que Homerum per voculam "rò," rò védos, sed utrumque rem in universum designari voluisse." Aeyóuevov, therefore, is not neuter, on account of the ellipsis of vórnua, but because it refers to the circumstance, τὸ πράγμα, (viz. ἡ νόσος) just mentioned. 36. 11. TаpaλITÓVT) With this note, as it stands either in Dalzell's original work, or in the present volume, we have no fault to find. We take it up to express our opinion of the manner in which the London edition has been conducted. The note, as the Editor has left it, runs thus: "Tapaλimóvтi) hoc est, ëμov πapadıñóvros, ut taceam. Gesner." With all due deference to so respectable an authority, that is merely Gesner's opinion. But we think no one on proper reflection can hesitate in subscribing to Dalzell's resolution of the passage in the later editions of the Collectanea. After citing Gesner's opinion, he subjoins: "Sed rapaλitórri recte ponitur in dat. (post ἦν scil.) sic—νόσημα ἦν ἐπίπαν (κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν (μοι) παραλιπόντι, κ. τ. λ. This appears so evidently correct, that we cannot account for its being omitted, except from the excessive anxiety of the editor to throw out every thing which he considered as superfluous. We shall be pardoned however for quoting an apophthegm which on these occasions is seldom out of place, Incidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Charybdim. It is very proper to retrench what is superfluous, but in no respect is it meritorious to reject what is useful; and we should be more inclined to pardon a little redundancy in explanation, even at the risk of increasing the size of the work, than to give credit for a scantiness of it in order to diminish its magnitude. We cannot, therefore, withhold our censure from the London editor in suppressing many of the most useful of Dalzell's original notes, whilst it would be injurious to Professor D. not to declare honestly our approbation of his conduct in this respect. Occasionally, indeed, he has abridged and omitted some of Dalzell's, but he has done it with a sparing and judicious hand, while he has added many others well deserving a place amongst those of his worthy predecessor. 44. 5. Evvnλúdwv ȧv0ρúπшv is the reading given by Professor D. in place of the common one, ¿vykλúdwν. As the alteration is supported by no manuscript, and as the common reading agrees perfectly with the sentiments which Gylippus might be presumed to express, we see no urgent reason for abandoning it, however ingenious the conjecture may be. In these circumstances, it ought to have been submitted in the note, rather than introduced into the text. 45. 9. ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ λέγειν ἀδυνασίαν) Αδυνασία seems to have staggered not a few of the commentators, and our Professor among the rest, "nescit an apud ullum alium scriptorem invenitur" (inveniatur). We beg leave to refer to Herodotus, iii. 79. Besides, we have the authority of Hesychius that Suvaris is used in the same sense with dúvapis; what wonder then if advvarla should be of the same import with advvauía. Although the infréquent use of a word renders it suspicious, we ought not hastily to conclude against its propriety. 48. 3. Tоn & Eikeλia) In Duker's edition of Thucydides we find the sentence thus pointed, ὡς ἕκαστοι δύνανται· (πολλὴ δ ̓ ἡ Σικελία) εἰσι δ ̓ οἷ, κ. τ. λ. To make any sense of the passage with this punctuation is utterly out of the question, and Duker, by allowing it to pass without the least remark, tacitly confesses his inability to cope with it, whilst, by placing it within brackets, he shows, in our estimation, not unequivocally, what he thought of it-the interpolation of some blundering transcriber. Professor D. is however of a different opinion, and, by a slight variation of punctuation, gives the words that prominence of place which is requisite to complete the sense. Nicias writing to the Athenians for reinforcements, says of his army, some desert to the enemy at fit opportunities, others withdraw, as they most conveniently can;" and be accounts for this facility of desertion, by adding, woλλǹ 8' † Likeλía, "and Sicily is large.' 48. 7. ἀλλ' ἀνάγκη, κ. τ. λ.) We are inclined to think that the learned Professor has not brought out the meaning of this passage with his usual success. The ordo and ellipsis seem to be åλλ'áváyκη [πληρώματα] τά τε ὄντα καὶ ἀπαναλισκόμενα γίγνεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν πληρωμάτων] ὧν ἔχοντες ἤλθομεν, " but the crews that survive and those that are perishing, are necessarily from the complement we had when we arrived. 