Let us, on the contrary, suppose that Suffolk is correct, and inquire what ought to be the proportions of the whole kingdom!

On the whole, this work reflects credit on Mr. Young, not only as a rural but as a political economist, and may serve as a guide to other reporters. We most sincerely wish that the agricultural surveys of the several counties may be so executed, as to collect from every district the most valuable and accurate information, and to throw light on the real state and capability of the country.

Accompanying this memoir, are a map of the soil of Suffolk -a plate exhibiting a machine called the extirpator, for destroying weeds, invented by a Mr. Hayward of Stoke Ash-and another plate representing a stage to assist in building the upper part of hay-stacks.

ART. XI. EXPIAOY EKABH. Euripidis Hecuba, ad fidem Manuscriptorum emendata, et brevibus Notis emendationum potissimum rationes reddentibus instructa. In usum studiosa Juventutis. Svo. Londini, Wilkie. 1797.

ART. XII. IN EURIPIDIS HECUBAM Londini nuper publicatam Diatribe extemporalis. Composuit Gilbertus Wakefield, A. B. 8vo. Londini, Cuthell.

ART. XIII.

.

ΕΥΡΙΠΗΔΟΥ ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ. Euripidis Orestes, ad fidem Manuscriptorum emendata, et brevibus Notis emendationum potissimum rationes reddentibus instructa. In usum studiosa Juventutis. 8vo. Londini, Wilkie. 1798.

SOM

OME apology is due from us to our readers, and to the authors of these works, for the appearance of neglect, in having permitted so long a time to elapse between the publication of the two former, and their being admitted to take their station in the Monthly Review.

Απλοῦς ὁ μῦθος τῆς ̓Αληθείας ἔφυ.—Some few arrangements were made for a critique on the new HECUBA, when Mr. Wakefield's DIATRIBE appeared. It instantly occurred to us, on perusing these extemporaneous remarks, that the editor of the Greek tragedy might, perhaps, be induced to answer them, in a preface to the play next expected: in which case, we should have judged it necessary to have presented an account of the passages in dispute to our readers, and to have stated, at the

same

Mo-y.

same time, our own opinion at length, and without restraint: The ORESTES, however, is now published, but without any preface. It seemed also that a second Diatribe might have followed this second tragedy but, no such publication having reached our knowlege, we judge it proper to include the reviews of the Hecuba, the Diatribe, and the Orestes, in one article.

I

We shall now begin our examination without farther preamble; only observing that, though the name of the editor is not prefixed to the Hecuba and the Orestes, internal evidence and some other circumstances have induced us to adopt the general opinion, which attributes them to Mr. Richard Porson, the Greek Professor in the University of Cambridge. FIRST, then, for

HECUBA. Prafatio.

The Preface, which is given with this tragedy, may in some degree be considered as an introduction to the appearance of a complete Euripides: whose plays the editor purposes to publish in separate little volumes, and in the common order. It begins with informing us that, nihil hic exquisiti aut reconditi expectandum; tironum usibus hæc opella potissimum destinata eft? The Professor then proceeds to this purpose:

The text of this tragedy, if not perfectly correct, is, at least, purer than it has yet appeared. In all places in which the usual read. ing has been altered, the source of the change is mentioned in the notes; in which the lections of the Aldine editions are recorded; except in those cases which belong to a common source of error, such as the Dorism of páru for un, and the addition or removal of the final I, or IN.*

• The Varia Lectiones, except such as are manifestly erroneous, are generally mentioned; though the authorities on which they de pend, from the inattention of former editors, cannot always be fairly weighed, nor accurately enumerated.'

He then adds: Quotiescunque Euripidis loca ab antiquo quapiam scriptore cum varietate lectionis laudari memineram, sedul monui t'

In the perusal of the observations on these two plays, it has been with us a subject of regret, that the editor has not recorded all the authors who have cited verses from them, or

*This edition of Aldus bears the date of MDI. It contains 18 Plays. Four of these only had been published a few years earlier, in capital letters, at Florence. The Electra first appeared in 1545, at Rome.

