tur esse satts obscura. Velim, Antoni, ut de tuo lumine mihi lumen accendas; nam nihilominus tibi lucebit, cum mihi accenderis. ANT. A quovis potius quam a me tibi lumen expectes; ipse enim in tenebris versor, vel saltem non satis video. Tale mihi lumen est, Qualia sublucent fugiente crepuscula Phœbo, Aut ubi nox abiit, nec tamen orta dies. Dio. Dic tamen, quidquid sit, quod vides. ANT. Erat olim, cum mihi valde placeret Nortoni Knatchbulli conjectura. Is Is putat Apostolum velle dicere, quod mulier debeat in capite suo, h. e. viro, qui mulieris caput est, potestatem agnoscere, idque propter legem ab Angelis Dei nomine latam. Potestatem,' inquit, debet agnoscere in viro per vel propter Angelos, i. e. per vel propter ipsum Deum, per vel propter legem creationis vel ordinationem Dei, qui in prima creatione per ministerium Angelorum in hoc ordine creavit illos, atque eo ipso tempore imposuit etiam per ministerium Angelorum mulieri hanc legem subjectionis, cujus meminit 1 Cor. xiv. 34.' Sed præterquam quod v. xa non ita sæpe pro Agnoscere sumitur, nimis longe petitum videtur per Angelos intelligere Legem Angelorum ministerio latam. Verum quidem est legem alibi datam dici per Angelos; sed cedo locum, quicunque potes, quo per Angelos lex intelligitur Angelorum ministerio data. Dio. Non possum. Dio. Non possum. PAU. Neque ego. ANT. Neque alius, opinor, quisquam. Mihi videtur nobilissimi loci hic esse sensus: Non oportere, ut mulier in semet ipsa ullam potestatem habeat, possideatve; sed omnem potestatem habeat in viro, qui ipsius caput est. Sicut caput, quod mentis animi esse sedes putatur, potestatem habet in reliqua membra; ita quoque vir in mulierem maxime autem maritus in uxorem, de quibus Paulus potissimum loquitur. Quidquid corporis membra possunt ac valent, istud omne habent a capite. Ita mulier onem legitime agendi potestatem sitam habet in viro, qui eam regit. PAU. Verum est illud poëtæ cujusdam Græci : Γυναικὶ δ ̓ ἄρχειν οὐ δέδωκεν ἡ φύσις, Mulieri natura non dedit, ut imperet. ANT. Hoc est, quod Paulus dicit 1 ad Tim. ii. 12. Γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδ ̓ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχία, Mulieri non permitto docere, neque dominari in virum, sed esse in silentio. Videatur Gen. iii. 16. Dio. Hactenus non male. Sed quid istud est Propter Angelos? ANT. Audies. Mea sententia Propter Angelos idem est, quod Propter exemplum Angelorum. Intelligit autem D. Scriptor Bonos Angelos, qui nullam sibi potestatem arrogant, sed eam omnem sitam habent in ipso Deo, illorum nostrique omnium creatore. Quidquid agunt, agunt Dei nomine et jussu; sunt enim яVEÚμатα XEITоupyixà, spiritus ministratorii, semper sua statione contenti. Potuisset Apostolus multas alias rationes addere, propter quas feminæ non debeant sibi propriam potestatem vindicare; sed putavit satis esse, si egregium bonorum Angelorum exemplum proponeret. Certe mulieres, quæ sua sorte et statione non contentæ vivunt, seque contra viros efferunt, similes sunt malis Angelis, τοὺς, ut D. Judas scribit v. 6., μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὁ Κύριος ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν, Quos non servantes originem suam, sed derelinquentes proprium domicilium suum, Dominus vinculis æternis sub caligine reservavit ad judicium magni diei. Vides, Dionysi, quod mihi de Pauli loco videtur. Per me licet, ut alii eum aliter ac melius explicent." Antonii Borremansii Dialogus Literarius de Poëtis et Prophetis, Amstelodami 1678. 12. p. 123. On the Coincidence between the Belts of the Planet Jupiter and the Fabulous Bonds of Jupiter the Demiurgus. THERE is is a singular agreement between what is mythologically asserted of Jupiter, the Demiurgus of the universe, by ancient theologists, and what modern observations, through the telescope, have found to be true of the planet Jupiter, who being a mundane divinity, according to the theology of the Greeks, is a procession from, but not the same with, Jupiter the fabricator of the world. The remarkable agreement I allude to, and which has I believe been hitherto unnoticed by all modern writers, is this, that Jupiter the Demiurgus is said by ancient theologists, to have put his father Saturn in chains, and also to have surrounded himself with bonds; and that the moderns have found the body of the planet Jupiter to be surrounded by several substances resembling belts or bands, and