Εq. 400. γενοίμην ἓν Κρατίνου κώδιον. I must question whether this can signify una de pellibus Cratini. L. Bos's emendation ¿v Kgarívov (Animadv. p. 8.) seems to me to admit of no doubt.

lb. 456. Mr. B. seems somewhat uncertain about the word xoλã. There is no reason for change. The Attics only use the middle future of this verb. xoλwévous ought to have been restored, Vesp. 244. instead of κολουμένους, which cannot possibly come from κολούω, or indeed any other word. Theopompus apud Suidam v. "ATTIS. Kondoομαί γε σὲ, Καὶ τὸν σὸν Αττιν.

Thesm. 149. Χρὴ τὸν ποιητὴν ἄνδρα πρὸς τὰ δράματα —when ἀνὴς is joined with a substantive, it is not, I believe, capable of the article. The rov is, I believe, the insertion of a later editor, without any authoity; I would therefore read, Xǹ yàg manry—which connects better with the preceding verses.

In so long a work, it is impossible but some little inaccuracies, respecting the niceties of metre, must escape an editor, however diligent or sagacious.

Εφ. 569. Κοὐδεὶς οὔτε πώποτ' αὐτῶν.-It is astonishing that Mr. Brunck should let the spondee pass in the first place, and not alter it to Κούτις. [Read with the Ravenna MS. οὐ γὰρ οὐδεὶς πωποτ' αὐτῶν.]

Ibid. 1256. Όπως γένωμαί σοι Φανὸς ὑπογραφεὺς δικών. The metre of this line is redundant (the first syllable of days being long) though Valesius (on Harpocration, p. 228.) and D'Orville (on Chariton, p. 5.) quote it without suspicion. Amend it from Suidas, v. Pavès. "OTWS ἔσομαί σοι.

Pac. 185. Τί σοί ποτ' ἐστὶ τοὔνομ', οὐκ ἐξεῖς ; μιαρώτατος. an iambic with seven feet. Correct it Τί σοί ποτ' ἔστ' ὄνομ ̓ οὐκ ἐρεῖς; as Suidas quotes it v. pagol. I will take this occasion to observe, that a little above, instead of "Ω μιαςὲ καὶ τολμηρὲ. We must read on the same authority Bauge, to avoid tautology. Compare Ran. 465, 466.

Αν. 385. ̓Αλλὰ μὴν οὐδ ̓ ἄλλο σοί πω πράγμ' ἠναντιώμεθα. A spondee in the fifth place. The first editions have varsa, read έvyvriώμεθα.

Ibid. 1997. Συρακουσίῳ δὲ Κίττα· Μειδίας δ' ἐκεῖ. A cretic in the second place,. r. Συρακοσίω. Eupolis quoted by the Scholia. Συρακόσιος δ' ἔοικεν, ηνίκ' ἂν λέγῃ Τοῖς κυνιδίοισι τοῖσιν ἐπὶ τῶν τειχέων. Ιn Kuster's edition it is corrupted into Συρακούσιος.

Thesm. 234. Βούλει θεάσασθαι σαυτόν; εἰ δοκεῖ, φέρε. A syllable too much, correct it slightly, Bouλel beãoba.-Eccles. 369. Lysistr. 742. Ω πότνια Ειλείθυια—without an elision; that the first syllable in Tóra may not be made long contrary to the author's custom. To φάρμακόν σου τὴν νόσον μείζω ποιεῖ. If any thing is to be altered, I should rather suppose 'A' ought to be supplied at the beginning of the verse. A similar omission has happened in the Aldine edition of Euripid. Phoeniss. 1806. and in many editions of our author; Av. 1693. ̓Αλλὰ γαμικὴν χλανίδα δότω τις δεῦρό μοι. (ita leg. ex Schol. in v. 1565.)

The Index is a repetition of Kuster's, but very much improved and enlarged. The Latin interpretation, which the learned editor has altered and corrected in an infinity of places, is as far as I have con

sulted it, perspicuous and accurate. In the fragments, perhaps something more might have been done. But I shall only just observe, that in the Gerytades, part of the 21st fragment is repeated in the Incerta, No. 41. where instead of para-ußarréuevos, we must read ῥῆμά τι ἐμβαπτόμενον from Athenaeus, p. 367, and that in the 3d fragment of the Aards, whoever will compare Nub. 865. 1242. will think it ought probably to be corrected thus, Huy Lows OÙ NATATλAYÝσ& Txov. Fragm. incert. 133. is a parody of Euripides apud Plutarch. de Isid. et Osirid. p. 379. D.

τῷ

Reply to an Article on Bentley's Callimachus.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

In the Ninth Number of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL is a short article, purporting to show, that the edition of Callimachus, printed at London in 1741, along with Theognis, and a selection from the Anthologia, and generally understood to have been published by Dr. Richard Bentley, did not come from the hands of that celebrated scholar.

The three principal reasons, upon which the author founds this belief, are,

1. That, since Dr. Bentley died at the age of 80, and but one year after the publication of the volume, he "would hardly have published an edition of any classic at that period anonymously."

2. That "the manner, in which he is praised in the notes, is such, as to make it quite impossible that he should have written. them himself. In p. 8. of the Notes, the Editor says, Profectò ultima in ï non potest corripi, ut luculentissimè demonstravit magnum literarum humaniorum decus, Rich. Bentleius.Thus again, p. 35. Ex notis eruditissimi Benticii; and so in many other places; as hæc perspicacissimus Bentleius,' p. 41."

3. That "this Editor tells us that he had been at Rome, which Dr. Bentley never was, unless I am much mistaken. Vidi ipse, cum Romæ essem, et consului, partim etiam contuli, codicem Vaticanum Bibliorum,' &c. p. xvi."

Why your correspondent should be led to suppose it unlikely that Dr. Bentley should have published an edition of any classical author anonymously, merely because he was advanced in years, does not immediately appear. Be that as it may, the passages so complimentary to the Doctor, do not directly furnish us with a reason why they should not have been written by an anonymous editor, even though he himself should be the subject of them.

1

This might rather be conceived as a feint, by which the editor might the more effectually screen himself from suspicion. It is a thing so common, (not that we at all approve of the practice,) that we almost wonder the idea should so totally have escaped your correspondent.

From the Emendations of the Fragments of Menander and Philemon, published in 1713, by an editor who signs himself PHILELEUTHERUS LIPSIENSIS, and now universally allowed to have been written by Dr. Bentley, we make the following extracts: 1. "Videamus igitur, quid eruditissimus Kusterus ad hunc locum [ad Suid. in TμTE] afferat: Fragmentum, inquit, hoc Menandri corruptum est, quod sic emendandum et numeris suis restituendum esse optimè me monuit vir okupaléoTaTOS RICHARDUS BENTLEIUS:

Μικρὰ Παναθήναι ἐπειδὴ δι' ἀγορᾶς πέμποντά σε,
Μοσχίων, μήτης ἑώρα τῆς κόρης ἐφ' άρματος.

quam lectionem in versione seculus, sum ;

Postquam minorum Panathenæorum pompam ducentem per forum te,
Moschion, ridit puellæ mater in curru.

EGREGIA SANE HÆC CONJECTURA EST CELEBERRIMI ILLIUS BRITANNI, CUJUS EMENDATIONES AD CALLIMACHUM ET MALELAM OLIM, NUPER AUTEM AD CICERONIS TUSCULANAS SUMMA CUM VOLUPTATE ET FRUCTU LEGI.” [p. 79.]

2. Et Callimachus Epigr. XLIX.

Οὐδ ̓ ὅσον ἀτταραγόν σε δεδοίκαμες

EX SAGACISSIMI BENTLEII EMENDATIONE: nam codices ibi ineptè habent ἀλλ ̓ ἄραγον.” [p. 145.]

Are we then, by virtue of your correspondent's way of reasoning, henceforth to deny, that these emendations were written by the man, who has, ever since their publication, been considered the author of them? Is the volume from this time to be esteemed the production of any person rather than of Dr. Bentley? Unfortunately for your correspondent, there was no man at that day, whose shoulders were Atlantæan enough to bear the burden of that exquisite performance. It was made of "sterner stuff" than to have been held together by paper and pack-thread! Even your correspondent himself, in spite of his ingenuity, in spite of the boldness with which he makes his assertions, and in spite of the chance that there is in the world a title-page of similar plan and device to the title-page of the book in question, must allow that the Emendations of the Fragments of Menander and Philemon came from the pen of Dr. Bentley, and of no one else but Dr. Bentley.

As to the remaining objection, which is certainly at first sight the most reasonable of the three, it is certain that Dr. Bentley was never at Rome, if ever upon the Continent at all. But may not this be referred to the same source as the passages just quoted from

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis? What? convict the Doctor of, a falsehood? It would be an untruth beyond a doubt;--an evasion, to say the least of it, which amounts to little less than an untruth. But are not the passages from Phileleutherus Lipsiensis equally evasive? They are intended to say neither more nor less, than "I am not the author of this book;" which is just as evasive, and just as false, as to say, "Vidi ipse, cum Romæ essem," &c.-So much for your correspondent's mode of proving that the Callimachus, which was printed at London in 1741, was not edited by Dr. Bentley.

We now proceed to examine the second part of this elaborate article. It is plain enough then," says your ingenious correspondent, who was not the author of this book; the question is, who was. I believe, though I cannot quite prove it, that the real editor was Richard Warren, S. T. P. of Jesus Coil. Cambridge, who in the very following year printed an edition of Hierocles on the Golden Verses, with the same types, and for the same editors, putting his initials to that book, which he had not done to the former. Nothing can be more similar than the two books in every external mark."

This proof, which your correspondent himself confesses to be only a partial one, is more exceptionable than the one which we have just dismissed. Your correspondent contends, that since these books are similar in every external mark, they must needs have been edited by the same person. Equally reasonable would it have been to have asserted, that all volumes in vellum-binding were edited or bound by the same person!

But hold; let us examine these external marks, and, by carefully contrasting them, force out this strange similarity, which strikes so strong upon the imagination of your correspondent. We will therefore be at the pains of transcribing the two titles:

"CALLIMACHI Hymni et Epigrammata: quibus accesserunt Theognidis carmina: necnon Epigrammata centum septuaginta sex ex Anthologiâ Græcâ, quorum magna pars non antè separatim excusa est. His adjuncta est Galeni Suasoria ad artes. Notas addidit, atque omnia emendatè imprimenda curavit Editor. In Præfatione disseritur de Linguæ Græcæ pronunciatione secundumne Quantitatem an Accentum melius procedat. Ov xpalocova Baoxaving. De seipso Callimachus. Londini, Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopola Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse. P. Vaillant. J. Becroft. Lond. MDCCXLI."

"HIEROCLIS, Philosophi Alexandrini in Aurea carmina Commentarius. Græcè et Latinè. Græca accuratiùs nunc recognita, et ad MSS. codicum fidem exacta, plurimisque in locis è Gudiani Medicæi codicis collatione emendata, unà cum notis subjunctis. Edidit R. W. S. T. P. Coll. Jes. Cant. nuper Socius. Londini,

Typis Jac. Bettenham: Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopola Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse, P. Vaillant. J. Becroft. Lond. MDCCXLII."

Not the slightest trace of similarity do we find in these two titles, either with respect to Latinity, matter, or manner; save and except only that each of them ends with the clause, « Impensis Gul. Thurlbourne, Bibliopola Cantab. Veneunt apud J. Nourse, P. Vaillant," &c. &c. And is this all?

Thus then, it should seem that for any thing your correspondent has said, Dr. Bentley himself might have been the editor of the London Callimachus. Not that we believe that he was, any more than Dr. Warren. The two objections to the supposition that Dr. Warren was its editor, which are advanced by your correspondent himself, are of themselves decisive. On the strength of these alone, Dr. Warren could not possibly have been the person.

After all, what is the probable conclusion we are to arrive at ? If we examine the style and manner in which the notes are written, the plan of the volume altogether, and the intrinsic worth of the whole, we shall easily see, that the method, the general substance, and the arrangement, are not Dr. Bentley's. Equally clear is it, that this volume came from the hands of some person on terms of close intimacy with the Doctor, as may be collected from several of his opinions, emendations, &c. being incorporated with those of the editor, as well as from the very high estimation in which the Doctor's character is every where held by the editor.

We are informed by Mr. Dibdin, that the edition of Cicero do Finibus, published by the Doctor's nephew, has been erroneously attributed to the Doctor himself. The same, we suspect, is the case with respect to the London Callimachus. The style and cast of the notes in both these volumes is very similar,—so much so, that we ourselves do not entertain a doubt about the matter. The former of them has nothing particular to recommend it; and it must be candidly confessed that the latter has as little. As to the encomium which Dr. Harwood has lavished upon it, who pronounces it "not inferior to any edition of Callimachus," this does not affect our opinion in the least. This extravagant and fulsome account of the work was not deduced from any examination into the merits of it, but is a mere translation from the Biblioteca Portatile degli Autori Classici dall' Al. Mauro Boni e da Bartolommeo Gamba, who call it "Edizione non inferiore a verun' altra di Callimacho."

Besides this, we are informed by Dr. Kippis, [see Class. Jour. No. Ix. p. 282.] that the Doctor's nephew, Thomas Bentley,'

If we mistake not, we recollect to have seen a copy of this work, which appeared to have been bound soon after its publication, with the lettering on the binding expressive of the author being T. Bentley,