"Quod ad Æfchylum, Editionem Stanleianam nuper à Pauwie propriis additis annotationibus renovatam, et in Fragmentis Editionem itidem Grotianam. Cæterarum fchyli Editionum, præter Turnebianam parvam, nullam oculis ufurpare contigit; cum igitur Aldina, Robortelliana, Stephaniana, Scripturas varias in notis noftris allegavimus, id omne ex fide Stanleii et Pauwii pendere intelligendum eft." We could not but smile at our Author's ferious affeverations, towards the conclufion of his Preface, that, in his annotations, he has borrowed nothing but what he has acknowleged. Nay, as if it were a cafe of life and death, he produces the ftrongest and most inconteftible inftances of his honesty in in this respect. "When Mufgrave's edition of Euripides's Hippolytus came into my hands, and I found that many readings, of which I had given emendations, were confirmed by refpectable copies, I ftruck out all my own alterations at one dafh. Nay, when in rummaging my library, I met with a Bafilian edition of Euripides, on the margin of which were feveral valuable notes, written by fome ingenious gentleman unknown to me, though I could have put them off as my own, fnug and fafe, without the leaft danger of detection, I moft religiously afcribed them to their Author." We think the Doctor has done extremely well to defend his readings by fimilar expreffions taken from the fame or different Authors; but fometimes his quotations of this kind are fuperfiuous, particularly where the text he exhibits or maintains is fufficiently confirmed by the confiftency of the fenfe, or a natural probability: as in the following instance in the Prometheus vinctus of Æfchylus, A&t 1. v. 91. Kai Tov πανοπίην κυκλον ἥλιος καλω. Πανοπίην (fays he) fhould by all means be retained-there is not the leaft doubt that it fhould; but then was it neceffary to quote Sophocles to convince us that the epithet all-beholding may with propriety be applied to the fun? We are the more offended by thefe fuperfluous quotations, because it is ufual with commentators to fill whole pages with them, while they anfwer no end but a vain display of erudition. We cannot agree with our learned Critic in fupport of the following reading in the fame play. Act 1. v. 157. Νυν δ' αιθέριον κινιγ ̓ ὁ τάλας. "It is eafy to believe (fays he) that whatever was elevated by way of fpectacle, was called xyμa, on account of its being expofed to the agitation of winds. Such are ale-house fignis, and rogues that are hung in chains among us. Prometheus complains that he fhall now be made fuch a fpectacle to his enemies; and therefore without any impropriety, or any violent catachrefis, he ufes the word xvy to exprefs the cruelty of his punishment. For though his body, being rivetted to a rock, could not in fact be agitated by the wind, yet, as he was in an elevated fituation, he had fufficiently the appearance of a xvvyux. Befides, it is well known that κινυγμα. an exact resemblance of objects is not neceffary in these kind of figurative expreffions. But in what fenfe Prometheus could call himself xnvoyua, that is, an empty fhadow, a spectre, or a phantom, I do not apprehend." Thus far the Doctor. But neither do we apprehend how Prometheus, naked and rivetted to a rock, could more properly call himself a dangling object in the air, than a spectre. Therefore read xvvyμa; nofiro periculo. With respect to the famous queftion, Whether Io appeared on the stage in the real figure of a cow, as Dacier supposes, or in her identical perfon without any brutal characteristics, according to Father Brumoy, we think our Author's opinion, which is a medium of the others, the leaft exceptionable. He supposes that Iö retained her original form, but that her head was diftinguifhed by the horns of a heifer; which laft fuppofition is juftified by the following verse: Τας βουκέρω προσφθεγμα παρθένου κλυτος. Prom. vindt. A&t. 4. v. 590. It is obfervable that almost every Commentator, from flashing Bentley down to piddling Tibbald, has had a strange antipathy to fome particular name among his predeceffors, which he has abufed and perfecuted with unremitting fury. We are forry to say that this too is the cafe with our learned Doctor. Poor Pauwius, as he calls him, who published a new edition of Stanley's fchylus with feveral annotations of his own, is the everlafting butt of the Doctor's rage, ridicule, and refentment. Scarce is there a page, nay scarce a column, through all these annotations on fchylus, in which this unhappy Pauwius is not either whipped, or kicked, or cuffed, in a moft unmerciful manner indeed. It is true he appears in fome places to be ignorant, and in others impertinent; but, what is very hard upon a man who seldom happens to be right, the Doctor will rarely give him his due when he has made a good obfervation. For instance, in the Prometheus vinétus. Act. iv. v. 718. Πιναν προς αυτων Καυκασιν μέλῆς ἔρον Without Without doubt opov 50 is a good emendation, being more easy and obvious than opw 50; yet the Doctor will not allow it, because it belongs to poor Pauwius. It is with pleasure, however, we recollect that our Author feems to have had fome little ftings of confcience concerning his treatment of this unhappy victim; for in his Preface he attempts to apologize for this conduct. But his apology is furely a moft unfortunate one. The reafon, he fays, of his abufing Pauwius was, that Pauwius had been abufive. With the fame propriety, therefore, may fome future Critic fall upon the Doctor, quod Dii avertant! Would thefe Commentators take it into their