P. vii. The following extract on Homer proves Mr. C. to have fully comprehended the genius of his writings: In rebus autem divinis, et ad deorum cultum pertinentibus, exuit poetam, et Je hiftoricum profitetur; et cùm vitam, mores, ufus, confuetudinefque fui temporis in lucem profert, tùm res omnes religionefque divinas verè ac fideliter tradit: ut dubium fit, utrum plùs oblečtet poeta, quàm doceat hiftoricus.' It has been faid of Pope, that he never understood Homer: by which, if it be meant that he understood not the genius and spirit of that poet, it was rightly faid. Pope and all other tranflators or commentators, who have laboured to allegorize the mythological ftories of the Iliad and Odyffey, perceived not that Homer meant to write according to the popular creed of his times, as much as Shakespeare in Macbeth availed himself of the vulgar fuperftition with refpect to witches. Perhaps too, both Homer and Shakespeare were perfuaded that the popular creed was true.

P. viii. The paffage from Homer concerning Aira and Arn is printed without accents. No objection can reasonably be made to the difufe of accentual marks: but why is not the whole book printed without accents, for the fake of uniformity?

P. ix. From that fine paffage juft mentioned, respecting Airai and Arn, Mr. C. takes occafion to digrefs, and endeavours to prove, from various paffages of heathen writers, that the principal doctrines of chriftianity may be traced in the Gentile world. However right or wrong the Profeffor may be in his remarks on this fubject, "Nunc non erat his locus ;" for furely a Preface to Ariftotle's Poetics is not the place for investigating the myfteries of revealed religion, and for introducing the following fentences: En! hominis animam ac naturam ex concepta peccato lapfam, inquinatamque, fub Ates perfonâ graphicè admodùm et perbelle a poetâ exhibitam! P. ix. Omnes falsâ ac depravatâ naturâ nati fumus, eoque et in morbo et morte collapfi jacemus, cui nihil omnis noftra natura ad medendum fuppeditet. P. xi.'

P. xii. Fanciful and injudicious is the conceit about the word Brepwsis, Quid vult hæc ẞxpw515, quæ ab Hefychio exponitur Auos, Iεviα, nayαν Auπn? Præftat fanè ipfa vox facillimam fui explicationem. Unde enim compingitur nifi ex ßx valdè, vehementer, gravitèr, et ẞpwonw comedo, unde homines Bpotol, e peccato, atque ipfo peccati genere id nomen nacti. Itaque vox hæc Bobpwsis mala omnia et peccata ex funefto illo vetiti fructus efu guftatuque in humanum genus profeminata complectitur.'

P. xiii. No lefs fantastical is the opinion, that Homer, from misunderstanding the meaning of B8, was led to feign the ftory concerning the companions of Ulyffes being deftroyed for having eaten the oxen of the fun.

P. xiv. xvi. xvii. treat of him, Qui rebus humanis ægris atque afflictis remedium afferret, et hominum bumanique generis

vicarius

vicarius fummo ipfe fupplicio_mactaretur'—of the Plures Hypoftafes of the doctrine Quòd S. Spiritus, omnis boni muneris dator ac largitor, ternarium in Deo numerum conficeret, effetque fummi numinis tanquam apex, et cumulus.' We presume not to difcufs fubjects of fo facred and myfterious a nature in this our critique but we must fay again, that it is very unbecoming to introduce them in a Preface to the Poetics.

The interpretation of λόγον πρωταγωνισήν, p. xxxii-the reasons for retaining inayyeλias, p. xxxiii-and for reading parting for μavxz, p. xxxvi, fhall be noticed when we come to the refpective chapters of the Poetics, which contain these words. ΑΡΙΣΤΟΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΗΣ.

Whatever fingularities we may find in the hypothefis which the Preface is employed to establish, we think the Latinity entitled to very high praise for correctness, perfpicuity and elegance; in two or three places we saw marks of inattention to the niceties of verbal criticism; but the particular defects are few and trifling; while the general excellence has been made the subject of admiration among scholars, whofe fuffrages do honour to Mr. Cooke, and are of great weight with ourselves.

C. I. Tois Moyas as. On these words Mr. C. remarks -Vel prosâ oratione, vel metris'—agreeable to the opinion advanced in his Preface; and he confirms this interpretation by a paffage cited from Ariftotle's Rhetoric, which is pertinent, and fully proves λίγα ψιλοι to mean profe. So that the Εποποιία may be written either in profe oyas Viñas, or in metre n μετροις. Goulton's interpretation feems to render the conjunction, as if it were only explanatory of λoya Viλ01, but certainly the critic meant to point out two diftin&t things by that particle, as in τες λόγες και την ψιλομετριαν, C. 2, and επι των εμμετρων και επι των λόγων, c. 6. "Dans l'epopée, il n'y a que la parole, foit en profe, foit en vers;" fays Batteux, whofe tranflation is occafionally very happy, though in general, like the tranflations of all his countrymen, too loofe and wide from the text. With the words ψιλοίς λόγοις η μετρας Mr. C. connects ουδεν γαρ αν εχοιμεν ονόμασαι κοινον thus: • Adimplendum eft quod deficit in hunc modum: miraris fane me dicere, epopeiam poffe prosa conftare, fine metris. At profectò ni ita effet, abfurda multa confequerentur.' We are rather of opinion that the connedion is between ουδεν γαρ, and the general definition πασαι τυγχάνεσιν εσαι μιμησεις το σύνολον. We approve of what he advances when he afterwards goes on to fhew, how, according to Ariftotle's opinion, poetry confifts not fo much in writing metrically, as in imitation; and he demonftrates, that a writer, who invents and imitates, may be a poet, without metre, but that he who does not invent and imitate is no poet although he may write metre. The Dialogues of Plato are as much poems as the Mimes of Sophron, though the former are written in

