PA 
 
 ssa9 
 
 .1* 
 
 
 war 
 
 si 
 
c ■< c 
 
 C < <- 
 
 < C C 
 
 < < < 
 
 CC * * 
 C< 
 
 < c «v 
 
 C c C 
 
 C C i 
 
 C cv 
 
 < < 
 
 < c 
 Ccc 
 
 cc c 
 
 cc c 
 cc < 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 « c Cv 
 c C C 
 
 < C Cc 
 
 C C c^ 
 
 C C (I 
 C C C C 
 
 c c cc 
 
 c < * 
 
 < < < 
 
 < C <- 
 
 
 cc<ac 
 
 < c< 
 
 C< 
 ^cc 
 
 cCC 
 
 cOC 
 
 I Library of Congress.^ I 
 
 & ========s==== 'M 
 
 I Z^k.U-^-, 1 
 
 1 ~ TiV I 1 ! 
 
 :■■■ Shelf Li2*-L_5 H 
 
 >: m 
 
 ■A ^ ® 
 
 HmUNITED STATES OF AMERICA.-- 1 
 
 c CC 
 
 cc 
 
 CC C 
 
 cc < 
 
 <- < c< < 
 
 caCjCCM 
 
 < c c< > i 
 c c <LC < 
 
 < c <:c 
 
 c c <:c 
 
 < cc*LC 
 
 c< < C 
 
 <1 <^ 
 
 c<: 
 c c 
 
 C C 
 
 c c « 
 
 c C 
 
 1 c c c 
 cC 
 
 1 c c • 
 C cc 
 
 T < c 
 ^ <C << - 
 
 - <x cc < a 
 
 - <x cc cc <a 
 *- cc c < ' CS 
 
 - <x cc < < < cc 
 
 --■ cc cc c i s « ■ 
 
 cc cc <~ crcc 
 : <x <c < <* 
 " cc c c < cc 
 Lcc -c c < <* 
 ^<c < < c 
 &-=g c <- c < 
 -<-" C C C < 
 
 r c c c o 
 - c c cc 
 r < c c o 
 
 U c < 
 
 (C CcO ■ 
 "cC OC< ■ 
 
 TC C«:c 
 
 TC C.C <; 
 
 " cC 5 c 5 
 
 -^ ^ c < ^ 
 
 ^jc c c< c 
 ^ <TcC c C c 
 
 cccc 
 <dc< 
 
 crc c c 
 
 <cc$c 
 
 cccc 
 
 <rccc 
 
 cccc - 
 
 ; < cc < c 
 c C €C C< 
 < <. c< ^> 
 c CCCCC 
 C c < C « 
 7r t. cc< cc 
 < c CC <c 
 c C CC'C 
 
re 
 
 C « < 
 
 C<C ; < < 
 
 <r< 
 
 JL 
 
 << 
 
 <*C c c < 
 
 c< 
 
 S ' 
 
 c<x 
 
 <*r c <<^ 
 
 << 
 
 C< 
 
 c< 
 
 < 'OC"C < < < ' 
 
 << 
 
 c 
 
 c<iC 
 
 i <«sc « c < <r c 
 
 o. 
 
 
 coC " 
 
 c<r 
 
 < OCT c <- < 
 
 x<~<Cc (< < ■ < 
 
 
 vC 
 
 «o^ 
 
 c 
 
 ^ c 
 
 o<« 
 
 
 < < 
 
 uCT^L 
 
 
 <C 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 <^c 
 
 <c<ftiK 
 
 : 
 
 < c 
 
 aCC^K 
 
 l 
 
 c c < 
 
 £ C < 
 
 ,ccC« 
 
 
 - ccCCO 
 
 ^<cc^< 
 
 cucc * 
 c< at 
 << C< 
 
 <(.cC « 
 
 <r < <l < 
 c c CX 
 C OCC 
 C CC< < 
 
 <c<CC 
 < cKC 
 
 < ccC C 
 
 c - c«C c 
 
 <r c C4C C 
 
 4 
 
 ^ « 
 
 c <_ 
 
 <L< 
 
 1 
 
 C Cc 
 
 < c«£ 
 
 < 
 
 : C 
 
 < <L<K£c 
 
 c ^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 <r «-< 
 
 < 
 
 ^™» 
 
 ' c cc 
 
 c 4 
 
 BC_ 
 
 c < cc 
 
 < « 
 
 •KL 
 
 < C CC 
 
 c < 
 
 32: 
 
 c C Cc 
 
 C 
 
 « 
 
 < c <c 
 
 c 
 
 4KI 
 
 < < c< 
 
 C 
 
 *^r. 
 
 c c <x 
 
 c 
 
 «flCL 
 
 c c <c 
 
 c 
 
 <f71 
 
 c c *c_ < 
 
 vC 
 
 *^_ 
 
 : c< 
 <rc ex 
 
 C< CC 
 
 <3 CC 
 
 < « 
 
 C CC 
 
 C ( CC * 
 c c <x 
 c cc 
 
 c re < 
 <r c a < 
 
 CC <X v 
 
 < c CC * 
 
 CC cc c < 
 cc 
 
 - CC -, 
 
 v <: c 
 - ccC 
 
 C<i <1 CC CC 
 
 ^ CC CC 
 
 ;c.( c^ 
 
 . < < < 
 
 - c c < 
 
 r c «-. 
 
 C(CCC 
 
 c<: c 
 
 
 < < 
 
 <C 
 
 ic<^ 
 
 < 4 
 
 c cc< *^; 
 
 : < 
 
 v cc< ^^ 
 
 <r 
 
 .ccc ^c 
 
 ■ <r 
 
 cCC^ C< 
 
 c 
 
 v<CC << 
 
 C 
 
 <«S < ( 
 
 <L 
 
 V < <x < 
 
 «l 
 
 v ac <: c < 
 
 < 
 
 v cCCC < 
 
 < 
 
 cc<c< 5: 
 
 C 
 
 < C<'CC C 
 
 C 
 
 v«CC<CC C 
 
 c 
 
 v cc< 1C c < 
 
 C 
 
 vC(C< 5 
 
 
 v <X<«L .C 
 
 c 
 
 cC'CC 
 
 c 
 
 C<X«LC^ 
 
 
 «. <icc«_ < 
 
 1 CC 
 
 c c< 
 
 c c<: 
 c cc 
 
 C c< 
 c cc 
 C CC 
 
 : c< 
 
 CC 
 
 cc c 
 « c 
 
 CC C 
 
 CC c 
 
 <c c 
 
 " <c- < 
 <rc«c 
 
fen, Okr bro-<Ucry*>7 <r^ 
 
 \ 
 

 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 The Rev. C J. Blomfield, A. B. 
 
A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 THE REV. C. J. BLOMFIELD, A. B. 
 
 One of the Junior Fellows of Trinity Coll. Cambridge s 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE EDINBURGH REVIEW 
 
 V' 
 OF 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE MSCHYL^S. 
 
 AND INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS 
 
 THAT OF 
 
 THE OXFORD STRABO. 
 
 / 
 
 BY THE REV, S. BUTLER, A. M< 
 
 HEAD MASTER OF SHREWSBURY SCHOOL, S$C. fyc. 
 
 CUM TABULIS ANIMUM CENSORIS SUMAT HONESTI. 
 
 Hot. Epist. II. 2. 110. 
 NEON NEOI KPATEITE KAI AOKEITE AH 
 % NAIEIN AnEN0H nEPTAMA.— Msch, Promeih. v. 954. 
 
 SHREWSBURY : 
 
 PRINTED AND SOLD BY IV. EDDOJVES, 
 
 Sold also by J. Mackinlay, 87, Strand ; and Messrs. Longman, 
 
 Hurst, Rees, and Orme, Paternoster Row, London 3 
 
 and by J. Deighton, Cambridge.— 1 810, 
 
 [ PRICE 3s jk 
 
 M 
 
#»A 
 
 ■^V* 
 
 96-845402 
 
A LETTER, &c. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 W HEN the twenty-ninth number of the Edinburgh 
 Review reached me, I was sitting in a little back parlour 
 (where I shall be very happy to see you) at my Living 
 in Warwickshire, in the company of the most illustrious 
 scholar now living, from whose friendship and society 1 
 derive no small satisfaction. I wish you had been 
 of the party, for alas ! I cannot describe to you how I 
 became alternately pale and red, how I trembled, and 
 started sometimes from my chair, sometimes dashed the 
 book against the wall, and then picked it up again ; 
 sometimes clasped my hands, and sometimes should 
 have torn my hair, if my head had not luckily been 
 shaved, as I proceeded to read that profound and elabo- 
 rate critique. Indeed, as the day was chill, the wind 
 loud, and the clouds lowering, I should probably have 
 set off in quest of the shade of ^schylus, by the help of 
 a halter and a three-legged stool, had I not been com- 
 forted by the assurances of my eminently learned friend, 
 that he saw nothing in the remarks of the Edinburgh 
 
 B Reviewer, 
 
4 
 
 Reviewer! which induced him to change the fswomobto 
 opinion lie had been kind enough strongly and frequent- 
 ly to express in favour of my book. 
 
 A little cheered by these flattering declarations, I 
 ventured, with the assistance of hartshorn and lavender 
 drops, a bottle of port wine, and a white pocket hand- 
 kerchief, whilst my learned friend was amusing himself 
 with his pipe and the newspaper of the day, once more to 
 peruse these formidable strictures. And never did I 
 experience more satisfactorily, or more decisively, the 
 truth of that proverb, which I need not tell you is to be 
 found in a fragment of an antient Greek author " quoted 
 by Vauvilliers," who says, that pwx p«/«»Xiaf»Iu fyu^ *omfl. 
 For as I read, I felt re-assured. 1 threw my physic " to 
 the dogs," and my port wine down my own throat, 
 which wonderfully contributed to raise my courage, and 
 by the time my much respected friend bad finished his 
 newspaper, I had laid aside all my fears, and all my 
 intentions of setting off to visit the ghost of iEschylus, 
 Still, however, this formidable Review, and the dread of 
 severe castigation in the subsequent number, continued 
 to sit heavy on my mind, to disturb my slumbers, and 
 to poison my enjoyment. It was like the " destrictus 
 ensis" which I have some faint recollection of having 
 read of in some obscure Latin author, hanging over my 
 impious head, and spoiling my Sicilian feasts. Fortune 
 *vas again favourable to me ; scarcely had my bookseller 
 sent me the Edinburgh Review, No. xxx, when the 
 same distinguished scholar, who had saved me from 
 despair on a former occasion, came to spend a fortnight 
 with me at Shrewsbury. You will perhaps conclude that 
 I flew to him for consolation, and gave him the book, 
 
 with 
 
 
with eager intreaties that he would read it, and witk 
 much tragic declamation against the Reviewer's bar- 
 barity. No such thing, my dear friend. I recollected 
 the examples of heroism displayed under persecution by 
 Socrates, and Aristides, and Phocion, and Camillus, 
 and other great men of antiquity, whom I had read of in 
 Goldsmith's Grecian History, Langhorne's Translation 
 of Plutarch, and Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, and I 
 resolved to imitate them ; and so far I did carry my 
 magnanimity, that I assure you upon my honour, tho' the 
 book lay upon a shelf in my study, within two inches of 
 his chair, I never put it into his hand, or even mentioned 
 the subject to him. Once, and once only, it was 
 spoken of in strong terms of reprobation by a person who 
 happened to come in ; and then both he and I affected 
 to laugh. I am sure you will congratulate me on having 
 thus turned my classical education to practical account, 
 which I attribute to a sentence from Cicero, whom I 
 quote from the Eton Scriptores Romani, *« O vitae 
 philosophia dux, &c." 
 
 Well, my dear sir, with my mind cheered by the 
 society of my friend, you may easily suppose that I 
 forgot the E. R. in his learned and instructive conversa- 
 tion ; and it is proper that I should now inform vou, why I 
 have recurred to it, and why I have chosen to address you 
 on the occasion, and why I have not addressed you sooner. 
 
 On the first of these points I shall observe, that 
 being alone, and the day being wet, and not feeling a 
 disposition to sit down to graver studies, I have deter- 
 mined to amuse myself by dissecting a Reviewer. On 
 the second, I beg leave to remark, that as you are one of 
 those young men, towards whom I have both person* 
 
 B 2 ally 
 
6 
 
 3.11 v and by letter expressed very warm and sincere good 
 wishes, and of whom I have always spoken in terms of 
 approbation, I am happy for that reason to make this 
 public declaration of my good-will towards you. Hav- 
 ing also considered you as possessing, with talents highly 
 creditable to a young man, and with academic honours 
 similar to those which I had the good fortune to obtain, 
 a degree of diffidence and modesty highly creditable, 
 and an abhorrence of that pert flippancy and that cox- 
 combry of learning which is apt to turn young heads, 
 when having read a little beyond their common school 
 books, they fancy they know a great deal — and for cer- 
 tain other reasons, some of which I need not declare, as 
 being sufficiently obvious, and others of which will 
 develope themselves in the course of this letter, I thought 
 I could not do better than address myself to you ; and I 
 hope you and your friends will at least derive entertain, 
 inent, if not instruction, from the resolution which I 
 have adopted. 
 
 For the interval which has passed between my receipt 
 of the E. R. No. 29, and the date of this letter, I can 
 account also very satisfactorily. I could not answer it 
 till I had seen the continuation of the subject in the 
 subsequent Number. I have not yet possessed that 
 Number three weeks, and my time since has been occu- 
 pied in much more agreeable society ; besides, I wished 
 for the sake of decorum to wait till you were old enough 
 to take Deacon's Orders, and of Academic standing 
 enough to be reckoned among the Senior Bachelors, 
 before I publickly addre ssed _ you ; for in this respect I 
 differ from our lamented late Greek Professor, whose 
 general rule was to address his writings, and to bestow a 
 
 good 
 
good deal of his society on the " Juventus Academica," 
 from whom he could not fail to obtain undeviating 
 homage, and unqualified applause Wise, in my opinion, 
 were those young men, who, after the example of the 
 poets, when their great prototype was sick in Charon's 
 skiff, treasured up all the fragments which they could 
 collect of the deceased Professor. But on this subject 
 allow me for a few minutes to be serious. I need not, 
 I am sure, bear my most sincere testimony to the trans - 
 cendant merits of that Colossus of critical learning now 
 no more. None of the elder or younger members of his 
 college, none of his most zealous advocates, of his most 
 ardent admirers, and most attached disciples can more 
 deeply feel, or more willingly acknowledge their respect 
 for his profound learning, his keen discrimination, his 
 iinfailing accuracy, and his sagacious judgment. But I 
 am not so far dazzled by this blaze of glory, as not to be 
 aware also that these brighter parts of his character were 
 shaded by some imperfections. Men who have been the 
 highest ornaments of human nature have not been 
 exempt from some of it's infirmities ; of these I would 
 speak with the reverence which is due to the illustrious 
 dead ; or rather, I would be wholly silent ; but I cannot 
 content myself without entering my fearless and vigorous 
 protest against the narrow, jealous, dogmatizing, vindic- 
 tive, and invidious spirit, which both you and I well 
 know to be prevalent among his disciples, and which I 
 doubt not you will join with me in reprobating, as 
 especially unworthy of those who are engaged in studies, 
 which professedly tend to humanize and enlarge the I 
 mind. His followers, absorbed in the contemplation of 
 his greatness, seem, I think, but too much inclined to 
 indulge in narrowness, which will not listen to investi^a- 
 
 tion, 
 
8 
 
 tion, in jealousy which will not admit a rival, in dogma- 
 tism whiph will not hear of* fallibility, in envy which will 
 not allow of praise. I do not recollect to have met with 
 many passages in the writings of the late Professor, which 
 tend 10 applaud his literary contemporaries ; this could 
 not arise from envy, because envy implies inferiority, 
 which that great man could certainly neither have felt 
 nor acknowledged. I should rather impute it in him to 
 a fastidiousness of judgment, and a consciousness of the 
 value of praise from one so far above the generality of 
 mankind as himself. But whatever may have been the 
 cause of this conduct, it has certainly had a bad effect 
 in its consequences among his disciples, and has gener- 
 ated in them not unfrequently a certain narrowness or 
 niggardliness of praise not altogether becoming liberal and 
 candid men. But they are mostly young, and probably 
 feel the want of this commodity so much themselves, that 
 they have but little inclination to part with it to others. 
 
 I cannot easily conjecture, or at least cannot 
 easily satisfy my mind, why the late Greek Professor, 
 who was one of the greatest scholars that ever trod 
 the earth, should have chosen to differ so greatly 
 from one of his immortal predecessors in critical fame, 
 who was in his day no less an ornament to Trinity 
 College than himself, and whose memory is venerated 
 by every British and every Continental scholar— -I mean 
 Bentley. His stupendous powers were not employed in 
 addressing the " Juventus Academica ;" but he wrote 
 to the "primores populi," to scholars of maturer judg- 
 ment and of riper years ; among whom he was no less 
 supereminent, than the late illustrious Professor among 
 the " Academic Youth." In a common man there 
 
 might 
 
might have been something of condescension in such 
 conduct ; but in such a Colossal genius as Porson, there 
 appears, I must confess, somewhat of contempt for his 
 literary contemporaries, which I do not think wholly 
 justifiable. I have ventured these remarks with serious- 
 ness and with fearlessness. They will not, I trust, offend 
 any liberal scholar, and for the bigoted or narrow-minded 
 I am not much accustomed to care. I shall now return 
 to the E. R. 
 
 That the E. Reviewer is a Porsbnian, admits not i 
 of a doubt. That he is amember of your very re- 
 spectable college is equally certain ; and this is an- 
 other reason for my addressing you, that you may 
 be on your guard against him, and avoid him. My 
 dear Sir, let me advise you never to be seen in his 
 company, if you can help it ; he will do you no 
 credit, and it is ten to one but he will make you a sharer 
 in his disgrace. If he still pursues you, do try if you 
 can escape him by clambering up the sides of a copper 
 bottomed frigate, which is the best modern explanation 
 I can find of that " cerata triremis" honourably men- 
 tioned in my Delphin Horace, page 163. 
 
 Before I enter into an examination of the critique 
 itself, allow me to state to you two of the causes of the 
 * c capitale odium," which the E. Reviewer appears to 
 entertain against me. You cannot be ignorant, my dear 
 Sir, that one way by which a young man, panting after 
 fame and eager for the precocious enjoyment of it, some- 
 times attempts to gain his object is, by attacking InY 
 seniors. I knew a writing--master who rose in this manner 
 to immortality by a rampant assault on Sir Isaac 
 
 Newton ; 
 
10 
 
 Newton ; and more than one young gentleman of your 
 college, who has given indisputable proof of his own 
 wisdom by flatly denying that of those sound and sober 
 critics, who have rather been content with the text of 
 classical authors, when it afforded plain good sense, than 
 indulged in the wild and excursive range of conjectural 
 emendation. But this is not all. It happened that I 
 was writing to our present Greek Professor soon after 
 I had read the E. R. of the Oxford Strabo, and I freely 
 expressed to him, what I did very unreservedly to every 
 body, my opinion of the merits of that Review. I 
 believe I said, that allowing it to be true, still it was ill- 
 natured even to malevolence ; that I thought it behoved 
 the E. Reviewer, when he taxed the Oxford Latin so 
 heavily, to take care of his own : that the specimens he 
 had given of an improved version of the Oxford notes, 
 were not always remarkable for their elegance ; that I 
 saw many objections started, which any body might 
 easily make ; but that I saw little done towards clearing 
 up any points of History, Antiquit}^, Philology, or Geo- 
 graphy, which, by the Reviewer's acknowledgement, 
 were in the greatest need of illustration, and which none 
 but a scholar could elucidate. I admitted indeed, that 
 the Latin of the Notes was not elegant, or correct, or 
 very scholar-like ; but I added that it was not unintelligi- 
 ble, and that it was hardly fair or candid to look for faults 
 in note Latiji, where some indulgence should be allowed 
 by a liberal critic, and by a fair scholar, who would be 
 more anxious for the matter than the style. Rut abov e 
 all I deprecated the narrow ? jealous, i lliberal sp irit, which 
 presumed to visit the fault s of a n ind ividual on an Uni- 
 versity, and to call that the Oxford Latinitj^ whichjvas 
 in fact the Latinity of Mr. Falconer. 
 
