which has been condemned, it is hoped that, at least, their justice cannot be impeached; and that, an honest warmth of feeling, in a good cause, may be manifested without culpability. Had not the supporters of the ECLECTIC REVIEW perceived that the great engine of the press, as far as related to periodical productions, was, with a few honourable exceptions, engaged on the side of a sophistical philosophy, exerting itself in sapping the foundation of religious and moral principles in their beloved country, their humble labours would never have been obtruded on public attention. Can it be denied that, on these important topics, the most revolutionary doctrines were, (would that it could not be added, and still are!) sedulously disseminated? Has Sophistry, under the name of liberal inquiry, ceased from her endeavours to shew that, it is a very limited homage which the man, accustomed to weigh the reason and fitness of things, ought to pay to what is commonly received as a revelation from God? Has she recalled her insinuations that Paul and Peter are to be regarded, merely, as the chroniclers of the notions and expressions of their half-civilized countrymen, to which little authority is to be affixed in this age of philosophical and literary refinement? It would only be necessary to take a slight review of recent periodical publications, to prove that these remarks are not unmerited, Instances of the most inveterate dislike to principles, resting for their authority on the scriptures, might be multiplied.

Nor is this malignant sophistry confined to those subjects of pure revelation, which faith rather than reason is required to acknowledge. It extends itself over the plainest

obligations of morality, whether they regard man in relation to his maker, or to his fellow mortals. With these philosophers, the will of God appears to have little weight in determining the basis of morals, and his commands in adjusting the nature and extent of their requisi tions. The high duties which the chief inhabitant of the world owes to his creator, preserver, and redeemer (if this last term is at all admissible) are merged in the claims which his equals have upon him, and these again are put upon so fickle a tenure, that they are liable to be subverted at the beck of some one of the phantoms conjured up by modern sophists, the nature of which it is impossible to define.

In a very recent and conspicuous instance, in which flagrant delinquency called forth, from our literary tribunals, a studied severity of censure, it was observable in some, that the rebuke was accompanied with admissions, which clearly shewed that the indignation was not levelled at the moral evil of the crime, but against its probable effects upon society. From such religion, and such morality, every one that truly fears his God, loves his neighbour, and wishes well to his country, will earnestly pray that we may be effectually defended.

In speaking of the manner in which the conductors of the ECLECTIC REVIEW have executed the task which they have undertaken, it becomes them to be diffident. As they trust that they have right views of the importance of the object, it is impossible that they should not be aware of its difficulties. To say that they have honestly kept their principles in sight, is not, they are sensible, all that can justly be required of them. They

are conscious of defects, but hope that these are such as candour will readily overlook, and such as they are qualified to avoid, in the prosecution of their labours. Their endeavours are unremitted, to render the publication worthy of that patronage, which they are happy here to acknowledge, by the merit of its execution, as well as the purity of its design. They flatter themselves that each succeeding year will witness their progress in every qualification, that may give effect and permanence to their conscientious efforts, to leave the religious and moral state of their country better than they found it.

If the conductors of the ECLECTIC REVIEW may be allowed to glance at the obligations of others, while they recognize their own, they would observe that this is not a time for supineness and indifference. The enemies of sound principles will be active, if their friends are not. The field of public sentiment cannot be left waste: if good seed be not sown, tares certainly will. It is therefore a necessary and incumbent duty, of all who rank themselves on the side of pure Christianity and its attendant moral virtues, cautiously to estimate the tendency of those literary productions, which they countenance and support. Such a discrimination, conscientiously exercised by each individual who feels its importance, would do more to dismay error; and give the ascendancy to truth, than a myriad of learned disquisitions and moral harangues.

Nostra quæ afferimus talia sunt. De nobis ipsis silemus. De re autem quæ agitur, petimus ut homines eam non opinionem sed opus esse cogitent; ac pro certo habeant non sectæ nos alicujus aut placiti, sed utilitatis et amplitudinis humanæ fundamenta moliri. Baco Verul

THE

ECLECTIC REVIEW,

For JULY, 1806.

