grant that such quotations are proofs of the antiquity, but none of the integrity, of the Aldine recension. The last question, which is the first in fact to be mooted, must be proved by internal evidence. Now in almost all the instances where the Pseudo-Triclinian (for by such name ought that recension to be called, which existed some hundred years before Triclinius) differs from the Aldine text, the superiority is in favor of the former. But, says Mr. E., those superior readings are but the conjectures, many of them, it must be confessed, very ingenious, of some unknown grammarian, who lived in some unknown period, but who neither possessed, nor could have possessed, a codex of Sophocles better than the one, which formed the basis of the Aldine recension. But can Mr. E. produce a single grammarian, from the time of the great Aristarchus to that of the last scion of the school of Alexandria, who was capable of conjecturing raives for anuaives in Ed. C. 320.? For until he does produce such an ancient of the Bentley breed, he must allow us the liberty of conscience and of speech, in believing and asserting that the better readings in the Pseudo-Triclinian recension are not the conjectures of some great unknown, but are to be traced to another more intelligible, though equally unknown, source, an older and better codex of Sophocles.

Nor is the subject of the Triclinian recension the only point on which Reisig will have to change his mind after the perusal of Mr. Elmsley's preface, who has taught us that the far-famed Roman edition of the Scholia on Sophocles, the supposed value of which was first pointed out by Porson, and has since been echoed by Anti-Porso, verifies the old proverb, carbones pro thesauro. For according to Mr. E. the Roman editors made such sorry work of the Ms. from which they obtained their transcript for the press, that Mr. E. has been induced to neglect the printed Scholia altogether. The last topic suggested by the perusal of Mr. E.'s preface is an inquiry respecting the present lurking-place of Scaliger's Sophocles. Unless our memory fails us, there is a copy of Stephens' edition with Scaliger's notes amongst Isaac Vossius' books in the Leyden library. It contains, as far as we remember, very little.

The length of our remarks on the preface of Mr. E.'s edition leaves us room to add but little on other parts of his publication; which we the more regret, as scarcely a line occurs in the whole play, where much might not be said, either as regards the author or his editors. One passage, however, we cannot pass over in silence, without doing injustice to more parties than one. At v. 503. Ismena, after bearing in what manner the expiatory liba

tion is to be made to the Furies, offers to perform the sacred rites, and just previous to going off the stage thus expresses herself: ἀλλ ̓ εἶμ' ἐγὼ τελοῦσα· τὸν τόπον δ ̓ ἵνα

χρῆ ἔσται μ' ἐφευρεῖν τοῦτο βούλομαι μαθεῖν.

Of the thousand and one objections which may be brought against this passage, as it exists in the Aldine edition, it is necessary to mention only one, which is that, as the words are perfectly unintelligible, they could not have been written by any man in his sound senses. It is possible, however, that some ingenious stickler for received texts will assert (and in defence of the Vulgate what absurdities have not been asserted and approved!) that as Sophocles was in his dotage when he wrote this play, it was only natural for the old gentleman to talk nonsense. To such and other arguments, equally powerful, it is in vain to reply. We shall merely express our belief that the passage is corrupt; and that others are of the same opinion will appear from the following note of Mr. E.

504. Malim χρεί ̓ ἔστι, ne συναλοιφὴν nimis duram admittamus. CANT. [Legendum] χρῆς ̓σταί μ' ὑπουργεῖν τοῦτο, βούλομαι REISK. Legendum opinor xpel' 'oraι, ut primum vocalis ultima vocis xoeia sequente vocali elidatur, deinde prima rov čoraι ob similitudinem præcedentis diphthongi e quasi crasi facta absorbeatur. Verte autem, Locum vero ubi sit necesse erit insuper ut inveniam; hoc discere volo. HEATH. Tentabam: χρὴ στάγμα ἐπιρρεῖν τοῦτο— Vel: χρὴ στάγμ ̓ ἀφιεροῦν τοῦτο. MUSGR. Legitur vulgo, τὸν τόπον δ ̓ ἵνα χρῆ "σται μ' ἐφευρεῖν. In Β. χρησε Taí μ' épevρeiv. Ceteri nihil variant. Absurda lectio. Nihil expedit Scholiasta explicatio, ad xpñ "oraι tantum pertinens, eaque falsa. Etiamsi vera esset, remaueret adhuc vitium in épevpet̃v, verbo activo, cui subdi debet nomen rei inveniendæ. Perspicua est sententia ad quam revocanda verba: Locum autem, ubi res quibus usus est inveniam, hoc doceri volo: τὸν τόπον δ ̓ ἵνα τὰ χρεῖ ̓ ἐφεύρω, τοῦτο βούλομαι μαθεῖν. Τὰ χρεῖα, τὰ χρήσιμα. Nomen est adjectivum xpeios, utilis, quod alias etiam indigum notat, ut apud Eurip. Herc. Fur. 51. 1340. [1337.] BRUNCK. [Legendum χρήστ ̓ αὖ μ' ἐπαίρει.] Χρηστά, τα χρηστά, ἡ χρηστότης, qua ducta ʼn virgo novum hoc negotium suscipit, sicque pridem iter in Atticam. BOTH. Fort. leg. τὸν τόπον δ', ἵν ̓ ἃ | χρὴ σται μ' ἐφευρεῖν, τόνδε Bovλouai μabeiv. De pronomine de sic ex abundanti posito v. βούλομαι μαθεῖν. Melet. Crit. I. p. 84. SCHEF. Crasin χρήσται ortam ex χρεία ora tutatus sum in Syntagm. Crit. p. 32., atque in eo agendum est eo cautius, quo insignius Scholiastæ est testimonium ex Sophoclis Triptolemo. Doderlini in Specimine p. 42. čoraι μ' épevpeïv nihil moror. Sed memoratu dignum est imprimis, quod Hermanno visum, xphora pro futuro habendum esse atque pro xpioet dictum,

