dus has λυπηρόν. Why not read, λυπηρὸν, πρόσωπον ἄντα? in which collocation of the words there is nothing unusual.

953. ἔθανε δάμαρ, ἔλιπε φιλίαν.

The true reading, we think, is φιλία, 50 825940, φιλίας ἀλόχου. 961. Λυπρὸν διάξω βίοτον. ἄρτι μανθάνω.

We approve of Musgrave's conjecture, Λυπρὸν διάξων βίοτον ἄρτι μανθάνω. Bacch. 1111. κακοῦ γὰρ ἐγγὺς ὧν ἐμάνθανεν. Supra v. 151. Ἴστω νυν ευκλεής τε κατθανουμένη, where Mr. Monk gives some other instances of this construction.

1017. τύμβος σᾶς ἀλόχου θεοῖσιν ὁμοίως=τιμάσθω, σέβας ἐμπόρων.

This passage may be aptly illustrated by the following verses of Plato the comic poet, (ap. Plutarch. Themist. p. 128. E.) which have often struck us as affording an apposite inscription for the monument to be erected to Nelson on the coast.

Ὁ σὸς δὲ τύμβος, ἐν καλῷ κεχωσμένος,
Τοῖς ἐμπόροις πρόσρησις ἔσται πανταχοῦ,
Τούς τ ̓ ἐκπλέοντας εἰσπλέοντάς τ ̓ ὄψεται·
χωπόταν ἅμιλλ ̓ ἦ τῶν νεῶν, θεάσεται.

1092. Εἰ γὰρ τοσαύτην δύναμιν εἶχον, ὥστε σὴν Εἰς φῶς πορεῦσαι νερτέρων ἐκ δωμάτων Γυναῖκα.

Frequens est si yàp optantis; sed notanda in hoc usu differentia indicativi et optativi. εἰ γὰρ εἶχον valet utinam haberem, εἰ γὰρ ἔχουμε utinam habeam. The exact state of the case is as follows. εἴ, εἴθε, si yap or lile yap with an indicative imperfect expresses a wish that something were done now; with an indicative aorist it indicates a wish that something had been so formerly; with an optative aorist it wishes that something may be done at the next moment, or at some future time. We will give a few instances of each usage. 1. Orest. 1630. εἰ γὰρ τόδ ̓ ἦν. I wish it were so. Heracl. 731. Εἴθ ̓ ἦσθα δυνατὸς δρᾷν, ὅσον πρόθυμος εἴ. Εl. 1061. Εὔθ ̓ εἶχες, ὦ τεκοῦσα, βελτίους φρένας. Incert. Rhes. 105. Εἴθ ̓ ἦσθ ̓ ἀνὴρ εὔβουλος, ὡς δρᾶσαι χερί. II. Οrest. 1596. (quoted by Mr. Monk.) Εἰ γὰρ κατέσχον, μὴ θεῶν κλεφθεὶς ὕπο Would I had kept hold of her. Androm. 293. εἴθε δ' ὑπὲρ κεφαλὴν ἔβαλεν κακόν. ibid. 1184. εἴθε σ ̓ ὑπ ̓ Ἰλίῳ ἤναρε δαίμων. Alc. 1121. Εἴθ ̓ ἐξ ἀγῶνος τήνδε μὴ ̓λαβές ποτε. Suppl. 821. Εἴθε με Καδμείων ἔναρον στίχες ἐν κονίαισιν. Αesch. Prom. 158. Εἰ γάρ μ' ὑπὸ γῆν—τάρταρον ήκεν. Choeph. 343. Εἰ γὰρ ὑπ ̓ Ἰλίῳ-κατηναρίσθης. III. Eurip. Hecub. $30. 1057. Orest. 1098. 1207. Phoen. 165. 168. Hippol. 232. 1088. 1089. 1127. 1404. 1429. Alc. 92. Androm. 522. Suppl. 371. 373. 1008. 1144. Iph. T. 440. 1221. [Rhes. 369. 464.] Troad. 1113. Cycl. 436. Heracl. 52. 740. Helen. 174. 1495. Ion. 151. El. 663. Æsch. Theb. 260. 550. 566. Suppl. 1. Soph. Oed. T. 80. 1068. Oed. Col. 1082. Trach. 955. Aj. 1265. Sometimes, but very rarely, a subjunctive aorist occurs. We remember only two instances, which are both faulty. Eurip. Suppl. 1027. Εἴθε τινὲς εἶναι δικαίων ὑμεναίων=ἐν "Αργει φανῶσι τέκνοισιν, where we should perhaps read τέκνοισι φανείη. Helen. 269. Εἴθ ̓ ἐξαλειφθεῖσ ̓, ὡς ἄγαλμ', αὖθις πάλιν Αἴσχιον εἶδος ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ λάβω, where Scaliger reads ἵ ἐξαλειφθείσ ̓. but we conceive the true reading ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἔλαβον.

