New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-05-27
TUE NEw.YOHK wORLD.
To Che Editor Of The N. Y. TJibsss.

| DIR: When you nave 10 uV WIN man "no
evidently knows nothing OF the matter OF which nc
undertakes 10 write it might seen the part OF wisdom
To let him alone in his folly. Why waste time or beat
the air IL exposing hint II be adds impudence TO
ignorance a. is the case with thu ritter in Zhs World
be can take any position be peases When driven nom
subterlugc principle withlclds him from seeking
refuge Ia another stin false aud thus there no
end 10 such q controversy. With tie help OF Gies or
index, be pick out any Pc safe he chooses ana
ell presuming perhaps, that mos OF those VINO haohu
| ally read him know more than ne does himself nc
can continue the game long as he pleases we notice
him here again only to expose The gorgeous quacxery
he is predicting Ii can be doneil few wor4 trans
lation is given OF passage in Aristotle, and present
ipg the exact sense How is this metz 1t Is replied to
by giving from Giles the trans ston Of toily dii
ferent passage, and then indalfng in all kinds OF
examinations about what he calls ludicrons biander'
This is rather the proceeding OF eIclcrica noun
tebank than that OF o scholar or Of an honest man.
Was ii studied attempt to impose on his uniformed
readers or did he not know any bctteri "Uniortu'
uaely for this translation" he says, "nc word CORES
ponding Heenians Barbaisns occurs in the line
OF all" Very true. He might just as well have said
no such words occur in thousands Of other nences
which he might with equal ease sud 10y the aids afore
said have picked from the writings OF the philosopher
Almost any one would have done rs wen as shat Whioh
he has given us from Gile's traDs'l lion.
Let rs examine the miserable "a k, II IT be- Indeed
! trick instead OF a most stupid b.under 1t may per
haps bo characterized as about equally partaking OF
both TIE Worlds critic had gravy told MS tina, AriS
tote "fefufe9 those who maintained that tho Greeks
might onsavo Barbarians' Now there is, Of corrse.
10 such refraon 1t would he in the face OF al that is
best known Ia respect to ths aoeBt writer's real opin
ions OF the subject OF Slavery. Sd charity would lead
10 the fuppostion that there must be something which
had led tie critic n such m!sake-somoihing which
TO superficial glance might have presented some faint
appearance at least OF such thing. Now there are
but two places in respect 10 which the supPositon
could possibly have been INDUCED They are 10 the
First Book Of the Pocd, CHAP ana = d p-eifsie|
pages "a and llth There l. no such reutation III
either. hut II there IS the moress shadow Of such
thing II is IN the Ist ION page - where the old writer
speaking Of the comparison sometimes made between
the seryile aud the relation Of marriage and the
manner In which the Latter ~ regarded by the barba-
rans Here then, is quoted by Aristotle the following
line from some Greek poet unnamed which he thus
gives as well Or j; can be oppressed IN Roman letters
BarJ0r6n d Hslifeas srcheiE eikos
literally "the Greeks ought 10 rule Barbarins" but
which was rendered freely yet mosi accurately. Tho
Greeks ought 10 he masters and the LIBRARIANS slaves
In the OTHER passage. page A. there two lines
quoted from one TuEoDEKTrs on whom TIE WOrlds
correspondents, by the aid Ok JoAcrGNUs PERoSius, is
go very learned but Of whom he evidently knows As
little as Lee docs Of Clekokondyes, the last Of tie =
zaulines. 1.-THE words Barbarian and Helenisn do
not occur IN these lines all says the critic. Whether
the ntlyei6 or tho kravcry IS here most conspicuous,
il would be hard say "lhcy do not occur at all. lie
SAYS Very true but 1t l. because the lines hove no
more relation 10 Greeks and BaFbarians though BaIba
riGns had been mentioned sentence or two before.
than 70 Yankees and Irishmen. His index OF passages
has totally mised lin here. These Lines are brought
IN In the course Of the general argument Of Ans
,otc Of which tie substance was truly stated In ny
former letter; but they are lines which could
possibly Imagine 20 have heer intosGra by who
asserts that Aristotle rciated those VIM 'nsiu,rnei
that tho Greeks hid hight 10 enalaye Barbarians The
others might have hsiie look that way bat It
gas Of tie slightest possible kad 20 Justify 30 grols
m.siol Eesen-alOn.
This statement 80 ensly verified IL enough foF any
intelligent reader or any who la, the least p.eter
sons 20 scholarship Is question however " some
psychological interest whether tie writer really meant
10 deceive or ala not in truth. know any better One
might be ter pied % hold the latter surposton. "a TIE
nos, charitable one were Il not for the ridiculous dis
nlnv Il. atepts to make about this Theodsktss. poet
with whom he would have the reader believe him very
familiar although tbs line, quoted by Afsioe' u a..
at ro.cues he name Of this ancient conservative rom
utter oblivion. lis aequaiutaroo, too with o'd Joa'
chemus Per0nlus" (hov familary he sr~ats OF hin)
ouiio mar, elous Gllies was not enough lie nlst oe
compared with the Latin Version Of old Joactfmns
ptrionius published Qhe edition from which WI qgote)
D. 1863 M though be would really fcrtify Gilies by
this venerable authority lying before him. Why not an
well have compared the rGusaiion Of Giles directly
will the Greek. Tie writer wou,d have las know that
be renllv understands Greek w foenuy assuring his
uueerped readers that Rseaiar' ~ Greek, a. IN Eng
u.h has two anD1a, while the name OF hs srl Helen
O, the play as he calls her has but one" Strange that
II did nor occur 70 him here that be wholly spelling
his po!ut hy OVERRIDING and nat there muH be, some
where some absurd olunder In lis own pretended as
emery Of a hlunder IL another Had he tins compared
Gfles with tie Greek instead OF fochsAly Judging LIN
m something else be would have fonnd tia. no had nor
"e1barded one line Of THroDTE1rs into two, n<rfbI
making his transation wordy md shted o. he says
m critic "ther.5y" contains o. great non seqnn' ne
wa ever concealed through similar affected logical
IN the writing Of That great losician, John
e Colhoun since TIOnEKTEs had really iuo iaos, as
anpea7s in all tho Greek editions Of Aristotle. IT IL
truly hard case To- deprive The poor Old poet o' one
half Of al Lis literary property tnt las come down 70
N, Il amounts almost 10 mathematical demonsiraioh
TINT tho man Bho talks 30 earneiy Of" double lamb
das" had never examined Ia. Greek text at all AID
could not read II !fle had But then there would have
heen no cbanoefr bringing In this old Latin Version
and tie rioh erndition that follows. What m IDEA
trnlv-to one who knows something Of this Worlds