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.): τὰ ἀσώματα κάλλιστα ὄντα καὶ μέγιστα λόγῳ μόνον, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδένι σαφῶς 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. A.) In the Cratylus too, says this doughty opponent of Warburton, Plato derives oua from oweσa, and represents the body as a prison of the soul-εἰκόνα δεσμωτηρίου εἶναι οὖν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτὸ ἕως ἦν τὰ öpeiλóμeva τò 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.) Toúrou de #epißoλov exεiv, ἵνα σώζηται, δεσμωτηρίου εἰκόνα· εἶναι οὖν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦτο, ὥσπερ αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεται, ἕως ἂν ἐκτίσῃ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα, τὸ σῶμα, καὶ οὐδὲν δεῖν παράγειν οὐδὲ 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,' οὐσία χωριστὴ καὶ κεχωρισμένη τῶν αἰσθητῶν. 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 οὐσία τις αΐδιος καὶ ἀκίνητος καὶ κεχωρισμένη τῶν αἰσθητῶν. "Nevertheless, these philosophers," says his Lordship, "frequently 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. ἀεὶ ψυχὴ συντεταγμένη σώματι, τότε * μὲν ἄλλῳ, τότε δὲ ἄλλῳ, 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 Pythagorean, necessarily adopted, but Aristotle, as opposed to Plato, as necessarily rejected." His Lordship however quotes from the Peripatetic, (De Generat. Animal. ii. 4,) yàp чvxù ovoía owμaTóc Tivós Lor" 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 86 66 From this double meaning of ux, we can at once perceive that the metaphysical ux, soul, was derived from the physical uxos, cold. whom his Lordship might have learned also that r de ovolar καὶ ὕλην, ἐξ ἧς γέγονεν 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 γέγονεν with ἐγέννησεν—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, 'Hμɛis dè kai avroì φαμὲν γίγνεσθαι μὲν οὐδὲν ἁπλῶς ἐκ μὴ ὄντος, ὅμως μέντοι γίγνεσθαι ἐκ μὴ ὄντος, οἷον κατὰ συμβεβηκός· ἐκ γὰρ τῆς στερήσεως, ὅ ἐστι καθ ̓ αὑτὸ μὴ ὂν, οὐκ ἐνυπάρχοντος γίγνεταί τι. “ And we also ourselves assert ôv, that nothing is produced absolutely from nothing; but however it is produced from nothing, as regards some accidental circumstance. 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 yiyveola pèr οὐδὲν cannot be opposed to όμως μέντοι γίγνεσθαι, but might be opposed to ὅμως δ ̓ ἄν τι γίγνεσθαι— but yet something could be produced;" and, secondly, that as our Evváрxovroc is without regimen, we may read-ouк évvπáρxov övτwc, and then the sense would be" from privation, which of itself is nothing, something is produced, not really inherent in it." 66 # His Lordship, however, who sticks like a cobbler to his last, mistranslates also the next quotation from Plato, Phædon. § 20. Wytt., ἦν που ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ πρὶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ εἴδει γενέσθαι, ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ ἀθάνατόν τι ἔοικεν ἡ ψυχὴ εἶναι—“ 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 ovτws with ov, see Wyttenbach on Plato, Phædon. p. 156; while as regards the antithesis between ἁπλῶς and κατὰ συμβεβηκός, a young and learned friend has directed our attention to Aristot. Rhetor. II. 24. σTερ Ev Tоis Épiotikois #apà τὸ ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ κατά τι γίγνεται φαινόμενος συλλογισμός· οἷον ἐν μὲν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς, ὅτι ἐστι τὸ μὴ ὄν· ἔστι γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ ὄν· καὶ ὅτι ἐπιστητὸν τὸ ἄγνωστον, ὅτι ἄγνωστον. But there one MS. correctly reads-σTɩ yàp Tò μù ôv öv-" 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-évvTaрxóvTws-as suggested by the young critic alluded to. 66 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-ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἂν φαίην ἑκάστην τῶν ψυχῶν πολλὰ σώματα κατατρίβειν, ἄλλως τε κἂν πολλὰ ἔτη βιῷ, by rendering -" but I should rather say that each of our souls wears out many bodies, though these should live many years,"-as if owμara and not ʊx were the nominative to B; 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. 66 66 Equally unfortunate is his Lordship in translating Plato Phaedon. p. 114. C. χρὴ πᾶν ποιεῖν ὥστε ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως ἐν τῷ βίῳ μετασχεῖν· καλὸν γὰρ τἆθλον καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς 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, aλov, as any school-boy knows, is "a prize,” and ã¤λos "a contest," even if his Lordship had not known that in a similar passage, Rep. x. p. 516. C. Plato had explained the ἆθλον in one place by its synonyme ἐπίχειρα in the other. 66 Again, in Plato Legg. xii. p. 959. B. кałáπep ó vóμos ó táτpios Aéye, his Lordship's version- as the laws of the state declare"-proves that our still living Taylor did not know that Plato was alluding in the words-Τὸν δὲ ὄντα ἡμῶν ἕκαστον—παρὰ θεοὺς ἄλλους ἀπιέναι, δώσοντα λόγον—either to sch. Suppl. 220. Κάκει δικάζει ταπλακήμαθ', ὡς λόγος, Ζεὺς ἄλλος ἐν καμοῦσιν ἱστάταις δίκαις ; or to Pindar, Ol. ii. 104, Θανόντων μὲν ἔνθ, ἃ δεῖ, ποκ' ἀπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινὰς ἔτισαν, τὰ δ ̓ ἐν τῇδε Διὸς ἀρχῇ αλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς δικάζει τις ἐχθρᾷ λόγον φράσας ανάγκα—to whom also Plutarch alluded in T. ii. p. 120 E. Still less did he know that voμos πάτριος is to be understood, like πάτριος λόγος in Aristot. de Mund. vi. 15: ἀρχαῖος λόγος καὶ πάτριός ἐστι πᾶσιν, ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκε. De Colo. ii. 1. 135 : τοὺς ἀρχαίους καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς πατρίους ἡμῶν ἀληθεῖς εἶναι λόγους, ὥς ἐστιν ἀθάνατόν T Kai OεTov. So in Metaphys. xii. 8. p. 744 F. he says, "there is a zárpios dóka 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 ὁ πάτριος λόγος καὶ τὰ μυστικά σύμβολα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ὀργιασμῶν, ἃ σύνισμεν ἀλλήλοις οἱ συνικοῦντες. 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 pi τις δύναιτο ἀσφαλέστερον καὶ ἀκινδυνότερον ἐπὶ βεβαιοτέρου οχήματος ἢ λόγου θείου τινὸς διαπορευθῆναι; 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 Ocios Xoyos of Heraclitus, or of the Orphic verse* preserved by Clemens-Εἰς δὲ λόγον θεῖον βλέψας, τούτῳ προσέδρευε ; and that Móyos 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 μý ris dúvairo— diañoрevoñvai—“ 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 rupia "¿éval 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—τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπείργομες ψευδέσι λόγοις, αἴκα μὴ ἄγηνται ἀλαθέσι· λέγοιντο δ' ἀναγκαίως καὶ τιμωρίαι ξέναι, ὡς μετενδυομενᾶν τῶν ψυχῶν, τῶν μὲν δειλῶν εἰς γυναικεῖα σκάνεα, ποτὶ ὕβριν ἐκδιδόμενα, τῶν δὲ μιαιφόνων ἐς θηρίων σώματα, ποτὶ κόλασιν — where, since avaykaiws and eva, are perfectly unintelligible, we should have * This verse was probably taken from the Moura piλóσopos, to which Plato alludes in Phileb. p. 67 B., and again in p. 66 C. "Ektŋ d'èv yeveğ καταπαύσετε θεσμὸν ἀοιδῆς. been thankful for even his Lordship's "farthing candle to throw some light on this dark passage. 66 * 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 'ETоrs, 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 Timæus wrote-λέγοιντο δ ̓ ἂν οὐκ εἰκαίως καὶ τιμωρίαι 'I¿ióvεiai“ 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 |