fragment; which however is, perhaps, not an iambic verse, ď το θάνατος ἐφῆκε και τον φυγόμαχον. P. 243. Mr Gaisford remarks, < Veteres Lyrici et Comœdiæ auctores hanc speciem (iambos dimetros) perpetuo ductu videntur cecinisse.' An instance, however, of a catalectic interposed, is perhaps to be found in the verses of Archilochus, extant in Ammonius, v. Aïves, and the authors there cited by Valckenaer.

Αϊνός τις ἀνθρώπων δ', ὡς

ἄρ ̓ ἀλώπηξ τε κἀετὸς

ξυνωνίην ἔθεντο. (οτ ἔμιξαν.)

The editions have it ἀλώπηξ.

P. 254, 30. The article, we are of opinion, should be omitted, as Hipponax makes the penultima of guxor long.

P. 255. In the third verse of Phoenix the Colophonian, Ruhnken conjectured, grov, ys at: not very happily, we think.

C. VIII. Mr Gaisford dilates upon the subject of dimeter anapastics, which he laments that Professor Porson should have touched upon so slightly. His principal rules are these Legiti znate systems, besides anapests, admit indifferently dactyls and spondees; very rarely a proceleusmatic; and very rarely a dactyl before an anapast. The hiatus of long vowels and diphthongs is admissible, provided such vowels and diphthongs are made short; and the verses are most harmonious, when each metre, or dipodia, terminates with the termination of a word. Of the neglect of which arrangement, however, several instances are given. The versus paræmiacus is most pleasing to the ear, when it corresponds with the second part of an heroic hexameter, (a bucolic hexameter will be equally harmonious); but a dactyl sometimes eccurs in the first foot; and, but more rarely, a spondee before the last syllable; and still more uncommon is a dactyl immediately preceding the catalectic anapest. We confess ourselves somewhat sceptical as to the introduction of proceleusmatic feet into anapastic verses, notwithstanding the few instances which Mr Gaisford has collected in p. 276. not. and Dr Burney Tentamen,

P. 46.

With respect to the Aristophanaic tetrameter, we believe that not only Cratinus and Eupolis used this species of verse before Aristophanes, but also Epicharmus. A fragment of this poet in Athenæus III. p. 86. C, which Casaubon reads, xxi tidalay te xdκαρίτα, θᾶσαι δὴ καὶ λεπάδ' όσσα Porson, we believe, corrected thus ; (we speak from memory) καὶ τελλίναν καναρίταν καὶ δὴ θᾶσαι λεπὼς ὅσσα, which constitutes a legitimate tetrameter anapastic catalectic. In the passages of Victorinus given at p. 277, for schylus et Cratinus, Mr Gaisford reads, with great truth, Eupolis et Cratinus. In the last verse quoted from the Bacche of Euripides, at p. 292,

DIXITY,

we conjecture, vinátas xλádolos: and in the verse of Sappho, p. 296, irágais for raigais. Sappho ap. Etymol. M. p. 250, 10. Δαύοις ἀπαλᾶς ἐτάρας ἐν στήθεσιν. Perhaps τάδε is an interpolation ; and the verse might be thus constituted, Νῦν ἐτάξαις ταῖσιν ἐμαῖς Tięдvà nærãs ásíow. In the same page, some elegant choriambics. of Eupolis are given, as corrected by Porson. In p. 298, the learned editor's correction of Marius Plotius, Philicium for Philicum, is preoccupied by F. G. Vossius de Poetis Græc. p. 65; who also corrects Atilius Fortunatianus in the same manner as Salmasius does; and refers, moreover, to the passage of Suidas, quoted by Mr Gaisford in support of his very probable correction of Terentianus Maurus. To the instances given in Ch. x. p. 310. of the antispastic verse of sixteen syllables, so much used by Sappho, may be added a fragment of that poetess in Stobæus, Serm. LXIX. Grot. LXXI. p. 301. 'Aλλ in pinos auir xixos gruco νεώτερον· Οὐ γὰρ τλάσομ' ἐγὼ ξυνοικεῖν οὖσα γεραιτέρα, (in wiuch two things are to be noted, 1st, that the penultima of agus seems to be made long; perhaps we should read gyvore, as the Æolics often doubled consonants; and, 2d, that žuvoix, or rather violates the metre): and another fragment in Hermog. II. p. 326. "Αγε δια χελώνη, λέγε, φωνᾶσσα δὲ γίνει. vulg. ἄγε χέλυ δι μοι λέγε, φωνάεσσα δὲ γίνεο. MS. Caio-Gonvil. omits, and has e dù x.d.: but dù xa is a corruption or xaún, which was the Æolic મ form for xius; see Etymol. M. p. 808, 21. Ovσox, as quarta in Pindar: see Elmsley ad Acharn. 913. The same MS. has faníva and aiturousvav in p. 323, as Scaliger had corrected. But the remark of Mr Gaisford, in p. 64, is very just, and should perhaps repress our attempts to correct such detached fragments as these. Quam periculosum sit laceris deperditorum auctorum fragmentis conjectandi medelam adhibere nemo fere nescit; et Poetarum præsertim Eolicorum, quorum ne unus quidem integer ad nostram usque ætatem perduravit. Quocirca si quid in hisce edendis aut corrigendis peccaverim, veniam, uti spero, haud denegavit æquus et eruditior lector.' The hope expressed in the concluding sentence, will certainly not be disappointed. For our own parts, we beg Mr Gaisford to believe, that any thing which we may have suggested in the way of correction, is not meant to be asserted with any degree of confidence, but only as submitted to the further consideration of so able a scholar.

