apud civitatis principes honeste partam doctrinæ virtutisque famam. Tibi vero quis non ex animo gratuletur, qui te semper strenuum amicum atque adjutorem omnibus præbueris, quorum studia et conatus probares? It remains to cull a few emendations, out of the hundreds which crowd the pages of both letters, as samples of Dr. Badham's critical performances, and of the principles which guide him. In the beautiful Chorus of the Trachini (vv. 497-530), describing the contest between Hercules and the river Achelous for the hand of Dejanira, Sophocles, seeing the objection to the description being put into the mouths of the virgins who could not have seen the fight, throws in at the end the phrase which is commonly read ἐγὼ δὲ μάτηρ μὲν οἷα φράζω, and which the commentators explain on the principle of making some sense out of anything, Ego autem velut mater (i.e. verecundanter) loquor,' or else, I relate it as the mother (did).' But, by the insertion of a single letter, Dr. Badham reads, "Eyvw dè μáτηp μèv oia opáłw, for, as we read in the ensuing words, Dejanira left the side of her mother, who remained the only close spectator of the combat. We have not space to show how sense is restored to a beautiful passage of the Edipus at Colonus (1119-20) by the correction of τὸ ΛΙΠΑΡΕΣ to ΤΑ'ΔΕΙ ΠΑΡΟC, but it is worth while to quote in Dr. Badham's own words an example from the same play, in which the principles of metre and sense guide to a correction : ΤΟ •1164-5. σοὶ φασὶν αὐτὸν εἰς λόγους ἐλθεῖν μολόντ' αἰτεῖν, ἀπελθεῖν τ ̓ ἀσφαλῶς τῆς δεῦρ ̓ ὁδοῦ. Non nego fieri posse ut Sophocles si verbum magna vi præditum aliter commode inserere non posset trisyllabicam vocem in fine versus truncatam positurus fuerit. Sed poλóvτa non modo vi caret, sed vel ad explendum metrum vix admitti deberet. Non enim hic de loco unde venerit Polynices nec de itinere agitur, sed tantummodo de rebus quas sibi concedi precatur. Mihi persuasum (est) poλóvτa locum vocabuli occupare quod magnopere sensum adjuvaret, scilicet póvov, cujus prius v postquam ut toties factum est cum A confusum est, scriba masculinum postulari ratus r adjecit.' The metrical argument suggests to the author a converse emendation on Catullus : 'Eandem quam Sophocli extorquere conor licentiam alii poetæ concedendam puto ut sensum versui reddamus. In Catulli Coma Berenices, vv. 78-9, Quicum ego, quum virgo quondam fuit, omnibus expers Pro expers legendum aspers'. Literas A et X a librariis sæpe confundi docuit Magnus Gronovius in Observationibus ad Livium.' Euripides Euripides supplies two interesting examples of palæographic Medea having appealed to Ægeus (v. 744), corrections. Ομνυ πέδον Γῆς πατέρα θ' Ἥλιον πατρὸς Ægeus makes the fit response (v. 750),— *Όμνυμι Γαίας δάπεδον, Ἡλίου τε φῶς. But the copyist, misreading ΔΑΠΕΔΟΝ as ΛΑΜΠΡΟΝ, attached this word to the second clause, and then, to set the grammar straight, Γαίας was changed to Γαίαν. We are reminded of Porson's saying that in criticism, as in Love and War, nothing however slight must be overlooked, by the correction of another passage in the same play, which has hitherto been the cruz of all Editors : (909-910)-εἰκὸς γὰρ ὀργὰς θῆλυ ποιεῖσθαι γένος Γάμους παρεμπολῶντος ἀλλοίους πόσει, All the ingenious and unsatisfactory notes on this unheard of construction might have been spared if scholars had only observed that the Vatican MS. has γάμου. Following this indication our Corrector borrows a σ from aλλolous which does not want it, and restores it to the unjustly despoiled πόσει. This brings out the true force of the word παρεμπολᾶν: When a strange union beguiles and conveys away their husbands. A striking instance of mistaking abbreviations is found in the Hecuba (vv. 846-7), where the common text has, Δεινόν γε, θνητοῖς ὡς ἅπαντα συμπίτνει καὶ τὰς ἀνάγκας οἱ νόμοι διώρισαν, φίλους τιθέντες τούς τε πολεμιωτάτους, ἐχθρούς τε τοὺς μὲν πρὶν εὐμενεῖς ποιούμενοι. Strange and inconsistent results, indeed, for laws to work out. But in truth Hecuba is speaking of the power and inscrutable providence of the gods; and the copyist, not understanding the abbreviation OOI MONOI, altered it by the common error, notum pro ignoto, into ΟΙ ΝΟΜΟΙ. Aristophanes supplies our author with, as he says, one ἅρμαιον, which he thinks