Neftor at Pylos, the office of washing and clothing him was affigned to the beautiful Polycafte, the virgin-daughter of the venerable monarch. When Ulyffes appeared as an unknown ftranger in his own palace, the queen Penelope, uninformed who or what he was, merely in pursuance of the common rights of hospitality, directed her young maids to attend him to the bath. Ulyffes refufed the ho nour, and defired an old woman; but the poet feems to have thought it neceffary that he fhould apologize very particularly for fuch a fingularity. Repugnant as thefe circumstances appear to common notions of eastern jealoufy, yet cuftoms not abfolutely diffimilar are ftill found among the Arabs. Indeed the general fentiments of the Turks toward the female fex are a strange compound of the groffeft fenfuality with the moft fcrupulous decency. For the credit of Homer, however, and of his age, it fhould be observed that, among all his variety of pictures of human paffion, not a hint occurs of that unnatural fenfuality which afterward fo difgraced Grecian manners.

'It was customary in the heroic age, as indeed at all times in Greece, for ladies of the highest rank to employ themselves in fpinning and needlework, and in at leaft directing the bufinefs of the loom; which was caarried on, as till lately in the Highlands of Scotland, for every family within itfelf. It was praife equally for a flave and a princess to be skilful in works of this kind. In Homer's time washing also was an employment for ladies. The princess Nauficaa, the young and beautiful daughter of the opulent king of Phæacia, a country famed more for luxury than industry, went with her maids, in a carriage drawn by mules, to a fountain in a fequestered spot at some distance from the city, to wash the clothes of the family.

It is matter of no small curiofity to compare the manners and principles of the heroic age of Greece with thofe of our Teutonic ancestors. There are ftrong lines of refemblance, and there are at the fame time ftrong characteristical touches by which they ftand diftinguifhed. Greece was a country holding out to its profeffors every delight of which humanity is capable; but where, through the inefficiency of law, the inftability of governments, and the cha racter of the times, happinefs was extremely precarious, and the change frequent from the height of blifs to the depth of mifery. Hence, rather than from his natural temper, Homer feems to have derived a melancholy tinge widely diffufed over his poems. He frequently adverts, in general reflections, to the miferies of mankind. That earth nourishes no animal more miferable than man, is a remark which he puts into the mouth of Jupiter himself. His Common epithet for war and battle is tearful. With the northern bards, on the contrary, war and battle were fubjects of higheft joy and merriment and this idea was fupported in fact, we áre well affured, to a moft extraordinary degree. Yet there was more generofity and lefs cruelty in the Gothic fpirit of war than in the Grecian. Whence this arofe; what circumftences gave the weaker fex fo much more confequence among the Teutonic nations than among the Greeks; how the fpirit of gallantry, fo little known to this elegant and polifhed people, fhould arife and gain fuch uni verfal influence among the fierce unlettered favages of the North; that gallantry which, with many fantastical and fome mifchievous

A 2

effects

effects, has produced many fo highly falutary and honorable to man kind, will brobably ever remain equally a mystery in the history of man, as why perfection in the fciences and every elegant art should be confined to the little territory of Greece, and to thofe nations which have derived it thence.'

It has been common for fome philofophers to degrade the condition of women in the earlier ages of fociety; but in this they confulted their coldness or fpleen; and it is a fatisfaction to us that our author, who is remarkable for candour, has found it right to take the oppofite fide, and to vindicate the refpectful ceremony with which women were treated in the early periods of Greece, as well as in other infant communities.

But while we commend on this fubject, his candour and his penetration, we are furprised that he fhould hold it to be myfterious that the Teutonic tribes fhould have been more gallant and polifhed in their intercourfe with the fex than even the elegant Greeks. The topick, no doubt, has fomething in it that is furprifing on a firft or a fuperficial view. But if he had taken the trouble to enter into it, every idea of myftery would foon have difappeared. If he had looked into the inftructive Treatife of Tacitus on the manners of the Germans, he would immediately have difcovered why the Tentonic tribes excelled all nations in their tender admiration of the fex, and would have been able to trace the fources in confequence of which the fantastic notions of chivalry fpread with fuch rapidity over Europe. We know from Tacitus that arms, gallantry, and devotion were the leading characteristics of the ancient Germans; and when thefe nations rufhed from their woods to make conquefts, thefe principles found the fulleft fcope, and gradually gave form and shape to those institutions and manners, the rife of which appears to our author to be fo dark and obfcure as to be inexplicable*.

In his fourth chapter Mr. Mitford affords a clear narration of the Hiftory of Greece, from the Trojan war to the return of the Heracleids; and he treats with a happy precifion of the Grecian oracles, the Council of the Amphictyons, and the Olympian games. To this chapter he has added an Appendix in which he reafons concerning the chronology of the Grecian hiftory. This delicate fubject he manages with the fkill of a great mafter; and, from the refult of his enquiries, which we beg to fubmit to our readers; they will perceive that he has the merit of an original writer, and is not afraid to think for himself.

See Stuart's View of Society in Europe. Book I.

The

The refult then,' fays he, of fuch enquiry as I have been able to make on this dark and intricate fubject, leads me to the following conclutions. I have not the leaft difficulty with Newton to reject, as fictitious, that perfonage whom chronologers have inferted in their catalogue of kings of Crete by the name of the first Minos; beeaufe his existence is not only unwarranted, but in fact contradicted by what remains to us f.om Heliod, Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Ariftotle, and Strabo, concerning the only Minos; whom thofe authors appear to have known. With fcarcely more doubt and upon fimilar grounds I join in the rejection of Erichthonius, together with the fecond Cecrops and the second Pandion, from the lift of the kings of Athens. I cannot, however, hold with the great philofopher that Gelanor king of Argos, and Danaus the leader of the Egyptian colony, were contemporary with Eurytheus, king of Mycene; because the fuppofition is not only unfupported but contradicted by teftimony equal to any concerning thofe times; indeed by the whole tenor of early historical tradition. We come next to that period which Homer has illuftrated; and concerning this, confidered by itself, the difference among authors has been comparatively none. In proceeding then to the dark ages which follow, I have no doubt in fhortening the period from the return of the Heracleids to the inftitution of the Olympian feftival by Iphitus. The number of years that paffed can be calculated only upon conjectural grounds; but Newton's conjecture, if not perfectly unexceptionable, appears fo far the moft probable as it is most confiftent with historical tradition, and even with what I hold to be the best chronological authorities, thofe of Strabo and Paufanias. For the period then of 108 years, between the inftitution of the feftival by Iphitus and the firft Olympiad, or that in which Corabus won, I look upon it as merely imaginary; its existence being strongly contradicted by Strabo and Paufanias, and fupported by no comparable authority. I am lefs able to determine my belief concerning the dates of the Meflenian wars; nor can I fatisfy myfelf concerning those of Attick or Corinthian hiftory. In the former cafes the bufineis was only to detect falfehood; here we have the nicer talk to afcertain truth. Upon the whole, however, Newton appears to have strong reafon on his fide throughout. He feems indeed to have allowed too little interval bètween the legillation of Draco and that of Solon; and perhaps this is not the only inftance in which his fhortening fyftem has been carried rather to an extreme: but where centuries are in difpute, we muft not make difficulties about a few years. It would be of fome importunce, if it were poffible, to determine the age of that remarkable tyrant of Argos, Pheidon, the most powerful Grecian prince of his time, the first who coined filver in Peloponnefus, the first who established a standard for the weights and measures ufed over the whole peninfula, and who, as head of the Heracleid families, and legal heir of Hercules, claimed, and by the prevalence of his power affumed, the prefidency of the Olympian feftival. This last circumftance, if the Olympic register was perfect, fhould have put his age beyond question: yet authors who poffeffed the beft means of infor mation are not to be reconciled concerning it. Paufanias fays that Pheidon prefided in the eighth Olympiad. But according to Strabo

A 3

the

the Eleians prefided without interruption to the twenty-fixth; and if the copies of Herodotus are faithful, Pheidon must have lived towards the fifteenth Olympiad, where Newton would fix him. Bur the copies of Herodotus are not without appearance of defect where Pheidon is mentioned. The chronologers have been defirous of imputing error to thofe of Strabo, which affert that Pheidon was tenth in defcent from Temenus; they would have him but tenth from Hercules; and thus they would make Strabo agree with Paufanias and with the marbles. But this does not complete their bufinefs. Strabo will fill contradict the prefidency of Pheidon in the eighth Olympiad. Moreover that writer, as his copies now ftand, is confiftent with himself; and upon Newton's fyftem, confiftent with Herodotus. It can fcarcely be faid that Paufanias, as his copies ftand, is confiftent with himself: at least he is very deficient where it was clearly his defire to give full information. I am therefore inclined, with Newton, to fuppofe an error in the date which ftands affigned, as on his authority, for the prefidency of Pheidon. But when precifely Pheidon did prefide, it should seem Strabo could not learn to his fatisfaction; otherwife he would probably have named the Olympiad, and not have dated merely by the pedigree.'

