V. 30. We fhall now prefent our readers with a fpecimen of Mr. Plumptre's poetical powers. We have, it is true, our doubts as to the introductory word of our quotation, which, even if its quantity be right, feems more Anacreontic than Homeric; more defcriptive of convivial merriment, than of facred rapture. We have alfo ventured to substitute exela Αὐτὸς for Αὐτὸς πάντη, at the commencement of the thirty-fecond line ; a liberty which, we truft, the learned author will pardon. We shall not pay fo ill a compliment to the taste of our readers as to detain them with our remarks on the beauty and propriety, with which a well-known fplendid line of the eleventh Odyffey is adapted to the concluding verse : ม Αγκε', ἄνω ὠθεισθε πρὸς εὔδιον αιθέρ ̓ ὀλύμπο. V. 47. We object to μιμήσεται, as conveying rather a ludicrous, or at leaft a fatyrical idea. The paflage in Euripides, cited by a learned lexicographer, does not feem to weaken the force of this obfervation, if we preferve the undoubtedly just reading of κακὰ in the 45oth verfe, infead of καλὰ, which has been fancifully fubftituted for it. V. 50. Mr. Plumptre thus beautifully renders the beautiful fimile of the shepherd: Εὔποκον ὡς ποιμὴν διατηρῶν τῶν κατ ̓ ἀγρὸν, Ηδίςην ζητεῖ τε νομὴν, καὶ ἐὕπνοον αὔξαν Δίζηται τά τ' ἀπολλύμενα, πλάγχθενά τ' ἐξύκει, Νυκτὸς ἔων τε φύλαξ, και ἐπίσκοπος ήμαῖος, ἀιέν Ασθενέας, τοῖς περὶ χρέος ἐς' ἄρνεσσι βοηθεῖν ̓Αγκὰς ἔχων, τροφέει τε, και ἐν κόλπῳ ὕψε θάλπει, V. 59, 60. Would not the word τάσσω, in thefe lines, be more appropriate to the array of hoftile armies, and igi to the national contentions which gave occafion to battles? When Mr. Plumptre republifhes his elegant poem, he may, perhaps, think this remark worthy of attention: the alteration can be very easily made. At prefent the lines ftand thus. Οὔκετ ̓ ἔπειτ ̓ ἔθνος ταχθήσεται ἄντιον ἔθνει 1 V. 63. am. We are not quite certain, that this word is admiffible in poetry. In its primary fenfe, it fignifies a thong made of a boar's hide, (Th. ous.) Metaphorically, it was applied to the lances and miffile weapons ufed by huntsmen in their pursuits of the wild-boar, and other favage animals. It afterwards was adopted into more general ufe, as an implement of war. (Vide Suid. in loc.) But Mr. Plumptre feems to have felected the word, because the LXX, in the text to which the poet refers, use the word Bivas-If. ii. 4.-a manifeft corruption from ßim. It is fcarcely, however, in any of its forms fufficiently poetical for Mr. P's. purpose. ལ. 19. To avoid the open vowel, we would substitute μυρτοις ἀνθεμοέσσαις, for μυςτῷ ἀνθεμοέσση. V. 87. We fhall be pardoned for one more fhort quotation, of exquifite delicacy and beauty. Εγρεο, φῶτι Σαλὴμ κορυφαμένη † ὑψε ἄνοιγε The clofing fpondaic has here its appropriate grandeur and magnificence . V. 98. Σοὶ νάπαι ιδύμης καλλίπνοα δώρα φέξεσι, The learned tranflator needs not to be reminded by us, that the first fyllable of the word váma is uniformly short, Iduns muft, therefore, confift entirely of long fyllables, or the metre will be defective. Now, as there is no ancient Greek poet, we believe, who makes ufe of the word in queftion S, Mr. Plumptre might, perhaps, confider himself at liberty to adapt the quantity of the word to his purpose. But we are obliged to enter our proteft against this licence; a proteft founded on the strongest rules of analogy. Obvius affiduo Syrophoenix udus amomo Juv. Sat. v. 160. Primus Idumæas referam tibi, Mantua, palmas. Virg. Georg. iii. 12. + We impute the various reading in the original to a typographical error. We cannot quite approve of the modern addition of the point of admiration to Greek. See obfervations on this fubject, in our Review of Mr. Tew's Tranflation of Gray's Elegy. We expected to meet with the word in the gynous of Dionyfius; but we confulted that poem (as edited by Wells) without fuccefs, Modern Modern Greek writers have, in general, conformed to this method of scanfion. In one paffage only have we found it violated, and apparently by overfight, in the Δαβίδης Εμμετρος of Duport. Thus allo the learned Ailmer in his Αρχίμαγος Αἱ δὲ μόναι χώραι φευξονθ ̓ το χεῖρας ἀάπτες Ch. xi. 41. 