« PředchozíPokračovat »
αυτούς δέχoισθε, μαθείν χρή. Ει γαρ είρηται εν ταις σπονδαίς, εξείναι παρ' όποτέρους τις των αγράφων πόλεων βούλεται ελθείν, ου τους επί βλαβή ετέρων ιούσιν ή ξυνθήκη εστίν, αλλ' όστις μη άλλων εαυτόν αποστερών ασφαλείας δεύται, και όστις μη τοϊς δεξαμένοις, είσωφρονούσι, πόλεμον αντ' ειρήνης ποιήσει. The general meaning of the sentence is clear. The Corcyreans had kept aloof from the treaties of the rest of Greece. However, in the war which menaced Corcyra, they desired to obtain the assistance of Albens, which the Corinthians were unwilling they should receive. The Corinthians allege against them, that they were not included in the treaty : and, whereas there was a stipulation in that treaty in favor of those states which had not joined it, they contend that this stipulation was fouided ou certain terms : that no state who had signed the treaty had a right to assist a state who had not, to the detriment of another who had: and they alleged, that it would be very unwise in any state who had signed, to assist a state who had not signed, to the detriment of itself. It would be unreasonable to occupy the reader's attention with one half of the comments of the critics on this passage. But it is clear that they are very discordant. One puts a comma after őrtis, another after usi, a third after ärrwv; and Gottleber is of opinion that si owępovoūri is incommodum,' while some transfer it, in sense, to one member of the sentence, and others to another. These two last words are clearly of use: for would the following be sufficient : “ the treaty was not meant for those who would bring war instead of peace to the party who received them?” It was necessary to except here, that to be it supposed that it would be the petitioners' fault, if they caused war to those who granted their petition. If they should do without
fault of their own: if they should not be the cause of it, but those who received them: then, indeed, this exception were not to be made. This seems expressed by ei owo govoīdi.The real difficulty of the sentence seems to lie in araw ÉQUTÒN &Tootepov. If this is construed with the Bipont translation : ab altera parte deficientes :' then we are led to inquire how such a party can be ranked among the ypados tóxes. And yet this same difficulty occurs in another part of this chapter, where this sense seems correct: και τον νόμον μη καθιστάναι, ώστε τους ετέρων άφιOtQuévous dézsolar. So that we cannot remove the difficulty, if we were to translate arootegãy not by deficiens,' but by privans:' depriving himself of the assistance to be derived by a treaty with another party :-unless, indeed, we could translate ápiotapévous by, standing aloof from. This difficulty I leave to be solved by your readers.--As to the question of the mode of
punctuation in the words őrtis .... deitai, it will be altogether the same thing as to the sense, whether we take us and ärawy both before amorTepwv and deitai, or only before the one or the other. But it is probable that the first words were meant to be common to both the latter : and therefore it would be preferable to put no stop of any kind between όστις and δείται.
9.There is a passage in the Hecuba much more difficult than appears at first sight. It is I. 435-7. 'n P@s, APOGEITETU γαρ σον όνομ' έξεστί μοι.
Μέτεστι δ' ουδεν, πλήν όσον χρόνον ξίφους Βαίνω μεταξύ και πυράς 'Αχιλλέως. Polyxena had said, twenty lines before,-ού ποτ' αύθις, αλλά νύν πανύστατον 'Ακτίνα κύκλον bnaiou mposófonas. So that the general meaning is clear: “O light, for it is yet permitted me to address thee : but I have an interest in thy beams only for the time which shall intervene between this present moment and niy death.” But instead of these last words, which are perfectly plain, we have, “ only for the time which shall pass in my going between the sword and the pile.” But how did she go between the sword and the pile ? All that is said of her in her death is this : Ý dè xai bvñoκουσ', όμως Πολλήν πρόνοιαν είχεν ευσχήμως πεσείν.--Then, is the interval between her proceeding under the care of Ulysses to the tomb and her receiving the stroke of the sword passed over as too insignificant to be adverted to ?-Has the poet forgotten himself? Or, as is more likely, is the want of the complete understanding of this passage the fault of the writer of these re-marks and of some learned friends to whom these difficulties have been suggested?
10.-None of the commentators see any difficulty in the word nisi' in the Eunuch of Terence, Act. 3. Sc. 4. 1. 10: « Quid hoc hominis ? qui hic ornatu' est ? Quid illud mali est ? nequeo satis mirari, neque conjicere. Nisi quicquid est, procul binc lubet prius quid sit sciscitari.” Nisi,’ it is said, is put for 'sed:' and with this mode of accounting for it, all seem quite satisfied. But without reason : unless, indeed, we choose to suppose that an ellipsis in this construction became so common that it became as convenient to translate ' nisi 'by.sed,' without investigating that ellipsis. It may be true even that it was so common in the days of Terence, that'nisi' might be used for «sed' in this sense without making the slightest difference in point of construction. However, there must be reason for the use of the former for the latter; and we may perhaps find it in this case with a little trouble. I should suppose a kind of aposiopesis after ' nisi', in this sense: “ I cannot sufficiently wonder at it or make conjectures on it: unless indeed--but, whatever is the true
reason, I will, &c.” It appears almost as defensible to put no stop after. Quos ego,' in that well-known line of the Mantuan bard, Quos ego-sed motos præstat componere fluctus, as to put none after 'nisi ;' unless indeed, as before said, the frequency of the usage in the latter case took away the necessity of making out any ellipsis at all, or even of supposing
any to exist.
1.-Herodotus I. 52 : ανέθηκε σάκος τε χρύσεον πάν, ομοίως και αιχμήν στερεών πάσαν χρυσέην, το ξυστών τησι λόγχησι έoν ομοίως xgúreov. dórxn, says Wesseling, hastæ sPICULUM est. In this is nothing remarkable.-But there is a strangeness in the construction : αιχμήν πάσαν χρυσέην, το ξυστών τησι λόγχησι, &c. Had it been τη λόγχη, αιχμήν would have included with clearness and precision the handle and the point of the spear. But in one aizcus is one handle, but more than one point. I know not whether this singularity of expression has been before observed.
12.—The expression of Thucydides, apúuvar xpoúsobo, is not very easy to explain. It appears elliptical: and the Scholiast seems to have thought so, when he notes, énà a gúnyov. To back water' is the evident meaning of the phrase : by which is meant, not to turn the vessel round, but to repel instead of propelling it. Will the ellipsis be very ill supplied in this manner : κρούεσθαι (θάλασσαν επί) πρύμναν : to beat the sea towards the poop, i. e. with the oars; or, to row towards the poop instead of rowing towards the prow: in other words, to send the boat back instead of sending it forward?
13.-Virgil, v. 602: “Hac celebrata tenus sancto certamina patri. Hic primum Fortuna fidem mutáta novavit.” Dryden thus translates these lines: “Thus far the sacred sports they celebrate; But Fortune soon resumed her ancient hate.” It seems clear that 'mutata' does not inean, ceased from her ancient inode of action, and changed from an enemy to a friend; but, changed her mode of annoyance.
Novavit' is, renovavit, renewed. Pitt has mystified the meaning of the latter line so much, that it is difficult to know exactly what he meant by it: “ But soon the prince his changing fortune found, And in her turn the fickle goddess frown'd.” The word 'primum’is passed over by each translator; and also the word hic :' of which it is not easy to say if it refers to the games, or to the stay on the coast. In either case it may be equally taken for, hoc tempore, or, hoc loco.• Fortuna f. m. novavit' is explained by Taubmann thus briefly, but well : Alia fortuna evenit.
Introduction to the second edition of the Translation of
the MYSTICAL HYMNS of ORPHEUS, by THOMAS TAYLOR. 12mo. 1824.
