« PreviousContinue »
jerk, and brings drawer and contents into the middle of the floor. His hostility to this unlucky piece of furniture increases every day, as if incensed that it does not grow better. He is like the fretful, invalid, who cursed his bed, that the longer he lay, the harder it grew. The only benefit he has derived from the quarrel is, that it has furnished him with a crusty joke, which he utters on all occasions. He swears that a French commode is the most incommodious thing in existence, and that although the nation cannot make a joint-stool that will stand steady, yet they are always talking of every thing's being perfectionée.
His servants understand his humor, and avail themselves of it. He was one day disturbed by a pertinacious rattling and shaking at one of the doors, and bawled out in an angry tone to know the cause of the disturbance. “Sir,' said the footman, testily, “it's this confounded French lock !' • Ah!' said the old gentleman, pacified by this hit at the nation, 'I thought there was something French at the bottom of it.!
A U T U MN.
In the dim, thick forest,
It is the sigh of rustling leaves,
The oak his yellow crown,
To drop his wreath of brown;
Their mellow tribules send ;
That o'er the river bend;
The peach of scarlet hue,
And plums of heavenly blue:
The treasure of the bee;
And from the new-milked kine,
And from the clustering vine:
Sheaves of the rich, juicy wheat,
How soft the bloom of Eve is spread !
O'er all the purple hills is shed !
The pearly hoar-frost glitters bright,
The curling vapor hovers white : And when the silvery harvest moon Rolls on its boundless path serene,
And when the spirit-stars smile forth,
To sanctify the lovely scene,
I love thy golden day,
How lovely in decay!
In hollow sobs complains,
And mourn along the plains;
Till in the forest's lonesome lanes Thou sinkest on the heaped-up leaves, Like a rired pilgrim, old and wan,
Who o'er his weary journey grieves :
As fades the closing year,
Their winnowing pinions tend.
Their swift unerring flight pursue.
The dusky coot, and wild curlew;
THE NORTH-AMERICAN Review. Number CIX. October, 1840. Boston, (Mass.)
Our readers may remember that in the August number of the KNICKERBOCKER We took occasion to animadvert on a pretended criticism of Professor Anthon's Greek Reader, which had appeared in the North American Review for the July quarter. Our remarks went to show, that the whole affair was got up for a particular purpose; that the attack on DR. ANTHON's work was prompted entirely by malignant and mercenary motives; and that the charge of plagiarism, so boldly preferred against that gentleman, was not only literally but wilfully untrue. We are happy to find, that what we then said, carried conviction with it to every one who was able to comprehend an argument, and independent enough to think for himself; and that no small portion of richly-merited disgrace has been incurred by the Boston periodical, for having lent itself to the propagation of so much false and ungentlemanly invective. It affords us great satisfaction also, as we have elsewhere remarked, to perceive that the subject has attracted at tention in another quarter. In the able and scholarlike article on this same theme, to which we have alluded, full justice is done to the labors of Dr. Anthon, and the reckless effrontery and school-boy ignorance of his opponents are sufficiently chastised. So clear and convincing, indeed, are the arguments adduced by this writer, and so irresistible the conclusions which he draws from them, that we would not have troubled our readers with any farther observations of our own, had it not been for an answer with which we have been favored in the last number of the North American Review. The general tone of this reply, on the part of the Boston critic, is a good deal humbled from that which characterized the first attack, although the remarks of the writer are still graced by a flippant impertinence, which barmonizes admirably with the shallow scholarship he has brought to his aid, and is in good keeping also with the nature of the case which he has undertaken to defend. These personalities, of course, we shall not answer, either for Dr. Anthon or for ourselves; partly, because scurrilous invective best answers itself; and partly, because it seems idle to notice uncourteous language in one who, as we shall presently show, is wanting in the much higher attribute of the gentleman, an adherence to the truth.
The reviewer, in his opening remarks, is pleased to dignify our article in the August number of the KNICKERBOCKER, with the very complimentary epithet of a 'fanfaron. nade,' and to express his surprise that 'in some quarters in New York' it'passes for a sufficient answer to his 'stricture on Professor ANTHON's work. We will certainly not quarrel with him abont names, for names do not alter the nature of things; he may call our article, if he chooses, a 'fanfaronnade,' and may style the budget of trash and sectional puffing which comes forth quarterly from the good city of Boston a critical review ; still, however, we are very sure of this, that our 'fanfaronnade' passes every where in New York, with those who have read it, for a full and sufficient refutation. Nay, it even appears to have sadly ruffled the plumage of the critic himself; else, why should this most consistent logician take eight closely-printed pages, with an abundant outpouring of Greok, and an ample garniture of falsehoods, in order to refute what, if we
believe him, needs no reply whatever ? The truth is, our remarks have evidently answered the end for which we intended them, the exposure of a paltry, ignorant, and unprincipled clique; and the reviewer, like all angry people, who have a bad cause to maintain, has commenced his reply with a tirade of invective, and with calling us names, without at the same time very clearly comprehending the import of which he has employed.
After this very courteous and gentlemanly commencement, the reviewer goes on to remark, that Dr. Anthon, after professing in his preface an intention of taking those selections from the German work of Jacobs, which had been adopted in the more respectable portion of our classical schools, made the same additions to those selections which had been made by the Boston editors; and that he made these additions, too, after stating categorically that his new edition consisted of those extracts from Jacobs which had before been in use. To this charge, thus boldly advanced, we have merely to say, that it is a positive falsehood, and what is worse, the reviewer himself knows it to be so. Every respectable Review, which has a regard for its own character, and for the dictates of literary honesty, feels bound, in quoting the words of an author, to do this fully and fairly, and not to suppress any thing that may serve to elucidate the meaning which the writer intended to express. This is a plain principle of literary morality, the violation of which not only implies a total disregard of truth, but a degree of meanness from which a well-regulated mind turns away with disgust. The North American reviewers, however, have adopted, it would appear, a very different code of morals, and cite merely so much of an author's language as may serve, by this garbling process, to substantiate their train of argument; without at all concerning themselves whether the part which they have suppressed contradicts that argument or not. The words of Dr. Anthon, in his preface, are as follow : "The only remaining course, therefore, was to take those selections from the German work, which had been adopted in the more respectable portion of our classical schools, and to make these the basis of a new edition.' Now, if words mean any thing, Dr. Anthon here openly expresses his intention of adding other selections to those obtained from Jacobs; and that such is the plain import of the terms which he employs, is evident from the very language of the reviewer himself, when he says that 'the Boston Lexicon is formed on the basis of Jacobs,' for he can mean nothing else but that additions have been made to this Lexicon from other quarters, and that it does not consist entirely of the labors of the German scholar. Now for a specimen of the new code of literary morality and critical honesty which has been adopted by the far-famed North American Review. In order to substantiate one of his charges of plagiarism, the critic actually suppresses the words ' and to make these the basis of a new edition,' which form the concluding part of the sentence in Dr. Anthon's preface, and then boldly charges him with ‘stating categorically' that his new edition 'consists' of the extracts from Jacobs; and, what is worse, censures us for keeping 'this categorical statement from the knowledge of our readers. A more impudent and unblushing falsehood we do not think has ever before been uttered; and we leave our readers to form their own opinion of a cause, the very first argument in support of which rests on so contemptible a subterfuge, and so gross a violation of the truth.