will please all 'qui judicium auctoritati anteponendum putant.' Having quoted an example of the reverence of the editors for the MSS. in their rejection of the reading of Diogenes Laërtius, οἴνου τ' ἀπέχει καδηφαγίας for οἴνου τ ̓ ἀπέχει καὶ γυμνασίων, he gives the following as a proof not merely of errors of MSS., but of the mala fides of scribes in the same play of the Clouds: • Vv. 376-8: Οταν ἐμπλησθῶσ ̓ ὕδατος πολλοῦ κἀναγκασθῶσι φέρεσθαι, κατακρημνάμεναι πλήρεις ὄμβρου δι' ἀνάγκην, εἶτα βαρείαι εἰς ἀλλήλας ἐμπίπτουσαι ῥήγνυνται καὶ παταγοῦσιν. This is that consistent reading of all the MSS.,' on which editors would rely less if they remembered that it may represent but one original copy of little value; and, besides the awkward construction of the eira, it gives us the admirable sense that the clouds are compelled through compulsion! But the reference to this very passage, which Socrates immediately afterwards dins into the forgetful ears of Strepsiades, might have made the editors suspect their own slowness also Γν. 383-4: Οὐκ ἤκουσάς μου τὰς Νεφέλας ὕδατος μεστὰς ὅτι φημὶ ἐμπιπτούσας εἰς ἀλλήλας παταγεῖν διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα ; whence we correct v. 378, διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα βαρεῖαι. These specimens may serve to indicate the kind of matter that awaits the reader who is disposed to break the bulk of which they are but samples. They form but an introduction to the mass of emendations on Plato, of which we have space left for only some two or three. In the Cratylus (p. 424, D), kai éπeidàv Taûta διελώμεθα τὰ ὀντὰ εὖ πάντα, αὖθις δεῖ τὰ ὀνόματα ἐπιθεῖναι (Orelli), Sauppe saw that ols was necessary to the sense, but he did not perceive that the useless ATOIC was made up of AOIC, the final letter of Távra with the very word wanting. Dr. Badham reads, τὰ ὄντα αὖ πάντα οἷς δεῖ κ.τ.λ. The same dialogue obtains the ending which it evidently wants, by the equally simple and ingenious correction of the one final word, changing 'AXλà kai σὺ πειρῶ ἔτι ἐννοεῖν ταῦτα ἤδη into ᾗ δὴ ἔχει. } As our object has been to awaken attention to the revival of criticism among us, we have preferred selecting a few striking specimens of the success of the method to criticising the critic; but lest any young scholar should imagine that criticism is a safe trade, requiring no prudence, we will mention two or three cases in which, as it seems to us, even Dr. Badham falls into error. In p. xv. of his Epistola ad Senatum Lugd., among other examples of words suffering from the omission of a syllable in their midst, Dr. Badham gives from Plato's Banquet (p. 215 D) ἐκπεπληγμένοι ἔσμεν, which he considers faulty on account of its connexion with κатExóμeda. But the perfect here is from its nature equivalent to a present (for the man os EKTETλNKTAI remains πЄπηyuévos, the permanent state following and presupposing the particular fact), and the correction of eoTaμev is altogether unnecessary. We are the more surprised at his not having perceived this, because we have in this same dialogue, and but a page or two from this very passage, èπеπαι, and exactly in the same sense. There is nothing absolutely faulty in this correction; but the alteration on p. vii. of a manifestly corrupt corrupt line in the Agamemnon of Eschylus (620), és Tòv Toλiv φίλοισι καρποῦσθαι χρόνον, into ὥστ ̓ οὐ π. occasions what appears to us an intolerable construction-'I would not utter tidings, false and fair, For friends to cherish with a fleeting joy.' The sense of the latter verse might be expressed either by φίλοις καρποῦσθαι or ὥστε φίλους καρποῦσθαι, but a mixture of the two constructions is inadmissible. We have also some doubt about the necessity of making any change in the passage from the 'Sophist,' 242, C. (Epistola ad L., p. xxxiii.)