Memoirs with the letters of Junius, a comparison which is pursued throughout a variety of minute and indecisive particulars. In some places, (such as pp. 66, 67.) stress is laid on circumstances almost undeserving of mention; and the last part of the Inquiry' is nothing else than a reprint of passages in the Memoirs, in a way that is little calculated to carry conviction to the mind of the reader. We should have no objection to the plan of dwelling almost entirely on a comparison of the printed works, and of excluding private anecdotes and allegations from such a question as this: but the arguments should have been cast in a general form, instead of being overstretched and frittered away in detail. The leading points in favour of the pretensions of Glover are his time of life, and the character of his political feelings; both matters of considerable weight, but not calculated, we apprehend, to counterbalance the general impression that the letters of Junius were the offspring of a superior pen to that which produced the Memoirs now before us.

Mr. Glover retired from public business in 1775; supporting, as his last political act,, a claim of the West-India. planters and merchants at the bar of the House of Commons. His death, however, did not take place till 1785, and he left a considerable fortune.

In his person and habits he was a finished gentleman of the old school, slow and precise in his manner, grave and serious in his deportment, and always in the highest degree decorous; but his natural temper was, though benevolent, at once irritable and violent. He was very strict in his moral conduct, and although he went to the Established Church, was brought up a Dissenter. Before the year 1776 he wore a bag, his wig very accurately dressed, and a small cocked hat under his arm, and in this costume, in fine weather, he constantly walked from his house, in James Street, Westminster, into the City. Afterwards he gradually changed his dress to conform, in some degree, to the fashion of the day.'

Another objection, too slightly noticed in the Inquiry,' is the contradiction between Glover's Memoirs and the letters of Junius with regard to the character of George Townshend; who in the former is highly praised, while in the latter he is attacked with much poignancy. At the same time, it is fit to observe, on the other side of the question, that the private letters of Junius to Woodfall, as well as his public addresses under other signatures than the select one of Junius, are calculated to abate considerably the admiration attached to that far-famed name; and to shew that, when not writing with great care and labour, he came nearer to a level with ordinary authors than those who have seen only the most finished part of his compositions would readily imagine.

13

ART, V.

ART. V. Eschyli Tragedia que supersunt; Deperditurum Fabu larum Fragmenta et Scholia Graca, ex Editione Thoma Stanleii, cum Versione Latina ab ipso emendata, et Commentario longè quam anteà fuit auctiori, ex Manuscriptis ejus nunc demum Edito. Accedunt Varia Lectiones et Nota VV. DD. Critice ac Philologica; quibus suas passim intertexuit Samuel Butler, S.T.P. Regia Schola. Salopiensis Archididascalus, Coll. Div. Ioann. apud Cantabr. nuper Socius. 8vo. Tom. V. & VI. Cantabrigiæ. Londini, Evans.

WE

E have pleasure in resuming our examination of Dr. Butler's edition of Eschylus*; a work which, on full acquaintance with it, we may venture to rank among the most useful and complete variorum classics on the list. We shall enter without preface, after our two former articles, into a detail of such passages in the critical and philological commentaries, as appear to us most worthy of attention from the classical scholar; and we shall intersperse our quotations and references with such remarks as occurred to us in our perusal of the fifth and sixth volumes of this elaborate performance.

In the critical notes on the Choëphora, with which play the fifth volume commences, the first passage that particularly attracted our attention is a metrical note on the 24th line; where a various reading is defended by a nicety in metre, first we believe detected by Dr. Butler. We mean that on which we touched (in our last article on this subject), relating to the. use of pure iambics after particular feet in the choruses of Eschylus. The whole subject, we find, would lead us beyond our limits, on an occasion on which such numbers of classical points are examined and illustrated: but our references will enable the scholar to gain all the requisite information. The note at v. 81. is also metrical; and it presents the same union of arrangement of metre and explanation of meaning with, which we were so well pleased in the play of the Septem Contra Thebas, as to make a long extract from the passage. This will now be unnecessary; and we proceed, rapidly, (τόσσος ὄχλος άμμιν ἐπιρρει, to our long catalogue of successful criticisms.