heads to enliven their works with fentimental as well as verbal obfervations, they would be more honourable and more ufeful; but it is all measuring lines, and weighing fyllables. They content themselves with cleaning and fcrubbing the picture, without once remarking its peculiar beauties, or teaching the lefs fkilful beholder the criteria which he wants. These fentimental Comments would be extremely useful in forming the tafte of the young Reader, who alone can be fuppofed to ftand in need of a Commentator. We cannot indeed but wonder that a person of Dr. Heath's erudition fhould pafs filently over fo many beautiful scenes without one euge Peeta! How could you, Doctor, over-look that animated scene in the first Act of the Septem apud Thebas, where the Spy defcribes the appearance and facrifice of the enemy, without erecting one note of admiration? Not fo the acute Longinus! Τηδ' Αισχύλο Φαλασίαις ἐπιτολμῶνος ηρωϊκωλαίαις. ὥσπερ ὅι Επία ἐπί Θήβαις παρ Ανδρες, φησιν, ἑπτὰ θέριοι λοχαγέται, Longin. de fub. Sec. 15. But though our Commentator has feldom taken notice of the defects or beauties of his Authors, he has been induftriously attentive to the minutia of the reading and conftruction; fometimes, perhaps, unneceffarily. Thus, in the following line, Ζυγοῖσι διαλίοισι μήποτε σκέψει Septem ap. Theb. A&. i. v. 75. Y 3 What What can be more obvious than that the infinitive mood is here put imperatively; and who can want to be informed that the Greeks ufe this enallage modi very frequently? Of that difficult paffage in the Septem ad Thebas, v. 167, &c. the Doctor has, in our opinion, given the most rational expofition; and, instead of xa diode, we would by all means read a dio. This and many more of our Author's most valuable obfervations Dr. Burton has taken into his Pentalogia, published in the year 1758. To convince Dr. Heath that we would do every thing to place his reputation, as a Commentator, in the faireft point of view, we fhall here quote the teftimony which Dr. Burton has given of him in his Preface to the Pentalogia. "Mecum adeo intelligat [Lector] viro in literis humanioribus univerfis, et præcipue in Græcorum re metricâ, verfatiffimo Benjam. Heath Exonienfi quantæ et à me, et à republica literaria gratiæ debeantur: quem virum negotiis publicis curifque forenfibus ufque diftrictum quis non jure miretur ita ftudiis liberalioribus vacare potuiffe, ut [nequid hic loci de fcriptionibus cæteris commemorem] Efchyli, Sophoclis, et Euripidis Tragoedias omnes continuo juftoque Commentario illuftraverit? A nobis certè pro merito vix fatis prædicari poteft illa animi benevolentia et liberalitas, quæ pretiofam hanc fuppellectilis literariæ copiam defiderantibus adeo non invidit, ut etiam publicos in ufus libenter communicaverit ; unde quæcunque ad rem noftram maxime pertinerent, five ad metra reftituenda, five ad verborum, fententiarum, rerumq; memorabilium explicationem, excerpta depromfimus." &c. In the following paffage of the Septem ad Thebas, v. 225, We cannot by any means agree with the Doctor that τρατευμ' απλομενον mould be rendered hoftem invadentem. spaTu here fignifies the people of the city, as the word spales does, v. 308. i, e. Deliver the city and the offspring of Cadmus. So spalvμ alquevo fhould, without doubt, be rendered populum incendendum, by which means louvou will be taken as a paffive participle participle in conjunction with ασυδρομεμεναν; and the conftruction of the whole paffage will be much eafier. This is fo very obvious that we are furprized Dr. Burton should adopt Hoftem invadentem, or incendentem. The animated and picturefque defcription of Tydeus in the second scene of the third act, (Sept. ad Theb.) puts us in mind of the Scout's account of Swaran, in Fingal. (See Review, Vol. XXV. p. 50.) Thus the reconnoitring messenger informs Eteocles of what he had seen : Tydeus rages before the gates of Protus. His indignation is roused. He burneth for the battle. He crieth aloud like the dragon at noon-day. He shaketh the three fhadowy crefts that adorn his head. Terrible is the clang of the brazen bells of his fhield. Great are the figures on his shield. There burn the stars in the vault of heaven. The full moon blazeth on the centre of the fhield. Brighteft of planets is fhe, the eye of the night. On the banks of the river he fhouteth for the war; like the warrior horse that despiseth the rein, when he heareth the trumpet of the battle blown. Whom wilt thou oppose to him, fon of Edipus? Who fhall go to the gates of Prœtus ?" There is fomething fupremely grand in the above paffage, to which the elegant fimplicity of the answer of Eteocles is a fine contraft. "I fear not (faid the prince) the trappings of a man. It is not the engraving on his fhield that can wound and what are his crefts and bells without a fpear? As lightly do I think of that image of night blazing with the stars of heaven, which, thou fayeft, is upon his shield.” "To Tydeus I will oppofe the illuftrious fon of Aftacus. He fhall defend the gates. He is nobly born. He reveres the throne of modefty, and defpifeth proud words. He is virtuous, and cannot do a base act. Menalippus is a branch of those illustrious Spartans whom the fword of Mars has fpared. He will fight to defend her that bore him, from the fpear of the enemy.' If we have any Readers that are as yet ftrangers to Æfchylus, we hope thefe quotations will make them folicit his acquaintance. Yet, whether they may anfwer that end or not, we must acknowlege that we could not pafs them without notice. Y 4 But |