about the tigress raging for the loss of her cubs, I do not think this ought to be attributed to imitation, but to the nature of the subject treated, which is of itself more noble and elegant.

It will perhaps be agreeable if I cite an example of this class, in which, although the habits and actions of the hen are exactly described, while on seeing the kite she anxiously protects her young, I think, nevertheless, that the feeling of pleasure is derived rather from the object, which is such as to attract the eyes of any one, than from the art and genius of the writer:

πῶς δ ̓ ὄρνις κατὰ δῶμα, κ.τ.λ. (Κυνηγ. iii. 118.)

But the extent to which" mere imitation is surpassed by the imitation of that which is beautiful and splendid is easily observed in a comparison of the two following passages of Virgil, in both of which there is the merit of perfect imitation, but a great difference in their spirit and power. The remarks about the choice of cattle are very well known (Georg. iii. 51): optima torvæ

Forma bovis, cui turpe caput,' &c.

18

Could anything be more plain, more accurately set forth,1 more closely in accordance with nature? But as we have to do with a humble and common-place object, we scarcely think it worth while to read the passage twice. It is well suited, we say, to the poet's design, and could not be omitted, so that we give him an excuse rather than praise.19 But with what emotions we read the image of the horse immediately after (Georg. iii. 75):

'Continuo pecoris generosi pullus in arvis,' &c.

Before we leave this subject,20 I must remark (though it belongs more to another part of my work), that while other poets éndeavour to bring everything before the eyes, and think they can never go too far in description, our divine Mantuan passes from outward objects to the innermost feelings of the mind, and strives with all his might to nurture the glowing fancy and to enter a wider range of thought than that which is subject to the eyes. Hence, having finished his picture of the horse, he immediately assumes a loftier tone; he attempts

gods and heroes, the specious arguments of antiquity; fables indeed they are, but such as are calculated to touch the heart and to charm the thoughts.

Exercise LVII.

Wilford's absurd Etymologies.

THE other arts, of course' from the neglect of those who have cultivated them, still stick tolerably well to their ancient roots, but mythology was both in former times very like Libya, which was said to bring forth some new monster every year, according to the Greek proverb: aɛí rɩ KAIÒV KAT' ἐνιαυτὸν θήριον τίκτει, and in our age has made advances which those ancient philosophers could not attain even in suspicion and conjecture. For since Sir W. Jones, the eminently learned president of the Calcutta Academy, declared that the sacred fables of the Indians agreed surprisingly with the mythology of the Greeks, which he professes to have learned from the manual of Lilius Gyraldus, this, like a heavenly voice, has so attracted all the looks and thoughts of men, that by this time all, who have some education, having thrown aside the study of the Greek and Latin books, seek aid and assistance for the interpretation of antiquity from the Pundits alone and their expositors. This road having once been opened, circumstances have been brought to light within a very few years, so many, great, and incredible, that, if we only take some little trouble,3 nothing in all this branch of learning is likely to remain unknown. Therefore, there seems to be a hope that even the purport of those Orphic words will soon be clearly understood. For my own part, I think them Sanscrit. For in the first place it is quite manifest that Orpheus wrote in Sanscrit in the sentence:

2

ἐλθὲ μάκαιρ', εὔφρων, εὐάστερα φέγγει τῷ σῷ
λαμπομένη, σώζουσα τεοὺς ἱκέτας ἐς Λοκούρη.

Here the most crazy fancies have been indulged in by our

6

8

chief critics, Joseph Scaliger, who pronounces the passage mutilated; Ruhnken, who would mend it by the conjecture ἱκέτας σέο, κούρη; and Hermann, who has even ventured to receive this conjecture into the text. What need is there of words? Orpheus wrote just what the primeval editions give us; and if any one denies that the second line can be brought into agreement with the laws of metre, let him be assured that these laws were written for grammarians, not for mythologers. The meaning, as Wilford gives it, is quite admirable: 'Shelter in Locure those who humbly call on thee.' Locure, if any one is unacquainted with the fact, is the Sanscrit name of the lunar Paradise, properly signifying 'shade,' from which many names in ancient and modern geography have been derived, as Liguria, Laceria, Loire, Leicester.