In the fifth chapter Mr. Mitford furnishes a circumftantial account of the fouthern provinces of Greece, from the return of the Heracleids to the completion of the conqueft of Meffenia by the Lacedæmonians. This portion of his work is very luminous; and he unfolds fome political points which are of high curiofity.

The common divifions of government have a reference to republics, monarchies, and defpotifms. But, according to our author, the Greeks were in the habit of diftinguithing not less than fix fimple forms of administration. Of these, four were of acknowledged legality, and two were fufpicious and fupported by violence. The legal modes of government were monarchy, a guarded oligarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, The illegal were tyranny and an unguarded oligarchy. It is remarkable, and it has not efcaped our hiftorian, that the British conftitution is, in fact, a compofition of the four legal forms acknowledged by the Greeks, of monarchy, oligarchy, ariftocracy, and democracy.

Monarchy with us,' fays Mr. Mitford, perfectly accords with the Grecian fenfe of the term. The Lords form the Oligarchal part of the conftitution; and the House of Commons properly the Ariftocratical; being compofed of perfons elected by the people to Legiflative Authority for Merit real or fuppofed. The Democratical Principle, Equal Law, or, in the Greek term, Ifonomy, fingularly pervades the whole; the privileges of the peer extending in no degree to his family, and the defcendants even of the Blood Royal being PEOPLE, fubject to the fame laws, the fame burdens, and the fame judicature with the meaneft citizen. Rights of Election, Trial by Jury, and parish and tything Officers, together with the Right of Addreffing and Petitioning either the executive or any branch of the legiflature,

legislature, form a large Democratical Power, more wifely given, and more wifely bounded, notwithstanding fome defects, than in any other government that ever existed.'

We should now proceed in our criticism; but as what we have farther to advance will run into confiderable length, we are under the neceffity of delaying it till the next number of our Review.

[To be continued in our next.]

ART. II. Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1784, at the Lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M. A. a late Canon of Salisbury. By Jofeph White, B. D. Fellow of Wadham College, and Laudian Profeflor of Arabic. 8vo. 6. Oxford, Prince. London, Robinson. 1784.

THE

HE author of this volume is already advantageously known to the world by different publications, and the performance before us is, in our opinion, rather calculated to extend and fsubstantiate, than to diminish his fame,

The constitution of Mr. Bampton's lecture is, we believe, in: the recollection of moft of our readers *; and, after having fpoken in general of the benefit that has accrued to national. religion and the caufe of Chriftianity from fimilar foundations, its inftitutor receives particular applaufe from Mr. White, for the very extenfive field he has opened to the divines who fhall be called to fulfil his intention. Such is nearly the analyfis of the first fermon of nine, of which the volume is compofed, and which is entirely introductory. In the close of the difcourfe he goes on to propofe his own particular fubject,"a comparison of Mahometifm [why not Mahometanifm 21 and Christianity.' It is impoffible not to commend the principle upon which this felection is made.

If therefore I prefume not,' fays Mr. White, in the following difcourfes, to produce any teftimonies unheard of, or arguments hitherto unknown, in fupport of our faith; yet I hope I fhall be entitled to your indulgence, if I in fome degree deviate from the more common track of fpeculation, and apply my attention to a fpecies of difcuffion, which has, perhaps from the remoteness of that fort of learning on which it depends, been handled with lefs minutenefs of investigation than its importance feems to

demand.

It may be prefumed, that thofe topics are beft understood by us, to which we have devoted the greatest fhare of application. On this ground I may flatter myself with the hopes of your candid attention, while I am more immediately treating thofe fubjects, to which the courfe of ftudies purfued from my own choice, and the nature of an accademical employment conferred by your kindness,

* See our Review for Noyember 1783. vol. 1. p. 388.