with the adjective xupos, confirmans, (if such an adjective exist,) but is evidently the participle from xúpa. V. 76. Mr. Blomfield's judgment is not always happy in choosing between two uncertainties. He explains diatopous in a passive sense, as diaтETOPVEUμévas. Surely it is active, and signifies piercing through; in which interpretation it is not necessary to understand literally nails driven through the feet, but fetters piercing them with agony. V. 83. The discussion on the orthography of apocrite should have been transferred from the Glossary to the notes. We see no reason for adopting the form proposed by the Etymologus Magnus, portion. V. 88, et seq. In the midst of critical discussion we are willing to refresh our readers with some better matter, by calling their attention to the grand opening of the character of Prometheus. σε "Ω δῖος αιθήρ, καὶ ταχύπτεροι πνοαί, In this passage the expression, ποντίων κυμάτων ἀνήριθμον γέλασμα, was far too beautiful to escape altogether the attack of tasteless criticism: and Toup would substitute κάχλασμα for γέλασμα, σε έλλε felici conjecturâ," as Mr. Blomfield says. Mr. Blomfield's better judgment preserves the right reading, which he well explains as the "lenis fluctuum agitatio, quæ ab Homero ppi vocatur." He has very fully illustrated the expression by apposite references to ancient and modern authors; and it may be remarked of all the passages, that they are far inferior in beautiful simplicity to this of Eschylus. To the authors quoted may be added likewise a similar passage from Walter Scott's Lord of the Isles: "With fluttering sound, like laughter hoarse, The cords and canvas strain ; The waves, divided by her force, Who, that has ever looked abroad upon the boundless expanse of ocean, does not understand, though he cannot translate, the ἀνήριθμον γέλασμα of Æschylus ? V. 91. We believe that Mr. Blomfield is too general in asserting that κύκλος 6 interdum ponitur simpliciter pro ήλιος.” Cer tainly, the two passages adduced do not bear him out in the assertion; for in the former the sun is called not ô xúnλos, but ò žv↔ κύκλος ; and in the latter, ὦ τὰ παντ' ἰδόντες (Mr. Blomfield quotes it πάνθ ̓ ὁρῶντες) ἀμφ' ἐμοὶ κύκλοι, the word has certainly nothing to do with the sun: Brunck explains it of the stars; but in spite of his confidence we are bold enough to think that Philoctetes is there addressing his own eyes. V. 113. Mr. Blomfield's text reads vraípios, but in his Glossary he explains it as if it were unaρíos, and to be construed with deauoio. Is this merely an oversight? V. 116. EÓσσUTOS. So Mr. Blomfield writes the word in compliance with the judgment of Porson and Dr. Burney. As GEOGUTOS is the reading of the MSS. and as the proposed change very much mars the harmony of the verse by making it what Dr. Burney calls an antispastic trimeter instead of an iambic senarius, we cannot help wishing the old reading had been retained. It is true, σvrov occurs in the iambics of this play with the double σ; but we do not see why this word should not follow the same rule of composition as κραιπνόσυτος, αὐτόσυτος, &c. and it will be remembered that in v. 287 we must necessarily read xpaιЯvóσutov. Dr. Bentley, to whom we are indebted for this most certain correction, says that "the poets use either the single or double consonant, as their measures require." Dissertation upon Phalaris, p. 140. In the same line we have no hesitation in agreeing with the scholiast to understand expaμém as applied to the mixed nature of those who were neither gods nor men,ἡρωϊκὸν sive ημιθέων, and not to the mixed company of gods and men together. εἰσοιχνοῦσιν. V. 122. In his former edition Mr. Blomfield had preserved the Ionic form tiroxy. But it now appears that this was the effect of carelessness, not of design; and in the second edition he has changed it to iooxvodov. Ubique enim," he says in his note, "formas Ionicas exauctoratas velim." We have serious doubts on the propriety of the change. We love the garb of antiquity in which schylus frequently clothes his language; and we perceive that on other occasions Mr. Blomfield loves it too. It is true, there is something Homeric in this form; but we do not on that account like it the less; neither, we believe, would Æschylus. In the present case, we have MSS. and editions, critics, and lexicographers, in favour of the old reading SiGOIXVEDO. Granted, that in these little niceties their authority is not great but there are many words in Eschylus in which a similar uncertainty of orthography is found; and still their authority is generally on the Ionic side. It will be recollected that the Ionic coincided with the old Attic; and that Eschylus studiously affected this latter dialect, Mr. Blomfield has repeatedly reminded us.