read τις κεν αεισει, τις κεν αείσῃ, Οι τις κεν αείσοι, you read a folecifm. The first expreffion the learned commentator obferves is faulty, on account of z being joined with an indicative mood. But not accurately enough; for the fault dos not lic in that it is joined with an indicative mood, but that it is joined with a future indicative; fince the paft tenfes of that mood, as well imperfect as perfect, as also both aorists often have that particle joined with them. That the fecond expreffion is abfolutely contrary to the genius of the Greek language-nos primi monemus. The third Stephens entirely difapproves, but is filent, for what reafons. We muft obferve (what, indeed, feems to have misled many very learned men) that verbs of that form (of which is a) are never used in an optative fenfe, or joined with the particle or av; but used in the paft tenfes in a future fignification. * Aristophanes.

Έχω γαρ ως μειραικιον ΗΠΕΙΛΗΣ ότι
Εις τες Δικαίες και σοφές και κοσμίας
Μονες Βασδοίμην.

And again,

Hail,

like it can scarce be found. They must neceffarily fill it up thus: "Non fuit quifquam qui celebrare potuiffet, non erit qui celebrare poterit." We are not fo difficult, as to condemin this: Permit it then: But fince by this, a most full answer is given to the question-rsa d'Epacita Tis new aside — tua vero opera quifnam celebret? τις κεν αείδοι Who can endure a repetition of the fame queftion immediately after it has been answered ? for my part I never met with any thing so jejune, abfurd and idle. That of Ovid concerning Callimachus every one knows.

Battiades toto femper cantabitur orbe

Quamvis ingenio non valet, arte valet. What induced Ovid to write this, I leave to the difcretion of others. But be that as it will, one thing I know, that Callimachus never would have wrote this paffage, if he had not wanted art as Lucretius has a passage much well as genius. Lucretius has a of the fame kind,

you

Quis potis eft dictum pollenti pectore carmen Condere pro rerum majeftate, hifque repertis? Quis ve valet verbis tantum, qui fundere laudes Pro meritis ejus poffit, qui talia nobis Pectore parta fuo, quæfitaq; præmia liquit ? Nemo ut opinor erit mortali corpore crctus. This indeed is elliptical, but nothing like Callimachus. If fill up this Nemo erit, qui dignum carmen condere poffit, &c. you fufficiently anfwer the questions found in the foregoing. lines: But if immediately after the 6th you was to repeat the 5th foregoing, I need not fay how abfurd and ridiculous you would render the paffage. But this very abfurdity, except that the words repeated are fewer, is the very same in Callimachus.——“ "Will you then attempt to reftore fo embaraffed and incurable a paffage." Yes-and that I think may be done without great difficulty. Thus I would understand it.

150

Tua vero opera quis tandem clebraverit? non natus eft, non erit quifquam, qui Jovis pera celebrare poterit."I believe the criticism, fevere as it seems, to an impartial enquirer, is almost its own answer. As to the ellipticalnefs of the expreffion, few in every part of ftudy and of life, but meet with many of the fame kind.. For how is it poffible for the author to have expreft himself otherwife? How jejune indeed would it have been had he faid, Who could fing thy praise, there never was a man who could, there never will be a man who can, &c. How much more noble- Who can fing thy praise? The man is not born nor ever will, for what man can ever fing the praise of Jupiter? There I imagine the ftrefs and emphafis is to be layed on AIOE gyuara, which Mr. Dawes feems not aware of, when he fays the very fame question is repeated. There is peculiar beauty in that noble repetition. For who can fing the praife of a Jupiter? and had the ingenious critic been much converfant in the works of antient and modern poets, he would have found emphatical repetitions of this kind extremely frequent. The poet in the first question is fpeaking to the God Tea gyμara: raptured as it were, he elegantly and very properly burfts out into the great impoffibility of worthily praifing his fupreme. "There never was nor ever will be a man born fufficient to praife him;" for, recollecting and speaking to himself, perhaps, or elfe to the hearers he cries out, "How is it poffible they fhould? for, who can fing the praise of Jupiter, the great fon of Saturn, the fupreme and fovereign of all the Gods? whom he had juft honoured with the moft exalted epithet warumigrate exfuperantiffime."

