'I will send you, moreover, a draught of certayne statutes, which I have rudely conceived about the employment of that revenue, and for the government of the library. Not with any meaning that they should be received as orders made by me (for it shall appear unto you otherwise), but as notes and remembrances to abler persons, whom hereafter you may nominate (as I will also request you) to consider of those affairs, and to frame a substantial form of government, sith that which is afoot is in many things defective, for the preservation of the library. For I hold it altogether fitting, that the University Convocation should be always possessed of an absolute power to devise any statutes, and those to alter as they list, when they find an occasion of evident utilitie. But of these and

other points, when I send you my project, I will both write more of purpose, and impart unto you freely my best cogitations; being evermore desirous, whatsoever may concern your public good, to procure and advance it so to the utmost of my power.'-p. 10.

With this letter before them, the curators, if they really respect the intentions of Sir T. Bodley, and we have no doubt that they do, will forthwith set about furthering the wishes of the founder, instead of acting in opposition to them.

But if Sir Thomas Bodley's books could not be lent out, on account of some obstacle in the terms of the donation, the same rule cannot fairly be extended to the new books, which the Bodleian claims in pursuance of the Act of Parlia ment. Surely these, at least, should be made as useful as possible; and it is hard for them to be doomed to perpetual incarceration because they happen to reside under the same roof with the venerable captives of Sir Thomas Bodley's days.

The riches of the Bodleian are very imperfectly known to the public, and we anticipate the day when students will vie with one another in exploring its treasures so long hidden from the world. But now, what difference is there between the undiscovered works of art, that the soil of Italy and Greece may yet contain, and the buried wealth of the Bodley? What difference, as far as use is concerned, between what may still be rescued from Pompeii, or the plain of Olympia by digging, and the very fine collection of coins (in the Bodleian), which are to be seen with great difficulty?' 'Indeed,' continues the writer, the object of the statute (Append. de Bibl. Bodl. § 5. Addenda. p. 205.) seems to have been to throw every obstacle in the way of those who might wish to have access to them. Coins are certainly liable to be stolen, but they are at present so utterly useless, that it is a pity the university cannot sell them, and substitute a set of sulphur casts, which would be generally accessible without the same risk.' The misfortune of the present system is, that, if the coins were stolen, the theft would not readily be

found out, and they might make their way, like those of the Paris collection, from the hands of the plunderer to the melting pot, before the extent of the evil was discovered. The shameful condition in which William Schlegel found a MS. fragment of the Ramayana, in the Radcliffe Library at Oxford, is a proof that things least used are not always best taken care of *. The British Museum contains a valuable collection of coins, which any scholar, properly recommended, may examine as much as he pleases. He may handle them, copy them, weigh them, do any thing with them, except damaging them, or putting them in his pocket -and with all this, we have no doubt the Museum collection is in a state of much greater real security, than that of the Bodleian Library.

The author of this little pamphlet concludes his remarks with a statement which every man of candour should make, when he feels it his duty to expose a great abuse. He should distinguish between those who make and support a bad system, and those who, being entrusted with the administration of it, perform their duty in the best way that they possibly

can.

"I should feel much to blame, if I were to lay these few pages before the public without stating most distinctly, that it is the system as established by the university which I have ventured to attack, and not the administration of that system,—a fact self-evident to all who have experienced the constant courtesy and ready kindness of the librarian, and of every member of the establishment.'

* Journal, No. II. P. 404.

REVIEW S.

MATTHIE'S GREEK GRAMMAR.

A Copious Greek Grammar, by Augustus Matthiæ, translated from the German by Edward Valentine Blomfield, M.A., &c. Fifth Edition. Thoroughly revised, and greatly enlarged from the last edition of the Original, by John Kenrick, M.A. -John Murray, 1832.

Few books are now better known to Greek students in this country than the Grammar of Matthiæ; and if we look to works of this kind, which a learner was obliged to have recourse to, before the first translation of this German treatise appeared, we must acknowledge that it has contributed in no small degree to improve philological studies in these islands. The author, a few years back (1825 and 1827), published a new edition of his work, which, we are informed by Mr. Kenrick, 'has been so much corrected and enlarged, that hardly a single section remains the same. The editor has accordingly revised the English edition in such a way as to make it throughout conformable to the original in its enlarged and altered state.' Whatever inconvenience this may cause to those who possess earlier editions, we agree with the editor that it is quite unfair to the author to go on publishing his original work after he has himself thought it advisable to introduce so many changes. We have not had the opportunity of comparing Mr. Kenrick's edition with the German original, nor did we think it necessary, as we have no doubt that he has presented us, in this fifth edition, with a faithful transcript of the author's latest conclusions. The public is already much indebted to Mr. Kenrick for several useful works, and for making them acquainted with Zumpt's Latin Grammar, of which a notice was given in the first Number of this Journal.

We may safely state that this edition of Matthiæ, as it is the latest, so it is certainly the best; and on comparing it with the fourth edition, we perceive manifest improvements and considerable enlargements in many places. We are not disposed to controvert the assertion of the editor in his preface, that the knowledge of the Greek language, and especially of the syntax, has made greater progress in the period between the author's first and last edition of his work than in the previous. half century; but admitting the great value of Matthiæ's syntax, we must assert, on the other hand, that the first volume of this work, which treats of etymology, though it is a most

useful collection of facts, and better than previous editions, is far behind the philological knowledge of the present day. We do not think it so good as Buttmann's* large work (Griechische Sprachlehre 1819, 1827), and certainly it is not so good as it ought to be. It is not deficient in the facts of grammar, for these are accumulated almost to profusion; but the matter is often ill-arranged, and the remarks of the author, instead of leading the pupil to more correct views of language, are, in many instances, more likely to bewilder him, and to inculcate erroneous principles. This is our view of the etymological part, which may be erroneous also; but as we sincerely wish to promote the acquisition of the Greek language, we shall endeavour to express our opinion on many of those points wherein the author appears to us to have erred: and we shall not select passages merely for the purpose of detecting such mistakes as may escape the most diligent writer, but we shall confine ourselves to those where some principle is involved. The numbers that we use refer to the pages of Mr. Kenrick's edition.

P. 29. The author considers the digamma as identical with an aspirate, or, in other words, w, f, v, as identical in sound with h, and the guttural ch, as in the German chor. • The most ancient Greeks pronounced every word which began with a vowel with an aspirate, which had the sound of ou, or the English w.' It is an assertion entirely unsupported by facts and contrary to the analogy of all languages, that every word commencing with a vowel had originally an aspirate at the beginning; and it is not strictly true that w is an aspirate. Again: the digamma was called Eolic, because the Eolians, of all the tribes, retained the greatest traces of their original language.' We are quite unacquainted with any grounds for this assertion, save the authority of the writers on dialects; and further, we are unable to comprehend what the author means by writing Fiž, FinTα, and then comparing them with the Latin sex, septem. The ordinary comparison of these Latin words with i, Ta, is simpler and more correct.

They may sometimes be properly considered equivalent to the digamma, as we may observe in the following instances: guerre, war; Galles, Wales; guardian, warden; and accordingly in the Homeric yevro Matthiæ considers the y to represent the digamma, but we believe it to be the guttural representative of the aspirate : γεντο is the same as ἑλτο or ἑλετο. The v for A we have in the Doric forms, as ve for E. Taderaι for

The author says (p. xxxii), 'I did not receive the second part of Buttman's larger grammar till the greater part of my own was already printed off. I have availed myself of it as far as I could, without encroaching on the property of another,' &c.

ήδεται may be explained the same way. As to Γοινος for οἶγος, we doubt if it was ever in real use; but if it ever was, the must have lost its proper power, which we shall presently explain, and must have merely denoted that ought to be pronounced hard: otherwise, before the, y would probably have been pronounced like our y, as it is in modern Greek. The u in guerre performs the duty which we have assigned to the o in volvos, In o-ivos, 0-0, 0-ixos, we think that the o is the real representative of the digamma, and when uttered in close connexion with the following vowel, the pronunciation may be represented thus: winos, wida, wicos. According to this principle, it is incorrect to write Foivos or volvos. We are aware that the form Fox exists on a bronze tablet, and this fact is entitled to all its weight; but we know also that Fatwy on coins is equivalent to the Oav of Herodotus. Among other curious examples of the y at the beginning of words, Matthiæ mentions TevTepa, which we may compare with the Latin venter. Add to this Teap for Fexp; Tsap is only a slight variation for our year.(See Phavorinus Lex. Græc.)

ย

The modern name of the town of Chalcis in Euboea, which is Egripos, has often puzzled critics. If we admit that the in Eupinos was pronounced like a v, which is the modern usage*, the change of the v sound into the g is no greater difficulty than occurs in Teap, written for Feap. That this is the origin of the present name, we have no doubt at all. Matthiæ writes Faixò, &c. though the Heracleotic tablet has Fixart; and it is a fact, which can hardly be doubted, that in this example, and possibly in sidov, sides, and some others, the initial is the representative of this digamma. As to what we call the quantity of the vowel in these words, we need not trouble ourselves about that; the in Fixar is as long for all useful purposes as the a in FIXOOL.

P. 77. We are glad to see 'Anvno, &c. written, and not 'Anna. The a is really one of those affixes which denote a Αθήνησι. case-ending, just as v is the characteristic termination of the accusative; and it cannot therefore be correct to append it to 'Ann, a word already having the form of a dative case singular. Without taking into account, therefore, the evidence of inscriptions, we may conclude that 'Anno is correct, even though many copyists of MSS. may have written it otherwise. This o appears to correspond to the Sanscrit plural case of locality ending in su. Following analogy, the author properly writes Ons in another part of the work; ons for the present indic. is as bad as Tins, didus, would be.

P. 77. In his remarks on the v paragogicum, or ¿QeλXUOTIKOV, * Journal, No. VIII., p. 229.

Compare the Latin viginti, Sanscrit vinsati, Gaelic fighid.