sable to the establishing of mutual confidence, than that you should learn their language? On hearing arguments of this description used, we can readily picture to ourselves the strong feelings of contempt we shall be exposed to from the fashionable, the inconsiderate, the idle, in short, from all the least important members of the class we are addressing. Precisely the same feelings are roused in the minds of the noblesse of Hanover, Brunswick, and neighbouring states, when any one suggests to them the policy of studying Low-German, in order to communicate more confidentially with the peasants, and increase their influence with that class of their countrymen. But it will scarcely be credited that the result in both countries is so precisely the same to the country gentlemen as actually is the case. The argument used at this very moment against throwing open the right of election to the peasant freeholders of Hanover and Brunswick is, they will choose only lawyers for their representatives, in preference to gentlemen who have landed property in their districts. That they should do so is quite natural. The peasant who does not speak the language of his government is guided by good feeling not to aspire to a post that he could not fill; he therefore chooses for his representative the man whom he supposes best to understand his wants, and likely to be most active in procuring their redress, regardless of all minor considerations. Gentlemen of the counties of Tipperary, Waterford, &c. did your tenantry in 1830 and 1831 act otherwise?

Notice to Correspondents.—Mr. THOMAS TAYLOR and Professor LOBECK. IN a former number of this journal, in the course of a review of Professor Lobeck's Aglaophamus, we stated that in that work "Mr. Thomas Taylor is convicted not only of ignorance almost incredible, but is charged with the heavier imputation of literary dishonesty, which, if not disproved, must in future deprive his assertions of all claim to belief."-(No. XIII. p. 51.) Thinking with Gibbon that "the new Platonists scarcely deserve a place in the history of science," we had no interest in examining the charges made by Professor Lobeck against Mr. Taylor, and therefore studiously avoided giving an opinion upon their merits, observing merely that, if they were well-founded, Mr. Taylor could not in future be trusted without confirmation. Mr. Taylor has since favoured us with a long vindication of himself against these charges, which, by some accident, we did not receive until after the appearance of a similar vindication, in a somewhat abridged form, in the Athenæum, No. 189. As we first brought this question before the English public, it is perhaps incumbent on us to state our opinion whether Mr. Taylor has or has not succeeded in refuting the charges of the German Professor.

Mr. Taylor published in the 16th and 17th volumes of the Classical Journal a collection of Chaldean oracles. Professor Lobeck cites from him one of these VOL. VIII. NO. XV.

(so called) oracles, which makes no sense, which is written in no metre, and is compounded out of two mutilated and garbled passages of Proclus. Mr. Lobeck farther remarks that Mr. Taylor has faithfully copied an error of the printer-οὐ ταχθέν for οὗ ταχθέν, which last is plainly required by the sense. Against these charges Mr. Taylor defends himself as follows. He says that he was not the first collector of the Chaldean oracles, but that two editions of them had been previously published; the first by Patricius, the second by Stanley; from the latter of which, with the emendations of J. Clericus, he formed his collection, at the same time adding more than fifty new oracles and fragments. He then says that the oracle cited by Lobeck is copied verbatim from these editions; but does not attempt to defend either the sense or metre, or explain why the prose of Proclus should be tortured into Chaldæan oracles; and as to the words inserted from another passage, non monito lectore, he says that he "concluded that Patricius had derived them from some MS. of Proclus, in which the whole oracle existed in a perfect state; and he consequently ascribed the whole line to Proclus." Now the fact is, that the oracle exists nowhere in a perfect state: the only words of an oracle quoted by Proclus are, δυὰς παρὰ τῷδε κάθηται, or only σαρὰ τῷδε κάθηται, and the silent interpolation of the prose of Proclus will not make it more perfect. Mr. Taylor, moreover, cannot perceive the right reading, even when it is shown to him, and attempts to defend où ray@év. After these remarks, it is perhaps needless to say, that we completely acquit Mr. Taylor of literary dishonesty. We believe him to have been simply guilty of the much lower faults of literary ignorance and carelessness; carelessness, in copying without examination the errors of his predecessors; ignorance, in not perceiving their mistakes, first, by himself, and secondly, when they are pointed out to him. He might, and ought to have learnt from the very authors whom he quotes, that no reliance was to be placed on the edition of Patricius. Thus Stanley, in a Dissertation on "the Chaldaick oracles of Zoroaster and his followers," at the end of his History of Philosophy, gives an account of the different editions of these supposed oracles; and of that of Patricius he remarks, that "Patricius indeed hath taken much learned pains in the collection of them; but with less regard to their measures and numbers, and (as from thence may be shown) sometimes of the words themselves." (p. 5.) Fabricius, too, (whose words Mr. Taylor cites, vol. xvii. p. 264,) also remarks of Patricius, that "imprimis male lectoribus suis consuluit, quod una serie descripsit quæ divellenda erant, et diversis in locis aut libris ab eo observata fuerunt, tum quod versus male digessit, nec satis emendatos, vel mutilos, vel allegantium verbis interpolatos, aut ad sententiam ipsorum minus examinatos in collectionem suam retulit."—(Biblioth. Gr. vol. i. p. 249.) Our readers may judge, from this very true character of the collection of Patricius, how safe a guide Mr. Taylor has blindly followed. It is at once obvious, on a cursory inspection of that collection, that the author of it was wholly unfitted for his task; and, in particular, that he knew no more of hexameter metre than Le Clerc did of iambic.

