Art. XVI. Euripidis Supplices Mulieres, Iphigenia in Aulide,

et in Tauris, cum Notis Jer. Marklandi integris, et aliorum selectis. Accedunt de Græcorum quinta Declinatione imparisyllabica, et inde formata Latinoruin tertia, Quastio Grammatica, Explicationes veterum oliquot Auctorum, Epistola quadum ad D’Orvillium duta, cum Iudicibus necessariis. Oxonii. 1811. 4to, et 8vo. pp. 544. QUT of the long list of our countrymcu who cultivated Greek

literature during the eighteenth century, seven names of distinguished eminence have lately been selected by a very competent judge of the subject, who, if it were not for the unfortunate circumstance of his being still alive, would be fairly entitled to a place at the first table of grammatical or critical fame in preference to more than one of the guests whom he has admitted to it. These guests are Richard Bentley, Richard Dawes, Jeremiah Markland, John Taylor, Jonathan or John Toup,* Thomas Tyrwbitt, and Richard Porson. We do not object to this selection, although we are not quite certain that one of the preceding names ought not to be exchanged for that of Samuel Musgrave. To be one of seven or eight men who have attained the greatest eminence in a department of knowledge to the pursuit of which hundreds have devoted the greater part of their lives, must be acknowledged to be no inconsiderable achievement. The following character of Markland, which is contained in one of Hurd's letters to Warburton, and which we transcribe from the publication now before us,t must unquestionably be considered as a caricature.

• After all, I believe the author is a good man, and a learned; but a miserable instance of a man of slender parts and sense, besotted by a fondness for his own peculiar study, and stupified by an intense application to the minutive of it.'

Much of the asperity of this censure is, of course, to be attributed to that noble contempt, which men of cultivated understandings so frequently feel for literary and scientific pursuits different from their own. As, however, the bishop does not appear to have despised all verbal critics, and as the bishop's patron was also the

* . It is remarkable, that though his name was Jonathan, in his later writings [for instance, in the title-page and dedication of his edition of Longinus) he always calls himself in Latin Joannes 'Toupius. In some of the books he had when young, he has written E Libris Jona. Toup.'--Gentleman's Magazine, March, 1785, p. 186. Before he became bold enough to write Joannes Toupius at length, he called himself in Latin Jo. Topius. He adopts this contraction in his Emendutiones in Suidam, and he is called Jn. Toupius by Dr. Burney, who writes at full length the names of the other six • Magnanini Bleroës.' The old controversy respecting Consul Tertium and Consul Tertio was decided in the same manner. A. Gellius, L. X, cap. 1. 1 See pp. 148 and 149 of the first part or volume.


patron of Toup, it is probable, that the low esteem in which poor Markland was held, arose, in some degree, from bis blindness in not discovering that William Warburton was the first divine, philosopher, and critic of the age, and that Richard Hurd was the second. We are willing to recur to any mode of accounting for Hurd's unfavourable opinion of Markland's mental faculties, rather than to allow the enemy to maintain, on such grave authority, that, if labour and patience be not wanting, any blochlead may be fashioned into what is commonly called a great scholar. At the same time, it is not our intention to assert that Markland was a man of genius, or that he possessed a very vigorous understanding. When Dr. Burney saluted him by the name of Magnanimous Hero,' we apprehend that it was not Dr. Burney's intention that the expression should pass current for the highest value at which it is capable of being estimated.* Marklaud's literary character is not very difficult to describe. He was endowed with a respectable portion of judgment and sagacity. He was very laborious, loved retirement, and spent a long life in the study of !he Greek and Latiu languages. For modesty, candour, literary honesty, and courteous: ness to other scholars, he is justly considered as the model which ought to be proposed for the imitation of every critic. Gifted as he was, we are not aware that he could have applied his faculties to any object, with more credit to himself and more advantage to others, than to the cultivation of ancient literature. He certainly would not have been eininent as a theologian, a metaphysician, a political economist, an historian, a poet, an orator, a writer of farces, or a reviewer.

