lus used avrny, as equivalent to "my mistress.". See, in further illustration of this usage, Hemsterhuys on Pollux, iii. 74, n. 53; and on Plutus, v. 959. 108. “ Τιν' οὖν ἔτ ̓ ἄλλον τῇδε προστιθῶ στάσει ;” Zráois is here used as the abstract for the concrete, of which we have so many examples in the dramatic writers. It should have been interpreted, ταῖς ὧδ ̓ ἑστηκυίαις. The following Notes are selected as favourable specimens of Dr. B.'s accuracy as a grammarian, and sagacity as a critic: 171. "Grammatici docent particulam uw compositam esse ex un, et ovv, vel ŵv: quod si verum sit, quomodo stare simul possunt μŵv ovv? An legendum, μῶν οὐκ Ὀρέστου κρύβδα δῶρον ἢ τόδε ? Vereor ut hoc sit Orestæ donum. μὴ οὐ δῶρον ᾖ, idem valet ac δῶρον οὐκ ἂν εἴη, Herodot. ν. 79. ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μὴ οὐ τοῦτο ἢ τὸ χρηστήριον, veremur potius ut hoc sit oraculi sensus.' : 186. "Constructio imperfecta est. Schol. τάδ' αινέσω ; λείπει οὐκ exw. Si omnia recte se habent, potest esse aposiopesis quædam post Ορέστου. Sed forsan legendum ἐγὼ δὲ πῶς;” 199." Hanc agnitionis partem Euripides perstrinxit, a Stanleio allegatus, in Electr. 534. 541. Quod Euripides Eschylo vitio vertit, id pulcherrimum et omnino naturæ consentaneum esse arbitror. Notum est apud nostrates proverbium, homines in undis perituros vel stipulas captare. Quid mirum, si, in re desperata, vel levissimam spei occasionem avide captaverit Electra, quum jamdudum Orestæ reditum cupide exspectasset? Quinetiam ipsa suspicionum levitas mentem indicat a recto statu nonnihil dejectam, et a quovis momento in hanc vel illam partem facile impulsam. Accedit, ut recte observavit Botheus, quod tumulus regis desertus erat, iram Ægisthi et Clytemnestræ timentibus Argivis, unde non male de Oreste ejusque aliquo sodali cogitat virgo. Porro ipse poeta in iis quæ loquitur Orestæ persona, v. 219. sq. ostendit se, quam leves fuerint avayvwpioews rationes, satis intellexisse." 359. " Interpretes connectunt πολύχωστον ἀν' είχες τάφον-μηδ' ὑπὸ Tpwiois, K. T. λ. quod vereor ut recte fieri possit, quum potius dicendum esset οὐδ ̓ ὑπὸ Τρ. Si locus est sanus, continuatur votum, ei yàp κατηναρίσθης - μηδ' ὑπὸ Τρ. Locum recte intellexit Scholiasta ; γυναικικῶς οὐδὲ τούτῳ ἀρέσκεται, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀνῃρῆσθαι, i. e. Electra vero, velut femina, ne hoc quidem Orestis votum probat, scilicet ut pater olim ante Trojam succubuisset; sed potius hoc sibi placiturum fuisse dicit, si pater omnino intactus evasisset, interfectores autem prius interissent; ut fatum, quod mortem iis intulerit, e longinquo aliquis, harum calamitatum expers, audivisset." 66 555. “ Quum Παρνάσιον dixerint Attici de morte Phocico, Παρνήσιος vero de Parnethe, monte Attico, sic etiam Пapvaois eos dixisse puto potius quam Пlapvnois, quum sermo esset de Parnaso. Vid. Elms. ad 6 Aristoph. Ach. 348. Ruhnken. ad Timæi Lex. p..209.-Парvηooû male editur in Eumen. 11. pro Пapvaσoû. Ubi quæ Burgessius allegat exempla, Tevunooos, Muxaλnooos, nihil proficiunt; quippe antiquior pronuntiatio videatur Tevunoòs istius temporis, quo nondum literæ geminabantur.' Valckenaer. ad Phoen. 1107. Vetusti Græci,' inquit Hemsterhusius ad Lucian. Cont. p. 503, literas geminare vix unquam solebant. Eustath. ad Od. T. p. 1872, 50. ὁ δὲ Παρνησός, ὃν ἡ κοινὴ χρῆσις διὰ τοῦ ὰ λέγει, Παρνασόν, πολὺς ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις, φυλάσσων μέχρι καὶ νῦν παρὰ Βοιωτοῖς ὑποβάρβαρον τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄνομα. Τερνεσὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν παραλαλοῦντες φασὶν οἱ ἐγχώριοι, ἡ δὲ διὰ τῶν δύο σσ γραφὴ τοῦ Παρνησσοῦ, κατήργηται παρὰ τοῖς ὕστερον. Contra vero scripturam per duo o recentiorum fuisse censet Heynius ad Pindar. Pyth. i. 75. Παρνησός scribit Photius, Παρνασός Hesychius, et Proclus in Platonis Tim. p. 31. Parnasus codices scripti vetustiores Virgilii, Propertii, Ovidii, aliorum. Hapváriov Theocrit. vii. 148. Exempla quæ protulit Eustathius, p. 890, 3. parum ponderis habent; quum Aλikapvŋσòs per unum scribendum esse certissimum sit. Quare dissentio ab Hermanno et Erfurdtio ad Sophocl. Antig. 1130. scripturam per oo tuentibus." 233, 4. “ ἔμοι· προσαυδαν δ ̓ ἔστ ̓ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον πατέρα τε, καὶ τὸ μητρὸς. κ. λ.” The Note here does not give a completely full account of the state of the reading. In fact it gives more credit to Schutz, than really falls to his share; and it does not explain from what source the present text was derived. The note is simply thus; "TaTépos Turn. Steph. Stanl. warépa oè Schutz." The truth however is, that Schutz, in his first edition, retains the corrupt old text; namely, Taтépos, with a colon at exov", and from Dr. Butler we learn, that warépa, without the colon, was the lection of " Med. Guelph. Ald. Rob." Dr. Blomfield's text corresponds with that of Porson, from which we conjecture that Schutz, in his second edition, adopted it, with the alteration of σe for Tε. 285-9. It is well known that Professor Porson attempted the restoration of this perplexed passage by means of a transposition, which we were at one time disposed to think as correct, as it is ingenious. See his Tracts, &c. by Kidd, p. 211. We were therefore at first startled not to see the conjecture taken into the present text. But, upon full consideration, we think that Dr. B. has exercised a sound judgment in adopting the suggestions of Hermann and Elmsley. The reading then exhibits an important and perhaps indisputable instance of the real words of the author, preserved amidst every appearance of corruption, merely by altering the punctuation and inserting a particle. σε βωμῶν τ' ἀπείργειν οὐχ ὁρωμένην πατρὸς In the Note on v. 313, we perceive the usage of forte for fortasse, which is certainly incorrect, although sanctioned by the practice of so many modern writers of Latin. The learned editor, we are confident, will avoid it in future. Now we are on the subject of mistakes, to which all who write, as well as all who do not write, are liable, we conceive that sunt, not. on v. 485, should be sint. Perhaps, however, it is a typographical error, of which there appears to us an unusual number in this play, owing no doubt to the distance at which Dr. B. was residing from the press, and his important professional engagements. Thus we have penatuce, p. 37, for penacute, quinta for sexta, p. 73, de quæstionis dubitet, p. 74, aλà for λλa, p. 162. We have, however, far more delight in contemplating great excellencies than in dwelling upon petty defects, although the duty we have imposed upon ourselves obviously requires us to notice these also. We therefore recur with pleasure to the improvements which have been made in the text, partly by the acuteness of the editor, partly by the candour and judgment with which he has listened to the suggestions of others. Among various other instances, ôpiμùs åýtas, adopted from Salvini, v. 386, апρiктóпλŋкта from Scaliger, 419, #pоxaλkevel from Jacobs and Hermann, 636, evßóλws, 684, from Porson (with the phrase happily illustrated in the Glossary,) dia dikas, 775, from Pauw and others, dia médov, 785, his own conjecture for δάπεδον, γοητῶν, οι γοατῶν from γοατής,* plorator, the transposition or conjecture at 1027, 8, with the aposiope sis, at 1030, from Schutz and Butler; are so many proofs of the impartiality, as well as skill, with which the arduous duties of editor have been discharged. In the phrase "ěkoy” "Apeiov koμμóv," v. 417, there is an ambiguity which our English idiom retains. We say with equal propriety, "struck up a mournful strain;" and, "struck a heavy blow." At the close of v. 455, an iambus evidently is wanting: "dikas satis apte reponit Hermannus," says our editor. We would suggest ἀράς, 763. “ ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τροπαίαν Ζεὺς κακῶν θήσει ποτέ.” "eiτporatav Porson. qui ad Eurip. Suppl. 647. sic scribit; "In Eschyli loco TроTaíav edd. male præferunt; quod ambigas utrum in τρόπαιον, an τρόπαια, mutandum sit. Sed retinendum puto τροπαίαν, * This is formed by strict analogy from yodw, as yoos is from yów, an old form used by Homer. II. Z. 500. conversionem, Schol. μETаTрov, ut in Agam. 213. Operòs TVÉWV δυσσεβῆ τροπαίαν, Theb. 703. λήματος ἐν τροπαίᾳ. sc. αὔρα. Quod si una ex Porsoni conjecturis recipienda sit, malim 7pówαia, Eurip. Or. 713. Στῆσαι τρόπαια τῶν κακῶν.” This is good so far as it goes. But we would substitute στήσει for θήσει, on the very ground of the passage cited from the Orestes. We are not quite satisfied with the explanation of the word Evvwpis in the Gloss. on v. 969 :— « Ξυνωρίς. Jugum. Hesych. Ξυνωρίδα: ζυγήν. ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμιόνων. ὀρεὺς γὰρ ὁ ἡμίονος. Absurde; quum sit a ξυναείρω, quod vere monuit Eustathius, p. 573, 36. Sæpius vero usurpatur de ipsa biga, vel de equis bijugibus, quam de jugo: Agam. 626. Valckenaer. ad Eurip. Phoen. 331." This also is very true; but it does not enable the tiro, or indeed any reader, to discover the exact sense, which Dr. B, would assign to Evvwpis in the passage in question. It must either mean "fetters fastening the feet together, as a yoke connects the two mules in a car;" or it may even signify, pair for the feet.” But let us attend to the sage observation of Homer: 66 " α We will not dwell at any greater length upon this small, but valuable, volume. We have shown, we trust sufficiently, the claims it possesses to the thanks of the literary public; while we have without scruple pointed out any difference of opinion that has arisen, in the course of our observations, between ourselves and Dr. Blomfield; as difference of opinion there must be among all who carefully examine a very extensive subject. We must not, however, conclude without expressing our hope, that this very learned prelate may yet find leisure, as well as inclination, to complete that which he has more than begun well; and that, when he feels himself in some degree relieved from the occupation, incident to his change of situation and the accession of so much new business, he may, amidst the graver and more important claims of theology, bestow some portion of his time upon literature, which, although styled profane, is nevertheless essential to the critical * Od. A. 378. and accurate knowledge of holy writ. Thus will he follow the example of his illustrious predecessor, Bishop Pearson, as well as that of Archbishop Potter; each of whom occasionally refreshed himself from diocesan duties and theological inquiries, by restoring the expressions and illustrating the sentiments of heathen poets. ART. V.-Tales of the Crusaders. By the Author of " Waverley," &c., 4 vols. 12mo. Edinburgh, To do justice to the works which continue to swell the Waverley series to the size of a moderate encyclopædia of human life and manners, is in general only to vary the language of panegyric; a task fatiguing to the patience of those who dislike the imputed politics of the author, and whose gentle readers require the stimulus of a snarl as an anti-soporific. As, however, for our own parts we are inclined to prefer truth to novelty, and not in the habit of catering for the splenetic, we shall take the liberty of ranking the tales before us on the footing of our old favourites, Ivanhoe and Quentin Durward. With the exception of Goëthe, whose vivid and original portrait of Goëtz von Berlichingen we suspect him to have studied minutely, our nameless author is perhaps the only modern writer who has departed from the established Amadis model, and given us the stout old barons and champions of the dark ages "in living lith and limb," and with the body and savour of reality, instead of such elegant carpet-knights as might be shadowed out by the pencil of Westall, or Angelica Kauffman. Instead of the set and courtly phrase of tilt and banquet, he puts into their mouths the business-like language of real working-day life, reflecting faithfully the joys and sorrows, the mirth and moodiness, the piques and prejudices which flesh is heir to; and tinctured with just sufficient of knightly roughness to give an easy and natural effect to the noble sentiments which it so often expresses. Confident that they bear the true stamp of gentle blood, he does not fear to strip his favourite characters of the mere gaudy trappings of chivalry, to subject them to the vulgar wants of ordinary life, or even upon occasion to commit the unheard-of solecism of making them thick-set and bandy-legged. In short, to use his own words, his knights |