always present, seems not to have allowed them to think on any plan,' which would have injured the state. The second opinion, which would still less have occurred to us, amounts to this, that there was, after all, no disturbance or rebellion whatever:-The success of Sir George Barlow' (observes the writer) has been derived, not from conflict, but the forbearance and non-resistance of his adversaries-a victory without strife. We must confess that the author's own narrative had conveyed to us the contrary impression; and we believed that there had not only been disobedience, resistance, and strife, but hostile marches and bloodshed.

Such is our view of the transactions relating to the late military disturbances at Madras. We say military disturbances; because with these, as the reader probably may know, there were connected, or at least were coincident, certain civil disturbances, which form another head of charge against the Madras government, but of which no notice has been taken in the preceding pages. Any notice of them, indeed, on the present occasion, neither is very necessary, nor would be very possible. It is not necessary, because the military subject is of itself complete; for we must always recollect that the army were the main movers in the affair, and that their objects were not of a civil but of a military nature. It would not be very possible, because the documents requisite to the inquiry are not yet fully before the public. On these accounts, we have, in this article, cautiously abstained from deviating into this second field of discussion, in fully explaining the first.

We cannot but mention one circumstance which has rendered us greatly the more ready to express what we can venture to call our unbiassed approbation of the conduct of the Madras government on the points which have here been considered. Sir George Barlow has risen to the elevated office which he occupies, not by the agency of parliamentary connections or court favours; but through the recommendation of long, laborious, and eminent services. It is a consequence of this course of public life, that, notwithstanding the local influence conferred on him by his station, his personal interest at home is possibly rivalled by that of many of the individuals whom he has thought himself obliged to displace; probably much outweighed by that of the whole number collectively. It seems, therefore, peculiarly fitting that, as a defence against the clamour by which he is assailed, he should have the benefit of all the honest and independent opinion which can be mustered in his favour.

He is said, indeed, by Mr. Petrie, we know not how truly, to have contracted unpopularity by his cold and repulsive manners.' A deficiency in the charm of demeanour must always subtract

somewhat

somewhat from the personal influence of a statesman; but it has not therefore prevented many favourites of fame in this class from maintaining a wide empire over the attachments of mankind. It did not, for example, disqualify William the Third for attracting to his banner all the more masculine elements of the European commonwealth, nor snatch from Demosthenes the hearts of half Greece. Whatever unpopularity, however, Sir George Barlow may have acquired, we should be apt, on an authority considerably higher and less suspicious, it may be said without invidiousness, than that of Mr. Petrie, to attribute to a very different cause. "Whatever odium' (says Lord Minto) has been malignantly cast upon his name, has been earned by the steady, inflexible discharge of public duty, and by efforts in the Company's service, not in themselves more grateful personally to him than to other men, but falling more particularly by the course of events within the period of his administration. That his sovereign and country will honour the magnanimity and fortitude of the man, and appreciate the value of his eminent services, I cannot doubt; and that oblo quy purchased by the pure and inflexible discharge of ungrateful but sacred and indispensable duties, will be effaced in its appointed hour by universal respect and esteem, my confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth and justice persuades me firmly to believe,"

ART. ΙΧ. ΑΙΣΧΥΛΟΥ ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΥΣ ΔΕΣΜΩΤΗΣ. Ε chyli Prometheus Vinctus. Ad fidem Manuscriptorum emendavit, Notas et Glossarium adjecit, Carolus Jacobus Blomfield, A. B. Collegii, SS. Trinitatis apud Cantabrigienses Socius. Cantabrigiæ, Typis ac Sumptibus Academicis excudit J. Smith. MCCCX. pp. 160.

THE predilection which the Athenians entertained for the compositions of Eschylus, is well known. With such delight did they listen to them, that even their rage for novelty was overcome; for we learn that a special decree sanctioned the representation of his tragedies after the death of the author. And we may collect from several passages in Aristophanes, how passionately fond the audience were of the rich poetry and sonorous diction so conspicuous in the father of tragedy.

The applause bestowed on Eschylus by succeeding ages has been somewhat more qualified. He seems to have been much less read than either Sophocles or Euripides; and from the time of Quintilian to the present day, the critics have contented themselves with acknowledging his sublimity of conception and grandeur of

expression,

expression, while they lament that his style frequently degenerates into bombast.

