Page images

ouched in almost every line; and the manuscript exists in the British Museum, which contains his interlineations.

We have certainly been disappointed in Mr Bowles's edition of Pope, which exhibits neither the industry of a commentator, nor the elegance of a poetical critic. There may be a few good remarks, but we sincerely think they are very few: if we were to select one for praise, it should be his general criticism on the Rape of the Lock. Upon the whole, we recommend to this gentleman to abstain from prose, and to think rhyme quite as indispensable to his appearance in public, as a bag and sword are at court.

ART. X. The Works of Salluft: to which are prefixed, two Ef fays on the Life, Literary Character, and Writings of the Hifiorian; with Notes, Hiftorical, Biographical, and Critical. By Henry Steuart LL. D., Fellow of the Royal Society, and of the Society of Antiquaries, Edinburgh. 2 vol. 4to. pp. 1300. C. & R. Baldwin, London, 1806.


"HE most remarkable thing about this book is its enormous bulk : and those who, like us, have been accuftomed to peruse the noble hiftorian in an edition about the fize of a hand at whift, will eafily conceive with what amazement we contemplated the magnificent amplitude of the work before us. If examining its contents, we cannot fay that this amazement has fettled into admiration; although we ftill wonder a little at fome of Dr Steuart's literary qualifications, befides his gift of amplification.

It is fingular, obferves this learned perfon in his preface, that, (in England) with a numerous body of clergy, whofe leifure is liberally patronized by the nation, and who pique themselves on claffical acquirements, there fhould ftill remain a fingle ancient writer inacceffible to thofe who cultivate only the language of their native country. It is an extraordinary circumftance, however difcreditable to English learning, that, with translations of the ancient poets, beyond question the finest exifting, we should ftill be outftripped in our verfions of the profe au thors of Greece and Rome, by the greater part of our European neighbours, who have any pretenfions to tafte or literature,'

Now in this we fee little to be wondered at. It is no doubt true, that, before we can have tranflations of the claffics, we must have men capable of tranflating them; but it is equally obvious, that the more men of this fort we have, there will be the lefs occafion for their fervices: and the fact is, that not only the clergy, but almost all who take any intereft in claffical fubjects, are, in this country, capable of ftudying them in the original authors. Where claffical inftruction is lefs generally diffufed, translations



are more likely to be common; fo that, taking all the facts together, we are very far from confidering their fcarcity among us as any thing like an imputation upon our scholarship.

With poetry, indeed, the case is somewhat different. There is in this, as well as in other nations, a considerable class of male and female readers, who amuse themselves with translations of the poets of Greece and Rome; whilst they entertain for their historians, and indeed for their prose writers in general, the most profound and tranquil indifference. The reason of this, too, is sufficiently obvious. The beauties of poetical composition are, in their own nature, more striking, and far more discernible to the generality of readers, than the more retired graces of history. Hence numbers, who are capable of appreciating strength of sentiment, or suavity of language, yet find in history nothing worthy of attention but the facts which it records. For these, however, an English reader is under no necessity of applying to translations of particular authors. In the common histories of Greece and Rome, by his own countrymen, he pursues the thread of the narrative, spared at once that tediousness of partial repetition, which he must have frequently encountered in taking up successive authors, and uninterrupted by those lamentable chasms, which have been made by the hand of time in so many of the ancient historians. Accordingly we shall find, that, for one person who has read in Murphy the death of Germanicus, or the victories of Agricola, there are at least fifty who are familiar with the woes of Andromache in Pope, and the fatal passion of Dido in Pitt or Dryden.

Upon the whole, though we should be most happy to cooperate with Dr Steuart in his laudable endeavours to avert in this country any decline in classical learning (Pref. p. 38.), we really cannot say that we expect this object to be much promoted by multiplying translations.

The translation itself, which fills about one fifth part of the huge volumes before us, is insulated by vast masses of dissertation and annotation; through some part of which it is necessary for us to work our way before we can get at the main body.

