« السابقةمتابعة »
But to proceed with our Author's Criticisins. Ælthyl, Perf. ν. 786-7-8.
Ευ γαρ σαφως τοδ' σ' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
Ουκ αν φαν: ο μεν πηματ’ ερξανθες τοσα " The learned Dawes, (says he) in his Miscellaneous Criticisms, p. 334, has vainly attempted to mend this passage; for the place is quite well, and wants no physic. The reading he proposes is as follows:
Εν γαρ σαφως τοδ' ις' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
Ουκ αν εφανημεν πημαί εξαντες τοσα. « Now as to this amendment, in the firft place απαντες joined to Eur ndoxes, is cold and languid, and hangs to it, dangling like an idle tail. In the next place, how could Darius fay ει κραιη ταδ' εσκομεν, had I had the empire; far he certainly had it: without doubt he ought rather to have faid ει κραιη ταδ' ετ εσκομεν, had I yet had the empire. Lattly, observe also how frigid, with all this parade, would this speech of Darius be, * Had I been in the place of Xerxes, and then held the sceptre of this empire, ye should not have suffered these evils from me.” Thus far our Commentator on this emendation of Dawes. But notwithstanding all he has advanced against it, we believe the learned and judicious Reader will perceive, that it has much more force and propriety than the usual text; that the physic has been very luccessfully administered, and that the tail hangs not ungrace. fully,
We are much obliged to our learned Commentator, and so is every Reader of Æschylus, for his explication and emendation of the following difficult passage in Agamemnnon, ν. 104-113.
Κυριος ειμι 9ροειν oδιoν κρατος
Θερμος ορνις Τευκριδ' επαιαν. Verte, idoneus sum enarrare vilioriæ omen fauftum in itinere oblatum viris principibus (adhuc enim divinitus inspirat fiduciam
vaticinium) audiens quo facto avis impetuosa mittit robur cognatum achivorum, geminum imperium (i. e. Agamemnonem et Menelaum) Græciæ Pubem eadem cum ducibus fentientem, cum hafia pænarum exatiore Trojanam ad terram.
The Reader will perceive that it is not with this, as with most difficult pallages of the antient Writers, upon which, if their Commentators do not pass them over facro filentio, they generally heap one difficulty on another, and in the end, ex nihilo nihil fit.
The following verses, in the same Agamemnon, have been still less understood than those we have already quoted. The Interpreters and Commentators have concluded, all alike mistakenly, that the word speswv, in the last line, referred to the omen of the eagle mentioned before, but without doubt it alludes to the well-known story, in Homer, of the sparrow and her young ones being eat up by the serpent. (See the Iliad, b.v. v. 300—330.)
Τοσσον περ ευφρων α καλα
Moupa de papucha stålwr.
" Quanquam tantopere benevola sit pulchra illa Dea pullis nondum volare valentibus (aut, fi mavis *, pullis immaturis) omnium quæcunque sint matres (vel, omnium imbecillium) et omnium agrestium ferarum, Catulis mammas amantibus fid efi, teneris) jucunda horum quæ dixi præfagia ipla oftendit, faufta illa quidem, fed culpanda oftenta passerculorum.”
We never thought the following passage so exquisitely difficult as our Author has represented it to be; but, as it has not been generally understood, we shall quote his translation of it for the benefit of such of our Readers as may not have an opportunity to consult his book : on which account also we desire it may be observed, that we make many other quotations.
Πολλων παλησμον δ' ειμαιων αν εξαμην,
Agam. v. 972-3-4 . 8 For this conftruξtion απεπτοισι 1hould be put for αεπτοισι.
Inftead of μηχανωμενης, Dr. Heath reads with Stanley μηχανωμενη, which, in our opinion, is right; as ψυκης moίt probably refers to Agamemnon, and not to Clytemnestra. For ευξαμην he reads ηυξαμην, and tranflates the paffage thus : « Plura vero vestimenta conculcanda voviffem, fi reditus tuus prius domui tuæ in oraculis fuisset denuntiatus, præmia ob animam hanc tuam servatam rependere moliens.”
Verses 1437–8–9, in Agamemnon, as they have hitherto stood, have always to us been unintelligible, Some light has, however, been thrown upon them by the Translation and Emendations of our Author. Thus he reads and construes the paffage :
Λιπος επ' ομμάτων ,
Τυμμα τυμματι τισαι. - Unêtio fanguinea circum oculos non præbet speciem impunitatis ; adhuc oportet te amicis orbatam plagam plaga rependere.” Choephoræ, v. 273.
Αποχρημα τοισι ζημιαις ταυρουμενον,
Τισειν μ εχονια πολλα δυστερπη κακα " In vain (says the Doctor) would you try to scratch any proper sense out of this passage as it stands.' Thus, I fuppofe, it 1hould read:
Αποχρων δε τασδε ζημιας, ταυρουμενος
Τισειν μ' εχονια πολλα δυστερπη κακα. - « Verte, oraculo vero denuntians hafce pαnas, ipfe quidem exasperatus dixit me eas anima propria luiturum, multa hecce fuftinentem injucunda mala.”. • The Emendation and Explication of the following passage, in the Eumenides, deserve attention. v. 361–365.
Σπευδομεναι δ' αφελειν
Μηδ' ες αγκρισιν ελθειν. « In his Constructionem non absolvi, sed imperfectam et suspenfam relinqui, nemo non videt. Expendat lector annon forsan ita scripserit Poeta.
Σπευδομειαι δ' αφελειν
M7,82 FIS ayxvon €20:w.
Would our limits allow us, we could with pleasure point out many more passages in Æschylus, which Dr. Heath has happily illustrated. Without doubt his critical labours on the works of this Author are very valuable, and deserve the thanks of all the literary world, as Æschylus is by far the most difficult and abstruse of the Greek Poets. But the Doctor will pardon us if we give it as our opinion that he has sometimes made too free with the text of his Author; though it must be owned he has in general only proposed alterations in such passages as were otherwise hard to be understood.
These Emendations are much more excusable than such as
Daet; licus dimeter (Syllabır
Dochmaicus ex epitrito quarto et
. Daciylica penthimimeris
Basis anapæfiicacum syllaba. Enough for a specimen. For our strictures on Dr. Heath's Annotations on Sophocles and Euripides, we must refer the Reader to our next Review.
A Discourse upon the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality
among Mankind. By J. J. Rousseau, Citizen of Geneva,
I have formed of Mr. Rousseau, from such of his Pieces as have already appeared in our language, will, no doubt,
excite his curiosity to peruse this performance. The gratification of this curiosity seems, indeed, to be the most commendable motive for the present Publication ; for, in justice to this elegant Writer, we must observe, that the Translation is by no means equal to the Original.
It is now several years since the Academy of Dijon proposed the following prize-question to the philosophical world ; i What is the Origin of the Inequality among Mankind ? and whether such Inequality is authorized by the law of nature?” The discourse before us was designed as an answer to this question, and was honourably distinguished by obtaining the prize. How far it may be a satisfactory solution, however, of the difficulties that occur in reflecting on the question, we do not take upon us fully to determine; contenting ourselves with giving a short abstract of the Author's design, and making a few animadversions on the most remarkable passages we meet with.
Our Philosopher sets out with distinguishing two species of Inequality among Men. The one he calls a natural, or phy, fical Inequality, confisting in the difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind. The other he terms a moral, or political Inequality, depending on a kind of convention, and established, or at least authorized, by the common consent of mankind. This species of Inequality consists in the different privileges which some men enjoy, to the prejudice of others, such as that of being richer, more honoured, more powerful, and even that of exacting obedience from them. “ It were absurd to ask, (says he) what is the cause of natural Inequality, as the definition of the term answers the question : again, it would be still more absurd to enquire, if there might not be some essential connection between the two species of Inequality, as it would be asking, in other words, If those who command are necessarily better than those who obey; and if strength of body, or of mind, wisdom or virtue, are always to be found in individuals, in the fame proportion with power, or riches ? A question fit perhaps to be discussed by flaves in the hearing of their marters, but unbecoming free and reasonable beings in quest of truth.”
With our Author's leave, however, we cannot see the object of the latter enquiry in so absurd a light as he has placed it. It were absurd, indeed, at this time of day, to draw the conclusion he exposes; but in a professed investigation of the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality in