Marginalia — 1902 historical reading — reading text

effects of the oratory of Demosthenes were vaster than those wrought by the eloquence of any modern, and yet not controvert the idea that the modern eloquence, itself, is superior to that of the Greek. The Greeks were an excitable, unread race, for they had no printed books. Vivâ voce exhortations carried with them, to their quick apprehensions, all the gigantic force of the new. They had much of that vivid interest which the first fable has upon the dawning intellect of the child — an interest which is worn away by the frequent perusal of similar things — by the frequent inception of similar fancies. The suggestions, the arguments, the incitements of the ancient rhetorician were, when compared with those of the modern, absolutely novel; possessing thus an immense adventitious force — a force which has been, oddly enough, left out of sight in all estimates of the eloquence of the two eras. The finest Philippic of the Greek would have been hooted at in the British House of Peers, while an impromptu of Sheridan, or of Brougham, would have carried by storm all the hearts and all the intellects of Athens. ————— “The author of “Miserrimus” might have been W. G. Simms (whose “Martin Faber” is just such a work) — but is(1) G. M. W. Reynolds, an Englishman, who wrote, also, “Albert de Rosann,” and “Pickwick Abroad” — both excellent things in their way. ————— Mr. Grattan, who, in general, writes well, has a bad habit of loitering — of toying with his subject, as a cat with a mouse, instead of grasping it firmly at once, and devouring it without ado. He takes up too much time in the ante-room. He has never done with his introductions. Sometimes one introduction is merely the vestibule to another; so that by the time he arrives at his main theme, there is none of it left. He is afflicted with a perversity common enough even among otherwise good talkers — an irrepressible desire of tantalizing by circumlocution. If the greasy print here(1) exhibited is, indeed, like Mr. Grattan, then is Mr. Grattan like nobody else — for who else ever thrust forth, from beneath a wig of wire, the countenance of an over-done apple-dumpling? ————— It is said in Isaiah, respecting Idumea, that “none shall pass through thee for ever and ever.” Dr. Keith here(2) insists, as usual, upon understanding the passage in its most strictly literal sense. He attempts to prove that neither Burckhardt nor Irby passed through the country — merely penetrating to Petra, and returning. And our Mr. John Stephens entered Idumea with the deliberate design of putting the question to test. He wished to see whether it was meant that Idumea should not be passed through, and “accordingly,” says he, “I passed through it from one end to the other.” Here is error on all sides. In the first place, he was not sufficiently informed in the Ancient Geography to know that the Idumea which he certainly did pass through, is not the Idumea, or Edom, intended in the prophecy — the latter lying much farther eastward. In the next place, whether he did or did not pass through the true Idumea — or whether anybody, of late days, did or did not pass through it — is a point of no consequence either to the proof or to the disproof of the literal fulfilment of the Prophecies. For it is quite a mistake on the part of Dr. Keith — his supposition that travelling through Idumea is prohibited at all. The words conceived to embrace the prohibition, are found in Isaiah 34-10, and are Lenetsach netsachim ein over bah: — literally — Lenetsach,(1) for an eternity; netsachim,(2) of eternities; ein,(3) not, over,(4) moving about; bah, in it. That is to say; for an eternity of eternities, (there shall) not (be any one) moving about in it — not through it. The participle over refers to one moving to and fro, or up and down, and is the same term which is translated “current” as an epithet of money, in Genesis 23, 16. The prophet means only that there shall be no mark of life in the land — no living being there — no one moving up and down in it. He refers merely to its general abandonment and desolation. In the same way we have received an erroneous idea of the meaning of Ezekiel 35, 7, where the same region is mentioned. The common version runs; — “Thus will I make Mount Seir most desolate, and cut off from it him that passeth out and him that returneth” — a sentence which Dr. Keith views as he does the one from Isaiah ; that is, he supposes it to forbid any travelling in Idumea under penalty of death; instancing Burckhardt's death shortly after his return, as confirming this supposition, on the ground that he died in consequence of the rash attempt. Now the words of Ezekiel are: — Venathati(1) eth-har Seir leshimmamah(2) ushemamah, vehichrati(3) mimmennu over vasal:(4) — literally — Venathati, and I will give; eth-har, the mountain; Sēir, Seir; leshimmamah, for a desolation; ushemamah, and a desolation, vehichrati, and I will cut off; mimmennu, from it; over, him that goeth; vasal,(5) and him that returneth: — And I will give Mount Seir for an utter desolation, and I will cut off from it him that passeth and repasseth therein. The reference here is as in the preceding passage; allusion is made to the inhabitants of the land, as moving about in it, and actively employed in the business of life. I am sustained in the translation of over vasal by Gesenius S. 5 — vol. 2 — p. 570, Leo's Trans.: Compare, also; Zachariah 7, 14 and 9, 8. There is something analogous in the Hebrew Greek phrase, at Acts, 9, 28 — και ην μετ’ αυτων εισπορευομενος και ’εκσπορευομενος εν ’Ιερουσαλημ — And he was with them in Jerusalem, coming in and going out. The Latin versatus est is precisely paraphrastic. The meaning is that Saul, the new convert, was on intimate terms with the true believers in Jerusalem; moving about among them to and fro, or in and out.