ὦ διπλοῦ στρατηλάτα ̓Αγάμεμνον, ὦ Μενέλαε, πῶς ἂν ἀντ ̓ ἐμοῦ Τὸν ἴσον χρόνον τρέφοιτε τήνδε τὴν νόσον ; The triumphant and impassioned inquiry, "how would ye bear up under this disease," (words far from being adequate to convey the force of the original,) well corresponds to the taunt of superficial qualities contained in the epithet drλou. The view this lection takes of the relative power of Agamemnon and Menelaus, is abundantly justified by Aj. 1386, 7: in short, it is, beyond all comparison, more elegant than any that have passed under our revision; and it acquires not a little degree of probability from the circumstance, that supposing it to be the true reading, the corruption of the passage is not difficult to be accounted for. We have enlarged in our remarks, in order to show that there is one verse, at the least, in the writings of Sophocles, that cannot be wrested to confirm the sentiments of Erfurdt, according to which, the admission of an anapæst is not to be tolerated in any but the first place of the verse, unless in a case of utter necessity. But even conceding the position, that in the extant works of Eschylus and Sophocles there is not a single verse to be found in support of Porson's theory, the gratuitous affirmation of Erfurdt, “Euripideorum nulla est habenda ratio," amounts nearly to a refutation of the doctrine which requires such an assertion. But this is not all that can be urged on that side of the question we advocate: the fact is, that although the word Mevéλae can be used in a senarius without incurring the introduction of an anapæst, and although the term Mevéλews can be employed with propriety, yet in the passage we have considered, neither object could have been effected without material injury to the sense; and thus the introduction of the anapæst stands on the basis, not indeed of utter necessity, but of what is next in firmness and stability, pressing expedience. So with other verses. It may be that this was not the idea of Porson; indeed from the limitation he afterwards makes of his remark, to the case when the anapæst is in one proper name, we may conclude that such was not the sentiment entertained by the great English professor; but farther than the above principle warrants, we dare not extend the liberty in question, nor can we subscribe to any minor regulation, which goes to limit the application of that principle. We must now pass on to notice the anapæst used as the first foot of an iambic trimeter. That it has a title to this position, cannot be questioned: the only point to which attention must be paid, is, whether it occupies it under any restrictions. In the extant productions of the Attic tragedians, there are, it must be confessed, but comparatively few passages, in which the anapæst in prima sede is contained in more than one word; and Hermann, observing this peculiarity of usage, has conjectured it to have been a standing law of the tragic senarii, that the anapæst so situated should be either comprehended in a single word, or divided between a preposition and the noun it governs. We copy the following extract from Maltby's prosody: "Atque in primo loco, in quo frequentissimus est anapæstus, hæc lex obtinet, ut istæ syllabæ, e quibus constat anapæstus, omnes ejusdem vocabuli sint.' Hermann. Præf. in Hecub. p. 53. Exceptio, si qua est, in præpositionis usu posita videtur. Nam quum præpositio plerumque necessario ante id nomen, quod regit, collocari debeat, propemodum præpositio cum nomine conjuncta unius verbi vice fungitur. Ejusmodi exempla solus Euripides suppeditat.' Ib. p. 56. Sed vide Heraclid. vss. 91. 1017.” In the sentiments of Hermann we cannot fully coincide; his remarks, though founded in truth, are by no means sufficiently precise or correct. How can it, we ask, affect the recitation of the verse, to have the anapæst in prima sede, comprehended in one word, or distributed between more than one? Let us attend to the point a little more closely, and we shall soon perceive that the usage in question merely illustrates the observance, that the anapæst was never employed as the first foot, except when any other arrangement would have, in a degree, rendered the verse less expressive, or have induced a still greater impropriety in its metrical construction. When a word is, the last syllable being long by nature, (and this is the most usual form of an anapæst constituting a word,) it is evident that it can only be introduced into a senarius, either as an anapæst, or the first two syllables being the last of a tribrach in the second or fourth places, and the last as the first of a dactyl or spondee in the third, or a spondee in the fifth place; a collocation often impracticable, and still oftener injurious. Similar is the case when a word commences ; and even when a word is of itself ☺☺☺, circumstances may arise which may render the admission of an anapæst in the first place preferable to any other mode of distribution. In the detail of our sentiments on this head, it is necessary to be very particular, the subject being, in a measure, complicated and abstruse. Hermann then remarks, that the anapæst in the first place is always contained in one word, but allows that in the works of Euripides it is occasionally composed of a preposition, and the word or part of the word that it governs: he considers farther, that this regulation was in force as of itself influencing the beauty of the verse. We, on the other hand, do maintain, that contemplated as observed for its own sake, the usage is altogether inexplicable; and accordingly, without receiving it as a rule, regard it as furnishing instances of a more general observance. And although to attend to the observance for which we contend, is, in most cases, to follow the rule of Hermann, yet there are passages in which the observance excuses what the rule condemns, and condemns what the rule excuses. The following line of the Prometheus Vinctus of Eschylus comes under the latter observation,—the only verse of the kind, amongst all those in the eleven tragedies already named, in accordance with the regulation of Hermann : Ποταμῶν τε πηγαὶ, ποντίων τε κυμάτων, ν. 89. With equal beauty and strength of expression may it be said, especially when taken in connexion with the succeeding verse : and these were undoubtedly the words of Eschylus. Let us now advert for a moment to the position of the tribrach. It may be observed in the first place, that this foot, from its peculiar character, is calculated to give by its occasional introduction in the senarius, an admirable variety to the recitation, at once simple, easy, and elegant. Not so when two tribrachs follow each other, the concurrence of so many short syllables not being too consistent with the iambic character, or the unassuming dignity of the verse; and thus, instances of such a collocation are extremely rare, and whenever they do occur, the tribrachs are in the former part of the line. Besides, two consecutive tribrachs cannot, unless we are greatly deceived, be uttered with propriety without an intervening vocal pause; and accordingly, when the objectionable usage was adopted, the feet were so placed as to admit, agreeably to our system of recitation, of one of the metrical pauses between them. We venture to affirm, that not one single passage, possessing any great claim to correctness, can be adduced to show that they are admissible beyond these limits. The 1420th verse of the Philoctetes, which is, according to Mss., ̓Αθάνατον ἀρετὴν ἔσχον, ὡς πάρεσθ' ὁρᾷν, has indeed occasioned critics no little trouble, as will be seen from the following note of Erfurdt :-" ȧperny dupliciter offendit, primum ob ictum in prima syllaba male collocatum, dein quia sequentibus parum videtur aptum esse. Quippe requiritur vox, qua exprimatur, quod sub adspectum venire possit. E priore Hermanni conjectura, dedi á ávarov áλкhy. Priorem dico, quandoquidem in Notis Mstis hæc monuit: "Alávarov åperǹv vitiosum esse, et sensus, et Euripidei numeri arguunt. Certius etiam affirmaverim, aλ non esse Sophocleum, quo ut numeri corrigantur, sensui tamen male prospicitur. Sæpe major laus est animadvertentis vitia, quam corrigentis; certe tutior. Sed si tamen scire cupis quid suspicer, vereor ne istud aperǹv ex interpretatione di åper ortum sit. Sensus loci tale quid requirit: ̓Αθάνατον αἰθέρ ̓ ἔσχον, ὡς πάρεσθ ̓ ὁρᾷν. eis à¤ávarov ailép éμreowv dicit Eurip. Hel. 1022." Schæfer appears silently to have retained the vulgar reading; and Dunbar, without any original remarks, adopts the correction of Hermann approved of by Erfurdt. For our own part, we cannot concur in either of the emendations proposed, being decidedly of opinion, that they considerably impair the sentiment which the poet intended to convey. The phrase objected to by Hermann and Erfurdt has been correctly translated by Musgrave, 'immortale decus.' Without altering the expression we would write, Αρετὴν ἀθάνατον ἔσχον, ὡς πάρεσθ ̓ ὁρᾷν. And this reading, whilst it proceeds on a simple principle, is sufficiently justified from the charge of metrical impropriety, by our concluding observations on the position of the anapæst. Whilst we highly respect its author, we cannot but regard as puerile that sentence of Erfurdt, in his note on the 818th verse of the Electra of Sophocles, " Anapæstum iambico versui ex emendatione inferre, etiam ab initio versus, religiosum est." We recur to our motto, a beautiful motto, and one that does credit to the mind of Hermann :-" Omnino caussæ prius investigandæ sunt, quam regulæ constituendæ." It must be remarked, secondly, that a tribrach never occupies the fourth place of the line, when a dactyl occurs in the third. Such a collocation is entirely inconsistent with that regard for the preservation of the iambic character of the verse, which we have shown influenced the tragedian of Athens in adopting many of his regulations, and imposing many of his restrictions. Neither are we aware, that any classical authority of moment can be adduced in support of it in those eleven plays, at the least, which we have more particularly examined, there is only one passage that can afford it the slightest countenance. We allude to the 1096th and 1097th verses of the Trachiniæ of Sophocles, of which the following lection prevails throughout our editions: Διφυῆ τ' ἄμικτον ἱπποβάμονα στρατὸν Θηρῶν, ὑβριστὴν, ἄνομον, ὑπέροχον βίαν. The Mss. have without exception vreiρoxov, a circumstance in our judgment rendering the present reading highly suspicious. Now, if we mistake not, the epithet avoμov is totally unnecessary, and bears some indications of having been originally a gloss on the preceding one, ὑβριστήν. The present position of ἄμικτον, moreover, appears to us altogether unsuitable; in short, admitting the correctness of the vulgar reading, the verses are utterly devoid of sentential or metrical beauty, far different from those with which they are associated. We have been led, from the considerations enumerated, to adopt the following correction; Διφνῆ τε θηρῶν ἱπποβάμονα στρατὸν Αμικτον ὑβριστὴν ὑπέροχον βίαν, the antepenultimate of vrépoxov being lengthened by the ictus metricus. After a dactyl in the first place, the tribrach may occasionally be introduced, with the proviso, however, that a pause is to be made after the first syllable of the dactyl, and, as a neces sary consequence, that no pause is to be made after that foot. See Ajac. 854. Phil. 796. In treating of the position of the spondee, it is requisite to notice briefly the reason of the general rule, viz. that this foot may occupy any or all of the places of an iambic trimeter denoted by the odd numbers, the first, the third, and the fifth, but cannot be allowed in the second, fourth, or sixth. Every principle of metrical consistency rendered it necessary, that the last foot of a senarius should be an iamb; and this point being established, it will be easy to perceive, that by no other method could the systems of senarii be varied with so great beauty and propriety. But the only thing of consequence to which lengthened attention must be given, whilst examining this branch of our subject, is the 'pausa' of Porson; the doctrine of the learned professor containing the only exception to the general rule, or rather, the only additional restriction on the use of the spondee, that can be defended by any thing like argument, or derive the least support from the classic writings. Porson observes, "Hanc regulam plerumque in senariis observabant tragici, ut si voce, quæ creticum pedem efficeret, terminaretur versus, eamque vocem hypermonosyllabon præcederet, quintus pes iambus vel tribrachys esse deberet. Non potuerunt igitur talem versum tragici scribere, qualis est, Κρύπτοντα χεῖρα καὶ πρόσωπον τούμπαλιν, certe noluere, si modo vel diversa orthographica, vel alia verborum positura vitare possent, In scenam missos magno cum pondere versus. Res eadem est, si creticus in trochæum et syllabam dissolvitur vel si cretico in syllabam longam et iambum dissoluto, syllaba longa est aut articulus aut præpositio, aut quævis denique vox, quæ ad sequentia potius quam precedentia pertineat. Verum si secunda quinti pedis pars ejus sit generis, ut præcedenti verbo adhæreat, et ambo quasi unam vocem simul efficiant, non jam amplius necesse erit, ut verbum precedens brevi syllaba terminetur." The natural inquiry, which a careful perusal of these remarks is calculated to suggest, is, on what principle can the rule be justified? The quotation from Horace is of a general nature and a general application, and has no distinct, particular reference to the subject under consideration. Thus the task devolves on us, to develope the reasons which induced the tragedians of ancient Greece to adopt the regulation, in most if not all of its branches. In the first case specified by Porson, supposing that the spondee was admitted as the fifth foot, the conclusion of the verse would be |--~. This is also the case when, as Porson expresses it, the cretic is divided into a trochee and a final syllable; and likewise in the third instance specified, the intimate connexion between the two words constituting the syllable and the iamb, rendering the occurrence of the less metrical pause after the former improper. Now not only was it incumbent on the |