Page images


thrown out against the critic and commentator; we mean the imputation of having fometimes laboured rather to display the depth of his own learning, and the splendor of his own attainments, than to explain the difficulties, or elucidate the obfcurities of his author. Our sentiments on this subject exo a&ly coincide with the judicious reñark of the excellent Pearce, • Is mihi in veteribus fcriptis edendis videtur rei literariæ optime consulere, qui quam paucissimis verbis clare doceat, quid fuus autor et fenferit, et fcripferit. Præfat, in Cicer. de Ora

We sincerely with that the editor had exerted the same laudable diligence in correcting the other parts of his work, which he has manifested with respect to the text. But we were rather surprised at observing more than two whole pages of errata; and we venture to affert, from our own observation, that the catalogue might have been considerably en. larged. We will content ourselves with pointing out two instances only. . In page 308, line third, maympatiasai, is printéd

waypatiasal ; and in page 452, line ult. we have BRÉTE OTEV, which we conceive thould have been printed βλέπομεν.

At the end of the work Mr. Routh has added the preface which was prefixed by Olympiodorus to his Scholia on the Gorgias. History has recorded several writers of the name of Olympiadoras, but the commentator upon Plato is supposed to have lived in the fixth century of the Christian ära. His preface is curious, and, though fhort, contains many fenfible temarks on the natare, design, conduct, and characters of the dialogue.

We have already commended the attention with which Mr. Routh appears in general to have conducted this edition. We lament, however, that he has not given another instance of it, by the addition of indexes, on the plan of those subjoined to the dialogues edited by Forster and Erwall.

It seems that Mr. Routh was fearful of swelling his volume to a disproportionate bulk; but, as a commentator, we think he might, in this inftance at least, have facrificed symmetry to use. Let not the superficial reader ridicule this objection as frivolous or pedantic. The advantages arising from copious vocabularies, when applied to the cultivation of classical and philological criticism, are universally acknowleged by men of solid learning. Scholars of this description will agree with us, that tlie index of Seber has eventually contributed more towards the illustration of Homer's language than almost any one of his numerous commentators. Works of this na. ture, though despised, as it fhould seem, only because they are laborious, are the sources from which verbal criticism will VOL. LX. July, 1785.



most securely draw its materials, those materials which the faftidious arrogance of genius condescends indeed to appropriate, but without deigning to own the obligation. We will add, that if a verbal index be useful in editions of classical authors in general, it is even necessary in those of the ancient philosophers. One of the great difficulties which attends the study of the Greek philosophy arises from the necessity not only of distinguishing the force of words, as used by writers of different schools, but of ascertaining the peculiar sense which any single author has affixed to them. It is true, that in dif. ferent instances this diferimination is more or lefs neceffary, and perhaps the dialogues selected by Mr. Roath may afford less scope for it than some other works of Plato. However, we cannot retract our objection. On the contrary, we think it has the more weight for a reason 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 severely felt by his readers, who may conceive, that what he did not think fit to do himself, he should at least have enabled them in some measure to fupply.

In justice to Mt. Routh, we deemed it incumbent on us to present the public with some specimen of his style and manner' as a commentator. We have therefore felected the follow. ing note, which, we presume, will convey to our readers no unfavourable ideas of our author's laborious industry in collecting historical information.

P. 154. 1. 7. 'Agzincor] Archelaus, de cujus facinoribas bic fufe agitur, haud purum putum erat scelas, five, ut loquuntur, nulla virtute redemptus. Regnum enim Macedonicum, tefte Thucydide, L. 2, ci too, p. 164, Ed. Dukeri, ornatius atque potentius reddidit; er literas literatosque homines tanto-favore prosecutus est

, ut multos viros ingenio atque doctrina illuftres liberali hofpitio exciperet; in quibus ipfe erat Euripides. Vide Alian. Var. Hift

. 2, 21. 13, 4, Schol. Ariftoph. in Ranas, ve 85, et Suid. in v. Eópridns. imo ab Athenæo Platoni vitio datur, quod Archetaum hoc dialogo fugillaverit, quia, Speufippo teftante, qiatalo Plato huic regi erat. L. 1, c. 15, p. 5C6 E. Socrates vero, cum Archelaus, eum ad fe vocaret, recufaffe dicitur, ea gratia, ut mihi quidem videtur, quia vocatorem ipsum, ut ex Æliani V. H. 14, 17, conltat, parvi habe

Meæ fententiæ favent Laercii verba in Vit. Socr. L.2, Segm. 25 ; confer autem causas alias afferentes Aristot. Rhet. 2, 14, Senecam De Beneficiis 5, 6, et Antoninum imperat De Seipso, 11, $ 22, qui Perdiccæ tamen nomen, non Archelai, habet. Tandem scelerum priorum dedit penas, a cinædo fuo occisus. Plato in Alcib. pofteriori g. 5, Ed. Etwal). Ariftot. L. 5, Polit. C.. 10, p. 404 Ed. Duval. Ælian. V. H. 8, 9, et


95. 1.

Diod, Sic. L. 14, C. 37, p. 671 Ed. Wesseling. qui interfectum Årchelaum narrat archonte Lachete, hoc-est, anno primo Olymp. 9i, eodem, quo mortuus est Socrates. Sed ante Socratem periiffe videtur, qui de Archelao tanquam nuper vitæ defuncto loquitur cam in Theage p. 124 D, quam in Alcib. zndo, loc. jam citat. Qdot autem annos Macedoniæ regnaverit, inter auctores non convenit, cum valde incerca fit Macedonicorum te. gum fuccesfio. Sine igitur, ut tabella sequens, quod in hac re verifimillimum

n videtur, facili ratione demonstret. · Ultima quæ fit mentio de Perdicca, Macedonum rege et Archelai patre, pertinet ad


91. le Prima Archelai regis mentio,

92. 3. Disputatio hæc Socratis cum Gorgia, 93. 4 Alcibiadis in territus,

94. 1. Archelai et Socratis mortes, Ex hac temporum notatione in primis patet, fibi inconftantem efie Didorum Siculum, septem tantum annos Archelai regno alignantem, quem ipse Pydnam occupaffe fcribit Olympiadis 92 anno tertio, atque obiisse. Olymp. 95 anno primo, quod annorum 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 doétiffimis fucum fecerit, ui Casaubono & Baylio. ---Deinde hinc verifimilis videtur Syncelli computatio in Chronograph. pagg. 262 et 263 annos quatuordecim Archelaio tribuens; quod placuisse video Dionyfio Petavio De Doct. Tenip. 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 mula to plures annos dilatandum effe, ex eo patet, quod Perdiccæ tegis nonsen in anno primo Olymp. 91 apud Thucydidem, sci licet L. 6, c. 7; P: 382, occurrat-Tertio hinc constat, Xfoniga oudstíuale teneri Platonem, qui in Alcib. pofteriori, §. 5, Socrátem cum Alcibiade de Archelai cade loquentem induxit, cum ipfe Alcibiades quatuor ante annos occifus effer- Poftremo colo ligendum eft, annorum plus minus novem intervallum fuiffe inter initiom regni Archelai, quando facinora hoc dialogo me. morara ab eo patrata funt, et tempus, quo habitam fuiffe hanc cum Gorgia disputationeny jam supra ofiendi ad p. 361. Itaqoc verba illa Platonis, xbic mas ogasv jegovóra, io latiorem solito fenfum accipienda funt. " Voces iftae, nuper, uri, ac fimiles, Dullius certi temporis” ut notar Cafaubonus ad Athenæum ** difóriminationem habent; sunt enim Tv aposti, et ad aliquid femper referuntur. Itaque modo brevias, modo longius tempus defignant." Animadv. p. 384. Réspectu igicar mancsūv apaquator (hæc Platonis verba proxime antecedunt) heri et nuper accidifle res iftæ dici poterant.'


[ocr errors]

6:52 the Elements of Euclid, with Dissertations, intended to affift and

encourage a critical Examination of these Elements, as the moft effe&tual Means of establishing a juster i afte upon Mathematical Subjects than that wiib at present prevails. By James Williamson, M. A. Fellow of Hertford College, Vol. I. 410.

165. in Boards. Elmily. THE Elements of Euclid have received the united appro

bation of mathematicians for more than two thousand years; and, notwithstanding all the improvements of the moderns, in other branches of science, this excellent old Greo cian still maintains his ground, and is yet without a rival In all human productions, however, there must be some 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 considerable amendments. Professor Simfon, with the partiality of a profeffed admirer, places all the inaccuracy and false reasoning which he finds in this work to the account of unskilful editors; but we are inclined to think, from many circumstances which might be adduced, that the proofs he brings in support 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 still faults, and, for that reason, ought to be removed from a work, which in other respects, is the tandard of perfection.

Simson, by his critical attention, and intimate knowlege of the subjet, has, it is true, done more towards establishing the Elements upon a solid foundation, than all the rest of the commentators. But, in our opinion, there is still room for much useful emendation; and had the present editor pursued this plan, he would have rendered essential service to the science he professes to elucidate. This object, however, has engaged but little of Mr. Williamson's attention. His deference for Euclid is fo great, that he has even preserved all his. buts and therefores with the most scrupulous 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, says he, have improved my stile very much; but it seems to answer my purpose better in its present form; for I write not to make people read, but to make them thinkai What the advantages may be that arise from the thinking upon a subje&t without reading, we will not pretend to determine; troipe attention to language and perspicuity is generally



[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Williamson's Elements of Euclid.

53 considered as a very necessary article in most books of initruction.

This work appears to be a literal translation from the Greek of Grynæus's edition 1533 ; and Mr. Williamson's determined resolution of expressing every ano, apa, dno de, &c. in the original, has led him into many needless repetitions, and a harsh disagreeable prolixity. The continual occurrence of but, wherefore, therefore, certainly, &c. and the various figni. fications which must be appropriated to them, together with the confused order in which the several parts of the demonstrations are placed, to which may be added the carelessness of his punctuation, render many of the propositions extremely confused, and scarcely intelligible. Coaciseness may admit of some palliation for obfcurity, but prolixity of none. “Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio,' says the poet ; but our editor may Tay, “Longus esse laboro, valde obscurus fio.'

As a proof that this censure is not illiberal, or without foundation, we {hall present our readers with the following Specimen, indiscriminately taken from the first book. Thc figure may be seen 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 straight lines: also they will have che hafe greater than the base.

:-( Let there be two triangles the triangles ABC, DEF have ing the two fides AB, AC equal to the iwo sides DE, DF, each to each; AB to CE, and AC to DF; but let an angle the angle contained by BAC be greater than the angle contained by EDF; I say that the base BC is greater than the base EP.

For because the angle BAC is greater than the angle EDF; let there be made, with the straight line DE and at the point Din 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 let GE, GF be joined

• Since therefore AB is equal to D,E and AB to DG ; cerr tainly the two BA, AC are equal to the two ED, DG, each to each; and the angle BAC is equal (by cont.) to EDG there fore the base BC is equal to the base EG. Again because DG is equal to DF, the angle DFG is equal (by prop: s.) 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 FFG, having the angle EFG greater than the angle EGF; but (by prop. 19.) the greater fide is extended under the greater angle : therefore the side EG is greater than EF: and EG is equal to BC (by part. 1. of this propo); wherefore alfo BC is greater than EF.


« PreviousContinue »