ήξουσι θηρεύσοντες ου θηράσιμους

γάμους

Eschylus uses much the same language, concerning the same ladies. Supp. 222.

— εν αγνῳ δ', έσμος ὡς πελειάδων,

εζεσθε, κίρκων των ὁμοπτερων φοβῳ,

εχθρών όμαιμων και μιαινόντων γενος.

886. Mr. Blomfield prints dauerras. It is a conjecture of De Pauw's, which is received by Heyne (vid. Äpollodor. Heyn. p. 273.) Porson certainly obelized dauertur; and plain grammar shews sufficient cause for the alteration, as σωματων δαμέντων cannot depend on δέξεται. In the c. p. of Stanley we find that he would make an ellipsis of owμara: and in his prior annotations he would read Πελασγια δε δέξεται parenthetically. Mr. B. is, as usual, extremely costive in the recital of any other information, than that which has urged him to adopt δαμεντας. But De Pauw also would read δερξεται, without necessity. Heath, with his usual bitterness against the foregoing commentator, gives a strange reason for the non-admission of dauertas, cum alia insuper emendanda restent, tutius esse existimo expectare donec omni ex parte restitutum videamus. Quid enim, te exempta juvat spinis de pluribus una. This is indeed unaccountable doctrine Morell's remarks are very foolish. Пλaya dedEŽETAL, I Πελασγια δεδέξεται, Brunck, who adds this paraphrase, Iɛλæoyia dɛ (yn) deδέξεται σώματα, ὧν θεος φθονον ἕξει δαμέντων θηλυκτόνῳ Αρει, DUXTIOроUρNTY Oρœσs. Schütz, in his first edition, 1 follows Brunck; in his 2d retains daw. Butler approves of Stanley's parenthesis. We would read with De Pauw.

V. 892, Porson first gave you (for the your of Aldus and Turnebus. yvwa, Robortellus, Brunck,); which is judiciously adopted by Mr. Blomfield.

V. 922. We insert an emendation by Mr. B. himself; of which we have very few instances.

* Vide Heathii notas ad Trag. Græc. De Pauw and Warburton had alike he infelicity to fall under the lash of this distinguished scholar.

Desunt quatuor syllabæ: forte ita suppleri possint.

ο πο μια με συγκοι του το 2ο δ. ε. Schol. A. ειθε, ω μοιραί, μη ιδοιτε με ποτε ύπαρχουσαν ευνάτειραν και συγκοιτον του Διος. This is very ingenious.

1

γ. 981. εφημεροις. All the editions have τον εφημερούς. Gaisford tells us that Porson read xapμspois. We are surprised that Mr. B. has not preferred this reading.

V. 1011. In Turnebus's edition we meet with Opava, which is not to be found in Attick Greek. Porson discusses this very satisfactorily in a note to v. 292 of the Orestes. Mr. B. prints exaspw.

We shall close our account of the foot-notes to the text, with Mr. Blomfield's recorded opinion of Böthe, one of the most laborious, and the most silly of modern German commentators.

1164. - τους γαρ προδοτας μισεῖν ἔμαθον.

İta cum Botheo edidi, qui hic, et semel in supplicibus non malè de Æschylo meruit, alibi silentio transmittendus: vulgo τους προ γαρ.

We now arrive at the glossary, of which we have not room to give more than a summary account; and a single quotation of great importance and value.

The plan of this glossary has been already laid down in the citation which we have given of the preface. It is impossible to deny, that much useful, and even recondite information is massed together under the seeming head of etymological notes; grammatical difficulties are not un-frequently explained; and occasional illustrations are introduced from the Greek and Latin poets. Considering however, the Prometheus as a text-book for our schools and universities, we are by no means pleased with the greater part of this glossary; which facilitates indolence, and supersedes the use of a Lexicon or of thought. The Clavis to Homer and 'Dawson's Lexicon to the Greek Testament, have long since been exploded from our public institutions for education. This glossary, with the sanction of Mr. Blomfield's name, would unnerve the curiosity of youth, and retard the discipline which bids them think and investigate for themselves. We are credibly informed that it was the intention of the head master of Eton school to dispense with it entirely we have heard that college tutors have ordered the copies of their

Vide Gaisfordi Hephæstionem, p. 243.

pupils for lecture to be bound up without it. We are not therefore singular in our opinion; and would recommend in a future edition, that all which does not encourage sloth in this glossary, should either be added to the notes, or compressed at the close into the form of addenda. But that such explanations as the following should be utterly abandoned. αγαλμα. ornamentum. υπερπλουτος supra modum dives. φιληνιος habenas amans, αριθμος. arithmetice, paw exquiro λwoTTEpos linteas alas habens. κνώδαλον animal. διαδοχος successor. μουσοματωρ, εργανη, &c. &c. all of which childish dictionary-making we have extracted at random, from the single page, 130. Of this glossary there are nearly 100 pages

We now perform our promise of extracting a very curious and ingenious grammatical discussion, with which we shall close our critical remarks.

216 (Gloss. p. 111,) aμox◊í. sine labore, Hujusmodi adverbía modo per a dipthongum, modo per simplicem, sine certa regula efferuntur. Ego, quare αμοχθί et non αμοχθεί scripserim, paulo fusius explicare decrevi. Adverbia cujuseunque formæ non a secundo casu nominum, quod somniarunt grammatici, sed a tertio nata esse, satis ostendit universa linguarum ratio. Horum autem pars maxima, a dativo numeri pluralis orta in we desinebant (scilicet os) nonnulla, a dativo singularis in vel i. Ea nempe, quæ a nominibus in vel a desinentibus formata sunt, veteres scribebant per ε, utpote quæ nihil aliud fuerint quam dativi ita scripti ante inventas

"

et n literas. Sic a Bos genetiv. Boss dativ. Bost, ortum est αυτοβοεί: οι μάχε μεν μάχες, dat, μαχεί, venit. αμαχει Dativus verò nominum in os desinentium ità olim formabatur, oixos, dat. oinoi, sparos dat. stpátor; ideoque omnia adverbia, ab hujusmodi vocibus ducta, in of antique desinebant quod satis liquet ex adverbiis oixo, Tido, apps, endos que yeterem terminationem adhuc retinnet. Posteà, ne cum, nominaivo plurali confunderentur, o omisso scripta sunt in the Quæ si vera sint. scribendum est apa et auroẞosì (atque ita, quantum notavi, universe scribitur) cætera verò in i. Exempla quædam videamus. varel exhibetur in Soph. Antiq. 485, Plat, Legg. ix. p. 659. Eur. Med, 1354 avar tamen rectè Etymo logus, p. 100. Timæus, p. 81. Schol. in Plat. p. 235. Schol. Eur. Med. 1357. Sophoclis locum citans; est enim ab avatos non ab ατη. Αμαχεί recte ubique scribitur, αμαχητί vero

rectè Thucyd. iv. 73. Homer Il. p. 437. (vid. Wolf ad Libanii Epist. 744) Valckenaer ad Theocr. Adoniaz. p. 228. Scribendum censet aσraxti (Sophocl. Æd. Col. 1646.) et ayıλasi, sed ακλαυτές, αμαχεί, ακηρυχτεί πανομιλεί, (Eschyl. Theb. 302.) axλausi vero recte exhibent Suidas et Apollon. Dyscol. Exc. p. 434. C. et scribendum pariter axλauri axnpunti. De mavom dubito, quia a radice, λn formatum videatur. wavoin recte Eschin. Socrat. de divit. p. 36. Suidæ et Cyrilli Lexica. avspar Suid, et Schol. in Hom. Il. 8. 12. ravoudei Thuc. viii. 1. cujus origo cum non satis certa sit, nescio an melior sit avarudi, quod præbent quinque MSS. et codex vetus Dionyssi. Halicarn. necnon Suidas et Phot. Lex. MS. apsλAnti Hesych. et Lex. MS. Sangerm. a Rhunkenio ad Timæum citatum. apioli et ariμcopnri. Eschin. Socrat. p. 35. ausraspinti Timæus. Veterem formam sæpe corruperunt librarii, quia nesciverunt finalem modo corripi, modo produci. εγερτί Sophocl. Antig. 413. αςακτι, αναιμωτί 11. Ρ. 363. μεγάλως Π. Σ. 26. μελεις. 11. Ω. 409. αςενακτι, Æschyl. ap. Athen. vii. p. 303. axporuxi Meleager. Brunck. Anal. I, P. 10. up. Aristoph. Concion. 737. axλnti in senario Co

mici.

ακλητί κωμάζουσιν ες φιλους φίλοι.

Confer Ernesti notam ad II. P. 363. Valcken. Epist. ad Röver, p. 31. Levissima sanè hæc omnia, satis seio: si tamen ad or thographiam stabiliendam aliquantulum profecerim, non me pigebit hujusmodi λογων ακριβων σχινδαλισμούς usque ad lec

torum nauseam sectatum esse.'

We have only a few more points, on which we shall remark, which are unconnected with the critical failures or excellencies of this volume; a volume, which is certainly far more precious than any single Greek play yet published, and which we expect will be shortly followed by the Supplices.

The Greek types, as the preface informed us, were expressly cut for the Cambridge press at the instance of professor Porson; and (as Mr. Blomfield should have added) by the assistance and advice of Dr. Henley, of the Hertford East India college, a gentleman deeply versed in paleographical science. We confess that we do not much admire them, at least in their present state. The sigmas and lambdas are much out of proportion; and yet we believe these gentlemen laboured incessantly in

perfecting the types. Professor Monck's Hippolytus (which is scarcely dry from the press, and which we shall examine very shortly) is printed in the same manner. We disapprove of notes in columns, where there is not room to print poetical quotations at full length.

But these are trifling objections. The learned world stands highly indebted to Mr. Blomfield's exertions; and, though we are far from being so selfish as to wish him any diminution of ease and income, we still trust he will feel sufficient spur to the accomplishment of a thorough edition of Eschylus, which he has so successfully begun,

ART. I Journal of a Tour in Iceland in the Summer of 1809. By William Jackson Hooker, F. L. S. and Fellow of the Wernerian Society of Edinburgh. London, Vernor, 1811, Svo.

TRAVELS in Iceland liave been much more numerous than we might expect from the uninviting nature of the country. The principal sources of information are to be found in the writings of Arngrim, La Peyrere, Anderson, Horrebow, Olafsen, Von Troil, Olavius, Detler von Eggers, and Paulsen.

These writers have, however, left something to be supplied by the researches of their successors; and as it is always entertaining to know the present state of manners, and civilization, which is perpetually varying, a book of travels, however transient may be the view which the author has taken of the country, or however scanty his opportunities of observation, can hardly be entirely destitute of instruc tion and amusement,

We shall detail the principal particulars in Mr. Hooker's journal which have any novelty or interest. Mr. Hooker embarked from Gravesend for Reikevig, in Iceland, on the 2d of June, 1809. The vessel in which he sailed, afforded excellent accommodation. On the 21st of June, he entered the Bay of Reikevig, where the ship came to an anchor at a short distance from the town. The beach on which our author landed, was wholly formed of decomposed lava of a black colour, and in some places almost as fine as sand. It was now the season for drying fish, in which the persons on shore, who welcomed with shouts the arrival of the English vessel, were busily employed. These were principally women, some of whom were