Id.

In this chapter are difcuffed the metres which are vulgarly called xar x, Sapphic and Alcaic, and, amongst feveral inftances of the latter, is given the fragment of Alcæus, preferved by Heraclides Ponticus, of which we gave fome account in this Jourpal, Vol. XV. p. 157. We obferve that Mr Gaisford does not agree with the learned Critic there mentioned, who fays, that the

fifth fyllable of the dimeter iambic, which conftitutes the third verfe of the Alcaie ftanza, is always made fhort by Alcæus; and accordingly corrects the Fragments which militate against his canon but Mr Gaisford writes, in the first mentioned Fragment, add Evdey• äppers ▲'òμiooo, and rightly, as we think; for fo alfo it is quoted by Apollonius Dyfcolus, Reizii Exc. p. 428.; and confidering that we have only eight of thefe Fragments extant, and that two of them have this fyllable long, no canon can be certain which is established on the remaining fix. In the fifth inftance adduced by Mr Gaisford, v. 2. προκόψομες γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀσώμενοι, read dráμ, which is the Eólic form; and fo it is in the Athenæus; nor was there any good reason why Bentley fhould change it to drevo. This remark has been made by Mr Elmfley in his Auctarium Annotationum ad Acharnenses, p. 128. and before him by Koen on Gregor. p. 86. In the Fragm. p. 337. 1. 1. we would read aides xsv oixí quμar' x. P. 354. penult. we fuppofe that κεν οὐχί σ' όμματ' gã is an error of the prefs for gory.

In the notes on Proclus, p. 409, Mr Gaisford has inferted a very curious extract from a Baroccian MS. of Diomedes the Grammarian, about Comedy, which is referred to by Bentley, Differt. on Phalaris, p. 202. To the authors mentioned in the notes, p. 436. as relating the effects which the war-fong (öglios vues) of Timotheus produced on Alexander, may be added Suidas, v. v. Αλέξανδρος. Ορθιασμάτων. Τιμόθεος. Himerius ap. Photii Biblioth. Cod. 1230, whofe defcription it is worth our reader's while to compare with Dryden's celebrated ode.

The volume clofes with four indexes. I. Scriptorum ab Hephæstione et Scholiastis laudabilium. II. Vocabulorum quæ in locis ab Hephaestione laudatis reperiuntur. III. Rerum et Versuum. IV. Rerum in Procli Chrestomathia memorabilium. We regret that Mr Gaisford has not given us an index of what is moft worthy of remark in his notes; for his book feems intended to be, what indeed it is eminently calculated to become, a complete manual of metres; and a manual is what we very frequently wish to refer to, but not to read through; as the fmalinefs of the print renders it difficult for the eye to run over the pages, and fix at once upon what it is seeking.