Besides this, in the Eleusinian mysteries, which we know were founded by Eumolpus, the fellow-student of Orpheus, the sacred speakers used the Sanscrit language. I am referring to known facts.' All who have thumbed 10 Meursius are aware that at the end of this rite, when the religious assembly was being dismissed, they were greeted as they departed with the words κόγξ, ὄμπαξ. The meaning of these words no one up to this day has been able to scent out. There have indeed been some, who have thought it right to emend them into κόγξ, βόμβαξ, profanely adulterating the genuine reading. For that these words are quite correct, and also Sanscrit, we learn from the same Wilford, the favourite authority of the Symbolists," who says that they are used to this day by the Brahmins at the conclusion of religious rites -candcha signifies the object of our most ardent wishes, om is the famous syllable used at the beginning and conclusion of a prayer, like our amen, and pacsha exactly answers to the whole Latin word vix.' This interpretation has been fondly welcomed by Muenter, Creuzer, and other eminent men. This clearly tells us how much weight the slightest acquaintance, or even no acquaintance, with Sanscrit has in the interpretation of learned antiquity. For who of all Greek scholars ever entertained a suspicion of this? The words of Hesychius are: κόγξ, ὄμπαξ· ἐπιφώνημα τετελεσμένοις. Καὶ τῆς δικαστικῆς ψήφου ἦχος, ὡς ὁ τῆς κλεψύδρας, παρὰ δὲ ̓Αττικοῖς

12

Bló. Now take to counsel any one of those who call themselves grammarians: he would sooner elicit moisture from a stone, than hammer out of Hesychius the fact that koy, oμ, Ták, were exclamations addressed to the initiated. In the first place, he will say that κóyž öμжaž are not compound words, but one the explanation of the other. Then, that there is not the remotest trace of the Eleusinian mysteries in these expressions, but that TETEλEOμévoiç is a dative of the neuter gender, so that ἐπὶ τετελεσμένοις is equivalent to ἐπ'

13

εipyaoμévots, i. e. 'after a business is completed.' Lastly, the words of Hesychius will immediately glide into this meaning, that kóуž oμжaž is a made-up phrase, to signify, 'enough of this, it is finished,' and that we have the same signification in the Latin pax periit illico, and that Hesychius assigns a similar meaning to the Greek word πάξ, τέλος ἔχει, which is much the same as if he had written ά tipúvnμa τετελεσμένοις. And may not ὄμπαξ be merely an abridgment of ouoiws más? for Hesychius is accustomed to employ this adverb in comparing words of the same origin or signification. What will be the result, then ?14 Do we admit that Hesychius did not speak of the Eleusinian or other mysteries? that the words conx and pax explained by him are not like those Sanscrit terms? that Wilford's interpretation is totally feigned, groundless, and false? Oh! no; of course we will not do this, but we will firmly maintain our mumpsimus,1 and will not suffer ourselves to be hindered, by the authority of any grammatical argument, from believing that the Eleusinian hierophants, when they delivered their sacred addresses, spoke in Sanscrit. But with regard to Wilford's assertion that no one before himself had ventured to explain that hierophantic interlude, we cannot carry our assent any farther. True it is, there have lived many brave men before Agamemnon,' and in this department of literature interpreters have appeared in every age, who, to reach renown by a shorter route, have made it their business to cram" their readers with marvels. Of this golden race John Le Clerc, a first-rate theologian, and (until he broke his jaw tooth on Bentley 18) an eminent philologer, affirmed that our conx ompax was a punic phrase, and signified 'watch, and abstain from sin.' In fine, if any

16

one looks to the number and cleverness of the old etymologers, he will hardly doubt but that one or two of them has extracted a Chinese, Welsh, or, to gratify me, a Mexican derivation; but all, unwept and unknown, are overwhelmed in a long night, because they are without a sacred bard1 who has attempted to spread their praises by means of periodical literature.20

Exercise LVIII.

Charles Townsend's merits as a Speaker.

3

THIS light too is passed and set for ever. You understand, to be sure,' that I speak of Charles Townsend, officially2 the re-producer of this fatal scheme, whom I cannot even now remember without some degree of sensibility. In truth, sir, he was the delight and ornament of this house, and the charm of every private society which he honoured with his presence. Perhaps there never arose in this country, nor in any country, a man of a more pointed and finished wit; and (where his passions were not concerned) of a more refined, exquisite, and penetrating judgment." If he had" not so great a stock, as some have had who flourished formerly, of knowledge long treasured up, he knew better by far, than any man I ever was acquainted with," how to bring together within a short time all that was necessary to establish, to illustrate, and to decorate that side of the question he supported. He stated his matter skilfully and powerfully.1 He particularly excelled in a most luminous explanation and display of his subject.15 His style of argument was neither trite and vulgar, nor subtle and abstruse.16 He hit the house just between wind and water," and not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter in question, he was never more tedious, or more earnest, than the pre-conceived opinions and present temper of his hearers required;18 to whom he was always in perfect unison.19 He conformed exactly to the temper of the house; and he seemed to guide, because he was always sure to follow it.20

G

13