videlicet contracto χρήσεται, ut ἔσεται in ἔσται. REIS. Qui veterem scripturam revocavit. Laur. A. xphoraí μ' épevpeĭv. Nec nisi in accentibus variant ceteri Mss. Scholiastæ interpretatio ita legitur in Laur. A. χρῆσται μ' ἐφευρεῖν: χρείη ἔσται κατὰ συναλιφὴν χρῆσται. ἀντὶ τοῦ χρείη ἔσται. δηλοῦται δὲ ταυτὸν τὸ δεήσει. καὶ ἐν τριπτολέμωι. χρῆσται δέ σ' ἐνθένδ' αὖτος. Cui recte objicit Brunckius, verbo ¿devpeiv addi debere nomen rei inveniendæ. Tò dwp supplet alter interpres in Laur. A. ἔνθα τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν, ἡδέως ἂν εἰδείην. Quasi χρὴ χεῦμ' (aut νάμ' ἐφευρεῖν legerit. Propius a vulgata abest χρὴ στέμμ' ἐφευρεῖν, quod admisi. Στέμμα pars est eorum, quorum ad sacrificium peragendum opus erat. Intelligendi sunt ter novem «λūves éλaías, de quibus dictum v. 480. quosque e nemore vicino petendos esse respondet chorus. De Triptolemi Sophoclei fragmento, quod servavit scholiastes, nihil habeo quod dicam.

Dismissing all notice of the emendations of others, we will direct our attention to those of Reisig, Elmsley, and Schæfer. The first of these very gravely tells us, that Hermann considers χρήσται as a contracted future for χρήσεται. Barring the manifest absurdity of the idea, we wish to know how the passage is made more intelligible by this mighty discovery. Brunck's objection, that a noun is required after sugev, is still unanswered. That noun Mr. E. supplies by a reading, xg Téμμ' èpeupeïv, which he first promulgated in Edinburgh Rev. N. 37. p. 80. This is not the first time that this conjecture has been honored by its inventor with a place in the text. In the edition of Sophocles, which Mr. F.. printed nearly twenty years ago in Scotland, but the whole of which he subsequently committed ignibus emendaturis, with the exception of a copy or two still in existence, this same conjecture is found in the same situation. When the reading was shown to Porson, he said, ' it won't do.' If by στέμμα is meant the τρὶς ἐννέα κλῶνες, mentioned in v. 480., the article is absolutely necessary. It is not a garland, but the garland, that Ismena is speaking of. This objection might be met perhaps by reading ἵνα Χρὴ στέμμ ̓ ἐφευρεῖν τοῦτο, β. μ. But TOUTO could scarcely be said, except with reference to a thing lately mentioned. Besides, how can oréμua by itself mean ixɛrýPov σTéμμa? We fear, on this occasion Mr. É. a scopo aberra

vit.

The emendation of Schafer, τὸν τόπον δ', ἵν', ἃ Χρὴ, ἔσται μ' ἐφευρεῖν τόνδε, βούλομαι μαθεῖν, is certainly ingenious, and very near the truth. Nor does it detract from its merit to know that nearly the same emendation was published, two years before Schæfer, by George Burges in the Appendix to his Troades,

