God of all mercy as the most cruel and merciless of tyrants, and, in fact, clearing those idolatrous hosts from all blame whatever; because, if they were impelled by the irresistible power of God to fight against Israel, they were necessarily doing the will of God, and therefore they were not blameable. I say, so far was the sacred writer from stating that God hardened the hearts of those numerous hosts to engage in the battle against Israel, in order that he might destroy them, that he says, the deliverance from their enemies was so great a deliverance, that it was God only, who could prevail over their heart when meeting in battle against Israel. That he might utterly destroy them. See Deut. vij. And that they might have no favor. As the whole sum and 'substance of what the Hebrews were commanded to do to the inhabitants of Canaan is declared positively in the viith chapter of Deuteronomy, ver. 5, But thus shall ye deal with them, ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire; and after it has been improperly said in the 2d verse of the same chapter, that they were to destroy them utterly, yet it is said in the very following verse, Neither shalt thou make marriages with them, which could not have been the case if all the people were to be utterly destroyed: I say, as all these things prove that the command was to destroy every thing appertaining to idolatrous worship, particularly specified in the 5th verse, and where it is as clearly stated in the 3d verse that the people of Canaan were not to be destroyed; it is undeniably evident, that the command was for the total destruction of idolatry, and that there was to be no favor shown to them, so as to allow them to worship idols. Therefore referring to the conquest of the nations, which the sacred writer proceeds to enumerate in the following chapter, it being a circumstance surpassing all human possibility, he attributes the praise to God, saying, Surely it was for Jehovah to prevail over their heart, when meeting in battle against Israel. J. BELLAMY, No. XII.-[Continued from No. LXI.] -collecting toys And trifles for choice matters, worth a sponge; 1. VIRG. En. iii. 162. Paradise Regained, iv. 325. Non hæc tibi littora suasit Delius, aut Cretæ jussit considere Apollo. In some editions, these words are printed with a comma after "considere," in others as above; both punctuations being intended to convey the same meaning: "Non h. t. 1. suasit Delius Apollo, aut C. j. considere." Is it certain, however, that this was Virgil's construction or may he not have intended " Delius" and "Apollo" as two independent substantives, with each its proper verb? "Non h. t. 1. suasit Delius, aut Apollo j. C. considere." It is not uncommon with Virgil to predicate a thing in one line, and repeat it, or something very like it, in the line following, with a variation in words and names. Thus in the same book, v. 628. Haud impune quidem; nec talia passus Ulysses, Or within the compass of one line as iv. 274. Respice.' We quote these two passages as more peculiarly resembling the one before us, in the repeated mention of the same person under a different appellation. Again, iv. 222. Tum sic Mercurium alloquitur, ac talia falur. And in the line, which he is said to have completed extempore, in the moment of recital: vi. 165. Ære ciere viros, Martemque accendere cantu: a story which, if true, happily illustrates our present observation, as it shows that this mode of filling up an imperfect line was familiar and obvious to him.2 So far as the mere meaning is concerned, the two lines might as well have been compressed into one: Respice surgentem Ascanium, cui Romula regna Debentur. 2 The same usage occurs in the later Roman poets, though perhaps more sparingly. Claudian omits the conjunction. The same species of repetition is frequent in the poems of Pope, and his followers, where "half the couplet but reflects the other." Thus in his translation of the celebrated passage, Π. Α. 528. "Η, καὶ κυανέησιν ὑπ ̓ ὄφρυσι νεῦσε Κρονίων, κ. τ. λ. He spoke, and awful bends his sable brows, Shakes his ambrosial curls, and gives the nod, The stamp of fate, and sanction of the God: High heaven with trembling the dread symbol took, And all Olympus to the centre shook.1 The parallelisms of Hebrew poetry are of a somewhat similar nature. In the passage of Virgil, however, the received construction affords a sufficiently convenient sense. 2. The following arguments, adduced by a modern English writer to prove that the Phæacia of Homer, was no other than Palestine, and that Alcinous was Solomon, are at least amusing. 1. Homer was familiar with the names of Sidon and Egypt; it would be strange therefore, if, living in the time of Solomon, (as the writer supposes him to have lived) he made no mention of his glory. 2. The position of Corcyra is inconsistent with the course of Ulysses' voyage, as indicated by Homer. 3. 'Axxivoos means strength of wisdom; Solomon was strong in wisdom. 4. Solomon's gardens were famous; so were Alcinous's, Od. vii. 112. 5. Solomon commanded twelve tribes, each of which was under a separate chief, 1 Kings, 4; so Alcinous, Od. viii. 390. 