APPENDI X. HEN I first determined to give my labours to the public, in hopes of contributing to the restoration of the Platonic philofophy, I embraced the refolution of Dr. Johnson and Goldsmith, to fet the Reviewers at defiance. For I was fully convinced that neither able criticism, nor candid attention could be expected, where compofition is dictated by the spirit of malevolence, and influenced by the views of pecuniary. reward. However, though contempt is the most philofophical mode of revenge, yet as a certain author well obferves fevere retaliation is fometimes requifite, in order to convince the subjects of our revenge, that we do not stoop to the meanness of abject submiffion. This mode of retaliation the defamation of the Monthly Reviewers in their bundle of criticism for August last obliges me to adopt and they have afforded me in this review the most favourable opportunity I could defire, of expofing their malevolence, ignorance, and pride. I fhall begin, therefore, with inftancing their malevolence, as it is the first in our list of their bad qualities, and is the general characteristic of these affuming critics. In my preface to the translation of Orpheus, after representing the difficulty of well tranflating the compound epithets of the Greek, into English, and the necessity of poffeffing the philofophic genius for this purpose. I add : " If some sparks of this celestial fire, fhall appear to have animated the bosom of the translator, he will confider himself as well rewarded for his laborious undertaking." Upon which these candid reviewers obferve, (p. 138.) "Mr. Taylor was aware of this difficulty, though he seems to claim the merit of fubduing it." In the fecond place they affert, (p. 138.) that after lamenting, that the Commentary of Proclus on Plato's Cratylus is not likely to be publifhed, "I comfort myself with the hope that my own labours will in fome measure supply its place, by opening the pure fources of genuine wisdom. And that to this end I promise copious and truly philofophic notes." Now the paffage which furnished this malevolent affertion is the following: "What farther light we have been able to throw on these mysterious remains of antiquity, will appear in our following notes. If the valuable Commentary of Proclus on the Cratylus of Plato, was once published, I am perfuaded we should find them full of the most recondite theology: but as this is not to be expected in the pre fent fent age, the lovers of wisdom will I doubt not gratefully accept the preceding and fubfequent elucidations. For on a fubject fo full of obfcurity as the prefent, a glimmering light, is as confpicuous, and as agreeable to the eye of the mind, as a small spark in profound darkness, is to the corporeal fight." Differtation, p. 106. The infamy of fuch mifreprefentation is too glaring to require any illuftration, too fhameful to admit of any excufe, and in any other caufe than that of verbal criticifm, too contemplible either to roufe refentment, or deferve the most trifling attention. Let us now examine the fpecimens of ignorance which thefe Reviewers afford in great abundance; and which as I prefume will appear much to the credit of my tranflation. In the first place I am charged with "univerfally tranflating the epithets os, ogos, and panxos, by the word fanatic, which I have employed in the sense of the Latin word, from which it is derived." To which I reply, that the former part of this charge is falfe. For in the hymn to Minerva orgos is tranflated rage; in the hymn to Diana, fierce; and in the hymn to Dionyfius Baffareus, anxoç is tranflated furious. The latter part of this affertion is true. For as the word fa natic is immediately derived from the Latin word fanaticus, which according to their own confeffion means numine afflatus, or one infpired by a divine power; and as the great Scaliger, whofe authority is always decifive, conftantly translates çoxerbros, fanaticus, I made no fcruple of adopting it in my tranflation. That, fanatic is never used in a good fenfe by any author of repute may perhaps be true: but I fee no reason why it fhould not be employed according to the meaning of its original, especially as there is no other word in our language fo expreffive of the words to