Mr. Lobeck next shows that Mr. Taylor has made an oracle out of the prose of Proclus, by taking some words from the middle of a sentence, which make no sense, and by arranging them in two lines, which (we suppose) are

* The first line of this imaginary oracle, δυὰς γὰρ παρὰ τῷδε κάθηται, καὶ νοεραῖς αστράφτει τομαΐς, is in the edition of Patricius stated to be taken from Proclus and Damascius. Mr. Taylor, however, in his "faithful transcript," mentions only Proclus, without Damascius. The second line, καὶ τὸ κυβερνᾶν τὰ πάντα καὶ τάττειν οὐ ταχθέν, is, in the edition of Patricius, printed as a separate oracle, and not combined into one sentence with the preceding line, as in the "faithful transcript" of Mr. Taylor, Classical Journal, vol. xvii. p. 246.

meant to be verses, written in some hitherto unknown metre. Mr. Taylor says that this oracle is "faithfully transcribed" from the earlier editions; and he seems to pride himself greatly on the accuracy of his powers of copying. We must beg to remark that the duty of a new editor is not to reproduce, but to correct the errors of his predecessors; and that learning is advanced, not by faithful repetition, but by independent investigation.

Another oracle, divided into lines, intended (we suppose) for verses, is shown by Mr. Lobeck to be compounded of a passage of Proclus, with a few mutilated words of Plotinus tacked at the end. It would, perhaps, be difficult to collect more blunders into so small a space. Mr. Taylor's defence is, that he "faithfully transcribed" this oracle from the previous editors; and as to the words added from Plotinus to the passage of Proclus, he "conceived that as a part of them evidently belonged to Proclus, Patricius might in some MS. have found them entire." Why then did not Mr. Taylor communicate these conceptions and probabilities to his readers? In the passage of Plotinus, it is said, ψυχαὶ ἀνθρώπων ... ἔφθασαν μὲν μέχρι γῆς, κάρα δὲ αὐταῖς ἐστήρικται ὑπεράνω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, the last words being evidently imitated from the famous line of Homer, οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε κάρη, καὶ ἐπὶ χθόνι βαίνει. The last line of the (supposed) oracle Mr. Taylor prints thus: népara dè nai avrñç_korhpintai ävo, "ridiculo mendo népara pro xpăra nihil offensus," says Mr. Lobeck. Mr. Taylor, however, says that the Jux in the oracle is evidently the soul of the world; and sets himself seriously to prove, by arguments which far surpass our comprehension, that the soul of the world has horns. His conclusion is expressed in the following terms:-" The horns therefore of this soul are very properly said to be established on high, signifying that her mingled nature is united to her paradigmatic cause.'

It is unnecessary to pursue any farther this minute examination. Enough has been already adduced to satisfy our minds, and probably those of 'our readers who may be interested in such a question, that the charges of Professor Lobeck were not inconsiderately made. As to Mr. Taylor, we are fully aware of his meritorious attempts to advance the study of Greek literature in this country. His perseverance has been the more praiseworthy because it has been attended with little success. If therefore he had assumed a tone of fair discussion, and had not indulged in the most opprobrious language both against Mr. Lobeck and ourselves, we should not on this occasion have expressed so freely our opinion of his capacity for an editor of Greek authors. But his intemperate vituperation deprives him of all claim to mild treatment. Instead of showing that he is himself clear of error, Mr. Taylor inveighs against his critic-a mode of proceeding which resembles the abuse vented by a criminal on the judge who condemns him, not because his sentence is unjust, but because it is conclusive and irremovable.

CRITICAL SKETCHES.

ART. XI.-Müllner's Leben, Character, und Geist, dargestellt vom Professor D. Schütz, zu Leipzig. (Müllner's Life, Character, and Mind, by Professor Schütz, of Leipzig.) Meissen, 1830. 18mo. MÜLLNER has at last found a biographer, and, we must admit, a pretty impartial one. With every wish to do justice to the talent which Müllner unquestionably possessed, the Professor displays, with the same calmness and minuteness, the many bad qualities, both of heart and head, with which, in Müllner's case, this talent was mixed up and alloyed; and his work presents at once an amusing and yet melancholy picture of the arts, by the cautious and assiduous practice of which mediocrity may for a time eclipse far higher genius, and command an extensive, though fortunately not a very lasting reputation.

