Leonis Papa Sermones. Manuscript on vellum, with elegantly illuminated capitals. It is of the 15th Century, russia, by Lewis.—3l. 19s.

Livii (Titi Patavini) Decas Quatuor de Bello Macedonico. A very splendid Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century on vellum, written in a clear and legible hand, with illuminated capitals, Russia, with joints, by Lewis.-117, 5s.

Livii (Titi Patavini) Historiarum Prima Decas. Manuscript on vellum very legibly written. The first page is wanting; it concludes thus: "Titi Livii Patavini liber X. explicit die 21 Septemb. MCCCCLVI." Russia, gilt leaves. 41. 15s.

Livii (Titi Patavini) de Bello Macedonico Decas Tertia-Finis hujus Libri die xv. Decembr. MCCCCLXI. On vellum, with capitals illuminated. 51. 2s. 6d.

Lucanus. Codex Ms. Chartaceus cum Scholiis quam plurimis að margines. It concludes thus,

"M. Annei Lucani explicit liber decimus

O Scriptor cessa tua nam manus est tibi fessa.

Scriptum Mediolani Anno MCCCLII."-47. 19s. Lucani (M. A.) Pharsalia. Manuscript on paper, which concludes with the following date:

Expletus est sub M.CCCC.LXIV et die xx. Novembris hora secunda noctis, per me Andream petri de Villari."-Green morocco.—4l. 11s.

TRANSLATION OF

a Review of ROSE's Inscriptiones Græcæ vetustissimæ. BY C. O. MÜLLER.

THE contents of this collection are as follows:-Prolegomena, chiefly relating to the history of the art of writing in Greece. First class,-Inscriptions written Bourrpoondox, or from right to left. Second class,-Inscriptions written in the common manner, but otherwise remarkable from their antiquity and the form of the letters. Third class,-Attic inscriptions of the time preceding the archonship of Euclid; first, those of which the date can be accurately determined; and next, those where it is uncertain. Fourth class,-Recent inscriptions with the digamma. Here some Orchomenian, Tanagræan, and Theban inscriptions, in which the digamma is used, are, on account of the similarity of the contents, combined with several decrees of Corcyra, Acarnania, Delphi, Agrigentum, and, on account of the origin and dialect, with other Orchomenian and Boeotian monuments. Fifth class, Inscriptions of the time immediately succeeding the archonship of Euclid. Sixth class,-Spurious or doubtful inscriptions (of which, however, the larger part are put here without sufficient reason). The Appendix contains extracts from the

writings chiefly of English scholars, relating to inscriptions either published or referred to in the body of the work, and also very accurate transcripts made by Reuvens and Dobree of the Greek inscriptions preserved at Trinity College, Cambridge. The reasons which induced Mr. Rose to publish in one volume the particular inscriptions which he has collected, are, (he states) that they contribute most materially to the knowlege of the Greek language, for which purpose inscriptions are the more important the more ancient they are, and the more they belong to times of which we have few written memorials. At the same time, the archonship of Euclid, although it was the era of important changes in the writing of public monuments at Athens, can hardly be considered as an epoch for the philological importance of inscriptions. Mr. Rose also lays great stress on the cir-. cumstance that a large part of his inscriptions are published by him for the first time: for the Germans, however, this is the case with only a few, as he had been anticipated by the two first Numbers of the Corpus Inscriptionum published by the Academy of Berlin. He also complains that Professor Ösann had anticipated him in publishing several very important inscriptions, and, as he accuses him of having, without permission, made use of his copies for the Sylloge Inscriptionum, he begins a controversy, which (whatever might have been the justice of the proceeding,) is introduced in a quarrelsome and illiberal manner. With regard to the transcripts which Mr. Rose has used, they are for the most part very accurate; more particularly those made from stones which are preserved in England. In this case the editor could compare again and again his copies with the originals, and, if he pleased, give them an accuracy, which is unattainable by the mere traveller, who (as was the case with the writer of this article) can only revise his transcript once after a short interval of time. Hence the transcripts which the editor has published do not agree in every point with those which he had formerly sent to the Academy of Berlin; in most instances, however, the editor of the Corpus Inscriptionum had ascertained by conjecture what is now confirmed from the original stones. Thus e. g. in No. 141. line 42. Böckh, instead of APA reads ÄPAYPON (åpyv

pouv), Mr. Rose has APAY; in line 34 Böckh had supplied the whole word ypaμμáteve, of which Mr. Rose reads eight letters, &c. In several places, too, the editor gives the σTondov order of the letters more accurately than before. Thus we see from the 24th plate of Mr. Rose's work, that in No. 140 of the Corpus Inscriptionum, the second part of the inscription is

directly under the first, and that the first line should receive three letters of the second; the second, two letters of the third; and so on. In the inscription, Plate XXIX in Rose, No. 144 in Böckh, the text is now nearer to the readings of Chandler and Osann, than he had formerly given it. The Reviewer cannot, however, always place intire confidence in the editor's accuracy; e. g. in the Choiseul inscription, Plate XX, (No. 148 in the Corpus Inscriptionum), the words AOENAIAINIKEI frequently occurring in the most inconvenient places, (sis Thy diwßeλlav'Aonvala Nixy), of which the writer of this article saw no trace, and which have been every where thrown out by Böckh, can hardly have been in fact read by Mr. Rose; indeed, from his own papers, the reviewer must consider that many parts of this particular copy are erroneously represented. Yet the accuracy of the transcripts is by far the most valuable part of this work; and if copies, such as these of Mr. Rose, are compared with those of Montfaucon, Muratori, &c., the superior accuracy of the present age will be at once evident. With regard, however, to the manner in which the inscriptions are treated, for which to be successful, an accurate knowlege of the contents must be combined with happy conjecture; in this Mr. Rose, however praiseworthy his endeavors, appears to be greatly wanting in the knowlege with which the undertaking of the Berlin Academy is conducted. Mr. Rose also expresses himself in respect to his mental and personal relation to the Berlin Professor with so much modesty on the one hand, and esteem on the other, that he appears to be far indeed from entertaining any notions of rivalry. In Germany, however, where the native always loses 90 per cent. in value because he is a native, while the foreigner rises in equal proportion, it is by no means impossible that Mr. Rose will be held up as an example to the Berlin Professor.' In the mean time compare No. 140 in Böckh, with Cl. iii. Sect. 2. Inscript. No. 1. in Rose, where the same inscription is left almost untouched, while, in the former work, notwithstanding a very small portion remains, it is restored, in the most convincing manner, from materials which were also accessible to the English scholar; and sense and connexion are every where discoverable, although there may, here and there, have been a few discrepancies in the exact words. Neither was Mr. Rose able to determine

This alludes to a passage in Hermann's attack on Böckh's Inscriptions; at the end of which, after having used every fair and unfair weapon against that work his ingenuity could devise, he mentions Mr. Rose's book with praise.

་

nibus non recte conclusis, specie ordinis cujusdam fallere doctorem solet: quod contra ars, quæ ducem naturam, admonitorem autem effectum habet, difficilius a vero abduci se patitur. Itaque quum excultis jam artibus disciplinæ paullatim invenirentur, non raro accidit, ut aut disciplinæ accessio molesta quadam exilitate pristinam artibus dignitatem detraheret, aut ipsæ disciplinæ, ubi earum inventores naturam artium, non recte intellexissent, tum non omnem artem complecterentur, tum, falsis alienisque admixtis, mirum in modum depravarentur. Horum omnium ars rhetorica luculentissimum exemplum exstitit. Quæ quum primum apud Græcos, plerarumque artium et doctrinarum repertores, exorta esset, initio in exercitatione quadam copiose ornateque dicendi constitit; mox vero hominum eloquentiæ laude florentium opera disciplinæ quædam ratio et præceptorum subtilitas accessit. Sed quum universa dicendi vis et facultas potissimum in caussis judicialibus, in negotiis publicis, (2) in sollemnibus laudationibus versaretur, fieri non potuit, quin his in rebus solis disciplina se contineret, cætera autem dicendi genera non solum negligeret, verum etiam excludere videretur. Historiarum expositio, philosophiæ explicatio, familiarium sermonum elegans imitatio disciplinam habebant nullam. Nam qui in his rebus elaborabant, aut a declamationum exercitatione aliquem usum dicendi afferebant, aut in eorum exempla, qui antea in his generibus excelluissent, intuebantur, aut suopte denique ingenio sensuque adjuti, quid verum et aptum esset, intelligebant. Itaque quum Aristoteles, eximii vir ingenii, ad explicandam illustrandamque artis rhetoricæ doctrinam accederet, hic quoque, priores sequutus magistros, neglectis reliquis dicendi generibus, orationum scribendarum artem et scientiam persequi satis habuit. Quamquam hic non ita viam ab illis patefactam tenuit, ut non et nova et subtiliter excogitata afferret. Naturam enim atque officium rhetoricæ, quod illi fere in flectendis commovendisque hominum animis versari statuebant, alio transferendum esse censuit. quum rhetoricam, quam e dialectica oriri putabat, facultatem esse existimaret perspiciendi quid in quaque re probabile esset, primariam ejus vim in probando demonstrandoque positam esse contendit. Alii deinde alias rhetoricæ definitiones attulerunt, ut facile possit æstimari, qualem esse oportuerit disciplinam artis de cujus natura non constaret. Quin ipse Quinctilianus, in quo præclarum fuit atque eximia eruditione politum ingenium, in eo loco, in quo plurimas aliorum de fine rhetoricæ sententias commemorat et refellit, optimam ex his, quæ Isocratem habet auctorem, amplexus, rhetoricam bene dicendi artem esse existimat. Sed neque hæc definitio, neque illa Cleanthis et Chrysippi, rhetoricam recte dicendi artem esse censentium, quæ Quinctiliano eamdem habere vim atque illa Isocratis, nobis autem etiam propius verum accedere videtur, satis idonea est. Etenim, ut dicam quod sentio, omnes istæ artis rhetoricæ definitiones duplici maxime vitio laborant. Quippe ex utra

