« PreviousContinue »
It is pretty bold, we think, in any physiologist to undertake to answer such a question as this ; and indeed it is plain enough, that any answer which human genius can give to it, can only remove our insurmountable ignorance one degree farther back, and merely reduce, under a more comprehensive denomination, all the iniscellaneous phenomena which indicate the inexplicable combination of organized matter with sensation and perception. This, indeed, is all that Mr Ellis probably proposes to attenipt in the succeeding part of his publication, as we observe that he only announces his expectation of being able to trace all the effects which are observed to depend on respiration in animals and plants, to the agency of that subtile or calorific matter which is universally liberated on the conversion of oxygen into carbonic acid, and which enters into the animal and vegetable systems. It is impossible not to anticipate the explanation which such a view will at once afford of many puzzling and obscure phenomena: we need only allude to two, the change of colour, from modena to scarlet, which the blood undergoes in the lungs of a full grown person ; and the corresponding change which the blood of the child suffers, in the placenta, within the mother's womb. In both instances, Mr Ellis, we presume, will say, caluric, and not the absorption of any gas, is the agent which operates the change.
Of Mr Ellis's style, we have nothing to observe but in commendation. It is pure and perspicuous throughout. We think, however, that the arrangement of his work is susceptible of improvement. The order which we have followed, in exhibiting a general view of the subjects it embraces, is nearly the reverse of that in which they are treated in the Inquiry itself. The author seems to have adopted, as the foundation of his arrangement, a principle almost generally admitted, it is true, in physiological writings, but admitted, we apprehend, on very insufficient proof; namely, that zoophytes and vegetables, or the lower classes, as they are called, of organized bodies, are the most simple in their structure ; and, therefore, that in the investigation of any general function in the economy of living beings, we ought to rise gradually, from the contemplation of the more simple properties which, it is presumed, bodies simple in their structure possess, to the study of the complicated phetiomena, accompanying a more complex organization. To this, however, we would reply, that in man the phenomena of life are exhibited on the grandest scale, and in circumstances the most favourable to accurate observation, and that with the liuman body, therefore, the properties of every other form of organized existence ought to be compared ; that if the structure
of the lowest classes appears more simple, it is only because it is more minute; and that, in truth, none of them are totally devoid of any of those properties which seem essential to life inz the higher classes, -although our senses, even when aided by the most powerful instruments, have not yet been able to perceive the individual parts by which these properties are exercised. M. Trembley has described, in one of the most interesting and best written memoirs in natural history, three kinds of fresh water polypes, which consist merely of a cylindrical tube or pouch, open at both ends, formed of an extremely thin, transparent skin, in which not the slightest appearance of nerves, or muscular fibres, or vessels, can be seen ; animals which can be cut into slices almost in every direction, and each slice becomes a perfect polype ; nay, what is even more extraordinary, which may be turned outside in, and still continue to live as well: as before. Yet, these singular beings exhibit the most unequivocal indications of volition in their various motions from place to place, either to expose themselves to the pleasing influence of light, or in search of insects often larger than themselves, which they dexterously. entangle in their arms, convey to their mouth, and devour with the utmost voracity. Voluntary motions, like these, we conceive dependent only. One the previous consciousness of sensations and ideas. The apparently insignificant creatures which exhihit them have obviously the same motives to action as ourselves--the love of pleasure, and the fear of pain. But sensation, ideas, and vom lition, are phenomena which uniform experienee has taught us, are inseparable from a nervous system ; the conclusion, therefore, with respect to the polype, cannot but be obvious. In man, these phenomena are exhibited by parts so large, as to be observed and distinguished with accuracy, both in form and composition; in the polype, the corresponding organs are so minute, that they are wholly imperceptible to the quickest eye. And if this inference be just, can it reasonably be maintained, that simplicity of structure is the most distinguishing character of these lower animals ? For our own parts, so strongly are we impressed with an opposite opinion, that when we compare these two extremes of organization, and reflect on the much greater difficulty which attends the construction of every thing that is minute in the works of art, we hesitate which to regard as the more wonderful production of Incomprehensible Power the obscure and diminutive Polype-or Man, the lord of the crcation.