-Upon the whole, then, many alterations of text will be necessary to establish the entire abolition of these Ionic forins. Mr. Blomfield is entitled to the praise of consistency, at least; for he spares none of them. He is similarly consistent in abolishing the Ionic forms of the datives plural, and changes pinot, ζεύγλησι, &c. into ῥίζαισι, ζεύγλαισι, &c. Porson did not adhere to any consistent rule in this respect; nor does it appear that his mind was made up on the subject. V. 138. 'Amédios. We do not understand why so much disquisition was necessary for the explanation of this simple word. The six lines quoted from Stanley are a sufficient explanation for any schoolboy. Mr. Blomfield has exhausted a whole page of his Glossary on the subject, and has really told us nothing in it at all, merely because there was nothing to tell. His note is wearisome trifling, displaying some learning, but altogether useless as to the purposes of information and assistance. He does not write notes thus in general. V. 162. ¿yeýle. This is, we believe, the true reading restored to its place in the text. Mr. Blomfield's former edition retained the Aldine reading, izeyne, which it was not easy to reconcile with any intelligible syntax. The word now received is undoubtedly the right tense; and we have no right to quarrel very seriously with the poetical use of the indicative mood instead of the subjunctive, a practice exceedingly common in the Latin poets. The former part of the verse has been unnecessarily objected to, and a different reading proposed: Mr. Blomfield retains the old reading, rìs äλλos, and very justly. The expression has not necessarily any reference to men, since the heathen philosophy, as well as poetry, recognized the existence of other beings between men and gods, their pwès, quídeos, &c. σ V. 167. σuvaσxana. We believe there is no satisfactory reason for adopting the instead of the & in the chorusses: in the first edition this word was printed with a . Mr. Blomfield is not correct in saying that the old form, ἀσχάλαω pro ασχάλλω, occurs in Orest. 775. The word there used is doxaλλav, which Porson has left in the text; and he merely says in his note, that from a various reading, ἀσχάλων, you may make ἀσχαλῶν. In the pas sage of the Iphigenia the old form is necessarily retained; but Euripides would be less likely than schylus to bring the old forms into frequent use. V. 168. ὁ δ ̓ ἐπικότως ἀεὶ θέμενος ἄγναμπτον νέον δάμναται οὐρανίαν γένναν. It has been proposed to read τιθέμενος for θέμενος, partly for the sake of the metre, and partly because as is rarely joined with an aorist participle. The former objection is not of much force, and is obviated by the change of dédia yàp into dédia d' in the antistrophe; and the latter Mr. Blomfield answers by connecting the particle d not with Séuevos, but with dauvatal. Is not this con struction very awkward? Rather than admit so violent a separation between two words so naturally connected together, we would construed with the participle, whether it be Suevos or TIBELLEVOS. Nothing can be more forcible than the expression, ἐπικότως ἀεὶ θέμενος ἄγναμπτον νόον. 66 V. 188. "pei, vellico, ab ipébw: utrumque Homericum: propriè de iis dicitur, qui lanam vellicant; ab pov scilicet." Mr. Blomfield is sometimes fanciful in his derivations; and we cannot but consider this as an instance of it, as also his derivation of σφίγγω (v. 58) from σφήν, cuneus, σφὴν ἄγω, σφήνγω, σφίγγω. V. 193. âτаρáμvlov. The principle of lengthening the priva tive apa in composition, which Homer has done in the words ἀθάνατος and ἀκάματος, Mr. Blomfield proposes to extend to other words. He proposes to read drós instead of anτóλuos in Homer; and adopts the principle in Eschylus, by which he maintains the common reading here instead oἳ οὐ παράμυθον, which some MSS. have, but which is very awkward. If it be objected to this, that in the Iphigenia of Euripides, (in Aul. v. 622) áτúρáμlov makes its first syllable short, we think it sufficient to reply, that Euripides might very naturally discard, and Eschylus retain, that usage which, it is clear, was more ancient. V. 210. Mr. Blomfield well explains TouTv, contrarium, not contra. The full expression would be tò μtav öv. V. 214. There is a valuable discussion in the Glossary on aiuinos, and the adjectives of that form. Mr. Blomfield decides, and we think rightly, that the quantity of their penultimate syllables is invariably short; and as to the passage of Aristophanes, that militates against this rule, we can have no hesitation in reading the word there Ἵππυλλος. V. 216. auoxí. The common reading before was apoxe Mr. Blomfield here takes occasion to examine into the general system of Greek adverbs; and he has displayed considerable learning and judgment in combating the hitherto received opinions of grammarians. It has generally been taken for granted, that adverbs are formed from the genitive case of substantives or adjectives: Mr. Blomfield contends with great ingenuity, and we think with success, that they are derived from the dative: ex. gr. from Bon is found dat. Boy. or, according to the ancient mode of writing, Bo; and thence is immediately formed avroßutí. Again, from oixos comes the dative o or oixo, which is literally the adverb: the same with πεδοῖ, ἁρμοῖ, ἐνδοῖ. He then supposes that the o was dropped in order to prevent the confusion of the adverb with the nominative case plural; and thus we arrive at the form ἀμοχθί, ἀνατὶ, &c. instead of ἀμοχθοί. If this hypothesis be correct, it follows indisputably, that the diphthong & is to be exploded, and that the right reading is duox. The learned editor proceeds to apply his principle to a great variety of adverbs, and to correct by it the orthography of many of them. One difficulty, however, he seems to have overlooked: if the diphthong o is changed into the simple, in order to avoid confusion with the nominative plural, why is not oixos written oixì, wedoï wedì, &c.? We do not propose this as any serious difficulty; and we are inclined upon mature deliberation to receive the rule laid down, as thinking it calculated to give accuracy and precision to an important branch of the Greek language. V. 219. рoutebeσmixes. Of this and some other words Mr. Blomfield has changed the orthography since his first edition, writing it in its present form instead of povтebeσTixe. The reason of the change is obvious. V. 248. ἀλλὰ νηλεῶς, for ἀλλ ̓ ἀνηλεῶς. "Meminerint tamen tirones," says Mr. Blomfield," eam [vλews] ex άvnλews per aphæresin formari, non autem ex particula privativa vn, quæ, si quid me audias, a Græcia abjudicanda est." We find it difficult to agree with the learned editor here; and hope it is unnecessary to caution him against being led away by the seductive charm of novelty. -The Latin particle ne is a strong argument for the existence of a similar word in Greek; and if words of this form are to be considered as used per aphæresin for another form, why is it that they are used so much more frequently than those for which they are substituted ? Νηλής, νῆστις, νήγρετος, νημερτής, are in much more common use than those for which they are supposed to be used: and again, if ans be formed from amans, and that from os compounded with the privative particle a or av, we are at a loss to account for the quantity of the word. Would not the form be aveλens? We suggest this for the consideration of Mr. Blomfield. V. 255. @pоüßns, consistently with the editor's rule referred to at v. 219, should have been printed poußns. V. 271, 2. τὸν κακῶς πράσσοντ ̓ ἐγὼ—for τοὺς κακῶς πράσσοντας· sy, which makes an anapæst in the second place. The reading received was proposed by Stanley and Heath. A different change has since been proposed, viz. to leave Toùs párrorras in the text, and alter ya to su. We think y peculiarly necessary to the emphasis of the sentence; and therefore approve the reading Mr. Blomfield has adopted: " But I too knew all these things." V. 275. supóμny. This is the orthography adopted by Mr. Blomfield; and the reason of it may be found in the Adversaria of Porson, pp. 151, 2, or in Mr. Blomfield's note on v. 463. V. 277. XaτIoxvaveba. On this word there is a difference of opinion between Porson and Mr. Blomfield. We agree with the latter in deriving it from irxvòs, tenuis, and therefore writing it κατισχνανεῖσθαι; but at the same time we decidedly think that |