B 2

profe,

profe, the latter in verfe. The context and the words or TOINTING KATα Tηy Miunov esi, c. 10, prove Mr. Cooke's opinion to be right and we think he has given the proper interpretation οι της Σωκρατικός Λογος, when in his note he calls them • Platonis Dialogi' Goulfton renders thefe words, "Fabella Socratis alternis verfibus confcriptæ"-but where then is the contraft between the Σωφρονος Μιμοι and Σωκρατικοι Λογοι? Batteux has been fuccefsful in this paffage: Les Dialogues Philofophiques, ou l'on fait parler Socrate."

C. 4. Όσον εγενετο φανερον αυτης - Quod in iis jam extat. But how can urns refer both to tragedy and comedy? The right interpretation of this place feems to be, It (i. e. comedy) was gradually improved by means of those writers, who carried it on to that ftate, in which at laft it appeared (but not to perfection).

C. 4. The preface and the note on Λογον Πρωταγωνιςην abundantly prove thofe words to mean, that Efchylus made dialogue to be the principal part, whereas, heretofore, the chorus almoft occupied the whole.

C. 6. The editor retains mayyhias in the fentence, ou de επαγγελιάς, αλλα δ' ελες και φοβε. In p. xxxiii. of the Preface he defends this reading; εmayɣɛhias rectè fe habet, nam επαγγέλλειν eft pracipere, tradere; et επαγγελια praceptio : tragadia itaque eft & di' Etayythias, non monftrando et docendo ea, qua formidini et vel miferationi futura fint, αλλα δι' ελες και φοβε Jed ex rebus ipfis formidolofis et miserandis coràm ante oculos pofitis efficit, ut homines edifcere poffint quæ rectè miferari oportet, in quibus timere.' His note, p. 121, is to the fame effect. This reafoning is good, but neverthelefs we prefer arayysλias "narratione,' because, as Ariftotle deduces the definition of tragedy E TWV ειρημένων, and as among the ειρημενα it had been obferved that epic poetry differed from tragedy τῳ δε το μετρον απλον έχειν, και Απαγγελίαν είναι, σε in having metre unaccompanied with mufic, and in being narration," it is moft probable that he would define tragedy as not confifting of narration, vid. c. 5. Moreover απαγγελλω is the word familiar to Ariftocle: Και γαρ εν τοις αύτοις και τα αυτα μιμεῖσθαι εςι, ότε μεν Απαγγέλλοντας

c. 3.

"in

E. 13 Tranflators differ very much about the fenfe of the

66

following paffage; Env yap av Eviα Has EVEYNEW," poterat enim quædam etiam attuliffe," fays the Oxford edition 1760, by James Harris- Quædam licebat ponere ante oculos"-Winftanley, after Goulfton Nonnulla enim poffunt ferri: ut cùm in Terea Sophoclis, radio vox tribuitur." Heinfius. "Le poëte eût pu tirer de fon jujet." Batteux. Licebit enim quædam proferre.' Cooke. As if permiffion might be given to the poet to bring about the αναγνωρισις by fome σημεία produced before the Spectators, and as if Sophocles were to be commended in his Tereus for the φωνη

Owen xeрxidos. But neither of these interpretations fatisfies us. Ariftotle means to fay, That it is almost as great a fault to bring about the avayvapios by words which the poet may invent, and not by paypaτa, which naturally arife from the fable, as it is to do it by figns: and that the one method is nearly as reprehenfible as the other: for by the fame liberty, with which the poet feigns words for his characters to speak on fuch an occafion, he MIGHT AS WELL HAVE PRODUCED fome figns; which is aтExvov, and for which Sophocles is culpable in his Tereus, as Euripides is in his Iphigenia, for inventing a fpeech for Oreftes. So the connection is between olov Opens Ev τη Ιφιγενεια και εν τῷ Σοφοκλέος Τηρεί ή της κερκίδος Φονη. From the conclufion of this chapter, it is evident, that Aristotle does not approve of Sophocles in his Tereus, for he does not recommend that play as an example, but exprefsly mentions the Αναγνωρισις εξ αυτών των πραγμάτων in the Oedipus Tyrannus and Iphigenia, as moft exceilent, because avεu TWV TETTOINμEVWW. σημείων; and then he fpecifies the Αναγνωρισις εκ Συλλογισμό as next beft. But by his filence with respect to that dia onμew, is to be inferred his difapprobation: but fueh was the xepxidos Qwvn, and therefore the Tereus was not to be commended.

C. 15. Διόπερ εδεις ποιεῖ ὁμοιως, ει μη ολιγάκις. The editor renders oyanış · Minoribus in locis:' and remarks, Perperam vertitur "raro ;" effet enim abfurdum, talem fabulæ conftitutionem probari in paucis tragædiis, fed non in omnibus.' But Ariftotle fews his difapprobation of the γινωσκοντα μελλησαι xx μn πраžα, by obferving that it was feldom used; as much as if he had faid it was ufed only in lefs important places. The unfrequent use of fuch a method to excite the To Dobeρov nas ελεεινον is a fufficient proof that it was vicious. Ολιγακις, there fore, may ftill be rendered raro in this paffage, as in c. 24. μιμένται δε ολιγα και ολιγάκις.

κρατιςον

C. 15. Kрati50V is rendered Quod maximè valet has the vogue'-and it is remarked that Ariftotle is made to contradict himself, if xparison be taken for optimum;" for by the words εTI δε τριτον prefixed to τον μελλοντα ποιειν τι των avnxeσlwv, &c. the critic fhews his difapprobation of that practice. Though we do not think the words ET de, &c. imply that cenfure, yet from the doctrine laid down in c. 14. which fays that the fable ought μεταβάλλειν εκ εις ευτυχίαν εκ δυσυχίας, αλλά τεναντιον εξ ευτυχίας εις δυςυχίαν, it is clear Ariftotle could not give the preference to an example directly contrary. In order, therefore, to avoid making the Critic contradict in one chapter what he has taught in a preceding one, we cannot render xparison by " optimum;" but according to Mr. Cooke's' quod maximè valet,' although "tragœdiæ inidoneus."

66

C.16. In preface, p. xxxvi. Mavrixx is fubftituted for Mavixov→→ and in Note, p. 142. this reading is again fupported: Cui lectioni fidem facit Horatius, ipfis verbis converfis, " Ingenium, cui fit, cui mens divinior." But from a paffage cited by Winftanley from Toup's Longinus, it appears that paving is the word familiar to Ariftotle-We think too, that the expreffion oi de exsatixoi eio 1, in the very next fentence after paving, proves paving to be the right reading. The pavia of the Poet is wonderfully described μανια by Shakespeare:

"The Poet's eye, in a fine phrenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven:
And, as Imagination bodies forth,

The forms of things unknown, the Poet's pen

Turns them to fhapes, and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation, and a name."

C. 16. Τες τε λογες τις πεποιημένες δεῖ καὶ αυτον ποιέντα εκτι θεσθαι καθολα. Argumenta verò, quæ finxerit, Poëtam oportebit ipfum, dum fingit, univerfim exponere. This verfion is far preferable to that given by Winftanley after Goulfton, “Tum quibus antea fictis utitur, tum quæ denuo confingit ipfe." Batteux fays in general terms, "Quel que foit le fujet qu'on traite, il faut commençer par la crayonner dans le général."

C. 16. Maxp is retained; but we think μing See Winft. 293.

preferable.

C. 17. H de Hixn. This is rightly interpreted 'morata, as in Horace," morataque rectè fabula," Art. Poet. 319. "a play in which the manners are well preferved." And H9xn here fignifies a Play which confifts more of manners well kept, than of action.

6

C. 17. Εν δε τοις δράμασι, πολυ παρα την υπόληψιν αποβαια VEL; fed in dramatibus multum excedit id quod fpondet tragoedia.' We are much pleased with this interpretation; and the fenfe in which Ariftotle ufes úroλabav in the fame chapter, confirms it: ToU χορου δε ἕνα δεῖ ὑπολαβειν τον ὑποκριτον, “ the Chorus (i. e. the Coryphæus) ought to undertake the character of an actor."

C. 17. We think Mr. C. is mistaken in this explanation of Enpelor de, &c. Poëtæ, qui totam actionem ficut Euripides fingunt, non partem ejus ficut Eschylus, aut carent fucceffu, aut nanws aywu Covτai, malè rem gerunt.' Euripides did not comprise the ολον μύθον Μηδείας, but κατα μερος; he therefore is propofed as an example for imitation, no lefs than Æfchylus. L'un et l'autre de ces deux poëtes n'avoit prit qu'une partie de l'hiftoire de Niobe, et de celle de Medée; on les cite comme exemple de ce qui doit être fait." Batteux.

--

C. 17. Στοχάζονται ών βέλονται θαυμαςως.-Στοχάζονται. • Efchylus fcilicet, et Euripides. We rather think Пoo, the word which precedes λvari, to be the nominative before 50xαCouras; and Savμasws should be rendered not by admirandum