At v. 203. the scholar will find some explanatory remarks, in opposition to Schütz, that are worth noticing; and at v. 291. a good conjectural emendation of a passage. V. V. 359. gives occasion to some grammatical information on the changes in orthography; and at v. 447. the want of due attention to the cæsura in Eschylus is properly discussed. At 460. we have an illustration from Shakspeare sufficiently just; and the Mélange from Henry Stephens, Pauw, Abreschius, Heath,

See M.R. vol. lxiii. N.S. p. 162.; and M.R. vol. lxxvi. N.S. P. 373.

་

&c.

&c. &c., at 530. exhibits a good specimen of that condensation of matter, in which the present editor frequently excels. The explanatory note at 626. should perhaps be next specified; and the interpretation and metrical knowlege at v. 650. would certainly lead us into a long extract, if we were not deterred by the reason above mentioned at v. 81.

V. 684. Here we have a little facetiousness; which we have suspected to have been suppressed on several occasions. It seems indeed principally apt to overflow, when the editor has to address his predecessor Pauw; (Bone Pauwi! &c. &c.) who, according to the judgment of the Doctor, on some occasions, lays such violent hands on his favourite author, that he appears disposed to exclaim " Paws off!" with much energy. We beg pardon for such an irreverent mode of treating any learned dispute: but, when "the engineer is hoist with his own petar," as poor Pauw assuredly is now and then in these volumes, we have not gravity enough to command all our muscles. V. 724. Some critical strictures on a characteristic expression of Eschylus; and we must not pass over this opportunity of giving our meed of praise (qualecunque sit) to the editor's frequent discrimination of the peculiar qualities of his author. This operation belongs to the higher exertions of criticism,-747. Some judicious censure of Pauw concludes our string of references to the critical notes on the Choëphoræ ; and we advance now to the philological commentary on the same play.

We begin with v. 230. Some previous critics had here discovered a passage subsequently ridiculed by Euripides in V. 537. et seqq. of the Electra; and Dr. Butler adds to their observations as follows:

Nec solus est aut singularis hic locus, in quo emulos suos salse vellicant poeta. Idem ab Aristophane factum millies, ab Horatio sapius nonnullis visum. Sic Ennium derisit Lucilius, Virgilium Bavius quam at Mavius, Apollonium tetigit Callimachus, Terentium Laberius, Pindaro oblaterabant ignobiles quidam, alii aliis, quos recensere longum asset. Nimirum ita comparata sunt humana pectora, ut in nobismet saci sumus, in aliis Lynceo oculatiores."

At v. 313. the note is explanatory, and emendatory also of Stanley's and Pauw's interpretations; 339. the progress of the word xeλádos is briefly traced through several senses; 449. we have some neat explanation; 465. is critical, on the word Tapausoos; 666. shews some acuteness, in settling the persons on the stage; and 831. contains, in our judgment, a correct defence of an interpretation by Stanley against the explanations. of Pauw and Schütz. Dr. Butler never loses an opportunity of vindicating the scholarship, or of rendering any justice in his power to the reputation, of Stanley; a reputation indeed

which must be largely extended by his own additional commentaries, and by the highly finished and honourable monument to his memory which is raised in this edition of Æschylus. At 926. we have an ingenious note; and we here close our references to the Choëphora, numerous as are those which remain in both divisions of annotation.

From the critical notes on the Eumenides, we should select, in proof of those merits which we have attributed to the present editor, the following instances. V. 114. The criticisms. here passed on Valckenäer and Dawes are not only just, in our opinion, but are expressed with that deference for established fame of which the Doctor always presents so right an example. V. 157. The transposition of verses in the Greek tragedies affords a frequent subject for the ingenuity of critics; and the liberties which have been taken in this way by some conjectural Drawcansirs are ludicrous indeed. We need not say that Dr. Butler's annotations are entirely free from such a presumptuous spirit: but, as in the instance before us, he sometimes betrays "the power of art without the show." Some remarks occur on the punctuation of the passage, which are also worth attention. At line 192. Stanley is properly vindicated from a supposition of Heath, injurious to Stanley's classical knowlege. The note at verse 292. we are disposed to quote; and for a reason which may appear inexplicable to some of our readers:-but we really have discovered so little in these volumes with which we can reasonably find fault, that we must not lose any proper opportunity of pointing out even an omission or a slighter defect:

