« ПредишнаНапред »
But to proceed with our Author's Criticisins. Æschy!,
Ευ γαρ σαφως τοδ' σ' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
Εν γαρ σαφως τοδ' σ' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
κράτη ται' εσκομεν,
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 Agamennon, ν. 104-13.
Κυριος ειμι 9ροειν oδιoν κρατος
Θερμος ορνις Τευκριδ' επαιχν.
vaticinium) vaticinium) audiens quo faéto avis impetuosa mittit robur cognatum achivorum, geminum imperium (i. e. Agamemnonem et Menelaum) Græciæ Pubem eadem cum ducibus sentientem, cum hasta pænarum exattore 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 sacro filentio, they generally heap one difficulty on another, and in the end, ex nihilo nihil fit.
The following verses, in the fame Agamemnon, have been still less underftood than those we have already quoted, The Interpreters and Commentators have concluded, all alike mistakenly, that the word spetwv, 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
Μομφα δε φασμάα τεθων. . Thus our Author thinks it should be read, and thus tranflated :
“Quanquam tantopere benevola fit 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 (id efi, teneris) jucunda horum quæ dixi præfagia ipla oftendit, faufta illa quidem, sed 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
Πολλων παθησμον δ' ειμαιων αν εξαμης,
Agam. v. 972-3-4.
For this construction amETTOICI should be
Inftead of μηχανωμενης, Dr. Heath reads with Stanley μηχανωμενη, which, in our opinion, is right; as ψυκης mon probably refers to Agamemnon, and not to Clytemnestra. For ευξαμην he reads ηυξαμην, and tranflates the paflage thus : “ Plura vero vestimenta conculcanda vovissem, fi reditus tuus prius domui tuæ in oraculis fuisset denuntiatus, præmia ob animam hanc tuam fervatam rependere moliens."
Verfes 1437-8-9, in Agamemnon, as they have hitherto
Λιπος επ' ομμάτων
Τυμμα τυμματι τισα.
Αποχρημα τοισι ζημιαις ταυρουμενον,
Τισειν μ' εχουλα πολλα δυστερπη κακα
Αποχρων δε τασδε ζημιας, ταυρουμένος
Τισειν μ' εχούλα πολλα δυστερπη
The Emendation and Explication of the following passage,
Μηδ' ες αγκρισιν ελθειν.
Σπευδομειαι δ' αφελειν
Μηδ' εις αγκρισιν ελθειν. . “ Verte, Dii vero Joven hisce curis levare studentes immunitatem ab omni alia jurisdictione meis precibus concesserunt, et ut rationem cuiquam reddere non tenerer.”
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 paffages as were otherwise hard to be understood.
These Emendations are much more excusable than such as are made merely for the sake of the metre, the rules of which are so extremely vague and various, as they are laid down by the metrical Critics, that we will venture to say any chapter in Robinson Crusoe might be reduced to measure by them, This is not conjecture; the thing ihall be proved. As I was rummaging about her, lambicus dimeter bypercataleElus I found several
Dochmaicus Things that I wanted,
Dactylicus dimeter [Jyllabus A fire-shovel and tongs,
Dochmaicus ex epitrito quarto et Two brafs kettles,
Basis anapefiicacum 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, 8vo. 53. Dodfley,
very favourable idea, which the English Reader must
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 ; * 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 diftinguished 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, sical Inequality, consisting 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 confifts 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 itrength 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 conclufion he exposes; but in a profefled investigation of the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality in