laughing at that hero's aukwardness in reciting a fong. Is it then confiftent with probability, not only that the youth who played on the harp fhould ftrike up no other piece of mufic than an elegiac compofition; but that the whole company fhould fing and dance to ftrains fo repugnant to gaiety; and all this at a time when they were αταλα φρονέοντες, indulging themselves in youthful thoughts; a difpofition of mind very faintly expressed by smiling, and for which we have not any adequate term in our language?

It is with extreme regret that, on this occafion, we have been obliged to bring into notice any defect in the tranflation of the Iliad; a work which, with all its imperfections, will do lafting honour to the English language. But there feemed reafon to suspect that Dr. Gillies, while affecting to found his argument upon the original authority of a Greek writer, was in truth only fubftituting, under the name of Paufanias, the unacknowledged authority of Mr. Pope. Notwithstanding the conjecture of Paufanias, we will venture to affirm, that neither the wafuata nor the perfon of Linus are really fo much as mentioned by Homer; and in this affertion we are fupported by the opinion of his moft learned commentator, Dr. Clarke, who tranflates the word awov, chorda, a chord or ftring. The argument by which he establishes this interpretation is short and decifive. Sed quomodo in fcuto depingi potuit, quem caneret Citharifta ? But how was it poffible to represent on the fhield whom the musician fung? The sense of the paffage therefore is, that the youth played a delightful tune. Nor can a different interpretation be maintained with any degree of probability.

Let us now enquire concerning Melampus, whom Dr. Gillies affirms to be another ancient poet, mentioned by Homer. The paffage to which he refers is the following, in the fifteenth book of the Odyssey *.

Ἦτοι ὁ μὲν τὰ πονεῖτο, καὶ εὔχεῖο· θῦε ο ̓Αθήνη
Νηΐ παρὰ πρύμνη σχεδόθεν δὲ οἱ ήλυθεν ἀνὴρ
Τηλεδαπός, φεύγων ἐξ" Αρδες ἄνδρα κατακτάς,
Μάνις" ατάρ γενεήν γε Μελάμποδς ἔκγονα δεν,
Ὃς πρὶν μὲν πολ ̓ ἔναιε Πύλῳ ἔνι μητέρι μήλων,
Αφνειός Πυλίοισι μέγ' έξοχα δώματα ναίων
Δὴ τότε γ ̓ ἄλλον δῆμον ἀφίκειο, πατρίδα φεύγων,
Νηλέα τε μεγάθυμον ἀγανίταλον ζωόνων,
“ς οἱ χρήματα πολλα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν

Erroneously quoted in the History, Book II. See Vol. I. p. 183.

Είχε

Εἶχε βίν· ὁ δὲ τεως μὲν ἐνὶ μεγάροις Φυλάκοιο
Δεσμῷ ἐν ἀργαλέῳ δέδετο, κρατέρ, ἄλγεα πάσχων,
Εἵνεκα Νηλής κέρης, ἄτης τε βαρείης,

Τήν οἱ ἐπὶ φρεσὶ θῆκε θεὰ δασπλῆτις Εριννύς.
Αλλ' ὁ μὲν ἔκφυγε κῆρα, καὶ ἤλασε βᾶς ἐριμύκας
Ἐς Πύλον ἐκ Φυλάκης, καὶ ἐτίσατο ἔργον αεικὲς,
̓Αντίθεον Νηλῆα κασιγνήτῳ τε γυναῖκα
Ηγάγειο πρὸς δώμαθ'· ὁ δ ̓ ἄλλων ἵκείο δήμον,
Αργὸς ἐς ἱππόβολου τοθι γαρ' νἱ οἱ αἴσιμον δεν
Ναιέμεναι πολλοῖσιν ανάσσοντ' Αργείοισιν
Ενθα δ' ἔγημε γυναῖκα, καὶ ὑψερεφὲς θέτο δῶμα.
• Mean-time the prince with facrifice adores
Minerva, and her guardian aid implores ;

ΟΙ

When lo! a wretch ran breathlefs to the fhore,
New from his crime, and reeking yet with gore.
A feer he was, from great Melampus fprung,
Melampus, who in Pylos flourish'd long,
'Till urg'd by wrongs a foreign realm he chofe,
Far from the hateful caufe of all his woes.
Neleus his treasures one long year detains :
As long, he groan'd in Philacus his chains :
Mean-time, what anguish and what rage combin'd,
For lovely Pero rack'd his lab'ring mind!

