« VorigeDoorgaan »
celebrated ballad, which afforded a subject of emulation to contending wits, some years ago. Mr. Spencer's version is sprightly and elegant. The Teutonic, sublime, and terrible, are well given.
The Year of Sorrow is an original Poem, written to commemorate several domestic afflictions, which the course of that period had produced to the author. The idea of this piece is not very fortunate, for it consists merely of a string of epitaphs, without any other plan than that resulting from their dates. He who grieves by the Almanack, can hardly be expected to create much sympathy. There are, however, many good lines.
And art thou gone, Parent* and friend revered!
E'en at that hour the scheme of pleasure plann'd
'Breathe soft, Italian gales! and ye that wing
Vain was the hope-in Beauty's earliest pride,
Ere yet the green leaf of her days was come,
The death-storm rose, and swept her to the tomb!'-p. 44.
The short poem entitled the Visionary, is sweetly expressed; though it is little more than an expansion of a well-known phrase, the ghost of departed pleasure.
When midnight o'er the moonless skies
The Countess Dowager of Jenison Walworth, Mrs. Spencer's mother, died at Heidelberg in Germany.'
The shade of youthful hope is there,
The ballad of Beth Gelert has been so frequently printed, and has found so much favour with most readers, that we do not think it necessary to analyse it. The author has certainly dallied with the innocence' of his subject, like the old age.'
The Emigrant's Grave contains some pathetic lines, though the measure is unhappy :
Why mourn ye, why strew ye those flow'rets around
When he sang the glad song of more fortunate days!'-—pp. 134, 135. Of the French verses, as we cannot speak well, we shall say nothing. It is impossible to close the volume, without regretting the trifling direction which the author has given to talents and acquirements which might have attained much higher praise, by more vigorous exertion. Where we perceive so much taste and feeling, we are willing to suppose that attention to subjects requiring some thought and research, would have roused the author to strains of a deeper tone. But in the pages before us, the celebration of beauty supersedes all thought, or, at least, only leaves the author á disposition to be ingenious. To become a dangler of the muses is a propensity as unfortunate in literature, as a similar turn in gallantry. The first impulses of imagination, like those of the affections, are debased, if they are not directed to an estimable object; and the generous warmth of those early feelings can hardly be recalled in either case.
ART. XVI. Euripidis Supplices Mulieres, Iphigenia in Aulide, et in Tauris, cum Notis Jer. Marklandi integris, et aliorum selectis. Accedunt de Græcorum quinta Declinatione imparisy!labica, et inde formata Latinorum tertia, Quæstio Grammatica, Explicationes veterum aliquot Auctorum, Epistolæ quædam ad D'Orvillium data, cum Indicibus necessariis. Oxonii. 1811. pp. 544.
4to. et 8vo.
OUT UT of the long list of our countrymen 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 Tyrwhitt, 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,† 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 appli
sation to the minutia 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 Jomnes Toupius at length, he called himself in Latin Jo. Topius. He adopts this contraction in his Emendationes in Suidam, and he is called Jo. Toupius by Dr. Burney, who writes at full length the names of the other six Magnanii Heroes.' The old controversy respecting Consul Tertium and Consul Tertio was decided in the same manner. A. Gellius, L. X, cap. 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 his blindness in not discovering that William Warburton was the first divine, philo sopher, 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 blockhead 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.* Markland'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 the 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 eminent 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 his Commentary 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, the Supplices of Euripides and the Commentary of Markland, together with the Quæstio Grammatica, and the Explicationes Veterum 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
It may also be said with great truth, that Magnanimous 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 account 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 ad 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 copics, 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: Out) тóvde maïdes, recte Barnesius) TOUTOU TÉxva; If Markland is correct, the Codex Regius 2817 reads rävde instead of róvds. If Musgrave is correct, the same manuscript reads TouTwv instead of roúrou. If Markland, as well as Musgrave, had actually examined the manuscript in question, we should be tempted to suspect that the MS. reads both Tvde παῖδες and τούτων τέκνα, 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
VOL. VII. NO, XIV.