« AnteriorContinuar »
νοεραν, ο δε κατά το πέρας, και ο μεν εφετον εστιν, ο δε εφιεμενον. και ο μεν, πληρόυν, ο δε πληρουμενον. νου τοινυν οντος του Κρόνου, και νοητου, νους και ο Ζευς δευτερον, και νοητον· αλλα το νοητον αυτου, νοερον εστι. το δε εκείνου νοερον, νοητον. Ομoυ δη ουν νοερος ων ο Ζευς, και νοητος, εαυτον νοει, και περιλαμβανει, και συνδει το εν αυτω νοητον. τουτο δε εν αυτω συνδεων, αυτο το προ αυτου λεγεται νοητον συνδειν, και περιλαμβα. very hartaxobev. i. e. “ As therefore the intelligible is indeed exenipt from intellect, but intellect is said to comprehend it, thus also Jupiter is said to bind bis 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 to rards 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 intelligibie. 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 intellecíual 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 lie 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 thau sublime. Manor Place,
THOMAS TAYLOR. Italworth.
1 The intellectual triad consists of Saturn, Rhea and Jupiter.
OXFORD PRIZE ESSAY FOR 1819.
The Characteristic Differences of Greek and Latin Poetry.
Illins imniensi miratur Græcia campos,
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, Didactic
Light; Comedy, Satire, Eclogie, Élegy, &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
would bave made that necessity their choice. Owing to this state of the times their labors were unassisted, but they were not retarded by indifference or neglect on the part of their countrymen : on the contrary, they were stimulated to exertion by every honor which a generous people could pay. The successful cultivator of the fine arts was second only to the statesman or the warrior; and he who like Æschylus was today triumphant in the field, was to-morrow scarce less ambitious of the poetic garland at the games. Circumstanced then as the Greeks were, without models to imitate, with great talents of their own, and with every incitement to cultivate them, they might be expected to impress upon their writings a character
of originality, which succeeding Poets could scarcely attain. For though to inferior minds this intellectual desertion would have been a barrier to all excellence; yet where there is a generous nature, solitude is not more useful to fix and consolidate the moral character, than to excite and unfold the genius.
In the persons for whom the Grecian Poets wrote, we view another striking peculiarity of their case, which must have had a great influence upon their works. They lived in a nation universally devoted to the fine arts, and would therefore expect readers of every class. In such a situation the only hope of success must have been to produce somewhat alike adapted to all; which, while it arrested the attention and delighted the taste of the highest orders of society, should be almost equally intelligible and interesting to the mechanic or the mariner. The result of this would necessarily be, to discard from their minds all undue attention to temporary caprice and refinement; to lead them to seek and fix upon those grand and universal principles of good writing, wbich solicit not admiration from a studied respect to some prevailing and fashionable taste, but claim it on the paramount title of natural and unchangeable excellence.2
'Pindar has nobly expressed their feelings upon this subject,
σοφος και πολ.
Διδς προς όρνιχα θείον. Olymp. Od. 2. 1 κάλλει μεν γαρ έκαστον ευθύς ήν τότε αρχαίον, ακμή δε μέχρι νύν πρόσφατόν έστι και νεουργόν ούτως επανθεί τις καινότης αει άθικτον υπό του χρόνου διατηρούσα την όψιν, ώσπερ αειθαλές πνεύμα και ψυχήν αγήρω καταμεμιγμένην των έργων εχόντων. PLUTARCH. This beautiful description of the public works of Pericles, may be applied with scarce less beauty to the poetry of his countryniev.
In both these respects the situation of the Latin Poets was widely different, and far less favorable both to the originality of their thoughts, and the vigorous simplicity of their expression. They wrote at a time when the happiest models of their art were already before them; and in a country where the great works of the Grecian masters were not only known, but, hav, ing been handed down with the consenting admiration of antiquity, were valued as just criterions of all succeeding excellence,
Among the Romans, too, a life of literary and elegant pursuits was never in very high estimation. Nothing can prove this more decidedly, than the very frequent occasion Cicero takes to apologize for such a course of life, which at Athens even in her busiest and happiest days would have ranked among the most useful and honorable.
Most of the Roman poetry also was written either to express gratitude to a patron, or to court favor from a prince; or at all events, it was well understood, that the great body of readers would be of Patrician rank, and therefore it might reasonably be feared that the style would be in too close conformity with Patrician taste.
But notwithstanding these unfavorable circumstances, the Latin Poets enjoyed some great and peculiar advantages above the Greeks. The age of the earlier Grecian Poets was an age of comparatively moral darkness; and it is not without reason that Plato and Plutarch complain of this defect in Homer himself. Most of his brightest characters are tarnished by the darkest vices; and the hero, who on one occasion delights us with noble sentiments or brave exploits, is discovered in the sequel to be the victim of envy, resentment, or lust. It is true that these were more the errors of the times than of the Poet: but to whatever cause we ascribe it, from these errors the Roman Poets are free. And if their characters are generally less original and less sublime; it will be some compensation if we should find them such as we can contemplate with less ardent pleasure indeed, but more unmixed approbation.
It was long before the Poets florished at Rome, that the great Critic of antiquity had collected from the writings of his countrymen those principles of taste, which no nation can posa sess without so much improvement to its Poetry, as to produce order where there would have been confusion, and unity instead of incoherence and digression. In their days, too, the
1 Vos exemplaria Græca, &c.
? See Sallust also.
Critical Art was much cultivated, and well understood. But the possession of this single treatise of Aristotle, even in its imperfect state, gave the Latins such advantages in the important points of arrangement and general correctness, as would keep them clear of those errors in which the bolder and untaught genins of the Greeks was almost necessarily bewildered.
It would seem then antecedently probable, from the circumstances of their times, that either party would have merits and defects peculiar to themselves. In the Greeks we should expect all those excellencies and blemishes which great yet unaided talents among such a people could produce. On the other hand, the Latins would be more likely to distinguish their writings by acquired than by natural ability; and if not remarkable for such masterly strokes of genius, they would yet be superior in all those points which are affected by an improved state of education, manners, and taste. It remains for us to enquire whether these remarks, drawn from the nature of the case, are confirmed by direct proof from their writings; and in the course of this examination to strike out such other differences between the parties, as will occur by the way.
To descend into a critical investigation of the various kinds of Poetry in each language, or to construct such an argument as would depend much upon the citation of particular passages, would be beyond the present design. It will perhaps be sufficient therefore if, following that broad division made by Aristotle of the Poets into the grave and the light, we bring together those more general differences, which as they may be shown without a lengthened induction, are also more truly and strictly characteristic.
In Epic Poetry and in all its highest excellencies, invention on the part of the Greeks is most conspicuous and triumphant. There have indeed been certain traditions, by which even Homer himself has been accused of plagiarism; but as they seem to have been mere assertions, of unknown origin, against probability, and in opposition to the best ancient authorities; so few but the lowest critics have believed or attended to them. Virgil, on the contrary, has borrowed so unsparingly from the Grecian remains which we have, and there is reason to believe so mach from other works which since his time have been lost, that we may fairly infer his object to have been not so much to invent, as to select and compose skilfully, and to express happily: to bestow, in short, as much perfection as possible, by whatever means, upon the Æneid itself, rather than to pro