ideas of both will fufficiently appear in the courfe of my notes. I muft, however, remark one point of view, in which the criticism of Ariftotle has always particularly ftruck me, though it feems to have been little noticed: and that is, that his philofophy, auftere and cold as it appears, has not encroached upon his taste. He has not, indeed, expressed that tafte by mixing the language of admiration with that of philofophy in his investigation of principles, but he has difcovered it in thofe principles themfelves; which, in many respects at least, are truly poetical principles, and fuch as afford no countenance to that fort of criticilm, which requires the poet to be

of reafon all compact." Ariftotle, on the contrary, every where reminds him, that it is his bufnels to reprefent, not what is, but what hould be; to lock beyond actual and common nature, to the ideal model of perfection in his own mind. He fees fully, what the rationalists among modern critics have not always feen, the power of popular opinion and belief on poetical credibility,-that

a legend, a tale, a tradition, a rumour, a fuperftition,-in short, any thing, is enough to be the bafis of the poet's air-formed vifions." He never lofes fight of the end of poetry, which, in conformity to common fenfe, he held to be pleasure. He is ready to excufe, not only impoffibilities, but even abfurdities, where that end appears to be better answered with them, than it would have been without them. In a word, he afferts the privileges of poetry, and gives her free range to employ her whole power, and to do all the can do that is, to impote upon the imagination, by whatever means, as far as imagination, for the fake of its own pleafure, will confent to be impofed upon.'

The English reader of Ariftotle will, I hope, do him, (and, I may add, his tranflator,) fo much justice, as to recollect, when the improvements of modern criticifm occur to him, that he is reading a book which was written more than two thousand years ago, and which, for the reafons already given, (pref. p. viii.) can be confidered as little more than the fragment of a fragment. What would have been the prefent flate of poetical criticifm, had Ariftotle never written, it is impoffible to fay: two facts, however, are certain, that he was the firit who carried philofophical inveftigation into thefe regions of imagination and fiction, and that the ableft of his fuccellors have not difdained to purfue the path which he had opened to them, and even, in many inftances, to tread in his very footiteps.' (Pref. p. xv.)

To judge of the merit of Mr. Twining's tranflation and notes, the reader fhould recollect the difficulties, which were' to be combated, fuccefsfully or not, arifing from the nature of Ariftotle's ftyle, and from the present condition of his text:

It is natural for me (fays Mr. Twining,) to wifh, that I could fecure the indulgence of the reader, by giving him fome idea of the uncommon difficulties, with which a tranflator of this work of Aristotle has to ftruggle. But they are fuch as can hardly be conceived, but by thofe who are well acquainted with the original; and even among them, may venture to fay, can be adequately

I

conceived

conceived by thofe only, who have tried their ftrength against them by actual experiment. These difficulties arife from various fources: from the elliptic concifenefs, and other peculiarities of Ariftotle's ftyle, and from the nature of the work itself, which, in many parts of it at leaft, feems to have been intended for little more than a collection of hints, or fhort memorial notes, and has fometimes almost the appearance of a fyllabus for lectures, or a table of contents; fo that we might apply to it what Ariftotle himself is faid to have written to Alexander the Great, who had reprimanded him for having published fome private lectures, which that prince had received from him: "They are published," anfwered the philofopher, and not published; for they are intelligible only to those who have been my pupils." An anfwer, which does indeed give fome countenance to the affertion of Ammonius, that the obfcurity of Ariftotle's style was voluntary. Yet I hope the affertion is not true. I cannot perfuade myfelf to give full credit to an account fo degrading to a great philofopher. And furely it is but a perverse kind of apology, to affign, of all the caufes of obfcurity that can be affigned, the only one which leaves it totally without excufe. If, however, this was really the cafe, it must be confeffed, that Ariftotle fucceeded well, and ftood in little need of the admonition of the school-mafter mentioned by Quintilian, "Qui difcipulos obfcurare quæ dicerent juberet, Graco verbo utens, Endo."

Another confiderable fource of difficulty is, that fo many of the tragedies, and other poems, aliuded to and quoted throughout the treatife, are loft. But the chief of these fources, undoubtedly, is the mutilated and corrupt condition of the text. The work is but a fragment: Πιδακος εξ ιερης ολίγη λίβας ! I with I could add, Αλλ' ήλις καθαρή τε και αχράαλος ανέρπει: but even of this fragment it may be doubted, whether it has been moft injured by mutilation or repair.' (Pref. p. viii.)

The curious hiftory, given by Mr. Twining, from Strabo, of the fate of Ariftotle's writings, after his death, of the injuries which they fuffered from damp and worms, and of the mistakes occafioned by the unfkilful manner, in which these injuries and vacuities were fupplied, we referve for our account of Mr. Twining's conjectures on the text of Ariftotle's treatise.

We were much pleafed with Mr. Twining's very liberal acknowlegement of the merits of former Commentators on the Poetics. He confulted all that were known or were acceffible to him; and he has, very creditably to himself, and profitably to his readers, diftributed their beft hints and remarks through his Commentary. When editors or tranflators profess not to have made ufe of their predeceffor's labours, we are always difpofed to attribute it to indolence or affectation; and we never obferve thefe profeffions without pain, in writers of unqueftionable learning.

It is neceffary to mention, (fays Mr. Twining,) that many of my notes were written, and of more the materials were prepared,

before

before I confulted, or indeed had it in my power to confult, fome of the earliest and best commentators, whofe works are too scarce to be procured at the moment they are wanted. In perufing them I might often have adopted the exclamation of the old grammarian, Pereant, qui ante nos noftra dixerunt. But every thing, fays Epictetus, has two handles; and it required but little philofophy in this cafe, to be more pleafed with the fupport, which my opinions received from fuch coincidence, than mortified by the mere circumftance of prior occupation; a circumftance which after all could not deprive me of the property of my own thoughts, though, as Dr. Johnfon has obferved on a fimilar occafion, I certainly can prove that property only to myself. This coincidence, wherever I have found it, I have fcrupulously pointed out. How much fubfequent commentators, and Dacier in particular, have been obliged to the labours of thofe learned, acute, and indefatigable Italians, will perhaps fufficiently appear from the ufe I have made of them, and the frequent extracts, which the scarceness of their books has induced me to give from them in my notes. This I must be allowed to fay, that in my opinion, great injustice is done to their merits by thofe editors, who not only neglect to avail themselves of their affiftance, but affect alfo to speak of them with contempt. The truth is, that to confult them is a work of confiderable labour, and requires no small degree of patience and refolution. The trouble we are unwilling to take, we cafily perfuade ourselves to think not worth taking; and plaufible reafons are readily given, and as readily admitted, for neglecting, what thofe, to whom we make our apology, are, in general, as little difpofed to take the pains of examining as ourselves; and thus Difficultas laborq; difcendi DISERTAM NEGLIGENTIAM REDDIT." In what I have here faid, I allude more particularly to the Commentaries of Caftelvetro and Beni. Their prolixity, their fcholaftic and trifling fubtilty, their ufelefs tedioufnefs of logical analyfis, their microfcopic detection of difficulties invifible to the naked eye of common fenfe, and their wafte of confutation upon objections made only by themfelves, and made on purpose to be confuted: All this, it must be owned, is difgufting and repulfive. It may fufficiently release a commentator from the duty of reading their works throughout, but not from that of examining them and confulting them: for in both thefe writers, but more efpecially in Beni, there are many remarks equally acute and folid; many difficulties well feen, clearly ftated, and fometimes fuccefsfully removed; many things ufefully illuflrated, and judiciously explained; and if their freedom of cenfure is now and then difgraced by a little difpofition to cavil, this becomes almost a virtue, when compared with the fervile and implicit admiration of Dacier, who, as a fine writer has obferved," avoit fait voeu d'être de l'avis d'Ariftote, foit qu'il ens tendit, ou qu'il ne l'entendit pas."

Of the tranflations and commentaries written in the Italian language, there is one which deferves particular notice, though, by what hard fate I know not, it feems fcarce to have been noticed at all: I mean that of Piccolomini. His verfion, though fometimes rather paraphraflical, is fingularly exact; and, on the whole, more

faithful

faithful to the fenfe, or at least to what I conceive to be the fenfe, of Aristotle, than any other that I have seen.-His annotations, though often prolix and diffufed, are generally fenfible, and always clear. They will fometimes tire the reader, but feldom, I think, perplex him.' (Pref. p. xii-xv.)