I wish I had received. In v. 1120 of this play Aldus has μὴ λάβοις for μὴ λάβες. Βy way of relieving the dulness of this criticism we will observe that Brodmus is right in understanding ἄγαλμα to mean a statue in this passage; and that Barnes and Musgrave are wrong in rendering it a picture, contrary to the constant usage of Euripides. The ancients used to paint their statues; Plato Rep. iv. p. 420. C. ὥσπερ οὖν ἂν εἰ ἡμᾶς ἀνδρίαντας γράφοντας προσελθὼν ἄν τις ἔψεγε, λέγων ὅτι οὐ τοῖς καλλίστοις τοῦ ζώου τὰ κάλλισια φάρμακα προστίθεμεν, where indeed ἀνδρίαντας is taken to mean pictures by a grammarian in Bekker's Anecdota, p. 210, but without reason. Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10. Hic est Nicias, de quo dicebat Praxiteles, interrogatus quæ maxime opera sua probaret in marmoribus, “ quibus Nicias manum admovisset,” tantum circumlitioni ejus tribuebat.' Virgil Æn. i. 593. Quale manus addunt ebori DECUS. Where none of the commentators have perceived that decus is to be understood of the colouring with which ivory used to be stained: compare An. xii. 67. Iliad Δ. 41. Pausan. vii, 26. ἐν τούτῳ τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ ̓Αθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα ἔστηκε· πρόσωπόν τε καὶ ἄκραι χεῖρες ΕΛΕΦΑΝΤΟΣ, καὶ οἱ πόδες· τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ξόανον χρυσοῦ τε ἐπιπολῆς· ΔΙΗΝΘΙΣΜΕΝΟΝ ἐστι καὶ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΙΣ.

1095. Μὴ νῦν ὑπέρβαλ', ἀλλ ̓ ἐναισίμως φέρι.

Μ. ὑπέρβαλλ ̓, in the present tense.

1125. Χρή, σοῦ γε μὴ μέλλοντος ὀργαίνειν ἐμοί.

αν

Mr. Monk gives ἐμέ. Hactenus ἐμοὶ omnes: verum ὀργαίνειν est irritare. Soph. Oed. T. 334. Καὶ γὰρ ἂν πέτρου Φύσιν σύ γ' ὀργήνειας. ibi Gloss. εἰς ὀργὴν κινήσειας. Extat verbum in Trach. 552. Correxi ἐμέ. We are inclined to prefer the old reading. ὀργαίναν is intransitive in the line of the Trachiniæ referred to above. ̓Αλλ ̓ οὐ γὰρ, ὥσπερ εἶπον, ὀργαίνειν καλὸν Γυναῖκα νοῦν ἔχουσαν. The sense is, I must ; at least if I would not have you angry with me.

1137. Καὶ μὴ προτείνω, Γοργόν ὡς καρατόμῳ.