Yet 'fcap'd he death; and vengeful of his wrong
To Pylos drove the lowing herds along :

Then (Neleus vanquish'd, and confign'd the fair
To Bias' arms) he fought a foreign air;
Argos the rich for his retreat he chofe,

There form'd his empire, there his palace rofe.' Pope.

Through the whole of this paffage, Homer has not once mentioned Melampus as having been a poet. From the virtue afcribed to his defcendant, there is merely implied an infinuation that Melampus was a footh-fayer: and this agrees with the general teftimony of ancient writers; for he is celebrated as a foothfayer and phyfician. We may now discover by what means Dr. Gillies has plunged into error; and we fall endeavour to extricate him. In confulting a Greek Lexicon, he found that Mαντις was interpreted by the Latin word vates, which fignifies either, a poet or a foothfayer; though the Greek word is not, like the Latin, ambiguous, but restricted to the latter fignification. He rafhly embraced the former of thefe fignifications, and inftantly dubbed Melampus a poet; without any authority from Homer, whom he has falfely cited in fupport of that opinion, and no way conformable to the general character of Melampus.

So

So far as we have proceeded in examining Dr. Gillies's charge of ignorance against the venerable father of history, the imputation recoils itrongly upon himself; but in the fubfequent part of his crude impeachment, we fhall find it aggravated with peculiar circumftances of temerity. He urges the argument against Herodotus in the following terms:

According to Herodotus, therefore, the age of Homer is fifty years later than it is placed by the marbles of Paros. But on this fubject we have furer evidence than any monuments of marble, or even the teftimony of Herodotus can afford. The circumftantial minutenefs, and infinite variety, which characterite the Iliad and Odyffey, prove their inimitable author to have lived near the times which he describes. He converfed in bis youth with those who had feen the heroes of the Trojan war; and, in the vigour of his age, beheld the grandchildren of Eneas, Ulyffes, Achilles, and Agamemnon.

σε Νεν δέ δη Αινείαο γενος Τρώεσσιν ανάξει

Και παίδες παίδων τοι κεν μετοπισθε γενωνται” Iliad, xx. ver. 306. "On great Æneas fhall devolve the reign,

And fons fucceeding fons, the lafting line fuftain." Pope.

In endeavouring to establish the opinion that Homer had in his youth converfed with those who had feen the Trojan war; and in the vigour of his age, beheld the grandchildren of Æneas, &c. Dr. Gillies founds his argument not only upon a misconftruction of Dionyhus of Halicarnaffus, but upon a ridiculous interpretation of the two lines above quoted of Homer; to which he affixes a reftricted and narrow meaning, instead of that indefinite and magnificent fenfe, which moft certainly was intended by the poet. With respect to the former of these authorities, the fact is, that the words of Dionyfius, fo far from fupporting Dr. Gillies's opinion, directly contradict it. The following is the fenfe of the paffage.

There are fome who fay that Eneas, the son of Venus, after having made an expedition into Italy, returned home, and reigned in Troy: that at his death he left the kingdom to his fon Afcanius, whofe defcendants enjoyed the throne for a long period. Thofe perfons muft, I fuppofe, have been led into this error, by fome verfes of Homer misinterpreted. For, in the Iliad, he has introduced Neptune foretelling the future grandeur of Eneas and his defcendants in this manner. "But now Æneas fhall reign over the Trojans; and the children of his children, who fhall afterwards be born." They, therefore, imagining that Homer had known of the reign of thofe princes in Phrygia, and conceiving it impoffible for perfons inhabiting Italy to govern the Trojans, they formed the groundless notion of Æneas's return. But was it not eafy to fuppofe fuch

a reign

a reign over thofe Trojans who had followed Æneas, though in a different part of the world?'

