Aschylus; and we are so much pleased with any exemplification of the gentlemanly principles there inculcated, that we cannot omit to mention the liberal feeling of the present author towards all his literary rivals. M. CHARDON DE LA ROCHETTE apologizes for the insertion of a republished letter from the learned Coray, but with that confidence which any composition of that excellent scholar must inspire in the publisher. We shall notice it in its place. In his fourth volume, which he tells us will be almost entirely devoted to Greek Philology, he promises with much solemnity the Greek text, the French translation, and two Latin verse translations, (with we know not how many commentaries,) of what composition, will our readers suppose, after all this pomp of promise?-of a poem of Paul the Silentiary! - Now, really, let the said Paul be as elegant an epigrammatist as the warmest admirers of the Anthology can describe him to be, yet this grave declaration of an intended publication of one of his poems cannot but make the common reader smile; and we have several other opportunities of observing, in these volumes, that unconscious importance which classical critics are apt to betray, and which is so ludicrous to the unlearned observer. The fourth volume is also to contain a general and analytical table of contents of the first four volumes. Vol. V. (which, if its predecessors succeed, will make its appearance in due season, and which, itself, will not be the last!) will give an unedited romance of Nicetas Eugenianus; the Greek text, a French version, and notes. This, we have no doubt, will be an addition to our stock of Greek literature: - but we shall return presently to the subject of the Greek romances. The author concludes his preface by requesting his reader's indulgence for the misprints in the work; which we have not observed to be unusually numerous; and most of which are of so palpable a nature as to occasion the reader not a moment's doubt as to their origin. - In our specification of the criticisms collected in these volumes, we shall omit the three leading articles before mentioned, and review them in succession after we have dismissed the essays of minor importance. - Volume I. supplies some remarks on certain passages in Suidas; an explanation of a Greek inscription, preserved at Aix in the cabinet of M. Fauris St. Vincens; an account of an edition of Anacreon, by the *We hope ere long to give an account of the remaining volumes of this most useful and laborious variorum edition of Æschylus. (See Review, Vol. Ixiii. N.S. p.162.) We have to make our peace with our classical readers for so long delaying the continuation of this critique. Abbé de Rancé, in 1639; a dissertation on two Greek epigrams of Philodemus: a letter to the Abbé de St. Leger on some editions of the Greek Anthology; on the facetious work called "Le Chef-d'oeuvre d'inconnu;" on Panatius on the Greek anthology of De Bosch, with the Latin version of Grotius; and on the poem of Petronius intitled "The Civil War." Of these subjects, that which has most occupied the attention and called forth the learning of the present author seems to be the Greek Anthology; and indeed this was naturally to be expected from M. C. DE LA ROCHETTE, at whose hands every classical scholar is so anxiously waiting for the complete edition of all the extant remains of these Grecian flowers. From the specimens here given of the editor's intimate acquaintance with his subject, in many of its branches, we cannot but anticipate the highest gratification to all the lovers of antient literature, when the promised work appears. M. de Bosch seems to have conceived a most erroneous idea of the respect entertained by the present author for the labours of Grotius on the Anthology. M. C. DE LA R. clears himself from the mistaken charges of the German editor; and, on this as on all similar subjects, he shews the greatest urbanity and good humour in his literary arguments. Among many curious pieces of bibliographical information which this volume contains, we have observed the following notice of the Anthologia Inedita, (as it is commonly called,) which may be acceptable to some of our readers : It is ascertained that there does not exist in Europe (at least if it be not in some library at Constantinople) any other manuscript of the collection of Cephalas than that which was transferred from the Palatine library to the Vatican, and which forms a part of those with which we have been furnished by the Pope. All the others which are scattered over Europe, and pass under the name of the Anthologia Inedita," are derived from it. I know only two entire copies of this unique manuscript; that which the Duke of Saxe Gotha purchased from the heirs of Spalletti, and that which I have in my possession. All the other MSS. are only extracts, of greater or less extent, from the Palatine MS.' In the note on this passage, and all the articles there enumerated are enriched with curious annotations, we have a singular specimen of the rapaciousness which seems to have pervaded every department of the late French government; a rapaciousness, we cannot help remarking, which the legitimate rulers of the country will do well to disavow, by restoring the * This round assertion, that the author has proved a negative, may startle some of our more cautious logicians. plundered plundered treasures, (trying to their virtue as this restoration in some instances will be,) without exception, to their respective countries*. We need not say that our remark is applicable to the case before us; although we should wish M. CHARDON DE LA ROCHETTE to have every temporary use that he can wish of the Vatican MS. The Pope was so sollicitous for the preservation of this MS., that he caused it to be conveyed to Terracina with his most valuable jewels. But our Commissaries directed it to be brought back; and, perceiving that it had been newly fastened together, and that the Anacreon had been detached from it, they ordered that to be brought back also, and these two parts were reckoned as only one manuscript.' Here ends this precious story; which we cannot peruse without considerable indignation. We are not much better pleased with the eulogies too plentifully sprinkled through a scholar's pages on that immortal Emperor, whose glory has set in darkness and degradation. The author may have been an object of his favour: but, in the character of an admirer and supporter of antient literature, surely he cannot consistently panegyrize that person as the patron of the learned languages, who gave nothing like a general encouragement to classical instruction, but, on the contrary, (during one period of his reign at least,) only wished to promote the study of Greek and Latin inasmuch as they were necessary to the explanation of the technical terms of art, and favourable to the improvement of military science. M. C. DE LA R. proceeds to detail the earlier adventures of the Palatine MS. He gives us an Italian letter of Leo Allatius on the subject, the original of which exists in the rich library of Carpentras, among the voluminous correspondence of Peiresc; and he states his belief that it was never before published. It contains an account of the mission of Leo Allatius to Heidelberg to collect and arrange, previously to its transportation to Rome, the celebrated Palatine library, which Maximilian of Bavaria had presented to the Pope. It is assuredly a curious document, and will be a rich treat to a certain class of literary epicures. The second article of Volume II. furnishes a sketch of a history of medicine by the celebrated Coray, and the third gives some account of the edition of Theophrastus published by the We are greatly pleased with the manly boldness of a member of the Spanish Cortes, in a late meeting, for proposing this demand on the part of Spain. May we not ask, en passant, why, in this age of bibliography, we are not occasionally favoured with the "Adventures of an Unique MS." or "The Literary Life of an Editio Princeps?" same learned editor. In this work, we see the extraordinary qualifications for the office of a critic combined in the person of a scholar who is equally versed in the antient and the modern languages of such a country as Greece; and, in the notes, the present author states some striking instances of the mistakes which are liable to be made from a want of these advantages. The fourth article relates to another edition of the Characters of Theophrastus. This is followed by a letter to M. Millin, (the institutor of "Le Magasin Encyclopédique,") inclosing an Italian epistle printed from the MS. of Rubens in the Imperial Library. We cannot think that the memory of Rubens has been much honoured by this epistle; which did not, either in matter or in manner, deserve publication. The author, however, who is not cautious as to the subjects which he discusses or the style in which he treats dangerous topics, could not be expected to have more apprehension for the reputation of another than for his own. We shall say no more on the occasion, and shall observe silence on any similar case which may occur in the remaining essays. We are now presented with an account of Antonio Di Lebrisa, classically called Elius Antonius Nebrissensis, who flourished in the fifteenth century, and did great honour to Spain as an active co-operator in the revival of literature. This paper is succeeded by some remarks on Fragments of Dion Cassius; by a sketch of the Life and Writings of the Abbé de St. Leger; by a review of the Exercitationes Critica (Tom. 2.) of M.Jacobs; and by a literary notice of Leonard Philaras, (called by the French Villars and Villeret,) a learned Athenian, who held a political situation at Paris in the 17th century, and to whom Milton addressed two Latin letters; a reprint of which is given in the author's notes to this article. They are extracted, he tells us, from rather a rare collection of Milton's Latin Letters, intitled Joannis Miltonis, Angli, Epistolarum familiarium liber unus. Londini, 1674.- Whether this single volume be rare or not, the letters are to be found in all complete collections of Milton's prose works; and, like the other Latin compositions of this great man, they serve to prove that the elegance of his classical knowlege was exceeded only by the liberality of his opinions and feelings. Next occurs an extract from a letter of Villoison, concerning an emendation of Horace by the Abbé Galiani; which, without being quoted, had been extravagantly praised in the Magasin Encyclopédique. M. C. DE LA ROCHETTE replies to M. Villoison by a citation from the Literary Gazette of Suard and Arnaud, in which the emendation of the Abbé Galiani ori ginally ginally appeared. It is an attempt to give a new reading to the much disputed line in Horace, "Difficile est propriè communia dicere," which the Abbé Galiani would metamorphose into Difficile est proprium communi addicere, and would interpret thus, that it is difficult to unite the produc tions of our imagination with known and received facts, namely, the mythology of the antients, and that therefore it would be better to take a subject entirely from the Iliad, (that is, to borrow the Dramatis Persona, as well as the fable,) than to hazard a play on a more original plan. This would make good sense, indeed, of the passage: but, to say nothing of the Abbé's arguments as to the ductus literarum, &c. we require examples of the phrase proprium communi addicere, and of its signifying that which he would have it to signify, before we assent to the justice of his correction. At present, we agree with the author, and with M. Villoison, that it is more ingenious than natural. Another extract from a letter of the last-mentioned critic follows, and presents a very adroit emendation of a corrupt Greek passage from St. Chrysostom by the insertion of a single letter in a word. We have then some remarks on the Posthumous Works (the Reliquia Medico-Critica) of D. J. S. Bernard; a letter to A. M. Schneider concerning a manuscript which contains the Latin Treatise of the Emperor Frederic II. De Arte Venandi cum Avibus; Observations on Ruhnken's Collection of the Scholia on Plato; and the promised letter from Coray to M.C. DE LA ROCHETTE, addressed to him in the year 1796, and now reprinted from the Magasin Encyclopédique.— Some of our readers will be aware that, in this letter, Coray discussed the curious question concerning the Secret Testament (άπоρρýτо Aα0xas) of the Athenians, to which Dinarchus alluded in Advers. Demosth. Vol. iv. p. 8. Edit. Reiske, and advanced a very ingenious conjecture, which attempted to identify with this Secret Testament the dying injunctions of Edipus to Theseus as given by Sophocles in the Edipus Coloneus. Those scholars who may not have perused this discussion will have high gratification in so doing; since it reflects the greatest honour on the learning, ingenuity, and candour of the writer. We have only room to refer to a comparatively unimportant, but we think very happy, emendation of the text of Sophocles in the Speech of Edipus above-mentioned; where, instead of Φθίνει μὲν ἰσχὺς γῆς, φθίνει δὲ σώματος Coray |