 This 
 
V 
 
 9 *? 
 
 11 
 
 This perhaps is one, but by no means the only reason 
 of the unfairness with which I have been treated in the, 
 E. R. This letter, by some mismanagement 1 suppose, 
 never reached the Greek Professor, and possibly may 
 have fallen into the hands of the E. Reviewer ; at least] 
 that it never was received by the Professor I am morally (l^ 
 certain, for it contained, besides these remarks, a requesti^ fi r 2/ ^^^/Cy^ 
 that he would accommodate me with the loan of a book W^ '" 2jSH' 
 of no great intrinsic value except to myself. Now I am r^ . ^yZr- 
 sure, that his natural politeness would have induced j^g^ *^W^^ 
 him in the space of seven months since that letter was i ^ j$ ~g J 
 written, to favour me with a reply : especially, as nothing \fy t/ y%f ^s 
 could exceed the civility, which he was so kind as to | yij^^^^^^^ 
 shew me when I was last at Cambridge, and which was \*u~*-4£ 4n*i(^ 
 
 J returned on my part by every instance of unfeigned r^^^^y £t~c£_ 
 
 [regard in my power. ^ ^ ^ t ^ 
 
 It is to be remarked also, that in my letter to the 
 Greek Professor, after I had expressed my sentiments 
 pretty freely on the Edinburgh Review of the Strabo, 
 I added, as nearly as I can recollect, that I supposed I 
 should in my turn afford amusement to the Reviewer's 
 worrying propensities, about which I was very uncon- 
 cerned, and thought it extremely improbable that I 
 should ever notice or reply to these critical assailants : 
 so that possibly the Reviewer thought himself at liberty 
 \ to indulge in his invectives with impunity. 
 
 The other cause is this ; that I do verily believe this 
 
 juvenile Reviewer is preparing an edition of iEschylus 
 
 for the press himself, and that he has thought it ad^ 
 
 visable (a vile thought !) to make an attempt at securing 
 
 C a favourable 
 
 
 I 
 
12 
 
 a lu\ourable reception for his own edition, by remain" 
 clown and undervaluing mine. 
 
 To dissect, as I learn from my Ainsworth, is to cut 
 open, or to cut in pieces : I shall therefore, after this defi- 
 nition, proceed to business, taking to pieces each para- 
 graph, that I may meet the question fairly, and omit 
 nothing, which may contribute to your amusement. 
 
 I find nothing remarkable, except the display of 
 learning in the first paragraph, till I come to the Re- 
 viewer's declaration, that he has seen the collation of 
 fourteen MSS. of jEschylus. I will help him to the 
 place where he obtained this wondrous sight — It was in 
 a little thin book with a blue paper cover, in the Uni- 
 versity library of Cambridge ; an exact transcript of 
 which is now lying before me, and of which I shall have 
 occasion to speak in my preface to my jEschylus ; and in 
 a small 4to. bound book, of which I have also a copy. 
 
 The E. R. observes, that " there is reason however 
 to believe that some of the libraries on the continent 
 conceal manuscripts more valuable than sny which have 
 yet been collated by any editor ; one in particular of 
 venerable antiquity is preserved in the Medicean library 
 at Florence ; unless, as it is most probable, it has been 
 conveyed with the other treasures of that city, to the 
 vast museum of learning and the arts at Paris." Now 
 from hence we must infer that the Medicean MS. has never 
 been collated. The contrary is the fact ; I have now 
 two very accurate collations of that MS, lying before 
 me, one of which is transcribed from the book already 
 mentioned, and was made for Dr. Nediham, (h. e. 
 
 Need- 
 
13 
 
 Needham), by Salvini. Of this also I shall speak in my 
 preface. But I have already mentioned it in my con- 
 spectus before the notes, and I refer to it in almost every 
 note which I have written. — I put it therefore to you, my 
 dear Sir, whether the Reviewer in this instance is not 
 guilty of a most unfair and illiberal insinuation ? He 
 could not be ignorant of what must have stared him in 
 the face in every note, he must therefore have been silent 
 through the basest and most malevolent design. It is of/ 
 this conduct that I shall have to complain in the progress 
 of my examination. To fair criticism I have no objec- 
 tion. It is against hypocritical candour, against faint 
 and " damning" praise, against wilful misrepresentation, 
 against sly insinuation, against artful misquotation, that 
 I denounce fierce and implacable war. The critic who 
 fairly meets me, who throws down the gauntlet, and 
 boldly bids defiance to his adversary, will never find me 
 a sullen enemy if conquered, or an ungenerous one if 
 victorious. But I hate and loathe assassination, and I 
 dare say you will feel uncomfortable at the bare mention 
 of it. 
 
 The next paragraph draws an insidious comparison 
 between Professor Porson and myself. I shall only ob- 
 serve, that did 1 not acknowledge most sincerely, my great 
 inferiority to that mighty scholar, I should deserve to be 
 thought to be as vain as any young man of Trinity Coll. 
 who has just launched his bark in the great ocean of 
 literature, and thinks in his little cock-boat to run down 
 a first-rate man of war.* — But while I grant his transcend- 
 ent merits, why should his disciples, with that system of 
 C 2 exclusion 
 
 * Lest the E. R. should chuse to affirm that I have been seeking 
 in this passage for a compliment to myself, I beg to disclaim any 
 allusion in the simile. 
 
14 
 
 exclusion which they so generally adopt, admit nothing 
 to have the least claim to attention which is not of the 
 Porsonian School ?* If Mr. Porson would not under- 
 take the office, was it to be forbidden to all others ? and 
 if the University of Cambridge honoured me so far as to 
 think me capable of executing the work, " arduous as 
 it was," I was not so insensible of the distinction as to 
 be deterred from undertaking it by the dread of Mr. 
 Porson or of any man living. But on this subject I have 
 a curious anecdote, which I may possibly relate, when 
 1 come to speak of Professor Poison's Edition in my 
 general preface. 
 
 The Reviewer is at a loss to conceive why Stanley's 
 text was chosen as the basis of my Edition — I will tell 
 him. It was originally my own wish to be released from 
 Stanley's text, and though I was not very well contented 
 with the determination of the Syndics when they insisted 
 on my adopting it, I have found reason since to be fully 
 satisfied with their decision. Without Stanley's text, 
 Stanley's notes, both edited and unedited, would be 
 absolutely unintelligible. Stanley was the greatest 
 scholar of his age in this country, the greatest ornament 
 of his time to the University of Cambridge ; he was a 
 liberal, a candid, and an upright Scholar, yet wholly free 
 from vanity, from envy, and from self-importance. I 
 venerate the memory of such a man, and it would have 
 been an act of injustice to his merits, and disgraceful to 
 the University, not to have brought forward his notes in 
 
 the 
 
 9 Teaching of their great master, like the Epicureans of old, 
 that 
 
 — < — — ' — oranes 
 Rcstinxit, slellas exortus uti aetherius Sol. 
 
15 
 
 the clearest, the fullest, and the most intelligible form. 
 I consider my edition as a monument to his honour ; his 
 learned otes form the most prominent and most im- 
 portant i t of it ; and I am glad that I did not garble 
 and dish* "e them by accommodation to a text altered 
 accordin to my fancy. No references could have 
 been made with any degree of accuracy had the text 
 been changed ; and as I take care invariably to point out 
 any necessary alteration in my notes, a person may 
 easily find what 1 consider to be the true text by consult- 
 ing them. Had I proposed to publish a small edition of 
 JEschylus with my own notes only, I should undoubtedly 
 have giver! my own text ; ^ut when I had Stanley's 
 notes to publish, I am persuaded that I could not have 
 done justice but by adopting his text ; and I am heartily 
 glad that I did not suffer any foolish motives of vanity, 
 or ostentation, to occupy my mind one moment on the 
 subject. My own text is given in my own notes. It 
 was my duty to let Stanley occupy the prominent 
 situation. 
 
 I do not wish to deal in hypercriticisms, but as there 
 is so much unfairness in the subsequent parts of this 
 Review, I cannot but incline to suspect in the sen- 
 tence, " Mr. Butler has had access to the MS. notes 
 of Scaliger, Casaubon, and Stanley ; as well as to the 
 - collations of nine MSS. made partly by the late Dr. Askew, 
 and partly by some of his_ learned correspondents on the # Z A fk* wr $ 
 Continent," that the word his is designedly put in am- 
 biguous situation, as leaving a doubt whether Dr. Askew 
 or Mr. Butler is referred to. But I will not press this 
 point ; and if you should ever hear the E. Reviewer say, 
 ihat he did not design an ambiguity, you may believe 
 him. 
 
 When 
 

 16 
 
 When the K. Reviewer says nine MSS. be says the 
 truth, but not the wfofc truth. — The Conspectus alluded 
 to, prefixed to my notes, enumerates exactly twenty MSS, 
 besides IMS. notes. Of these fen MSS. are enumerated 
 as collated bjfcAskew, hoo by Stanley, and afterwards by 
 Askew, that is in all twelve by Askew, four by Schutz, 
 and /?>//>• hitherto uncollated — two of which are collated 
 by myself, and two communicated from Venice by the 
 celebrated Abbe Morelli. Now this must have been 
 obvious to the E. Reviewer, not only from the con- 
 spectus, but from reading the notes themselves ; I there- 
 fore once more leave it to you to decide as to the 
 epithet with which we are to characterize the Reviewer's 
 candour and veracity ; the MS. collations to which I 
 declare 1 have had access being either sixteen instead of 
 nine, or, including those quoted by Schutz, twenty instead 
 of nine. And here I shall just observe, that the Re- 
 viewer, while he notices what he supposes to be the 
 uncollated Medicean, says not a syllable, about the much 
 talked of Venetian MS. which was, if I mistake not, the 
 foundation of Mr. Professor Porson's refusal to under- 
 take the Edition of /Eschylus. If I am rightly informed, 
 the Professor wished the Syndics to send him to Venice 
 for the purpose of collating this MS. and on their not 
 feeling authorised to comply with this proposal, declined 
 to proceed in the edition. The last account I had of 
 this MS. is from the Abbe Morelli, who laments that 
 it was carried off by the French from the library of St. 
 Mark, and states that he hears it was seen afterwards 
 in the hands of a French soldier in a common pothouse 
 in Switzerland. I hope it has not shared the fate of the 
 celebrated "chartaceous MS. of the Rev. Mr. Adams," 
 to which the E. II, in a subsequent part of his remarks 
 sarcastically alludes. 
 
 The 
 
17 
 
 The extract I am now about to make is of consider- 
 able consequence ; " To these are subjoined two com- 
 mentaries, one critical, and the other illustrative; forming 
 part of what we suppose is intended to form a complete 
 Corpus jEschyleum,' comprehending the substance of 
 all former commentaries, and OF course including what- 
 ever is material in the notes of Robortellus, Muretus, 
 Turnebus, Stephens, Garhitius, and later critics ; to- 
 gether with some original remarks communicated to Mr. 
 Butler by the celebrated historian Muller, who, whatever 
 might have been his merits in other respects, was 
 certainly but little qualified to comment upon Ms- 
 chylus. We speak this however with deference to Mr. 
 Butler, who, to use his own expression, adores from afar 
 the footsteps of this great man." Here we have the ob- 
 ject of the edition stated, and an admission by the words 
 " OF COURSE," that it was incumbent on me, while 
 professing to publish a Variorum edition of JEschylus, to 
 give the notes, or at least the substance of the notes, of 
 former commentators. A circumstance, which in the 
 subsequent parts of this essay is frequently made the 
 subject of unbecoming sneers, as if I was answerable for 
 any errors or mistakes which they may have fallen into. 
 With respect to the merits of Mr. Muller, I shall speak 
 more fully at a future opportunity ; I have only to say, 
 that the expression which the E. R. is pleased to ridicule 
 by a burlesque English translation, will probably give**" 
 him less offence, as he extends his range of reading in 
 his maturer years : he may then chance to stumble on it 
 in a writer, who deserves to be more generally read — I 
 mean Statius, Thebaic!, xu. 817, It is singul ir, that in 
 the very next sentence, the Reviewer says, " we wish 
 that Mr. Butler had been contented with giving us this 
 
 f£~ 
 
18 
 
 vers useful synopsis of the different readings, with his 
 own opinions and remarks, without subjoining the pon- 
 derous and often useless annotations which swell the 
 volume to an alarming size." — So much for the Re- 
 viewer's consistency. 
 
 " From the arrangements also of the divisions, the 
 reader is continually obliged to refer to no less than six 
 different parts of the volume." The arrangements ap- 
 pear to be as convenient as the nature of the work would 
 allow. — There are necessarily six divisions. — The question 
 is, whether it is more eligible in an 8vo. or 4to. to have 
 six divisions, each comprising every thing relating to the 
 general object expressed in its title, or six little breaks 
 or deformities in the page, occasioning the reader con. 
 tinually to refer forwards and backwards. In the former 
 case, the reader knows under which head to look for the 
 object of his enquiries ; in the latter, he is under the 
 perpetual necessity of reading one line of text in a page, 
 and turning over half a dozen leaves before he can 
 y*j£ • £ rir> *£ t/ - arr ive at tne conclusion of a sentence. They who have 
 \c/z jflu/Jfr*^ * read the Dutch classics, where the text swims like a 
 /£■'& xre-r£& 1+7^' CO jJi r boat in an ocean of notes, ,must be aware of this 
 ty<i*<^£*^ ~^%\. inconvenience. _ 
 
 ". r, \ " Mr. Butler professes to have collated four manu- 
 
 scripts, not previously consulted ; but we have good 
 reason to believe, that the two Codices Cantabrigienses 
 were formerly in the possession of Dr. Mead ; and that.a 
 collation of them, made by Dr. Askew in the year 1744, 
 is noted in the copy of Stanley's iEschylus formerly 
 in his possession, and now in the University library." — 
 f This is an instance of that malicious misrepresentation, 
 
 which 
 
 
19 
 
 ' which alone could have induced me to pay any attention 
 to this Review, and against which, from a love of truth 
 and honesty, I shall always wage unrelenting war. My 
 title in the conspectus to the two Cambridge MSS. is, 
 Codices a nobis collatl ; — to the two Venetian MSS. 
 Codices nobiscum communicati. In my prefatory notice 
 I say, Habes etiam vv. LL. non solum e plurimis codicibus 
 quorum quatuor Ven. 1, 2, Cant. 1, 2* nunc primum V * nSj£~ 
 collati sunt. This is strictly_t£iie^- The E. R. is per- ^ffc ~ z t&cs/ 
 fectly right in his conjectures about the two Cambridge £,4x^,^.4 
 MSS, having been collated by Dr. Askew, and entered £<t4^/csP~ 
 in the margin of his noted copy of Stanley ; and possiblyT^*jp^ °j?~ 
 you may have been present when the Reviewer examin-f 
 ed those books ; but I am sure your candid and ingenuous 
 mind must have shrunk from the base and foul misre- 
 presentation which he has made. Dr. A skew's collation] 
 of the two Cambridge MSS. as you well know, and as 
 the Reviewer must have known, was never made public 
 till I produced it ; and I therefore might very fairly and 
 reasonably call these uncollated MSS. But the Re. 
 viewer must either know or be ignorant that the two 
 Cambridge MSS. were in f acjunot collated by Dr. 7%5jf ^ 
 Askew. That his collation of them is very imperfect. ^ ^d^^^ 
 That the Codex Cant. 1, is by no means so fully collated ^^jU^r- &%+„ 
 by him as it has been by me ; and that the Codex Cant, /^c^-r^^ru 
 2, has never been collated at all by him beyond, if I 
 recollect, the middle of the Sept. Theb. or hardly so far ; 
 but as I write now at th© distance of 150 miles from 
 Cambridge, I cannot specify the exact line ; that it has 
 never been collated at all in the Persse, and that the new 
 and copious Scholia of the Persae from the Codex Cant. 
 J, were never hinted at by Askew. Now if the Re- 
 viewer knew these facts, what are we to think of his 
 
 D honesty ? 
 
20 
 
 honest v r If, with the books before him, he could not 
 find them out, what will you say of his abilities ? To 
 the collation of those two MSS. I owe a weakness in my 
 eyes, which at the time was very serious, and from 
 which I have never recovered. For I determined to 
 examine them accurately, and I believe the scholia are 
 written in as small a hand as is generally seen in Greek 
 MSS. besides which there are a number of interlineal 
 Scholia written originally in red, but now in pale pink- 
 ish ink, to read which I was obliged to use a large 
 inagnifier, such as watchmakers work by, and could only- 
 read when there was a full and bright sunshine on the 
 book. 
 
 Ke> trffer-A-urtri B y t ] ie wor( } s « i t may PROBABLY be unnecessary 
 
 £j 'fe^.,^ inform Mr. Butler, that some of the conjectures of 
 
 &, f't^rfcLts Casaubon, copied from a book in the National Library 
 
 ^ rf£z$ «^ - at Paris, and noted in the margin of this Stanley, have 
 
 ^^ t ~ jC \£y' since been published with remarks by Vauvilliers," an 
 
 'z ** /3t insinuation is intended which I really think it unneces- 
 
 y Cm^ J&&Z& sar * T t0 re P e ^ The pl ace which I reserved for the mention 
 
 ^ 6xMa+ -2«v^ of this circumstance is my preface, where it will be 
 
 s &*-- &* ■■*-£ noticed. But I have only to observe at present, that 
 
 ? tvfliZ*- rf- with far more copious original conjectures of Casaubon, 
 
 p 1 :****- ~^f J\£ before me, it was hardly to be expected, that I should 
 
 /r ^5»v^Mesett Casaubon's Autograph for the scantier, and less 
 
 I** , a^ >c authentic supplies of Vauvilliers. 
 
 tS^ a/*C fa V*c*^v cJ&^f <-*-» SXZ^ ^a>*^jt. ew*^ 6j~zI**4 
 
 f " Mr. B. conjectures that the three dramas on the 
 
 subject of Prometheus, together with a fourth, perhaps 
 the Supplices, formed a Tetralogia Promethea, We 
 are rather inclined to believe the author of the argument 
 to the Persae, who probably derived his information 
 
 from 
 
from 
 
 21 
 
 from the Didascalisg, when he tells us that ^schylus 
 gained the prize in the Archonship of Menon by the ^S* 
 
 following Tetralogy, The Persae, Pliineu?, Glaucus C) 
 
 Potnieus, Prometheus, i. e. the Prometheus Vinctus or '• ' 
 
 the Prometheus Solutus ; for the Prometheus Ignifer ap- 
 pears to have been a Satyric Drama, as was the Glaucus 
 Potnieus." Here is a pert affecation of learning mis- 
 applied ; and the Reviewer, conscious of having blun- 
 dered, attempts in the subsequent number to correct 
 himself, and flounders still deeper. So far from my 
 conjecture being at all similar to that which the Re* 
 viewer is so obliging as gratuitously to attribute to me, I 
 have formed no conjecture whatever on the subject— -my 
 words are so very plain that I could not imagine any 
 tolerable scholar could be at a loss to understand them. 
 
 Y^£. **^- 
 
 G~i~.. 
 
 " Cum vero tetralogise veterum e trilogia constarent cuqi 7z%&> 47, 
 
 satyro, vellem aliquis haec dramata, DIVERSIS DOCTA pasrm^?' 
 TEMPORIBUS, in unum collegisset, ut essent vel 
 
 II^opjGey? Tlvgipogoq, Aeo-palrit;, Avopevot;, Clim Ilv%xoc,e? f vel potius 
 
 ITgopjSey? Atcrpurvn, 'l>t£Ti^, H%o[AY)Qev<; Avopsvos, Cum U^^iV 
 
 nv$6%u vi nv%KKB? 9 tetralogia jEschylea de Prometheo, 
 n^o^Qgia? dicta, sicut altera ilia de Oreste, quae 'Opr^a?, 
 sicut Philoclis tragici de Pandione, qua; TLwhovU, sicut 
 Euripidis de Alcmseone quam 'A^dnwA titulo restituit 
 illi Bentleius o Qxvpurk, in Epistola celeberrima, p. 17." 
 Did I not observe that the E. R. either through wilful- i 
 ness or incapacity, perpetually misunderstands the 
 plainest sentences, I should hardly think it worth 
 while to construe the beginning of this sentence for 
 him. Vero but cum since tetralogies veterum the tetra- 
 logies of the antienis constarent consisted e trilogia of 
 three tragedies cum Satyro together with a satyric 
 drama vellem / wish aliquis that some one collegissit 
 D2 in 
 
22 
 
 b iinuin had ccUccfed together hrrc dramata these 
 plays docta ACTED diversis tcniporibns AT different 
 times, &c« — So far was I from supposing these plays to 
 have been acted together) that I merely suggested a wish 
 that they had afterwards been collected into a tetralo- 
 gia Promethea, because they might thus more probably 
 have been presetted together. My dear Sir, I am sure 
 your indignation will be unbounded at this instance of 
 gross misrepresentation ! — When the E. R. says the Pro- 
 metheus Ignifer appears to have been a Satyric drama, 
 he seems to give his own discovery. He should in fair- 
 ness have said for the Pr. Ign. " as Mr. B. observes, 
 appears, &c." 
 