We come now to the second charge, that Dr. ANTHON did not know that the selections from Anacreon, Bion, and Moschus, which he added to his work, were not all contained in the Reader of Jacobs. The shortest way of answering this, would be to refer the reader to what has just been said about the falsification of Dr. Anthon's language by this dishonest reviewer : to make the matter as elear as possible, however, we will dwell for a moment upon it. We stated in our last, when replying to the charge which we have here again noticed, that Dr. Anthon had possessed a copy of the German work for the last fourteen years, and had read the 'Minora' of Dalzel while at school. The fair and honest inference was, that he could not help knowing, in some way or other, what the two works respectively contained. The reviewer dissents from this conclu.
sion, and ironically observes, that these facts are not so remarkable for their pertinency where introduced, as for their profound interest to the general reader. As fas as we can ascertain his meaning, it appears to be this, that when you find a reviewer indulging in a palpable violation of truth and gentlemanly courtesy, it is a piece of impertinence on your part to attempt to set him right; and that a regard for facts is only a matter of interest for 'general readers.' We have here, very probably, another extract from the reviewer's
's new code of morals. But what will he say, when we inform him, that Dr. ANTHON has translated three of the four notes of Jacobs, on the ode of Anacreon marked 1. in the 'Reader;' that in his remarks on the second ode he has made no reference to Jacobs, this ode not being contained in the German work; that in the commentary on the third ode, Jacobs is again quoted, and three of his five notes are incorporated — and 80 of the rest ? Will he still assert that Dr. ANTHON, in preparing his 'Reader,' had not before him the texts of both Dalzel and Jacobs ?
The most impudent part of this charge remains now to be noticed. The reviewer has all along been leaving his readers under the impression, that the Boston editors took some of the selections from Anacreon, Bion, and Moschus, out of the German work of Jacobs. His words are: The Boston editors, where they made new selections from Jacobs, curtailed the length of his extracts considerably. Now this whole matter, commencing with the editors of the Boston Reader, and ending with the critic in the North American Review, is nothing more nor less than one startling mass of positive and deliberate falsehood. If any one will take the trouble to compare the Greek selections from Anacreon, Bion, and Moschus, contained in the Boston Reader, with the same pieces, as far as they are found in the German work, he will find a marked difference between the two texts, in readings, in pointing, and in every respect in which texts can possibly differ from one another; and then, if he compare the Boston text with that of Dalzel, he will discover the closest and most complete resemblance. In the first place, the arrangement of the odes of Anacreon, is, with the occasional dropping of one or two, precisely the same as that in the 'Minora,' while those in Jacobs are arranged altogether differently. In the next place, the Boston editors follow without deviation the readings, pointing, accentuation, etc., of the 'Minora,' although differing greatly from those of Jacobs; such as the Doric & for ή, καγώ for κάγώ, χ' οπόσα for χωπόσα, etc., in all which the New-York edition has either followed Jacobs, or more commonly Mehlhorn and Moebius for Anacreon, and Kiessling and Valckenaer for Bion and Moschus. In the third place, out of the thirty-three notes in Jacobs, on these same poetical extracts, not a single one is used in any manner in the Boston work, whereas Dr. Anthon has incorporated all that is valuable in them into the commentary that accompanies the NewYork edition of the Reader. How then stands the case? Why simply thus : The preface to the Boston work bears the stamp of falsehood on its very front, when it asserts that the pupil will find in it all the valuable notes' of Jacobs; and the reviewer in the North American, animated by a kindred spirit, indulges in a falsehood equally as gross, when he says, that 'the Boston editors, when they made new selections from Jacobs, curtailed the length of his extracts considerably,' first, because the Boston editors made no new selections whatever from Jacobs, but merely from Dalzel ; and secondly, because all the curtailing had been done long before, not from Jacobs, but from the original authors themselves, by Dalzel, in his 'Græca Minora.'
