« PreviousContinue »
ἀκούσῃς χατέραν στάσιν μελῶν. Ἐκ τῶν καθαρῳδικῶν νόμων εἰργασμένην. “ don't go before you have heard another canto,’ where the Scholiast says, στάσιν μελῶν: στάσιμον μέλος, ὃ ᾄδουσιν ἱστάμενοι οἱ χορευταί. Hesych. Στάσις : θέσις. χορός. Possibly it took its name from those sacred hymns which were sung in religious festivals by a choir standing; Etymol. Μ. p. 690, 42. ιστέον ὅτι τῶν μελῶν καὶ τῶν ὕμνων* τὰ μὲν καλεῖται προσῴδια, τὰ δὲ, ὑπορχήματα, τὰ δὲ, στάσιμα. —στάσιμα, ἃ ἑστῶτες ὕστερον ἔλεγον, ἀναπαυόμενοι, μετὰ τὸ κύκλῳ δραμεῖν τοῦ βωμοῦ: or from its being sung έν τῇ στάσει, in their station, in that part of the orchestra appropriated to the dances of the chorus, and not, as the Parodus, in front. So the Scholiast on Aristoph. Pac. 733, speaking of the Parabasis of Comedy; παράβασιν δὲ τοῦτο ἐκάλουν, ἀπὸ τοῦ παραβαίνειν τὸν χορὸν ἀπὸ τῆς νενομισμένης στάσεως εἰς τὸ καταντικρὺ τοῦ θεάτρου ὄψιν εἶτα διελθόντες τὴν καλουμένην παράβασιν, ἐστρέφοντο πάλιν εἰς τὴν προτέραν στάσιν.
Of the Commi, and the Choric interlocutions of the Actors.
The Parodus and Stasimon, says Aristotle, were common to the whole chorus; ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, καὶ κόμμοι; i. e. “ spoken by individuals.’ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, are those passages which were sung by the actors (ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς as distinguished from τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρχήστρας) e. g. Prometh. v. 115-118. 583, &c. The short songs thrown in by the chorus, not forming part of the regular στάσιμα, were called κόμμοι, and when the actors and the chorus alternated these songs, both were called κόμμοι. Aristot. κόμμος δὲ, θρῆνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκήνης. See Æschyl. Theb. 959. seqq.
The student will do well to consult Hermann on Aristotle's Poetics, pp. 132-149. and Elem. Doctr. Metr. III. c. 22.
2 Properly speaking, the difference between μέλος and ὕμνος 18, that the former was sung to the flute, the latter to the lyre. Proclus Chrestom. p. 381.
The Parabasis was peculiar to Comedy, and answered nearly to the Parodus of Tragedy. Upon the first retiring of the actors from the stage, the chorus turned to the audience, and spoke to them in behalf of the poet, either on his own concerns, or on publick affairs'. Aristoph. Pac. 733. χρῆν μὲν τύπτειν τοὺς ῥαβδούχους, εἴ τις κωμῳδοποιητὴς αὑτὸν ἐπῄνει πρὸς τὸ θέατρον παραβὰς ἐν τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις.
See Hermann. Elem. Doctr. Metr. III. 21.
Of the Decline of the Greek Tragedy.
Modern critics have observed, that the later Tragedies of Euripides were written with much less care than his earlier ones, both as to metre, and the handling of the subject: Hermann says that the gravity of the tragic numbers began to be corrupted from the 89th Olympiad, especially by the resolution of long syllables. In particular they admitted, in the resolution, disyllable words, with the ictus on the first syllable: e. g. Orest. 25. ἣ πόσιν ἀπείρῳ περιβαλοῦσ ̓ ὑφάσματι, is a verse which the older tragedy would not have admitted3. And he very ingeniously argues, that since the author of the Rhesus, who is confessedly not older than Euripides, is quite free from these licentious verses, we may infer that he lived long afterwards, when the Alexandrian poets imitated the best models of the Attic drama.
How long the chorus continued is uncertain. Euripides departed a great way from its original institution, by introducing
1 Platonius de Comod. p. xi. ed. Kuster.
2 The old writers of iambics, the iambographi, as they are called, rarely used a trisyllable foot; and those who first introduced that metre on the stage naturally adhered to their example more closely than those who succeeded them.
Doctr. Metr. II. xiv. 15. I confess that the beginning of this verse does not appear to me to differ in rhythm from the following, which is from the Philoctetes of Æschylus, ὦ θάνατε παιὰν, μή μ' ἀτιμάσῃς μολεῖν.
* Gaisford ad Hephæst. p. 243.
choric songs having no reference to the subject of the drama. After his time, says Aristotle, the choric songs have no more to do with the plot, than with any other tragedy; and Agatho began the practice of introducing songs from other plays. It was but one step, as Twining observes, from this, to the music between the acts. In the time of Dio Chrysostom (under Vespasian) it appears that the chorus had fallen into disuse. τὰ μὲν κωμῳδίας ἅπαντα, τῆς δὲ τραγῳδίας τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρὰ, ὡς ἔοικε, μένει· λέγω δὲ τὰ ἰαμβεῖα καὶ τούτων μέρη διεξίασιν ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις· τὰ δὲ μαλακώτερα ἐξεῤῥύη, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰ μέλη. It is not quite clear what the words καὶ τούτων μépŋ mean. I suspect some corruption. Valesius says "Obscurum est quid sibi velit Dio hisce verbis, nisi forte tragœdiarum quidem scribendarum studium sua ætate pridem intercidisse vult: Comoedias autem adhuc componi solitas esse: quod quidem verissimum est, si de scriptoribus Græcis intelligatur, quemadmodum intelligi debet."
Having mentioned Valesius, I may quote an extract from his Emendations upon the following passage of Philostratus Vit. Sophist. p. 596. ed. Olear. Εὐοδιανὸς-ἐπιταχθεὶς δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀμφὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνίταις (τὸ δὲ ἔθνος τοῦτο ἀγέρωχοι καὶ χαλεποὶ ἀρχθῆναι) ἐπιτηδειότατος τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔδοξε, καὶ κρείττων ἢ λαβεῖν αἴτιον. “ Qui sint οἱ περὶ Διόνυσον τεχνῖται docet Agellius in Lib. xx. c. 4. Hos Latini scenicos artifices vocabant, ut legitur in veteri Inscriptione apud Gruterum, p. 331. Eorum corpus quoddam seu collegium videtur fuisse Romæ, cui præpositus fuit Euodianus. In codice Theodosiano Thymelici dicuntur, et præpositi Thymelæ. TexviTa absolute dicuntur in vetere Inscriptione apud Gruterum p. 330." (See p. 74. of this Volume.)
When the fifth No. of this Journal was published, I had not seen the very learned dissertation of Aug. Boeckh on the three great tragedians, Heidelb. 1808. some parts of which I shall probably take an opportunity of considering in a future number of this Journal.
H. Valesii Emend. p. 56.
ON SUPPOSED PLAGIARISMS.
IN Vol. I. p. 337, of the "Notice des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi" Vauvilliers describes a book containing the Agamemnon of Eschylus, with marginal notes by Casaubon. Having carefully compared the conjectures of Stanley in the Agamemnon with those ascribed to Casaubon, I was led to think that Stanley had tacitly availed himself of them: and in a certain paper which appeared in the year 1812 I stated, as a strong ground for that opinion, that nearly all the striking conjectures proposed by Stanley in that play, in number thirtyVauvilliers describes five, coincided with those of Casaubon. the book in the following terms. 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 a bibliotheca regia, tandem anno 1729. ære regio redemtus est.” In the year 1715, Needham borrowed this book of M. de Burigny, who seems to have been at that time the possessor of it. exact description of the book was given by a very learned and humane French scholar, M. Boissonade, to a friend of Dr. Butler's, who quotes it in a note on his general Preface to Eschylus, p. xxxi. 8vo. ed. It was formerly in the library of Jacques Pithou, and the hand-writing is of two persons; the more recent of the two seems to be older than the date of Stanley's edition; and it is to be observed that of the instances of coincidence which I noted down, a great part are taken from Stanley's edition.
There is now in the possession of the Rev. John Mitford a copy of H. Stephens's or Victorius's edition of Eschylus, (formerly belonging to Musgrave) in the margin of which are noted the conjectural emendations of Portus, Auratus, Casau bon, and of the person who noted them, and whom I suspect to have been the elder Vossius. At all events he was a contemporary of Casaubon's, for he says in p. 14, on the words αἰθέριον κίνυγμ', κ. τ. λ. Elegantiam hujus loci hu
maniss. Casaubonus me docuit, &c." That he was not an Englishman, and yet that he understood English, I collect from a note on the word ἐλεδέμνας, "Reveille-Matin; Angli à larum appellant." The conjectures of Scaliger, which I have cited, were transcribed from a book formerly belonging to Joseph Scaliger, afterwards to J. G. Vossius, then to Is. Vossius, and now in the Leyden library; for I find a remark of Scaliger's on v. 801, of the Eumenides expressed in exactly the same words in the margin of this book, and in the excerpta from Vossius's book, which Needham procured from Leyden1. From this book of Mr. Mitford's, the writing in which is undoubtedly older than Stanley's time, I shall now enumerate some conjectures, the coincidence of which with those of Stanley, if it be fortuitous, is a very extraordinary phenomenon in literary history; considering the number to which it extends.
Agamemnon ed. Stanl.
v. 15. To μn Béßaus, &c.—7 μn Scalig. and Stanl. 173. μάταν—μάτας Aurat. Stanl.
223. Teρióрyos érvei delent Aurat. Port.-Stanley's remark is, "Sunt qui reprópyws émiovμeîv glossema putant." Stanl.
237. αἰῶνα παρθένιον-αἰῶνά τε π. V. Stanl.
316. εἶτ ̓ ἀφίκετο ̓Αραχναῖον αἶπος—ἔς τ ̓ V. Stanl. 331. διχοστατοῦντ ̓ ἂν οὐ φίλως προσεννέποις -- κοὺ φίλω V. φίλω
342. ἐν αἰχμαλωτοῖς Τρωϊκοῖς οἰκήμασιν Ναίουσιν ἤδη. — νεύουσιν Scal. Stanl. in schedis. A Butlero haud notatum.
Of this book Spanheim speaks in his notes on the Plutus 383. σε ἐριοστέπτοισι κλάδοισιν— prout ante eruditum Stanleium legendum viderant Auratus et Scaliger, pro iepоoтρETTоio, ut ex adscriptis aliquot ad Eschylum, qui Scaligeri olim fuerat, mihi vero a TouμaleσTάT IS. Vossio olim commodatum, notis observare licuit."I am led to doubt whether Stanley ever saw Casaubon's own copy of Eschylus, now preserved in the Cambridge University Library, by some peculiarities in that book which I need not now specify: but it seems certain that most of the conjectures assigned to Portus in the margin of the copy which I suppose to have belonged to Vossius, are Casaubon's. At all events they coincide with those which are noted in the margin of Casaubon's book. Those which I have marked V, are written in Vossius's book without any name.
VOL. 11. NO. 7.