 " Mr. B. has not remarked, that the true reading (as 
 the late Professor judged) in the 2d verse, viz. a£goror, 
 is preserved by the Venetian scholiast, IL £. 78 Eustath. 
 p. 953, 42, Phavorin. in. v. 'A^otjj »v|." I do not think 
 this the true reading ; on the contrary, I told the Greek 
 Professor when he declared for it, that the common read- 
 ing appeared to me to give good sense, and was coun- 
 .. tenanced by all the MSS. and Editions of ^Eschylus, and 
 
 sn^ /v&f tnat I thought «SgoTov at least an Homeric., if not an 
 CZ/ciy^ft^i affected reading. Still I have no objection to any one's 
 /krU'tJ " c husing the other, or tvvpu&v which I should myself 
 prefer ; but as this is one of Professor Porson's inedited 
 t emendations, I shall say nothing on it till I come to the 
 
 7 close of the Review in No. 30. 
 
 " In v. 59, vS^ag is undoubtedly the true reading ; 
 to prove which we could produce various satisfactory 
 testimonies omitted in the notes under consideration." — 
 Who that reads this [note would not suppose that I ha 
 
 said 
 
23 
 
 said 9r<>£4?? was not the true reading, or at least had 
 
 left it doubtful ? My words are " sed recte habent vo^ 
 
 Schutz et Pors." Can any thing be plainer ? — Are the. fav^> A** ^-^^ 
 
 kstances, plain and clear? — if they are, why adduce ^f *///?"&■ *-*" 
 
 more, especially as there is a third brought by Stephens Y^**' * %tA ' *y "' 
 
 in a former part of this very note. — My constant rule is, * 
 
 when a thing is clear enough, to leave it so. I disdain 
 
 the idle parade of learning when enough has been said 
 
 already ; and I can shew you, for the information of the 
 
 E. R. pages upon pages of my own remarks crossed out, 
 
 because when I came to arrange the notes, I found some 
 
 preceding commentator had said enough already. — My 
 
 aim is to instruct, not to make a display ; — I leave that 
 
 to little minds, and young Reviewers. 
 
 " We agree with a learned critic, who, in his re- 
 marks on Porson's edition of the Hecubaj stated the 
 utility of noting in what parts of the antient authors any 
 portions of the text in question are quoted. This cer- 
 tainly may be effected by great memory, or great 
 industry ; but we do not wonder that Mr. B. should 
 have been deficient in this respect, considering the 
 numerous and more important labours which he has had 
 to accomplish in the capacity of editor." — To this must 
 be added the remarks in page 160. " We will conclude 
 our remarks on it, with a list of those passages in the play 
 which are not noted by the learned editor, as being quot- 
 ed by the antient authors, vv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 44. 59. 60. 
 79. 105. 248. 250. 327. 329. 350. 355. 365. 378. 437. 457. 
 575. 592. 610. 611. 612. 667. 704. 730. 764. 803. 979." 
 — These sentences are calculated to answer a double pur- 
 pose ; in the first of them, the reviewer, in the plenitude 
 of his good nature, breaks my head, and then gives me 
 
 a 
 
H 
 
 a planter ; in the second, he displays the superior extent 
 pf his own reading by quoting 32 passages quoted by 
 r.ntient authors but unnoticed by me. I may be allowed 
 to doubt the necessity of loading pages with quotations 
 uninteresting in themselves. The nature of my work is 
 necessarily voluminous, and I have been obliged frequent- 
 ly to use the pruning knife in a manner which none but 
 those who inspect my original papers can imagine. On 
 this account my own notes are as short and confined as I 
 could make them ; for, having in view no ostentatious dis- 
 play of learning or talents, but merely a desire to instruct, 
 I uniformly give the notes of preceding commentators 
 where sufficient, without any additions. I make no ex- 
 cursions into the wide field of conjectural emendations 
 on other authors — reserving all such remarks for my 
 common -place book, and contenting myself with illus- 
 trating /£sclrylus alone. For I am sure, that such an 
 illustration will of itself entitle me to find my proper 
 rank, wherever it may be, among the scholars and critics 
 of the present day, without an ambitious display of 
 excursive reading ; because it must be obvious, that 
 without such reading I should be utterly unable to eluci- 
 date a single page. — I may perhaps, in my anxious desire 
 of compression, now and then have omitted a passage of 
 JEschylus which is quoted by an antient author, when it 
 would have been better brought forward. But for this 
 I must claim the indulgence of every equitable scholar, 
 who knows the immense mass of materials which, after 
 the utmost care, I am obliged to wield. In fact, I think 
 it seldom necessary to refer to such passages, except in 
 . the case of a various lection, — and then I believe, I 
 fatjy*uc^ cpx G^. generalh/^do it, unless it has been done before by some 
 "^22*^- commentator whom I have quoted. 
 
 Let 
 
23 
 
 Let me add also, and I add it in defence, not in 
 ostentation, that probably no man ever undertook a work 
 of this nature with so little assistance. Of the many 
 thousand and ten thousand passages I have had to refer 
 to in antient authors, not one has been pointed out to 
 me by any learned friend ; I have received no hints, no 
 notes, no communications of any kind, except those 
 which I have published with authors' names. I live in 
 a remote provincial town, far from the seats of learning, 
 the two Universities and the Metropolis. With the excep- 
 tion of my upper boys, I have no Porsonulettes at hand 
 whose advice I can ask on intricate points, and to whom. 
 I may communicate my notes as I write them ; nor have 
 they ever been subjected to any eyes but that of an oc- 
 casional amanuensis and the printer. Some indulgence 
 therefore must be granted, if, with all these disadvantages* 
 I do now and then omit a reference. One cannot always 
 be equally alert, and I think almost every fair scholar will 
 rather be inclined to give me credit for having done so 
 much, than to blame me that I have not done more. So 
 much for my own defence on this and all similar occasion. 
 
 Let us now see what the E. R's. boast amounts to. 
 He says, " We will conclude our remarks on it with a list 
 of those passages in the pla}^ which are not noticed by the 
 learned editor as being quoted by the antient authors." 
 vv. 1.2.3.4. 5. 6.44. 59. 60. 79.105.248.250. 327.329. 
 350. 355. 365. 378. 437. 457. 575. 592. 610. 611. 612. 
 667. 704. 730. 764, 802. 979. — When he gives us this not- 
 able list, to what does it amount ? Merely to thirty 
 two numbers. I say numbers, not passages, for there is 
 no specification. — I may write down 320 numbers and 
 say that I give a list of passages quoted by antient 
 
 authors.' 
 
26 
 
 authors. Who is to disprove me, unless he reads through 
 every antient author without exception. To give a real 
 air of scholarship and truth to his assertions, he should 
 say, vv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Schol. Aristoph. Kan. V. 82 G. 
 v. 2. Stcph. Byzant. in EkvQm. Eustath : ad Dionys. 
 Pericg. v. 74. kc. and so of the rest. By such specifi- 
 cation he would have proved his accurate knowledge 
 of the passages he alluded to. 
 
 /& £i.<*>/s *-?■*£** - But this is not all. Of the thirty two passages which 
 
 /£•>*' 7/ /gr "^ the E. II. states to be omitted, fifteen are actually referred 
 
 ,l/v . *i* ' T^~U- t0 k} 7 Stanley in his notes, and one by H. Stephens. Now 
 
 •_' r it was obvious that I could not properly refer to these. 
 
 **- V ^jQ/&-/£^ s would be actum agere, a useless labour, if not a 
 
 .• a **■ y, f plagiarism. But that I may at least exempt myself from 
 
 n jL- * ^^_r - the charge of iqnorance on this subject, I beg leave to 
 
 inform the E. R. that I have now on the table before me 
 *rr \.*L***-G a collection of passages, which I am willing to shew him 
 
 or any other person who may chuse to look at them. 
 
 / 
 
 Supposing the E. R. to have pointed out 16 passages 
 in which iEschylus is quoted by antient authors that 
 have escaped my " reading and memory," he should in 
 the whole 7 plays be able to point out. 112 such passages. 
 But in the list which I allude to, and which I have sub- 
 mitted to the inspection of a tribunal from which the 
 E. R. can have no appeal, to no less a scholar than the 
 friend I have alluded to in the beginning of this letter, 
 I have just 829 such passages. Now I tell the Reviewer, 
 that 358 of these, or thereabout, belong to the Frag- 
 ments : therefore, according to Cocker (as the Reviewer 
 would perhaps call him, not knowing that there is 
 high critical authority for calling him Cocker, and 
 
 still 
 
 Pi 
 
 
Rev. S. B. Dr. 
 Quotations received or 
 allowed for . , » 119 
 
 27 
 
 still higher for Cockin, but I can forgive his want of Cc^A-^ cJ^> 
 " reading and memory" in this instance), if from 829 P*~ **^'ltc*ji~ui. 
 you subtract 358 there remain 471. Now the account i^^f^^c^c^. 
 of pedantry between the E. R. and myself stands thus : ,/! / ^^»— A+-^' 
 
 E. R. in Account with Bev. S. B* , - ^, ^ • 
 
 Rev. S. B. Cr. 
 By certain quotations from 
 
 antient authors ♦ . .471 
 By fragments ditto . . . 358 
 
 829 
 Received or allowed for in 
 part of payment . . . 112 
 
 Balance due to the Rev. S. B. 7 IT 
 
 So that, at present, the balance is considerably in my 
 favour. 
 
 I do not think it worth while to follow the Reviewer 
 through the remainder of this paragraph, as it is rather a 
 flourish on extraneous subjects, than closely applicable 
 to the merits of my edition. 
 
 * c For kct,Tio-xvxvu<rQ&i 9 v. 269, Porson preferred 
 xaTt^am«r6a», quasi Arviy.ur^ov ; and suggests that these 
 are of the same class of words as I^Qa^w and s^Oga^, ad 
 Orest. 292. This we doubt ; and are inclined to think 
 that icrx^va, or rather jV^a**/, and to-xvaivu, are distinct 
 words, not only in form, but in meaning and etymologi- 
 cal origin. The scholiast, by his gloss hapua-bai, seems 
 to have read KaT^avsro-Gaj. But xa,ri<Tx?xvt?abai, which 
 was a conjecture of Stanley's, and is supported by one 
 manuscript of good note, uiioJisgrved-by Mr. Butler, is /•«• «^*^**^% 
 surely more in the style of iEschylus, and is besides con- ^ M ^' 
 firmed by several similar passages." — This paragraph is 
 
 E not 
 
28 
 
 not very intelligible, but the assertion in it is in direct 
 
 opposition to the fact, and to the statement of my note, 
 
 h<r *»^>.A ; which says t; lXvst hie versus in Colb. 2. Stanleii 
 
 h*t • A* m> 1 mknpationrm KUTurx^^Ta^ai, in tcxtum rcccpcrunt Pors. 
 
 UriLcC is *i*A. Schu tz. 2, . 
 
 " In v. 351. the late Professor's certain correction 
 was 0o^ov, oo-tk; olvTtrrri 0«o»v, omitting -nra<r»j', which is here 
 a needless intruder, as are -era? and its cases in many 
 other passages : see Valckn. ad Phceniss. 509. For 
 toxaiv Mr. Butler would substitute povo; ; to which we 
 have no other objection than that Typhon was not the 
 only antagonist of the Gods." — It would seem from the 
 first of these sentences that / had not considered <ma,a-» 
 as a needless intruder, yet my words are " diutius con- 
 sideranti visum est ejicere *ra<m, quam vocem glossa- 
 toris esse crediderim." I might say something in 
 defence of my emendation povoq, but 1 willingly acknow- 
 ledge the beauty of the late Professor's emendation 
 ©Vk, which is not unfrequently used in this manner for o ?J 
 and which may perhaps be well translated into latin by 
 the words qui quidem. The remainder of this long 
 paragraph, as having nothing to do with my book, I 
 willingly omit. It contains a puerile ostentation of 
 learning on a matter about as important as whether 
 having once written the word and in three letters, we 
 may ever be allowed to write it in the well known 
 contraction. 
 
 " Mr. Butler has not remarked, that in v. 437, 
 Porson's correction wpotweW/nevov, is derived from a cor- 
 rupt gloss of the author of the Etymologicon Magnum, 
 who quotes a commentary on the Prometheus Vinctus," 
 
 The 
 
29 
 
 The passage has been already quoted at full length by 
 
 lev, in nis notes. t*~* *?+ 
 
 Stanley, in his notes. fa~*~ ^ t^f*^** 
 
 " Nor is it noted that Valcknaer, in Theoc. Adoniaz. 
 p. 354, adopts the common reading ni\ovg* y in v. 451. 
 for which much might be said : and the principal objec- 
 tion to it, viz. that the first syllable in aly» is long, might 
 with equal force be urged against hurpfii, itct^v^ and 
 similar words. We are, however, inclined to think with 
 D'Arnaud ad Hesych. p. 6. (whose remark Schutz has 
 pilfered) that vMwq» is the genuine reading." — My note 
 is, Aiefcrygoi Cant. 1. quod certe non est Atticum. 'A*«/goi 
 Turneb. eleganter, me judice, et sic Grot, in Excerpt. 
 Brunck. Schutz. Pors. Arnald. Lect. Grsec. 1. 1. Nihili * 
 est emendatio Pauwii, asfc-opo*, h. e. ipso interprete, qua in 
 cavernis quasi sepultos habitant semper : credebat scil. vir 
 cl. penultimam in atio-vpq produci, quia prima in ofyv 
 producta legitur, at «.i\ffvpq a vtfo eadem analogia deducit 
 Heath, qua a (*c6%lugopa.h, ^a.^v^^a.i^ ^<x.^u^io^on i a vro%q>vpu 9 
 wQgtpuguif wogQvgeoi;* Quin, quod caput est uverv^g apud 
 Tryphiodorum in penultima corripi monet." After { 
 reading this note, I will request you to tell me where I 
 am to look for the Reviewer's candour, or justice, or 
 honesty. 
 
 " The punctuation of vv. 461. et seqq. which is 
 referred to Porson, should have been attributed to Tyr- 
 whitt." I profess to give the punctuation of Porson's 
 edition, and I have given it accordingly. What would 
 the Reviewer have said if I had omitted it ? /**«*«*. co**^_c- 
 
 E 2 " Neither 
 
" Neither Schutz, nor Brunck, nor Mr. Butler, 
 pemembered that the concluding- verses of the fragment 
 of Moschion, which they cite from Stoboeus at v. 467, 
 are corrected bj Daniel lleinsius in his Crepundia Sili- 
 ana p. 35S." I have already answered this remark 
 at p. 24. 
 
 " On v. 587 we differ from the learned editor, who 
 prefers £$&.» to a^v. We side with Aristarchus, who 
 wrote the latter in his two editions of Homer, while 
 Nicias doubled the £" — I dare say you know that all 
 
 *£** c*r**£ '/this parade of learning is contained in Eustath. ad_ll. 
 
 ^3#m« ?*^^#J£uB2? (I am forced to quote from the Basil edition, 
 for alas ! I am not worth the Roman one, which is so 
 precious to every scholar) ; and I trust you will smile 
 with me at the solemn and condescensive gravity with 
 which the stripling Re viewer proceeds to range himself 
 under the banners of Aristarchus against Nicias. But to 
 have referred the reader directly to the passage in 
 Eustathius (which an}- body who lives in Cambridge can 
 do by the help of the Roman edition), would have been 
 to make him as wise as the Reviewer, and would have 
 greatly lessened the importance of this magnificent and 
 oracular declaration. To say nothing of the sly com- 
 parison which perhaps the Reviewer intended to draw 
 between Aristarchus and himself. Homer's line is 
 
 'Al/ctgUV slX0[X£VUV iluQoTtq sbfiiVM oI^yiv. 
 
 Eustathius observes that Nicias wrote ol$hv with a lene 
 and double &, but that Aristarchus wrote it with an 
 aspirate and a single & I believe that Aristarchus was 
 right in so doing, when he derived it from &$u for ^<y, 
 rather than from $fos satkias; yet I rather incline to 
 
 ran £e 
 
31 
 
 range myself under the standard of Nicias in this in- 
 stance, because I uniformly find the first syllable in ah* 
 and its derivates short, and because I find the ^ doubled 
 not only in olhv but in some of its derivates even in prose 
 writers and in lexicographers ; which I consider as quite 
 sufficient authority. Besides, if the Reviewer's argu- 
 ment proves any thing, it proves too much ; for it will 
 follow that if he sides with Aristarchus he must not write 
 «&»», but «&}», so that he has not had the dexterity to 
 make use of his materials properly : at least he has 
 displayed his learning at the expence of his accuracy. So 
 much for the Homeric passage ; what are the opinions of 
 modern commentators respecting it I cannot tell, as I do 
 not possess Heyne's Homer, but I suppose he notices the 
 variation. However, as to the point in question, my note 
 is " "a^v, Brunck. Schutz. Pors. Retineo £$w 9 quia in eo 
 consentiunt codices, nee repugnat metrum. Hesych. 
 "a^jjv. eU xoqqv tt») eI$ 'Tc'h-nepww" The object, therefore, of 
 my note is to acknowledge that uhv is the more usual form, 
 and to give my reason, not for preferring, but merely for 
 not altering that deviation, which may be supported by 
 abundant authority, and which, if I were disposed to 
 cavil, I could defend on stronger etymological grounds 
 than the Reviewer is probably aware of. 
 
 " Mr. Butler seldom notices the Attic form of « for y 
 (which in fact is only the most antient orthography, 
 retained after the invention of the h), as w£o0ty«r 631 ; 
 and often quotes passages without making this correction. 
 At v. 723, he writes thus, "if* Colb. 2 Ask. B. C. D. 
 Cant. 2. Jr. Brunck. Schutz. P or son ;' whereas, in fact, 
 Porson has l'fa as usual." — I will confess to you, my 
 dear Sir, I did really start up from my chair when I read 
 
 this 
 
.•?2 
 
 ]f^ ./,>'• ■ mcncc, from astonishment at the Reviewer's 
 
 /£**.*« *«" ' ( - 
 
 *< .t 
 
 t 
 
 4~& ******* 
 
 , temerity. At v. 34, I write " «t>©srsH». Rectius Pors. 
 
 i'u * 
 
 g* ') / i^Adf^vta (mam foraawn s$cuqds persons in praesentibus et 
 
 ^ x jf <c < ) A< i'muris vulgo in n tcrminatis UBIUUE servat ; qnin et ubi 
 ex*/ ^ ~ n ~* ] ltr metrum licet, $» pro civ semper scribit, et simpliciter 
 \jp9***~r ml et in compositis ; et ytytfe** y$ywp*», QUOD SEMEL 
 ^/ l ^"JYmQ 1 S\T\JM SUFFICIAT. Porson's practice in observ. 
 1 <<•"/* s/*£& m S tncse Atticisms being correct and uniform, after 
 /^2* 7^L~/- having once stated these well known circumstances I did 
 TV>«l^X A**** notchuseto repeat them, usque ad nauseam, in every 
 f tip, 'S't+'^^XwiQ. What critic living, except a schoolboy Reviewer, 
 4 ***** **- xv h c perhaps thought these familiar Atticisms were Por- 
 
 a . sonian novelties, will not allow that I have said enough 
 
 on the subject ? When therejJQra-Lfflrote %$ Pors. it was 
 impossible for any human being not to know that I must 
 inean Pbrson to have edited %»», But why then did I 
 notice it at all ? Because Stanley's reading is neither 
 2J* nor r| S f, but yj^. I am therefore not stating a differ- 
 ence between *'!,* and ;|st, but between *'|ij and ^|e»j. For 
 shame, young Gentleman, for shame I 
 
 " He commends Pauw for his alteration of (p^oyuwu; 
 from pwfaofkeA because the latter would have its last 
 syllable long. His praise is rightly bestowed, but his 
 reason is unfortunate ; inasmuch as the accusative femin- 
 ine of the plural number from pxoyaTro?, is pAoywn-ous, and 
 not <pAoyw7ri ? ." This again is incorrectly stated. My 
 remark goes to shew that Pauw is sometimes obliged to 
 use accents, though he generally rejects them. Now I 
 state, that $>.oyZ<7rz$ with the accent on its second syllable, 
 will come from fAty^g and have its last syllable short 
 But that if we retain the common reading 9*oya?r«$, with 
 
33 
 
 the accent on the last sellable, it can only -come front 
 
 ^>/\oy<ycro?, tphoyuny, (phoyunov, but in that case it WCMlId 
 
 have its last syllable long : therefore a spondee would be 
 allowable in the first foot of a trochaic hepthemimer, or, 
 if the Reviewer pleases, in the fourth place of an Iambic 
 verse, which is impossible ; therefore it cannot come 
 
 from such a Word as <pAoyw7ro?, (pXoyuTry, QXoywjrov* Q,. E. D, 
 
 " In v. 802, Mr. Butler seems inclined to prefet 
 'AxpocyyiTs, the lection exhibited by Aldus, and one MS. 
 to the common reading b^xyus, on the authority of 
 Hesychius, and the Etymol. Magn. We will, however, 
 venture to pronounce, that there is no such word as 
 d*pxyyn$ 9 which certainly appears prima facie, an anomo- 
 lous compound, and is, we conceive, unsupported by any 
 sufficient vouchers." — I shall be content with the autho- 
 rity of Hesychius and the Etymol. M. till the E, Re- 
 viewer produces better. Certainly his own ipse dixit 
 will not satisfy me — and I will help him to some analo- 
 gies which will vouch for dxf*yyfa. 'Ay.focyyrx is derived 
 from a intensive and xgajw-, which makes in the future 
 x§af«. And K^uyyv, which I think the learned Reviewer 
 will not maintain should be written with a single y, comes 
 from xA«£iy, which makes in the future x*a|w, But why ? 
 . since K^xaa and Wkxvu are the regular futures ? The 
 reason is obvious. Both verbs convey an onomatopoeia ! 
 both were originally xxdyyu and *%xyya. Hence the 
 futures ttKayZu and x^ayfw, h e e. xXayy^and Y.^xyyav, hence 
 xhayyy) and x§ayy*j, hence dn£*yyw* In like manner, from 
 an obsolete tense of (pUyyo^ca comes (pboyyy. 
 
 " The common reading of v. 677, Ae§njj dxpp n 
 is defended by Mr. Butler on geographical grounds ; 
 
 but 
 
.34 
 
 but we fear that the incorrectness of the construction is 
 Sufficient to condemn it." — Neither I, nor any other 
 scholar whom I have had an opportunity of consulting, 
 can perceive the incorrectness alluded to. ufo governs 
 the accusative §10? and the accusative ax^r, and I see 
 nothing objectionable in the situation of the particle n. 
 
 " For the sake of avoiding an anapaest in the fifth 
 place v. 6SI, the learned editor supposes an extraordinary 
 ISynircsis [sic E. 11 ] of »o into one syllable, making cttytihoq 
 a trisyllable. This, however, we confidently state to 
 be impossible, there being no analogy between this, and 
 the Latin Arjete, Consiljum, Nasidjenus, Fluvjorum and 
 the like, which are enumerated by Eentley ad Horat. 
 Serm. II. 8. 1., and after him by the Reviewer 
 before mentioned. As a similar instance, is adduced 
 AlyvKTioyirn from the Persse. 35, where Erunck, as Schutz 
 remarks, e acutely observes, that AlywirioyMfls is a word of 
 five syllables, as in Euripides, Phoen. 684. eyj?Afo»oi is to 
 be so pronounced that Mow shall form a trochee.' This 
 latter passage Musgrave has corrected, by reading Ewfaow, 
 and it is surprising thatBrunck, Schutz, and Mr. Butler, 
 with the reading of the Codex Mosquensis and Turnebus 
 before their eyes, viz. AlyvTrroys^;, as it is printed also by 
 Porson, should have persisted in retaining a word, which* 
 independently of its false metre, is an anomalous com- 
 pound ; for we do not find Kafy^oys*^, Kvw^oyfi^, 
 
 YovoioyivviS) but KafyteyEvvtf, Kvsrgoysws, Hovaiyevvi; " — I cer- 
 tainly have written hastily here. The fact is, that I have 
 constantly referred all I have to say on the subject, and 
 I have much to say on it, to the Persse v. 35 ; because 
 Brunck has a note on that passage, in which I differ from 
 him ; and there I combat his opinions, and have, as the 
 
 E. R. 
 
35 
 
 E. R. or any of his friends may see, if they wish to inspect 
 my MS. most decidedly preferred Alyvvloyevfa. I should 
 therefore have written, est enim synalcepha in (0 de qua 
 vide ad Persas, v. 35 ; for, while I oppose Brunck in the 
 passage referred to, I adduce a good many instances of 
 synalcepha and synizesis. But as this will come in the 
 form of a regular note, I must not now anticipate it. 
 
 " Mr. Butler prefers 2u $ ; but we are of opinion that 
 Brunck is right ; for, by this alteration, we avoid a devi- 
 ation from the idiom of the Tragoedians, which requires 
 'hocx^ov osrepfA* cry & Stephanus Byz. in v. 'h*xf* has 
 ol' t 'lya;#rov o-w. ; which is an evident corruption of a-6 r. 
 — A common practice among the Tragoedians, and in- 
 deed among other writers, is to pat the vocative case 
 first, and then the pronoun, and then the particle £s. So 
 in this very play, v. 3. Hpa^s <nt £s ^pJ». — But we have 
 V.,63ft^'2r£W, for ,2 «w, <rb ft. Pers. v. 834. 2$ I' Z 
 ■yefuidi 9 Eumen. v. 89. 
 
 'EpiAvjf (pv'hcuro'i 
 
 There is no necessity therefore for adopting the reading 
 of Brunck, and & better distinguishes the conversion of 
 
 the speech from the Chorus to the wretched Io. Any 
 
 Greek scholar must be intuitively sensible of this, with- 
 out its being necessary for me to add a word more, 
 
 " V.769. has sadly perplexed the critics. We shall pass 
 over their various conjectures ; observing merely, that Mr. 
 Butler adopts the correction of Mr. Tate, V ph xubu y av U 
 hffykuv lycj, to which we have the same objection as to that 
 of Brunck, viz. that the transposition of tyuy\ and the 
 changing it into i y », materially weakens its force. But, in 
 our apprehension, the difficulty is to be surmounted by 
 F so 
 
36 
 
 so certain and easy a correction, that we arc surprized at 
 its bavins hitherto eluded all the critics. Most of the 
 IVtSS. and editions nave «•{}» ?yuy x* U ^w^s* ?u/93. Aldus, 
 however, and Robortellus exhibit «»}» a» fyey ■* ^/*w» AuG£. 
 
 One MS. the Medieean, gives xv9sU ; from which three 
 variations the genuine reading is easily framed, — ov fex 
 t;»» x* syu>y at I* ha-pw *y9i£j. The corruption proceeded 
 from the ignorance of the copyists, who were offended 
 by the recurrence of the *». This particle, however, is 
 repeated in a similar manner, Eurip. Hecub. 736 ; Med. 
 369 ; Alcest. 73 ; Helen. 299 ; as corrected by Porson ; 
 and ap. Stob. tit. xxi ; and, after an interval even less 
 than the present, iEsch. Supp. 77S. Soph, in Phaedra, 
 ap. Stob. Floril. xliii. p. 163. Trachin. 755. as corrected 
 in a MS. note by Porson — p*?&h rfc «v hvxir xv uywrov 
 wots**; which correction was rendered necessary by the 
 double >. A similar remedy must be applied to a frag- 
 ment of Sophocles ap. Plut. Sympos. Prob. 9. ticxnx rx 
 ytvn to w(>Zto» l^iv xvxi-, which Valcknaer. Diatr. p. 222. 
 
 corrects xttxvt* rocysvmrx vrgurov ?a9' aTraf,-— read rxyivnra.. 
 
 That great scholar has erred in a similar manner, Diat. 
 p. 13, by reading ^6<; ayirvvirat for wfa ru» aytvav in a frag- 
 ment of Euripides. In the verse before us, AvQei? is edit- 
 ed by Porson, which introduces a fine aposiopesis." — 
 There is much misrepresentation in this long and desul- 
 tory note. My note is, " npiN Ernr' an. uAv eyuy *» 
 Med. Gud. apud Schutz. Guelph. n£v k» tyay Aid. Rob. 
 n%U y syuy av Pauw. qui tamen haud negat *£* produci 
 posse. Cf. v. 480.* Sed post w£> solet y\ geminari, ut 
 
 apud 
 
 * I beg leave to say, however, that I cannot agree with 
 Pauw. My reading there is, n§»» y lyu . Nor do 1 know any 
 instance where U^v is used long in the tragoedians, except in a 
 corrupted place. 
 
37 
 
 #pud Homer, saepissime ; itaque fateor tt^U y iyay a» 
 mihi placere, quod Heathio etiam placuit sed Morello 
 
 improbatur. Tl£v lyu y ot,v Giac. Ti^lv y ocv e*Av0<y Siapav 
 
 lyu Brunck. Melius, mejudice, vir doctissimus Jac. Tate 
 
 K(>)v XvQ& y av U ho-pav \yu, Tl£v f tyay Pors. 2."— Hence it 
 
 appears that I do not adopt the reading of Mr. Tate, to 
 whom, as an excellent scholar, I beg leave to offer this 
 public testimony of my respect. I merely say, that Mr. 
 Tate's reading, n£v \vb% y u» U ha-^uv ey<y, is better than 
 Brunck's reading, «•§»» y * £ u UhvQv &*p3» «y«, in which I 
 believe most scholars will join with me. But I say that 
 the reading which I prefer is the simpler, *§'» y lyuy «?, 
 and my reason for preferring it is, because the y ele- 
 gantly qualifies the preceding broad assertion of « fe». 
 — It would seem also from the E. R. as if I had neglect- 
 ed to notice Porson's reading and the aposiopesis, 
 which is directly contrary to the fact. Though the 
 reading is indeed not Mr. Porson's, but older than H. 
 Stephens, whose note on it and the consequent aposio- 
 pesis I have given at full length. But I shall here 
 hope to be pardoned, if I venture to investigate the real 
 cause of this misrepresentation. You will be shocked to 
 discover that this rogue of a Reviewer has been peeping 
 into your common-place book, and though he praises 
 his own conjecture with no small complacency, it is but 
 justice to all parties that the world should know he has 
 stolen it from the Rev. C. J. Blomfield, of Trin. Coll. 
 This very conjecture, irfiv av iyuy »» fa ho-puv Awflefe, was 
 shewn to me when I was last at Cambridge as your's, 
 by the Greek Professor, who at the same time told me - ^^^t^t 
 of your intention to publish an edition of iEschylus. I j 
 then demurred to the correction, as I do still, thinking 
 that which I have preferred (not Mr. Tate's, but Heath's) 
 more probable. 
 
 F 2 * We 
 
38 
 
 N We arc surprised, that, after the very probable 
 correction of yumd* for ©*sr£o«, v. 828. suggested by 
 Poison ad Oust. 324, Mr. Butler should quote the com- 
 mon lection in a note on the Supplices, as authority for 
 &*vt$a. We may remark, that the passage of Steplmnus 
 Byzantinus, adduced by the late Professor, furnishes us 
 with a correction of the Venetian Scholia ad II. A. 2. 
 where, for x^viha should be read xwihu. Hesych. 
 r«cr£^«. aygoixoi x.cu olxiiw, read uy^a ©txT»oi ; which con- 
 jecture is, we think, sufficiently established by the 
 passages of Stephanus and the Scholiast just mentioned. 
 The agreement of all the MSS. in $*wf&a. is certainly a per- 
 plexing circumstance ; but no doubt remains on our minds 
 of the truth of the above correction, and we suspect that 
 the copyists, who were much more versed in Homer than 
 in the Attic writers, introduced this word for yun^x, 
 which did not happen to be of their acquaintance." — 
 Who will not be surprized on referring to my book to 
 find that I have quoted the Professor's note at full 
 length ? but I must observe, that Professor Porson's 
 correction is not proposed by himself as necessary. His 
 words are, ad Orest. v. 324. 'Avu to Sfathv Brunckius, 
 addito articulo. Primam in cun^o* producit ^Esch. Prom. 
 v. 828. out si locus corrupius est, et hie &C ibilegendum est 
 
 yairtlov. Steph. Byz. in Voce r£. AgyETat xcu y'Wt^ov To Trpc? 
 tok oixcH; tv izotsH Miriov, onty oi tpuyixo) cW t£ u (pua\, SufitpvTtu 
 
 If this be true, we are to construe here M *ocrer« &o-eA» 
 " the little back-yards behind the houses in the cities of 
 the $iolcssians" a sentiment extremely congenial to the 
 di°nity of the JEschylean buskin ; and we are to construe 
 (allowing the reading there to be true, which I deny) 
 a passage in the Supplices hereafter to be noticed, in a 
 more ridiculous manner, making " Jupiter look down 
 from his heavenly little back-yard en sinful mortals." 
 
 The 
 
39 
 
 The Reviewer confesses himself hampered with the 
 difficulty arising from the uniform agreement of the 
 MSS. in £aWa, and I, who see no reason for changing 
 the MSS. when it makes good sense and is confirmed 
 by a hundred other instances, am quite content with 
 Sun^a, here, and quite unmoved by the Reviewer's 
 argument, which in fact amounts to nothing. — His as- 
 sertion of the transcribers being more used to Homer 
 than Attic Greek, is quite a gratuitous assumption. 
 
 " In v. 837. x zi ^iv P asses unnoticed, though Porson 
 and one MSS. have x s ^( ei > We think that Hermann 
 justly defends the common reading of v. 858. ; but 
 interprets it in a manner which the words, as they now 
 stand, will not bear. The explanation given by Siebelis, 
 Diatrib. ad Pers. p. 118. which Mr. Butler censures 
 somewhat hastily, appears to us judicious and satisfac- 
 tory." — The extraordinary difference between x ii p«>fy) 
 and x il P° t '& is certainly so great that it was unpardonable 
 not to have noticed it. For this I must be allowed to 
 plead, as before, the " quod semel monitum sujficiat" 
 Good Heavens 1 can you, my dear Sir, sufficiently ad- 
 mire the felicity with which the Reviewer blunders ? 
 A vaiious reading, as I conceive, means a readino- 
 different from the reading of the text. Now as the 
 reading of the text, and the reading of " Porson and 
 one MS." are exactly the same, I cannot see by what 
 right I am to be blamed for omitting in the Varr. Lectt. 
 to make a difference between "you are driven" and 
 " you arc driven." Many things which appear "judici- 
 ous and satisfactory" to " US," h. e. to a stripling Re- 
 viewer, do not appear " judicious and satisfactory" to me, 
 who have a few more years over my head. The words 
 
 of 
 
40 
 
 of JFschylus in Stanley's text, which Siebelis professes 
 to follow, are 
 
 Talk's, (pQovov $1 au)[jtocrcov t%u 0to?' 
 *Ape» $a.[A£VTwv f vvar^^e^ru 6pacre». 
 
 The explanation g iven by Siebelis is, JEgypti filii 
 Jhnmidum renabuntiir vuptias, sed illorum ipsis Deus in- 
 videbit corpora, (non committet ut iis potiantur) ipsorum 
 ir.ro (JEgypti filiorum) a fecminis ccesorum corpora terra 
 teget Pelasgica' 1 '' Nova' it does not appear to me "judi- 
 cious and satisfactory," but clumsy, forced, and unnatural, 
 to refer a-u^ruv in one line $o the person of the Danaides, 
 and in the next line to the persons of the Sons of 
 /Esfyptus. And this was then, and is now, not my 
 hasty ; but my deliberate opinion ; and till I can see in 
 good writers similar instances of forced and harsh con- 
 struction, I shall not receive the interpretation of 
 Charles Godfrey Siebelis, whose merits as a Commentator 
 on iEschylus, I have not been accustomed to consider 
 as very " satisfactory." — The next paragraph I have 
 already answered. 
 
 " We shall now offer a few remarks on the philosophical 
 [philological] commentary. This opens with a long and 
 curious note of Mr. Butler's friend Joannes Muller, written 
 in most crude and inelegant Latin, which we are actually 
 at a loss to construe, much more to comprehend. We 
 wish that Mr. Butler, if prevented by respect for his 
 illustrious correspondent, from consigning these remarks 
 to his Adversaria, or the flames, had thrown them to- 
 gether in the form of an excursus, which, in company 
 with those of Christian Godfrey Schutz, would have 
 formed a pretty appendix to the volume. We highly 
 
 approve 
 
41 
 
 approve of this method, which has been pursued by 
 commentators of the stamp of the late Mr. Muller, as it 
 leaves the reader more at liberty as to the perusal of their 
 crude and uninteresting speculations." — " Mr. Butler's 
 friend Joaunes Muller," was considered by every man of 
 literary pretensions on the Continent, as one of the most 
 profound and most universal scholars that ever lived in 
 any age or country. The whole host of scholars bowed 
 before him. Such was this great man, the stupendous 
 depth and variety of whose learning obtained for him. 
 the willing homage of the whole lettered Continental 
 world, of whom we are told, by a boy Reviewer, " We 
 beg leave, however, to enter a vigorous protest against 
 the publication of any more of the lucubrations of Mr. 
 Muller; which, to speak the truth plainly, are most 
 unqualified nonsense, and serve only to augment the 
 bulk of commentaries already too voluminous." — Muller 
 was called on the Continent the Tacitus of his age ; 
 his profound and philosophical mind led him to adopt 
 the style of Tacitus, rather than of Cicero. Not because 
 he wanted taste to appreciate the beauties of the latter, 
 but because his congeniality of deep reflection naturally 
 induced him to express himself in the sententious brevity 
 of the former. The latin of the note in question is not 
 crude and inelegant, but it is close and abrupt, rather 
 than flowing and unconfined. If the E. R. cannot con- 
 strue or comprehend the note in question, that is not my 
 fault. I am able to construe and comprehend it myself, 
 and I am not obliged to furnish him with intellect and 
 capacity.* 
 
 The 
 
 * Mr. Muller's profound historical researches led him to con- 
 sider the text of iEschylus philosophically rather than critically ? 
 and if he paid attention rather to things than to syllables, he is not 
 
 the 
 
42 
 
 " The philological notes of Mr. Butler himself are 
 generally learned and useful ; we regret that they are not 
 more thickly scattered thro' this tedious mass of commen- 
 tary ; since there are still many singularities of language 
 and construction, which are passed over in silence. Wc 
 could have wished, also, that those passages and phrases 
 of Homer had been noted, which /Eschylus has imitated 
 or adopted : these are not a few, and are worthy of 
 remark, as iEschylus is known to have been a warm 
 admirer of the father of Grecian song, and to have 
 termed his own compositions ' crumbs of the Homeric 
 banquet.' We cannot refrain from transcribing, for 
 the edification and amusement of our readers, a note of 
 John Midler's on v. 186. 'Quanta his Jobus srquivoca 
 dixit! Magnitudo duoruni auctorum summte antiquitatis 
 similitudinem habet ; altior tamen AUSITIDENSIS ; 
 
 (i. e. 
 
 the less instructive. I must say, not having in this' instance the fear 
 of the young Reviewer before my eyes, that I think, even where his 
 interpretations may perhaps be considered as not strictly relative to 
 the passage in question, there is such an air of learning, of deep 
 thinking, and philosophical research in his notes, that to those who 
 love to mix geographical, historical, or political knowledge with 
 their more useful studies of genitive and dative cases, they will 
 always be very acceptable. The late Mr. Bryant, who was much 
 more eccentric in his disquisitions than " my friend Joannes Muiler," 
 in his notes upon iEschylas, was nevertheless, I suspect, almost as 
 good a scholar as the E. Reviewer, who, with whatever disrespect 
 he may be disposed to treat the singularities, or, as he might per- 
 haps call them, the conundrums of that great man, will never per- 
 suade me, because I differ from him, to hold him in contempt. In 
 fact, it is no uncommon thing for the most profound scholars to 
 advance paradoxes, originating, not merely from a love of singularity 
 and superiority above the vulgar throng, but from their discovery of 
 the great uncertainty of all human knowledge. Many are the in- 
 stances which might be adduced in proof of this, not only in philo 
 logy, but in medicine, in theology, in history, and in every brand* 
 of science. 
 
43 
 
 (u e. the man of Uz.) Gracus ad humaniorem pwOoXoyfcw 
 delabitur? This is more in the style (we do not mean 
 as to the Latinity) of Justus Lipsius and Vincentius Obso- 
 pseus, than any thing we have read in the labours of 
 modern commentators, except some of the lucubrations 
 of Schutz." — While I thank the Reviewer for his con- 
 descensive civility, I beg leave to say, that I believe my 
 notes will be found as numerous as those of any other 
 commentator. It is very difficult to say what are sin- 
 gularities of language. What one person, not widely 
 conversant with the circle of Greek literature, may think 
 a singularity, another, who has taken a more extensive 
 range, and has enjoyed greater opportunities of remark, 
 may think no singularity at all. I remember, when a 
 boy, eagerly noting down such words as ot»2* & vw) & 
 &Tocr} in Aristophanes, A very few pages in that author 
 made me smile at the unnecessary pains I had taken. 
 With regard to Homer, my only fear is that too much 
 has been brought forward. The Reviewer, in his critique 
 on my notes, appears to have forgotten Stanley's, to 
 which I beg to refer him, only remarking, that it would 
 have been useless tautology in me to repeat what he had 
 already said. Of Midler's note, I can only observe, 
 that it appears to me a very judicious one. He com-' 1 
 pares certain expressions of iEschylus with others which 
 are put into the mouth of Job ; and asserts the superiority 
 of the sacred above the heathen writer. Mr. Muller 
 probably had in view, besides many other passages, Job 
 cli. xix. and if the reader is not " edified and amused" 
 and delighted, and awestruck, by the sublimity of that 
 chapter, he must have certain defects of head and heart, 
 which, if he values his happiness, he will do well to get 
 cured of with all imaginable speed. Mr. Mulier's com- | 
 ~G parison 
 
 ^V r r 
 
 c*s 
 
 ~~&& 
 
 
 
 #1& 
 
 '.•l^t^S 
 
 
44 
 
 pirisoh between the sacred ami profane writers, and his 
 judicious observations on the result of that comparison, I 
 am sure will net be treated by any reflecting person with 
 contempt ; ami 1 really do not think the writer of the 
 E, R. would himself encourage flippancy on such an 
 occasion. lam persuaded, that, even on slight reflec- 
 tion, lie will join with me in wishing that sentence 
 unwritten. 
 
 " We are surprised at the implicit deference which 
 Mf. "Butler pays to the authority of Hesychius, Suidas, 
 and the author of the Etymologicon Magnum, whose 
 lexicons are three of the most corrupt books extant in 
 any language. Indeed it requires considerable caution 
 and discernment to use the works of the lexicographists 
 and grammarians with advantage," &c. — I pay no im- 
 plicit deference to these lexicons ; I frequently r quote 
 them, Hesychius especially, for reasons known to every 
 scholar. Unquestionably the text of Hesychius is cor- 
 rupt, but who does not know, that, by the labours of 
 Alberti and Ruhnkenius, it is perhaps the very best edited 
 book in the whole compass of Greek literature ? Who 
 does not know, that the words of Hesychius are taken, not 
 at random, but from passages selected very largely from 
 the tragedians ? Who does not know, that his glosses in 
 many instances lead to the specific passage ? Who does 
 not know, how much he has taken from iEschylus ? 
 Finally, if the Reviewer wanted authority for an English 
 word, where would he direct his search rather than to 
 Johnson's Dictionary ? But it is quite futile to argue 
 longer on such a subject, and the E. R. is ready enough 
 to admit the authority of these very lexicographers, 
 whenever it is convenient to him. 
 
 "A 
 
45 
 
 u A singular etymology is proposed for *w>n$ at v. 575. 
 Mr. Butler derives it from *h and o-ruo-is — ' errabunda.' 
 To this we demur, &c." — This Reviewer is not to blame 
 me for proposing the etymology, but the Schol. £. (to 
 whose authority, as it makes against him in this instance, 
 I suppose he will demur), who says, lr*%npmi a-niuv n r cio-iv$, 
 and again, v. 601, 'Ereg^jw? T%o<pv$ xex.) rwn»$. And the 
 Schol. A. on v. 601, says, reypawra* $\ «** rvrwy k* tS i?, 
 
 xki tS racrt 5 . With the remainder of this passage, intro- 
 duced for no other purpose than a flourish, I have 
 nothing to do ; and I therefore omit it for the sake of 
 brevity. 
 
 " No notice is taken of the learned illustration and 
 interpretation of v. 862, by Ruhnken, who renders l v 
 ctpayoLw < in jugulo? and supports his opinion by a 
 variety of references ; nor of Porson's remark on the 
 Hecub. 1125, concerning the active usage of mros in v; 
 925." — Gently, gently, my good lad 1 Wait tilj you . 
 come to Again, v. 1608, «/*7ri«r1i* ¥ xwo vQwfit HfS^i where \ 
 you will find Heath translates kicl aQayns ex Jugulo, and ! 
 where you will also find what I have to say on this mat- ' 
 ter. Yet even if I had overlooked a note in such an I 
 immense mass of materials as I have had to arrange I 
 should not have considered this as more than a venial 
 error, for which I believe I should have readily found 
 indulgence from any candid person. But what am I to 
 say to the Reviewer, who not having such trouble of 
 selection, and having my book, as I suppose, on the 
 table, has in this very sentence committed an infinitely 
 greater offence ? Any man, in a far less difficult under- 
 taking than mine, may be guilty of an omission, but 
 G2 what 
 

 ■ ' ■' -' < ' n *■ &**€*£+* ts*t\ ^ 
 
 what excuse has he for an insertion in direct opposition 
 
 to truth ? How will the Reviewer justify his declaration 
 that I have 4 taken no notice of the remark of Professor 
 Person on the Hec. v. 1125. when I refer him to 
 my words, l n»rc? defendit Heath ex Steph. Thcsanro 
 et Heathio longc doctior Porsonus, ad Eurip. Hec. 
 v. 1115.' Surely he will not avail himself of the idle 
 subterfuge that v. 11 1 5 is printed by error of the press 
 for 1125, especially as Porson has no note on v. 1115. 
 I cannot think he will shelter himself under the mean- 
 ness of a typographical quibble, especially as he commits 
 more than a similar one in this very sentence, where, for 
 925, we should read 916.* 
 
 " We are somewhat surprised that Mr. Butler should 
 coincide with Morell in his strange version of v. 1000. 
 
 ixte'iS fiurr t 9 f« xfyt eflrtfj Trccfyyopwv. ( Til mihl, velut fluctlLSy 
 
 mclestits 
 
 * I lake this opportunity to apologise to the E. R. for my 
 scanty display of Greek quotations in this letter. And to my readers 
 in general, for any errors they may observe in the accentuation or 
 even the orthography of the Greek -words 1 have unavoidably intro- 
 duced — In fact, though the printer of this pamphlet is very accurate 
 and intelligent where his own language is concerned, yet living in a 
 country town, he has little occasion for Greek types, and possesses 
 but a very small supply of them ; and the use of that small number 
 is again cramped by the difficulty of setting them, a circumstance 
 which has delayed the publication of this letter very greatly. I 
 have therefore been obliged, greatly to my mortification, to abstain 
 from quoting and emending a variety of fragments from Achseus 
 the Eretrian, Plato Comicus, Sopater, Astydamas, &c. &c. &c. &c. 
 which, though very little to the purpose, yet if lugged in by the 
 head and shoulders, would have served to illustrate my extensive 
 readings and to astonish the unlearned, I hope, however, if I 
 should live to edit a single play of Euripides, to gratify the learned 
 and overwhelm the unlearned world, with a copious inundation of 
 certain conjectures and unexceptionable canons. 
 
vr 
 
 molestus es persuadendo? in which they follow M. Apo- 
 stolus. The usual and obvious mode of construing is 
 confirmed to certainty, by similar expressions in the 
 Andromache v. 538, and in Medea 23 ; see also Samson 
 Agonistes 960." — I give my reason, because I think 
 Virgil has imitated, and in his imitation has explained the 
 passage ; but the Reviewer in fairness should have stated 
 that I give both interpretations and leave the reader to 
 chuse which he pleases ; either make good sense, and 
 are supported by classical authorities, but from the use 
 of the word ox*t?<; I conceive my interpretation some- 
 what preferable ; if he was deaf as the waves he could 
 not be troubled by the discourse of Mercury. Still I 
 am not tenacious of my interpretation, in my notes, or 
 even at present. I leave it to the taste of the reader. 
 The remainder of this paragraph I may omit. For the 
 sake of brevity I omit the next paragraph ; which, with 
 an air of condescensive impartiality, conveys the general 
 language of complimentary civility. I shall only re- 
 mark, that I have done what I considered my duty in 
 referring rather to the original writers than to their 
 successors of the Dutch school, but that (as is admitted 
 by the Reviewer in the subsequent number) / have ex* 
 traded largely from the writers of that school, whatever I 
 found to the purpose. It is somewhat singular that the 
 list of Dutch Worthies, Hemsterhusius, Valkenarius, 
 piersonus, Koenius, Ruhnkenius, occurs in one para- 
 graph of a late publication, by a writer of whose learning 
 and experience I entertain a much higher opinion than I 
 do of the E, R. This, however, may be an accidental 
 coincidence, for I do not mean to insinuate that the 
 E. R. has been poaching for a list of the Dutch critics 
 on that manor. 
 
 " The 
 
48 
 
 a The copious enumeration of Various Lections 
 which is contained in the critical commentary, will be of 
 great utility to future editors of jEschylus, but we cannot 
 hel[) observing that although we are now presented with a 
 very useful mass of collectanea, the volumes before us can 
 scarcely be termed part of a * new edition* of iEschylus." 
 The next paragraph and the subsequent quotation from 
 Schutz are in direct opposition to the former part of this 
 sentence, and are brought for the purpose of expressly 
 contradicting it ; the latter part of the sentence I really 
 cannot understand. If an editor who gives anew con- 
 stitution of the text, an original and copious commen- 
 tary on it, collations of inedited MSS. and inedited 
 remarks of the first scholars, on almost every line of the 
 text, cannot be said to have given a new edition of a 
 work, I would humbly ask the E. E. by what name he 
 would designate his labours ? The two next paragraphs 
 are palpably contradictory of the preceding, and are as 
 follows. " We will conclude our animadversions on the 
 first volume, with a sensible remark made by Schutz in 
 the preface to his edition of this author, p. vii. who, it 
 appears, afforded a singular instance of being convinced 
 of a truth and yet acting in direct opposition to it. 
 
 ' Tale editionum genus, utut plurima in iis bona 
 insint, propagando inter eruditos homines Grsscarum 
 litterarum studio parum prodesse certe scio ; meliusque, 
 quamvis minus gloriose, de eo mereri arbitror, qui cu- 
 rent, ut correcta, quae merum textum auctorum habeant, 
 exemplaria, exiguo pretio venalia in manus studiosorum 
 veniant.' 
 
 I can 
 
49 
 
 I can only account for this singularity by conjectur- 
 ing that the 'E. R. has here disclosed the object of his 
 whole critique, which I presume to have been no other, 
 than to prepare the world for the really new edition of 
 i^Eschylus, by the Rev. J. C. Blomfield, " quse merum 
 textum auctoris habens, exiguo pretio venalis, in manus 
 studiosorum veniat." Which I am thus very happy to 
 assist in advertising. 
 
 " We should not omit to observe, that for a know- 
 ledge of the corrections which we have stated as the late 
 Professor Porson's, we are indebted to the kindness of a 
 learned friend, to whom they were originally communi- 
 cated." — I shall have more to say on this subject in a 
 subsequent remark ; in the mean time, I beg to ask 
 / whether this is a. fair statement ? Being the truth and the 
 whole truth ? Whether, with these corrections, certain 
 j remarks or references have not also been communicated, 
 j which greatly assisted the Reviewer to flourish on this 
 v occasion ? * 
 
 I now come to the second part of the performance 
 in the E. R. No. xxx. but having dwelt much longeron 
 the first than I had intended, I shall be more concise in 
 my notice of it. The first paragraph is occupied in 
 correcting a blunder, which the Reviewer acknowledges 
 himself to have made in the preceding number. In 
 doing which he commits another — and another. 
 
 " We have before mentioned our disapprobation of 
 his [Mr. Butler's] notion, that these three, with the Sup- 
 plies, formed a Tetralogia Promethea, but in doing so 
 we inadvertently committed a mistake. The author of 
 
 the 
 * EweloE™. H. e. To the intended Select Committee of inspectors 
 j of the Porsonian treasures purchased for Trinity College Library. 
 
<>0 
 
 the argument to the Persrc states, that /Eschylus gained 
 the prize in the Archonship of Menon, by the following 
 tetralogy, Persir, Glaucus Po'niensis, Phineus, and Pro- 
 metheus, ' that is,' we said, ' either the Prometheus 
 Vinctus or Solutus ; for the Prometheus lgnifer seems to 
 have been a Satyric Drama, as was the Glaucus Potnien- 
 sis.' We should have said, the Glaucus Pontius, or 
 Marinus ; for the other was a tragedy : the Phineus was 
 probably the Satyric Drama of the Tetralogy." — Here 
 we have blunder the first continued, and confirmed, for 
 an exposition of which see p. 21. We have also the 
 following statement : 
 
 First of all the Tetralogy is said to consist of the 
 Persog, Glaucus Potniensis, Phineus, and Prometheus 
 (Vinctus or Solutus) ; in which tetralogy there were of 
 course three tragedies and one Satyric Drama, which the 
 Reviewer conjectures to have been the Glaucus Potni- 
 ensis. Now he tells us, that he should have said the 
 Glaucus Pontius or Marinus ; for the other (meaning 
 the Glaucus Potniensis) was a tragedy, (and therefore 
 the Glaucus Pontius was a Satyric, Drama). Not con- 
 tent with this, he subjoins, " the Phineus was probably 
 the satyric drama of the tetralogy." Therefore the 
 tetralogy consisted of two tragedies and two satyric 
 dramas. I shall leave the learned Reviewer to reconcile 
 this mass of inconsistency as well as he can. In the 
 subsequent observation there is better sense and judge- 
 ment, yet some of the titles of Epicharmus's plays are 
 
 To. yen OaKocaira, - — KvkXcc-^ Upo^Gayj Tlvpxtztvs Sive Ilvpfcz, 
 
 these are surely suspicious titles. — The Reviewer pro- 
 ceeds " to supply the deficiencies in my edition of the 
 Fragments, taking for the basis of his remarks the text 
 
 Crmvtr £^» s+/S US sy - ^* /^^T 
 
51 
 
 of Stanley," against my use of which in the preceding 
 
 number he so loudly declaims. The material part of 
 
 the addition to the Prom. Ign. Fragm. 1. is anticipated \ <hs$~^£***> 
 
 by Stanley and Pauw, whose words I have quoted. 
 
 Fragm. II. None of the emendations proposed by 
 the Reviewer seem to me happy, and all are, as 
 even the Reviewer seems fully aware, open to the 
 strongest objections ; the sense which I have given 
 after the emendation of Pauw, which, however futile, 
 happens to come from the Dutch School, and from no 
 less a man in it than Hemsterhusius, appears to me the 
 easiest and most natural. 
 
 Fragm. III. When the Reviewer says, " The intro- 
 ductory words of Plutarch prove that this was a satyric 
 drama, of which indeed the fragments themselves con- 
 tain internal evidence ;" the natural inference is, thatT 
 have maintained a contrary opinion, at least no one 
 would suspect that I had both quoted the passage from 
 Plutarch, and maintained the very same positions which 
 the Reviewer seems to advance as his own. 
 
 In respect to the fragments of the Prometheus Solu- 
 tus, the Reviewer says that, " I do not mention that 
 in Dionysius is sS o!&& for o-xtf oUcc, which is true ; or 
 pip-bei for pip^Y), which of course I had no occasion to 
 give, as it is the same word, vide p. 32, or 6Spo? wsp w for 
 &?§«; we%uv } as H. Stephens had corrected the words in 
 Strabo. Now as OSpo? <n^ uw are the words of the text as 
 quoted from Strabo by Stanley, and GSp 3 ' ; mp t» are the 
 words of the text in Dionysius, and as the Reviewer 
 professes to take Stanley's text, for the basis of his re- 
 
 H jnarksj 
 
52 
 
 marks, 1 am puzzled to understand why I should have 
 
 noted 0^6i ws^ m> as a variation from fit^o? wt^ u Vi to which 
 ^ f it seems as like as identity can make it. And as to my 
 
 C *lraSSvT//^- 1 ? ot uavm & noticed Stephens' reading of O^oj w^», I can 
 A/«"» ^, Y -'**V>fiiy say, that, if my eyes do not deceive me, I have 
 5^ ^ ^'...-3-v* '•' given it at full length in Stephens' own words, p. 220. 
 I r K'< /'''■• *f? * ° 5 ^^ ^ K * *V ; "^ ' J * c y 1*/+**- . 
 " Secondly, he gives Sahnasius the credit of o-b 
 £z\uv ha%eis for cv[jL@tt,Kuv huosiq, which is the correction, 
 and an elegant one it is, of Paulus Leopardus, Emend. 
 v. n." — Now it so happens, that I quote the emendation 
 /£>t^> ~ >^ ^ of Paulus Leopardus at full length, which is notify $«hwv 
 &«!«k, but crv @x\w» hums, from huibu ; and hence it fol- 
 lows that I have not attributed the emendation of Paulus 
 Leopardus to Salmasius, but have given suum cuique, 
 each his own, with more fairness and more accuracy than 
 I can always find observed by the Reviewer. With 
 regard to the alteration of the word rgoyyt*«» I must leave 
 it to the sagacity of the Edinburgh Reviewer, only 
 remarking, that I quite agree with him in rejecting 
 
 f The arrangement of Fragm. iv. is palpably obvious, 
 ) no man can take credit to himself for so insignificant an 
 exploit. I am, therefore, willing to resign the glory of 
 v it to Toup. in Suid. I. p. 94. 
 
 " Fragm. v. w«^ is Bentley's correction, and 
 notPauw's. Epist. ad Mill. p. 50."— What is that to 
 me, good Mr. Reviewer ? I have given Pauw's note as an 
 editor of ^Eschylus, with his name printed in-capitals 
 after it; and you and he, young Gentleman, must 
 settle the matter. — I now come to the Supplices. 
 
 " V. 4. 
 
 
53 
 
 " V. 4. Mr. Butler has not remarked that Porson re- 
 tained the old reading *swro£a05», without the article ; rfo 
 does not appear to us to be indispensable, tho' it improves 
 the verse." — Here I must once more apostrophize the \ 
 Reviewer, and say, My good Lad, I profess to give Varias \ 
 Lectiones, varias different lectiones readings. Now the 
 reading in the text of Stanley is AnfioQabm, without the 
 article, and the reading in the text of Porson is AewIoj&B- 
 G«», without the article, and as Az<if\o$a.QZv looks to me 
 very like AvkIq&Mv, I did not conceive it to be a different 
 reading, and for that reason I did not notice it. This is 
 not the first nor the second time that I have had occasion 
 to remark the hypercritical accuracy of the Reviewer, in 
 trying to lay sins of omission, though groundlessly, to 
 my charge. The remaining part of the sentence, in which 
 the Reviewer says that ruv is not indispensable though it 
 improves the verse, reminds me of that judicious criti- 
 cism in the Spectator, where the commentator has but 
 two foolish reasons for preferring a certain reading ; first, 
 because the rhyme, and secondly because the sense, was 
 preserved by it. 
 