In his note on this verse Mr. Monk combats the opinion of Lobeck (ad. Ajac. 801) and Mr. Elmsley, (ad Heracl. 693.) who contend that in the writings of the tragedians I in the dative singular never suffers elision. We are inclined to think with the learned editor that this canon cannot be maintained. The line which he adduces from Soph. (Oed. Col. 1435) Σφῶν δ ̓ εὐοδοίη Ζεῦς, τάδ' εἰ τελεῖτέ μοι Θανόντ ̓, ἐπεὶ οὔ μοι ζῶν τέ γ' αὖθις ἕξετον, is altered by Lobeck into τάδ' εἰ θανόντ ̓ ἐμοὶ Τελεῖτο. In qua ratione,' says Mr. Schaefer,' vereor ne dirimantur, quæ poeta arctissime juncta voluit, θανόντι εἰ ἐπεί.

1138. Εχεις; ΑΔ. ἔχω ναί. ΗΡ. σῶζε νῦν.

Mr. Monk restores this line very happily. Εχεις; ΑΛ. ἔχω. HP. ναὶ, σῶζέ νιν, and compares Orest. 147. ΧΟ. ἴδ' — ὡς φέρω βοάν. ΗΛ. ναι, οὕτω κάταγε, κάταγε.

1152. Ω φιλτάτης γυναικὸς ὄμμα, καὶ δέμας, Εχω σ ̓ ἀέλπτως, οὔποτ ̓ ὄψεσθαι δοκῶν.

Mr. Monk reads these verses with an interrogation. But in that case Euripides would have said ἆρ ̓ ἔχω σε. We prefer the common mode of reading them, which is sanctioned by v. 582 of the Electra,

ὦ χρόνῳ

ὦ χρόνῳ φανείς, Ἔχω σ' ἀέλπτως. Pheniss. 312, ἰὼ τέκνον=χρόνῳ σὺν ὄμμα-προσεῖδον. Iph. Τ. 828. ὦ φίλτατ' - ἔχω σ', Ὀρέστα.

We make no apology to our readers for the length and minuteness of this criticism. Those who take no interest in such matters have only to transfer their paper-knife to the next article. And to those who think that the interests of literature are effectually promoted by the accuracy of philological researches, no excuse will be necessary. We are not disposed to exalt the utility of such disquisitions above its real level: but they are at least to be classed with those radices stirpesque literarum which Cicero speaks of as essential and indispensable. 'Omnium magnarum artium, sicut arborum, altitudo nos delectat; radices stirpesque non item: sed illa sine his non potest.'

ART. V.-The Antiquary. By the Author of Waverley and Guy Mannering. 3 vols. 12mo. 1816.

HAVING already delivered our opinion on the general charac

ter of Waverley and Guy Mannering, we have little or, indeed, nothing to add on that subject with regard to the present novel, which professes to be a third brother of the same family. We doubt whether the voice of the public has ratified the preference which we so decidedly gave to Waverley over Guy Mannering; but a second perusal of both has convinced us that our judgment was not incorrect; and we are satisfied that the time is not far distant, if it be not already arrived, when the best claim of Guy Mannering on the attention of its readers will be the line of the title-page, in which it is described as the work of the author of Waverley. ·

The Antiquary is a work of precisely the same style; it unites to a considerable degree the merits of Waverley with the faults of the Astrologer; and we have no hesitation in placing it, with the crowd of modern novels, below the former, and, with very few modern novels, above the latter.

The author tells us in his preface, that the present work completes a series of fictitious narratives intended to illustrate the manners of Scotland at three different periods. Waverley embraced the age of our fathers, Guy Mannering that of our own youth, and the Antiquary refers to the last ten years of the eighteenth century.' (p. v.) This may, in an occult sense, be true; but if it means, as it at first view imports to state, that the three novels have been written with this original intention, and that they were meant, in their first conception, to exhibit three different stages of society, we presume to doubt a little the literal authenticity of the statement.