—evкóλws μoi dokeî Παρμενίδης ἡμῖν διειλέχθαι—which we should render, It seems to me that Parmenides has conversed with us in an off-hand manner-i. e., as if he did not care whether we understood him or not. A passage in the 'Laws,' 752 C., is exactly similar to the one in question—ὡς εὐκόλως καὶ ἀφόβως ἀπείροις ἀνδράσι voμоlεтоvμενHow unconcernedly and coolly we legislate,' &c. We could point out other instances where we are inclined more or less to demur either to the necessity of an alteration or to the propriety of the one adopted, both in Dr. Badham and in Professor Cobet; but it will be enough to observe that no works require to be read so critically as those of the critics themselves. The two Epistles upon which we have been commenting fully sustain the reputation which Dr. Badham enjoys on the Continent of being the first living scholar in England. This being so, is it not surprising that a man who can do so much for the advancement of Greek learning, and who can impart instruction to our ripest scholars, should be prevented from affording to literature a tithe of the service which he is capable of rendering, because his time is absorbed in a routine of daily drudgery? There is something very touching in the graceful humour with which Dr. Badham (in the Epistle lately cited) veils his deep feeling as to his present position, leaving it to his friends at Leyden to understand, if they think fit, that all posts of learned leisure or more dignified employment had been a dignioribus occupati! We, however, well knowing that such is not the case, cannot help deploring that in a land like ours, amply provided with such posts, and wont to confer them with no grudging hand on scholarly distinction, Dr. Badham, notwithstanding all his critical labours, should continue to fill no higher office than that of head master of a proprietary school at Birmingham, over which dreary place he contrives to throw a classic interest: 'Memineritis me quam longissime a Musis in Chalybum terram relegatum vivere.' We would follow up the allusion with the hope that in this iron age of material work, his skilful labours in what is at present the least popular branch of learning may herald an age of English scholarship, which shall have nothing of Birming ham ham but its energetic industry, and nothing of its iron but its fibre and toughness, qualities which sound criticism alone can give; and to this hope we would fain add a second, that he himself may not want the reward due to the leader in such a regeneration. ART. III.—1. Insect Architecture, &c. By James Rennie, A.M. London, 1857. 2. Homes without Hands, being a Description of the Habitations of Animals, classed according to their Principle of Construction. By the Rev. J. G. Wood, M.A., F.L.S. With New Designs by W. F. Keyl and E. Smith. London, 1865. AMONGST the various races of mankind the degree of civilisation to which any particular nation may have attained is, in a great measure, evidenced by its proficiency in the art of building. Rude savages content themselves with mere holes scooped in the ground, or with a few branches temporarily erected for the purpose of keeping off the wind and the cold, a contrast, indeed, to the convenient mansions and noble castles of a civilised nation. But with the brute creation we often find, the lower the organism, the more marvellous the structure of the dwelling-place. The larger animals, for the most part, do not construct abodes; the lion and other wild carnivora make use of caverns and hiding-places, but show no signs of skill either in improving these natural haunts, or in building for themselves; so with the sagacious elephant and other pachydermata, we meet with no instances of architecture amongst them. Birds, however, are pre-eminently builders, and their nests are often very elaborate structures. Certain insects, as bees, wasps, and ants, surpass the birds in their architectural designs and operations; even very low down the scale of creation we meet with extraordinary instances of architecture, one kind of little rotifer, for instance, almost rivalling in its building instinct the beaver and the bee. Various and numerous are the builders, of such diverse habits of life and architectural tastes, furnished with building implements of so many different forms; some framing structures for themselves, others appropriating the deserted abodes of other animals, or forcibly ejecting the rightful occupant; some burrowing in the ground, others in stone, others in wood; others mining tunnels in the leaves, stems, fruit, roots, &c., of various plants, to the utter destruction, in many cases, of the prospects of the agriculturist; others, again, taking up their abodes in the |