† A noble collection of various readings will be derived from this source; which we beg to recommend earnestly to the attention of those who undertake the publication of the antient Greek writers.

whose

whose allusions to them are evident. Those who exhibit new readings are doubtless of the most consequence: but still those who defend the common text ought not, in our opinion, to be neglected. In how many instances might the corrections of modern critics be proved unnecessary, by such an assemblage of references?-In how many instances might the style of the Attic plays be illustrated, and the sentiments be elucidated? Not merely these poets, however, would derive great advantages from such a measure: the authors, in whom the quotations are found, would reap still greater. The blunders which have arisen from the words of a citation being confounded with those of the original writer are innumerable.Mr. Porson has not excluded these authorities from his Notes: but it is to be lamented that they were not studiously admitted. He, and he alone, could have presented us with such a collection of them as might be deemed nearly complete. His memory appears to be eminently tenacious: his reading seems to have extended through nearly the whole range of Greek literature; and his familiar acquaintance with the remains of the Attic stage, both the tragedies and the comedies, may be clearly seen in every page of his observations.To proceed: Mr. Porson next observes;

In vocibus per crasin conjunctis, ut xar, xar, xáv (¡. c. xaì iv, xai av) et similibus scribendis, rationem a vetustioribus MSS. servatam diligenter secutus sum. Iota scilicet nusquam addi oportet, nisi ubi naì cum diphthongo crasin efficit, ut in xava pro nai eita. Hot post alios monuit

Dawesius.

Ai, Piersono jubente, Brunckio non nolente, semper sine diphthongo scripsi, idem facturus in aero, κλάω et κακο

Brunckius secundas futuri passivi indicativi personas inu semper non in, terminavit; secundas etiam præsentis ego atl eandem formam reduxi. Analogia nempe postulat, ut vocalis corripiatur in indicativo, pros ducatur in subjunctivo, τύπτομαι, τύπτει, τύπτεται, τύπτωμαι, τύπτης τύπτηται.

He then informs us that, in his Hecuba, there is no instance of augmentum verborum omissum, nor of an anapestus in pari sede. -As to the first, he says: Planè persuasum habeo, non licuisse in Attico sermone augmentum abjicere? As to the second, he ob

šervės:

• Brunckius, qui anapastos in secundo et quarto senarii loco subinde defendit, fatetur tamen Tragicos hanc licentiam, quantum poterant, vitasse. Quidni igitur semper vitarint? An volebant, et tamen nequibant? An casu et incuria eos has maculas fudisse arbitrabimur? Adde quod MSS. auctoritate, scriptorum citationibus, et criticis argumentis exemplorum, qua in hanc partem laudari solebant, numerus jam valde imminutus est.

Aliam ipse rationem adjicio, que si vera est, omnes, opinor, anapastum paribus senarii locis semper excludendum esse ultro agnoscent. Hanc raRev. JAN. 1799. G

tionem

tionem, non plane quidem novam, plerisque tamen ignotam, quam brevissime explicabo. Tantum scilicet abest, mea sententia, ut anapestus pro secundo aut quarto pede ponatur, ut ne pro tertio quidem aut quinto substitui possit. Hoc de tertio pede si quis verum esse concedet, concedet a fortiori, ut Logici dicunt, de quinto etiam verum esse. Dactylus enim, qui in tertia sede creberrime usurpatur, in quinta nunquam apparet. pastus igitur, si illa excluditur, hanc intrare non potest?

Ana

We have transcribed the Professor's words, because the admission or rejection of augments and anapests has been long. and frequently a subject of bitter dispute among the critics. In our opinion, the questions never merited discussion: but they are now, it may be hoped, completely settled for the single passage, in which the augment was once omitted, in the Hecuba, no longer appears; and those verses in which there were anapests in the second, third, fourth, or fifth places, are successfully corrected in this first play. We doubt not that, they will be emended with equal ability in the other tragedies, when they are brought before the public by Mr. Porson.

As to Eschylus and Sophocles, there are six instances of an anapest in tertia sede †, in the former, and four in the latter. These are thus incontrovertibly amended:

* I. A. Prom. 246. Καὶ μὴν φίλοις ἐλεινὸς ἐισορᾷν ἐγώ, instead of evós. Ruhnkenius, to whom Mr. P. refers, on the Hymm to Ceres 283. [not 264.] has only quoted a part of the article from the San German grammarian. The whole shall follow, as it stands in our transcripts from the MS. which was once in the Coislinian library: Ἐλεινὸν, ἀντὶ τοῦ Ελεεινὸν. Ευπολις ̓Αιξίν. Πλάτων δὲ Πολιτικὴ κατὰ ἐλεηλικὸ τὸν Ἐλεινὸν τέθεικεν.