likewise that there is the faint resemblance of a belt about the planet Saturn. Now, of these mythological assertions, the former, that of Jupiter binding his father, is well known; but the latter, that of Jupiter binding himself, is certainly not generally known, and is only to be found in the following passage of Proclus on the Timæus of Plato, p. 204, παλιν ουν εξ αρχης ειπαμεν, οτι διττας ο δημιουργος έχων δυνάμεις, την μεν ταυτοποιον ως εν Παρμενίδη μεμαθη See Bonnycastle's Introduction to Astronomy, p. 370. καμεν, την δε ετεροποιον· και διαιρεί, και συνδει την ψυχην. και εστι τελικον μεν αιτιον τουτων, ινα γενηται η ψυχη μεση των όλων, ομοίως ηνωμένη και διηρημενη, δυο μεν οντων προς (lege προ) αυτής, των τε θείων, ως εννάδων, και των οντων, ως ηνωμενων. δυο δε μετ' αυτην, των μεριζο μενων μετ' αλλων], και των παντη μεριστων. και ει βουλει, προ μεν εκεί νων, του ενός οντος, μετα δε ταυτα της υλης. ποιητικα δε, το ταυτον και ετερον, τα της δημιουργικης ιδια ταξεως. παραδειγματα δε, αι τομαι του παττρος, και οι δεσμοι. και γαρ τεμνει πρώτως εκεινων, (lege εκείνος) και δεσμοι τοις αρρητοις δεσμοις. ταυτα και των θεολογων αινισσομένων, οπο ταν λεγωσι, τας τε κρινειας εκτομας και τους δεσμούς οις εαυτον λεγεται περιβαλλειν ο του παντος ποιητης. i. e. “Again therefore, from the beginning, we may say, that the Demiurgus having twofold powers, the one being effective of sameness, as we learn in the Parmenides, but the other of difference; he both divides and binds the soul. He is also the final cause of these, in order that the soul may become the middle of the whole of things, being similarly united and divided; two things existing prior to it, divine natures, as unities, and beings, as things united; and two also being posterior to it, viz. those which are divided in conjunction with others, and those which are in every respect partible; or if you are willing prior to the former, the one itself, but posterior to the latter, matter itself. But the efficient causes [of these divisions and bonds,] are same and different, which are the peculiarities of the demiurgic order. And the paradigmatic causes, are the sections and bonds of the father [Jupiter]. For he first cuts, and binds with ineffable bonds. These things also are obscurely indicated by theologists, when they speak of the Saturnian sections and bonds, with which the maker of the universe is said to surround himself." Proclus likewise in his treatise On the Theology of Plato (lib. v. cap. 5.) beautifully explains the meaning both of the bonds of Saturn, mentioned by Plato and the theologists, and those of Jupiter, as follows; previously observing that the Saturnian bonds, obscurely signify, the comprehension of the intelligible, and a union with it. For the intelligible is comprehended by intellect. Ώσπερ ουν εξηρηται μεν του νου το νοητον, λεγεται δε αυτό περιλαμ βανειν ο νους, ουτω δη και ο Ζευς δεσμειν τον πατερα λεγεται. και ταυτα περι εκεινων (lege εκεινον) αυτος συνδέων αυτον. και γαρ ο δεσμος περιληψις εστι των συνδεομένων. το δε αληθες ωδε εχει. νους μεν εστιν ο Κρόνος παντελης· νους δε και ο μεγιστος Ζευς. νους εκατερος ων, εστι δήπου και νοητον αυτος. πας γαρ νους εις αυτόν επεστραπται, προς δε αυτον επιστρέφει, (lege επιστρεφων) προς εαυτον ενεργει. προς εαυτον δε ενεργων, και ου προς τα έξω, νοητον εστιν, αμα και νοερον. η μεν νοεί, νοερον, η δε νοειται, και νοητον, ωστε και ο διιος νους, εαυτῷ νους εστι, και αυτῷ νοητον. ωσαύτως δε και ο κρόνιος νους, εαυτῷ νοητον εστι, και εαυτῷ νους. αλλ' ο μεν, μαλνους, ο μαλλον νοητος. ιδρυται γαρ, ο μεν, κατα την ακρότητα την λου νοεραν, ο δε κατα το πέρας. και ο μεν εφετόν εστιν, ο δε εφιέμενον. και ο μεν, πληρουν, ο δε πληρουμενον. νου τοινυν οντος του Κρόνου, και νοητου, νους και ο Ζευς δεύτερον, και νοητον· αλλα το νοητον αυτού, νοερόν εστι. το δὲ εκείνου νόερον, νοητον. Ομου δη ουν νοερος ων ο Ζευς, και νοητος, εαυτον νοεί, και περιλαμβανει, και συνδεί το εν αυτῳ νοητον. τουτο δε εν αυτῳ συνδέων, αυτό το προ αυτου λεγεται νοητον συνδειν, και περιλαμβα vely TaνTaxoter. i. e. "As therefore the intelligible is indeed exνειν πανταχοθεν. empt from intellect, but intellect is said to comprehend it, thus also Jupiter is said to bind his father. And in placing bonds about his father, he at the same time binds himself [to him]. For a bond is the comprehension of the things that are bound. But the truth is as follows: Saturn is indeed an