for the cause to embark in it at all; and every suggestion of those who feel an interest in its success, will therefore, I am persuaded, engage your serious attention. I imagine you will already have decided, that in reprinting this Lexicon, it must be consolidated-those articles which can now be found only in the Alphabetical Index transferred to their place in the etymological columns, and the substance of the Glossary and Scott's Appendix inserted in the text. Something more would be desirable. Valuable as the THESAURUS is, accessions might probably be made to it from the stores of later criticism. But what would be a principal object, if it were possible, is, that this Lexicon, if republished, should in some degree possess the advantages of the particular Lexica which have been formed, with so much utility, of different authors. In the case of HOMER and PINDAR for instance, DAMM has transferred into his Lexicon the whole substance of the Scholia, as far as relates to the use and interpretation of their words and phrases. SCHLEUSNER'S Lexicon of the Greek Testament is itself an admirable Commentary on the sacred writings. Other instances will readily occur to you. The use of the Greek Language continued from the days of HOMER to the fall of the Eastern Empire, and prevailed through a vast variety of Countries, differing in Manners, Laws, and Government. For an accurate knowledge therefore of that language, it is essential to distinguish not merely (as is more or less the case in Latin, and in modern languages) the various senses in which a word is used in Greek generally, but its meanings in the Greek of particular Writers, Ages, and Countries. And in this respect it is, that the great utility is found of these particular Lexica, making each Author and School, as it were, commentators on themselves. How much of this benefit could be transferred into a general Lexicon, and what, from such distinctions, might best be exhibited, I am very incompetent to decide. No man, I think, can doubt that all which could be done of this sort would be highly useful. Perhaps, however, it may require more time and labor than could be allotted to it-possibly it is in other respects impracticable. And, after throwing out these suggestions, which originate only in au ardent desire to see such a work rendered as perfect as possible, I have only to add, that in whatever form this great undertaking can be accomplished, it will command my best exertions in its support. The size of your Book is a very minor consideration; yet, I think, every man who has used the bulky volumes of STEPHENS, has felt how much more conveniently he could have consulted a greater number of Octavos, or even of Quartos. I am, Sir, Your obedient humble Servant, Extract of a Letter addressed to the Editor of the Classical Journal. SIR, ‹ I have often wished to see, what to metrical scholars at least would be very curious, perhaps to others it might be amusing, not without some instruction to both: a sketch of the progressive improvements in metre and prosody from the days of Scaliger, to whom Bentley acknowledges obligation, down to the time of Porson, who not only discovers, but limits, corrects, and demonstrates. "To Dawes we are wonderfully indebted. But his discoveries, however acute, have something of the premature sunxa and of the latius quàm verius about them. Little that is important, of either, remains now uncorrected by the soundness of Porson's judgment and the unrivalled extent of his observation. Yet a somewhat perhaps still is left for the gleanings of diligence. 'One specimen occurs in the detection of Dawes's error about the prosodial power of the letter in the Attic poets. The first person who seems to have published this, but not the first who advanced it, is an ingenious and candid writer in the Quarterly Review for March, 1811. p. 224. 5. And he takes occasion to detect the error, in noticing v. 738. of the Prometheus Vinctus, edited by Mr. Blomfield. Mr. Professor Monk, in his edition of the Hippolytus, just come out, has most kindly and ably united the office of the Commentator with that of the Critic; for which service done to Greek literature I thus beg him to accept my sincere, and earnest, and unequivocal thanks. The Professor has happily introduced into his notes whatever useful matter might be drawn from the best and the latest sources of critical illustration. 'Amongst the rest, from the Quarterly Reviewer, faithfully quoted, he gives, ad v. 461. a concise distinction of the prosodial properties of the in Iambic verse. Si finalis syllaba naturâ brevis secunda pedis pars est, ut in eum ictus metricus cadat, tum ob consonantem in iuitio vocis sequentis producitur. Hæc autem vis ixTarix non obstat, quo minus syllaba in priore pedis parte brevis maneat, ut in Prom. 738. Χρίμπτουσα ῥαχίαισιν ἐκπερᾷν χθόνα. It may seem idle to quarrel about priority in discovering a metrical canon. But, with the indulgence of the Quarterly Reviewer, which I trust will be granted me, I beg leave to make the following statement. Towards the close of the year 1806, there were printed at Edinburgh several remarks, carrying a slight claim to originality, on the subject of Greek metre ; which want of leisure has ever since prevented me from giving to public perusal. Those remarks, however, by other means, may not be entirely unknown. The following, transcribed with one grammatical alteration only, is the sixth and the last of them. VI. "Sermonis Attici est proprium omnibus omnino verbis à p prout hodie scribuntur incipientibus, duplicis consonantis "vim perpetuam conferre." Misc. Crit. p. 159. Hæc à Dawesio quin paulo temeriùs edicta sint, nemo dubitabit, nisi qui sana loca pro sanis nolit accipere. Ecce enim: Γυναικὸς οὐδὲν χρῆμ ̓ ἀνὴρ ληίζεται Simonides. Paucissimis duntaxat in locis & initialis sic posita reperitur, ut vis ejus metrica certò possit evinci. Sunt tamen quædam indubiæ fidei loca, ubi ea litera syllabam naturâ brevem