6. Solomon's throne was supported by golden lions, 1 Kings, 10; so was Alcinous's by dogs of gold and silver. 7. Solomon's fleets were famous; so were Alcinous's. 8. Homer attributes a suspicious temper, and a dislike of foreigners, to the Phæacians; so did the Greeks and Romans to the Jews. 9. Neptune, on his return from Ethiopia to Egæ, halted on the hills of the Solymi; but the Solymi of Pamphylia are at a distance from the route in question; therefore Judea must be intended. "Our translator amplifies his original, but has done full justice to the sublimity of this noble passage:" such were Gilbert Wakefield's ideas of sublimity. Chapman here is exceedingly literal: He said, and his black eyebrowes bent; above his deathlesse head (a singular rhythm, whence perhaps Milton, " his flowing hair In curls on either cheek play'd.") Virgil also, though he omits the circumstance of the waving hair, has fully preserved the sublime brevity of his origi nal: "Annuit, et totum nutu tremefecit Olympum:" (whence Pope's "all Olympus.") 3. ἵνα μὴ τῷ κοινῷ ἔχθει κατ' αὐτῶν μετ' ἀλλήλων στῶμεν· μηδὲ δυεῖν φθάσαι ἁμάρτωσιν, ἢ κακῶσαι ἡμᾶς, ἢ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βεβαιώσασθαι. Thucydides, i. 33. Milton seems to have had this construction in view, Apology for Smectymnuus, vol. i. p. 222, ed. Symmons, "Wherein of two purposes both honest, and both sincere, the one, perhaps, I shall not miss; although I fail to gain belief with others of being such, &c. I may yet not fail of success, &c." 4. Divitiæ grandeis homini sunt, vivere parce Equo animo. Lucretius, v. 1117 The words of St. Paul are very similar, 1 Tim. vi. 6. “Godliness with contentment is great gain." Again, v. 1429. Ergo hominum genus incassum frustraque laborat Semper, et in cureis consumit inanibus ævum : the phraseology is that of Psalm xxxix. 6. "Surely every man walketh in a vain show, surely they are disquieted in vain.” 5. Huschke on Tibullus, iv. 8, v. 8. (Arbitrio quoniam non sinis esse meo; al. Arbitrii-mei.) "Illud vere mihi videor affirmare, Tibullum non scripsisse arbitrii, siquidem hoc unicum foret in his carminibus exemplum duplicis i in genitivo substantivi exeuntis in ius vel ium." Perhaps, however, arbitrii may have been tolerated as an exception from the general rule, on account of the ambiguity which might otherwise result between arbitri and arbitri from arbiter. 6. Burman on Propertius i. 18, v. 11. (New Delph. Ed. p. 175.) Sic mihi te referas levis, ut non altera nostro Limine formosos intulit ulla pedes. "Lenem Dorv. 2. In aliis lenis, quod metro adversatur, nisi interpretatio sit vocis levis pro leni et benigna, quo sensu hic capiend. notaverat J. Dousa, et ita exponebat Dorv. in Misc. Obs.-vel distinguendum putabat Sic mihi te referas, levis ;" &c. Levis, however, can scarcely have this meaning. We suspect the true reading to be, Sic mihi te referas lenis, non altera &c. a mode of expression common in Propertius: thus 21, 5. Sic te servato possint gaudere parentes; Hæc soror Acca tuis sentiat e lacrymis. 7. A correspondent in the Classical Journal, Vol. XXVII. p. 55, &c. quotes, in connexion with Franklin's celebrated apologue of Abraham, the earlier versions of the same in Jeremy Taylor and Sâdi. In an account of the controversies between St. Peter and Simon Magus, contained in the apocryphal "Recognitiones" of Clemens Romanus, the following very apposite passage occurs: "Hæc autem Petro dicente, Simon blasphemiis et maledictis agere cœpit, ut seditione facta, perturbatis omnibus, argui non posset; et Petrus, quasi blasphemiæ causa secedens, victus videretur. Sed perstitit, et arguere eum vehementius cœpit. Tum populus indignatus, Simonem atrio ejectum extra januam domi pepulit; eumque depulsum unus secutus est solus. Facto autem silentio, Petrus alloqui populum hoc modo cœpit : Patienter, fratres, malos ferre debetis, scientes, qui Deus, cum possit eos excidere, patitur tamen durare usque ad præstitutam diem, in qua de omnibus judicium fiet: quomodo ergo nos non patiemur, quos patitur Deus? cur autem non forti animo illatas ab eis toleramus injurias, cum suas ille, qui potest omnia, non ulciscatur?" D. Člementis Opera, Torano interprete, Par. 1568, p. 45. This passage, (which we owe to a writer in an old volume of the Gentleman's Magazine, who quotes it for the same purpose) is worthy of notice on its own account. OUT 8. A critic in Blackwood has found fault with the Greek version of Milton's exordium, in No. LXI. p. 193, as not Homeric; instancing the words οὔτ ̓ ἔπεσιν—κληΐσμενον, οὔτε λόγοισιν. Λόγοισι for prose, he says, is not after the manner of Homer. This is true; but can the critic tell us what is Homer's word for prose? Our authority for the expression is necessarily derived from later times : λογίοις καὶ ἀοίδοις, Pind. οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασιν—οὔτε ὡς λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν, Thucyd. i. 20. Περσέων oi λoyo, Herod. i. 1. The verse would be improved by transposition : οὔτε λόγοις τὸ πάροιθε κεκασμένον, οὔτ ̓ ἐπέεσσιν, as in the original. On his general character of the translation, the reader, who is acquainted with Homer, must judge. |