag. 122. præfatio Editoris 10. cæden fabulæ Græcè. 295. nota, 291. tom. 2. Ecclesiazusa, Nubes, Aves, Vespa. Latinè 199. Græcè 310. notæ 257. tom. 3. Equites Acharnenses, Par, Latinè, 128. Gracè, 205. Fragmenta, 209-291. Notæ 162. Addenda Fragmentis, 163– 172. Addenda notis in omnes fabulas, 175–228. Inder verborum (not puged) 168. sro. Elmsly, 21. 2s.60. Extracted from Maly's New Revirw for July, 1783, and Written by Professor
Before I give an account of the editor's merits, it niay not be improper to say a word of the excellencies and defects of the author ; especially as some modern critics have thought proper not only to greet him with the title of a scurrilous and indecent buffoon, but to
wonder how such monstrous farces could be endured by the chaste ears of an Attic audience. That many should have been greatly exasperated with Aristophanes, for publicly exhibiting Socrates on the stage, and making him speak and act in a manner most inconsistent with his known character, is not surprising; but as the accusation urged by some against the poet, of being instrumental to Socrates's death, has been substantially refuted by many critics; so the present editor lias very judiciously observed, with regard to the other part of the charge, that Socrates is not so much the object of ridicule in the Comedy of the Clouds, as the philosophers in general, who, of whatever benefit the lessons and example of Socrates himself might be to the state, were, from their idle lives, their minute, ridiculous, and sometimes impious disquisitions, highly prejudicial to their disciples, and, by consequence, to the public. If, says Mr. Brunck, Aristophanes had really in the smallest degree contributed to the death of Socrates, it is not credible that Plato would have introduced them in his Symposium, sitting together at the same table; it is not credible that he would have been so great an adınirer of him as to write an epigram ia his praise; containing a most extravagant compliment -- Missa igitur hæc faciamus—of the indecency which abounds in Aristophanes, mjustifiable as it certainly is, it may however be observed, that different ages differ extremely in their ideas of this offence. Among the ancients
, plain speaking was the fashion; nor was that ceremonious delicacy introduced, which has taught men to abuse each other with the utmost politeness, and express the most indecent ideas in the most modest language. The ancients had little of this. They were accustomed to call a spade a spade; to give every thing its proper nanie. There is another sort of indecency; which is infinitely more dangerous ; which corrupts the heart without oftending the ear. 1 believe there is no man of sound judgment who would not sooner let his son read Aristophanes than Congreve or Vanbrugh. In all Aristophanes's indecency there is nothing that can allure, but much that must deter. He never dresses up the most detestable vices in an amiable light; but generally, by describing them in their native colors, makes the reader disgusted with them. His abuse of the most eminent citizens may be accounted for upon similar principles. Bes:les, in a Republic, freedom of speech was deemed an essential privilege of a citizen. Demosthenes treats his adversaries with such language as would, in our days, be reckoned scurrilous enough; but it passed, in those days, without any notice or reprehension. The world is since greatly altered for the better. We have, indeed, retained the matter, but judiciously introduced more delicacy into the manner. In his plots too, it must be owned, Aristophanes is sometimes faulty. It ought however to be observed, that his contemporary comic poets did not pique themselves upon the artful management
Aristophanes has therefore the usual failing of dramatic writers, to introduce speeches, and even scenes, not much conducing to the business of the drama. But if the only use of the plot be, as the great Bayes bas decided, to bring in good things, our poet will stand totally clear on this head of the charge, and the Knights may be mentioued as an honorable exception even to this censure, as
of the plot.
the design of the play, to expose Cleon, and to turn him out of his place, is admirably supported from beginning to end.-To sum up Aristophanes's character, if we consider his just and severe ridicule of the Athenian foibles, his detestation of the expensive and ruinous war in which Greece was engaged; his pointed invectives against the factious and interested demagogues, by whom the populace was deluded; "who bauled for freedom in their senseless mood;" his coutempt of the useless and frivolous inquiries of the Sophists; his wit and versatility of style; the astonishing playfulness, originality
, and fertility of his imagination; the great harmony of versification, whenever the subject required it, and bis most refined elegance of language; in spite of Dr. Beattie's dictuin, we shall look over his blemishes, and allow that, with all his faults, he might be a very good Citizen, and was certainly an excellent Poet.
The learning, industry, and sagacity of Mr. Brunck, are well known to the literati, by his elegant editions of some of the Greek Tragedies ; the Analecta Veterum Poetarum, and Apollonius Rhodius. The present volumes are nearly of the same size with the Analecta; but the types in which the text is printed are the same with that of the Greek Tragedies. I am told most readers complain of the diminutive size of the character, and I must confess I should have been better pleased if the editor bad employed the same types in this work as in the Analecta ; it would have spared the reader's eyes, and, perhaps, have rendered the typographical errors fewer than they are at present. Mr. Brunck has had, for the use of this edition, (besides all the former editions of any consequence) the collations of many manuscripts; in the Plutus, Nubes and Rana, five (the collation of one does not appear but in the Addenda); in the Equites, Acharnenses, Aves, and Lysistrata, three; in the Vespæ, Pax, and Ècclesiazusæ, two; in the Thesmophoriazusą, but one. By the help of these manuscripts, the observations of critics, and his own reading, he has been enabled not only to purge the text from innumerable usurpations, but sometimes to supply chasms in it: an instance or two of which I shall give in the progress of this article. The ingenious critic apologises (or rather does not apologise) for having left some faulty readings in the text (which either critical sagacity, or the assistance of MSS. would have removed) on account of the great hurry in which he was obliged to write his notes. To me, I own, this reason seems not entirely satisfactory.—" Quod olim libroriim descriptoribus sæpissimè evenit, id et ego quandoque passus sum; nec hujus inconsiderantiæ necesse duco ut me purgem, veniamque petam; quin mirari subit lætarique bonam fortunam frequentioribus istiusmodi lapsibus mihi cavisse; maximè quum recordor, partem haud minimam istarum tabularum à me descriptam iterum fuisse, dum in Muisto meu vel ludebat filius meus, quo animum meum nihil magis adsertit oblectatque, vel confabulabantur boni quidam viri, qui quot fore diebus borisque matutinis ad me visere solent.”—Tantampe rem tam negligenter ? I think in such a tase I should have sent Master Brunck out of the room. Pugh! says Mr. B. (or I suppose
would say, if he read Shakspeare) “ He talks to me that never had a son.” But to be serious : what right has any nran to publish a work of this
kind in a hurry? Mr. B. I believe, is not in tbat unfortunate situation, which some learned men have experienced, to be obliged to publish as fast as the avarice or tyranny of booksellers required. There have too been some writers who, in publishing a book, have had a provident eye to the future, and taken care to reserve a sufficient quantity of additions to adorn the second impression. But this gentleman's character and circumstances will not suffer us to entertain the slightest suspicion, that he will ever change from Mr. Brunck into Simonides. (Vid. Aristoph. Pac. 697.)-Mr. Brunck, in his notes, is frequently engaged with the Parisian Professor, and the flower of the French critics, as le calls them, (to wit) Messrs. Vauvilliers and Dupuy, the former of whom lately published an edition of Sophocles, the latter has passed some censures upon Mr. Brunck's critical works. Thus far perhaps, he may be readily excused, 'Ως ουχ υπάρχων, αλλά τιμωρούμενος : but I am at a loss to account for the asperity with which he treats Kuster and Bergler, to the latter of whom he is scarcely more merciful than he was to Mr. Shaw in his edition of Apollonius. Bergler with him is fungus, stipes, bardus, and what not. If Mr. B. is better qualified than Kuster and Bergler to publish Aristophanes (as doubtless he is by far,) "let him give God thanks, and make no boast of it;” but why triumph over men who are not in a condition to return the attack? Παϊε, παύ, δέσποθ' “Ερμή, μη λέγε: 'Αλλ' έα τον άνδρ' εκείνον, ούπερ έστ' είναι κάτω.
I now proceed to give some instances of the improvements made in this edition. The plan of the Lysistrata is as follows: the women, grieved at the long continuance of the war, seize the acropolis, where the public money was kept, and resolve to keep the men at a distance till a peace shall be concluded. Upon this a dialogue ensues between Lysistrata and Probulus, the heroine and hero of the play.
V. 487. “Ότι βουλόμεναι την ακρόπολιν ημών απεκλείσατε μοχλούς. In some other editions it is printed την πόλιν ημών απεκλείσατε τους Moymoīs. Mr. Brunck has inserted very justly Dawes's emendation in the text, "Οτι βουλόμενοι την πόλιν ημών απεκλείσατε τοϊσι μοχλοίσιν. The corruption no doubt arose from the explanation of the scholiast being written above the text: nj Trónus of itself signifies the acropolis. I cannot help submitting it to Mr. Brunck's judgment, whether in Plutus 772, instead of the vulgar reading x AelvÒV Tédoy, we should not read xeiviTróxy from Stephanus Byzant. v. 'Alīvo. But perhaps Hemsterhuis has sufficiently defended the other reading; for I must own, though with the utmost fear of incurring Mr. Brunck's displeasure (vid. not. in Plut. 327.) that I am not possessed of Heinsterhuis's edition.
Ημείς υμάς σώσομεν, ΠΡ. υμείς ; Λ. ημεις μέντοι. Π.
σχέτλιόν γε: Λ. 'Αλλ' αποδεκτέα ταύτ' έστιν όμως: Π. Μη την Δήμητρ', άδικόν γε. 'AXX' Todextréa is a conjectural emendation, first inserted in the Venetian edition; ingenious enough, but wrong. The first edition has 'Aix' dmoxtéc which comes nearer the true reading, restored by Mr. B. from two MSS. 'Ana Touréx.—But the MS. not only amends but supplies the text: for Mr. B. has inserted the following verse upon the authority of the MS, after verse 498.
Λ. Ως σωθήσει καν μή βούλη. Π. Δεινόν γε λέγεις. Λ. Αγανακτείς, 'Αλλά π. &c.
Mr. Brunck is not in general very gracious to Kuster when be finds him negligent in smaller matters. But what would he have said had he known, that in the very manuscript wbich Kuster used, not only the true reading of the 3d verse was preserved, but the second verse fairly and plainly written ?-Though he might have guessed something of the kind from the Scholiast, to whose words a part of the verse in question is prefixed.
Κ. 519. ο δε μ' ευθύς υποβλέψας έφασκεν· κ' ει μη τον στήμονα νήσων
Και ταύτα καλύμματα φέρε
*Λ. Σιώπα. Π. Σοί γ, ω κατάρατε, σιωπή γω και ταύτα κάλυμμα φορούση Περί την κεφαλής και μη ύν ζην. Λ."Αλλα ει τούτ' εμπόδιόν σοι, &c.
In the Nubes, after v. 969. Mr. B. has inserted a verse, which Mr. Valckenaer first discovered to belong to this place (from Suidas, v. χιάζειν.)
Ει δέ τις αυτών βωμολοχεύσαιτο, ή κάμψειέν τινα καμπής,
Instead of this latter fragment, Kuster's edition has, Καί σοι το περί τούτων δή μάχεθαι. These Mr. Brunck Ihas restored to sense and metre by slightly altering the realing of the MS. II. Ουχί μαχούνται,
του; Π. Θάρξει, μη δείσης ουχί μαχούνται. Β. Περί του; Π. του μη ξυγκαταδαρθείν και σοι τοιούτον υπάρξει.
In the Thesmophoriazusæ, the women are gathered together to consult about some method of punishment for Euripides, who had so grossly traduced and scandalised them on the stage. When the assenbly is met, the herald speaks to this effect, (v. 372.) “ Hear every one; the female senate decreed (Timoclea was president, Lysicla clerk, Sostrata speaker) to hold an assembly early in the morning, on the middle day of the Thesmoplhoria: Εκκλησίαν ποιείν έωθεν τη μέση των θεσμοφορίων, ήν άλις έσθ' ημίν σχολή. So Kuster's edition. Davies (on Cicero de Legy. I. 10.) and Spanheim (on Callimach. H. in Jov. 84.) quotes the latter verse to prove that äns may be joined with a nominative. · Dawes (Misc. Crit. p. 235.) perceiving a solecism