p. 180. We quote his words, for the work is long since gone to the tomb of all the Capulets: Mirum est quam multos labores levis macula pepererit in Soph. Ed. C. 504. TÒY TÓTTOV & ἵνα Χρῆσται μ' ἐφευρεῖν. Sic Ald. melius quam Cod. Β. χρήσε ται μ'. Lege ἵν, ἃ Χρὴ, "σται μ' ἐφευρεῖν.” That G. B. should be the real author of this emendation is impossible. We suspect that he obtained it, like other eaves-droppers, clandestinely from Porson's mouth. Had it really been his, he could not have missed the true reading, τὸν τόπον δ ̓, ἵν, ἃ Χρὴ, ῥᾷστ ̓ ἐφευρεῖν Taữta, Boúroμai jaleiv, supported, as it might be, as far as regards a relative pronoun at the end of a verse, by Ed. T. 299. ἄγουσιν, ᾧ Τἀληθὲς-(Ed. C. 14. πύργοι μὲν, οἳ Πόλιν—Trach. 819. τὴν δὲ τέρψιν, ἣν Τῷ 'μῷ, and as to the Atticism ῥᾷστ ̓ ἐφευ geiv for épeugeoйvai, by the words of the Scholiast on Med. 314. Ρᾴων φυλάσσειν] ἀντὶ τοῦ φυλαχθῆναι, and by poaching into Indices, he might have produced a hundred examples to prove, what every schoolboy knows, that paora is a good Greek and Tragic word; and lastly he might have shown that the letters αιμ in χρησται μ are evidently part of the word ανευρείν, a various reading for supsiv. Two other emendations made by the same critic we will produce for the benefit of omnium-gatherum editions. The first is on v. 711. εὔιππον εὔπωλον εὐθάλασσον, οι which the Capulet thus writes, p. 126. Musgravius ibi vult εὔμωλον, advocato Hesychio Εὔμωλος, ἀγαθὸς πολεμίστης, εν oλos. Huic conjecturæ favere videtur similis Toupii (Vol. iii. p. 551.) emendatio Simmiæ apud Hephæst. p. 43. ubi vulgo legitur εὔιππον, εὔπωλον ἐγχέσπαλον: corrigit Τ. εὔμωλον. Sed Wakefield. ad Herc. F. 498. evoπλov. Verissime. Hanc ipsam medicinam adhibendam esse Sophocli docet illud Euripidis Hec. 1080. Evitπov, sŭotλov. Quod ex ultimis verbis Hesychii Musgravium non vidisse miror.' The second emendation is ad Troad. 432. In Œd. C. 806. vitium vidit non sustulit Hermann. ad Viger. p. 774. Vulgo legitur woon où deivós ἄνδρα δ ̓ οὐδέν ̓ οἶδ ̓ ἐγὼ Δίκαιον, ὅστις ἐξ ἅπαντος εὖ λέγει. Τα lege Kai Seivóv. We presume the Capulet meant to translate Καὶ δεινὸν utcunque potentem scil. γλώσσῃ. The first of these passages Mr. E. defends against the emendations of Musgrave and Reisig. On the second he is quite silent. We hope he can understand it. We confess it is above our comprehension. Of the Capulet's emendation it may be said in the language of Bentley, aut scripsit id, aut scribere debuit Poeta.

ADVERSARIA LITERARIA.

No. XXXV.

Mysteries of Antiquity, &c.

IT may not be unworthy of being known, as a curious coincidence, and an unexpected corroboration of my opinions, that probably at the very time I was maintaining in the lecture-room of the Royal Institution, that the sacred Mysteries of Antiquity were of an astronomical character, or consisted in part at least of astronomical disclosures, Mr. J. F. Newton, of Belvidere House, Dorsetshire, having made the same discovery, was asserting it in a certain little octavo, entitled "Three Enigmas attempted to be explained," which has recently been transmitted to me by a friend at Weymouth.

Had I seen those dissertations before, I should have been happy to have cited from them certain allegations and arguments in support of my own: particularly what the author has very pertinently remarked concerning that much discussed classical enigma, the banishment of Ovid; which I think Mr. N. has very satisfactorily explained to have been owing to the poet's inadvertently divulging toward the close of his Metamorphoses, certain parts of the Eleusinian secret, of which crime the full amount of the penalty was death.

Another of the Enigmas attempted to be explained by this philanthropic writer, whom I have not the pleasure of knowing, relates to our habitual use of animal food, which the author would humanely and piously abolish: that, however, is quite another affair. My conviction is here far less complete; or my bad carnivorous habits so far prevail over my better reason, that the luxury of dining daily on fruits and vegetables alone, cannot at present be mine.

But the summary of his argument regarding the banishment of Ovid, and the Sacred Mysteries, is, I conceive, well worthy of being known and reflected on by your classical readers: "If (says he) the solutions hitherto attempted of Augustus's edict against Ovid, are unsatisfactory and untenable; if the poet informs the King of Thessaly that he was exiled for a more serious crime than forgery or murder: if publishing the Eleusinian secret, whether consciously or not, was the only crime so stigmatised at Rome; if, while Ovid states that his offence was unregistered in the laws of his country, not a syllable occurs in the