To Mr. Twining's opinion of Piccolomini, we may add the authority of a great poet and critic, the immortal author of the Gerufalemme Liberata. In a letter to Luca Scalabrino, (15 Octobre 1575,) he attributes to Caftelvetro a fuperiority over Piccolomini in acutenefs, and extent of erudition: but prefers Piccolomini for maturity of judgment, and accuracy of learning, and, (which is moft requifite in an interpreter of the Poetics,) of learning more Ariftotelic than that of Caftelvetro, and more fit for the explanation of Ariftotle's writings. We fhall give his own words: "Mi rifolvo, che i due moderni commentatori volgari fian migliori dei tre latini:-Maggiore ed erudizione, ed invenzione fi vede nel Caftelvetro; ma fempre fra le fue opinioni mefcola un non fo che di ritrofo, e di fantaftico; lafcio di ragionare di quella fua rabbia di morder ciaf cuno, che questo è vizio dell' appetito, non dell' intelletto. Nel Piccolomini fi conofce maggior maturità di giudizio, e forse maggior dottrina in minor erudizione; ma fenza dubbio dottrina più Ariftotelica, è più atta all' efpofizione de' libri Ariftotelici." (Opere di Torquato Faffo, vol. x. p.87. ed. 4to, Venez. 1739.)

There is one circumftance in Mr. Twining's notes, which it would be great injuftice not to notice; and that is, his explicit account of difficulties which he cannot explain, and his ingenuous acknowlegement of his own ill fuccefs. We fhall give, among our future extracts, fome fpecimens of his mode of treating fuch difficulties. Mr. Twining is not fo blind an admirer of Ariftotle as to patronize his defects, where they appear to belong to the author, and not to the transcriber.

The time is come, when we no longer read the ancients with our judgments fhackled by determined admiration; when even from the editor and commentator it is no longer required as an indifpenfable duty, that he fhould fee nothing in his author but perfection. No apology, therefore, I truft, will be required from me, for fpeaking freely of the defects of this work of Ariftotle, even where thofe defects appear to be his own.'

No apology, certainly, ought now to be required for ufing that liberty of judgment, which, in the fixth century, wast efteemed to be a neceffary quality in a juft interpreter of Ariftotle. "A juft interpreter of Ariftotle, (fays the excellent SIMPLICIUS,) fhould partake, in fome degree, of Ariftotle's own genius: he should be thoroughly converfant in the writings of the philofopher, and be well acquainted with Ariftotle's manner

and

and character of writing. He ought to have a clear, unprejudiced judgment, fo that he may not perverfely reprobate what deferves praife; nor where any paffage requires confideration, be eager to prove that Ariftotle is faultlefs, as if he had devoted himself to the fect of the philofopher." We have quoted the paffage, because we think it does credit to the judgment of Simplicius, and is juftly applicable to the commentary of Mr. Twining.

From the fpecimens, which we have given of Mr. Twining's fentiments refpecting Ariftotle, his commentators, and his own duty as a commentator on the Poetics, the reader will probably form not an unfavourable anticipation of the general merits of Mr. Twining's work. In our next extracts, we fhall confine ourselves to explanations of difficult or difputed paffages.

[To be continued.]

Burgels.

ART. VI. A Second Addrefs to the Students of Oxford and Cambridge, relating to Jefus Chrift, and the Origin of the great Errors concerning him; with a Lift of the falfe Readings of the Scriptures, and the Mif-translations of the English Bible which contribute to fupport thofe Errors. By Theophilus Lindfey, M. A. formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 350. 4s. fewed. Johnfon. 1790.

MR.

R. LINDSEY ftill profecutes, with fteady and cool perfeverance, his favourite object, of establishing the Unitarian doctrine, concerning the divine nature and the person of Chrift. In this volume, he undertakes to rescue out of the hands of Trinitarian expofitors, all thofe paffages in the Gofpels and Acts of the Apofties, which they have confidered as proofs of the divinity of Chrift; to mark the first deviations from what he judges to be the true doctrine, in the time of the Apoftles; and to explain, at large, the manner in which Juftin Martyr introduced new corruptions into Chriftianity, by maintaining that Chrift was an inferior GOD.

The points which Mr. Lindfey endeavours to establish, with refpect to Justin Martyr, are, that this learned father received his notion concerning the Logos, from the Platonic school;

* Τον δε άξιον των Αρισοτελικών συγγραμμάτων εξηγήθην, δει μη πανη της εκείνου μεγαλονοίας απολείπεσθαι. Δεν δε και των παλαχου τῳ φιλοσοφῳ γεγραμμένων εμπειρον είναι, και της Αριστοτελικης συνήθειας επιστήμονα. Δεν δε και κρίσιν αδικασίον έχειν, ως μηδε τα καλως λεγόμενα κακισχύλως εκδεχομενοι, αδόκαμα δεικνύναι, μηδε ει το δέοιτο επισίάσεως, πανλη πανίως απλαισιον Φιλονείκειν αποδείξαι, ὡς εἰς την αίρεσιν ἑαυλον εγγραφαλία του φιλοσοφον. Simplicii Προλεγόμενα εις 725 Kalıyogızç•

that,

1