rious satirist, are bound to pay his memory continual thanks; but when we say that he is very inaccurate in matters of verbal criticism, we are only repeating what nine-tenths of the lecturers and tutors in England say every week to their pupils. Had the North American Reviewer any accurate knowledge of Greek, or (should that supposition be deemed too monstrous) had he ever fallen in with GEORGE KENNEDY'S very able pamphlet on the subject, he would have seen that MITCHELL was in the habit of confusing imperfect and second aorists, past and present participles, independent and conditional negatives; in short, of doing all the very things that Boston editors delight in.

Of PEILE we utterly deny having said any thing disrespectful. It is FELTON who has used him disrespectfully, by the slovenly way in which he has read him. It is an odd way of showing want of respect for a man to say that his having made one mistake is somewhat singular.

As to SCHNEIDER, we must and will feel and express a thorough contempt for him. Can the reviewer point out any editor of Eschylus for the last ten years who has taken any notice of him? It would not be an easy matter to find him in any English professor's library; and if you could find him in any German professor's, it would only be because your German thinks it a duty to read every thing, good or bad, that has been written on his specialité. A friend on whom we can rely gives us this instance of the estimation in which he is held at a foreign University: One day a party of us at 's rooms were talking of editions of ÆSCHYLUS. I mentioned SCHNEIDER's. No one had ever heard of him, except as an editor of XENOPHON. I was confident that he had edited some plays, and set myself to make inquiry. After a long and fruitless search, I stumbled upon one of our Senior Fellows who had a large library. On mentioning my object to him, he exclaimed, 'Oh, yes, I have SCHNEIDER. Are you making a collection of commentators? If you want him I will dispose of him very reasonably.''

As to the tone we adopted in speaking of Mr. FELTON, it requires no very great exercise of the reasoning power to see that similia similibus curantur is at least as true in literature as in therapeutics; that shallow books have a tendency to produce flippant articles; that butterflies are not to be broken on elaborately-constructed wheels, or FELTONS extinguished in pamphlets of fourscore quarto pages. That the ELIOT-professor and his friends should dislike being laughed at is very natural: when a man has rendered himself thoroughly ridiculous, he will be very apt to object to the use of ridicule as a weapon; and, generally, men would rather you should attack them in their way than yours. Tu me pousses en tierce avant que de pousser en quarte,' says M. JOURDAIN, 'et tu n'as pas la patience que je pare.'

We sat down to write our review of FELTON in the fear of ÆSCHYLUS and his real commenta tors, and the hope of doing good; and we have done good; teste the present frantic explosion of the North American.' The bull-calf has been well pricked, and begins to roar pretty loudly. Had we written such a timid and deferential notice as an acquaintance of ours did, who knew better, we might have been honored with the patronage of the clique, and even obtained the inestimable reward of an autograph letter from one of them; but we should also have confirmed Mr. FELTON in his iniquity, and thereby laid much sin on our own heads.

At length, after a vast deal of abusive assertion of our 'ignorance,' the reviewer proceeds to his proof of it. Will it be believed that, after all his preliminary parade of extravagant threats, he has left untouched literally seven-eighths of the main body of our article? We quoted eighty-eight notes of Mr. FELTON's, about one half of which contained gross errors, and the others inelegancies, omis sions, or readings and interpretations which, though not altogether unauthorized, were condemned by a majority of the best commentators. Of these his blustering advocate, whom, indeed, he may 'hardly thank for his attempt to defend him' (that is the most sagacious observation we have met with in the article), pretends to vindicate just eleven. Some dozen blunders, any three of which are enough to damn an editor, are passed by in judicious silence. There is nothing said, for instance, about Mr. FELTON'S jumbling together of ǎmios and anios, the Mora and the Semnæ, or his original translation of xápis by will, or his utter misconception of alvos and aivɛiv, or his rubbish about dyov, or his supreme nonsense about the ‘brightened blast.' But there were eleven remarks on which he thought it possible to show fight, or assail us in return. From the insufficiency of these replies and counter-assaults, which we now proceed to examine individually, the reader may judge how utterly defenceless the ELIOT-professor is on all the other points.