Art. I. The Works of Sallust; to which are prefixed two Essays on the Life, Literary Character, and Writings of the Historian; with Notes Historical, Biographical and Critical. By Henry Steuart, L. L. D. F. R. S. and F. A. S. Edin. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. pp. lxiii. 544. 760. Price 41. 12s. Boards. C. & R. Baldwin, 1806.

THE Luxury of books once signified a delicious repast of the

mind on letters and philosophy: at present it seems to mean magnificence of paper, prints, type, and binding; and this meaning, unfortunately, is of considerable importance. For it not only shews a corrupt and effeminate taste creeping into literature itself; but renders the price of books inconvenient to the only persons that will read them. The growing fashion is not elegant, but meretricious. What would the Sosii say, the two brothers, the original venders of SALLUST, who lived at the sign of Janus and Vertumnus in the Forum at Rome, could they see their historian, as man-millenered by Dr. Steuart.

On perusing these two bulky volumes,' the first observation that must strike every reader, and struck the editor himself, is the conspicuous disproportion of translated to original matter.' The two Epistles to Cæsar, (called, however, in the edition of Ascensius, 1523, Orationes,) do not appear till the end of the first volume; and we see nothing of the Catilinarian conspiracy or Jugurthine war, till we have proceeded into the second. The work therefore resembles a large mushroom, whose head overwhelms its body.

The motto from Cicero informs us, that, like C. Lucilius, our translator' writes neither for the very illiterate, nor for men of consuminate learning: because the former would understand nothing, and the latter perhaps more than himself.' But this is taking a much lower rank than every body else will assign him. More than once in the preface he adopts the same tone of humility, as (in page x) should the riper scholar complain of trite and common-place matter occupying a considerable portion of the notes; I can only say,, that it is not designed for his use: although it may perhaps tend to assist his recollection. But, as the celebrated Montaigne remarks, what oppoVOL. II.

sites are found in the same man, and how contradictory often are we to ourselves! For elsewhere we meet with symptoms of vanity not less unequivocal; as in the following, among other passages. 'He whose taste has been formed on the great models of antiquity, may be trusted for candour,' by implication, in this work. And again; perhaps this may be the last time that the true principles of translation, as they are now understood' (and no doubt as here exhibited) will need to be defended by formal discussion.'

A fine head of Sallust, from a marble bust, in the Farnese palace at Rome, adorns the title page. But, alas! there is no name to the figure; only tradition affirms it to be his. That kind of evidence has been lately resisted in the instance of the tomb of Alexander, (E. R. Vol. I. 581.) though supported by corroborating circumstances. Besides, we strongly suspect, that no resemblance will be found between the bust, and the coins and medals of Sallust. That a copy of this bust has been taken, and the name put on that copy, though there is none in the original, is a kind of forgery; instead of legitimate proof, that the marble is a genuine likeness. The doctrine of Lavater, on the other hand, would seem to prove for whom the effigy was designed, because it is that of libidinous violence, and merciless rapacity; a mixture of penetration most acute, and of contemplation most corrupt; exactly as Le Clerc, Horace, Aulus Gellius, Varro, Suetonius, Ausonius, Dio and Lactantius, have described him. The last mentioned writer says, ' Quod quidem non fugit hominem nequam Sallustium, qui ait: sed omnis nostra vis in animo et corpore sita est: animi imperio, corporis servitio magis utimur. Rectè, si ita vixisset, ut locutus est. Servivit enim fædissimis voluptatibus, suamque ipse sententiam vitæ pravitate dissolvit.'

The long-winded preface gives a general outline of the two volumes; and contains a great deal too much about translation, and about Mr. Murphy and others, from whom reciprocal compliments might be acceptable. It apprizes us also, that the author means to wash an Ethiop white; that is, to vindicate the character of his client against the aspersions of Le Clerc and his numerous authorities. The praise of Murphy as a technical translator, in one page, seems to be contradicted in the next (see pages 28, 29.) and though there is no little merit in Ballantyne the printer, yet the vaunted diligence and accuracy in correcting the press (at least in this volume) is entirely groundless.

For, beside the errata specified at the end of the work, mei should be mihi, (page 22 of the preface) bn ishment should be banishment, nollui should be nolui, and aut should be ut (page 93 of the notes on Essay the first) carries should be caries (Essay