positione producat, ita tamen ut in istam syllabam ictus cadat metricus: sunt et quædam pauciora forsitan, ubi brevem manere patitur, quorum nonnulla supra enotavi. Scilicet in hoc casu, ovde piyon píyiov xaxñs, vox oυdè seorsum enuntiata (quod ante fieri potest, idem ante, ox, et similia non posset) Trochæum efficit. In altero casu, σúμaτos μéya páxos [Prom. V. 1022.] et finalis in quam ictus cadit, cum p initiali conjuncta, propter asperam difficilemque Græcis literam, hoc ferè sono effertur, opaτos μsɣappaxos. Litera phìc ideo geminata scribitur, ut vox in eâ moneatur immorari: nihil amplius. These are little matters, I confess. The sooner therefore they are definitively settled, the better for things more important. One would else feel ashamed of the time and thought, which men of letters bestow on so very light a subject. I am, Sir, Your's &c. Richmond School, Yorkshire, Nov. 1811. JAMES TATE. CRITICAL REVIEW Of Illustrations of Homer, CLASS. JOURN. No. vi. p. $75-80. Sir, NO. I. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOUrnal. FROM the signature suffixed to the article in question, as well as from the peculiarity of its style and manner, there seems little room to doubt, that this, and the one intitled Remarks on the Introductory Lines of the Iliad, come from the same hand. Your correspondent appears to us to be a man of more learning, than judgment. His remarks are such as find fault merely to contradict; and censure only to differ from men of eminent talents and acquirements. His lucubrations display such a propensity to oppose standard authority, that we are almost induced to apply to him the character drawn by an eloquent Historian: "Nulla ingenia tam prona ad invidiam sunt, quàm eorum qui genus ac fortunam suam animis non æquant; quia virtutem et bonum alienum ode runt. " What has particularly attracted our notice on this occasion, is his Illustration of the passage, ̓Ατρείδη, σὺ δὲ παῖς τεὸν μένος, αὐτὰς ἔγωγε Λίσσομ' ̓Αχιλλῆϊ μεθέμεν χόλον, κ.τ.λ. II. A. 282. Here we have the opinions of Heynè, Brunck, and Porson, opposed with wonderful obstinacy, and perverted with peculiar spirit: with what sympathy does he complain of the "severe manner," in which our late Professor" animadverts upon the weak and unsatisfactory" remarks of the unfortunate Bellanger! and yet, at the same time, and with the same breath, this advocate for meekness, this enemy to severity," engages to show, in opposition to Professor Porson and the other above-mentioned high authorities," that their interpretation of the passage "grossly misrepresents the meaning of Homer." By those, whose good sense and superior learning have long ago fenced them against such contradictions, the opinions (if such they are) of your correspondent, will be passed over unnoticed. We too should have consigned them to oblivion, did we not, from a regard for those whose opinions on these subjects are as yet crude and unformed, feel it a duty incumbent upon us to put such persons on their guard, and suppress a too ready belief of such principles as their inexperience will not allow them thoroughly to comprehend. With this view, we shall completely analyse all that your correspond. ent has given us on the subject, and thus clearly demonstrate that what professes to show the fallacy of the interpretations admitted by Porson, Brunck, and Heynè, is of itself a mass of error and hallucination. I. In the first place, let us examine the meaning or rather the meanings of the word aurag. " It is well known," says he, "to αὐτάς. every Greek scholar, that AYTAP, whenever introduced, marks some transition or opposition in the ideas of the writer or speaker. Its use, therefore, is never adopted, where such transition or opposition does not take place, or in other words, where the subject of discourse continues precisely in the same train. In this place, then, AYTAP is evidently improper, because there can be no opposition or contrast between πανε τεὸν μένος and Λίσσομαι, Αχιλλῆς μεθέμεν χόλον. And the same incongruity would be felt, if the corresponding but was here introduced in a literal English version, "Do thou restrain thy anger, but I supplicate thee to dismiss thy anger." The matter now comes to a point; in your correspondent's definition of AYTAP it appears, that he considers the terms transition and opposition as synonymous: he says, that AYTAP "is never adopted where such transition or opposition does not take place, or, in other words, where the subject of discourse continues precisely in the same train." This latter sentence is therefore meant to compress the whole of the former; which cannot be, unless the terms transition and opposition mean one and the same thing; because generally when a " subject of discourse does" not "continue in the same train,” a transition merely takes place, and not an opposition ; but the latter sentence, in order fully to express the meaning of the former, must involve both terms, which we have shown cannot be, unless they are of the same import. Therefore from his not specifying two distinct usages of AYTAP, viz. one in cases of opposition, and another in cases of transition, and from his uniformly translating it by but, it follows as a consequence that he believed it to have no other meaning. In Il. Γ. 68. Paris says to Hector, *Αλλους μὲν κάθισον Τρῶας καὶ πάντας ̓Αχαιούς, ̓ΑΥΤΑΡ ἔμ' ἐν μέσσῳ καὶ ἀρηΐφιλον Μενέλαον Συμβάλετ ̓ ἀμφ' Ελένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι μάχεσθαι. Here AYTAP is opposed to μὲν, as ἄλλους Τρώας καὶ πάντας ̓Αχαιοὺς is το ἔμε καὶ ἀρηΐφιλον Μενέλαον, and must be rendered by BUT: it is therefore here equivalent to dè, and a tragic writer would have said, τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους κ. τ. λ. ἔμε ΔΕ, κ. το λο Let us turn to Il. Α. 457-471. Ως ἔφατ ̓ εὐχόμενος· τοῦ δ ̓ ἔκλυε Φοῖβος Απόλλων (3.) 'ΑΥΤΑΡ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου, τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα, |