Mr. FELTON's first assertion is, that 'the opening scene represents the palace of AGAMEMNON at Argos. This we corrected to Mycena. Whereupon the 'North American' observes:

'If so, it is quite remarkable that ÆSCHYLUS himself nowhere mentions Mycenae, while in this play he twice alludes to Argos. In fact, though HOMER Constantly places the residence of AGAMEMNON at Mycenae, the tragic poets generally confound the two cities, SOPHOCLES alone observing any distinction between them, and he not invariably. In proof of this, we cite STRABO and the au

thor of the Greek Argument of the Electra; two authorities whom we suppose Mr. B'--will hardly overrule in so decisive a manner as he does all modern editors. STRABO says, Aia de Thy ἐγγύτητα τὰς δύω πόλεις ὡς μίαν οἱ τραγικοὶ συνωνύμως προσαγορεύουσιν· Ευριπίδης δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δράματι, τοτὲ μὲν Μυκήνας καλῶν, τοτὲ δὲ ̓́Αργος τὴν ἀυτὴν πόλιν, καθάπερ ἐν Ιφιγενείᾳ καὶ 'Opcorn: The tragic poets speak of the two cities, on account of their nearness, by the same name, as one; Euripides even in the same drama calling the same city sometimes Mycena, and sometimes Argos, as in the Iphigenia and the Orestes. And in the Argument of the Electra, another play relating to the family of AGAMEMNON, the writer says, ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόκειται ἐν ̓́Αργει, the scene of the drama is laid in Argos.

And the modern editors, almost without exception, are of the same opinion. STANLEY'S language is, "scena fabula Argis constituitur." SCHUTZ says, "scenam dramatis Argis esse, ante Agamem nonis regiam, Eschylus ipse diserte annotavit." Lest Mr. B- should reject the opinions of these two critics with as little ceremony or reason as he shows in pushing aside KLAUSEN and SCHNEIDER, we will cite C. O. MULLER, whose authority even this young iconoclast will hardly venture to reject. We quote from the English translation of MULLER'S Dissertations on the Eumenides of ÆSCHYLUS, page 118:

The very fact that Mycene no longer existed enabled poets, who delighted in connecting the realities of the present with the reminiscences of the past, to substitute Argos in the place of Mycena. Indeed, the Argives along with their conquest of Mycena had, so to speak, won the mythic and heroic splendor and glory of that famous city; and, moreover, the indefinite use of the word Argos by the earliest poets, sometimes in the extended, and at other times in a more limited sense, contributed its share to the transfer. In fact, Eschylus is in this particular the most consistent of the trage dians; in his extant tragedies he never mentions the name of Mycena, but in the spirit of mythic fiction concentrates upon Argos all the dignity and splendor of the old legends; whereas the other two tragedians are more lax in this respect, making Argos and Mycenar sometimes distinct and sometimes identical.'

Our readers are probably convinced, by this time, that, in this instance, Mr. B's ignorance is fully equal to his impudence.'

Now, under favor, all this rather shows how the mistake was made, than that it was not a mistake. It is true that two or three editors (not 'the modern editors almost without exception,' as he coolly asserts) have placed the scene at Argos, owing to the fact we hinted at, that the Greek poets often used Argos in a loose way for Argolis, or the whole Argive territory. This may be seen from the very passage of MULLER above quoted, the indefinite use of the word Argos.' It may be seen from a note of President WOOLSEY'S (a gentleman whom the reviewer has condescendingly endorsed) Apyos here [in SOPHOCLES], as often in HOMER and elsewhere, denotes the region.' (WOOLSEY'S Electra, p. 73.) But it may be most clearly shown by the opening of SOPHOCLES' Electra, and the very Argument which the reviewer adduces as one of his authorities. Tрopeùs detкvès 'Opέorη Tà ¿v "Apyat, says the writer of the Argument. Now, after mentioning the Agora of APOLLO LYCIUS, and the temple of HERE, this 7popeùs, or old servant, thus proceeds with his enumer. ation:

It is evident, then, that "Apyɛt in this argument = Argolis. To be sure, it may be pleaded that Mr. FELTON used the word Argos in the same general sense. But this would be a license inadmissible in an editor of school and college books, and contrary to the practice of scholars. Thus WOOLSEY says, in reference to the most-unluckily-for-the-reviewer-quoted Electra, 'that the opin ion of those critics who have thought that the poet laid his scene in Argos seems to be confuted by oi d'ixávoμev.' (WOOLSEY'S Electra, p. 74.) To recur to the passage from MÜLLER. We shall take the liberty of beginning the quotation a little farther back than the reviewer has found it convenient to do:

'It is true, a person conversant with history (this is no prophetic allusion to the Boston editors] might object to the poet's putting this announcement in the mouth of ORESTES [the oath of alliance with the Athenians], that this hero was not an Argive, but a Mycenaean, and that Argos and Mycenæ not only were distinct states, in the mythic age, but existed as such even in historical times, until a very few years before the Orestea was exhibited, when the Argives succeeded in taking the Cyclopean walls of Mycenae, and reduced the real city of ORESTES to a heap of ruins. But the very fact,' etc.

MÜLLER is unfolding his theory of the ORESTEA's external political bearing. He is showing that ÆSCHYLUS wished to propitiate the people of Argos, and accordingly lays stress on the fact that the poet did what? not perpetrate an absurd blunder by confounding two cities, both which had existed but a few years before; but, out of delicacy to the Argives, omit all allusion by name to their old rivals of Mycene. So that all the effect of this citation is to do away with our antago nist's first triumphantly-asserted point that ÆSCHYLUS nowhere mentions Mycenæ.'

Our readers are probably convinced by this time that the reviewer's accuracy is quite equal to his politeness.

To our remark upon the annexation of Euboea, the reviewer replies:

THIS comment is dishonest, the writer of it wilfully seeking to make others believe what he knew to be untrue. Having occasion to speak of Aulis, Mr. FELTON incidentally and very briefly reminds the student of its position, as opposite to Chalcis—in Boeotia;" just as one might hurriedly describe the situation of the town of Pawtucket as "on the opposite side of the river from Providence in Massachusetts;" meaning thereby certainly, not that Providence is in Massachusetts, but that Pawtucket is. Perhaps the meaning would be a little clearer if the position of the two clauses of the sentence were inverted; but every schoolboy knowing that Chalcis is not on the mainland, just as well as he knows that Providence is in Rhode Island, and not in Massachusetts, the editor did not guard against so obvious a blunder. Still, if Mr. B had censured the note for a trifling inaccuracy of language, the criticism would have been fair enough, whatever might be thought of its importance; but in commenting upon it as a gross mistake in geography, he makes what he knows to be a false charge. Of course, the phrase opposite to would have no meaning, if Chalcis were not on the other side of the channel; if Mr. FELTON had annexed Euboea to the continent, Chalcis would be adjacent to Aulis. And as this channel, the Euripus, is described at length in this very note, the absurdity of the charge of annexation' is still more manifest. It will be observed that Mr. B― himself, in this very passage, misspells the name of the island; but should we be justified on this account in accusing him of ignorance both of the orthography and geogra phy of Euboea? He has no more perception of the demands of fairness than of truth.'

This is saving the Professor's geography only at the expense of his grammar. We certainly were deceived by the extreme clumsiness of Mr. FELTON's sentence, and we were not the only person that was, two of our contributors having derived the same impression from his words that we did. This scrupulous advocate coaxes them into something like meaning, by inserting a dash where there was nothing before. For though in our quotation, through some error of our printer or proof-reader, the clause read 'opposite to Chalcis, in Boeotia,' yet in Mr. FELTON's book they stand opposite Chalcis in Boeotia,' without even a comma intervening. It is really too bad to lay another man's sins upon our shoulders, and rate us with dishonesty and unfairness because the EL10T-professor will not write intelligible English. As to our spelling Euboea with a single letter instead of a diphthong, every one who is conversant with modern classical writers knows that the usage in regard to such words is very fluctuating. With regard to the high tone taken by the reviewer on the 'absurdity' of our charge, it is utterly unwarranted by his subject. In any doubtful point of geography the à priori evidence is all against an editor who has already, in the space of seren lines,* confounded the Phocæans of Asia Minor with the Phocians of Greece; the Locrians of the eastern coast of Greece with those of the western; and put Mycena (he seems to have a particular spite against this unfortunate place) out of Argolis entirely!

