PRESTON’S ARGONAUTICS OF APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 
iedders. Nor do the two translations 
of this work into our own language, 
which have preceded the present, appear, 
from whatever cause, to have attracted 
much attention from the public. Quin- 
ailian characterizes it as a work not con- 
temptible, written in a kind of equal 
mediocrity ; and Longinus quotes our 
author as ai instance of those writers, 
who escape great faults by not aiming 
at great excelléncies. Yet it may be 
fairly questioned, whether a careful 
perusal of his poem will not incline and 
authorize a candid reader to form a 
more favourable estimate of its merits. 
This has at least been the opinion of 
| most of those modern critics, who have 
mentioned the subject, and may be con- 
sidered as most competent to pronounce 
a. judgment respecting it. Nor are the 
p frequent, and sometimes close imitations 
_ which occur in Virgil, to be considered 
_ as slight testimonies of praise from an 
. authority which all will acknowledge to 
be beyond exception. 
| A learned commentator on Longinus, 
_ im extenuation of the sentence of that 
critic, remarks in the first place in fa- 
_ vour of Apollonius, that he adheres 
closely to his subject ; that he accurately 
follows the order of place and time as 
established by tradition; that the epi- 
sodes grew out of the work, and scarce- 
_ ly wear the appearance of digression ; 
__and that the events both of a common 
and marvellous nature, are related with 
___ probability, if we refer them to the sen- 
__timents and belief of the age. Thus he 
characterizes the fable of the poem ; this 
is, however, a praise which scarcely 
“rises above the faultless mediocrity to 
which the ancient critics would reduce 
‘it; and it must be acknowledged that 
_ the fable is in a great degree destitute 
4y of some of the higher excellencies of an 
epic story. It is deficient in unity. 
_ It relates a series of adventures in chro- 
- nological order, many of which have no 
bd connection with each other than 
the successive assaults, victories, and de- 
feats, of the Greeks in the siege of Troy. 
i ‘tn this he has chosen to imitate the prac- 
tice of the cyclic wxiters, rather than 
“that of the great parent of epic song. 
alf the poem is spent before the heroes 
anchor in the Phasis. In the construc- 
of ion of his fable the poet has certainly dis- 
” hie no art, though it is not, perhaps, 
i ‘in itself, of a nature sufficiently ample 
; “to admit a better method of exhibition, 
i 
Sulla 
431 
The characters display some degree 
of discrimination, though the poet has 
by no means reached consummate excel- 
lence in this department of his art. Jason 
and Medea are necessarily the two most 
prominent figures. Jason is always 
brave and prudent, and may, perhaps, 
be placed on a level with /Eneas. The 
reader cannot, however, forgive the 
base treachery by which the murder 
of Absyrtus is accomplished. Medea, 
though the delineation of her character is 
very far from being destitute of skill, will 
appear but a feeble archetype of Dido, 
drawn by the Roman poet with a force 
and beauty which transcend our praise. 
The sentiments which the poet attri- 
butes, are generally assigned with 
propriety, and appear to be supplied 
by a cultivated and well-furnished’ mind. 
The diction of the narrative is often 
wrought with great elegance, sweetness, 
and precision, though the style is fre- 
quently obscure, in comparison with 
that of Homer, in consequence of its 
more artificial structure, and sometimes 
by long and involved clatises, the em- 
ployment of unusual words, and the al- 
lusions which are perpetually recurring 
to the mythological and antiquarian 
learning of his age. Though Apollo- 
nius does not frequently transport his 
reader, by any powerful or exalted feél- 
ings, yet instances indubitably occur of 
passages both sublime and pathetic, to 
a high degree of excellence. 
The most characteristic parts of the 
Alexandrian bard, are, perhaps, the 
descriptions and the similitudes. The 
descriptions are usually laboured with 
great care and accuracy, if not minute- 
ness, and frequently with great success. 
The comparisons are cften possessed of 
a great degree of originality and beauty, 
and are, in some instances, transplanted 
by Virgil. Apollonius abounds moré 
than most poets in circumstances drawn 
from common life, which are frequently 
applied with great felicity. A striking 
example of the difference of the manners 
of the Greek and Roman poets, may be 
supplied by the well-known descriptions 
of night, in the third bock of Apollo- 
nius, and the fourth of Virgil; the lat- 
ter of which passages is confessedly an 
imitation of the former. ‘The lines of 
Virgil are familiar to most readers ; we 
however transcribe them for the sake of 
comparison, without the trouble of re: 
ference. ae 
