Eschylus uses the participle in ac as of two terminations; so that the irregularity or uncertainty is one of declension, not of gender. Compare idóvτɛ κaì malovσa, Ed. Col. 1676. In favour of his own view Mr. Conington, at v. 139, adduces Sophocles' Electra, vv. 725, 726, where, as the passage now stands, TEλouVTEC must agree with the feminine substantive Two. But there it has been proposed to place what is now v. 726 next after v. 723; an alteration by which the sense would benefit greatly, as we think almost any one on reference to the passage will acknowledge, and at the same time the words Two and TEλOUVTES would be effectually divorced. πῶλοι It is true that Hermann, acting consistently on the Aristotelian principle, ἄμεινον ἀεὶ τὸ χαλεπώτερον, stands firm to the old reading, and gallantly strives to prove in its defence, that two chariots running parallel to each other will naturally meet face to face. But then, Hermann, though the first of living scholars, is, as Porson said, a German. The conjectural reading, Spoooo λETTOTS, which Mr. Conington adopts at v. 139, being supported by the three precedents which we have just been discussing, must fall with them. And, independently of this, and whatever might be the variations of popular usage, we think Eschylus would scarcely have used the same substantive spórol, both as masculine and feminine in the same play, as Mr. Conington supposes him to have done, especially as it would have been exactly the same thing, so far as regards the metre, whether he wrote λεπτοῖς or λεπταῖς.

μάντιν οὔτινα ψέγων—V. 179.

Tɩ generalizes, and thereby strengthens the negation,—“ not only did he not reproach Calcas, but he said nothing against any of his order;" unlike Creon in Soph. Ant. 1055, тò μavti· κόν τοι πᾶν φιλάργυρον γένος, &c. This explanation seems to us to be pushed rather too far. Probably μávτiv ovtiva Péywv is to be classed with such passages as:—

'Anthea si quem

Jactatum vento videat.'-Virg. Æn. I. 180, 181,

τῷ γὰρ ἂν καὶ μείζονι

λέξαιμ ̓ ἂν ἡ σοὶ διὰ τύχης τοιᾶσδ ̓ ἰών;—Soph. Ed. Col. 772, 773.

where 'si quem,' 'μɛílovɩ' and 'major,' seem to be respectively substituted for si forte or sicubi, paλλov, and magis, or rather potius, as we conceive μávriv ovriva éywv to be here substituted for τὸν μάντιν οὔπως ψέγων. Non omnis moriar,' for non omnino moriar, nullus dubito,' for nequaquam dubito, are instances of the same phenomenon, besides many others

which might be quoted. So in v. 55-Tаros & alwv 'ATÓWν-TIç must be rendered either perchance,' or either it may be Apollo,' &c.

πνοαὶ δ ̓ ἀπὸ Στρύμονος μολοῦσαι

κακόσχολοι, νήστιδες, δύσορμοι

βροτῶν ἄλαι, ναῶν τε καὶ πεισμάτων ἀφειδεῖς,
παλιμμήκη χρόνον τιθεῖσαι

τρίβῳ κατέξαινον ἄνθος Αργείων —Vv. 1859.

66

Upon this passage Mr. Conington observes, 'ẞpor@v äλat is ' another expression the force of which has been missed by the 'commentators. They suppose it means causing men to wander from the haven where they would be," i.e. in the present case, by keeping them still, so that the apparent contrast between Súoopμoi and aλai becomes an absolute contradiction. Eschylus did, doubtless, intend a contrast, but it was a peculiar one ' of his own between a physical and moral effect (see other 'instances below on v. 427); and it is this which I mean to express in my version, "keeping men in harbour, yet leading them astray;" making their minds wander by the vacancy of 'inaction, such as is felt in its most dreadful form in solitary 'confinement. Specific reference may be made to Tennyson's Mariana, as one of the most powerful delineations of what 'the feeling really is.' This explanation is certainly ingenious, and shows a determination to pierce to the very mind of the poet, and not to be satisfied with simply 'construing;' but we incline to think that it is rather too refined. The use of the word ẞporov, which can hardly mean anything but ‘men in general, seems to lead to the inference that δύσορμοι βροτών aλa is merely an epitheton ornans' of the 'gales that blow from Strymon,'-those gales by which the mariner is driven from his course, and cannot make his port or anchorage.'

6

6

6

τοιοίδ ̓ ἕτοιμοι λαμπαδηφόρων νόμοι,

ἄλλος παρ ̓ ἄλλου διαδοχαῖς πληρούμενοι

νικᾷς δ ̓ ὁ πρῶτος καὶ τελευταῖος δραμών. — Vv. 301-303.

'Peile and Linwood, though slightly differing in the method ' of construction, agree in referring this line to one and the same 'victor; "the first who run on to the last ;"" a striking peculiarity," says the former, "differencing it from the ordinary "λaμmadnpopía." But where is the peculiarity? If there was any transmission in the real Xauradnpopía, as is evident from 'the allusions to it in Lucretius and Persius, the same might be 'said of it; those who started first, and afterwards gave up 'the torch to others, lived in their successors no less than 'the beacon on Ida or that on Arachnæum. The omission of the article which Linwood notices, no more proves, as Butler 'showed long ago, that the same party is spoken of throughout,

• than does the similar expression τῶν ἁλόντων καὶ κρατησάντων, ten lines lower down. Nor yet need we seek for reasons why 'the first and last beacons are singled out for honour, such as 'that commonly given-that the one was the ultimate, the other ' the immediate source of the intelligence. The more natural 'view seems to be, that Clytemnæstra, in her joy, wishes to 'honour all, and names the first and last, leaving the rest to be 'implied; "Last wins as well as first.”