Ver. 151. Virtue, wealth. Callimachus here proves himself a very excellent moralift, and plainly hints at the principle of the Stoics, who maintained that virtue was avтapans, entirely fufficient to a happy life: He knew better, and found each one, virtue and riches, abfolutely neceffary for the obtaining true happiness. Virtue

Wealth

without fome fupport needlefs, poor, despised, and in rags is unequal to the shock

*Few can bear the whips and fcorns of time, Th' oppreffor's wrong, the proud man contumely,

The infolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes:-

feed

me

Without finking beneath the burden; but if wealth and power is united with virtue, what a field is there to act in, to diffufe good and happiness to ourselves and all mankind? There never was a more wife petition from a heathen. Riches without virtue are a firebrand in the hand of a mad-man; given only, as a great writer expreffes himself, "As a confpicuous proof and example of how small eftimation exorbitant wealth is in the fight of God, when he bestows it on the moft worthlefs of mankind." The celebrated prayer of the wife Agur is nearly of the fame import with this of our poets: "Give me neither poverty nor riches, with food convenient for me; left I be full, and deny thee, and fay, who is the Lord? or, left I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." Proverbs xxx. 8. But in the 7th chapter of Ecclefiaftes, ver. 11. we have the immediate obfervation" Wisdom is good with an inheritance, and by it there is profit to them that fee the Sun. For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wifdom giveth life to them that have it." The conclufion of this hymn is moft noble; the elegance and fweetnefs of the poetry, joined with the intrinfic grandeur and beauty of the thought, prefent us with the most elevated ideas. I must obferve, Homer concludes two of his fhort. hymns with the fame petition as our poet. That to Vulcan-with

Αλλ' ιλαθ' Ηφαίτε, διδιαρετην τε και ολβον.

• Hamlet.

That

That to Herculus, with

Χαιρα αναξ Διος τις διδιαριτην τι και αλάν

whence it is obvious to remark, that this was a very favorite petition amongst the heathens,

Horace has a very good fentiment to the fame purpose with our author

Et genus et virtus, nifi cum re vilior alga. and for this reason, fays Menander,

Μαμάρι, στις εσιαν και νυν έχει Χρηται γαρ ετοσ εισαδεί, ταυτη καλως. Theocritus having before celebrated Ptolemy's wealth and power, of which he could not even wifh encrease, they were fo large, concludes his hymn with

Αρετην γε μεν εκ Διος αιτευ.

as if he never could have too large an encrease of virtue, though eminently renowned for it. There are, who have imagined the poet here makes a kind of genteel petition to his king, and infinuates, that his fongs and genius were not fufficient to make him happy, without the other

155

great and material ingredient, fince fame and merit alone are not able to feed a man:

So prayfen babes the peacock's spotted traine And wondren at bright Argus blazing eye; But who rewards him ere the more for thy? Or feedes him once the fuller by a graine? Sike praife is fmoke, that fheddeth in the skye, Sike wordes beene winde and waften foon in vaine,

SPENSER'S Calendar, 10th ECLOGUE. They have, I fay, conceived his cafe fomething like this of poor complaining Spenfer's, who felt too truly, what he hath fo beautifully expreft: but with regard to Callimachus it may be hard to fay any thing certain of this matter, as we are ignorant of his fituation with respect to his great benefactor at the time of writing this hymn; but fince it is most probable that he was then high in favour, and in the musæum, he had certainly no occafion to hint any thing of this kind. Such far-fetched and over-ftrained. conjectures fhould not be indulged, when the whole tenor of an author's thoughts feems too nobly elevated to be capable of mean infinuations like thefe,