Murray's Ancient Greek Literature a History of Ancient Greek Literature
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Murray's Ancient Greek Literature A History of Ancient Greek Literature. By Gilbert Murray, M.A., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, etc. London: William Heinemann, 1897. A. W. Verrall The Classical Review / Volume 12 / Issue 02 / March 1898, pp 107 - 111 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00025592, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00025592 How to cite this article: A. W. Verrall (1898). The Classical Review, 12, pp 107-111 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00025592 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 155.198.30.43 on 16 Mar 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 107 NOTE ON HOKACE, OD. II. 17, 29. HORACE, Odes II. xvii. 29. Faunus...JI/er- Add that Horace was a poet, and compare curialium Custos virorum. the following passage from The Secrets of This expression has much perplexed the Albertus Magnus, etc., London, 1632. commentators. Page says: ' In no case ' Mercurius governeth in mannes body the can the phrase viri Mercuriales be called a tung, memory, cogitation, handes, and happy one, as a periphrasis for " poets."' thighs. He hath dominion over the phrensy, And the last editor, Dr. Gow, writes: madnesse, melancholy, Falling sicknesse, ' This allusion is obscure.' It is only ob- Cough, Rheume, and the abundance of scure because the study of astrology has distilling spittle. If hee be Lord of the died out. This Ode teems with astrological nativity, hee maketh the children stoute, allusions, of which I may say more presently. wise, and apt to learne, modest, secret, and For the moment let me quote only eloquent. Of person small, leane, pale of visage : smooth heared: faire eyed : hard Corporis exigui, praecanum, solibus aptum, and bony handed.' Thus Mercurialium here Irasci celerem, tamen ut placabilis essem. will be comparable to the original use of Epistles I. xx. 24. jovial, saturnine. Ego...lippus.—Sat. I. v. 30. Cui concredere nugas... If Horace imagined that Mercury was the rimosa in aure... Lord of his nativity, we shall see a particular scilicet egregii mortalem altique silenti. reason for his address to that god in Odes Sat. II. vi. 43, 46, 57. I. 10. Cena ministratur pueris tribus. T. NlCKLIN. Sat. I. vi. 116. MUERAY'S ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE. A History of Ancient Greek Literature. By it, good or defective, that is to say, just in GILBERT MURRAY, M.A., Professor of proportion as the subject in question lends Greek in the University of Glasgow, etc. or does not lend itself to this individual London: William Heinemann, 1897. and, as it were, familiar manner of treat- ment. We shall expect to find a stimula- IT would be easy to find in this book, and ting presentment of Pindar, Herodotus, in any book of equal scope, abundant ma- Thucydides, Aristophanes, Isocrates. We terials either for favourable or unfavourable shall be less hopeful about Sophocles or judgment, for assent or dissent, if either of Demosthenes. We see that the writer is these, merely as such, could be supposed in- determined to be vivid, perhaps at some teresting to serious students. The author's risk, and we shall not be surprised if occa- tendency, his method and habit, is described sionally he seems rather to ask whether a by himself candidly and correctly in the phrase or an illustration is striking, than preface (p. xiii.) : whether it is exactly appropriate.1 The reader who turns to Pindar or Thucydides I have tried—at first unconsciously, afterwards of can scarcely fail to find Professor Murray set purpose—to realise, as well as I could, what sort suggestive, and it is possible (as I can of men the various Greek authors were, what they liked and disliked, how they earned their living and warrant) that he will feel warm gratitude. spent their time. Of course it is only in the Attic The reader who turns to Sophocles will not, period, and perhaps in the exceptional case of unless he is exceptional in his tastes, Pindar, that such a result can be even distantly allow Professor Murray for an absolute approached, unless history is to degenerate into fiction. But the attempt is helpful, even where it guide, and it is not impossible that he will leads to no definite result. be angry. In general the poets seem to attract the author more than the prose- The book is just what, upon these lines, an able writer might be expected to make 1 See, for example, pp. 60, 156, 171. 108 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. writers, and with the orators in particular to the time from which they date, he re- he does not profess a keen sympathy. For presents the present orthodoxy, if orthodoxy my own broad judgment it is enough to say there is. It is not indeed always easy (and that I have read the book four or five for good reasons) to discover exactly what times, and each time, as I thought, with the makers of the Cycle, Dionysius, or much profit.. Apollodorus, or whoever they were, are I mention summarily a few of the points upon this hypothesis supposed to have done. which should be considered or reconsidered. But it is, I believe, generally understood The effect of the Ionian dispersion upon that from what they did the Cycle derived Athens (p. 18), though justly emphasized, its unity as well as its name, and that to seems to be post-dated. It must have begun Aristotle, for example, or Plato, or Herod- at all events from 540 B.C. 'Theognis of otus, neither thing nor title was known. Megara.' Which Theognis t And of which Professor Murray therefore is justified, for Megara ? But perhaps Professor Murray the purpose of his book, in assuming this, does not think that this recent doubt has more especially as he gives to the attentive substance in it. The development and reader a sufficient hint that it is open to especially the beginnings of rhetoric need to question, when he remarks that Athenaeus, be more fully and precisely treated, and the thechief or sole ancient author, whose opinion same perhaps may be said of 'sophistic' appears in his account, made 'the odd It is a curious illustration of this point that mistake' of supposing the word ' cycle' to the name of Gorgias (pp. 160, 163) ap- mean the original poems. It would scarcely parently steals into the narrative without have been consistent with proportion to any special and distinctive notice at all. find room at the present moment and in Is it known that the odes of the great such a summary for the view, hinted rather melic poets were given by ' professional than advanced by Otto Seeck in the Quetten performers' (p. 95) i How does this ap- der Odyssee, that the Epic Cycle, the Cycle pear ? Of Stesimbrotus even one page mentioned by Athenaeus, Suidas, Proclus, seems too much, and that page (if I may and others, was the very oldest monument say so) too ' vivid '. And something some- of Greek bibliography; that it dated not where should if possible be curtailed to from the first or the second century before make more room for Plato, for Aristotle Christ, but from the sixth, and that it was perhaps, and certainly for Theocritus and nothing more or less than the Greek epos for Lucian. (or in popular parlance 'the poetry of Homer') thrown into a quasi-historical It is manifestly impossible to discuss form by the first collectors of it, acting here, in such a manner as will be either under the auspices of the successive rulers interesting or profitable to the readers of of Athens before, during, and after the the Review, more than one, if so much as reign of Pisistratus. one, of the many questions which must be raised by a general history of Greek litera- Nevertheless, before the 'Homeric ques- ture. And as the beginning is not a bad tion ' can be properly treated, room will place to begin, I shall make no apology for have to be found somewhere for discussing devoting the rest of this article to some this view, and discussing it thoroughly. If remarks upon Professor Murray's view of it has not sufficient evidence to justify a the ' epic cycle '. As a whole, his account positive affirmation, it has at any rate all of Homer and the Homeric question fulfils, the evidence that there is. As to how, and better than could be expected, the exceed- ab what points, the Cycle should be divided, ingly difficult task of presenting the problem, what were the proper titles of the con- in the present phase of discussion, to readers stituent parts, and to what authors these who are to be presumed incapable of in- parts, when detached, should be respectively dependent judgment. Nor is he to be assigned ; on these points there was, among blamed, whatever may be the historic truth the scholars of antiquity, a great diversity of the matter, for stating or assuming of opinion. The criticisms, which have been (pp. 9, 45) that the Cycle had no higher made by modern scholars upon the account origin than a compilation or compilations of the Cycle in Proclus, prove at any rate of the Alexandrian age. He is perhaps this: see pp. 44 foil, of Professor Murray's heretical when he says (if I understand him book. Indeed it is certain that the very, rightly) that these abstracts or compendia notion of providing the various parts of it of legend were from the first merely prose, with named authors was.