• V. 292. ΛΙΒΥΣΤΙΚΟΙΣ. Λιβυτικής Casaub. Pears. Pauw. Wakef. Schutz. quod receperim. Außusions Schol. Lycoph. v. 519. ubi hac leguntur, quod nec latuit Abreschium. Eroge item pro nóge habet Schol. Lycophronis.'

The Doctor ought to have added that his Schol. Lycophron. quotes the passage corruptly thus:

δεν τον · Εἶτ ̓ ἀμφὶ χέυμα γενεθλίς σπόρε

Τρίτωνος ἐν τόποις Λιβυστικοις.

V. 297. This is an example of the editor's judgment in choosing the most acute of two acute methods (if we may so express ourselves) of defending an established reading. V. 358. Another instance of proper unwillingness to make alterations in the text *. V. 383. A criticism on the word dudaraι, in which the Doctor seems justified by his quotation,

* Scholars must be desirous (we should think) of possessing the corrected text of Eschylus, which the ill-judged resolution of the University will have compelled Dr. Butler to publish, distinctly from these volumes, but uniformly with them, and as a species of supple

ment.

as far as that can go to prove his negative; his words also bearing somewhat of the appearance of a bull. That the following sentence is at least tauriformis, we think our readers must allow :

‹ Valde perplexum est illud avaras, quæ vox nunquam active signi ficat, quantum video, apud Tragicos. Unicus est locus, Prometh. Vinct. v. 765. qui activam hujus verbi significationem ullo modo prestare videatur, sed ibi procul dubio passive accipiendum est."

emen

V. 399. This note contains a very full interpretation, and a very sufficient metrical arrangement, of the last three strophes of the chorus, Ματερ ἁ μ ̓ ἔτικτες κ. τ. λ. V. 413. We are & again glad to witness a scholar reluctant to make innovations in the text. At 427. we have a concise but useful critical note on the word ippolis. 484. Some severity on an dation by Heath; which provokes a Dii boni! from the Doctor. 528. A new arrangement and explanation of an obscure antistrophe. 552. Metrical again, and successful in emendation. 568. Another correction of a chorus; and we are disposed to agree with the Doctor in his final exclamations: Quid his numerosius? quid sententiis gravius? quid imaginibus splendidius? quid verbis ornatius? We imagine, however, that our readers will be inclined to consider the general remark, which we before made on these directions to admiration, as in a degree applicable to the present passage.-570. This is so curious a note, and so illustrative of some causes of mistake in transcribing the antient MSS., that we particularly recommend it to youthful scholars: but the Doctor's principal merit here seems to be that of judicious compilation.-637. We shall present the larger portion of this note to our readers:

Heel 'σunnorey, vestem oxnvel, ejus, (tabernaculo, corpori,) circumdedit, Wakef. at quis scriptor profanus sic unquam locutus est, vel etiam loqui potuit? Sacri quidem scriptores sapius hac utantur metaphora, eosque citat Wakef. at fugisse eum videtur, pre festinatione proculdubio, in illa respici ad tabernaculum Mosis, quod, sicut corpus humanum, fragile erat et caducum, cui successit Templum longe sublimius ac firmius, et Christiana religionis lux æterna, ut corpori nostro, post mortem supervenit immortalitas.'

687. The authority of Professor Porson, on a particular point of Greek orthoepy, is here judiciously opposed; if we may presume to interfere tantis litibus. In 747. we find a sound correction of Wakefield; and at 760. Dr. B. again modestly but firmly dissents from Porson. At v. 790. one of Wakefield's positions is controverted but due justice is done to his acuteness; as is indeed the case throughout these volumes: a rare justice, we must observe, and scarcely to be found among the Porsonians of the day.We must extract the note at v. 898.:

· ΕΥΣΘΕΝΕΙΝ.