50. 4. καὶ τὰς ὁλκάδας τὴν φυλακὴν ποιούμενοι) We could have wished the Professor had given the following judicious note of Hudson, explanatory of this puλakỳ or squadron: "Erant naves quæ quotiens in salo classis staret, tanquam vigiles ante eam erant in perpetua statione. Ceterum ut hæ perpetui (ut ita dicam) præsidii causa in eodem semper loco commorabantur; ita aliæ, et ipsæ ex firmioribus agilioribusque præsidii causa infirmiores præsertim onerarias per mare prosequi solebant, quas poreμrous appellabat Appianus.” Τὴν φυλακὴν ποιούμενοι we would therefore translate "forming a squadron of observation," rather than "protecting themselves." 56. n. 1, 2. In these notes we are favored with some accurate remarks on ἀκροβολισμὸς and προσβολή-νεώσοικος and νεώριον. We would only notice, in passing, that velitor is used by no Latin classic in the sense of "eminus pugnare," as it is assumed to be by the Professor in his explanation of ἀκροβολίζεσθαι. 58. 7. τὸ γὰρ αὐτοὺς πολιορκουμένους, κ. τ. λ. appeared so teazing to Duker, that, in despair, he is fain to acquiesce with the opinion of the scholiast, although his words do not imply his full conviction of its accuracy, and, as usually happens to one ignorant of the syntax, he has given a very confused translation of the passage. Our Professor, by a simple ellipsis entirely in the style of his author, has exhibited a very distinct view of this "molesta periodus." 63. 8. καὶ ἀναῤῥαγεῖσαι, κ. τ. λ.) Notwithstanding the information conveyed in this note, and in several others of a similar structure (vide p. 68. n. 4, 5, 6), we must express our opinion that it is not sufficiently accommodated to the junior student. In the first place, he cannot turn to p. 221. Annot. 14. of Hudson's edition. Nor is it to be supposed that he has at command such works on military affairs as Schoeffer's. The Professor might have shortened his note considerably, and rendered it at the same time equally useful, if he had merely referred to the explanation of rapežeipería, éπwrides, &c. given in Potter's "Grecian Antiquities," a book in the hands of every Greek student, but to which not a single reference is made in the course of all these notes, although technical terms are constantly recurring, and the last edition of Potter was superintended by the learned Professor himself. 65. 6. στερίφοις, κ. τ. λ.) παρέχοντες in this passage has baffled the ingenuity of all the commentators. Duker, one of the most judicious and learned of them, honestly confesses his ignorance; nor indeed may any one be ashamed to do so, as the text is evidently corrupted. Professor D. conjectures poσλéovтes to be the proper reading, which, if not the word originally given by Thucydides, is at least as good a substitute as has hitherto been proposed. 73. 8. rá re åλλa, k. 7. λ.) This passage Duker translates, "Præterea quod de ceteris hostium rebus in suam potestatem redigendis nulla spes amplius ipsis ostenderetur." In our opinion this translation is quite erroneous. Thucydides does not mean to represent the Athenians as any longer aspiring to conquest. Their generals were now assembled to deliberate on the state of their army, and adopt measures for future safety. This was gloomy enough. Unsuccessful, the soldiers were tired with the siege and wasted with sickness, arising as well from the season of the year as from the marshy soil of their encampment. Not only were they dispirited with all these misfortunes, but even when "they looked to other things,” tá te äλλa sc. ewpwv," they also appeared hopeless,” ἀνέλπιστα αὐτοῖς ἐφαίνετο. Such is Professor D.'s view of the passage, and it seems correct. 78. 5. δυοῖν δεούσας εἴκοσιν ἃς, κ. τ. λ.) "Quæ sit constructio verborum δυοῖν δεούσας εἴκοσιν nescio, nisi δεούσας ad τὰς ναῦς supra referas, ut ordo sit, τὰς ναῦς, τὰς μὲν, κ. τ. λ.—δεούσας δυοῖν εἴκοσιν. Quæ constructio vix proba videtur. Post ràs pèv expectandum erat Nostrum scripturum fuisse δυοῖν δὲ δεούσας εἴκοσιν ἀπώλεσαν, as oi Zupaкóσio, K. T. X." Such is the Professor's note. It occurs to us, however, that the following construction of the sentence is not far from the truth;—καὶ ὁπλίτας τε πολλοὺς ἀπέκτειναν, καὶ (κατὰ τὰς ναῦς, τὰς μὲν πολλὰς διέσωσάν τε καὶ ξυνήγαγον κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον, (κατ' εἴκοσιν (δὲ ναῦς) δεούσας δυοῖν, as to the twenty wanting two, h. e. eighteen, ἃς (ταύτας) οἱ Συρακόσιοι, κ. τ. λ. These the Syracusians, &c. With respect to the phrase, dvoiv deovoas elkool, we refer to p. 61. n. 6, and to Hoogeveen for examples of the omission of dé. Art. μèv et dé. 80. 