Of all Markland's critical writings, which are numerous, the most elaborate, as well as the most generally esteemed, is bis Come mentary on the Supplices of Euripides. This work, after it had lain by for several years, was given by the author to the late Dr. Heberden, with full liberty either to print it or to burn it. Dr. Heberden politely chose the former alternative, and, accordingly, in the year 1763, when Markland was more than seventy years of age,t the Supplices of Euripides and the Commentary of Markland, together with the Quæstio Grammatica, and the Explicationes Ve. terum aliquot Auctorum, mentioned in the title of this article, were very elegantly printed by William Bowyer in a thin quarto volume. The press was corrected by Dr. Jortin. A second edition, in octavo, with several additions, omissions, and corrections, was pub

[ocr errors]

* It

may also be said with great truth, that Maynanimous Heroes is not a fair translation of Magnanimi Heroës. See Warburton's translation of Thomas Bentley's dedication of his Horace. Notes to the Dunciad, B. II, v. 205.

+ Markland died on the 7th of July, 1776. In a short acconnt of his life, inserted in the Annual Register for that year, he is said to have been born in August, 1699.

lished in the year 1775. Markland's notes on the Iphigenia in Aulide, and Iphigenia in Tauris, which are much less copious and valuable than those on the Supplices, were published in octavo in the year 1771, and were never reprinted until the appearance of the present volume.

In correcting the text of these three plays, Markland derived great assistance from the collation of three manuscripts in the Royal Library at Paris, which was communicated to him by Musgrave, and of which Musgrave himself afterwards made use in preparing his own edition of Euripides. Only two of these copies are manuscripts in the strict sense of the word. In the catalogue of the MSS. of the Royal Library they are numbered 2887 and 2817. The former is called A by Markland and E by Musgrave. The latter is called B by Markland and G by Musgrave. The third copy, which is called C by Markland and P by Musgrave, is thus described in Musgrave's list : Liber Impressus ejusdem Bibliothecæ, collatus cum MSto usque ud finem Iphigenia Taurica. In the library of Wadham College, Oxford, there is a copy of the Aldine edition of Euripides, collated with an unknown manuscript in some of the plays. This collation is called Codex Oxoniensis by Markland, who has made no use of it except in the Iphigenia in Tauris.

On comparing the various readings of the three Parisian copies, as they are exhibited by Markland, with Musgrave's representation of them, we observe that each of these editors has neglected to mention several readings which are noticed by the other, and which, in our opinion, ought to have been noticed by both. We also observe that Markland and Musgrave sometimes differ in their representation of the readings of the same passage in the same manuscript. In the Supplices, for instance, the common reading of v. 106 is as follows: Oi Cục Thu: 250k, (racte Barnesius) TOUTOU Téxva; If Markland is correct, the Codex Regius 2817 reads rüyos instead of tóvos. If Musgrave is correct, the same manuscript reads TOÚTW instead of TOUTOU. If Markland, as well as Musgrave, had actually examined the manuscript in question, we should be tempted to suspect that the MS. reads both tuvos παϊδες and τούτων πέκνα, and that each collator had been guilty of a different oversight. But Markland's acquaintance with the Parisian manuscripts appears to have been derived entirely from Musgrave's collation. It is evident, therefore, that, in the present instance, either Markland or Musgrave has unintentionally misrepresented the reading of one of those manuscripts. There is nothing extraordinary in these omissions and misrepresentations, against which the greatest care and attention will hardly secure an editor. It frequently happens that two accounts of the readings of the YOL. VII. NO, XIV.



same manuscript differ so widely from each other, as almost to outweigh the strongest evidence of the identity of the copies from which the collations are taken.