In the composition of ancient biography, we are told (Vol. I. p. 4.), the want of incident is severely felt; a most veritable and innocent proposition, with which we should be the last people in the world to quarrel, if Dr Steuart had not attempted to make it stand as an excuse for so many hundred pages of triteness and insipidity. Now, we really cannot allow it to pass in this light, till we are further instructed in the obligation which he lay under to publish two vast quarto volumes; nor are we exactly of opinion, that all the candid are called on to be pleased

with unimportant details and trifling anecdotes.' (Vol. I. p. 3.) This description is certainly not very attractive; but we must allow it the merit of accuracy as well as of modesty. The reader must be enabled to judge for himself.

The anecdote (we are informed) (Vol. I. p. 324.) concerning Mummius's notion of the productions in painting and statuary by the ablest masters, is well known.' Dr Steuart does not however on this account forbear to recite it; but gives it at full length, first in English, and then in Latin. Again (Vol. I. p. 343), lest the reader should not have learnt from his Lempriere's dictionary (a book from which, if we are not mistaken, Dr Steuart has learnt a great deal), that Thucydides reckoned amongst his ancestors the great Miltiades; that he shed tears when he heard Herodotus repeat his history at the public festivals of Greece; that, during the Peloponnesian war, he was commissioned by his countrymen to relieve Amphipolis; that the quick march of Brusidas the Lacedæmonian general defeated his operations, and that Thucydides, unsuccessful in his expedition, was banished from Athens; that he wrote in the Attic dialect, as possessed of more vigour, purity, elegance and energy; and, finally, that his history has been divided into eight books, the last of which is imperfect, and supposed to have been written by his daughter;' (Lempriere's Dict. voc. Thucydides):-lest, we say, the reader should chance to be unacquainted with all this, he has, in the volumes before us, an opportunity of informing himself of it in almost the same words.

Thucydides was born at Athens, about 475 years A. C. He was both a scholar and a foldier, and a defcendant of the great Miltiades. His noble emulation, when a boy, is well known, which prompted him to fhed tears, at witneffing the honours beftowed, at the Olympic games, upon Herodotus. (See Suid. voc. Thucydid.) During the 8th year of the Peloponnefian war, being fent with a body of troops, to relieve Amphipolis, he failed in the attempt, through the quick march of Bru fidas, the general of the Lacedæmonians; whereupon he was banished from Athens by the faction of Cleon. (See his own hiftory, Lib. IV. p. 321.) During his exile in Thrace, Thucydides compofed an account of the twenty-one firft years of this war. (Plutarch. in Cim. de exilio, 19.) That of the fix remaining years was afterwards added, by Xeno. phon and Theopompus. Thucydides wrote in the Attic dialect, as be ing eminent, above all others, for vigour, purity and elegance; hence compreffion and energy are the great characteristics of his ftyle. This celebrated work is divided into eight books, of which the laft is imperfect, and fuppofed to have been written by the daughter of the hiftorian.' (Vol. I. p. 343.)

In the 4th section of the first epistle to Cæsar (Vol. I. p. 453.), our learned Doctor has the good fortune to mistake a tolerably

D d 4


plain passage; and this happily presents him with an occasion for nore than six pages of superfluous note. (Vol. I. p. 493, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 500.) In another place (Vol. II. p. 119), we are treated with the rape of Lucretia, and the expulsion of the Tarquins. But perhaps it is not surprising that Dr Steuart should imagine his readers might wish for information relative to this last transaction, he himself (as we shall afterwards attempt to prove) being but very ill informed on the subject. Again, as Cicero's orations are not in everybody's hands, we have one long quotation in Vol. II. p. 191, and a still longer in Vol. II. p. 279, in Latin and English. In the same way, if our readers should wish to peruse the 30th page of Adam's Roman Antiquities (about Patrons and Clients), in a larger type, and on better paper, than that less assuming volume can boast of, they may have that satisfaction, by turning to the 232d page of the work now before us.

