« AnteriorContinuar »
blem is confufed, and his determinations are tedious, unartificial, and, without doubt, very different from thofe which were given by the original author. Of Dr. Horfley's an opinion has already been given in our Review for January 1771. He has, perhaps, come nearest to Apollonius in the general divifion of the problem; but yet we apprehend the Doctor must agree with us, that his analyfis of the problem is effentially different from that given by Apollonius; neither are we clear that his method of deriving the limitations is genuine.
Mr. Burrow, we conceive, has come nearer to the ApolJonian method of folution than any who preceded him, as will be evident to every one that takes the trouble of comparing his folution with the lemmas which Pappus has left us for the analysis of the problem. He has alfo fhewn great address in his determinations, which are elegant and concife; perhaps not inferior to those which were given by Apollonius himfelf; but that they are not the fame, will be evident from the first-mentioned lemmas. On the whole, we are confident this little tract will be read with pleasure by every one who has a true taste for pure geometry; and we cannot help congratulating the Author of it on his attainment to a better taste in these matters: for he has here given, not only the analytical, but also the synthetical effections of each problem, notwithstanding we recollect to have seen him formerly maintaining, "That to give a demonftration in form, after a clear analytical investigation, would be most ridiculous pedantry;" the contrary of which, we make no doubt, he is now thoroughly convinced of. And, although there are fome little defects and blemishes in the prefent performance, which a longer and more attentive perufal of the beft writers on geometry will teach him. to avoid in future; yet it exhibits fuch marks of real genius as are not often to be met with in young geometricians.
Sincerely could we have wished to congratulate him also on his attainment to a better temper and difpofition of mind; but we are forry to obferve that no evidence of this appears in his preface. The violence of his temper feems, indeed, to have hurried him into inconfiftencies which he could not otherwise have fallen into, as the following extract will fufficiently testify:
The Author having fince [completing his work] had a fight of Pappus's Collections, finds reafon to conjecture that he has come nearer to the spirit of the great original than the production of the reverend Compiler.' What reverend Compiler ? No compiler, reverend, or otherwife, is mentioned by Mr. B. before; but we apprehend Dr. Horfley is to be understood, and then the obvious meaning of the fentence will be, that his per
formance comes nearer to the spirit of the great original than it does to Dr. Horfley's compilation, as he is pleafed to term it. He adds, For as to the work of Dr. Horfley, it is split into fuch an infinity of different cafes, frittered into fo many divifions and fubdivifions, and treated befides in a manner fo clofely bordering upon algebra, that it does not appear to have the leaft fimilarity to any of the genuine productions of Apollonius; and what is still more defective, he has not only left his conftructions undemonftrated, but has entirely omitted thofe very material propofitions which make the third and fourth of the following book; not to mention the inelegance of his method, his virulent remarks, and his arrogant and contemptuous expreffions against former writers. The Author therefore hopes, that if the following fhould meet with the approbation of mathematicians, any apology for treating the fame subject after the Doctor will be entirely needless.'
Now, to pafs over the injuftice of blaming a man for not doing what he never intended, or perhaps thought of (for it may eafily be fhewn that Mr. B.'s third and fourth problems made no part of the work of Apollonius, which Dr. Horsley alone attended to), it is very extraordinary in Mr. B. at least, to cenfure the Doctor for avoiding a conduct which he himself has declared to be most ridiculous pedantry: and it is yet more fo to affert, that distinguishing the feveral cafes of the problem has rendered the Doctor's work totally unlike that of Apollonius, when it is well known to every perfon, intimately acquainted with the method of the ancient geometricians, that it was on this particular specification of the cafes that they much valued themselves; and when there yet remain the lemmas which Apollonius made ufe of to facilitate the analysis of the feveral particular cafes of this very problem. Moreover, if the Doctor's expreffions, which Mr. Burrows fays are virulent, arrogant, and contemptuous, with refpect to former writers, have rendered him unworthy of attention, a fimilar conduct must render Mr. B. fo likewife.
The tract on Gunnery contains 'demonftrations of the principal propofitions in the doctrine of projectiles, confidered as being made in a non-refifting medium. They are elegant, and purely geometrical; and Mr. Burrow has extended them to fome points, more general than those which had been treated on by former writers. But it is, like the former tract, preceded by a very ill-natured preface, in which the Author has defcended to downright ribaldry.
