« PreviousContinue »
moft fecurely draw its materials, thofe materials which the faftidious arrogance of genius condefcends indeed to appropriate, but without deigning to own the obligation We will add, that if a verbal index be useful in editions of claffical authors in general, it is even necessary in those of the ancient philofophers. One of the great difficulties which attends the ftudy of the Greek philofophy arifes from the neceffity not only of diftinguifhing the force of words, as ufed by writers of different schools, but of afcertaining the peculiar fense which any fingle author has affixed to them. It is true, that in different inftances this difcrimination is more or lefs neceffary, and perhaps the dialogues felected by Mr. Routh may afford less fcope for it than fome other works of Plato. However, we cannot retract our objection. On the contrary, we think it has the more weight for a reafon before hinted at. We must repeat, that Mr. Routh's notes are not, in our opinion, fufficiently philological; the want of an index will therefore be the more feverely felt by his readers, who may conceive, that what he did not think fit to do himfelf, he fhould at least have enabled them in fome measure to supply.
In justice to Mr. Routh, we deemed it incumbent on us to prefent the public with fome fpecimen of his ftyle and manner as a commentator. We have therefore felected the following note, which, we prefume, will convey to our readers no unfavourable ideas of our author's laborious industry in collecting historical information.
P. 154. 1. 7. 'Agéo] Archelaus, de cujus facinoribus hic fufe agitur, haud purum putum erat fcelus, five, ut loquuntur, mulla virtute redemptus. Regnum enim Macedonicum, tefte Thucydide, L. 2, c. too, p. 164, Ed. Dukeri, ornatius atque potentius reddidit; et literas literatofque homines tanto-favore profecutus eft, ut multos viros ingenio atque doctrina illuftres liberali bofpitio exciperet; in quibus ipfe erat Euripides. Vide Elian. Var. Hift. 2, 21. 13, 4, Schol. Ariftoph. in Ranas, v. 85, et Suid. in v. Epinions. Imo ab Athenæo Platoni vitio datur, quod Archelaum hoc dialogo fugillaverit, quia, SpeuHippo teftante, Ciral Plato huic regi erat. L. 11, c. 15, p. 5c6 E. Socrates vero, cum Archelaus eum ad fe vocaret, recufaffe dicitur, ea gratia, ut mihi quidem videtur, quia vocatorem ipfum, ut ex Æliani V. H. 14, 17, conftat, parvi haberet. Meæ fententiæ favent Laertii verba in Vit. Socr. L. 2, Segm. 25; confer autem caufas alias afferentes Ariftot. Rhet. 2, 14, Senecam De Beneficiis 5, 6, et Antoninum imperat De Seipfo, 11, § 22, qui Perdiccæ tamen nomen, non Archelai, habet. Tandem fcelerum priorum dedit pœnas, a cinedo fuo occifus. Plato in Alcib. pofteriori §. 5, Ed. Etwall. Ariftot. 5, Polit. c. 10, p. 404 Ed. Duval. Ælian. V. H. 8, 9, et
Diod. Sic. L. 14, c. 37, p. 671 Ed. Weffeling. qui interfectum Archelaum narrat archonte Lachete, hoc eft, anno primo Olymp. 9;, eodem, quo mortuus eft Socrates. Sed ante Socratem periiffe videtur, qui de Archelao tanquam nuper vitæ defuncto loquitur tam in Theage p. 124 D, quam in Alcib. 2ndo, loc. jam citat. Quot autem annos Macedoniæ regnaverit, inter auctores non convenit, cum valde incerta fit Macedonicorum, regum fucceffio. Sine igitur, ut tabella fequens, quod in hac re verifimillimum videtur, facili ratione demonftret.
Ultima quæ fit mentio de Perdicca, Macedonum rege et Archelai patre, pertinet ad
Difputatio hæc Socratis cum Gorgia,
Archelai et Socratis mortes,
Ex hac temporum notatione in primis patet, fibi inconftantem effe Didorum Siculum, feptem tantum annos Archelai regno affignantem, quem ipfe Pydnam occupaffe fcribit Olympiadis 92 anno tertio, atque obiiffe. Olymp. 95 anno primo, quod anno rum decem intervallum eft. Confer L. 13, c. 49, P. 579, et L. 14, c. 37, p. 671. Hic autem alter Diodori locus corruptus videtur, etfi nonnullis viris doctiffimis fucum fecerit, ut Cafaubono & Baylio.-Deinde hinc verifimilis videtur Syncelli computatio in Chronograph. pagg. 262 et 263 annos quatuordecim Archelaio tribuens; quod placuiffe video Dionyfio Petavio De Doct. Temp. Parte 2, p. 849, et Hen. Dodwello in Apparatu ad annales Thucydidæos p. 18, et in Annalibus p. 49; quodque, fi verum fit, initium regni Archelai ad Olymp. 91 annum tertium refert. Non enim cum quibufdam regnum ejus ad multo plures annos dilatandum effe, ex eo patet, quod Perdicca regis nomen in anno primo Olymp. 91 apud Thucydidem, fcilicet L. 6, c. 7, p. 382, occurrat-Tertio hinc conftat, Xfoux apara teneri Platonem, qui in Alcib. pofteriori, §. 5, Socratem cum Alcibiade de Archelai cæde loquentem induxit, cum ipfe Alcibiades quatuor ante annos occifus effet-Poftremo col ligendum eft, annorum plus minus novem intervallum fuiffe inter initium regni Archelai, quando facinora hoc dialogo me morata ab eo patrata funt, et tempus, quo habitam fuiffe hanc cum Gorgia difputationem jam fupra oftendi ad p. 361. Itaque verba illa Platonis, ἐχθὲς καὶ σραήν γεγονότα, in latiorem folito fenfum accipienda funt. "Voces illæ, nuper, vasi, ac fimiles, nullius certi temporis" ut notat Cafaubonus ad Athenæum
difcriminationem habent; funt enim rav wrès ri, et ad aliquid femper referuntur. Itaque modo brevias, modo longius tempus defignant." Animadv. j. 384. Refpectu igitur aahatür açaqualer (hæc Platonis verba proxime antecedunt) heri et nuper accidifle res iftæ dici poterant."
The Elements of Euclid, with Differtations, intended to affift and encourage a critical Examination of thefe Elements, as the most effectual Means of establishing a jufter Tafte upon Mathematical Subjects than that which at prefent prevails. By James Wil liamfon, M. A. Fellow of Hertford College. Vol. I. '4to. 16s. in Boards. Elmily.
HE Elements of Euclid have received the united approbation of mathematicians for more than two thousand years; and, notwithstanding all the improvements of the moderns, in other branches f fcience, this excellent old Grecian still maintains his ground, and is yet without a rival. In all human productions, however, there must be fome blemishes, and even Euclid himself is not without them. His theory of parallel lines, the doctrine of proportion, and many other things in the Elements, particularly in the twelfth book, are capable of confiderable amendments. Profeffor Simson, with the partiality of a profeffed admirer, places all the inaccuracy and falfe reafoning which he finds in this work to the account of unfkilful editors; but we are inclined to think, from many circumstances which might be adduced, that the proofs he brings in fupport of this opinion are frequently groundless.. Euclid was not infallible; and therefore, whether the faults belong to him, or to his commentators, is but of little importance; they are ftill faults, and, for that reason, ought to be removed from a work, which in other respects, is the standard of perfection.
Simfon, by his critical attention, and intimate knowlege of the fubject, has, it is true, done more towards establishing the Elements upon a folid foundation, than all the rest of the commentators. But, in our opinion, there is ftill room for much useful emendation; and had the prefent editor pursued this plan, he would have rendered effential service to the fcience he professes to elucidate. This object, however, has engaged but little of Mr. Williamson's attention. His defer ence for Euclid is so great, that he has even preserved all his buts and therefores with the moft fcrupulous exactness. The garb in which he has dressed him is of the fifteenth century, and his commentaries are frequently as unprofitable, quaint, and endless as old John Dee's mathematical preface. I could, fays he, have improved my ftile very much; but it feems to answer my purpose better in its prefent form; for I write not to make people read, but to make them think.' What the advantages may be that arife from the thinking up, on a fubject without reading, we will not pretend to determine; tfome attention to language and perfpicuity is generally
confidered as a very neceffary article in moft books of inftruction.
This work appears to be a literal tranflation from the Greek of Grynæus's edition 1533; and Mr. Williamfon's determined refolution of expreffing every anna, aga, dn, de, &c. in the original, has led him into many needlefs repetitions, and a harth difagreeable prolixity. The continual occurrence of but, wherefore, therefore, certainly, &c. and the various fignifications which must be appropriated to them, together with the confused order in which the feveral parts of the demonftrations are placed, to which may be added the carelessness of his punctuation, render many of the propofitions extremely confufed, and fcarcely intelligible. Concifenefs may admit of fome palliation for obfcurity, but prolixity of none. Brevis effe laboro, obfcurus fio,' fays the poet; but our editor may fay, Longus effe laboro, valde obfcurus fio.'
As a proof that this cenfure is not illiberal, or without foundation, we fhall prefent our readers with the following fpecimen, indifcriminately taken from the first book. figure may be feen in any edition of the Elements.
Prop. XXIV. If two triangles have the two fides equal to the two fides, each to each, but have the angle greater than the angle, the angle contained by the equal ftraight lines: alfo they will have the base greater than the base.
Let there be two triangles the triangles ABC, DEF hav-: ing the two fides AB, AC equal to the two fides DE, DF, each to each; AB to DE, and AC to DF; but let an angle the angle contained by BAC be greater than the angle contained by EDF; I fay that the bafe BC is greater than the base EF.
For becaufe the angle BAC is greater than the angle EDF; let there be made, with the straight line DE and at the point D in it, the angle EDG equal to the angle BAC; and let DG be made equal (by prop. 3.) to either of the lines AC, DF; and Jet GE, GF be joined.
• Since therefore AB is equal to DE and AB to DG; 'certainly the two BA, AC are equal to the two ED, DG, each to each; and the angle BAC is equal (by conft.) to EDG therefore the base BC is equal to the bafe EG. Again because DG is equal to DF, the angle DFG is equal (by prop. 5.) to the angle DGF; therefore the angle DFG is greater than the angle EGF; therefore the angle EFG is greater by much than the angle EGF; and because there is a triangle, the triangle EFG, having the angle EFG greater than the angle EGF; but (by prop. 19.) the greater fide is extended under the greater angle: therefore the fide EG is greater than EF: and EG is equal to BC (by part. 1. of this prop.); wherefore alfo BC is greater than FF.
Wherefore if two triangles have the two fides equal to the two fides, each to each, and have the angle greater than the angle, the angle contained by the equal straight lines; they will alfo have the bafe greater than the bafe. Which was to be demonftrated.'
About a hundred and twenty pages of this performance are filled with directions to the ftudent, and obfervations upon various parts of his author, which are frequently fo little to the purpose, that a particular account of them would be unneceffary; efpecially as Mr. Williamson himfelf affirms that an author who writes upon fubjects of science may find it often by no means convenient to deliver himself in such a manner as to be always intelligible even to those whom he would wish to have for readers,'
The Progrefs of Romance, through Times, Countries, and ManTwo Volumes. 8vo. 55. Jewed. Robinson.
THIS fubject has been frequently examined, when it has occurred in larger works; but, as a part only of a whole, it has not probably been confidered with the attention which it deferyes. The romances of the fixteenth and feventeenth centuries have been fo often the objects of ridicule, that authors have commonly decided without reading, and rejected without examination; and almost every work, under the fame title, has funk into equal contempt. It was in vain to lead the reader to thefe forgotten fables, by telling them that they were once the fources of entertainment to the gay, the witty, and even to the learned; that from this fire Milton frequently kindled his torch, and fcattered light and flame into metaphyfical difquifitions, or auftere complaints; that from this fource he frequently threw an additional luftre on even his own fplendid imagery. Thefe and all other arguments will fail, for the torrent which has changed its fource will purfue it in fpite of human efforts,
The author of the two little volumes before us feems to be better acquainted with thefe antiquated hiftories, than her predeceffors in the fame department. Her views are more general and extenfive: fhe purfues the whole train of ideal adventurers, collects them into groupes, and examines their pretensions. In this tract the fometimes feems to trefpafs on what the claffical enthufiaft will call holy ground; for the dares, fhe boldly dares, to infinuate, that the Iliad and the Odyffey are only Let us examine this fubject.
Dr. Johnson calls a romance a military fable of the middle ages; a tale of wild adventures of war and love. This is