The third charge of the reviewer, and the one which he evidently regards as most conclusive in its nature, is the following: certain so-called errors in accentuation are found in the Boston Reader ; the same errors precisely are found in the New-York Reader; consequently the text of the latter was copied, as he maintains, errors and all, from that of the former. The answer which we have to make to this charge, will involve the editors of the Boston work, and their champion the reviewer, in rather an awkward dilemma. The text of the New-York Reader, (and we wish our readers to bear this fact carefully in mind,) follows the ninth edition of the first volume of Jacobs, the fifth of VOL. XVI.
volume second, and the third edition of the fourth volume. The Boston Reader, on the other hand, professes to follow the twelfth edition. Now it is a positive fact, and any one may satisfy himself on this head by an examination of the German work, that all the errors in accentuation, as the reviewer is pleased to call them, which he says Dr. Anthon copied from the Boston Reader, are found in the ninth edition of Jacobs, and not only in the text but also in the Lexicon, where we have'Ayıs, and lous, and äyvos, and flodeopkýrns, the very things which the reviewer wishes his readers to believe are typographical errors in the Boston work, not existing in the German edition, but copied from the Boston book by the New-York one. These are all found, we repeat, in the ninth edition of Jacobs, the very text which the New-York Reader follows; and they are all altered in the twelfth edition, the very text which the Boston editors profess to follow, and do not, for not one of these accents have they changed. Now the dilemma which here presents itself is this. If these variations in accent are matters of so much importance in themselves, that they can fairly be made the basis of a grave charge of plagiarism, then have the Boston editors been guilty of the most unpardonable deception and negligence, in professing to follow the twelfth edition of Jacobs, and yet leaving this accentuation unchanged ; and the reviewer, too, is liable to the same charge, for he says that the Boston editon 'has been edited and published with great care :' but if, on the other hand, these discrepancies in accent are in themselves matters of very little consequence, and if errors of this nature can very easily occur, even in the case of the most careful, then is the reviewer seeking to draw a false conclusion from untenable premises, and playing the part of a sophist, where he ought to be acting that of an honest and upright judge. As far then as regards similarity of accent, this whole charge against the New York Reader recoils upon those who advanced it. In making it, they only expose their own carelessness, and their own want of literary honesty.
While on the subject of accent, we will expose another falsehood. The reviewer says, that not only do the same errors in accent remain in the New-York as in the Boston edition, but that all the corrections found in the latter, occur also in the former. So far is this from being true, that errors in accent, and in orthography too, occurring almost constantly in their work, are not to be found on the pages of the New-York edition, and new readings, especially in the poetical part, are frequently brought in. For example, there are thirty-nine variations in reading, pointing, etc., in the text of Anacreon alone, and twenty-one in that of the first Idyl of Bion, while the following list contains only a small number of the errors which still disfigure the Boston work, although its editors had access to the twelfth edition of Jacobs, and which are all corrected in the New-York Reader, although Dr. Anthon had merely the ninth edition of the German work for his guide. Our references are to the pages of the Boston Reader : p. 1. Aivos, p. 4. uòpov, same page kaoñotov, since altered in their text, but still wrong in their note. On the same page, at line twenty-three, there is a most portentous blunder relative to Konoißiov and 'Alsžav. dpéws, where the editors have tried their hand at altering Jacobs's text, which the NewYork edition gives correctly ; p. 7. 'Atól dov, cúww, p. 9. értà vai dexúrnxus, p. 10. Mi for oύ, p. 15. κεχηνότες, p. 18. εαυτόν, Μεταπόντιω, p. 20. πράττε, άσθηνή, p. 21. οράς, p. 23. Ταραντίνου (Passow, Ταράντινοι,) πως, p. 31. εμπίπλησιν, p. 32. εθελήσαιμαι, p. 46. us, p. 47. v, p. 65. äkpwv, p. 81. Kékpwy, p. 94. 'Epum, (the vocative!) To these may be added køyw, x'onóca, kỹv, xú, and a host of others, many words baving no accents at all. The Boston text, moreover, is beautified by the introduction of s, for which the New York text is content to employ or, and y for ov, as sádia, èxOpis, etc. So again, the Boston text uses the final s in the middle of compounds, which the New-York edition never does; while the latter invariably employs the Attic termination e for n, which Attic form never appears in the Boston work. So much then for this other falsehood, that the New-York Reader has not a single correction of the text that does not also appear in, and has not been taken by it from, the pages of the Boston work.
We have obtained from Mr. DBISLER an account of the mode in which the New-York