6

We believe this to be a new, and we believe it also to be the right interpretation of this difficult passage. To bring Mr. Conington's view out a little more clearly,— the words viką d' ὁ πρῶτος—δραμών, rightly interpreted, draw a parallel instead of a contrast between the torch-race of the beacons,' and the common torch-race. In the common torch-race, the torches were transmitted along rival lines of runners; and the line which transmitted its torch first to the goal, won, each of the runners who composed it sharing in the victory. In like manner,

Clytemnæstra says-Each beacon in the chain shared in the common victory, as well the one next the starting place, as the one next the goal. In fact, the contrast, if any, is between the torch-race, in which several won, and the common race, in which only one could win.

We regret that the limits of this article do not permit us to do justice to Mr. Conington's elaborate note on the difficult and much controverted passage wç λéyois máλw,-v. 308. This, with the rest of his work, we must be content to commend to the earliest and best attention of our readers. We trust that we shall be called upon at no very distant period to resume our critical labours, and that the present publication will be only the first of a series of valuable contributions to the library of the English scholar. Much remains to be done for us by the editor and commentator, still more by the translator. Among all our translations of the Greek poets, there is scarcely one-except Frere's and Mitchell's Aristophanes,' and, we may perhaps add, Chapman's Homer,'—which is at once true to the original, and sufficiently like an original itself to afford pleasure to the unlearned reader. Of Pope and Potter it is a needless cruelty to speak. Carey can hardly claim a more favourable verdict. The translation of the Agamemnon' by Mr. Symmons, to which Mr. Conington refers, is, indeed, full of spirit, but it abounds in erroneous interpretations, and is diffuse in the extreme. Mr. Sewell is close, but errs in the other extreme of baldness. Of that most delightful book the Greek Anthology, -illustrative as it is of the manners and feelings of the people of sunny Hellas from the banquet to the tomb,many epigrams have been elegantly translated by different

6

hands, and in different publications, but there is no considerable collection, except the very indifferent one of Bland. Nor need the observation be limited to the poets. Of the simple, genial, wonder-loving soul, and pleasant, naïve garrulity of old Herodotus, we have no better representation in the English language than that version of Beloe which has been justly compared to champagne poured into decanters. Almost equally unfortunate has been that great historian of the Athenian democracy, and perfect type of the Athenian mindThucydides whose work would perhaps be the best guide-book that history could supply, wherewith to travel through the unknown lands of political and social experimentation on which Europe is now entering. Aristotle, we fear, must always be read in the original. But the Republic of Plato, as being, in addition to its transcendent artistic beauty and its anticipative Christianity, at once the ideal and reductio ad absurdum of Communism, might at the present moment be read in a good translation with the deepest interest. The Latin language, too, has its authors worth translating, and as yet not well translated. We point especially to those passages of melancholy beauty and almost unclassical tenderness, which relieve the more arid lucubrations of Lucretius; and to that sweet sensibility, which may easily be separated from the foul sensuality with which it is hideously, though not unnaturally, blended in the pages of Catullus. Most practically interesting too, in this age of decaying civilization, which conceals from itself its rottenness by refinement of manners at home, and the display of the military virtues, which survive the civil, in barbarian wars abroad, is the historian of the Roman empire; and most inadequately does Murphy represent his censorial dignity, his haughty brevity, his stern decree, and that touch of fire which at once paints the body of action most vividly and reveals its spirit most completely. Here is good work cut out for great abilities. And if it is said that great abilities would be wasted on translation, we may reply, that the same was once thought of lexicographyyet the lexicographer is now appreciated and honoured by all cultivated men he has his reward-and that of the translator will not be wanting.

448

ART. VII.-1. A Letter to the Very Rev. the Dean of Chichester, on the Agitation excited by the Appointment of Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford. By JULIUS CHARLES HARE, M.A., Archdeacon of Lewes. London: J. W. Parker, West Strand. 1848. Pp. 66.

2. Postscript to the Second Edition of Archdeacon Hare's Letter to the Dean of Chichester on Lord John Russell's Letter to the Clergy of Bedford, and in Reply to Mr. Trower's Plain Remarks. London: J. W. Parker, West Strand. 1848. Pp. 131. 3. The Church and the Universities. By R. WHATELY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, &c. London: Fellowes. 1848. Pp. 39. 4. A Reply to Lord John Russell's Letter to the Clergy of Bedford. By A LAYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. London: Cleaver. 1848.

5. Letter by F. D. MAURICE, Professor of Theology in King's College, London, on the Attempt to defeat the Nomination of Dr. Hampden. London: Pickering. 1847.

6. A Letter to Lord John Russell, on his recent Conduct in Church Affairs. By A CLERGYMAN. London: Rivingtons. 1848. 7. A Letter to a Clergyman in London on the Theological Character of Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures, and the Extent and Value of subsequent Qualifications of their Meaning. By W. H. MILL, D.D., Rector of Brasted, Kent, and one of the Proctors for the Clergy of the Diocese of Canterbury in the Convocation now Sitting; Domestic Chaplain to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. London: Masters. 1848. Pp. 32.

8. An Attempt to Justify the Agitation against the Appointment of Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford; a Letter to the Venerable Archdeacon Hare. By A TUTOR Of a College. don: Rivingtons. 1848.

Lon

9. The Bishop of Oxford and Dr. Hampden, with an Appendix of Correspondence. (C. E. K.) London: Murray. 1848.

10. Plain Remarks on Archdeacon Hare's Letter to the Dean of Chichester, with a Postscript on the Bishop of Oxford's Letter, and a Prefatory Notice of Lord John Russell's Reply to the Bedford Clergy. By THE REV. W. J. TROWER, Rector of Wiston, Sussex, Rural Dean, late Fellow of Oriel College. London: Rivingtons. 1848.