The neglect however which he has experienced in modern times appears to us to arise from other causes than his own want of attraction. The language used by him was, even in his own days, of a somewhat antiquated cast, abounding in words either obsolete or exclusively poetical; words not to be found in any other writer, and of which modern Lexicographers have not given so full an explanation, as an industrious examination of the works of their predecessors might have supplied. Nor is this the only difficulty which the reader of Eschylus has to encounter. The ignorance or the carelessness of transcribers has produced gross and unpardonable blunders in the manuscript copies, from which the plays. are printed and though the detection of these may be a source of interest and amusement to the verbal critic; yet to the person who reads the poet for the sake of his beauties, they are infinitely vexatious and discouraging. Had the lovers of Greek literature an opportunity of perusing Eschylus in a text of tolerable purity, accompanied with satisfactory explanations and illustrations of his uncommon words, we venture to pronounce that his tragedies would recover something like the estimation in which they were held by his countrymen. It would then be discovered that pomp and sound are not his only characteristics, and that his merits are not merely those of an inventor. His characters are all strongly marked and well preserved; their manners and sentiments, though invested with high tragic dignity, represent the noble simplicity of the heroic age. The moral sentences, with which the writings of this poet abound, are well-timed and appropriate; they do not, like those of Euripides, proceed with scholastic gravity from the mouths of servants and insignificant personages, but command attention from the well sustained dignity of the speaker's character. The style of his dialogue is easy and perspicuous, presenting a happy contrast to that of Sophocles. The reader meets with few difficulties, except such as arise from the use of words of rare occurrence. The flow of his numbers is uncommonly harmonious, and the rich vein of poetry which runs through his scenes makes ample amends for the occasional offence produced by a few turgid expressions. The strong imagery and daring metaphors in which he indulges, betray the Oriental origin of the Dithyrambic style of poetry, in his time prevalent in Greece. is impossible to read Eschylus, without being struck with the resemblance which many of his images and figurative expressions bear to some of the most sublime passages of Scripture. In the choruses particularly, the eastern style of poetry appears in all its boldness, and with much of its obscurity. In these parts of the

It

plays,

plays, the text is sometimes very corrupt; but where that is not the case, a steady eye may generally penetrate the veil which obscures them, and is sure to be delighted with the rich treasure which it discovers.

These remarks have been suggested by the publication of the first of schylus's seven remaining plays, by Mr. Blomfield, a Batchelor of Arts, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. From an expression in the preface, we collect that this is only a prelude to a complete edition of his works, which, if executed upon the same plan, and with the same ability as the present specimen, will, we venture to predict, introduce them to the more intimate acquaintance of every class of Greek scholars. This small volume contains the text of the Prometheus Vinctus, corrected by Mr. Blomfield, under which are notes, comprising a far more valuable critical apparatus than is to be found in any other edition. We have here the variations of Aldus, Robortellus, and Turnebus, and of no less than thirty manuscript copies, together with the editor's own reasons in favour of the readings which he adopts, and occasional critical remarks applying to different passages of the play. At the end of the text, is a glossary, in which all the uncommon words*, and many of the common ones are explained from the ancient grammarians, lexicographers, and scholiasts, and illustrated by apposite quotations from the poets, and particularly from schylus himself.

The foundation of Mr. Blomfield's text is the Glasgow edition, printed in the year 1794, from the corrections of the late Professor Porson. Though Mr. Blomfield, in imitation of others, has attached to this text the name of that illustrious scholar, yet it is sufficiently notorious that it was given to the world, in the first instance, without the consent or knowledge of the reputed editor. We are not perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of this transaction; but we believe that the professor merely intended to alter the text of Stanley, in places where he was enabled, from the abundance of his own knowledge, to restore the true reading. This being only a publication of the booksellers, for his share in which he received little or no remuneration, he did not conceive his own credit (of which no man was more jealous) to be at stake upon every lection that was suffered to remain. This text of Eschylus, therefore, though by far the purest ever printed, before the present specimen, must not be considered as bearing the seal of that great authority. To most of the places where errors are suffered to remain, an obelus is affixed, as a

yáreda, v. 854. inapɔ̃v. and perhaps two or three other words may be mentioned as exceptions. Their omission must be attributed to oversight,

notice

notice that he designed an alteration. His modes of correcting many of these passages are now known; some from his notes on Euripides, others from his own manuscripts, or his private communications to his friends. Those with which Mr. Blomfield has enriched his edition of Prometheus, bear internal evidence of the unrivalled hand to which they are attributed. But besides these obelized passages, there are numerous others in all the plays, which, it is obvious, would not have received the sanction of the professor, had he himself prepared them for the press. This is mentioned as a caution to those, who in every reference to the Glasgow edition, fancy that they are appealing to the authority of Porson.

In the construction of his text Mr. Blomfield has shown the most judicious and laudable caution. He admits but few readings which have not some authority from old editions or MSS. or from ancient writers, by whom the passages are quoted. His good sense has preserved him from the practice, too common among editors, of altering their author's text, not because it is wrong, but because another word happens at the moment to hit their fancy; and he has employed his extensive and accurate erudition rather in vindicating the authorised readings, than in recommending conjectures of his own. In his notes, he seldom goes much out of his way to emend corrupted passages of other writers. The conjectures of this sort which he occasionally hazards are acute and plausible, and, we think, generally, though not always, successful.

The range of knowledge shown in this publication is considerable, especially when regarded as the stock of a very young man. In the mode of displaying this knowledge we perceive nothing ostentatious or affected: the object uniformly aimed at, is to inform the reader on the particular point under discussion. It is easy to observe that the whole style of Mr. Blomfield's scholarship is formed on the model of the late Greek Professor. In this imitation however there is nothing servile, and his assent to the positions of Porson is not invariable. But his critical caution, his accuracy of reference, his Greek orthography, and his style of writing, all conspire to show by what luminary he has guided his course. And it will be considered as not the least among the benefits conferred on ancient literature by that extraordinary man, that his example has contributed to form a scholar, who is so likely to advance our knowledge of the most interesting writers of antiquity.

In his imitation of Porson's Latinity we do not think that the present editor has been very successful. The Professor's style was formed by a long and careful acquaintance with the best models, assisted by the most chastised and delicate taste. Mr. Blomfield's

language