3. This sentence, evidently vitiated, Professor D. has restored in the following manner: ὡς ἑκάσταις (τι) τῆς ξυντυχίας, ἢ (τι) κατὰ τὸ ξυμφέρον, ἢ (τι) ἀνάγκης ἔσχεν. The sagacity of the Scholiast struck out the correct meaning, but he, as well as Duker, has failed in bringing the text under the strict rules of syntax. "teme 88. 2. ἐς ἀπόνοιαν καθεστήκασιν, κ. τ. λ.) In this note the Professor appears eminently successful in eliciting the true sense of his author, and restoring a passage which former editors had tried in vain. In order to escape the difficulty, Duker has invented the substantive ȧTOKɩvduvevσis, and inserted in the text its dative, which, by an analogy correct enough, he makes åπokɩvdvveúσet. This he employs to govern rúxns, and translates both by ritate fortunæ."-Professor D. gives åπoкivduvevoovres, a reading not only in strict conformity with the author's style, but which at the same time brings out a most correct meaning. His words are, " et constructio et temporis ratio postulare videntur ȧroкvduveúGOVTES, quod dedi ;" and he immediately adds: "Libenter ourws, quod e participii terminatione natum esse judico, ejecissem si licuisset." This remark, with submission to the learned Professor, might, we think, have been spared; at least some reason should have been assigned for this hostility to ourws: certain it is that OUTWs Onws are used in a similar collocation by the best authors; thus Plato in Phæd. p. 228. νῦν ἤδη ποιεῖν ἐμοὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς πολὺ κράτιστόν ἐστιν οὕτως, ὅπως δύναμαι λέγειν, and again, p. 236, ῥητέον σοὶ παντὸς μᾶλλον οὕτως ὅπως οἷος τε εἶ. In his emendation, Duker seems to have been misled by the translation of Valla, " nec tam apparatui suo confidunt, quam (id quod possent) temeritate fortunæ, ut aut," &c.; but of this translation Hudson in his preface thus writes: "Sed incuriam et negligentiam (graviori enim verbo uti non libet) summam ubique prodit," sc. Laurentius Valla. 88. 5. Kai voμlowper, K. T. λ.) With respect to the latter clause, which the Professor has rendered differently from any other translator, we see no pressing necessity for the change, since the sense generally given to it agrees sufficiently with the syntax of the words, as well as the sentiments of the speaker. Tò λeyóμevov, every one knows, is usually taken for ὥσπερ λέγεται. 91. 8. πολὺν τὸν ἀγῶνα, κ. τ. λ.) Duker, whose penetration led him to the correct sense of this passage, had not yet firmness enough to substitute σύντασιν for ξύστασιν. Considering the obvious impropriety of this latter term, Professor D. has done well to prefer in his text what no doubt Thucydides gave. "Scholiastes," ait Duk., " etiam in ipso Thucydide ξύντασιν non ξύστασιν videtur legisse." 95. 9. ἔχουσα τινα, κ. τ. λ.) This passage, more than usually obscure, Professor D. has explained with much accuracy and perspicuity. Of the references at the close of the note, the first is erroneous, and the other is unsuitable. Before taking leave of the notes on the extract from Thucydides, we beg to state in a few words our opinion of it as a whole. With regard to the text of the seventh book, the Professor has exhibited it to his students in the most amended and chastised style that has yet appeared; whilst his notes display throughout talent and learning, patient research and useful illustration. He has grappled with every difficulty, and has seldom failed, either by some happy conjecture or correct reasoning, to remove it. At times we have differed from him; but, when excellencies predominated so much, we directed our efforts rather to find occasions of blame than otherwise. FABLES OF BIDPAI. The Falconer. Ir is reported that a Satrap, celebrated for his power, distinguished by his nobility and excellent qualities, had a wife, whose beauty was the loss of the heart, and whose charms excited trouble in the world. Her lips gave life still more than the water of the stream of existence, and her mouth was sweeter than the purest sugar. Verses. "Her countenance had the splendor of fire, her cheeks the brilliancy of the silvered wave, her eyelids were arches, the glances of her eyes, arrows, and by means of these arches and of these arrows, she had made slaves of a thousand hearts." To this degree of high approbation and of charms she united the beauty of modesty and of virtue: she had adorned with the freckle of abstinence and piety her cheeks, which excited disturbance in the heart. Verses. "Her eyes, closed to all things in the world, were concealed |