ART. X.-AIEXTAOT ATAMEMNON. ESCHYLI AGAMEMNON. Ad fidem MSS. emendavit, Notas et Glossarium adjecit C. J. Blomfield, S. T. B. Coll. SS. Trin. apud Cant. olim Socius. Cantabrigia.

THE

HE author of the drama which we are about to review, was expressly fitted for the country and the age in which he lived; the splendour and the great events of which seem to harmonize with the grandeur and magnificence of his genius. He had the glory of fighting for his country in the battles of Marathon, Salamis and Platea-and of exhibiting to his countrymen the Prometheus, the Agamemnon, and the Eumenides. He may be considered, with his master Phrynichus, as the father of the tragic drama of modern Europe; for though Thespis invented the dialogue, yet, as Bentley says, 'all his plays were farcical interludes with Bacchus and the Satyrs, and Phrynichus and Æschylus were the introducers of real tragedy.'

Of Phrynichus a very few lines only are extant; two preserved by Athenæus, one in the argument of Eschylus's Persæ, one by Tzetzes on Lycophron, and an epigram in Plut. Symp. Q. viii. yet the heavy fine imposed upon him for exciting too much commiseration by his play of the Μιλήτου Αλωσις, (a fact recorded by Strabo, Herodotus, and others,) seems to speak highly in favour of his tragic powers. Of Eschylus, seven tragedies have been preserved; a small remnant out of seventy-five, according to the anonymous author of his life, ninety according to Suidas, or still more, according to the modern catalogues of Fabricius and Meursius; but yet enough to convince us, that he was, perhaps, of all the tragic poets that ever lived, the greatest master of the sublime and the terrible, and that there was a sort of colossal grandeur in his conceptions which communicated itself to his diction. The wildest and most difficult of subjects, which poets of other ages and countries would have shrunk from dramatizing, seem to have been most congenial to his taste, and to have afforded the fairest field for his ardent imagination. He delighted in fabulous monsters, supernatural beings, and in deepening the terrors of the gloomiest parts of the pagan superstition. In common with the other tragedians he drew largely on the ante-homeric times for fables, which, though containing historical truth, yet from their antiquity admitted the embellishment of poetical fiction. Such, among others, were those of Phineus and the Harpies, the Gorgons, the Heliades, and the Cabiri; that of Prometheus, in the three plays of Πυρφόρος, Δεσμώτης, and Λυόμενος; the two on the subject of Sisyphus, in one of which he was described undergoing his punishment in the infernal regions; and the YuxooTaola, a singular piece, in which Jove was introduced weighing

LL 2

the

the souls of Achilles and Memnon, while Thetis and Aurora were pleading for their respective sons before his throne. We may also add to the subjects of this extraordinary class, the Orithyia, which, though not included in the catalogue of his plays, is inserted in the list by Ruhnken, from a MS. Joannes Siceliota on Hermogenes.

The Agamemnon, it appears, was acted in the 80th Olympiad in the Archonship of Philocles, and is generally considered as the finest of Eschylus's plays. Salmasius, in præfat. ad librum de Lingua Hellenistica, has cited it as a specimen of classical obscurity; yet it certainly is less obscure and corrupt than the Xontópor, or the 'Ixérides, the latter of which labours, besides, under additional difficulties from the usage of many Doric and Sicilian phrases. One of the causes of the general preference of this play may be found in the character of Cassandra, which unites, in a wonderful degree, the powers of the pathetic and sublime; another may be discovered in the nature of the plot, which has more variety and perhaps interest than others from the same hand. But the Greek poets were so fruitful in invention, so powerful in execution, the Greek audiences so refined in their taste, so wrapt up in the beauties of the poetry, the dignity of sentiment, the delineation of character, and the striking and affecting portraiture of the most powerful passions of the human heart, that they never sought (like the modern stage) to excite either interest or curiosity by intricacy of plot, or variety of incident.

This play (an imperfect portion of which, not amounting to

The archonship of Philocles was in the 2d year of the 80th Olymp., and the death of Eschylus is fixed by the Arundel marbles and the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Achar. 10., a year previous; we conceive therefore that this was a reproduction of the play by oi dupi Aloxuλov: for there is every reason to believe that the Eumenides, one of the four plays composing the Tetralogia called the Orestia, (and consequently the remaining three,) was acted many years before, when the author was resident at Athens; and indeed was the main cause of his retirement to Sicily, in consequence of the disgrace and danger which he incurred by the accident that happened at its representation, from the terror occasioned by the chorus of Furies.

On the reproduction of the Greek tragedies much interesting matter may be seen in Boeck's treatise on the subject, to which we beg leave to refer the curious reader ; he will there find many plausible reasons for supposing that the Iphigenia in Aulis is a rifacciamento by the nephew, of the old play of Euripides, the uncle.

One word more. Our readers need not be informed that it was the practice at Athens, in the three great Bacchic festivals, for each contending poet to produce on the stage, not one single piece but generally three or four, called Trilogia or Tetralogia, each play being a continuation or sequel of the preceding one. Thus the Orestia contained the four plays of Agamemnon, Choephora, Eumenides, and Proteus: that is, the murder of Agamemnon, the murder of Clytemnestra by her son in revenge, and his persecution by the Furies. Pretty much in the manner of some of Shakspeare's Historical plays: with this advantage however on the side of the Greek poets, that they preserved the unities, and yet gratified the curiosity of the spectators by the continuation of the story, and enforced the moral lesson more strongly by the exhibition of the final result. An objection may be started against this practice on account of the length of the exhibition; but the Athenians were insatiable spectators, and their patience never seems to have been exhausted except by dulness and mediocrity.

one

one-fifth, was edited by Aldus, Robortelli and Turnebus) was first given entire in the edition of Stephens, from Victorius's Medicean MS. now in the Florentine library. It appears from Dr. Blomfield's Preface, that there are two MSS. in that library, which contain the Agamemnon entire; the one in question, and another, -a collation of which he has prefixed, and which, as he justly observes, contains some remarkable readings. The Venetian MS. is imperfect; and we think the learned editor offers a very good reason for concluding that Robortelli never used it.

The Agamemnon has exercised the learning and ingenuity of several eminent persons from the days of Victorius and Stephanus down to the present time. Of those it will be sufficient to mention the learned and indefatigable Canter, Casaubon, who meditated an edition of it, Auratus, Abreschius, Stanley, (to whom we are indebted for a complete and valuable edition, and who has introduced some excellent readings,) Heath, Hermann, Schutz, who, though he might be guilty of oversights and interpolations in his text, and careless and scanty in his notation of the Varietas Lectionis, was yet the introducer of some very judicious readings; and, lastly, Porson, who, though he did not profess to give an edition of Eschylus, yet emended the text in several places, and in others placed his obelus before what he considered doubtful or corrupt.

We

The present editor has brought a vast fund of learning to his task; he has very happily illustrated the text in several places, and added a very erudite and valuable glossary. We could indeed have wished he had been a little more sparing in his alterations of the text, and in his new arrangement of the choral measures. shall, in the proper place, take the liberty of expressing our opinion in detail, with the same spirit of candour and urbanity that so highly distinguishes this eminent scholar. But before we enter on this subject, we must not omit to notice an imputation contained in the preface against Stanley, of plagiarism committed by him on the MS. notes of Casaubon. We are perfectly satisfied of the honourable motives, and of the sincere love of truth which actuated the learned editor on the present occasion, and we admire the liberality with which he submits his opinion to the judgment of the literary world. His statement is as follows:

'Casauboni conjecturas, quæ passim memorantur, ex margine libri cujusdam in bibliotheca regis Gallorum adservati desumtas, Needhamio transmisit Joannes de Burigny. Sic describitur a Vauvillerio : "Eschyli Agamemnon, cum Isaaci Casauboni interpretatione interlineari. Accedunt ejusdem notæ et observationes eruditissimæ. Is codex ipsius Casauboni manu anno 1610. exaratus, jam diu furto ablatus e bibliotheca regia, tandem anuo 1729. ære regio redemtus est." Vauvillerius autem jure miratur prodigiosum multis in locis consensum inter Casaubonum et Stanleium, de quo ipse lector ex adnotatione nostra judicare poterit.

LL 3

poterit. Et is quidem talis est, ut vel Stanleium hunc librum compilasse, vel hujus libri scriptorem, quisquis demum fuerit, emendationes Stanleianas in suos usus convertisse, etiam atque etiam adfirmare audeam. Jam vero, quum Boissonadus, vir judicii in hujusmodi rebus probe exercitati, tradat scripturam hujus codicis esse duplicem, utramque autem videri antiquiorem anno 1663. quo publica facta est Stanleiana editio; ceteros nescio, ego certe in ea opinione persto, quam annis abhinc aliquot caute proposui, non, ita me Deus amet, calumniandi studio aut invidia, sed puro ac simplice veritatis amore impulsus. Alia argumenta haud sane levia, quibus hanc opinionem stabilire possem, in medium proferre supersedeo, quum nihil magis absit, quam ut Stanleio meritos honores, hærentemque capiti multa cum laude coronam detrahere velim.'—p. vi—viii.