3. V. 102. The fplendour of Mr. Plumptre's poetry is here worthy of its original Mufe; almoft of its fubject. Ηλία ἐκ ὄφελός τι, καὶ ἠᾶς ὕτερον ἔςαι We are not clear that φῶς αὐτὸς, which follows (though we are aware of the perfonification) expreffes properly the LIGHT himfelf. If there were not a mafculine pus with its appropriate fignification, we fhould have no doubts on the fubject; but, as the matter stands, there is certainly too much ambiguity in the expreffion. V. 100. Ηνιδέο After obje&ting to the fcanty ufe of the Doric dialect, it may feem faftidious to obferve, that this is the third time in which this not very common word occurs; and it is almoft the only imitation of Theocritus we can difcover. (See Idyll. i. 149. iii. 1o, &c.) This is too frequent a repetition in a poem which conlifts only of 112 verfes. V. 109. The penultimate of ψιλή is long. The line, however, is capable of very eafy alteration. We here take our leave of an ingenious fcholar, and an excellent man, with our earneft hope, that he may long be enabled to direct his literary purfuits to the inftruction and delight delight of his countrymen; and that we may be repeatedly called on to bear testimony to his unaffuming worth. Πληρές τοι μέλιτος τὸ καλὸν ςόμα, Θύρσι, γένοιτο, Theocr. Id. I. 156. The Epitaph in Gray's Elegy versified by Ὃς χθονός ἐν κόλπῳ, νέος ὤν, ἔχει ὧδε κάρηνον, Ἡ Σοφίη φθονεροῖς ἔπω μιν ἐπέβλεπεν όσσοις Πολλή οἱ ἀγάπη, ἄδολός τέ οἱ ἔπλετο θυμός• Λοιπόν, τὰς ἀρετὰς μηδὲ πλέον αὐτῷ ἐξεύνα Μηδ' ἐκ φρικαλέων δώματος αὖ νεκύων Σφάλματ ̓ ἀιἔνθ ̓ ὁμαλῶς τρομεύσῃ ἐν ἔλπιδι καλαι, 8vo. ART. V. A Syltem of Mineralsgy, formed chiefly on the Plan of Cronfedt. By. J. G. Schmeiffer, F. R. S. &c. 2 Vols. 344 and 374 PP. Ios. Dilly. 1795. THE defign of M. Schmeiffer, we are told in his preface, is "to furnish the English ftudent with a correct, improved, and easily intelligible fyftem of Mineralogy." It is certain, that in this branch of natural knowledge, there are not many very eminent elementary works in our native language, and of those we have, fome are now rendered almost useless by the numerous discoveries of later years, which have not only increafed the catalogue of minerals, but removed many of thofe best known from the places they formerly occupied in the claffification. The application of chemical tests has not only wrought thefe changes in our fyftems of mineralogy, but of late years chemistry itself has undergone fuch alterations, that it requires totally a new courfe of ftudy in the mineralogical line, to become mafter, of the general language of Europe as applied to this interefting branch of science. Generally fpeaking, therefore, we may fetconfiderable value on the labour's of thofe who by extending their enquiries and multiplying ex 3 periments, periments, fhall contribute to the completion of a correct and perfect catalogue of mineral fubftances. Had M. Kirwan indeed, (the 1ft part of whofe improved edition of his Mineralogy we had lately occasion to notice*) supplied the public with as ample an account of the remaining fubjects of the follil kingdom, as he has of earths and stones, we might confider other works at this moment as fuperfluous; his extenfive knowledge of all recent discoveries being fuch as to enable him to give probably as correct a fyftem as we could defire or expect. But certainly, 'till he is able to complete his admirable work, we must hold ourfelves indebted to thofe, whofe labour is employed to fupply what is yet wanting. This we ought to find performed in the work before us, not only because it extends to the claffification and description of what Mr. K. has reserved for his fecond part, but because the method alfo adopted by Mr. S. is nearly fimilar to that of Mr.K. his defcriptions being equally deduced from a combination of the external and internal characters. In the author's acknowledgment of general obligations to preceding writers, we have an incidental account of the method adopted. "To Wallerius, Cronstedt, Berginan, and La Metherie," he fays, "I am obliged for the chemical part; to Bruchman for the description of the gems; to Romé de Lifle for the figures; and to Werner and Karften for the defcription of the external characters." In the preface to the 2nd Vol, we learn, that it is the purpofe of M. Schmeiffer to pursue the plan of this work from time to time in fupplementary numbers, fo as to keep pace with the difcoveries which, he forefees, may be ftill expected; and an enumeration is given of the fources to which he chiefly looks, for fuch advancement of the science. From his knowledge of the German language, and acquaintance with the works of the many learned mineralogifts of that country, we may naturally hope for an ample fupply of information in the profecution of fuch a plan, and we heartily with that no impediments to its progrefs may arife. At the fame time we could with that the new Chemical Nomenclature was more furely fixed and established than we can confider it to be, and that there was a more general agreement with respect to the names of various foffils than at prefent exifts; for we cannot but apprehend that in the fluctuating ftate of the fciences of mineralogy and chemistry, these very works on which we now fet a value, may become obfcure and unintelligible. Thus, the theory of combuftion and calcination may probably (from the great doubts remaining) be in a * Brit, Crit. Vol. V. p. 401. fhort |