which it correfponds in the Greek. The example of Ariftotle, and the greatest men of antiquity fufficiently juftifies both the invention of new terms when the poverty of a language requires a fupply, and the adop tion of old ones in a different fenfe, when the difficulty of the fubject demands verbal innovation. After this I am accused of totally mistaking the meaning of various paffages, the greater part of which I fhall expofe to the view of the reader with a literat tranflation, and comment; that the ignorance of the Reviewers may appear without that veil which at prefent fcreens it from the eyes of the unlearned in Greek. In the hymn to Pluto then, I have tranflated the following line: Μανος έφυς αφανών εργων φανερων τε βραβούλης. The difpenfator vifible and known. That is, literally, "Thou art alone the difpenfator of apparent and unapparent works." Now there is nothing in my verfion can be objected to, but the omiffion of the word apparent, which the measure of the verfe obliged me to neglect; and which the addition of visible and known in the fecond line renders fuperfluous, as the following obfervations obfervations will evince. According to the Orphic theology, Pluto belongs to the fame order as the fun, and from his fubfifting in occult union with this deity, he is celebrated as one and the fame: a custom frequent with the Orphic theologifts, as is well known to those who are skilled in their writings. Hence confidered as the fun, he is the difpenfator of apparent, and as Pluto, of unapparent works: and thus I prefume, I have not totally mistaken the meaning of this line, in celebrating Pluto as a deity visible and known. But that the reader may be fully convinced of the truth of this assertion, concerning the occult union between Pluto and the fun, let him attend to the following Orphic verfe, preferved by Justin Martyr, (in Cohortat. ad Gentes). Εἰς ζεὺς, εἰς ἄδης, εἰς ἥλιο, εις διήνυσ i. e. "Jupiter, Pluto, the Sun, and Bacchus are one. Again, in the epithet aadlus, it feems I have totally mistaken the meaning of my author, by tranflating it honor'd light. This word means literally exceedingly honoured: and the preceding expofition fufficiently proves the propriety of calling Pluto, lucid. Every reader knows the neceffity there is in poetical translations of adding something to the original and this is always allowed, when the addition is not contrary to the sense of the text, but either expands it, if condensed, or enlightens it, if obscure. I am likewife charged with mistaking the meaning of Aoys Dunтcio, gopala, or, prophet of difcourfe to mortals, which I have rendered, : Prophet of difcourfe.' Now as this is literal, the mistake must confist in not fubftituting another word for prophet, which might exprefs what the author meant; the Reviewers never dreaming that this word, when properly understood, is perfectly fufficient for the purpofe. As they appear, therefore, to be totally ignorant of the original fignification of a prophet, I fhall fubjoin its definition from Feftus. "Prophetas dicebant veteres antiftites fanorum, oraculorumque interpretes :" i. e." the ancients called prophets the priests of fanes, and the interpreters of oracles." Prophet of difcourfe, therefore, means interpreter of difcourfe and as this epithet is applied to Mercury, it is doubtlefs highly proper; if we confider that he first reduced the infinity of voice into bound, by dividing letters into fpecies; and thus truly became the interpreter of fpeech to mankind. In the hymn to Venus, I have tranflated, Είτ' εν Κύπρω, ανασσα τόξων στο "Or if in Cyprus with thy mother fair." : And it is literally "Or if in Cyprus O queen, with thy nurse." Fortunately for me, the metaphrafe of Scaliger agrees with my verfion, "Sive in Cupro, matre tua." Perhaps the 441 the Reviewers forgot, or perhaps they are ignorant, that a mother and a nurse are frequently fynonymous terms! I fhall not trouble the reader with any more inftances of my mistakes, as I can faithfully affure him, that the remaining paffages adduced by the Reviewers, betray if possible, more malevolence and ignorance than the prefent. I fhall, therefore, proceed to a defence of fome epithets, and expreffions which I have employed; and in which thefe exquifite critics, can neither difcover beauty, nor even propriety. In the first place then, they confefs that they have too little taste, or too little knowledge to discover either beauty, or propriety, in my tranflation of the following line: Νύμφαι θυγατέρες μεγαλήτορος Ωκεαν010 'Nymphs, who from ocean's fiream derive your birth.' i. e. literally, Nymphs, daughters of the mighty ocean.' Now as the exceptionable part of this line, is ocean's ftream, as appears by its being printed in italics; I can only affure the reader that I can plead no lefs authority than that of both Homer, Hefiod, Plato, and Milton for its propriety and beauty. Thus Homer, (Iliad xviii. 1. 606.) speaking of the fabrication of Achilles' fhield by Vulcan, fays: Ἐν δ ̓ ἐτίθει ποταμοῖο μεγασθένος ὠκεανοῖο. i. e. But he placed in it the mighty strength of the ocean's ftream.' So likewife: (Iliad xx. 1. 7.) Οὔτε τις ἦν ποταμῶν ἀπίην νόσφ ̓ ὠκεανοίο. i. e. 'No fream was abfent, except the fream of the ocean.' Thus again, in the Odyffey: (lib. xi. 1. 637.) Τὴν δὲ κατ ̓ Ωκεανὸν ποταμὸν φέρε κῦμα ῥύσιο. i. e. 'But the waves of the current bore it (the veffel) through the ocean ftream. And Milton had doubtlefs an eye to this laft paffage, when, speaking of the Leviathan, (Paradife Loft, book I.) he fays: or that fea beast Leviathan, whom god of all his works Created hugeft, that swim th' ocean fream. For here, as the reader must observe, he uses the very fame expreffion with Homer. But Milton was not only a great poet, but a man of great learning; and was doubtless much better acquainted with Homer than the Reviewers. VOL. II. 3 L Thus Thus too Hefiod: (in Theog. l. 241. &c.) - και Δωρίδος ηύκομοιο, Κέρης Ωκεανοῖο τελήεντος πολαμοῖο. i. e. and from the fair haired Doris, the daughter of the perfect fiream of the ocean." And the fame epithet is ufed in 1. 959. of the fame work. And lastly, Plato in the Phædo, thus fpeaks of the ocean, as one of the four great rivers, of which Tartarus is the fource: τὰ μεν ἦν δη άλλα πολλά τε καί μεγαλα καὶ παντοδαπα ρευματά έσι. τυγχάνει δ ̓ ἄρα όλα εν τέλος τοῖς πολλοῖς τίτλας ̓ ἅτλα ρευματα, ῶν τὸ μεν μέγισον και εξωτάτω βίον περικύκλω, ὁ καλέμενον Ωκεανός έγιν i. e. 'There are many other both great and all-various rivers, but principally four; the greatest and last of which, flowing round the earth in a circle, is called the ocean.' I only add that this expreffion is perfectly philofophical, as will be evident from confidering the ever-flowing condition of the ocean, by means of which it admirably correfponds with the nature of a fiream. Homer indeed was fo fenfible of this truth, that he generally (if not always) fpeaks of the ocean in this manner; and there is no doubt, but he derived his conviction from the first and most profound philosophy in the world. After this the expreffion, a blameless tide of abundance is objected to. But if the epithet blameless may be applied to abundance, which it is in the original; ( 026cv auun) and if a tide of wealth, is an ufual expreffion, I fee no reason why abundance, when conferred with moderation, may not be faid to be poured in a blameless tide. The objections to the tranflations of (a ngiya) basis of mankind,' and the first part of the hymn to Protogonus, are too contemptible to deferve any reply. This too would be the cafe with the epithet Bacchie King,' which is literally tranflated from the Greck; (Baxxor avanta) but very fortunately these fagacious critics have employed a correfpondent expreffion, in their Review of Wharton's Milton: for in page 1. they speak of the Miltonic mufe, which I prefume muft fall under the fame imputation of impropriety, and want of beauty with Bacchic king. I fhall only adduce one inftance more, and then proceed to take notice of the pride of thefe uncandid and ignorant cenfors. In the hymn to Boreas, that deity is requested to diffolve the all-mifly flation of the air: And I must confefs, that as I cannot find the least impropriety in speaking of the air as being in a misty ftation, I must conclude that this was exactly the station of the Reviewers, at the time when they compofed the prefent criticism; the whole of which appears to have been the refult of mifty vifions, clouded conceptions, and uncertain conjectures. 5 Let |