Certainly Dionyfius could not more plainly declare his own fentiments. Nor does he confine the period of Homer's exist ence to any particular generation of the Trojan princes. The only proof that Dr. Gillies has to produce for this opinion, fo confidently afferted, of Homer's having feen the Trojan princes, refts upon a fingle word in Dionyfius, sievai, and that perverted from its obvious and common acceptation. By this mifinterpretation, he has bountifully reftored to that bard the use of his eyes, of which ancient fculptors and ancient authors had too long deprived him. This, though a point which may admit of fome difpute, furely is not to be determined fo flightly. But the mistakes of this author are of so complicated a nature, that they are not more confpicuous in the mifapprehenfion of ideas and fentiments than in the perverfion of language. Dr. Gillies, therefore, has greatly mifreprefented the whole of the evidence on this fubject; and to preserve the train of his erroneous conceptions, he has fubjoined, that the force of the criticism evaporates in Mr. Pope's tranflation." That the force of a criticism, which never had any, should evaporate, is a remark entirely fuitable to the peculiar ingenuity of this author; but every judicious critic will allow that Mr. Pope has preferved, in this paffage, both the fenfe and fpirit of Homer; which Dr. Gillies, by his own vifionary and frigid interpretation, would totally extinguish. Virgil, the best interpreter of Homer, has given it in no other fense:

"Et nati natorum, & qui nafcentur ab illis."

A great part of this work is employed in digreffions on the philofophy, the literature, the ftate of the arts, &c. in ancient Greece; in which, as we have already obferved, the author generally follows the opinion of former writers. Amidst the mafs of extraneous fubjects occafionally introduced, he has thought proper to obferve, that the profeffion of a courtezan was reduced into fyftem by Afpafia. As Dr. Gillies omits no opportunity of attempting to difplay his learning, however unfuccefsfully, and his induftry is often mifapplied, we were under fome apprehenfion left he intended to explain the mysteries of this infamous and pernicious employment: but, fortunately for us, his meretricious lucubrations terminate with establishing, at Athens, a fchool of vice and plea fure, as well as of literature and philosophy.

This fuppofed fact, relative to Afpafia, the author has borrowed from Athenæus, a diligent collector of ancient anecdotes. But it may be proper to inform Dr. Gillies, that by

по

no means are they all entitled to the credit of a judicious hiftorian, who ought to examine, by the laws of probability as well as by collateral authorities, the truth of every tranfac tion which he admits into his narrative. Had Dr. Gillies regulated his conduct by this rational principle, he might have been convinced, from the experience of other nations and ages, as remarkable for profligacy, we believe, as Athens in the time of Pericles, that the idea of the profeffion of a courtezan being reduced into system, is one of those extravagant fictions which have their foundation in credulity, and ought to be rejected by every author who would maintain the dignity of historical composition, and direct his arduous labours towards the improvement and useful information of mankind.

To extend our obfervations on this work to every circumftance which demands animadverfion, we should greatly exceed the bounds of a Review; and we fhall, therefore, only make a few more remarks refpecting its general character. Its moft predominant quality is a terfenefs of style and fentiment, deeply tinctured with affectation. The author profeffes to be an ardent admirer of ancient patriotifm and virtue, which he takes every opportunity to commemorate. Indeed, the most fpecious fentences in the work are incidental reflections on this fubject; too obvious, however, to be esteemed profound, and too little diverfified to obtain the praife of ingenuity. An affectation, likewife, of political knowledge has fometimes. prompted the author, with great impropriety, to allude to recent tranfactions; and in his account of the battles of the ancient Greeks in Afia, he speaks of fquadrons, and evolutions, and manœuvres, with all the freedom of a military ferjeant. The whole work, in point of fentiment, is more affected than animated; and, in ftyle, lefs elegant than uniform. It contains a narrative uninterrupted by vacuities, but unwarrantably fupported, in various parts, by the hypothetical fupplements of conjecture; rendered yet more unwarrantable, and dangerous to hiftory, by their not being acknowledged.

On Vifitatorial Jurifdiction in Colleges of the Univerfities. A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of Mansfield. 4to. 15. Rivington.

A Difpute having lately arifen, relative to the extent of the vifitatorial power exercised in our univerfities, the author of this Letter examines the fubject with great attention, and endeavours to establish the principles upon which, in his opinion, the controverfy ought to be decided. He fets out with taking a view of the nature and limits of English jurifdiction