The summary of the statement is, that the MS. of Casaubon was stolen from the Royal library of Paris, was missing for a number of years, and was not returned till long after the publication of Eschylus by Stanley. So far goes the external evidence; nor has any thing been adduced to bring the book into the possession of Stanley. The matter, therefore, beyond this, rests on the internal evidence, and on the singular coincidence of Stanley's conjectures with those of Casaubon. See lines 208. 277. 647. 790. 921. 1070. 1091. 1232. 1585. Such a coincidence would, in general, be of itself quite sufficient to convict one of the parties of plagiarism; but we should consider the peculiarities of this branch of authorship, and remember that the two persons had exactly the same data to go on, the same corruptions to deal with, the same vestiges of words and letters to insist upon.

Some conjectural emendations are so apt, discover so much vigour of intellect and happiness of invention, that a casual coincidence would be next to impossible. If, indeed, these conjectures had resembled those of Bentley on Julius Pollux in his letter to Hemsterhusius; if they had been like the emendation on the epigram of Dioscorides in vain attempted by Stanley-vonoua ETα χαράξας (νεοσμίλευτα); or on that passage of Plutarch in the epistle το Mill, Αρμονίαν καλεῖσθαι μεροπιν (καλεῖ θεμερῶπιν); or, to come to our author, if they had been like that of Porson on a line in this very play doodów yάves (1362), or that of the same critic on Hippolytus 79. "Orois didantov undèv (055), in support of which he produces a vast stock of philological demonstration; or that beautiful one in Electra 181, dánguoi xeúw (xogeúw); or that on Ion apud Plut. de Consol. ad Apollon. Ἐξῆλθεν ἡμῶν καὶ τὰ ἡμῶν τρόφος (ἐξῆλθεν ἡ μόνη τε καὶ τλήμων τρόφος) ;-if, we repeat, they had been of this nature, the question would have been decided at once. But in the passages above enumerated, where the two critics coincide, their conjectures upon examination appear to us to be at once so obvious, so within the reach of almost any one, that we are far

from

from thinking the coincidence might not have been accidental :* they may (and we cannot admit more) afford subject of suspicion, but are by no means conclusive without further and stronger evidence.

We shall now proceed with our observations on the text.

Line 10. avgóbouλov éxitov.] We agree altogether with Dr. Blomfield in his interpretation of avogóbouλos, and cannot but wonder that Stanley should have rendered itviro insidiantem,' which would have been ȧvdgeπíbouλos, if such a word were admissible. Γυναικοβούλους τε μητίδας φρενών in the Choephoræ gives the exact counterpart of this word: Ανδρόφρων, γυναικόφρων have the same meaning. See Dr. Blomfield's Glossary for the former; and Eur. apud Stob. III. for the latter: Γυναικόφρων γὰρ θυμὸς, οὐκ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ.

When Dr. Blomfield recalled the reading of Robortelli and the MS. Venet. Tígov, which we conceive to be corrupt, he should, we think, have given us some authority for this usage of the participle ἔλπιζον put absolutely as if it had been the adjective εὐελπις. The active participle governs something, requires something after it, either infinitive, accusative, or sentence expressing the subject of the hope. Thus Soph. Trach. III. Aúoravov EλTigovσ av aloav. Æsch. Cho. 537. ̓Ακος τομαῖον ἐλπίσασα πημάτων. Besides in a periphrasis, such as Tuvaixòs réag, the accumulation of two epithets (avopóbouλov, and λgov) strikes us as neither elegant, nor idiomatical Greek: Homer would say ἱερὴ ἲς ̓Αλκίνοοιο, but not ἱερὴ ως Αλκίνοοιο δεδεγμένη, and the reading ἐλπίζον is directly in the teeth of the learned and judicious note of Porson on Hec. 293. to which we refer, as well as to the passage in the text of Euripides, pixov YÉVELOV, a periphrasis of Ulysses, which is followed by xv, not xóv. We hardly need explain our conception of the passage as it stood before Dr. Blomfield's alteration, viz. that mig is used in the sense of vouí?w, as it is very commonly. Eur. Ion. 348. Θῆράς σφε τὸν δύστηνον ἐλπίζει κλανεῖν: Eur. Hipp. 97. Η κἂν θεοῖσι ταυτὸν ἐλπίζεις τόδε.

V. 13. ] This is one of those passages which we are sorry

We may here opportunely cite the words of Bentley, on Phalaris 333. Though the misfortune is that for Aeolos we must read it there AéCados, as it is plain from Herodotus, Strabo and others. I had corrected this when I knew not any other had done it. But it was well for me that before I printed it I lit on Meursius's Fortuna Attica, where I found the same correction. For if Mr. Boyle had met with the same passage, when next he appears in print, I had been branded as a plagiary. And yet, I do not believe that Meursius was a plagiary, though I find that long before his time this very same emendation, and by the same proofs, was made by Brodæus, in his notes upon Anthol. Epigram. For a man would have very hard measure, if, because another whom he knew not of, had lit upon the same thought, he must be traduced as a plagiary, though it appear from the rest of his performances (which are certainly new and his own) that he was very able to do that too without stealing from others.'

LL 4

to