type very often, and his compositors are, therefore, somewhat rusty.* In addition to which, our Greek hand, which is formed on the English manuscript style, rather than the German, puzzles the printers exceedingly. We corrected all our proof carefully twice, some of it three times. To have attained any thing like complete accuracy would have required at least two more corrections, and delayed our June number several days. Rather than thus disappoint our readers (who, on a modest computation, count four for the North American's one), we let the article go' with all its imperfections on its head.' Were we disposed to adopt the tone of assumption which pervades our assailant's remarks, we might say that the very grossness of the misaccentuations shows they were misprints; that, for instance, no one who had ever seen a page of Greek would deliberately write down a trisyllable like moρEuròs without any mark at all over it; and that, had the reviewer any of that 'fairness' and 'honesty' which he is continually harping on, he would, when he finds two words curiously misaccentuated, after being correctly written three lines before, admit it as just possible that the fault might be elsewhere than with the author. But there is one fact which must satisfy the candid reader. In some of the extracts which we made from Mr. FELTON, Similar misaccentuations occur. Now even the reviewer, in all the unscrupulousness of his invective, will hardly go so far as to say that we purposely falsifled the professor's accentuation, before marking these passages for the printer to quote. We would also remind these worthies that they are by no means immaculate themselves in point of accent. Thus, the reviewer's writing TopEurós in the middle of a sentence (p. 24) looks very much as if he was not quite safe in the rule according to which the grave is changed to the acute; and FELTON has (v. 578) Yevd, the adjective, for eúðn, the noun, a much more suspicious mistake than any of ours.

8. We noticed (944-9) a strange mistake of FELTON's, and showed how he had been led into it by KLAUSEN. The reviewer's comment is as follows:

'WE have omitted, at the beginning of the comment on this note, some of Mr. B's usual flippant impertinence, which has nothing to do with the passage to be explained, and have retained only what is essential to show the meaning of his criticism. Now, as eiλábua signifies precaution, delay, in evλabɛia may mean either by way of precaution, or, in the manner of delay-that is, with delay (cunctanter, as KLAUSEN interprets it), cautiously, hesitatingly; and this latter rendering is the one adopted by Mr. FELTON in the note. Mr. B is so incredibly dull as to understand "with delay" to mean "by delay;" hence his emphatic declaration of the well-known fact, that "by no possible concatenation of circumstances can inì have an instrumental force." Of course it cannot; but it may often have the force of with, as in the phrase inì čakpois, with tears, and a thousand others. As to Mr. B's translation of the passage, it requires a different reading from that in the text; namely, that in PEILE's edition, Zevs av čñavaev in' evλabcią; while the reading in FELTON'S edition is, Zeus ávénavσev éπ' evλabɛía. This difference Mr. B dishonestly or negligently fails to notice; that is, he first grossly misunderstands Mr. FELTON's explanation, trying to make it appear that he is inaccurate in not giving the version that he actually has given; and then presents a translation of his own, founded on a different reading from that in the text.'

Here he begins by repeating the original inaccuracy, that cuλábɛia may, literally, mean delay; which we positively deny, and challenge him to produce example or authority for it. As to our remark on ' never having an instrumental force,' it is he who is 'incredibly dull' if he cannot comprehend it; and our observation upon exoλn, which he has 'dishonestly or negligently' omitted, under pretext that it had nothing to do with the passage,' proves that we did not understand 'with delay' to mean 'by delay.'' Our meaning was, that iri, with its case, never had the signification of the Latin ablative, or what is familiarly called the 'cause, manner, or instrument' signification; a 'well-known fact,' perhaps, but not the less needing, on that account, to be 'emphatically declared' for the benefit of these most slovenly modern Athenians. 'Eri daxρúois μóvŋ kálnμai (Eurip., Iph. Aul., 1175), to which we suppose he refers, means, I sit alone amid tears. His 'thou sand other phrases' he would have some difficulty in finding. It is only one of his magnificent modes of expression, like FRIAR GERUND'S 'Grave authors affirm,' 'we are informed by grave authors,' which that worthy 'took to be one of the customary phrases of the pulpit, which every one may use as freely as he pleases.'t We certainly did not allude to Mr. FELTON's attempt to fit his text to his translation, because we were speaking of a mistranslation which no reading could justify. 9. The reviewer requotes Mr. FELTON's note on 950-4, and adds:

'IN commenting upon this explanation, Mr. B leaves out all after the passage in Italics; that is, he stops short at the end of the literal version, which was hardly expected to be intelligible, and omits both the clear and full explanation of it which immediately succeeds, and the decisive confirmation of this rendering by the unimpeachable authority of HERMANN. A more glaring instance

* In this respect, the North American' is like the exquisite with a fine ruffle and no shirt. It has men who can print Greek words properly, but not men who can write about them properly.

↑ Friar Gerund, London translation, vol. i., p. 377.

of dishonesty and deceit it would be difficult to find in the writings of one who has any pretensions to scholarship or gentlemanly character.'

Now, to expect that a literal translation shall be intelligible, may be a preposterous requisition (though we can not see, for our part, why it is so exigeant), but it certainly cannot be unreasonable to ask that it shall be correct. And it was because we were impugning the correctness of Mr. FELTON'S literal version, not his general understanding of the passage, that we omitted the rest of the paragraph, as having no bearing on the matter at issue. FELTON'S and HERMANN's paraphrases are of no value on a question of construing, for they are so free that they might be used to explain almost any construction of the Greek words. And this scrupulous reviewer, who lets off a deliberate false assertion, under cover of the dust of an old folio, which he hoped we were too lazy to pry into, and who continually quotes our sentences just so far as will suit his purpose, can find no terms strong enough to express his detestation of our enormity in not quoting the whole of two paragraphs which could only have served to divert attention from the disputed point. It is on this very account, perhaps, that he is so sanguinary against us for the omission. But let us hear him further. He quotes our criticism, and says:

THE remark on peper shows how shallow are Mr. B's ideas of the laws of language and the principles which regulate the expression of thought by words. The radical signification of pépeiv is to bear; either by carrying from one, or by bringing to one, according to circumstances. One might safely say, a priori, then, that it must sometimes mean to receive. Any lexicon will supply instances of this meaning, as in the phrase μισθὸν φέρειν, του μισθοφορεῖν, to receive pay, found in ARISTOPHANES and THUCYDIDES. Illustrations abound, also, in the tragic poets. We happen to remember two, and shall look no further, as they are so clearly to the point. In the Antigone (WOOLSEY'S ed., 463, 464), the noble-hearted sister exclaims:

ὅστις γὰρ ἐν πολλοῖσιν ὡς ἐγὼ κακοῖς
ζῆ, πῶς ὅδ' οὐχὶ κατθανῶν κέρδος φέρει;
For one who, like me, lives in many ills,
How does he not, by dying, receive gain?

And in the Electra (WOOLSEY's ed., 1485, 1486):

τί γὰρ βροτῶν ἂν σὺν κακοῖς μεμιγμένων
θνήσκειν ὁ μέλλων τοῦ χρόνου κέρδος φέροι;

For of mortals involved in woes, what gain can that one who is going to die receive (or, as Mr. WooL. SEY translates, derive) from detay? And now, what can be said of Mr. B's dogmatical assertion, that this word ALWAYS has the idea of bearing from one,' except that it shows his scholarship to be on a par with his manners and his honesty?"

Men who juggle and play the sophist with the most ordinary words, who say 'boy' of any man under thirty, and 'just' of any time within two years, are likely to prove slippery antagonists on questions involving the metaphysics of language. Still, we do not despair of being able to explain and vindicate our original assertion. The term receive connotes motion (actual or metaphorical) inward towards the recipient. And this idea is utterly opposed to any thing ever signified by pipetv. For, though pépeiv does not absolutely connote outward motion (since it sometimes means to support, without involving the idea of motion at all), yet, whenever it does imply motion, that motion is outward. Every assignable meaning of pépev may be fairly explained on this principle. Thus μισθοφορεῖν means to be paid, not because ὁ τὸν μισθὸν φέρων receives the pay, but because he bears it of from the payer. So, too, in the examples quoted from SOPHOCLES, Kέpdos pépew is said of a person dying, who carries off the gain with him out of the world.

10. Of our remark on v. 979 the reviewer says:

So ignorant is Mr. B of the most common forms of expression among the Greek tragic writers that he does not know that πάρα stands for πάρεστι.

So sophistical is the reviewer that he is continually raising false issues. The question was, whether zápa could stand for ráptari in this place. About that he will find very little difference among the editors. Even his pet KLAUSEN expresses himself thus unmistakably on the passage: * πάρα minime dicitur pro πάρεστι. (KL., p. 218.) But let us hear him a little further. He says that our construction is forced, if not untenable,' and that 'the choice lies between Mr. FELTON'S

* He of the North American' can never be tired of calling our critic 'boy.' He does not consider, in the violence of his passions, that, were this fearful charge true, it would be all the worse for the modern Athenians; for then we should have a problem in the rule of three something like this: If a New York boy knows more than a Boston professor, then will a New York man We leave our venerable contemporary to finish the question for himself. By the way, how long is it since he has imbibed this horror of juvenility? Is his memory so treacherous from age that he cannot carry it back seven years, or does he find it convenient not to recollect an article on Anthon's Greek Reader, which he theu published, and which the clique openly bragged of as the work of * a very young man — only just out of college—not twenty years old,' etc.?

and the following: οὗτοι σχολὴ ἐμοὶ τρίβειν παρὰ τήνδε θυραίαν. there is no leisure for me to waste time by this foreign woman.'

When people are shaky on easy points of language, it would be too much to expect from them accuracy in niceties. We shall simply quote PALEY's observation (p. 69), ' Id observandum, Ovpaios dici potius de eâ quæ domo modo egressa est quam de eâ quæ nondum intraverit;' and then ask whose construction is untenable.

11. The reviewer has kept his best shot for the last. We freely admit the hit about 'O BorarOS τοῦ χρόνου for ὁ ὕστατος χρόνος. We rashly asserted that to be bad Greek which turns out to be only prosaic Greek, for that the expression is prosaic, and uncommon with the poets, is evident from the very passage of KÜHNER quoted by the reviewer.

And this is the upshot of all his boisterous talk! After heaping on us the charges of 'flippancy,' 'impertinence,' and 'ignorance,' till some of his pages contained little else than permutations and combinations of these three choice words, he has actually succeeded in convicting us of ONE erroneous assertion out of nearly ninety. Verily, a fool's bolt is soon shot.' Indeed, after this 'beggarly account of empty' charges, with so very mild an array of proofs coming after them for an anti-climax, the editor's hardihood begins to forsake him. He fears that his attempts to throw dust in the eyes of the public may not be quite successful, even in Boston.* He therefore alters his note, and begins to deprecate severe criticism on account of the editor's private virtues, which have nothing to do with his editorial claims, and the difficulties of editing ÆSCHYLUS; difficulties which it would have been as well for the professor and his friends to have considered sooner. He says that it is 'extremely difficult to edit and interpret ÆSCHYLUS in a satisfactory manner;' that in many cases no two commentators agree;' that Mr. FELTON did not pretend to furnish an elaborate and perfected edition for the use of scholars; and, finally, confesses that the professor 'has sometimes been misled into giving a translation of a difficult passage which is so literal as to be ambiguous and obscure;' nay, that sometimes 'this crooked and involved literal version' 'stands alone, where it hardly tends to clear up the learner's difficulties.' With all which we will just compare one brief extract from a glowing eulogy in the penultimate number of the 'North American.' The two articles together make quite a literary curiosity:

THE Agamemnon of ÆSCHYLUS, the great master-piece of the Grecian Shakspeare, is here presented in a portable and very neat edition, with copious notes, in which the numberless difficulties of the text are fully considered and resolved, so that a mere tyro in Greek, by the aid of them, can understand and appreciate the genius of the old dramatist.'-N. A. REVIEW, vol. lxiv., p. 523.

If any thing were wanting to show how the boy had fluttered your Volsces in Boston, and made their feathers fly, it would be the difference of tone between this passage and those just before quoted.

The reviewer concludes with two statements: first, that Mr. FELTON has had nothing to do with his article (a very superfluous piece of information, as it bears the strongest internal evidence of not having been written by any gentleman); secondly, that he will not notice any further reply we may make. This is a most prudent determination on his part, only it is a little too late in the day to talk of 'contemptuous silence,' after he has been vomiting upon us sixteen pages of unmitigated scurrility. What is that honorable member about,' asked a stranger in Washington, who is foaming so at the mouth, and making such a row?' He is treating his antagonist with silent contempt,' replied the cicerone. Many would regard this awful threat of future silence on the reviewer's part as a convenient way of getting out of the scrape, just as one sees a small boy throw a snow-ball after a sleigh, and then run off at full speed, with the consciousness of having performed a mighty deed of daring. But to us it appears in a more favorable light. We hail it as the first symptoms of returning sanity on the writer's part, after his ebullition of phrensy. It is a wise thing in him to refuse answering our second article. It would have been a wiser had he not attempted to answer our first. For then would he not have exposed his own weakness in endeavoring to conceal that of his idol, nor would he have disgraced himself and his employers by the petty expedient of endeavoring to supply his deficiencies in Greek by his familiarity with Billingsgate. C. A. B. July 19, 1847.

*Nor has it been. The 'Boston Morning Post' (July 10th) says: We think that the North American' rather exag gerates even these [the charges of 'flippancy' and 'impertinence'], and dwells too much upon the unimportant points of the case. The main questions now are, whether Mr. Felton or Mr. B be the better Greekist, and whether the former has done himself credit or not by his Eschylus.'

His panegyric, however well meant, is most unfelicitously expressed: His gentlemanly character, kind heart, and genial manners are as widely known and highly respected as his varied accomplishments and accurate scholarship,' Heaven help the professor, if his heart and character were no more respectable than his scholarship! We would not do him the injustice his advocates have done him.

FLEETING FASHIONS IN LITERATURE.- Every one who has been observant of the literature of his time, must have remarked the successive changes which it has at intervals undergone; changes sometimes bearing no small resemblance to the ridiculous mutations of Fashion, that most fickle of goddesses. We think it may be set down as undeniable, however, that there is a perfection of literary style which will not only never lose its attraction, but which must survive all change; and which, when the affectations and new-fangled mannerisms of literature, borrowed and commingled from the characteristics of contemporaneous authors in different languages, shall have been buried and forgotten, will continue to 'flourish in immortal youth.' The eloquent yet simple pictures of GOLDSMITH and STEELE, of ADDISON and IRVING, that, coming in natural expression from the heart or the fancy, reach the general heart and fancy, have in themselves the elements of vitality which may defy the effacing finger of Time himself. The man of true genius needs no accessories to his style, derived from the peculiarities of writers in other languages. Indeed, one must needs look with distrust upon writings, however temporarily popular, which derive their attraction from a hybrid combination of different and various modes. HARVEY, a quaint English author, speaking of SPENSER,* says:

'I LIKE your Dreames passingly well: and the rather, because they savour of that singular extraordinarie veine and invention which I ever fancied moste, and in a manner admired onelye in LUCIAN, PETRARCHE, ARETINE, PASQUILL, and all the most delicate and fine-conceited Grecians and Italians; (for the Romanes to speake of, are but very ciphars in this kinde :) whose chiefest endeavour and drifte was, to have nothing vulgare, but, in some respecte or other, and especially in livelie hyperbolicall amplification, rare, quainte, and odde in every pointe, and as a man woulde say, a degree or two at the leaste above the reache and compasse of a common scholler's capacitie.

'I am voyde of all judgment, if your nine Comœdies, whereunto, in imitation of HERODOTUS, YOU give the names of the nine Muses, (and in one man's fansie not unworthily,) come not nearer ARIOSTOE'S Comœdies, eyther for the finenesse of plausible elocution, or the rareness of poetical invention than that elvish queene doth to his Orlando Furioso, which notwithstanding you will needes seeme to emulate and hope to overgo.... Besides that, you knowe it hath bene the usual practice of the most exquisite and odde wittes in all nations, and specially in Italie, rather to shewe and advance themselves that way than any other, as namely those three notorious dyscoursing heads, BIBIENA, MACHIAVEL and ARETINE did (to let BEMBO and ARIOSTO passe) with the great admiration and wonderment of the whole country; being indeede reputed matchable in all points, both for conceyt of wittie and eloquent decyphering of matters, eyther with ARISTOPHANES and MENANDER in Greek, or with PLAUTUS and TERENCE in Latin, But I will not stand greatly with you in your own matters.

Three Proper and Wittie, Familiar Letters,' etc. London: 1850.

If so be the Faërye Queene be fairer in your eie than the nine Muses and hobgoblin runne-aways with the garland from APOLLO, marke what I saye; and yet I will not saye that I thought, but there an end for this once; and fare you well, till GOD or some good angell put you in a better minde.'

In speaking of GREENE, a contemporary writer of his time, who was given to the Euphuism or transcendentalism of that day, HARVEY says:

'THE second Toy of London; the stale of Poules, the ape of Euphues, the vice of the stage, the mocker of the simple world, the flouter of his friends, the foe of himself! The world is full inough of fooleries; though the humour be not feasted with such luxurious and riotous pamphlets. How unlike TULLIE's swete offices; or IsoCRATES' pithie instructions, or PLUTARCHE's wholesome morales; or the delicate dialogues of XENOPHON and PLATO, or the sage tragedies of SOPHOCLES and EURIPIDES, or the fine comœdies of the dainetiest atticke wittes; or other excellent monumentes of antiquity, never sufficiently perused! Yet the one as stale as oldest fashions; and what more freshly current for a while than the other? Even GUICCARDINI's silver history, and ARIOSTO's golden cantoes grow out of request, and the Countesse of PEMBROKE's Arcadia is not grave inough for queasie stomaches; but they must have Greene's Arcadia, and I believe most eagerlie longed for GREENE'S 'Fairie Queen.' O straunge fancies! O monstrous new-fanglednesses!... RIGHT artificiality is not mad-brained, or ridiculous, or absurd, or blasphemous, or monstrous; but deepe-conceited,but pleasureable, but delicate, but exquisite, but gratious, but admirable; not according to the fantasticall mould of ARETINE OF RABELAYS, but according to the fiue modele of ORPHEUS, HOMER, PINDARUS, and the excellentest wittes of Greece, and of the lande that flowed with milke and honey. I cordially reccommend to the deere lovers of the Muses, and namely, to the professed sonnes of the same, EDMOND SPENSER, RICHARD STANIHURST, ABRAHAM FRANCE, THOMAS WATSON, SAMUEL DANIELL, THOMAS NASH, and the rest, whom I affectionately thanke for their studious endevours, commendably employed in enriching and polishing their native tongue, never so furnished or embel. lished as of late. Let them have their swinge, that affect to be terribly singular; I desire not to be a blacke swanne; nor to leave behind me any period in the stile of the Devil's oratorer; or any verse in the veine of his Damme's poet.'

All which quaint criticism, reader, we commend to your reflective judgment. You will find much more philosophy and wisdom in it than may at first sight meet the eye.

6

6

NIAGARA IN WINTER. - Our correspondent J. HONEYWELL' certainly gives natural expression to natural thoughts in the following Reflections at Niagara in Winter:' 'It cannot be otherwise than that the contemplation of such a scene as Niagara absorbs, expands, and lifts the soul of the dullest observer, even as it does the enthusiast. It will be difficult to define the sensations of the man who for the first time beholds the Great Cataract, until the advent of a mental Daguerreotype, which can transfer the thought-pictures of the soul's speechless strivings. Niagara is at all times wonderful and sublime; but at this rude season of the year, when robed in its ice-jewelled drapery, it wears an added sublimity in the magnificent bravery of its winter regalia. Strange were the thoughts that crowded on my soul,' as I lay upon the snow, and drank in, with eager eyes and ears, the majestic sights and sounds! Oh! it was an hour of wondrous musings! There, palpably, and with mighty effect, had the hand of the ALMIGHTY been at work. That is the spot where the scales must fall from the Atheist's eyes, and even he confess the presence of a CREATOR. Dread and fearful is the sight of such an infinite agony of waters pouring their mighty avalanche over the terrible height into the boiling cauldron below! The whirling wreaths of foam and mist, rushing upward in uncontrollable madness; the hollow roar of the fall, booming on the ear like the peal of a gigantic organ, and sending its bewildering and stunning reverberations along the rock-piled shores; these speak the might, the majesty of OMNIPOTENCE! And over all is seen, spanning