Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

power, to imitate this divine attribute, and co-operate as much as may be with the beneficent views of our creator.

The system of benevolence has found two very able 'advocates in Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. Hutcheson, who have rested its foundation upon less abstract speculations, and have appealed to facts, and what we observe in the world of the moral estimates of mankind. There, say they, we find that a virtuous action is approved of in exact proportion to the degree of benevolence which has produced it; and when we discover any degree of self-love to have had a share in its motive, this we uniformly consider as an abatement of its merit. “ In short,” says Hutcheson, “ we always see actions, which flow from public love, accompanied with generous boldness and openness; and not only malicious, but even selfish ones, the matter of shame and confusion; and that men study to conceal them. The love of private pleasure is the ordinary occasion of vice; and when men have got any lively notions of virtue, they generally begin to be ashamed of every thing which betrays selfishness, even in instances where it is innocent. We are apt to imagine, that others, observing us in such pursuits, form mean opinions of us, as too much set on private pleasure; and hence we shall find such enjoyments in most polite nations, concealed from those who do not partake with us.” (Inquiry concerning moral good and evil, sect. 5.) These authors have likewise exhibited in glowing colors the pleasure which arises from the performance of benevolent actions; a pleasure which they justly represent as far superior to the gratifications of sense ; and in this way they have very meritoriously endeavoured to excite mankind to that line of conduct which promises most fairly to promote the welfare of the species.

This view of the principal duties of human nature is doubtless far more pleasing than that contained in the selfish system, and much more calculated to produce conviction on the unperverted mind. Yet pleasing and amiable as it is, it cannot be considered as unexceptionable, and is indeed fraught with consequences by no means favorable to true virtue. By representing actions as meritorious solely in proportion to the good which they confer upon our fellow-creatures, it authorises the dangerous doctrine, that the means are sanctioned by the end. On such a principle, theft, robbery, and every kind of violence, might be justified, as they may be made the means of benefiting certain individuals ; and to take away the superfluities of the ‘rich and bestow them on the poor, would certainly be a benevolent action, even though accomplished by unlawful means. According to this system, too, there would neither be merit nor demerit in those actions which did not directly affect the interests of our neighbours; so that we might tell the truth or not, as it suited us, if the lie did no harm to any one; or in conferring a favor, we might bestow it on an indifferent person, as well as upon one who had obliged us, since the good produced, in both cases, would be precisely the same. Thus it appears that the system of benevolence makes no provision for sạch virtues as veracity, honesty, or gratitude. The same inordinate love

. of simplicity, which we perceive in the selfish theory of duty, is also manifest in the system of benevolence; like the selfish system, it exhi

a

bits a partial and incomplete, though doubtless a far more amiable and attractive, view of human nature.

Many writers upon morality, who have evinced the strongest interest in the welfare of the human race, have been inclined to deduce man's perception of duty, or of that line of conduct which he ought to pursue, from the principle of piety, or 'an obedience to the will of God; such is the foundation on which a late eminent writer on morals, Archdeacon Paley, chooses to rest the obligations of moral sanction : but though it be granted that the divine will is paramount to every other consideration, it is difficult to conceive how unassisted reason can attain to the knowledge of the divine will, unless we suppose certain principles of moral discrimination to be inherent in man, by means of which he is enabled to infer what may be the will of the Divinity in particular cases of conduct.

All of these systems of duty seem alike to err from an undue regard to simplicity, and a desire to reduce to some one principle the various motives by which men are prompted to act, when they duly perform their part in the great drama of life. The truth appears to be, that the motives of human conduct are of a nature by far too complicated to admit of being reduced to any one generally pervading principle, and the relations in which man is placed are such as to subject him to the obligation of more than one general class of duties. His duties, however, or leading principles of action, may be reduced to a few general classes, without much difficulty; and if these classes seem to be essentially distinct from each other, or not included the one within the other, this is certainly a much safer way of treating of many duties, or active principles, than the attempt to derive them all from

Under one or other of the three following heads, the active principles of man seem naturally to arrange themselves—1st. Those active principles which are selfish, or which tend chiefly to promote the advantage of the individual. 2d. Those which are social, or which have other men for their object. 3d. Those which are moral, or which seem to have a higher sanction than either our own advantage, or the interest of society. On each of these classes of active principles, I shall make a few observations.

one source.

The Scholiast on Hephæstion, and an Ode of Anacreon mutually

illustrated.