(1) ————— The author of “Cromwell” does better as a writer of ballads than of prose. He has fancy, and a fine conception of rhythm. But his romantico-histories have all the effervescence of his verse, without its flavor. Nothing worse than his tone can be invented: — turgid sententiousness, involute, spasmodically straining after effect. And to render matters worse, he is as thorough an unistylist as Cardinal Chigi, who boasted that he wrote with the same pen for half a century. [The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 31:] 1. 1764. [The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 34:] 1. “Ellen Middleton.” [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 36:] 1. Michel Masson, author of “Le Cœur d’une Jeune Fille.” 2. Mercier's “L’an deux mille quatre cent quarante.” [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 38:] 1. The “Satyre Ménippée.” 2. By M. Anton Flaminius. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 39:] 1. A sermon on a Future State, combating the opinion that “Death is an Eternal Sleep.” By Gilbert Austin, London, 1794. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 40:] 1. Translation of the Book of Jonah into German Hexameters. By J. G. A. Müller. Contained in the “Memorabilien von Paulus. 2. Night and Morning. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 41:] 1. Camöens — Genoa — II. 32. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 44:] 1. Forelaesninger over det Danske Sprog, eller resonneret Dansk Grammatik, ved Jacob Baden. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 45:] 1. “Memoirs and Letters of Madame Malibran,” by the Countess of Merlin. 2. Voltaire. 3. St. Austin de libris Manichæis. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 51:] 1. “Letters of Eliza Wilkinson, during the invasion and possession of Charleston, S. C., by the British, in the Revolutionary War.” Arranged by Caroline Gilman. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 59:] 1. Printed by Griswold as a separate paper. — ED. [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 60:] 1. “Coleridge's Table-Talk.” [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 62:] 1. [Mr. Poe was wrong. “Miserriums” was written by W. M. Reynolds, who died at Fontainebleau in 1850. — Griswold's note.] [The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 63:] 1. “High-Ways and By-Ways.” 2. “Literal Fulfilment of the Prophecies.” [The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 64:] [1. Lenētsach, for an eternity of. 2. netsāchim, eternities. 3. ēyn. 4. ovēr, passing over or through. — ED.] [The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 65:] [NOTE:. Ezek. 35:7 should be w^(e)nathatti eth-har se ir l^(e)shimh^(e)mah ûsh^(e)mamah w^(e) hikratti mimmennu ôbhēr washabh. Is. 34:10 should be lenecah necahim en ôbhēr bah ‘ôbhēr does not mean moving to and fro or up and down, but simply assing over or through. The Revised Version is correct. 1. wenathatti. 2. leshimmamah. 3. wehikratti. 4. washabh. 5. washabh. — ED.] [The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 66:] 1. [Cf. Professor Anthon's letter, Vol. XVII. — ED.] III. [Godey's Lady's Book, August, 1845.](2) THE merely mechanical style of “Athens” is far better than that of any of Bulwer's previous books. In general he is atrociously involute — this is his main defect. He wraps one sentence in another ad infinitum — very much in the fashion of those “nests of boxes” sold in our wooden-ware shops, or like the islands within lakes, within islands within lakes, within islands within lakes, of which we read so much in the “Periplus” of Hanno. ————— Men of genius are far more abundant than is supposed. In fact, to appreciate thoroughly the work of what we call genius, is to possess all the genius by which the work was produced. But the person appreciating may be utterly incompetent to reproduce the work, or any thing similar, and this solely through lack of what may be termed the constructive ability — a matter quite independent of what we agree to understand in the term “genius” itself. This ability is based, to be sure, in great part, upon the faculty of analysis, enabling the artist to get full view of the machinery of his proposed effect, and thus work it and regulate it at will; but a great deal depends also upon properties strictly moral — for example, upon patience, upon concentrativeness, or the power of holding the attention steadily to the one purpose, upon self-dependence and contempt for all opinion which is opinion and no more — in especial, upon energy or industry. So vitally important is this last, that it may well be doubted if any thing to which we have been accustomed to give the title of a “work of genius” was ever accomplished without it; and it is chiefly because this quality and genius are nearly incompatible, that “works of genius” are few, while mere men of genius are, as I say, abundant. The Romans, who excelled us in acuteness of observation, while falling below us in induction from facts observed, seem to have been so fully aware of the inseparable connection between industry and a “work of genius” as to have adopted the error that industry, in great measure, was genius itself. The highest compliment is intended by a Roman when, of an epic, or any thing similar, he says that it is written industriâ mirabili or incredibili industriâ. ————— All true men must rejoice to perceive the decline of the miserable rant and cant against originality, which was so much in vogue a few years ago among a class of microscopical critics, and which at one period threatened to degrade all American literature to the level of Flemish art. Of puns it has been said that those most dislike who are least able to utter them; but with far more of truth may it be asserted that invectives against originality proceed only from persons at once hypocritical and common-place. I say hypocritical — for the love of novelty is an indisputable element of the moral nature of man; and since to be original is merely to be novel, the dolt who