The original ms 4 his review, 2 Peter Ulmsley is in
ART. III.' EYPINIAOY EKABH. Euripidis Hecuba ad fidem
Manuscriptorum emendata, et brevibus Notis Emendationum pont tissimum Rationes reddentibus instructa. In Usum Studiosce Jesus ventutis. Edidit Ricardus Porson A. M. Græcarum Literarum apud Cantabrigienses Professor. Londini. 1808. 8vo.
The present edition of the Hecuba of Euripides, with the
preface and notes of the late Mr Porson, which is said, in the title-page, to have been printed in the year 1808, contains an advertisement, addressed by the booksellers to the reader, which is dated on the ides of January in the
That part of the volume which contains the text of the poet, and the annotations of the illustrious editor, was actually given to the world in the year specified in the title-page. Instead of the preface, Mr Porson prefixed to this imperfect edition the following brief declaration of his future intentions.
Monitum: Quatuor fabulis, postquam typis repetitæ erunt, • accedet Præfatio auctior aliquanto et emendatior, cum In• dicibus locupletissimis.
Mr Porson having been prevented by death from proceeding further in his design, his friends have completed the new edition of the Hecuba, by reprinting the preface, with such additions as Mr Porson's papers enabled them to make to it. We are sorry to perceive, that these additions are so far from being considerable, that, if they were printed separately, they would scarcely occupy a couple of pages. Every scholar, however, will be grateful for the smallest fragments of Mr Porson's eritical writings. The Edinburgh Reviewers, in particular, willingly embrace the opportunity which is thus afforded to them, of delivering their sentiments on some of the principal doctrines propounded in the preface to the Hecuba. They take for granted, that every reader of this article is too well acquainted with that classical and original production, to require a regular analysis of its contents, or a formal demonstration of its merit.
Our readers will recollect, that the preface to the Hecuba on riginally appeared in the year 1797; and that the supplement, the length of which is four times that of the original preface, was added in the edition of 1802. The principal hero of the piece, although, after the example of the heroes of many tragedies, he is not produced upon the stage until the second act, is the learned Gottfried Hermann; whom, for some reason or other, Mr Porson appears to have considered rather as a personal enemy, than as a literary antagonist. Almost every line of Mr Porson's supplement contains an allusion to some blunder
committed by the above mentioned learned person, in one of other of two works, the titles of which may be seen in the note. * Whoever wishes thoroughly to understand the preface to Mr Porson's edition of the Hecuba, ought to devote his days and nights' to the study of Mr Hermann's edition of the same tragedy. Those persons who possess both editions, will do well in binding them in one volume; adding, if they think proper, the Diatribe Extemporalis of the vehement and injudicious Wakefield, and the excellent strictures on Mr Porson's Hecuba and Mr Wakefield's Diatribe, which appeared in the Monthly Review for 1799, and which are well known to be written by it gentleman, to whom Greek literature is more indebted than to any other living scholar.
The greater part of the original preface relates to the use of anapests in tragic senarii. Should any scholar of the nineteentli century venture to maintain the admissibility of an anapest, not: included in a proper name, into any place of a Greek tragic senarius except the first foot, he would assuredly be ranked with those persons, if any such persons remain, who deny the motion of the earth, or the circulation of the blood. Before the appearance of the preface to the Hecuba, critics were divided into two sects upon this subject; the more rigid of which excluded anapests from all the even places ; whereas the other admitted them promiscuously into any place' except the last: Mr Porson (p. 6) with his usual strictness in attributing the merit of discoveries and improvements to the riglit owners, men ions an obscure hint of the truie doctrine, which is contained in the preface to Morell's Thesaurus Græce Poëscos. By how little effect that hint was followed, may be judged from the following words of the learned Hermann (M. p. 150); which have been published about fifteen years.
A trisyllabis pedibus tragici Græci maxime abstinuerunt, quamquam etiam in pari sede, sed adlınddum raro, anapæstus ' invenitur. Idque et Hephæstio notavit, et nuper Brunckius • defendit ad Soph. (Ed. Cola 371: 1169. Philoct. 191. Vide • Æschyli Prom: 353. 354.'