The high character which Müllner for a time maintained, and the influence of his plays upon the dramatic literature of the day, may probably be matters of surprise to those who, taking up his works now for the first time, endeavour to discover what charm could have existed in compositions so unnatural, and constructed on principles of effect so coarse and vulgar. Stage effect, which (though far inferior to Kotzebue's) they do to a certain extent possess, might do something: his palpable imitations of Shakspeare's points, quibbles, and fantastic repartee, might please those who identify even Shakspeare's defects with perfection; and his command of a nervous and easy versification might lead away captive by the ear that pretty numerous class to whom this obvious and superficial quality, being the most readily apprehended, might appear the first of dramatic excellencies.

But the true secret of Müllner's extensive momentary reputation, and of the utter oblivion into which he is now fast falling, lies in his connection with the press of his day, and the numerous engines which, with incredible perseverance and meanness, he contrived to set in motion to circulate his praises, or to vilify and depreciate his literary opponents; and now when that influence, both for evil and good, has ceased, his works have speedily found their natural level; not, indeed, the lowest, but at the same time by no means an exalted one. A certain dreary and gloomy force which they possess, redeems them from the character of mere common-place; but among the loftier, purer, and more abiding spirits of German literature, there is assuredly no place for the vain bustling, selfish, little Counsellor of Weissenfels. Nor is he excluded from their fellowship by mere mental inferiority;—his moral character unfortunately presents little more than a melancholy picture of vices and meannesses; vanity, personal and intellectual, displaying itself in the most pitiful forms, descending to any meanness or subterfuge by which his literary ascendancy might be preserved or increased; avarice the most gross and contemptible; and an intense selfishness, which renders

him incapable of any genuine friendship or any lasting affection. He was a clever, a talented man, with some strong powers of mind, but in no sense a man of genius; nor do we believe that he has ever written a line which could draw forth a tear or remain imprinted upon the memory. The effect of his writings is to produce a feeling of oppression and uneasiness, and we struggle to escape from them as from the pressure of Ephialtes. As a reviewer he is most tolerable, for there his caustic and biting style, which was the perfect reflection of his temper and habits, always gives point at least and bitterness to his critiques;--but even in that field Müllner never could be permanently useful or influential; his blows, though forcibly given, fell as often upon the innocent as the guilty, for it was not truth, but personal feelings and interests, that directed them, and the elevated and lofty principles which he occasionally advocated produced no conviction when coming from such a quarter. The devil, it is said, can cite Scripture for his purpose, and probably with great effect, so long as he maintains his incognito; but from the moment we catch a glimpse of his hoof, his homilies are hardly likely to be listened to with much attention.

Müllner, who was born 18th Oct. 1774, received the rudiments of his education at the celebrated school of Pforte, near Naumburg. In ancient languages he made some progress, but with modern he never acquired any extensive acquaintance: English he never learned at all, and with French he only became acquainted at a late period, like Falstaff, on compulsion. In music, which he attempted, he failed. On the other hand, his ability in skating, swimming, chess playing, and dancing, were undeniable. At the age of 19 he left Pforte for the university of Leipsig, which was at that time beginning to be distinguished for the ability of its philosophical teachers, with the view of devoting himself to the study of law. His first-published work was a novel, the title of which (Incest) is not calculated to create a favourable impression as to its contents, and the leading idea of which he afterwards repeated in his " Twenty-ninth of February." He left Leipsig in 1797. In 1802 he married Amelia von Lochan, a lady of great beauty and accomplishments, though somewhat of a masculine and overbearing character, and in the course of the same year he obtained his doctor's degree. Various comedies, and farces, from his pen, none of them of any distinguished merit, and most of them adaptations from the French, appeared from 1806 down to 1812. In 1812, however, he made his debut as a tragedian in his Twenty-ninth of February, and Guilt, and in 1814 appeared his last dramatic works, King Yngurd and the Albaneserin.

The Twenty-ninth of February was suggested, as indeed the play itself sufficiently shows, by Werner's Twenty-fourth of February. The opening is certainly powerful, but long before the catastrophe arrives the charm is dissolved, the terrible strained to the utmost has lost its terrors. The conception of one day in the year, an infernal holiday devoted to the devil, on which some frightful crime must be committed, and of a fated being, a hereditary murderer, who upon this occasion must perform the crime which devotes him to the infernal gods, simply