Tue Scholiast, in chapter 7. tigi toï 'Avaxqporrbov, (see Gaisford's
Hephæstion, p. 172.) describes the ancient 'Anacreontic verse, as
composed of an iambic dimeter acatalectic.
In this metre we have a fragment, preserved in Hephæstion,

'E&W TE dñta x' oux tew,

Και μαίνομαι και ου μαίνομαι. But Hephæstion informs us also, (p. 29. Gaisford's Heph.) that Anacreon composed whole Odes in it.

x

a

a

The Scholiast then proceeds as follows:

Οι δε νεώτεροι διαιρούσιν αυτό είς τε κώλα έξ, και εις δύο. και τα μεν εξ κώλά φασιν οίκους, τα δε δύο κουκούλιον και επιδέχονται οι μεν οίκοι ανάπαιστου, και δύο ιάμβους, και περιττήν συλλαβών, οίον,

από του λίθου το ρείθρον. Το δε τούτουν κουκούλιον συγκειται έκ τε του ελάσσονος των δισυλλάβων ποδών, τουτέστι του πυρριχίου, και εκ του μείζονος, ήτοι του σπονδείου, και έχει εν μέν ταϊς περιτταϊς χώραις τον ελάσσονα, εν δε ταϊς αρτίοις τον μείζονα, οίον,

αρετής εύστεφάνου άνθεα δρέψας. "Έστι δε ότε και από χοριάμβου άρχεται ο τοιούτος στίχος, κ. τ. λ. οίον,

Χριστιανών μακάρων έλθετε παίδες. As the learned Editor of Hephaestion has left the word κουκούλιος unexplained, I will hazard a conjecture as to its meaning. I believe it to be a Greek, or rather Romaic, word, formed from the barbarous Latin cuculium, a diminutive from cucullus. It is then the cowl or cupola to the house, or stanza of six lines.

The Anacreontic Ode, which is composed after the preceding rule, is 62 in Barnes's edition. I will transcribe the whole by way of illustration. Θεάων άνασσου, Κύπρι,

οίκος
Ιμερε, κράτος χθονίων,
Γάμε, βιότοιο φύλαξ,
Υμέας λόγοις λιγαίνω,
Υμέας στίχους κυδαίνω,
"Ιμερον, γάμος, Παφίων.
Δέρκεο την νεανιν, δερκερ, κούρε: κουκούλιος
*Εγριο, μη σε φύγη Πέρδικος άγρα.
Στρατόκλεις, φίλος Κυθήρης,

οίκος
Στρατόκλεις, άνερ Μυρίλλης,
"Ιδε την φίλην γυναίκα.
Κομάει, τέθηλα, λάμπει.
Ρόδον άνθέων ανάσσει
“Ρόδον εν κόραις Μύριλλα.
Hέλιος τα σέθεν δέμνια φαίνοι

κουκούλιο» Κυπάριστος δε πεφύκοι, σαν ένα κήπω. Barnes, with sagacity enough to suspect that the preceding Ode is not genuine, nevertheless wastes his time in reducing each line to some supposed metre, and does not seem to have perceived, that the whole is to be measured not by the quantity of time, but by the mere number of syllables. I have observed in my essay on the Lyric Metres of Anacreon, that, as the language declined, rhythm became neglected, and was superseded by syllabic versification, without the smallest regard to rhythm, or musical proportion, or what is more commonly called quantity.

The Ode just cited is not a rhythmical, but a syllabic versification, conformable to the preceding rule of the Scholiast, and consists of a house of six lines, resembling in number of syllables, Merovertices Tod' ágais, and of a cowl or can of two lines, with a hepthemimeral cæsure, resembling in number and division of syllables,

Metuentes patruæ verbera linguæ.

This is the key to the measure of this Ode, and whoever reads it according to this manner, and gives himself no concern about the quantity, will best fulfil the intention of the composer

If we stop at the cæsure of the cap, and prefix to it the last line of the house, we have exactly that sort of verse, consisting of fifteen syllables, which is called popular, Toritiros or dmpeótixos. See Gaisford's Hephæstion, p. 250. For instance the verse, 8

7 Ίμερον, γάμος, Παφίην, | δερκεο την νεήνιν, is similar to the popular verse, 8

7 Πολιτική διδάξω σε συντόμως στιχουργία. These verses, it is evident, correspond only in the number and order of syllables, but do not agree in rhythm, and still less in metre; and therefore do not antistrophise. Such popular verses had no existence among the ancient Greeks, and would have been deemed barbarous. Eustathius, however, speaks of them as existing in his time, and characterises them very justly in these words. £i plèv pestd. συμφώνων λαλούνται, γέλωνται, ώς άρρυθμοι, και σκώπτονται, ως πολύποδες. (Gaisford's Hephæstion, p. 250.) that is, if they are pronounced with consonants, they become ridiculous, as being destitute of rhythm, and are reviled, as exceeding the just measure of quantity. Thus if we read the Sotadean verse,

'Αμφότερα μινείν ουκ οίδεν, έστηκεν γαρ ούδεν, as an hexameter, and make or evt7xěv yap two syllabic dactyls, we shall perceive plainly (not by our ears indeed, but technically and by science,) the violence done to rhythm by this incumbrance of consonants, and acquiesce in the censure of Eustathius.

This verse of fifteen syllables, with a close after the eighth syllable, is still the favorite measure in modern Greek or Romaic, and is enriched frequently with the further grace of rhyme. This grace the modern Greeks have borrowed probably from their Italian neighbours, and Venetian masters.

The following couplet, taken from Lord Byron's Childe Harold, p. 275. may serve as an example : 8

7
Είπέ μας ώ φιλέλληνα, | πώς φέρεις την σκλαβίαν,

a | , Και την απαριγώρητον την Τούρκων τυραννίαν. It is well known, that the Monkish writers in Latin fell into a like mode of versification, in relation to quantity, and the theological hexameters of Robert Maxwood, such as

Stratam ne repete, dicit vox divina Prophetæ, might as well pass for those of Virgil, as several whole Odes in Greek, composed by some neoteric Poetaster, have hitherto passed current for those of Anacreon.

Upon the whole, the versification of the Greek language may be divided to three æras, the ancient, the middle, and the modern; and the characteristic of the first is rhythm, of the second syllabic concordance, and of the last rhyme. June, 1812.

M. K.

NOTICE OF
Q. HORATII FLACCI OPERA.
Cum variis Lectionibus, Notis Variorum, et Indice Locupletissimo.

Tom. II. Londini.
Extracted from the British Critic, of February, 1794.

With Alterations and Additions.

NO. TIT.

4to. 1763."

We now proceed to support our assertion, that the notes produced in the Variorum Edition of Horace, do not correspond to the Catalogue of Authors, with which Dr. Combe has favored his readers. We there find,

Bowyer.--Explicationes veterum aliquot auctorum ad finem Eủperiodov inetides, “ Markl.-Jer. Markland, Epistola Critica, 8vo. 1723.”

We discharge the duty we owe to our readers, when we assure them, that Bowyer never wrote any such work as the Explicationes veterum aliquot Auctorum; and that out of the Epistola Critica, which Markland did write, not one observation, nor emendation is immediately selected, from the first page of the first volume, to the last page

of the last volume of the Variorum edition. Dr. Combe must have seen the Explicationes veterum aliquot \uctorum, yet through the Epodes, and the whole of the second volume, he has ascribed to Bou yer, what Bowyer never wrote, nor was supposed to have written ; what Markland did write, and is known by every scholar to have written: and this error is the more strange, because the very book which was used in the Variorum edition, was lent in the name of Markland; and because the very observations selected from that book in the first, second, third, and fourth book of the Odes, are properly and uniformly ascribed to Mr. Markland.

To an editor, who professes to have consulted every passage, quoted from every writer, by every commentator, great attention is due. We pay it cheerfully, and yet we must state the difficulties, which have, occurred to us, and doubtless to some of our readers.

Epod. ii. v. 27. Fontesque lymphis obstrepunt manantibus. The Variorum produces a note upon this line, to which the name of Bowyer is subjoined: but in page 253. of the quarto work, which Markland published in London, 1763, the very same conjectural reading of frondes for-fontes is made by Markland in the

very

words which Dr, C. ascribes to Bowyer. Odes. Lib. i. Carm. 35. v. 5.

Te panper ambit sollicita prece

Ruris colonus. Markland says, Colonus ruris est quasi diceret nauta maris. He puts a stop at prece, and another at ruris ; and he says that domidam must be understood before ruris, as well as æquoris. All this VOL. VI. No. XI.

G

« ZurückWeiter »