Our readers will perceive, that whatever we have pointed out as being, in our opinion, fufceptible of any improvement, relates, without exception, to points of a very trivial and unimportant nature. We can perceive nothing in the prefent edition of Hephæftion which deferves the name of a blemish. All is learned and fatisfactory; and, as far as we are competent to judge, correct and, what perhaps one would not have expected in a work on this fubject, it is very amufing. Its value is greatly augment

ed

ed by the circumftance, that we had, before, no book of the kind to refer to, except the very imperfect treatife of Morell, and the elaborate work of Hermann; which laft really is inacceffible to ftudents who are not gifted with a confiderable fhare of acutenefs and metaphyfical knowledge; and, as it appears to us, is much lefs lucid and perfpicuous than the commentary of Mr. Gaisford. In addition to these more fubftantial merits, we must add, that the volume, which we now difmifs, is, we think, the most beautiful fpecimen of typography which has hitherto issued from the Clarendon prefs.

ART. VIII. Hints on Toleration, in Five Essays, &c. suggested for the Consideration of Lord Viscount Sidmouth, and the Dissenters. By Philagatharches. 8vo. pp. 367. London, 1810.

IF

F a prudent man sees a child playing with a porcelain cup of great value, he takes the vessel out of his hand, pats him on the head, tells him his mamma will be sorry if it is broken, and gently cheats him into the use of some less precious substitute. Why will Lord Sidmouth meddle with the Toleration act, when there are so many other subjects in which his abilities might be so eminently useful-when enclosure bills are drawn up with such scandalous negligence,-turnpike roads so shamefully neglected, -and public conveyances illegitimately loaded in the face of day, and in defiance of the wisest legislative provisions? We confess our trepidation at seeing the Toleration act in the hands of Lord Sidmouth; and should be very glad if it were fairly back in the statute book, and the sedulity of this well-meaning nobleman diverted into another channel.

The alarm and suspicion of the Dissenters upon these measures is wise and rational. They are right to consider the Toleration act as their palladium; and they may be certain that, in this country, there is always a strong party ready, not only to prevent the further extension of tolerant principles, but to abridge (if they dared) their present operation within the narrowest limits. Whoever makes this attempt, will be sure to make it under professions of the most earnest regard for mildness and toleration, and with the strongest declarations of respect for King William, the Revolution, and the principles which seated the House of Brunswick on the throne of these realms; and then will follow the clauses for whipping dissenters, imprisoning preachers, and subjecting them to rigid qualifi cations, &c. &c. &c. The infringement on the militia acts is a

mere

mere pretence. The real object is, to diminish the number of Dissenters from the Church of England, by abridging the liberties and privileges they now possess. This is the project which we shall examine; for we sincerely believe it to be the project in agitation. The mode in which it is proposed to attack the Dissenters, is, first, by exacting greater qualifications in their teachers; next by preventing the interchange or itinerancy of preachers, and fixing them to one spot.

It can never, we presume, be intended to subject dissenting ministers to any kind of theological examination. A teacher examined in doctrinal opinions, by another teacher who differs from him, is so very absurd a project, that we entirely acquit Lord Sidmouth of any intention of this sort. We rather presume his Lordship to mean, that a man who professes to teach his fellow-creatures, should at least have made some progress in human learning ;—that he should not be wholly without education;-that he should be able at least to read and write. If the test is of this very ordinary nature, it can scarcely exclude many teachers of religion; and it was hardly worth while, for the very insignificant diminution of numbers which this must occasion to the Dissenting clergy, to have raised all the alarm which this attack upon the Toleration act has occasioned.

But, without any reference to the magnitude of the effects, is the principle right? or, What is the meaning of religious toleration? That a man should hold, without pain or penalty, any religious opinions,-and choose for his instruction, in the business of salvation, any guide whom he pleases ;-care being taken, that the teacher, and the doctrine, injure neither the policy nor the morals of the country. We maintain, that perfect religious toleration applies as much to the teacher, as the thing taught; and that it is quite as intolerant to make a man hear Thomas, who wants to hear John, as it would be to make a man profess Arminian, who wished to profess Calvinistical principles. What right has any government to dictate to any man, who shall guide him to heaven, any more than it has to persecute the religious tenets by which he hopes to arrive there? You believe, that the heretic professes doctrines utterly incompatible with the true spirit of the Gospel ;-first you burnt him for this, then you whipt him,then you fined him,-then you put him in prison. All this did no good; and, for these hundred years last past, you have let him alone. The heresy is now firmly protected by law;-and you know it must be preached :-What matters it, then, who preaches it? If the evil must be communicated, the organ and instrument through which it is communicated, cannot be of much consequence. It is true, this kind of persecution, against persons, has

not