3. The reviewer says of our note on порενтоù dаμяádos, which Mr. FELTON translates, 'a torch to be passed on, to be forwarded:'

'THIS criticism shows nothing but the writer's ignorance. If the meaning were that the torch OUGHT to be passed on, or MUST be passed on, then it would be ropɛuréos, or with the neuter TopEVTÉOV =čci nopcóciv. As Mr. B apparently does not know the meaning of verbals in ros, we will refer him to so common a book as KUHNER'S Greek Grammar, § 234, 1, (i). Those in ros denote either a completed action .....or the idea of possibility, which is their usual signification.' Thus, from opdw, to see, verbal oparós, to be seen, visible; and from Topców, to send on, to set in motion [Mr. Bscems not to know that the active form has this meaning], the verbal opɛurós necessarily means to be set in motion, or capable of being set in motion or forwarded. The 'desiderated passages from POLYBIUS' he will doubtless be able to find, as they are referred to in most dictionaries, to illustrate that peculiar and later signification of the word."

If a torch to be forwarded does not mean a torch that ought to be or was to be forwarded, it means just nothing. The general use of grammarians and translators assigns, this signification to the expression used by Mr. FELTON. Every one who has only read an ordinary Latin grammar must remember that the future participle amandus is rendered 'to be loved, or that ought to be loved. The reviewer tries to make out, by some strange figure, some new sort of ellipsis, that a torch to be forwarded means 'a torch capable of being forwarded.' We are sure no one would have dreamed of the words having this signification before they were told so; and we do not think many will admit that they can be forced into it now. If Mr. FELTON had translated λaμñùs пopcuròs 'a forwarded torch, or a forwardable torch' (for this coined word most literally expresses the meaning of πορευ rós), we should not have so much objection. The derived active meaning of journeying we gave on the authority of SCOTT and LIDDELL, LINWOOD (travelling), ABRESCH (2 vol., Apparat. Crit., p. 150, where he quotes a parallel use of ropevσuos in THEMIST., Orat., 10, p. 137, a.), and STANLEY (vis permeantis lampadis,' vol. ii., BUTLER'S quarto ed., p. 89). Will the reviewer say that these commentators translate it so because they do not know the meaning of Topców?

4. At v. 339, Mr. FELTON prefers rεivovra, not for the very natural reason that it is the reading of

*Felton's Homer, school edition, p. 489.

the manuscripts and almost all the editors, but because he thinks the aorist 'would mean simply aimed. On this wrong reason for a right reading we remarked: 'Is it possible that the ELIOTprofessor can be ignorant of the frequentative use of the aorist?' Here the reviewer thinks he has us :

'Of course, it is not possible; but it is certain from this passage that Mr. Bhimself is entirely ignorant of an important limitation of the fact or principle to which he here alludes. The frequentative use of the aorist does occur in the indicative mood, but not in the subordinate moods or participle; and if it did, it could not apply here. The image as it stands, and as it is explained by all respectable commentators, is impressive and sublime; while the frequentative aorist -if such an aorist participle were possible-would make it ludicrous; for ZEUS would then be represented drawing his bow frequently at Paris, or as not hitting him till after repeated attempts. Every schoolboy knows, or should know, the frequentative sense of the aorist, as it is luminously explained in KUHNER'S ordinary School Grammar,' § 256, 4, (b). Mr. B unwisely attempts to parade his knowledge of this familiar principle, and in so doing betrays his ignorance of its extent or limitations. We refer him for instruction to CORAY, whose acute observation on the Hanyupies of ISOCRATES, § 31, with BREMI's remark upon it, shows conclusively that there is no frequentative sense in the common aorist participle, unless a frequentative adverb is joined.'

Now in 'unwisely parading his knowledge of BREMI's note, the accurate reviewer has misunderstood that worthy gentleman egregiously. Here is the note referred to. It occurs on this clause of the Panegyric of ISOCRATES, ταῖς δ' ἐκλειπούσαις πολλάκις ἡ Πυθια προσέταξεν αποφέρειν τὰ μέρη τῶν καρπῶν, κ. τ. λ.

'Quod MORUS conjicit ¿κdπovoαus primo adspectu et propter aoristum «pocéražev et quod de re facta sermo est aptior videtur. Sed subtilis est et vera Coraëi animadversio propter modλákis præsens positum esse quum res sæpius facta notetur. Nempe aoristus participii et modi obliqui una de re, nec adjecto adverbio, quod repetitionis notionem habet, ponitur.' The meaning of which is (somewhat obscure, we admit, as German editorial Latin is wont to be, and most likely to be misunderstood by such a hap-hazard reader as this reviewer), that according to CORAY, the aorist in the oblique moods and participle never has a frequentative sense, nor is ever joined with a frequentative adverb. The reviewer confounds nec and nisi, neither and unless. And this 'acute observation,' which he so acutely comprehends, and quotes as triumphantly as if it were a settled principle, is a mere dictum of CORAY, at variance with the principles of the language, endorsed by no commentator but BREMI, and accompanied by a misapprehension of the passage on which it professes to be founded. For the natural construction of oλλákis here is with the verb, and not with the participle at all. And, accordingly, DOBSON's Latin translation, founded on that of WOLF, which has stood unassailed since WOLF's time, has here sape imperavit. (DOBSON, Oratores Attici, vol. xiv., p. 27.) We would refer the reviewer for instruction to a much more accessible and intelligible source than CORAY:

'A FURTHER and special use of the optative is when it stands in the protasis instead of the indic ative of past time, to express something which took place repeatedly or customarily. E. g. ous pèr ἴδοι [note the aorist] ευτάκτως καὶ σιωπῇ ἰόντας, προσελαύνων αὐτοῖς οἵτινες εἶεν ἠρώτα, καὶ ἐπεὶ πόθοι· TO-knývel, “whoever he saw," i. e., so often as he saw any.'-BUTMANN's Gk." Gram, ROBINSON'S trans., p. 398, 9.

This is an every-day construction in Greek; indeed, the only way in which such an idea could be expressed. So much for the familiar principle' and our 'ignorance of its extent or limi

tations.'

5. We observed on FELTON's doubtful note, at v. 484, that the nom. was rather better, inasmuch as d' KATεipyaσrai is passive.' Quoth the reviewer:

If this remark means any thing, Mr. Bintends to say that karɛipyaarat is necessarily and always passive. A grosser blunder than this can hardly be imagined; for karɛpyasopat is a depo nent verb, and its perfect karɛipyaguai is used either in an active or passive sense. Any dictionary will supply instances enough of its active signification, like this from XENOPHON'S Memorabilia (111, 5): TOùs péyioтa čрya kaтεipyaoμivovs, those who have accomplished the greatest works.'

Close study of Mr. FELTON's obscure sentences has doubtless made the reviewer very clever at interpretation. But, with all deference to a person of such ingenuity, we claim to be allowed the privilege of interpreting our own meaning. What we did mean by rather was, that karsipyaora was certainly passive in this passage. Vide SCHÜTZ, 228, 'quá totus ager eversus est ;' STANLEY (BUTLER'S ed., vol. ii., p. 96), 'qua terra eversa est;' LINWOOD, and SCOTT and LIDDELL, S. v. Several commentators are silent on the word, but in none have we been able to find an active meaning assigned to it.

6. On our translation of ȧyáλaxтov, he says:

To this we oppose the meaning given by PAPE, who says, on the authority of HIPPOCRATES, that the word signifies milchlos, without milk.' Referring to this passage in the Agamemnon, PAPE defines it der nicht mehr saugende, von der Mutter getrennte, that sucks no more, that is separated

from its mother.'

The meaning given to a word by a medical writer is far from settling its use by a tragedian. We rendered it a foster brother,' on the authority of VALCKNAER (apud BLOMF., p. 248), PEILE, and SCOTT and LIDDELL. Which of the translations is the more poetic, and better adapted to the context, every reader must judge for himself.

7. Upon our explanations of ßovdiv katapþízteiv by periclitari consilium the reviewer holds forth

thus:

"THE note to Theb., 1030, does not touch the question, except to show, from Photius and Suidas, that kivovvov avappivai means, as every body knows, to run a risk, or stand a hazard. But Mr. B's assertion, into which he was led by an inadvertence of BLOMFIELD, of the metaphor being taken from throwing dice,' is wholly indefensible. The words used in this game are BaXiv, pinreiv, and drappinrei, but never karappinrev. The ancients played games of this sort in the same manner as modern gamblers 'shake props,' by casting them up into the air from the palm of the hand; hence the use of avappinTev. This is finely illustrated by a beautiful picture engraved in the Antichità di Ercolano (T.' I., tav. 1), where the players are represented in the act. Until Mr. B― can show that ává is the same as Kará, that up means down, he cannot prove what he so dogmatically asserts. The game of dice is often spoken of both literally and metaphorically; the passages where avappi-tav is used are innumerable, the other more general terms being less frequent. In the Anthology, we find ῥίπτειν qualified by ὕπερθεν, so as to be equivalent to αναῤῥίπτειν. Ignorance of these games of chance is perhaps commendable in so young a man as Mr. B; but whenever he feels old enough to study them, as they were practiced by the ancients, we recommend him to read the treatise of BULANGERUS on the subject, in GRONOVIUS, Vol. VII., and JULIUS POLLUX, IX., 7.' We must say, that this is one of the most flagrant attempts at imposition ever perpetrated. Certainly we have never met with any thing so atrocious coming from one who professes to be a gentleman and a scholar. The main staple of his argument- the assertion that karappír is never used of the game of dice-is put forth with a confidence that might well command belief; and as GRONOVIUS is not a book in every one's library, and his seventh volume contains more than twelve hundred columns, an antagonist at all disposed to timidity and ignorance would be likely to give it up at once. But we knew these people too well to take any thing on trust from them, and the ref erences had to us a very suspicious and second-hand look, especially this quoting a huge folio by volume. So we procured a GRONOVIUS, turned to the treatise of BULANGERUS, and the first words that met our eye were - draw a long breath, reader - EUSTATIUS' definition of the kúbot, or dice, in these words: Kubot, oi KATAPIIITOMENOI éžánλevpot Bóλot.* There's honesty, and fairness, and gentlemanly conduct, and freedom from dogmatism, for you! And the reviewer's illustration forms a superb pendant to his assertion; for if the latter is unique for its summary dishonesty, the former is no less remarkable for its bungling carelessness. He refers us, in consideration of our extreme youth, no doubt, to a certain picture in the Antichità di Ercolano. Now had not this venerable critic fallen into the very childish error of merely looking at the picture without reading the let ter-press that explains it, he would have seen that the women there were playing, not with kóbor, but with dorpayaλot. Ignorance of these games of chance is perhaps commendable' in a man living in the Puritanic meridian of Boston; but whenever he feels inclined to study them, we recommend him to read the treatises of JOHANNES MERSIUS, DANIEL SOUTERIUS, and ANDREAS SENFTLEBIUS, in the same comprehensive volume of GRONOVIUS. Meanwhile, for the difference between kúbol, tessera, or dice, and dorpayaλoi, tali, or huckle-bones, we refer him to a very common and easily. procurable book, SMITH'S Dictionary of Antiquities. This confounding of two similar things is the most usual error of half-read men like our reviewer. We do not so much blame them for the mistake it is their nature to be inaccurate, and they can't help it. But their conduct in dogmatizing thus on the crude results of their most imperfect investigations deserves the severest reprehension. On a misprint of καταῤῥιπτειν βουλὴν for καταῤῥίπτειν βουλήν, he says :

'IN all these extracts, we have allowed the accents, breathings, &c., to stand precisely as they are placed, or, rather, misplaced, by Mr. B. Accentuation is probably not taught in the university where he studied; he is almost as invariably wrong in this particular as a cockney is in pronouncing the aspirate.'

We should like nothing better than to accent Greek against the reviewer, or Mr. FELTON himself, either by writing Greek from dictation, or in any other way, for any sum, from one dollar up to one thousand, Professor WOOLSEY, or any other competent and impartial man, to be examiner and judge. It would be an easier and surer way of making money than any we have been able to devise for ourselves yet. Sooth to say, our article contained numerous typographical errors, not merely of accents and breathings, but of letters also. 'Old KNICK' has not occasion to set up Greek

*Eustath., apud Bulang., apud Gronov., vol. vii., col. 928, a.

†The reviewer's name is not known to us. He will probably be still less solicitous to have it known, when this num ber of the Knickerbocker shall have reached Boston. Otherwise, we should have sent him the challenge personally.