II. Agamem. 664. Ἤρεικον· αἱ δὲ κερίλυπουμενας βίᾳ, for κερωλυπούμεναι.

III. Choeph. 654. Ειπες φιλοξένη 'στιν Αιγισθον βία, instead of φιλοξενὅς ἐστιν.

. IV. Eumen. 896. Πάσης απήμον οιξύος δέχου δὲ σύξου Cos. The Attics always, as Pierson observes on Meris,

*Mr. Porson might have compared the formation of the trochaic with that of the iambic verse. In the former, the dactyl is admissible only in the sixth place; and in the latter, the anapest is allowable only in the first. We have not room to enlarge on this subject, but must be contented with remarking that, as the iambus is aíñolaxo to the trochaus, so is the anapastus to the dactylus.

The learned reader is particularly requested to excuse any errors which he may observe in the Greek typography of this article. They must find their apology in the hurry in which a periodical work must inevitably be printed.

Those in the second and fourth places are not mentioned in the Preface. They have generally been corrected by the editors.

write us, and the Aldine edition, in this verse, gives 'Ovos. They also used "Ois, 'Oiμxñs, ’Oikeus, and 'Ools; of which word Mr. Porson remarks, in Euripide usque ad hunc diem, semper editum est diclòs, contra versus metrum, contra grammaticorum auctoritatem,'

V. Suppl. 800. Πρὸς ὃν νέφη δ ̓ ὑδρηλα γίγνεται χιών, as it stands in Aldus and Robertellus, and not d'end.

VI. In a fragment of Eschylus, ap. Plut. de Consolat. p. 106. “Οσπερ μέγ' ἐστ ἴαμα τῶν πολλῶν κακῶν, is the correction of Grotius, Excerpt. p. 55. instead of μéfiolov apa.

VII. SOPHOCLES, Αj. 524. Ουπολε γένοι ̓ ἂν ἴυλος ευγενής ανήρ, instead of Οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ποθ ̓ οὗτος εὐγ. α.—emended, le. gendo unole pro vzw, from the Corpus Ch. Oxen, most excellent MS. of Suidas.

VIII. Ο. Τ. 248. Κακὸν κακῶς νιν ἄμορον ἐκτρίψαι βίον, for άμοιρον.

ΙΧ. Phil. 1288. Πῶς εἶπας; ἄρ ̓ οὐ [or ἆρα] δεύτερον δολου μεθα; by conjecture, instead of οὐκ ἄρα· δέυτερον.

X. And apud Hesych. V. αλιπλασίον. Τὸν ἀπίπλαστον νόμον ἔχει κεκμηκότων, for έχει νόμον

These alterations are defended by such certain arguments, that no critic, we imagine, will in future allow an anapest in any foot of an iambic verse, but the FIRST, with the exception of proper names. The learned will peruse this part of the Preface with singular pleasure, and, if we be not deceived, with much advantage. He must be referred to the book for the editor's account of these changes, as the passage is too long for transcription.

The acuteness of this canon, and the simplicity of the emendations which were proposed for the questionable verses, seemed calculated to demand universal applause: but to please all is rarely the lot of a philological writer; and the Greek Professor must share the general doom of Greek critics! The new HECUBA had been published only a few weeks, when a review of it appeared under the title of DIATRIBE EXTEMPORALIS, avowedly the production of Mr. GILBERT WAKEFIELD. In the opening of it, after a severe censure on Mr. Porson for not omitting the N. paragagicum, (on which point we shall deliver our sentiments in another part of this article,) Mr. Wakefield declares his dissatisfaction with the Notes on the fourth and ninth of these ten passages; principally, perhaps, because his own name and his own labours are not recorded in them by the editor.On the fourth, E. Eumen. 896. Mr. Wakefield tells us that, in his own edition of this play, in the Tragadiarum Delectus, he has given Ovos, and not Ovog Mr. Porson, perhaps, never examined this Tragadiarum De

G 2

lectus