Nam

parte justo latius patent, ex altera parte angustiores re definienda sunt. Ac latius patent primum eo, (3) quod dialecticæ aliquam partem admiscent arti rhetoricæ, ut Aristotelica, reprehensa a Quinctiliano II. 15, 13. et a grammatico quodam in Biblioth. Coisl. p. 593. Neque enim hoc est artis ejus officium quæ dicendi præceptis continetur, ut, quid cogitandum sit et quomodo, ostendat, sed ut cogitata recte eloqui doceat. Deinde eo quoque latius quam debet extenditur rhetoricæ descriptio, quod a poesi non satis distingui solet. Nam definitiones, cujusmodi illæ sunt Isocratis et Chrysippi, quidni etiam in artem poeticam quadrent, quæ et bene et recte dicendi ars, non minus quam rhetorica, est? Nec meliores hoc in genere sunt illæ definitiones, quæ copiose ornateque dicendi scientiam esse tradunt: in quibus hoc quoque vitiosum est, quod ne ad eam quidem, quæ universe vocatur eloquentia, accommodatæ sunt. Sæpe enim ea est maxima oratoris virtus, omnique copia et ornatu excellentior, breviter scire et simpliciter loqui. Contra, quod etiam angustiores, ac debebant, esse istas definitio nes diximus, id spectat ad vim et usum artis, quem doctores omnes in orationibus quæ proprie dicuntur expromi putant. Nam quis tandem finis sit, quo hæ orationes ab aliis dicendi scribendique generibus ita differant, ut dictionem requirant plane singularem et ab aliis sermonum scriptionumque formis alienam? Manifestum est, quidquid hic discriminis reperiri possit, id non in dictione atque elocutione, quæ tamen propria est rhetoricæ, sed in materia dicendi argumentoque versari. Quare illi denique pene ridiculi sunt, qui eloquentiæ facultatem positam putant in rebus intelli gentiæ communi accommodatis. Nam quæ tandem est illa communis intelligentia, aut quousqué pertinet? quosnam quasi terminos habet, intra quos debeat consistere? aut quid est, quod ab hac intelligentia communi segregandum sit atque excludendum, quandoquidem gradibus quidem illa quibusdam distinguitur, sed circumscriptionem non habet aliam, quam quæ rerum omnium in cogitationem et sermonem cadentium circumscriptio est? Nam et rusticorum quædam est communis intelligentia, et mediocriter cultorum, et eruditorum, et philosophorum denique.

(4) Sed operæ pretium est quærere, quæ tantarum de artis rhetoricæ natura dissensionum caussa fuerit atque origo. Eam vero non in ipso dicendi officio, quod sive bene sive recte sive apposite ad persuadendum dicendo continetur, simplex est neque ambiguum, sed in materia dicendi argumentoque positam existimaverim. Hoc enim quum artis doctores negligi non posse viderent, quia, quí recte dicere vellet, etiam rem, de qua diceret, apte tractare deberet, quærendum putarunt, quæ materia esset arti rhetoricæ subjecta. Atque quum alii, usum maxime atque exempla respicientes, eam artem in caussis civilibus versari censuissent, alii, qui latius patere eloquentiæ vim animadverterent, quoniam infinitam esse materiæ copiam videbant, aut potissima tantum atque usu tritissime VOL. XXXVII. CĪ. JI. NO. LXXIII. F