Markland's editions of these three tragedies having become scarce, we should have been glad to see a reimpression of them, even if it had been made without any improvement. This, however, is very far from being the case in the present instance. Although the editor of the volume (or rather volumes) now before us does not name himself, it is well known that the publication of it was superintended by Mr. Gaisford, of Christ Church, Oxford, who has lately been appointed Regius Professor of Greek in that University. We are informed by Mr. Gaisford, in a very short advertisement, that he has occasionally altered Markland's text, although never without sufficient authority; that to Markland's notes he has added a selection from those of Musgrave and others; and that he has been enabled to enrich the present edition with a number of short tes copied from Mr. Porson's writing in the margins of his copies of the preceding editions. Many of Mr. Porson's notula are very curious and valuable, and their number is considerable. If we did not foresee that this article will be intolerably long, we would point out the principal improvements of the text of which Mr. Porson is the author. With the greatest of all these improvements the friends of ancient literature are already well acquainted:-we mean the rejection of the last scene of the Iphigenia in Aulide, beginning with v. 1539. Several verses in this scene had excited the suspicions of Markland. For instance, v. 1589. Ης αίματι βωμός ερραίνετάρδην της θεού.

Among other improvements in this edition, we ought to mention the readings of the Aldine edition, which are only occasionally mentioned by Markland, but which Mr. Gaisford has represented Very diligently and faithfully. Mr. Gaisford has also printed the commentary on the Supplices in such a manner as distinctly to eshibit the variations of the quarto and octavo editious. To the Explicctiones Veterum aliquot Auctorum Mr. Gaisford has subjoined five letters from Markland to D'Orville, copied from the originals in the Bodleian Library.* We are afraid that grown gertlemen, who wish to refresh their knowledge of Greek, will hardly allow us to include among these improvements the omission of the Latin version.

* In one of these letters, Marklandi enters into the tiresome and absurd disputes betwein D'Orville and De Pauw, (the Peacock,) and talks of Tota grex absora de corte Junonin. It is difficult to be witty and wise at the same time, and, accordingly, rather mure than a year afterwards, Markland discovered, on reading over the foul copy of his letter, the the ought :o have said Tolus grea alisonus. It is a proof of the tranquillity of his tew per, that this discovery appears not to have affected his health.

In Markland's own editions, the verses of these three plays are numbered exactly as in the edition of Barnes, with the exception of about a hundred lines at the end of the Supplices, in which Markland has produced a small variation, by counting, as two verses, v. 1127 of Barnes's edition. In Mr. Gaisford's edition of the Supplices, the first song of the Chorus, which is printed according to the arrangement of Dr. Burney, contains eleven lines more than in Markland's edition. Mr. Gaisford has also made one verse of vv. 278 and 279 of Markland's edition. In consequence of these two alterations, the verse which is numbered 280 in Markland's edition is numbered 290 by Mr. Gaisford. This difference is continued to the end of the play. Mr. Gaisford has not altered the numbers in the two other plays, and in Markland's Commentary on the Supplices Mr. Gaisford has exhibited Markland's numeration as well as his own. We adhere to the numeration of Barnes and Beck.

It is almost unnecessary to inform the reader, that notwithstanding the labours of Markland, the text of these three tragedies was full of difficult and corrupt passages. The number of these passages is, indeed, greatly reduced in the present edition, but it is still very considerable. The Iphigenia in Aulide, in particular, which is one of the finest of our author's tragedies, is so much depraved, that great part of the pleasure which ought to arise from the perusal of it, is lost to the reader. Could we hope that the present number of our Review would find its way into the study of Mr. Frederic Henry Bothe at Berlin, we would earnestly recommend the Iphigenia in Aulide to his earliest consideration. We have perused, with infinite delight, the fourteen adınirable Greek tragedies which he has composed on the subjects of the fourteen surviving plays of Æschylus and Sophocles. By retaining all that is tolerable in the original tragedies, and by adding much that is excellent of his own, Mr. Bothe has produced two sets of dramatic compositions, which are as much superior to their prototypes, as the Orlando Inamorato of Berni is superior to that of Boiardo. Hereafter, the original Æschylus and the original Sophocles must be considered in the same light as the 'Sis Old Plays, on which six of Shakspeare's plays are founded.' We are not certain that the task of re-writing the Iphigenia in Aulide could not be executed in England. But Mr. Bothe has already obtained possession of the ground, and it seems reasonable that he should be maintained in it.

We must not be understood as meaning to insinuate that passages which we are unable to explain or correct are inexplicable or incorrigible, when we profess to believe, that many of the difficulties and corruptions of these three plays are placed far beyond the reach of criticisin. It is possible, indeed, that manuscripts may G G2


[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »