Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

καταχρηστικώς. But as Mosheim has made the very same mistake with his Lordship, we will let the error pass, as a proof that great geniuses will sometimes clash.

Lord Brougham's next quotation is from Plato (Politic. p. 268. Α.): τα ασώματα κάλλιστα όντα και μέγιστα λόγω μόνον, άλλο δε ουδένι σαφώς δείκνυται. But these words have nothing to do with the immateriality of the soul. They merely assert that " incorporeal things ... are made manifest to us by reason alone;" just as corporeal are by the senses. (Compare Phædon. p. 79. X.) In the Cratylus too, says this doughty opponent of Warburton, Plato derives σώμα from σώζεσθαι, and represents the body as a prison of the soul--εικόνα δεσμωτηρίου είναι ούν της ψυχής αυτό έως ήν τα opelépeva owpa. Of this passage, where a verb has dropped out necessary to complete the sense, his Lordship has done wisely not to attempt a translation ; which would have been very easy, had he transcribed the passage from the original, and not taken it second-hand from some careless or dishonest writer; who should have quoted ($ 38. p. 400 D.) Tovrov è repißodov xelv, ένα σώζηται, δεσμωτηρίου εικόνα είναι ούν της ψυχής τούτο, ώσπερ αυτό ονομάζεται, έως αν εκτίση τα οφειλόμενα, το σώμα, και ουδέν δείν παράγειν ουδέ γράμμα-for then his Lordship would have seen that the passage was nothing to the purpose.

Aristotle, too,” says his Lordship, “speaks of a being separable and separated from things perceivable by the sense,” ουσία χωριστή και κεχωρισμένη των αισθητών. These, however, are not the words of Aristotle, but of Cudworth himself, as remarked by Mosheim, who refers to Metaphysic. xiv. 7. But there Aristotle says not a word about the human soul, but merely asserts that there is ουσία τις αΐδιος και ακίνητος και κεχωρισμένη των αισθητών.

“Nevertheless, these philosophers,” says his Lordship, “ fre" quently speak of the soul as being always, and as it were

necessarily, connected with matter of some kind or other, as in “ Plato, Leig. x. $12. p. 903 D. áci Yux ouviera ypévn owpari, TóTE " μεν άλλω, τότε δε άλλο, μεταβάλλει παντοίας μεταβολάς. The soul " is always annexed to a body.' But the sense is rather—'A “ soul '--for the allusion is there to the transmigration of one “soul through many bodies; a doctrine that Plato, as a Pytha

gorean, necessarily adopted, but Aristotle, as opposed to Plato,

as necessarily rejected.” His Lordship however quotes from the Peripatetic, (De Generat. Animal. ii. 4,) Ý yap yuxn ovola objarós tivós éori" the soul is the substance of some body.” Now, had our Aristotelian, like Sidrophel,“ read every text and gloss over," he would have seen, as remarked by Dr. Turton, that Aristotle was speaking, not of the soul, * but the vivifying

• From this double meaning of wxy, we can at once perceive that the metaphysical prxc), soul, was derived from the physical tŪxos, cold.

stance.

whom his Lordship might have learned also that the ovolay kai ülnv, is yéyovev mean, “ the substance and matter out of which the world was made," and not “out of which he made it,” as translated by his Lordship; who seems to have confounded yéyovev with éyévvnger-a pretty mistake for this AntiWarburtonian to be guilty of! which is, however, redeemed by the honest confession of his ignorance of the meaning to be given to the words of Aristotle, Physic. i. 8, 'Heis dè xai avtoà φαμεν γίγνεσθαι μεν ουδέν απλώς έκ μη όντος, όμως μέντοι γίγνεσθαι εκ μη όντος, οίον κατά συμβεβηκός εκ γαρ της στερήσεως, ό έστι καθ' αυτό μη ον, ουκ ενυπάρχοντος γίγνεται τι. “ And we also ourselves assert that nothing is produced absolutely from nothing; but however it is produced from nothing, as regards some accidental circum

For from privation, which is of itself nothing, is produced something, not inherent in it.” Here, says our pantologist turned into a word-catcher, as his Lordship's disciples designate the man, who not only knows what an ancient author did not write, but can detect what he did, -" I cannot under“stand that very obscure and contradictory passage of Aristotle,

except by supposing that he alluded to the doctrine, that the “ Creator was considered rather the moulder than the maker of " the world.”. But as his Lordship has not told us in what the difficulty consists, we will just mention, first, that yiyvertai per ουδέν cannot be opposed to όμως μέντοι γίγνεσθαι, but might be opposed to όμως δ' άν τι γίγνεσθαι-« but yet something could be produced ;” and, secondly, that as o'z évunápxovtoç is without regimen, we may read-oik évurápxov örtwc,* and then the sense would be--" from privation, which of itself is nothing, something is produced, not really inherent in it."

His Lordship, however, who sticks like a cobbler to his last, mistranslates also the next quotation from Plato, Phædon. $ 20. Wytt., ήν που ημών η ψυχή πριν έν τήδε το ανθρωπίνω είδει γενέσθαι, ώστε και ταύτη αθάνατόν τι έoικεν η ψυχή είναι––« our soul was somewhere before it existed in the human form, so that also it seems to be immortal afterwards." He should have written" in this human form," and "so that by this reasoning"

.

* Respecting the philosophic use of ortws with ov, see Wyttenbach on Plato, Phædon. p. 156 ; while as regards the antithesis between απλώς and κατά συμβεβηκός, a young and learned friend has directed our attention to Aristot. Rhetor. II. 24. ŐOTEP év rois épotikOTS Tapà το απλώς και μη απλώς, αλλά κατά τι γίγνεται φαινόμενος συλλογισμός οίον εν μεν τοίς διαλεκτικοίς, ότι εστι το μη όν έστι γαρ το μη δν μη όν: και ότι επιστητον το άγνωστον, ότι άγνωστον. But there one MS. rectly reads—ěoti yap to ur öv or—" for nothing does in reality exist :" because if nothing did not exist, the idea of negation would not exist. We might however read in Aristotle - ÉVUtaPXóvtws--as suggested by the young

critic alluded to.

cor

Another instance of his Lordship’s fitness for a translator of Plato, equal to Thomas Taylor, who was cut up so unmercifully in the dissecting school of the Edinburgh Reviewers, because he had vilipended all the Scotch metaphysicians, with the exception of Dugald Stewart, is where Lord Brougham does into English the Greek words-αλλά γαρ αν φαίην εκάστης των ψυχών πολλά σώματα κατατρίβειν, άλλως τε καν πολλά έτη βιω, by rendering

_" but I should rather say that each of our* souls wears out many bodies, though these should live many years,"—as if σώματα and not ψυχή were the nominative to βιω; a mistake into which he could not have fallen, had he examined the context, where a weaver is said to wear out many cloaks, as a soul does bodies, and to die after those many ones, but before his last one.

Equally unfortunate is his Lordship in translating Plato Phedon. p. 114. C. χρή παν ποιείν ώστε αρετής και φρονήσεως εν τη βίω μετασχεϊν καλών γαρ ταθλον και η ελπίς μεγάλη.-« We ought to act in all things so as to pursue virtue and wisdom in this life; for the labour is excellent and the hope great.” Now had his Lordship asked himself, of what is the hope great ? he would have seen the absurdity of his version, which should have been“ We must do every thing so as to obtain a share of virtue and prudence ; for glorious is the prize, and great the hope of it.” Besides, άθλον, as any school-boy knows, is a prize,” and άθλος "a contest,” even if his Lordship had not known that in a similar passage, Rep. x. p. 516. Č. Plato had explained the άθλον in one place by its synonyme επίχειρα in the other. .

Again, in Ρlato Legg. xii. p. 959. Β. καθάπερ ο νόμος ο πάτριος λέγει, his Lordship's version-4 as the laws of the state declare"-proves that our still living Taylor did not know that Plato was alluding in the words--Τον δε όντα ημών έκαστον-παρα θεους άλλους απέναι, δώσοντα λόγον–– either to sch. Suppl. 220. Κάκει δικάζει ταπλακώμαθ', ώς λόγος, Ζευς άλλος έν καμoύσιν υστάταις δίκαις ; or to Pindar, Ol. ii. 104, θανόντων μεν ένθ, & δεί, ποκαπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινάς έτισαν, τά δεν ταδε Διός αρχά αλιτρα κατά γάς δικάζει τις εχθρά λόγον φράσας ανάγκα-to whom also Plutarch alluded in T. ii. p. 120 E. Still less did he know that νόμος πάτριος is to be understood, like πάτριος λόγος in Aristot. de Mund. vi. 15: αρχαίος λόγος και πάτριός έστι πάσιν, ως εκ θεού τα πάντα και δια θεού ημίν συνέστηκε. De Carlo. ii. 1. 135: τους αρχαίους και μάλιστα τους πατρίους ημών αληθείς είναι λόγους, ώς έστιν αθάνατόν τι και θείον. So in Metaphys. xii. 8. p. 744 F. he says, " there is a πάτριος δόξα that the gods exist. But the most curious passage is in Plutarch, Consol. T. viii. p. 411, where he tells his wife not to believe that the soul perishes ; for κωλύει σε o πάτριος λόγος και τα μυστικά σύμβολα των περί τον Διόνυσον οργιασμών, και συνισμεν αλλήλοις οι συνικούντες. For these passages we are indebted

* There is nothing in the original to answer to our.

to Lobeck's Aglaophamus, p. 800, who might have referred to Plato Sophist. p. 229 Ε. αρχαιοπρεπές τι πάτριον.

The next passage quoted by his Lordship to exhibit his scholarship, or his want of it, is Plato, Phædon. p. 85 D. ei ui τις δύναιτο ασφαλέστερον και ακινδυνότερον επί βεβαιοτέρου οχήματος ή λόγου θείου τινός διαπορευθήναι; which Taylor the second, « who reigns like Tom the first” in Platonic theology supreme, thus translates : “ Unless some one can pass us over more easily and safely upon some stronger vehicle or divine word;" and observes that “ if some words have not been interpolated in the text, Plato looks forward to some direct divine communications upon this subject"— whereas, would his Lordship condescend to read, before he begins to write, he would have seen by Wyttenbach's note, p. 227, that Plato was looking back to the Očios Móyoc of Heraclitus, or of the Orphic verse* preserved by Clemens-Eίς δε λόγον θείον βλέψας, τούτω προσέδρευε ; and that Lóyos means here reason, and not discourse; for the inventor of the Greek language, who made one word to answer to those two ideas, never anticipated the possibility of what his Lordship has shewn to be very easy, that a discourse could exist without reason. Besides, when his Lordship translated ei tiç õúvairodiatopevõñval—“ unless some one can pass us over”—could he think that any scholar would pass over his passing off a verb passive for a verb active? Before, however, his Lordship next undertakes a translation of Plato, we earnestly recommend him to attend a Normal School, where elderly gentlemen can learn, what Elmsley said were the two most difficult of accomplishments, Greek and Dancing; especially should the Marquis of Lansdowne be the president of the United Academy; who, in the time of All-the-Talent-Administration, was known by the soubriquet of the Petty-toe Chancellor, from his being, like Vestris the Great, the master at once and the patron of a pirouette.

“ Last scene of all that ends this strange eventful history" of Lord Brougham's scholarship, is where he says that “the touwpiau “ Eéval of Timæus the Locrian p. 104 D. alludes to the popular “ doctrine of future punishments of a gross and corporeal

nature;" whereas they refer, as the context proves, to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. The words of the Pythagorean are - τας ψυχάς απείργομες ψευδέσι λόγοις, αίκα μη άγηνται αλαθέσι: λέγουντο δ' αναγκαίως και τιμωρίαι ξέναι, ως μετενδυομεναν των ψυχών, των μεν δειλών είς γυναικεία σκάνεα, ποτί ύβριν εκδιδόμενα, των δε μιαιφόνων ές θηρίων σώματα, ποτί κόλασιν – where, since avaykalws and Eévai are perfectly unintelligible, we should have

* This verse was probably taken from the Moñoa pilóoopos, to which Plato alludes in Phileb. p. 67 B., and again in p. 66 C. "Exty * ¢y yeveç καταπαύσετε θεσμών αοιδής. .

been thankful for even his Lordship's “ farthing candle” to throw some light on this dark passage,

To the preceding list of his Lordship’s errors in Greek,arising partly from his not being thoroughly grounded in the very rudiments of the language, but more from his curiosity distracting his attention, and thus leading him to guess at the sense of a passage by looking at isolated words rather than the connected text, and by construing against the syntax than with it,-may be added a quotation from Cicero; " of which," says Dr. Turton, “ his Lordship seems to have mistaken the full import.” The words in the original are—“Quid autem mihi displiceat, innocentes poetæ indicant Comici. Qua licentia Romæ data, quidnam egisset ille, qui in sacrificium cogitatam libidinem intulit, quo ne imprudentiam quidem oculorum adjici fas est.”. On which his Lordship observes, that “ to prove that the doc“ trine of future retribution was used at all as an engine of “ state, Warburton is forced to allege that it was the secret dis“ closed to the initiated in the sacred mysteries ; which, accord“ ing to Cicero, were not to be viewed by the imprudent eye."

Now in the first place, Warburton states distinctly that the rites and shows were confined to the lesser mysteries, and kept concealed from the open view of the people, only to invite their curiosity; as he might have inferred from a well-known passage in Petronius, where the curiosity of an 'EXOTTĪS, a peeper, is excited by the shutting of the door during the performance of some secret rites, and at the same time gratified by a peep through the key-hole; but that in the greater mysteries certain doctrines were taught, which were concealed from the people, for the very contrary purpose of preventing their inquiring too far. For, were the Bishop still alive, he would have said that the sages of antiquity had not read so ill the volume of nature on the human mind, as to be ignorant of what the French Revolution verified to the letter-that they, who make a god of reason, will make fools of themselves, and commit acts for which

“ Each kindred brute would make them blush for shame;' that the wise men of the past, whom the would-be-Baconites call the younger children of Time, knew well that speculations on mind and matter, on time and eternity, and on the active and passive powers of creation, would lead to infidelity ;--that infidelity would lead to selfishness, † the deity of the Political

* Perhaps Timeus wrote-λέγουντο δ' αν ουκ εικαίως και τιμωρίαι 'IGLóvelai—“ and they may be called, not without reason, Ixion-like punishments;" for the revolutions, that a soul was destined to undergo, were like the punishment of Ixion, whom Sophocles describes as fixed to “ the running wheel,” in Philoct. 680, and to whose fate allusion is also made by Pindar Pyth. ii. 41.

† See the eloquent Sermon of the great and good Robert Hall, on the Effects of Infidelity considered ; a writer whom Pitt offered to make a

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »