nursery, in the schoolroom, at the Universities, it would be wise of us to apply poetry to far more serious uses than those to which it is commonly applied. It should fill, I repeat, the same place in our system of education as it filled in that of the ancient Greeks, and become the chief medium not merely of aesthetic but of religious and moral discipline.

APPENDIX.

See page 210,

ROFESSOR ROBERTS is, on the whole, to be con

PROFE

gratulated on his work as an editor and translator, for, if in the first capacity, he cannot claim distinction, he possesses, in a high degree, competence, and if, as a translator, he is at times perhaps unnecessarily periphrastic, he is often happy and almost always trustworthy and vigorous. Of his scholarship, it may be said that it is "magis extra vitia quam cum virtutibus," cautious, sober, and sure-footed, but never brilliant. Thus, if it does not actually break down at what may be called crises, it almost always disappoints. Wherever a real difficulty occurs, the chance is always, that it will either be adroitly avoided or be left in perplexing ambiguity. Such is the plight in which evoɛv EXwv in section xxxv (4) is left, and danavwv in section xliv (11). The retention of the absurd ẞálovs at the beginning of the second section, as well as the rambling indecision of the note is an illustration of the same infirmity. Similar weakness is displayed in the choice of readings, such as the rejection of Bentley's certain and brilliant emendation ȧraorρánтel in section xii and the adherence to the untenable iπiσrρаπTε of the Paris manuscript; or again, the rejection of the Paris nov and the adoption of Tollius' conjecture, eidov, though no one could put the case for 30v better than Dr. Roberts has done. Nor is Dr. Roberts' scholarship, sound though it generally be, impeccable. In section i, ¿0póav évɛdeížato dúvajuv is not, as the context shows, "displays the power

(of an orator) in all its plenitude," but "all at once," "at a stroke." In section viii, yovuúrara is rather "most fertile" or possibly "most genuine," certainly not "principal," and the words which follow pоÜTOKELμÉVNS ὥσπερ ἐδάφους τινὸς κοινῶν ταῖς πέντε τάυταις ιδέαις τῆς ἐν τῷ λéyεir dvváμεwe would be better turned "a natural faculty of expression being assumed to underlie these five varities as . . ." than "beneath these five varieties there lies. .. the gift of discourse," which is not only bald, but inadequate. To translate roos in xvi and in xvii as "place," is entirely to miss the meaning. Again, 100s in section xxix cannot mean delineation of character," and the note on this difficult and important word is most inadequate. In section xxiii, the rather difficult word dožoкoτoūvтa is very loosely rendered as "impress" in the translation, and explained quite wrongly in the note, nor can oλoʊxεpus in section xliii possibly mean "in massive images," but "generally" summatim, or åμéλɛ “for instance."

In the locus vexatissimus in section xvii, καὶ πως παραληφθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ πανουργεῖν τέχνη τοῖς κάλλεσι καὶ μεγέθεσι . dédure, etc.-a passage most inadequately dealt with by Dr. Roberts-it is to say the least very doubtful whether παραληφθεῖσα τοῖς κάλλεσι can possibly mean " when associated with beauty," nor does his alternative proposal, "when introduced by" much mend matters. Toup's conjecture #apaλɛɩ90ɛĩσa and Ruhnken's proposal to read παρακαλυφεῖσα and to take τοῖς κάλλεσι with δέδυκε, both of which Dr. Roberts omits, might have been considered, and should certainly have been mentioned. Nor is he more successful with the difficult passages which closes section x, where by misinterpreting the plain meaning of μɛyέon and inserting is on his own authority, he gives a totally wrong impression of the meaning of the whole passage.

Roberts as an editor and Surely the first duty of a

But the capital defect of Dr. interpreter does not lie here. commentator on a Greek critic should be to explain the exact meaning of Greek critical terms; what, for example, to go no further than this treatise, were the precise or modified significations of δεινότης, οι γλαφυρός, οι ἀφελεία, οι ψυχρότης, of αδρός and ἀδρεπήβολος, of ζῆλος, and κακόζηλος, οι διαίρειν and the terms derived from it, of ἄνθος and ἀνθηρός, of ἦθος, and the like. This can only be done by careful deduction and illustrations from the Greek critics with the collateral interpretation afforded by the Latin. All that represents this in Dr. Roberts' work is a very meagre glossary, correct as a rule, so far as it goes, but too indeterminate and jejune to be of much use to serious students. In one respect, Dr. Roberts may be praised without reserve, and that is in his rigid conservatism and in his refusal to corrupt his text with unnecessary conjectural emendations, such as Tucker's absurd ὁ Μῶμος αὐτοῦ for ὅμως αὐτὸ in section xxxii, and his almost equally ridiculous εἰδυλλικῶς for ἡδὺ λιτῶς in xxxiv. He has thus uttered a silent protest against the most odious and mischievous pest now epidemic among inferior classical editors. His translation may fairly be pronounced to be the best which has yet appeared in English, for it is as a rule both spirited and accurate.