In his account of the Sibylline books (Vol. II. p. 241, 42, 43.) our author is again kind enough to accommodate the homely antiquary in his splendid pages. On this occasion, however, it is to be regreted, that he did not copy what was before him a little more accurately; as we much doubt, notwithstanding the mention of the edition (viz. Reisk), his finding any part of the contents of this note in Dionys. Hal. L. 6. 62-our edition cértainly has it L. 4. 62. On the subject of sieges, Dr Adam is again transcribed by the learned translator, (Vol. II. p. 573, 74, 75, 76.) We will conclude these proofs of Dr Steuart's diligence and originality, by observing that we have met with one story (namely, what Cicero thought of Brutus's commendation of him) three times over in Latin, and twice with an English translation prefixed: the story, indeed, is not a long one. (Vol. I. 375.-- Vol. II. 236, 276.) ́

Having thus given our readers a few examples in the art of collecting materials for quarto volumes, we shall proceed to examine how far the triteness of this heavy compilation is atoned for by its accuracy. For the information of some of our readers, it may be necessary to premise, that at Rome, under the emperors, there prevailed a practice, in the schools of declamation, of assuming some real character, and then giving or addressing to it a fictitious oration.' (Vol. I. p. 86.) There are extant two pieces of this description, composed as invectives of Sallust and Cicero against each other, some time in the latter end of the reign of Augustus. From these, it seems, many of the biographers of the histofian have selected anecdotes for his life, most of them, as may be supposed, not highly favourable to his moral character. Amongst others, this has been done by M. Meisner, Professor in the university of Prague, and one of the most learned men, as well as politest scholars, in Germany.' (Vol. I. p. 120.) And he defends

[ocr errors]

his conduct on the following grounds:-that, though these orations are fictitious, still the circumstances, which are related in them, may be true; inasmuch as the authors of such compositions would be guided by reports current at the time in which they wrote. With this opinion, Dr Steuart makes himself very merry. After reading, however, all that he says on the subject, we profess that we cannot see the absurdity of it: nor do we think that Dr Steuart has any very good right to undervalue either Professor Meisner, or ourselves, for our dulness in this particular; as he himself, not long afterwards, seems to have come round to the same opinion, and refers to this very invective of Cicero against the historian, as authority for two facts, which he inserts in his text; the first, that in the year of Rome 704, Sallust joined Cæsar's army in Gaul (Vol. I. p. 48, 177.); the other (what, by the by, we think extremely improbable), that Cæsar, when dictator, received from him a sum of money to stop the prosecution brought against him by the Africans for extortion in the capacity of their governor. (Vol. I. p. 59, 195.)

In the copious extracts from Cicero's Orations, before objected to, we have a proof, that at least some of those productions are familiar to Dr Steuart; but this can hardly have been the case with regard to the oration for Milo; or surely we should not meet with the following mistatement.

His friend Brutus had advised him to reft the merits of Milo's defence on the fervice that he had rendered to the community, by ridding it of a pernicious citizen, The fentiment was confiftent with the warm and animated temper of Brutus; who, though he did not fpeak in the caufe, amufed himfelf with writing an exculpatory pleading upon that principle. He afterwards publifhed the piece; and it exifted in the days of Quintilian. Cicero's better judgment, however, rejected the idea. He frankly declared to Brutus, that fuch an argument could not be maintained, on any grounds of law or equity: for, how falutary foever it might be to point, against the flagitious, the cenfure of mankind, yet it did not from thence follow, that they could be put to death, without the femblance of justice, or the forms of trial.' (I. p. 166.)

Now, if the reader will take the trouble to turn to the oration in question, and to the part of it which begins- Nec vero mé judices, Clodianum crimen movet'-(Orat. pro T. A. Mil. § 27. edit. Schrivel.); and to read that, and the four following sections, he will find that they are totally occupied with stating and enforcing that very argument which, Dr Steuart here assures us, Cicero's better judgment rejected!'

In the following passage, we think Dr Middleton is improperly


There is another opinion, in regard to the chronology of Salluft's writings, adopted by Dr Middleton, in his life of Cicero, which, on ac


« PreviousContinue »