In the first place we hardly think that so skilful an observer of manners could have imagined that in sixty years such changes could

take

upon the corpus poetarum. He seldom rejects the received reading where it can safely be retained, and is more solicitous to ascertain what Euripides did write, than to determine what he ought to have written. We shall proceed to specify the principal improvements which Mr. Monk has introduced into the present edition, interspersing a few remarks of our own.

ARGUMENT. This argument we believe to be the production of a modern Grammarian; at least we have a more ancient one in the Scholiast on Plato, p. 44, who gives us first, a more correct copy of that which is now prefixed to the play; and secondly, the following, which is obviously of older date. "Αλκηστις, ἡ Πελίου θυγατὴρ, ὑπομείνασα ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδίου ἀνδρὸς τελευτῆσαι, Ἡρακλεους ἐπιδημήσαντος ἐν τῇ Θετταλίᾳ, διασώζεται, βιασαμένου τοὺς χθονίους θεοὺς, καὶ ἀφελομένου τὴν γυναῖκα, παρ' οὐδετέρῳ κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιία.

The same argument is transcribed by Eudocia into her Violet-Bed, p. 21.

Line 16. Πατέρα, γεραιάν θ ̓ ἡ σφ ̓ ἔτικτε μητέρα.

'Fortasse legendum Пarépa Te ypatár 0. Nec tamen mutatio necessaria est: mediam enim copulam interdum supprimi monet Porsonus ad Med. 750.'

36. “Η τόθ ̓ ὑπέστη, πόσιν ἐκλύσασ ̓ = αὐτὴ προθανεῖν Πελίου παῖς.

Vulgo ród'intorn. Corrigit Elmsleius ré', quod sine ulla dubitatione amplexus sum. We see no need of this alteration. The common reading is good Greek, and good sense, and has all the authorities in its favour.

48. Λαβὼν ἔθ', οὐ γὰρ οἶδ ̓ ἂν εἰ πείσαιμί σε.

This construction of av appears to be very unusual. Mr. Elmsley and Mr. Monk say that we are to take the words as if they stood thus, Οὐ γὰρ οἶδα εἰ πείσαιμι ἄν σε, as in the Medea 937. Οὐκ οἶδ ̓ ἂν εἰ πείσαιμι· where Porson prints οὐκ οἶδ ̓ ἄρ ̓. Plato Tim. ii. p. 26. Β. ἐγὼ ἃ μὲν χθὲς ἤκουσα, οὐκ ἂν οἶδα εἰ δυναίμην ἅπαντα ἐν μνήμῃ πάλιν λαβεῖν. The force of the expression, according to Mr. Elmsley, is this-I am afraid I shall not prevail upon you. The particles à & i have a similar relative position in the phrase woTep av ei simo, as if he were to say. Plato Apol. § 14.

74. Στείχω δ' ἐπ' αὐτὴν, ὡς κατάρξωμαι ξίφει.

Lascaris and the MSS. have xarápkouat, which Brunck (on Sophocl. Oed. Col. 1725) thinks the true reading; we do not. s is most commonly joined with a subjunctive aorist, ows with an indicative future. See Fischer, in Welleri, Gr. Gr. III. b. p. 292. 76. ὅτου τόδ' ἔγχος κρατὸς ἀγνίσει τρίχα.

Mr. Monk has restored the true reading ayvion. To the instances quoted in his note may be added Iphig. T. 1064. xañón i gwoo', This Tap. Mr. Schaefer in his note on Sophocl. Aj. 1074. had observed that dynion was the true reading.

3. οὐδὲ-ἔσθ' ὅποι τις ανας = στείλας-ουστάνου παραλύσαι=ψυχάν. Conj. Wakef. apaxúce sed unice verus est optativus. Eandem abes constructionem supra v. 52. Aesch. Prom. 299. Agam. 629.