 Passing over the intervening matter, which is not 
 my immediate concern, I come to v. 84, which the 
 Reviewer reads iQ^v $ tivpm <rrvy2vres 9 as if it were so 
 printed in the text ; whereas it is iW^u<; in the text, and 
 Irvpus is a Var. Lect. his conjecture, however, that » 
 should be added, deserves consideration, though his 
 interpretation by no means satisfies me. 
 
 " An excellent conjecture of Rothe's, in v. 101, is 
 unnoticed ; he reads favih* for ^ awt&y," — I never can # 
 
 believe that ^Eschylus, who uses Somi^j with the first / y^ j ^f? 
 
 Trir long T^f*^-- 
 
54 
 
 long in the two instances in which it occurs, Prom. 
 
 v. 828, and Choeph. v. 796, would here use it short, tho' 
 
 it is short in Homer. But if oW^o* be an allowable 
 
 <. mf ^ ft *^ reading here, why is yawe&> forsooth the true reading in 
 
 „ w- £4r*-4 the other two instances, see p. 38. But what becomes 
 
 , tie* ?/l* of the much wanted #, if we read £**-/&», and what 
 
 A 7 / > r c «< becomes of the metre, if we read & Wc&w ? And why is 
 
 not the sense good enough from the common reading ? 
 
 " There is a dismally tedious note on v. 130, in which 
 a conjecture or two is set forth in the form of a queiy : 
 Nee tamen placet, says Mr. Butler ; which observation, 
 with regard to ourselves, is strictly true." — The note on 
 v. 130, is, I fear, dismally tedious, and the sneer with 
 which the Reviewer closes his remark on it, is, I fear, 
 but too well founded. Yet what could I do ? The 
 passage is deplorably corrupt. I have collected all that 
 preceding commentators have written on it ; and shewn 
 where they failed. I have added my own observations, 
 and given whatever hints I could, towards its elucida- 
 tion. I have confessed the difficulty, and the dissatis- 
 faction I feel, after all that has been done ; and I have 
 recommended the passage to better scholars, who may 
 come after me. The Reviewer has no reason to expect 
 that I should enliven a critical commentary with a coun- 
 try dance, and I do not observe, notwithstanding the 
 contempt he expresses for all that I have done, that he 
 has offered any thing of his own. So much easier is it 
 to find a fault than to correct one. 
 
 " Schutz is certainly right in taking &>go; with j&jpf- 
 (,mIq* 9 notwithstanding that the learned editor on this 
 occasion i desiderates Mr. Schiitz's wonted elegance.' 
 
 But 
 
55 
 
 But where, in the name of fortune, did Mr. Butler learn 
 to talk of the elegance of this commentator, which is a 
 topic he insists on in frequent laudatory remarks ? May 
 we not expect to hear of the elegant Le Clerk, the 
 elegant Pauw, the elegant Bothe ? What possible claim 
 an editor can have to this epithet who possesses neither 
 learning, taste, nor literary honesty, we are at a loss to 
 conceive." — I would ask the Reviewer if he does hear of 
 the elegant Le Clerc, the elegant Pauw, or the elegant 
 Bothe ? Or if I have in fact applied that epithet to them 
 in any instance ■? But this passage only affords too 
 striking an instance of the narrow spirit which prevails 
 among some of the disciples of the late Greek Professor. 
 From his own unrivalled height, that truly learned man 
 looked down on inferior scholars with too much fastidi- 
 ousness. But if he, from his acknowledged pre-emi- 
 nence, had a right to consider the generality of scholars 
 as beneath himJ>and if, with a weakness which certainly 
 one could have wished he had not indulged, he some- 
 times spoke of them too slightingly, are his juvenile 
 disciples entitled to the same liberty ? 
 
 An quodcunque facit Maecenas, TE quoque verum est 
 Tanto dissimilera, et tanto certare minorem ? 
 
 It has been my great object, throughout my whole i 
 work, to treat no scholar with asperity — to indulge in n6 ] 
 petulant sneers— no flippant sarcasms — no contemptuous I 
 irony. XscBolar ough t to be a gentleman. He ought to ' 
 have his manners and his disposition humanized by the 
 studies in which he is engaged ; and if in the pursuit of 
 them he only acquires a certain number of hard words, 
 and scattered fragments, and long and short syllables, he 
 had better have employed himself in some useful me- 
 chanic 
 
56 
 
 chanie occupation, for he has obtained no knowledge 
 / /- /"that will justly entitle him to respect. All wanton and 
 .. j unprovoked abuse, which we so often see scholars apt to 
 i ,f. *~ ■■.?£< '+{ > / lavish on those who happen to differ in opinion from 
 \ them, is a disgrace to themselves, and on their own 
 Vfceads be the folly and shame of it. The late Greek 
 Professor, in my humble opinion, very much under- 
 valued the talents of some of the continental scholars, 
 who, tho' not equal to him in acuteness or depth of learn- 
 ing, were yet no contemptible men. His imitators, 
 with the usual servility of that tribe, affect a supercilious- 
 ness, which is neither warranted by their learning nor 
 their experience, and which I shall certainly use my 
 humble and ceaseless efforts to oppose. When 1 am 
 made to say " that I desiderate Mr, Schutz's wonted 
 elegance," the youthful Reviewer has translated the words 
 f* ubi solitam elegantiam viri cl. desidero." This I will 
 maintain, in defiance of a triple phalanx of Edinburgh 
 Reviewers. Schutz has done more than any preceding 
 commentator except Stanley. He has explained many 
 passages before left in obscurity, and has explained 
 them well. Where a passage is capable of two inter- 
 pretations, he has generally preferred the better — the 
 more natural — the more pleasing — or the more poetical. 
 — On these grounds I maintain, and will maintain the 
 justice of my expression. Schutz had not great metrical 
 skill, great accuracy in collation, or great confidence in 
 his own powers; yet he has done a great deal. His 
 want of literary honesty is unpardonable and notorious ; 
 and whoever takes the trouble to read my note on v. 
 213, will see my opinion fairly stated. But he will find 
 no abuse there. He will find certain facts affirmed — 
 and the proof of these facts adduced — and the inference 
 
 left 
 
57 
 
 left to the reader — and a candid acknowledgement of 
 the merits of Schutz in other respects. This, however, 
 is a subject which more properly belongs to my preface, 
 where it will be discussed fairly and temperately. 
 
 With regard to my interpretation of »*« ariyav Sofa, it 
 would not have been " superfluous to prove it false," as to t/ ^ >€ *^ ^<f^ j£ 
 me it is evidently true. Audi might more justly find fault 
 with the Reviewer for having omitted to assign a reason, 
 than he blames, me for having said, %%m Porsonus quod 
 quis non praetulerit ? Surely in using such an expression I 
 cannot have left the least possible doubt on the mind of the 
 reader which I thought the true reading ; and why was I 
 to go out of the way to state that which no tiro in the 
 language can be ignorant of. But the Reviewer is here 
 guilty of Hypercriticism with a vengeance ; he finds 
 fault with what he acknowledges to be right, merely that 
 he may have the opportunity of displaying his lore in a 
 matter, which not only every scholar, but every boy who 
 begins to make Greek verses, must know. Does he sup- 
 pose that I have not even schoolboy information enough 
 to know that the last syllable in <p§o»a:ra? is long ? Could 
 not even the accent have discovered this to me, if I had 
 been ignorant of the prosody ? And have I not in a hun- 
 dred previous instances remarked the law of the termina* 
 ting trisyllable ? and can it be necessary then to give a 
 solemn decision between two readings, where one makes 
 a false quantity and the other does not ? Would it not ) 
 be a wtfiepy'Hz, a superfluous expense of time and paper ? It C 
 has been my general rule to make a remark on such oeca- ' 
 sl ons, w here there is any discrepance of opinion or room 
 for error. In the space of the very single page opposite 
 to that which contains the note in question, I have 
 
 omitted 
 
 ^~* 
 
58 
 
 omitted to observe — first, that yfyfli, is the true reading, 
 not yxfotit, as in Aid. — 2. That w^o/x^iav is the true 
 leading, not vr^o^luv, as Guclph. Aid. — -3. That rap 
 kirn Msptms is the true reading, not *4* Iwihtiepivoiq, as 
 Rob. — 4-. That «|oi»^a«toi is the true reading, not a|o»e»A«To* y 
 as Aid. And so in many other instances, amounting in 
 the whole, in the single page preceding the note, to no 
 less than twenty eight : and in like manner in every 
 ■ page. For in giving the Varr. Lectt. it surely could not 
 be necessary to interpose my own judgement in cases 
 i which are so evident as to speak for themselves. What 
 would be the use of saying r»po*7* Aid. qua? vox corrupta 
 v videtur. Ta/*' smSeXTupeva; Rob quod permetrum fieri non 
 potest, (a case in point) 'A|o»eftaToi Aid. H, et El scil. in 
 Codd. ssepe confunduntur. I might have said all this, but 
 would it have improved any reader qualified to sit down 
 to iEschylus ? — Surely no. 
 
 I should have thought such wise saws, delivered with 
 such solemnity, on such a case, an indirect proof that 
 the commentator had no real learning in store for real 
 difficulties. Indeed, the Reviewer, who generally takes 
 occasion to make a display when there is no difficulty, is 
 not less astonished at the profundity of his own know- 
 ledge, than the poor Welchman in the ASTEIA of the 
 modern Hierocles, who having never seen a piece of 
 gold, and being paid 15s. 6d. for work done at Bristol, 
 in half-a- guinea and two half-crowns, hastened home 
 with his treasure, and exclaimed, casting a farewell look 
 of commiseration on the distant spires of the city, c Ah 
 poor Pristol, poor Pristol, one more such plow and its all 
 over with thee !' So mighty was the treasure which this 
 
 honest 
 
59 
 
 honest Welchman conceived himself to possess, because 
 he had never seen so much before. 
 
 " For™?, v. 228, we think vuv should be read."— 
 And I think >£» should not be read. And I think / think 
 is as good authority as we think, whatever the Reviewer 
 may think on the occasion.* 
 
 " If we mistake not, Person's correction was you* tffc' J%*~v^ 2 ~ 
 (wvirn tew" — Would it not have been fair to have stated ^ ^ 2**-<^ r 2£> 
 that pwfyuv $mv> was my conjecture on the subject, how- 
 ever inferior it might be to Porson's r* 
 
 " The Strophe and Antistrophe which Mr. Butler 
 has arranged at v. 639, are capable of a much more 
 Rhythmical division, but we shall forbear to suggest it, 
 as our hints will probably have been superseded by the 
 appearance of Dr. Burney's work on the choric metres of 
 
 I i£schylus 
 
 * I am not unconscious of the advantage which I am giving the 
 Reviewer here, who will probably urge this passage as an instance 
 of my ignorance of grammar, or my deficiency in arithmetic, not- 
 withstanding I have " flourished" so magnificently about Cocker, 
 and shewn myself acquainted with at least addition and subtraction 
 in p. 27. What? may the Rev. say, does " this friend of Joannes 
 Muller" pretend to edit iEschylus, when he cannot tell the difference 
 between / and we ? — I believe / know the difference, though I may 
 not chuse, myself, to state it, I have not the least doubt it will be 
 found out in due time. However, for the benefit of the uninformed 
 or uninitiated, I shall state that in a Review we means i, and us 
 means me, and our opinion means my opinion. The reason of 
 which is, that if an author were supposed to meet a Reviewer on 
 equal grounds, the public opinion might as often incline to the 
 Author as to the Reviewer in any disputed point. But when these 
 paper pluralities are brought in to aid, comfort and abet said Re- 
 viewer, the reader is naturally entrapped to be on the stronger side, 
 as if a J unta of greyb>earded sages had decided the case. 
 
60 
 
 ^fischylus before these remarks can issue from the press." 
 — This is a rare instance of modesty in a stripling Re- 
 viewer. He says, that a more rhythmical division might 
 be made, but lie very wisely forbears the attempt, and 
 remains guarded by his own general assertion. If it is 
 objectionable, the Reviewer should have specified his 
 objections, and shewn that he could have done better. 
 But no — in his great modesty he thinks his hints will 
 have been superseded by Dr. Burney. 
 
 " The commentators have made sad work with 
 v. 568, and Mr. Butler hallucinates with the rest. — o» t* 
 
 inigXyvcto Tv<pa (jlsvo<; "Y&tfp to Nsfaoy vo&oh; a0»xTo>. Pulcherrime 
 
 says Mr. B. interpres Gallicus Ou se repand amen ee par 
 Typhon V eau du Nil : this may be beautiful, and it is 
 new, but it is not true ; and, till the French translator or 
 the English editor has explained to us the construction 
 and the meaning which they have adopted, we shall 
 continue to think Nifruw the antecedent to &." — How far 
 the Reviewer understands French I know not, perhaps as 
 well as he does Greek, in which case it will be superflu- 
 ous in me to hint to him that he has continued to think 
 /Nsite the antecedent to %*, as the French translator 
 t thought before him. But as I have commended the 
 French translation, and am called upon to explain it, I 
 must venture on this work of supererogation. I must, in 
 order to do this clearly, premise the interpretation of 
 Stanley. He makes *upuva the antecedent to o\, and his 
 
 Construction is, ov /mo? Tv<pa ivi^x?a% (oNjAowli) to v^ (to) 
 
 NeiXs voo-oi; aG«1o». And certainly this is not bad sense, 
 nor am I very angry at those who adopt it as the 
 most obvious explanation of the passage in question. 
 There are, however, in my mind, two objections, suffi- 
 cient 
 
61 
 
 cient to incline me to the more recondite interpretation j 
 these are, the presence of the particle r\, and the use 
 of the words Tv<pZ pins as applied to the Nile. For, if we 
 take the more recondite interpretation, and make o» refer 
 to NttAw, we shall have the particle rl in its place, and the 
 words Typw /aevoj, applied to the furious hot winds, still, I 
 believe, in that country called typhoons or tufauns: the 
 snow-fed plain (for so I would chuse to construe it, 
 alluding to the increase of the Nile from the snows on 
 the ^Ethiopian mountains) and the salubrious waters of the 
 Nile which (Nile) the furious Typhon invades. Now 
 this is exactly in conformity with the doctrine of Plu- 
 tarch De Is. & Osir. p, 366, who tells us (from the 
 scarcity of Greek types I am obliged to translate the 
 passage) that Typhon signifies the principle of heat 
 or dryness, destroying that principle of humidity which 
 causes the increase of the Nile. And the queen of the 
 ^Ethiopians, who is said to be his auxiliary, signifies the 
 south winds from Ethiopia,' for that, when these south 
 winds prevail over the Etesiae, or periodical north winds 
 which drive the clouds towards ^Ethiopia, and by such 
 prevalence hinder the rains, which cause the increment 
 of the Nile from falling there, then Typhon continues 
 to act on the Nile till he diminishes it by evaporation, 
 and prevailing entirely, drives, or conducts the nile, 
 contrary to its usual form, contracted and flowing in a 
 low and hollow channel, to the sea. In the words 
 amenee par Typhon, we have the very expression of 
 Plutarch ; and I leave to any man, who knows the rudi- 
 ments of grammar, to determine whether, when the 
 French translator says ' amende par Typhon 1' eau du 
 Nil' he can possibly make o» the relative to any thing but 
 '23l»§ to Ns»A». Is it not exactly as if he had said, l'eau du 
 
 1 2 * m 
 
62 
 
 Nil qui est amende par Typhon, or T eau du Nil que 
 Typhon amene ? 
 
 " V. 814. The passage from /Elian adduced by A, 
 bresch, is nothing to the purpose, we are surprised that 
 Mr. Butler should not have illustrated the phrase." — I 
 have here quoted Abresch, as I was bound to quote any 
 other commentator, not as approving. What does the 
 Reviewer mean by complaining that I have not illustrated 
 the phrase ? I have quoted a similar passage in Eurip. 
 Androm. where wp~» corrupts the metre, where rapt?* pre- 
 serves it, and where ripva is used in the sense of tvg'wtj. 
 If to have chosen the most apposite passage in the whole 
 compass of Greek literature, be not to illustrate it, I 
 will beg the favour of the Reviewer to give a specimen 
 of his illustration. 
 
 The Reviewer exhibits the first sixteen lines of the 
 deplorably corrupt monostrophics at v. 81 5. sqq. which 
 he reduces to Antistrophics. I shall here confess that I 
 am not deeply infected with the Antistrophico-mania, 
 which is very prevalent among the Porsoninians and 
 Porsonaccians of the day,* which yet their really great 
 master does not seem to have indulged in. I cannot 
 think that after the torture of transpositions, rejections, 
 and insertions in every line, we are likely to have much 
 of the sense or many of the words of the Greek Trage- 
 dians, though we may be very much edified by the 
 lucubrations of Messrs. and A. B.s or Under- 
 graduates, who facetiously nickname them Greek Cho- 
 ruses. 
 
 * The Reviewer, who no doubt is as well versed in Italian as ia 
 Trench, will understand the value of these terras. 
 
63 
 
 ruses, I am. very cautious in firing my* canons, but 
 I think I can venture to discbarge one with great advan- 
 tage, as it will afford them an unerring guide to all the 
 corruptions of the Greek MSS. And in doing this, I 
 shall be more liberal than some of the graver doctors of 
 the Hermetic art, who used to wrap up their alchemical 
 arcana in mysterious and impenetrable obscurity. My 
 receipt for the " opus magnum' ' carries its own re- 
 commendation, in its simplicity and perspicuity, and 
 here it is ; 
 
 ABrAEZH0IKAMNSOnP2TT<KXyfl 
 
 Shake these letters all together, transpose and transverse 
 them secundum artem, coque celeriter in cerebello asin- 
 ino, adde ioMy^oQ^spL satis confidentiae, doctrinae 
 parum, et sic facies 
 
 QUIDLIBET ex QUOLIBET. 
 Probatum est. 
 
 For instance, A SOW'S EAR. For 0,W,'S, read 
 I,L,K, and for EAR read PURSE, and thus, with no 
 trouble, you will have accomplished a greater labour 
 than ever was ventured on by Hercules, and in defiance 
 of the wisdom of ages and the infallibility of the adage, 
 you will have made A SILK PURSE of a SO W's EAR. 
 
 But to return to the Monostrophics. — It is true, that 
 sometimes a line and sometimes a whole strophe is mis- 
 placed in a chorus, but it does not necessarily follow 
 that all monostrophics are reducible to a regular form ; 
 and I am sure they were not all designed so. For 
 instance, will any man affirm that the wild ravings of lo 
 in the Prometheus were written Antistrophically ? I 
 shall believe him when he is able, by any method but 
 
 that 
 
64 
 
 ♦hat of my patent canon, to reduce them, and to prove 
 that in such regularity there is more truth and nature 
 than in their present form. Still I do not deny that in 
 various instances the JNIouostrophics have been well and 
 successfully arranged, but that is no reason for attempt- 
 ing them all. The Tragcedians, comparatively speak- 
 ing, rarely employ trochaics for the dialogues ; are we 
 therefore to cut down all trochaics to Trimeter Iambics ? 
 Let us see how we shall succeed according to the patent 
 canon: ^Esch. Pers. v. 159. 
 
 Aure? Wxva %§ucr*orotytct/; $6p&; 
 
 0s3 T£ xaftS aoivov tvvarr/^ot 
 
 ¥L^aoia,9 o upvaau (pgovli$ 15 &' v(xeL<; opoj. 
 