The lines of Æschylus quoted in this antedilurian passage, VOL. XIX. NO. 37.
Godofredi Hermanni de Metris Poëtarum Græcorum et Ronanorum Libri III. Lipsiæ. 1796. Euripidis Hecubti
. Godofredi Hera manni ad eam et ad R. Porsoni notas Animadversiones. Lipsiæ. 1800. In our citations, we distinguish these two works by the letters M and H. In justice to Mr Hermann, we are bound to declare our belief, that he has long licen sensible of the numerous errors of these early produstions.
are commonly read as follows: Εκατοντακάρηνον προς βίαν χειρούμενος, Τυφώνα θούρον, πάσιν ος αντέστη θεοίς. According to Brunck, in his note on v. 265. In priori scribere potuisset poëta xatorxeonvo vel εκατοντάκρανoν: in altero πάσ' pro πάσιν. The reading εκατοντάχρανση receives some support from a similar variation in Eurip. Herc. 611. Και θηρά γ' εις φώς τον τρίκρανον ήγαγον. The editions from Allus to Barnes inclusive read τρικάρηνον. But the Attics always wrote εκατοντάλαντος, εκατόμενους, εκατόζυγος, εκατόστομος, &c., without the additional syllable. The Glasgow edition of Æschylus reads εκατογκάρηνου, which Mr Blomfield has properly altered to εκατονxéquvov. ' In Mr Blomfield's edition, the following verse is thus representell: Τυφώνα θούρον, όστις αντέστη θεοίς.
As our limits will not allow us to produce all the instances of unlawful anapests which are to be found in the common editions of the tragedies, we shall content ourselves with laying before our readers those which occur in Brunck's edition of Sophocles, being thirteen in number. * It must be remembered, that Brunck is a strenuous defender of anapests, which he seems to have regarded with compassion, as innocent and persecuted beings.
d. Tyr. 248. Κακών κακώς νιν άμοιρον εκτρίψαι βίον. Mr Porson (p. 11) reads άμορον. (Ed. Col. 371. Νύν δ' εκ θεών του, κάξ άλιτηγίου (κάξ άλιτηρού Αld.) Φρενός. The true reading, xénetngiov, had been proposed by Toup, and is mentioned in Brunck’s note. Ibid. 808. Χωρίς το τ' ειπείν πολλά, και το τα (και τα Αld.) καίριο. Here also the true reading, και το καίριου, which is furnished by Suidas, was known to Brunck, but did not meet with his approbation. Ιbid. 1169. *Ω φίλτατ', επίσχες ούπερ εί. τί δ' έστι σοι. Read with Heath, Ω φίλτατε, σχές. Αnt. 263. Κουδείς εναργής, αλλ' έφευγε το μη ειδέναι. Μ: Ρorson (ad Med. 139. 140. p. 17) reads έφυγε. Ιbid. 467. Μητρός θανόντ’ άθαπτον ήνεχόμην (όνσχέριην Αld.) νέκυν. Eustathius reads éo xóuny, as Mr Porson observes (p. 19). Ibid. 5 15. Ου μαρτυρήσει ταύθ' ο κατα χθονός (ο κατθανών Αld.) νέκυς. The manuscripts do not agree. Trach. 292. Tών μεν παρόντων, των δε πεπυσμένη λόγώ. Read with Toup τα δε πεπυσμένη. Mr Wakefield proposed two trucuívn, which reading Mr Erfurdt justly denonitrates Morribile et inauditum. Ιbid. 717. Χειρωνα πημέναντα, χώσω πες (χώσπες Αld.) αν θίγη. Mr Erfurdt residis χώνπες αν θίγη. Αj.
* Orice for all, we beg leave to mention, that in this and other enumerations of the same nature, we by no means wish the reader to rely on the accuracy of our examination. This article would have been still more imperfect, if an accidental delay in the publication of it had not enabled us to supply several omissions, and to correct many errors.