mann ought to have mentioned the emendation of Canter, Ἥδιστα πρίν γε δῆθ ̓, ὅτ ̓ ἦν παῖς ἥδε μοι. Instead of ἥδιστα πρίν γε δήθ', an ' expression destitute of authority, the Quarterly Reviewer proposes to read, ήδιστα πρίν γ' ἰδεῖν, formerly delightful to behold. This emendation offends against the rule laid down in our observation on v. 303. As the third foot of the verse is contained in one word, ἰδεῖν, and as the following syllable, ὅτ', is capable of beginning a verse, the two hemistichs ought to be divided by an elision. So v. 764. Φαίης ἂν, εἰ παρῆσθ ̓, ὅτ' ἠγάπα νεκρούς. Tro. 1181. Ολωλας, ἐψεύσω μ ̓, ὅτ ̓ εἰσπίπτων πέπλους. Εἶ. 14. Οὓς δ ̓ ἐν δόμοις ἔλειφ', ] ὅτ ̓ εἰς Τροίαν ἔπλει. Our opinion of the passage before us is as follows. We conjecture that the words giv ye were added for the purpose of completing the verse, by a transcriber who found in his copy, "Ηδιστα δήποτ ̓ ἦν παῖς ἥδε μοι. If this conjecture is allowed to pass, we have little doubt that the poet wrote, *Ηδιστα δήποτ' ἄνθ ̓, ὅτ ̓ ἦν παῖς ἥδε μοι. The two syllables ἄνθ ̓ ὅτε were lost because the preceding syllable ends with the same letters. The expression ἥδιστα δήποτ' ὄντα may be compared with Hec. 454. Ποῦ τὴν ἄνασσαν δήποτ ̓ οὖσαν Ἰλίου ̔Εκάβην ἂν ἐξεύροιμι, Τρωάδες κόραι ; So also Tro. 1977. Ω μεγάλα δήποτ ̓ ἐμπνέουσ' ἐν βαρβάροις Τροία, τὸ κλεινὸν ὄνομ' ἀφαιρήσει τάχα. We may also read, πρίν ποτ' ὄνθ'.

διστα

V. 1099. ̓Αλλ' οὐκέτ ̓ ἔστιν, ἥ γ' ἐμὴν γενειάδα Προσήγετ ̓ ἀεὶ στό ματι, καὶ κάρα τόδε Κατείχε χειρί. πατρὶ δ ̓ οὐδὲν ἥδιον Γέροντι θυγατρός. ἀρσένων δὲ μείζονες ψυχαί, γλυκεῖαι δ ̓ ἧσσον εἰς θωπεύματα. We apprehend that few of our readers are unacquainted with Dr. Burney's correction of the third of these five verses, Κατείχε χερσίν. οὐδὲν ἥδιον πατρί. See the Monthly Review, August, 1799, p. 434. Mr. Hermann has a long note on this verse, in which, as on some other occasions, we observe rather an unwillingness to adopt the emendation of a contemporary critic, than a real attachment to the received text. Κριτικὸν γάρ ἐστ', οὐ φιλόβρον ἀλλήλων γένος. He ends with proposing to read, καὶ κάρα τόδε Κατείχε. πατρὶ δ ̓ οὐδὲν ἥδιον πέλει Γέροντι θυγατρός. In the following words, ἄρσενων δὲ μείζονες, Mr. Hermann justly censures Markland for wishing to change δὲ into γέ, δή, οι μέν. The construction is as follows : Οὐδὲν [μὲν] ἥδιον πατρὶ γέροντι θυγατρός. ἀρσένων δὲ μείζονες [μὲν] ψυχαί, γλυκεῖαι δ ̓ ἧσσον εἰς θωπεύματα.

V.1ίο. Οὓς χρῆν, ἐπειδὰν μηδὲν ὠφελῇ πόλιν, Θανόντας ἔῤῥειν, κἀκποδὼν εἶναι νέοις. Libri ὠφέλουν πόλιν. Τη codd. A. B. notatur γρ. πάλιν. Plutarchus ὠφελῶσι γῆν, quod quum memoriter citans tis esse, vulgata autem lectio ab exquisitiore fonte manasse videretur, ὠφελῇ πόλιν reposui. Sic supra v. 453. Τερπνὰς τυράννοις ἡδονας, ὅταν θέλῃ. Vide Heindorfium ad Plat. Gorg. p. 105. Protag. p. 499. HERMANN. So Alc. 356. ἡδὺ γὰρ φίλους Καν νυκτὶ λεύσσειν, ὅντιν ̓ ἂν παρῇ χρόνον. The common reading is φίλοις. In the passage before us, we are not without suspicion, although

we are not prepared to discuss the point, that wλovv agrees better with χρῆν, than ωφελῇ or ὠφελῶσι. If we retain @βέλουν, we must read ἐπειδή.

V. 1114. Τάδε δὴ παίδων καὶ δὴ φθιμένων | ὀστᾶ φέρεται. λάβετ ̓, ἀμφιπόλοι | γραίας ἀμενοῦς (οὐ γὰρ ἔνεστι | ῥώμη παίδων ὑπὸ πένθους) x. T. λ. In Mr. Hermann's edition, as well as in all the other modern editions which we have seen, there is a comma after aμToo, which totally destroys the sense of the passage. The sense is, Take the bones, ye handmaids of the feeble old woman. The common translation is, Prehendite, famula, anum infirmam. This interpretation requires λáßece, which was accordingly proposed by Duport, and rejected on account of the metre by Barnes.

V. 1118. Πολλοῦ δὲ χρόνου σώζεις μέτα δὴ, | καταλειβομένας τ' dλys oλλis. So all the editions before Markland, who changed owles into Coas on the authority of the three Parisian manuscripts. Two Florentine copies examined by Matthiæ read wons. Mr. Hermann reads, Πολλοῦ τε χρόνου ζωᾶς, μέγα δὴ | καταλειβομένας aλyeσs modλoïs. Reposui, says Mr. Hermann, quod ultro se offerebat, ut mirum sit, criticis non in mentem venisse. Without pausing to inquire whether there is any Attic authority for was with the first syllable long, we read with the assistance of Musgrave, Πολλοῦ τε χρόνου ζώσης μέτρα δὴ, Καταλειβομένης τ ̓ ἄλγεσι πολλοῖς. If the reader prefers the Doric forms ζώσας and κατάλει Bouévas, we shall not contest the point. These genitives agree with realas aμevous, v. 1116. The whole passage is correctly pointed in Markland's text. Mr. Hermann does not notice Musgrave's correction, μérpa for μéra. The same variety occurs in v. 1548. of the Helena, where the true reading was first restored by Reiske, ex ingenio, and afterwards discovered in a manuscript by Musgrave.

Vv. 1123-1163. Mr. Hermann, as well as the Quarterly Reviewer, divides this beautiful ode between the mothers and the children of the defunct leaders. As it would be difficult to make Mr. Hermann's arrangement understood, without transcribing the whole ode, we content ourselves with referring the reader to the book itself.

V. 1131. Παπαὶ, παπαί. [ ἐγὼ δ' ἔρημος ἀθλίου πατρὸς τάλας, κ. τ. λ. Instead of Tаnal, anal, why may we not adopt the reading of the manuscripts, anais, anais, adding the proper spirit, and changing the accent: The sense is, Σὺ μὲν ἄπαις εἶ, ἐγὼ δ ̓ ἔρημος,

X. T. λ.

V. 1134. Ποῦ δὲ πόνος ἐμῶν τέκνων ; A very learned person proposes ἐμῶν τόκων. So Phoen. 30. ἡ δὲ τὸν ἐμὸν ὠδίνων πόνον Μαστοίς υφεῖτο. Med. 1031. Στερίὰς ἐνεγκοῦσ ̓ ἐν τόκοις ἀλγηδόνας. Suppl, 920. Πόνους ἐνεγκοῦσ ̓ ἐν ὠδῖσι. The common reading, however, is right. So Med. 1961. Μάταν μόχθος ἔβρει τέκνων.

V. 1147. Αι αι, γόων ἅλις τύχας, | ἅλις δ' ἀλγέων ἐμοὶ πάρεστι, Ald. et vulgati ἅλις ἀλγέων πάρεστί μοι. Addidi δ', et scripsi ἐμοὶ πάρεστιν, quum codd. Α. Β. et uterque Florentinus μοι πάρεστι habeant. Alioqui non displiceret nagerTi dn po. HERMANN.

Mr. Hermann's emendation is preferable to that of the Quarterly Reviewer, "Αλις τῶνδ' ἀλγέων πάρεστι. We do not well understand the preceding verse, Al al, yówv axis Túxas. We should prefer, Αἱ αἱ τύχας, ἅλις γόων. So ἰω ἰω τύχα, Or. 1537. ιώ μοι τύχας, Alc. 394. in Tas σãs Túxus, El. 1184. &c. In the first and second of these three passages, we suspect that the true reading is, ἰω ἰω τύχας.

V. 1149. "Ετ' ἆρ ̓, ἔτ ̓ Ασωπού με δέξεται γάνος. Hic versus mutilus erat, ita scriptus in libris, στάσω. ποῦ με δέξεται γάνος. Praclure Tyrwhittus, Ag ̓ ἔσθ' οτ' Ασωπού με δέξεται γάνος, sed poterat hoc et ad litterarum similitudinem lenius, et ad sententiam fortius corrigi, si sic scriberetur, ut a me factum est. HERMANN, Mr. Hermann's reading is preferable to Tyrwhitt's on another account. The antistrophic odes of this tragedy contain thirty-two trimeter iambics, including the verse now before us, and v. 1159, which also has lost a foot. If the reader will examine these sixteen pairs of verses, he will find that the senarius of the strophe always exactly resembles that of the antistrophe, with one exception, which will be removed in the next note. In the verse now before us, Tyrwhitt exhibits a spondee in the first place. Apa at the beginning of a sentence always has the first syllable long. The corresponding verse (1142.) has an iambus: Ilάreg, où μÈY TŴY (σὺ μέντοι Hermannus ex em. Porsoni) σῶν κλύεις τέκνων γόους. Perhaps, however, neither of these verses is a senarius. We are half inclined to believe that the words où è are an interpolation metri caussa, and that we ought to read interrogatively, Ilάτeg, τῶν σῶν κλύεις τέκνων γόους (al. λόγους); The sense of v. 1149. requires no addition to the words, Ετ ̓ ̓Ασωπού με δέξεται γάνος. 'The metre is, U——1-U-1U-U-1. Compare vv. 600. 603. 610. 613. 620. 628.

V. 1150. Χαλκέοις ἐν ὅπλοις Δαναϊδών στρατηλάταν. Legebatur, Χαλκέοισιν ὅπλοις Δαναϊδῶν στρατηλατών. Cod. Α. Χαλκέοις. Εγ özλoss Marklando, qui etiam cùr özλos conjecit, debetur. Ac multo et simplicius hoc est, et venustius, puerum ut ipse armatus sit optare, quam ut armatorum dux. Ergarnλárav Musgravii emendatio est, et prius Heath. HERMANN. Mr. Hermann, who excludes the Doric dialect from the trimeter iambics of the choral odes, ought to read στρατηλάτην. See his note on κόρας, Herc. 416. [417.] If he reads σTearnλárav, he ought also to read Δαναϊδᾶν. With regard to the former part of the verse, we are not certain that we rightly understand Mr. Hermann's note. We suspect that Ac multo is an error of the press for At multo, and that he rejects où λ015, as affording a less couvenient sense than y

ὅπλοις. If this is his meaning, we apprehend that σὺν ὅπλοις is not inconsistent with his interpretation. Compare Hec. 112. Ort' Ὅτε χρυσέοις ἐφάνη ξὺν ὅπλοις. TTE XQUσÉOLS &‡ávη E λ015. We object, however, to both Markland's emendations, as well as to the common reading, on account of the spondee in the third place. See the preceding annotation. We read, Χαλκέοις όπλοισι, Δαναϊδῶν στρατηλάταν.

V. 1167. Τούτοις ἐγώ σε καὶ πόλις δωρούμενα. If the reader will compare the speech of Theseus, in which this verse occurs, with the third and fourth verses of the speech of Minerva, which follows almost immediately, he will see reason to suspect that σF ought to be changed into ope.

V. 1179. Τὶ δή ποθ ̓ ὑμῖν ἀλλ ̓ ὑπουργῆσαι με χρή; Male vulgo τί δή ποθ'. Non quid aliud dicit, sed ecquid aliud. HERMANN. If this alteration had been made by Mr. Wakefield, we should have reminded him, that the enclitic r, in common with every other enclitic, cannot begin either a trimeter iambic or a sentence. The same rule, as is well known, applies to av, aù, yàg, dè, dn, δῆτα, μὲν, μὴν, οὖν, and a few other particles. As Mr. Hermann cannot be unacquainted with this rule, we must consider his alteration of the present verse as made in defiance of it. In his book de Emendanda Ratione Grace Grammatica (p. 95.) he has treated two verses of the Choëphori of Eschylus (112. 652.) in the same manner as the verse now before us. If Mr. Hermann had ever heard the words who bids in the mouth of an auctioneer, or the words who buys in the mouth of a barrow-woman, he would not have altered τίς ἔνδον into Τὶς ἔνδον with the following remark: Ibi manifesto interrogat Orestes, an aliquis intus sit, non quis sit intus.

V.1210. Τεμένη δ ̓, ἵν ̓ αὐτῶν σώμαθ ̓ ἡγνίσθη πυρὶ, Μέθες παρ' αὐτὴν τρίοδον Ισθμίας ὁδοῦ. Er Marklandi emendatione ἡγνίσθη dedi pro dyno. HERMANN. The Quarterly Reviewer compares Iph. Α. 949. Ταῦτα μέν σε πρῶτ ̓ ἐπῆλθον, ἵνα σε πρώθ ̓ εἶμαι (εὗρον Reiskius et Marklandus) κακόν. In both passages the transcribers mistook the adverb va, where, for the conjunction va, in order that. We subjoin two other instances of the same error. Soph. Trach. 1159. Σὺ δ ̓ οὖν ἄκουε τοὗργον. ἐξήκεις δ' ἵνα Φανεῖς ὁποῖος ὢν ἀνὴρ, ἐμὸς καλεῖ. Brunck remarks: Perperam in libris avis, unde interpres va pro ut finali accepit. Eurip. Herc. 425. Δρόμων τ' ἄλλων ἀγάλματ ̓ εὐτυχῆ | διῆλθε, τόν τε πολυ δάκρυον | ἔπλευσ ̓ ἐς Αΐδαν, πόνων τελευτὰν, ἵν ̓ ἐκπεράνῃ τάλας | βίο τον, οὐδ ̓ ἔβα πάλιν. The true reading, ἵν ̓ ἐκπεραίνει, was first suggested by Heath. It is to Heath also that we owe i instead of

:00 in the passage before us.

P. E.

INQUIRY

INTO THE

CAUSES OF THE DIVERSITY OF HUMAN CHARACTER

IN VARIOUS

AGES, NATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS.

By the late PROFESSOR SCOTT, of King's College, Aberdeen.

NO. IV.

SECT. IV.

In what respect the Passions differ from Man's affections, appetites, or desires.

If we deduct from the list of the passions those principles of action in man already treated of under the names of appetites, desires, and affections, the analysis of the passions will be greatly simplified, and is perhaps sufficiently well accomplished in what Dr. Reid calls "a common division of the passions, which has been mentioned almost by every author who has treated of them, and needs no explication." (Essay 3. on the active powers. c. 6.). According to this division the human passions may be arranged under desire and aversion, hope and fear, joy and grief.

Passion, as already stated, consists in a strong emotion, or perturbation of the mind, which is excited by the lively conception of some good or evil. If the good or evil be immediately present to us, or, as it were, within our reach, the passions of desire or aversion will be excited by its lively conception. If the good or evil be distant or only existing in expectation, it will rouse the passions of hope or fear; and if the good or evil be already experienced, joy or grief will be its natural consequence.

Man, as has been already repeatedly stated, though a rational being, is powerfully prompted to act by other principles than by reason: hunger prompts him to supply the wants of his body, curiosity to store his mind with knowledge, compassion to relieve the sufferings of his fellow creatures. In like manner the natural impulse of his soul leads him irresistibly to desire whatever is good in itself, to wish or hope for its enjoyment, and to rejoice in its possession; while he has a like natural aversion to whatever is evil, a fear at encountering it, and a sorrow on having experienced it. By the strong impulse of these principles he is much more powerfully urged to seek for good, and to avoid evil, than if he bad no other monitor to this conduct than the calm dictates of reason. It appears to me that there is this important distinction between the passions and those other active principles of man which we have yet considered, namely, that the object of the passions is good or evil generally contemplated, and not any precise or particular species of good or evil; whereas VOL. IX. E

CI. JI.

NO. XVII.