Part II.-[Concluded from No. LVIII.] The following additional information respecting the Orphic theology, will greatly contribute to an elucidation of these Mystic Hymns : according to this theology, each of the Gods is in all, and all are in each, being ineffably united to each other and the highest God, because each being a superessential unity, their conjunction with each other is a union of unities. And hence it is by no means wonderful that each is celebrated as all. But another and a still more appropriate cause may be assigned of each of the celestial Gods being called by the appellations of so many other deities, which is this, that, according to the Orphic theology, each of the planets is fixed in a luminous etherial sphere called an olons, or wholeness,' because it is a part with a total subsistence, and is analogous to the sphere of the fixed stars. In consequence of this analogy, each of these planetary spheres contains a multitude of Gods, who are the satellites of the leading divinity of the sphere, and subsist conformably to his characteristics. This doctrine, which, as I have elsewhere observed, is one of the grand keys to the mythology and theology of the ancients, is not clearly delivered by any other ancient writer than Proclus, and has not, I believe, been noticed by any other modern author than myself. But the following are the passages in which this theory is unfolded by Proclus, in his admirable commentaries on the Timæus of Plato. “ In each of the celestial spheres, the whole sphere has the relation of a monad, but the cosmocrators (or planets) are the leaders of the multitude in each. For in each à number analogous to the choir of the fixed stars, subsists with appropriate circulations.” (See vol. ii. book iv. p. 270, of my translation of this work.) And in another part of the same book (p. 280), “ There are other divine animals following the circulations of the planets, the leaders of which are the seven planets ; all which Plato comprehends in what is here said. For these also revolve and have a wandering of such a kind as that which he a little before mentioned of the seven planets. For they re
'Each of these spheres is called a wholeness, because it contains a multitude of
volve in conjunction with and make their apocatastases together with their principals, just as the fixed stars are governed by the whole circulation (of the inerratic sphere).” And still more fully in p. 281, “ Each of the planets is a whole world, comprehending in itself many divine genera invisible to us. Of all these, however, the visible star has the government. And in this the fixed stars differ from those in the planetary spheres, that the former have one monad (viz. the inerratic sphere), which is the wholeness of them; but that in each of the latter there are invisible stars,
; which revolve together with their spheres; so that in each there is both the wholeness and a leader, which is allotted an exempt transcendency. For the planets being secondary to the fixed stars, require a twofold prefecture, the one more total, but the other more partial. But that in each of these there is a multitude co-ordinate with each, you may infer from the extremes. For if the inerratic sphere has a multitude co-ordinate with itself, and earth is the wholeness of terrestrial, in the same manner as the inerratic sphere is of celestial animals, it is necessary that each intermediate wholeness should entirely possess certain partial animals co-ordinate with itself; through which, also, they are said to be wholenesses. The intermediate natures, however, are concealed from our sense, the extremes being manifest; one of them through its transcendently luminous essence, and the other through its alliance to us. If, likewise, partial souls (such as ours) are disseminated about them, some about the sun, others about the moon, and others about each of the rest, and prior to souls, dæmons give completion to the herds of which they are the leaders, it is evidently well said, that each of the spheres is a world; theologists also teaching us these things when they say that there are Gods in each prior to dæmons, some of which are under the government of others. Thus for instance, they assert concerning our mistress the Moon, that the Goddess Hecate is contained in her, and also Diana. Thus, too, in speaking of the sovereign Sun, and the Gods that are there, they celebrate Bacchus as being there,
The Sun's assessor, who with watchful eye surveys
The sacred pole. They likewise celebrate the Jupiter who is there, Osiris, the solar Pan, and others of which the books of theologists and theurgists are full; from all which it is evident, that each of the planets is truly said to be the leader of many Gods, who give completion to its peculiar circulation.”
From this extraordinary passage (as I have observed in a note on it in my Proclus, p. 282) we may perceive at one view why the Sun in the Orphic Hymns is called Jupiter, why Apollo is called Pan, and Bacchus the Sun; why the Moon seems to be the same with Rhea, Ceres, Proserpine, Juno, Venus, &c. and in short, why