ART. XII. A Paraphrafe or Poetical Expofition of the Thirteenth
F paraphrafes in any form, or for any purpose, we acknowledge ourselves no great admirers. When they are made ufe of as comments on an author, they perhaps as frequently obfcure or pervert, as elucidate his meaning. When they are employed to unfold the beauties of fentiment or language, they often deviate from the true character, and lofe the diftinguifhing excellencies of the original. The compound produced by the ill-bestowed labours of the paraphraft, is, like wine diluted with water, vapid and taftelefs.
We find ourselves under the neceffity of confidering the verfes before us, though the work of an able mafter, as a confirmation of the truth of these remarks. The beautiful fimplicity and ftrength of the original appears to us almoft entirely loft in the imitation. Had the poem been lefs diffufe, it would probably have been a lefs imperfect copy. This may be in part inferred from comparing the two following imitations of the fame paffage, the firft from our Author, the second from Prior:
'Tis thine the raging paffions to controul,
Grace in thy geflures and thy looks is feen,
Or aught that can thy neighbour's peace deftroy
Still hope that time their frailties may remove,
Charity, decent, modeft, easy, kind,
And opens in each heart a litile heav'n. PRIOR.
, un corrupted taste will, we doubt not, pronounce sentence in fa
. vour of the following artless, yet touching, language of the Apostle" Charity suffereth long, and is kind; Charity envieth not; Charity vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up; doth not behave itfelf unseemly; seeketh not her own; is not eally provoked; thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but re. joiceth in the truth; beareth all things; believeth all things ; hopeth all things; endureth all things.
To these general observations we must subjoin a particular remark or two on the execution of the poem. And firs, the Author does not appear to us to have clearly ascertained, or at least expressed, his idea of his subject. As if Charity and Love were distinct things, and not different words to express that benevolent principle which the Apostle calls &patn, addreffing “ fweet Charity," he says,
If thy sweet virtues from my soul depart,
Thy Christian Love be foreign from my heart. There appears, moreover, a great inequality in the execution of this piece : sometimes the poet rises into the obscure of fublimity, and sometimes creeps in humble profe. The following lines on the state of knowledge in the life to come are of the former kind:
His vain attainments shall like Mades depart,
In one all-powerful and immortal blaze.
Where in th' Almighty's presence we shall shine,
And Him shall know, as we ourselves are known. On the whole, we cannot think that Mr. Anity would have loft
any share of poetical reputation, if he had confined himself to his native walk of satirical humour, which he has so frequently trodden with success.
MONTHLY CATALOGUE, For JUN E, 1779.
Art. 13. Terra: A Philofophical Difcourfe of Earth. Relating
HE Editor's motives and intention in republishing this valuable work, will beft appear from his own Preface. Terra was written by Mr. Evelyn, at the requeft of the Royal Society, about twelve years after the publication of the Silva: And as every thing that came from his pen received diftinguished marks of public approbation, he had the fatisfaction to fee it undergo feveral impreffions during his life-time, to each of which he added fomething. From the extreme veneration that I entertain for the memory of fo worthy and good a citizen, I have here attempted a republication of that much-celebrated work; and I would fain flatter myself that it will be found free from the inaccuracies with which the other Editions abound. The occafional Notes are introduced with a defign to give the Reader a more extenfive view of the fubject, which has received much improvement fince the days of our excellent Author. It was once my intention to have added this Difcourfe to my late. Edition of the Silva; but, when that was ready for the prefs, I had made but little progrefs in the examination of this; and indeed it. was then uncertain whether I fhould ever complete it, as fuch works are with me an amufement and not a study.'
The notes with which Dr. Hunter has enriched his edition, though not very numerous, are judicious and felect. Of these we shall prefent our Readers with one on the ufe of an excellent manure, not generally known.
Bones fhould by no means be calcined, as their virtue will be diffipated by the fire, and nothing but a caput mortuum left behind. My worthy friend, A. St. Leger, Efq; has favoured me with the following account of bones used as mañure. The fubject is curious as well as important:
Eight years ago I laid down to grafs a large piece of very indifferent lime-tone land with a crop of corn; and, in order that the grais feeds might have a strong vegetation, I took care to fee it well dreffed. From this piece I felected three roods of equal quality with the reft, and dreffed them with bones broken very fmall, at the rate of fixty bushels per acre. Upon the lands thus managed, the crop of corn was infinitely fuperior to the reft. The next year the grafs was alfo fuperior, and has continued to preferve the fame fuperiority ever fince, infomuch that in fpring it is green three weeks before the rest. of the field.
"This year, I propofe to plow up the field, as the Feftuca Sylvatica (Prye Grafs) has overpowered the grafs-feeds originally fown. And here it will be proper to remark that, notwithstanding this fpecies