all-perfect intellect; and the mighty Jupiter is likewise an intellect. Each therefore being an intellect, each is also evidently an intelligible. For every intellect is converted to itself; but being converted to, it energizes towards itself. Energizing however towards itself, and not towards externals, it is intelligible and at the same time intellectual; being indeed intellectual so far as it intellectually perceives, but intelligible so far as it is intellectually perceived. Hence also the Jovian intellect, is to itself intellect, and to itself intelligible. And in a similar manner the Saturnian intellect, is to itself intelligible, and to itself intellect. But Jupiter indeed is in a greater degree intellect, and Saturn is in a greater degree intelligible. For the latter is established according to the intellectual summit, but the former according to the intellectual end. And the one indeed is the object of desire, but the other desires. And the one fills, but the other is filled. Saturn, therefore, being intellect and intelligible, Jupiter also is, in the second place, intellect and intelligible. The intellectual however of Saturn is intelligible; but the intelligible of Jupiter is, intellectual. Jupiter, therefore, being at the same time intellectual and intelligible, intellectually perceives and comprehends himself, and binds the intelligible which is in himself. But binding this in himself, he is said to bind the intelligible prior to himself, and to comprehend it on all sides." This agreement between the arcane assertions of ancient theologists respecting the maker of the universe, and the discoveries of the moderns, about the planet that bears his name, is certainly admirable, when it is considered that these ancients were unacquainted with the telescope; but he who is an adept in their most sublime theology, will immediately infer that this agreement is the consequence of that theology being no less scientific than sublime. Manor Place, THOMAS TAYLOR. Walworth. The intellectual triad consists of Saturn, Rhea and Jupiter. OXFORD PRIZE ESSAY FOR 1819. The Characteristic Differences of Greek and Latin Poetry. Illins immensi miratur Græcia campos, At minor est nobis, sed bene cultus ager. FRAGM. VET. ARGUMENT. Certain grand differences to be expected the causes of these stated with their respective tendencies-Direct proof of the existence of these differences from an examination of their works: lesser differences remarked by the way. Poetry, Grave and Light-Grave; Epic, Tragic, Dithyrambic, DidacticLight; Comedy, Satire, Eclogue, Elegy, &c.-Result-Greeks to be studied as the great and original models-Latins, as teaching us to use and imitate them-Conclusion. . It is reasonable to suppose, and experience proves, that the mind of man and all its efforts usually take a color from contemporary circumstances. Thus having ascertained with accuracy the state of the times in which a writer has lived, we may look for certain leading characteristics in his works with something like the same confidence with which in Physics we should argue from cause to effect. Or, if indeed there be some of our hardier faculties, which exert themselves quite independently of every thing external; the same freedom must not be expected in the productions of the imagination, which like the petals of a flower must vary with every vicissitude of season, though the branches of the oak may expand and florish alike under every sky. On a question then like the present, before we proceed to discuss it more directly, it will be worth while to go back a little into the state of things under which the Poets of Greece and Rome were severally placed; for if ever such an influence as we have mentioned may be traced at all, we should be likely to find it where the parties were very differently and very peculiarly situated. At the time when the Grecian Poets arose, Poetry, with the exception of some distant Eastern nations, seems to have been universally neglected, if not unknown. They lived in an age when, though this fairy land was open before them, they had no guides to aid them in exploring it, but were left entirely to their own bold and sublime adventures. Cast however as they were upon their own resources, they were at the same time naturally gifted with endowments which rendered all assistance superfluous: they were solitary indeed from necessity, but their elevated minds |