 AinoYE'. Tavl* ^ AwScr' adscripsit Graeculus, quod aperte 
 vitiosum. ©EOT TE kamoy Inskniter hie errarunt libra- 
 rii. Pro Ge« in omnibus Codd, scriptum est xaJ to AagEte, 
 metro invitissimo. — Et sic inepte edidit Porsonus ; nos 
 fitS dedimus nostro periculo. Qua quidem emendatione 
 nihil certius aut felicius, ut e versu superiore patet, ubi 
 Atossa 6s5 twumfu u^auv dicitur. Hoc explicare voluit 
 Graeculus cujus scholium irrepsit in textum. KP.AAIAN A* 
 sic nos ; an tea scriptum erat, inani rrs^yi^ Ka» p\ xatfieu. 
 However, for the satisfaction of the Reviewer, I will 
 confess to him, that I think these Monostrophics possibly 
 were once regular ; and that I myself very boldly and 
 successfully antistrophized just as much of these Mono- 
 strophics as he has. And because I could not get any 
 farther without the patent canon, which I lend to my 
 friends, but am not, fond of firing myself, I thought it 
 better to leave the whole in its monostrophic state, than 
 to convert it into a Butlerian Chorus instead of yEschylean 
 JvJorjostrophics ; for tho' I have the highest veneration for 
 my own abilities and should be sorry not to write better 
 
 Greek 
 
65 
 
 Greek verses than ever came from the pen of jEschylus y 
 }*et I do not think it fair to give my choruses to the public 
 under his name. Suum cuique is my motto, as it was the 
 Reviewer's, I suppose, when he stole your famous reading; 
 of wgh civ iyay oiv. But on this subject it is but fair to 
 refer to my note on v. 917. 
 
 " We scarcely know what to say of v. 855, &c. except 
 that the conjectures of Mr. Butler and his learned friend 
 are equally inadmissible, since p&tvbcu requires a genitive 
 case." — The Reviewer is right. My friend made a blun- 
 der, which I too hastily passed over— -and I thank him for 
 this opportunity of amending it, for I disdain to conceal 
 it, or to call to my aid the UsTvo after psQwouai in Phceniss. 
 v. 522, which Porson has rightly corrected. But to say 
 the truth, I did not sufficiently disengage my attention 
 from another passage of Euripides illustrative of this 
 (see p. 62) Med. v. 558, fu^sTvon xccftixi piya,* %oAo v , and I 
 must therefore request the reader to read here peQwoi* in- 
 stead of |tA60£V9cn, with the rest of my conjecture, till he 
 can extricate himself from this most corrupt passage by 
 the help of the patent canon, or some better aid. 
 
 V. 879. Here is a long and insulting note of the Re- ^^^ 
 viewer, in which he assumes what he has no right to "y^ 
 assume, that I do not see any corruption in a corrupt t^LT^^^^T' 
 passage of Hesychius, which he is so good, partly by the **V /^^*-v/ 
 help of the commentators on Hesychius, in imitation of r ^L" ^ *^~^~ 
 no less a man than Bentley, to explain at his peril. I ~ „^ - S**Z/Lu 
 must once more remind him, that I make no excursive v - *' " ' tM ^ 
 criticisms in my notes, for substantial reasons already / ^, %tt ^j £/ 
 assigned.* ^^£^^ ^ 
 
 V. 899. t <* o^^^t^^ 
 
 * I must be allowed to remark that I am sure, from various ®f /^ £^fyL 
 
 passages ' 
 
 
66 
 
 " V. 899. With regard to £a, ^*, and «5, about 
 
 which interjections Mr. Butler seems to be in doubt, all 
 
 that we could tell him about them has been anticipated 
 
 by Valcknaer, in Adoniaz. Theocr. p. 382, to whom we 
 
 refer him." — Docs the Reviewer positively and seriously 
 
 mean to assert this, which is to affirm that he knew all 
 
 Valcknaer knew, but that Valcknaer had the good luck 
 
 to tell it first ? This reminds me of an impudent French 
 
 master, who used to assert that Shakespeare stole all his 
 
 irood things from Voltaire. With regard to Porson's 
 
 conjectures, which are mentioned, they are, like every 
 
 thing from that great man, truly admirable. But the 
 
 if ( ^ ^ [Reviewer confirms Schutz's, not Porson's conjecture, 
 
 , ' j ' j^zy ' respecting ot-6, and I cannot say that I am prodigiously 
 
 i enchanted with the hiatus of his own emendation. As 
 
 J to the S Va», which is indeed admirable, he should in 
 
 : fairness have added, that Porson had the hint from 
 
 i Heath, who read e" V» t^'. The third of these 
 
 conjectures is a splendid instance of the sagacity and 
 
 acuteness of the late Greek Professor. 
 
 « We 
 
 7 _ passages of the Review, tl^^he_J^eview,er_d_id _aaJL_suppos_e 
 
 /^c^,*^ I^h ad jread thejtwo Ejus tolas criticae -of that admirable scholar 
 
 Ruhnken. When I refer him to pp. 171, sqq. pp. 176, sqq. of 
 that work, Edit. Mitscherlich, he will, I hope, change his opinion. 
 The Reviewer no doubt will, at some period, oblige the world with 
 emendations which may eclipse those two most splendid monuments 
 of critical sagacity, to which 1 cannot but observe that he is under 
 the greatest obligations. Not only as to his flourishes about ?u, Aa, 
 & »*j, but on various other occasions. From the same source, 
 pp. 221. sqq. come all his objections to Hesychius and the Lexi- 
 cographers, in which, however, he has omitted the introductory 
 passage " Hesychii auctoritati, fateor tribuendum esse plurimura. 
 Est enim ejus Lexicon incomparabilis Grascas eruditionis The- 
 saurus, quod nunquam fere de manibus pono, semper doctior ab 
 ejus lectione recedens." 
 
67 
 
 " We cannot refrain from expressing our surprise* 
 that none of these emendations which the late Professor 
 communicated to his friends, should have reached Mr* 
 Butler's ears ; for we cannot help thinking that he 
 might have come to the knowledge of them without 
 much trouble. Such is the veneration which we feel for 
 the name of Porson, that we think it a duty incumbent 
 on every English Scholar, who is preparing an edition of 
 a Greek author, to enquire diligently what has been said 
 by that incomparable scholar on the subject, and to re- 
 cord his opinions with deference and fidelity." — My dear 
 Sir, whatever the Reviewer may think on this subject, I 
 am sure you will feel obliged to me. The surprise of the 
 Reviewer may cease, when he learns that I did see the j 
 late Professor's emendations. The book was put into my j 
 hands in Trinity Coll. Cambridge. But I was told at j 
 the same time, that you was then preparing an edition of 
 ^Eschylus for the press, and that you possessed these 
 emendations. They were not offered to me — and I did 
 not ask for them, because I thought, by so doing, I 
 should disappoint your hopes of producing an attractive 
 novelty to your edition. I had no jealousy lurking in 
 my mind that your edition might possibly interfere with 
 mine, which was just coming out ; and had you, when I 
 saw you, in a fair and manly way, said that you were 
 about such a work; I should have told you that I thought 
 the world quite wide enough for you and me, and 
 should have been the last person living to have endea- 
 voured, by insidious depreciation, by a sly anonymous 
 cavil in a Review, or by any other means whatever, to 
 injure your feelings, or your reputation, or your advan- 
 tages. — If I had reviewed your book, and I very possibly 
 might have clone so, it would have been in the spirit of a 
 
 K scholar* 
 
68 
 
 scholar. 1 should not have contented myself with writing 
 two Numbers full of objections. I should indeed have 
 objected to what appeared worthy of blame, but I should 
 not have diligently sought for opportunities of blaming; 
 I should not have distorted, misquoted, or misrepresent- 
 ed you. I should not have insinuated, in almost every 
 sentence, something tom} r own credit, and to your disad- 
 vantage. I Should not have dealt in petulant provocations, 
 in contemptuous sarcasms, in quibbling mistarements. 
 I should have pursued also a very different conduct from 
 the E. R. in looking rather for occasions of commenda- 
 tion than of censure, and in fairly bringing forward some 
 specimen of your literary merits, by quoting some of 
 your own notes. It is singular, that in the whole 
 Review of my book, there is not a single quotation, by 
 which the reader may form any thing like an opinion of 
 it. One note alone, and that note only consisting of 
 two lines and a half, is quoted in the whole review 
 of tWerity pages, and that note is not mine but Muller's, 
 i and quoted for the purpose of a petulant and unbecom- 
 ' intf remark, which, if the Reviewer has any sense of 
 shame left, he will blush to have made.-^-I should have 
 pursued the conduct of a liberal and very judicious 
 scholar, whose review of my work in the Eclectic Rev. 
 for Nov. 1809, renders me very desirous of having at 
 some time or other the honour of knowing him. His 
 opinion, I am glad to remark, respecting the notes of 
 " Joannes Muller," is not quite in unison with the E. 
 R.— He does not think him " unusually facetious ;** but 
 he says, " Mr. B. has also enriched the edition with 
 many admirable observations, philological, historical, 
 and antiquarian, communicated by the celebrated Histo- 
 rian M. Muller, of Vienna ;" and again, the " commu- 
 nications 
 
69 
 
 nieations of Professor Muller are pre-eminent in value. 
 Schutz, it must be confessed, notwithstanding his de- 
 linquencies toward Mr. Porson, is often a happy and 
 elegant annotator, as he is an acute critic." (Here 
 the Reviewer expresses exactly my own sentiments.) 
 " Muller displays taste, good temper, and extensive 
 erudition admirably applied ; and he appears most ho- 
 nourably superior to the false and infidel philosophy 
 which has infected the men of letters in Germany." 
 
 But to return to the subject of the Porsonian emen- 
 dations. Part of the Reviewer's " surprise" will perhaps 
 be abated, when he finds that nearly the whole, I believe 
 the whole within about twenty pages, of the volumes I 
 have published, were printed during the life-time of the 
 late Greek Professor — I shall therefore be very much 
 surprised to hear that I was in fault for not having ob- 
 tained these tefyxva. And having endeavoured to relieve 
 his surprise in this particular, I am much concerned that 
 I must probably now increase it, by stating what would 
 have been my conduct had I been in the situation of the' 
 Professor or of his friends. If I had intended to accom- 
 pany my own edition of ^Eschylus with notes, I should 
 have kept my own emendations to myself. This would 
 have been but fair — and as I perhaps know an anecdote 
 with which some of the late Professor's friends may not 
 be acquainted, relative to his intentions with respect to 
 notes and a preface, I certainly do not give any opinion 
 as to his actual conduct, by my present declaration. Had 
 I intended to give notes, and had I believed my emen- 
 dations worth communicating, I would freely have sent 
 them, together with such information as might be ser- 
 viceable, to any scholar whom I knew to be engaged in 
 
 K2 an 
 
.in elaborate edition of the work to which they related. 
 Had 1 been a friend of the late Professor, in possession 
 of such readings at his death, and having no positive in- 
 junction to the contrary, I would also have communi- 
 cated them. — So much for the line of conduct which in 
 such circumstances 1 should have adopted — now for 
 that which I have pursued. Delicacy towards you, my 
 dear Sir, pre vented me, as I have already said, from 
 making such application : — and I must add, that altho' 
 this motive was alone sufficient, I should have found 
 another, had that been wanting, from respect to myself. 
 I could not have reconciled it to myself to go scrap 
 hunting, and soliciting from strangers as a favour, what 
 I do think might more properly have been offered tp 
 me. And I know more than one respectable scholar 
 whose opinion I am proud to say coincides with my own. 
 Indeed I never mentioned the circumstance without 
 finding an unanimous assent in this respect. 
 
 " The arrangement of a chorus by Dr. Burney, 
 
 which is given at v. 1019, from the Monthly Review, 
 
 Jan. 1798, is a sufficient proof of the metrical skill of 
 
 that eminent scholar. But the conjecture of Bothe, 
 
 ffc&rogf) for GfaxTog*, v. 1048, appears to us quite indis- 
 
 * putable, inasmuch as it improves the rhythm and the 
 
 sense, and is confirmed by v. 1063, crb 8s Q&yoig u v elQs?ut- 
 
 <pr-j} u^rTt^r .-o*," — Who would not suppose that X had either ob- 
 
 * / jected to, or omitted Bothe's reading ? At least no one 
 
 would suspect that I had quoted and approved it. 
 
 " On the metrical notes of Mr. Butler it is difficult 
 to decide : we do not believe that the metres of ^Eschylus 
 can ever be defined with certainty, except in a few in- 
 
n 
 
 stances/"— /This is the happiest way of overcoming a 
 difficulty I ever knew. Do you not think, my dear Sir, 
 that the Reviewer was afraid of pledging himself to any 
 thing till Dr. Burney's book appeared, and that he kept 
 this remark snug till the end of the "Review, in the hope 
 that he might be able to say something ? In which being 
 disappointed, he has crept out by this convenient and 
 sapient refuge, not unlike Sir R. Coverley's remark, 
 M That there was much to be said on both sides." 
 
 " Mr. Muller's remarks on the first part of the Sup- 
 plices are unusually facetious. We were somewhat 
 startled by his expression " Curiosam Apidis historiam. 
 The curious history of Apis. This we conceive to be 
 curious Latin at all events." — 'Mr. Muller was probably 
 deceived by imperfectly recollecting a passage in Cicero, 
 where the word curiosus is used with historia, but in a 
 different sense. Tusc. I. 45. Chrysippus ut est in omni 
 historia curiosus. 
 
 (i In v. 559. Stanley seems to imagine, that Avh» 
 ylofoa. are the plains of Lydia ; and adds, " Planam 
 fuisse Lydiam innuit adagium, Av&v efc wiaiQv wgojsax?**." — 
 In the first place, yvxhov always signifies a hollow ; and, in 
 the proverb adduced, Av&v is, a Lydian ; and the mean- p%^.rfU*>T J* 
 ing of it is, " to challenge a Lydian (i. e. a coward J to t/ie <y^^£: jj^r*** 
 fight" — This note belongs rather to Stanley than to rae, ; jf ^' y V 
 
 so that I shall merely observe, that yixkov signifies pro- /f/^ Jz 2>~— 
 perly the palm of the hand, hence it signifies any small „/ ' _^ 
 or moderate hollow — a country abounding with these is 
 certainly not mountainous, and may of the two rather be 
 called plain. But the error, if it be one, is not Stanley's, 
 jt is that of a greater man than even Stanley was, or, if 
 
 possible, 
 
72 
 
 possible, than even the E. Reviewer will be, when lie has 
 tarried at Jericho till his beard lias grown, of Joseph 
 Scaliger in his Conjcctanea in Varron. p. 17, who uses 
 the very words which Stanley has quoted from hi in. 
 
 To the rest of the remarks I have little to say. The 
 Ci chaff" consists of the notes of all the learned men, 
 who have written on <ZEschylus expressly or incidentally, 
 from the time of the Edit, princeps to the present day. 
 The " wheat" I am proud to suppose consists of the 
 lucubrations of your most faithful servant, as it is said to 
 occur in the NotaD Critics, which I have had the honour 
 to compose, and of which the Reviewer is graciously 
 pleased to say, " that they are worth consulting, per- 
 haps mast be consulted by him who would study the 
 text in its purest form." This little anodyne, so judicious- 
 ly applied, has been sufficient to soothe all my irritation, 
 and to make me part with the Reviewer on good terms, 
 assuring him that if I have laughed at him, it was because 
 I could not think it worth while to be angry — I could not 
 prevail upon myself to break a butterfly upon a wheel, 
 or, in a language perhaps more intelligible to a Scotch 
 Reviewer (vide E. R. No. xxvii. p. 41.) to knock down a 
 flea with a sledge hammer.* I assure you I do not wage 
 
 * Dr. Goldsmith, in his Natural History, gives as a measure, the 
 breadth of the black of his nail. Hence it was inferred that the 
 Df. did not very often wash his hands. From the lively and 
 minute description which the Edinburgh Reviewer has given in this 
 passage of the various means by which certain animalcula are 
 ** caught and cracked," evidently written con amore, may we not 
 infer that he now and then amuses himself with practical expeii? 
 ments in Psyllagreumatics and Phtheiroctony. For these he may 
 plead high classical authority. Aristophanes, Nub. 144. sqq. has 
 recorded the ingenious experiments made by no less a philosopher 
 
 than 
 
73 
 
 a-*o*if*o« aWo^cj, but 1 here lay down my ccestus, and if 
 I may be allowed to continue the allusion, I am glad 
 to find that I resembled Entellus of old in having killed a 
 calf instead of a hero. — If the E, R. has any wish for 
 
 farther 
 
 than Socrates, in consequence of a surprising leap of one of these 
 little animals from the eyebrow of his friend Chaerephon to his own 
 bald pate. — Even the grave -Xenophon, in his Symposium, intro- 
 duces one of the company alluding to this instance of Socratic 
 ingenuity. See also Lucian Prometh, c. 6. and Philopatris c. 12. 
 It is singular that the doctrine of " catching and cracking," main- 
 tained by the Reviewer, is exactly that of Hermes Trismegistus, 
 who says, in a fragment preserved by Stob^us, Eclog. Phys. xxv, 
 Uff>) Koo-fA.*, that these little animals are created for no other pur- 
 pose but to be " cracked." 'E<p' 'in^ov & ov&v yiyvdai ^ on povov 
 
 (p8ct$ ~ to ytvoq ruv ^/vhXuv. There is a most curious passage 
 
 in Lucian Ver. Hist. I. 13. (a work, by the way, to which Swift, 
 in his four voyages, is under the greatest obligation) descriptive of a 
 whole army of Psyllotoxota?, who, he says, came from the 
 North ! ! ! {uko rxiq cI^kIov) and who rode upon fleas each as big as 
 twelve elephants. I much regret that my f memory and industry" 
 do not enable me to discover in Lucian, or in any fragment of a 
 Greek author, the method of fattening and breeding these enor- 
 mous animals* If with the size of twelve elephants they combined 
 the usual activity of their species, these PsyllotoxotEe must have 
 been a most formidable corps. I am at a loss under what descrip- 
 tion of force to include them j I think they cannot, without a 
 catachresis, be called light horse, however active in their evolutions, 
 I beg to recommend the farther investigation of this interesting 
 subject to Sir Joseph Banks, Bart. &c. &c. &c. whose elaborate re- 
 searches into the history of fleas are already recorded to his immor- 
 tal honour, and whose dignified letter to the National Institute at 
 Paris, I frequently read with great edification and delight. Should the 
 E. R. in his thirst for blood have a desire to learn other modes of 
 destroying the Socratic animalcule, besides that of " cracking," 1 
 beg leave to recommend him to Pliny N. II. xx. 14. who recom- 
 mends the combustion of the flowers of the herb called pulegium, or 
 penny-royal — an infusion of the herb cunilago, or moth-mullen, 
 N. II. xx. 16.- — of the seeds of the tribulus, a species of thistle, 
 xxii. 10. — of pounded elder shoots, xxiv. 8. In order to escape the 
 punctures of these little creatures there is an admirable receipt in 
 
 the 
 
71 
 
 father vengeance, I beg to remind him that he may 
 glut himself with the blood (ink: I mean) of my three 
 remaining volumes. I shall not hereafter think it worth 
 my while to answer any remarks which he may put forth. 
 And what I now say to the E. R. I mean to bay general- 
 
 in, 
 
 the Antiiologia, p. 129. Edit. IT. Steph. which is to put out the 
 caudle, that they may not see you. 
 
 So much for the more active of these little creatures. 1 shall 
 now gratify the Reviewer with a disquisition on his other favourite 
 little animal, drawn also from the purest sources of antiquity. 
 Herodotus tells us of a northern nation ! !! who were so fond 
 of " cracking" these little gentry, that they did not use the thumb 
 but the teeth for that purpose, being Phtheirophagists, or devourers 
 of them. We all know that Homer lost his life because he could 
 not solve a riddle proposed to him by some fishermen upon this 
 very subject. Vide Herod, de Vila Homeri, p. 760. Edit. Wesse- 
 ling. And we find the account of these Phtheirophagists confirmed 
 by Strabo Geogr. XI. p. 491. and again p. 499. And by Pliny 
 N. H. VI. 4. It is a very curious fact, that by the help of the 
 Edinburgh Reviewer and of Eustatiiius ad Iliad B'. 86S. p. 283. 
 Edit. Basil. I am able to find why a particular species of fir has the 
 epithet Scotch prefixed to it. I am sorry that from the paucity of 
 Greek types I can only give the substance of the passages instead of 
 the Greek itself, but as I shall quote the names of the authors in 
 capitals throughout this note, I may make some flourish, though 
 less than I could wish. Could I conveniently quote the Greek 
 passages at full length, and use the plural instead of the singular 
 pronoun, substituting WE for I, there would be a great deal more 
 ostentation in this disquisition. Eustathius tells us, on the authority 
 of the Ethnographist, for so he calls Stephanus Byzantinus, 
 that there is a mountain in Caria near Miletus called (pbufiv %o$, a 
 name so portentous that it made " my hair to stand on an end," as of 
 late has happened to a much greater man than myself, in the British 
 senate. These (p^^c, however, my friend Eustathius is so good as 
 to assure us are not real animalcula, but only the seeds of certain pine 
 cones called ^Oe^sj from their resemblance to those little creatures, 
 which Pacsanias in his Lexicon has called ^xot. Cuoznonosccs 
 tells us that it was bona fide snelt ^0?»^» ago; in general, but that 
 Herodian the Grammarian (whose hair probably underwent the 
 
 senatorial! 
 
75 
 
 ly, should the mimic Persons of the rising generation 
 attack either the present or subsequent volumes of my 
 work in the countless ephemerides which issue from the 
 press. I know that by the freedom of my remarks I 
 
 L , have 
 
 senatorial! horrifkation) dropped the g and used to spell it with a 
 single ». In compliment, however, to the E. Reviewer, I shall 
 range myself under the banners of Eustathius and Chosroboscus 
 rather than Herodian, since he derives it from one $0j£the soh of 
 Endymion, but others from p0 £ j£, the animal born, as Hermes 
 Trismegistus assures us, merely to be " cracked.'* We may draw 
 the inference, however, from Eustathius, that this animal was 
 very formidable to the ancient Carians, for he tells us that they 
 sometimes used the word to signify a destructive wild beast. 
 Nearly the same story is told by T<zetzes in Lycophron. v. 1383. 
 And we learn from Strabo, Geogr. xiv. p. 635, that Hecatj2US 
 thought it to be the same with Mount Latmus. Nor do •« my 
 good friends the Lexicographers fail me upon this occasion,** 
 though I forbear to quote them, from the scarcity of Greek types. 
 See, however, Hesychius in $>Qn%uv ofo^ and the learned note of 
 Verwey, See also Suidas in d>0s*g, where Kuster's " reading 
 and memory" seem to have failed him, for « he has omitted to note 9 
 that the gloss of SuiDAs-occurs in Eustathius, and is well explained 
 in the Minor Scholiast ad Homer. 1, c. Compare also the 
 Etymologist on «i>0«£ & ^t^uv o§o?, where Sylburgius does not 
 seem to have had his eyes quite open. — I now return from this 
 (digression upon Scotch Firs, which I have no doubt grew upon 
 mount Phtheiron (I am ashamed to translate this word) in Caria, to 
 indulge the E. R. with a few more classical anecdotes about his 
 little favourites. 1 find that the most accomplished, the most 
 yaliant, and the most invincible prince that ever lived, even Ho- 
 mer's own Hero, the matchless and immortal Achilles, had a great 
 fancy for talking about them. In the courtly language of the day- 
 he tells Agamemnon, Iliad ix. 378, thai he values him exactly three 
 slaps of a louse ; for so Eustathius, p. 659, edit. Basil, informs us 
 that this passage was antiently read and interpreted. I am sorry to 
 add, that if the E. Reviewer has tasted any oil in which an ewet has 
 been drowned, he will, as ^lur ieils us, Hist. Animal, ix. 19. abound 
 in these creatures all his life. If he should find them multiply faster 
 than he can conveniently " catch and crack them," I recommend 
 him to Vlusy, H. N. xxvj. 16, who recommends the juice of the 
 
 uva 
 
76 
 
 liave disturbed the tU/tSf c(pnxn<; efefo^sw?, the whole nest 
 of the aspirants to the Porsonian throne. But I care not — 
 I shall not be at the trouble of arming myself even with 
 a ily-ilapper to drive them away. I have other and 
 
 better 
 
 uva taminea which Gale-n and Dioscorides called staphysagrin, 
 whence it is known in English by the name of Stavesacrc. S«e also 
 Pliny xx. 12. and xxxv. 15. Yet it may be some comfort to the 
 Reviewer, while labouring' under the inconveniences of a too nu- 
 merous population, to learn, that in that case I shall be certain not 
 to mistake him for an ass or an ox, since we are told by Pliny, 
 II. X. xi. 33. tint of all hairy animals asses and oxen alone are 
 exempt from their visitations. Pilos habentium asinum tantum im- 
 inunem hoc malo credunt & boves. Yet some here read oves, sheep, 
 and Aristotle Hist. Animal, vi. 31. who has a vast fund of interest- 
 ing information on the birth, parentage, and education of these do- 
 nie»tic little creatures* certainly docs appear to confirm ibat reading ; 
 hut I must own I rather lean to boves. Aristophanes Pac.' v. 
 739. alludes to those who wage war against these little animals, but 
 I hardly think that the E. Reviewer; when he dwelt on the necessity 
 of" catching and cracking" them, had either that passage of the 
 Comedian in his eye, or a practical joke of no less a man than the 
 great Agesilaus, King of Sparta, who, as Plutarch tells us, 
 Apophthegm. Lacon. p. 208. when sacrificing at the altar of Minerva 
 Chalcicecus, was interrupted by the unseasonable morsitation of one 
 ©f these animalcula. That great man, however, says my author, 
 " caught and cracked" his enemy in the presence of all the 
 assembly, observing, that it was a charming thing to avenge oneself 
 upon an assassin and a traitor, even at the altar. . The E. R. need 
 not be surprised that I have translated im^aMv an assassin and a 
 traitor , for the same Plutarch, de Adul. et Amici Discrimine, 
 p. 49. gives us an instance of their treachery, observing that they 
 forsake their old friends when dying, just as rats forsake a falling 
 house or a sinking ship. I shall only add, that Pallad as of Alex- 
 andria has written an epigram, in which he declares his belief in the 
 divinity of these little familiars ; having found a certain number of 
 them taken inwardly to be an infallible cure for the ague.— Probably 
 the old women of modern times, who I am told have recourse to 
 this very chaim, never heard of Palladas, H. Stephens, or 
 BaoDiEus. I could say much more from Columella, from Mar- 
 tial, from the fragments of Eudemus, and a hundred other au- 
 thors, 
 
better employment for my time than to give importance 
 to these youthful journalists by engaging in controversy 
 with them. And in return for the E. R.'s parting 
 civility, I beg to tell him, that I shall consider it but 
 goodnatured to let the greatest fool have the last word, 
 and that I shall leave him to the o^uiet possession of his 
 Own pages, where he may sing or say over my three 
 remaining volumes just what he pleases, tiaavpca ra,v 
 'tpa,v hoot, 1 shall go on as I have begun, bestowing not a 
 thought on his censure or applause : and admitting such 
 of the " lucubrations" of the " facetious Jo. Muller" and 
 the " chaff" of the preceding commentators on ^Eschy- 
 lus, as I think my readers have a right to expect in a 
 Variorum Edition. My own notes I shall studiously en- 
 deavour to confine to the points in question, not scat- 
 tering my shreds and morsels of criticism on other 
 authors, while my business is to illustrate JEsehylus. I 
 thank the Reviewer for having given me sn oppor- 
 tunity of making this single reply, because I have been 
 enabled to state my sentiments on many subjects of at 
 least as much importance as $ or r' 9 and to explain some 
 
 parts 
 
 thors, but I observe the E. Reviewers always like to glean after me, 
 and are as anxious to pick up every straw which I have dropt as if it 
 were a whole sheaf, therefore I will not deprive them of that 
 satisfaction on the present occasion. — I am sure I have furnished 
 them with a banquet from the purest classical sources, and I hope 
 that they and all my readers will cry out in the words of the 
 Mantuan Swan, 
 
 " In tenui labor, at tenuis non gloria." 
 If the Reviewer wishes to see the praises of his little favourites, he 
 may read the Encomium Pulicis and the Laus Pediculi, written by 
 the most eminent scholars that have adorned the republic of letters, 
 in the Amphitheatrum Sapiential of Dornavius $ who, if he hai 
 lived in these days, would I hope have consigned this disquisition to 
 an honourable place among* the lucubrations he has there collected. 
 
78 
 
 parts of my plan, and some circumstances relative to my 
 work, more fully and more advantageously than I could 
 have done in my general preface. And having done 
 this, 1 am sure I have done enough. — My work, if good, 
 will sell in spite of all misrepresentation, and if bad, will 
 never add to my reputation in the opinion of real 
 scholars, tho' be-praised in all the Reviews that are 
 manufactured by the A* B.'s of Trinity College, and 
 sold in London and Edinburgh. I now take my leave 
 of the Reviewer, and suoftribe myself, Dear Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 Shrewsbury, S. BUTLER. 
 
 April 9, 1810. 
 
 .>»*. 
 
 LBY THE SAME AUTHOR, 
 
 TpSCIIYLI TRAGCEBI^E, Jquaj supersunt, deperditarum Fabu- 
 larura Fragmenta et Scholia Graeca, ex Editione T. Staneeii, 
 cum Versione Latina ab ipso Emendata et Commentario longe quam 
 antea fuit auction, ex Manuscripts ejus nunc demumedito. Acce- 
 dunt Variaa Lectiones et Notas VV. DD. Critical ac Philological, 
 quibus suas passim intertexuit S. Butler, M.A. Regia? Schola? 
 £alopieasis ArchididascaJus, Coll. Div. Ioann. apud Cantabr. nuper 
 Socius. Cantabrigiaj 1809. Vol. I. 4to. boards, £\. lis. 6d. Vol. I, 
 and II. 8vo. boards, 16s. Veneunt Canlabrigiae apud J. Deigbton, 
 et Londini apud J. Mackiulay, 87, Strand. 
 
 (^ The 2d vol. 4to of this work, and the 3d and 4th volumes 
 in 8vo, are in great forwardness. — In this work will be found great 
 additions to Stanley's very learned commentary, from his own MS. 
 collections for a second edition, together Nuth the Various Lectiour, 
 of 20 MSS. of iEschylus and all the preceding editions, and the 
 printed and ineditcd notes of the commentators on iEschylus, and 
 other distinguished scholars, from the period ef the Aldine edition 
 to the present time. To these are added copious critical and philo- 
 logical notes of the Editor. The whole being intended to form a 
 complete Variorum Edition of iEschyius. 
 
 Eddowes, Printer, Shrewsbury, 
 
I > > 
 
 fcf> 
 
 3^^ 
 
 
 
 > > *> » > > 
 
 
 jP* 
 
 
 
 
 ^»-» > > 
 
 :!>> 1 
 
 
 
 *> 
 
 "> y>» J> > 
 
 v>> 
 
 ' ' ^ 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 ;>»»>> n 
 
 
 JT 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 >»>> > ' ' 
 
 V* 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^> >> '> ~^ "* 
 
 » 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 . *>^»> > 
 
 . >. 
 
 » 
 
 > 
 
 
 > »»:> > > 
 
 » ' 
 
 > » 
 
 > 
 
 
 ^ ■>**>> '^ 
 
 
 >> 
 
 > 
 
 • 
 
 > >>->> > 
 
 J^ 
 
 > *> 
 
 > 
 
 
 > 5-5 >> > 
 
 ,-T^ 
 
 , > «y> 
 
 ") 
 
 
 > >Vg> > 
 
 13 
 
 *^> v» 
 
 
 > 
 
 > > >1>> 
 
 £3 
 
 p» > ►» 
 
 
 > 
 
 > > >'3> > 
 
 *£ 
 
 p> > >» 
 
 
 » 
 
 » > >'» > 
 
 
 ►> > »> 
 
 
 > 
 
 > > » > 
 
 \M 
 
 ► > > » 
 
 3 
 
 ► 
 
 > > >:» > i 
 
 -M 
 
 *>^ ^> 
 
 ^ 
 
 ► 
 
 > > » -» 
 
 ^J 
 
 ^» » 
 
 3 
 
 » 
 
 > > » > ; 
 
 3 
 
 
 } 
 3 
 
 » 
 
 > > » ■> .> 
 
 > ~) » > > 
 
 L*^ 
 
 > >> ,, 
 
 13* 
 
 
 ■„.> >■>>> > 
 
 Vl 
 
 » V > 
 
 ^ 
 
 ► 
 
 ^> >^> > 
 
 >~ 
 
 ^ » > 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 >2> >^ 3 
 
 > 
 
 ~^p ) 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
 ;> )J>> > 
 
 > 
 
 ~^> ' 
 
 ZJ 
 
 * 
 
 > > »>> ^ > 
 
 ^> 
 
 ""^ft ) 
 
 ^1 
 
 ► 
 
 ) ^ »■>> > 
 
 J> ^ 
 
 >> ^ > > 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 > > 
 
 >> > >> 
 
 Z3 
 
 ^ 
 
 > > 
 
 » ^ :>> 
 
 2ZJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 >> ■> >> 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 z> 
 
 ft 
 
 ' > _^»' 
 
 > ■> > > 
 
 j» 
 
 ^j 
 
 >> »> -> >} " 
 
 
 
 }> ;>> > » 
 
 > > > -» » 
 
 d^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 » » ^ »' 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 >> ") 
 
 > > » 
 
 L> 
 
 
 > . 
 
 » ■> >.» r 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ) 
 
 > ) > >>" 
 
 >> 
 
 3 
 
 » > 
 
 > LJ> *> iD j 
 
 > 
 
 ^P 
 
 » > 
 
 » > > > 5 
 
 > 
 
 
 >> >■ 
 
 >; ■ ;> > >^: 
 
 5> 
 
 ~^ 
 
 > > 
 
 >>.JO~> > 
 
 » 
 
 ^J 
 
 » J, 
 
 »i J> > f» 
 
 3 
 
 "^J 
 
 » _> 
 
 >» >"> > 
 
 ^> 
 
 ^J 
 
 > x 
 
 > to ;> > 3 
 
 > 
 
 
 > Z> 3 
 
 ► >; > > > > 
 
 > 
 
 "~^J^ 
 
 
 O > ^ ) 
 
 z>z 
 
 ~J^ 
 
 ~>-^ 
 
 
 > : > > 
 
 » :• > > > 
 
 r 
 
 3> 
 
 > :> > 
 
 >> - > > 
 
 j ' 
 
 ^> 
 
 j> - > > 
 
 ' .» » 3 ^ 
 
 
 1> 
 
 • > > 
 
 y> > > > 
 
 > 
 
 ^>> 
 
 ►. J>9> > 
 
 ^ •.» > -> 
 
 
 5> 
 
 >> 
 
 X> i> > 
 
 
 x> 
 
 >> 
 
 X> o j> > 
 
 
 x> 
 
 X> 
 
 » ^ > > 
 
 
 }> 
 
 >> 
 
 >> ■> > > 
 
 
 >^> 
 
 >> 
 
 » » > , 
 
 
 ,p> 
 
 ^ >> 
 
 X>> r> > 
 
 "i 
 
 i r> 
 
 ft> » 
 
 >>. » ^ 
 
 , 
 
 > j> 
 
 
 >»» 
 
 > ' 
 
 >X5 
 
 >» y> 
 
 j 
 
 > » 
 
 ) 2>y >_> 
 
 
 
 > » 
 
 >J>J>J> 
 
 > 
 x 
 
 > 
 
 > » 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 > > 
 
 > > 
 > > 
 
 > >>> » 
 
 > 
 
 ; 
 
 ^> > 
 
 > » >> 
 
 
 
 >' > 
 
 » 
 
 > > > »x\> 
 
 > > 
 
 > ) >>^>\> 
 
 >J> > 
 
 > > 3 >^> 
 
 >> ) 
 
 > >)v-> 
 
 ys> > 
 
 :> »^i> - 
 
 > > > 
 
 > > > ) -> > 
 
 >j> > 
 
 - ^ >>:^» 3 
 
 vj> »-» 
 
 > >>;o > :> 
 
 i> >' > 
 
 } ;>J'KJ > 
 
 > > > 
 
 y yo^ J> 
 
 >• y 
 
 y >>;» > 
 
 > ' > 
 
 >£»S8» ;^ 
 
 >> > 
 
 >SK» > ? 
 
 >o > 
 
 >23K» > > 
 
 >>-^ > 
 
 >»._> ^ 
 
 > > > 
 
 >>J» > > 
 
 J>> ) ^ 
 
 > » > > ' 
 
 > > 
 
 >» ^ :> 
 
 > > 
 
 >» > > 
 
 > > 
 
 >>> > > 
 
 > O 
 
 ■ >»> >^ 
 
 > ^ > "> 
 
 >>> > > ^ 
 
 >> : 
 
 > >» > > > 
 
 > > 
 
 ► >J> > X ' 
 
 > • . j> > ■- 
 
 > > ;>~j ) J» > 
 
 >^ • > > - 
 
 -* »>> > > 
 
 > ■> >^ ■ 
 
 '^>»>^ > 1 
 
 ^ y > 
 
 > > »>> > > 
 
 > > - > 
 
 ) "^>^-^ ' J> ^ 
 
 ~> > > ^ 
 
 > ^^i-* i , » ^» ^ 
 
 > "^fe> 
 
 2» : 
 
 !> > Ifc ; 
 
 ^> 
 
 ~> >-> 
 
 > 
 
 )> 3 > 
 
 Z> 
 
 » > 
 
 I> 
 
 » > 
 
 :^> 
 
 » > 
 
 ^> 
 
 >> ^ 
 
 „^* 
 
 >> 
 
 
 >> 
 
 >> 
 
 >> 
 
 >> 
 
 y> 
 
 » 
 
 >> 
 
 » 
 
 > > 
 
» >^ 
 
 ->> > 
 
 >> 
 
 > » 
 
 > » 
 
 > >> 
 > >> 
 
 > » 
 
 ) •» 
 ) > >> 
 
 
 y >■ 
 
 > > > 
 
 s^^») I 
 
 ) "V> 
 
 ^ 
 
 > >> 
 
 u^ 
 
 » >> 
 
 -J0*> ' 
 
 '■> >> 
 
 T£» • 
 
 ♦> » 
 
 
 > > 
 
 >">> > 
 
 > > 
 
 y^> > 
 
 o s 
 
 > » 
 
 > 
 > 
 
 > >> > 
 
 % 
 
 ^ ~*« -^ 
 
 >> 
 
 > > > 
 7 > 
 
 s > > 
 
 -> > ^> 
 
 - ^ > 
 
 > > 
 
 ^> > 
 
 > > 
 
 > > 
 
 > > 
 > > 
 
 > > > 
 
 y > » > 
 > > J " 
 3 > > 
 
 > >^ 
 
 )>> > * 
 
 > > > £ 
 
 > > » 
 
 > > >> 
 
 > > p. 
 
 ► » 
 
 » 
 
 j ;> > :> ) .-> :s> 
 
 . - *> > > > > » 
 
 > » > > > > ^> 
 ^» y > > > >> 
 
 
 ^ » 
 
 > >> > 
 
 > » t> 
 
 ts> :> ) -> ^ 
 
 >> >i>> > > 
 
 >3>' ^)>D > 
 
 5>>3&^> ) 
 
 3>» 3»>^ > , ? 
 
 >» ^g>> :> > > 
 
 y> ^e> > > ? 
 
 X> ^>>-> > > 
 
 > > x»>^o ^ > 
 
 /> » > > ^ 
 
 y >jp »:> > > 
 
 > ^» •>•> > 
 
 >> >:>> > > ' 
 
 ■-> >>^ - > > - 
 
 >3>^> > > > » 
 
 >> » » > > 
 
 »>^ >0> : 
 
 » »' 39 > ^ ' 
 
 » » v ">> 
 
 > ■ ^> :»^ > 
 
 )> ^» ^ > :>> 
 
 »■ ^> ^t> >^ 3> 
 
 r> "» a®> >j t 
 
 s> ;> ,» ^> >)" 
 
 > 1> ^» v>;3 ^>; 
 
 D jT> "» ^ > > 
 
 L> Dl> "> > > 
 
 , ^> >^ )) ^ 
 
 
/ 
 
 9 ie6 ^50 eoo o 
 
 lllilllllill 
 
 in \\ 
 
 ill mi nut i 
 
 ssaMONOOdOAwaan 
 
 &