W. in his canon has not difcriminated between Greek words and words entirely Latin; and therefore, in the abfence of fuch difcrimination, Ifmarus Orphea, being fucceeded by namque canebat in the next verfe, would form an exception, or at least a limitation, to his broad pofition. But even if Mr. W. had difcriminated (as in fact he has not) his friend might have faid that Oftrea is a word derived from the Greek language, and therefore the final vowels in it might have coalefced, Græco more, like those in Orphea, whether the next verfe began with a vowel or not. To Mr. W.'s substitution of omne for omnia in Virgil, we ftrenuously object, because a complete fentence intervenes between his propofed reading, omne, and the word opere, to which he would refer it.-If Mr. W. will look to Heinfius's note on the paffage, he will find that fome MSS. give omne, but that the best copies are in favour of omnia, and that omnia is quoted by Nonius, by Marius Victorinus, and by Macrobius. Of Mr. W.'s challenge to produce more pallages his friend might have accepted with little danger and if we undertake the office Mr. W. will not be difpleafed. Surgit -Solio tum Jupiter aureo Eneid X. v. 116. -et imagine cereâ Largior arferit ignis? The coalefcence of vowels is Hor. Lib. I. Sat. VIII.' not very frequent among the writers after the Auguftan Age. But we will produce a few examples to refute the propofed alteration of omnia into omne, and to fhow that Mr. W, in his obfervations ought to have diftinguished exprefsly between Greek and Latin words. Nos miranda quidem, fed nuper confule Junio. Gefta. Juvenal, Sat. XV. v. 27. -Aut magno feries imperdita Tydes Pectora. Statius, Lib. III. v. 84. V. Flaccus, Lib. IV. v. 425. -Fatidici poenas horrentia Phinei Dira deum -Sævumque cubile Promethei Idem, Lib. V. v. 155. Mr. W. when he wrote the clofe of his note on the Georgics, feems to have felt fome little diftruft in his own opinions, for he there refers his readers to an emendation in the 2d Georgic, where he would himself read atque, instead of Aut after Nec in a preceding claufula, Nec pulcher Ganges, atque auro turbidus Hermus-. As Mr. W. has not, in his edition of Horace, explicitly retracted a position which in two of his former works he had firmly maintained, we thought it incumbent upon us to enter very fully into the question which he started in his observations. We We fufpect, indeed, that Mr. W. no longer diffents from his friend, for in the Horace he has printed nec without any remark in the notes, though it be the very reading, which, upon two occafions, he had before oppofed. It is curious enough to obferve the different fituation of Mr. Wakefield's mind, at different times. When he wrote the obfervations his confidence was great, and his canon unqualified. When he began his note on the Georgics he felt equal confidence, as he proceeded in it, he called in the aid of diftinctions, and when he arrived at the close he left the point to be difcuffed by the reader for himself. Afterwards, when he came to the paffage in his intended edition of Horace, he printed nec, without even remarking that he had once earnestly contended for aut, and perhaps this complete revolution in his opinions took place when he was reading Horace, and, in Sat. VIII. B. I. I. 43, had met with fuch an inftance, as in his notes on the Georgics he had declared impoffible to be found. Sat. III. L. II. v. 208. We find the punctuation rather different. In the obfervations the line is printed thus, Qui fpecies, alias veri fcelerifque, tumultu Permiftas capiet, &c. But in the edit. we read, Qui fpecies alias veri, fcelerifque tumultu Sat. IV. v. 16. Mr. W. in the obfervations would read inriguo; but in the edit. he prints irriguo, Sat. VI. v. 8: Si veneror ftultus nihil horum. Mr. W. in the obfervations propofes venor, which he afterwards found as a var. lect. in the Delphin edit. and which he condemns the editor for not having adopted-but in Mr. W.'s edit. we have veneror. In Epift. VII. v. 24. Lib. I. Dignum præftabo me etiam pro laude merentis, "Annuimus pariter vetuli notique columbi: But the edition has a full ftop at Columbi. Lib. II. Epift. II. v. 113, &c. he thus points : 44 Audebit, quæcunque parum fplendoris habebunt, "Verba movere loco: quamvis invita, recedant; "Et verfentur adhuc intra penetralia Vestæ." But in the edition he fets no comma after audebit, he puts a comma not a semicolon at loco, he puts no comma at invita, he gives a comma not a femicolon at recedant, and for et before verfentur he reads ut. Ars Ars Poetica.-In the 72d verfe, for quem penes arbitrium eft, he, in the obfervations, reads cui for quem, and in the edit. he leaves quem, and propofes arbitrum for arbitrium. In verfe 337, &c. he agrees with Bentley that the line ought to be fufpected, as it is now pointed, and he propofes the fol lowing punctuation : "Ut cito dicta "Percipiant animi deciles, teneantque fideles, "Omne fupervacuum pleno de pectore manat !" His note on the paffage in the edition runs thus Propendeo equidem in Bentleit fententiam, obelo hunc verficulum damnantis cui vero retinendum placuerit, huic noftram interpunctionem commendamus; unde hæc exoritur fententia : Ut animi cito dicta percipiant dociles, et teneant; ità omne nimium folet effluere.' Sæpe omititurità' in Apodofi." We fufpect, as Bentley does, that the clofing line is fpurious. We agree generally with Mr. W. that ita is often understood in the apodofis, or return of the fentence-but on the prefent occafion we cannot admit his interpretation, becaufe at would require tenent, not teneant, where ita is followed by manat. V. 99. Mr. W. here controverts Bifhop Hurd's explanation of the word pulchra. We have been told, that the explanation was given by a man whom the Bishop has long calfed his friend, and whom we reverence as a scholar. We, like Mr. W, diffent from the learned writer, and think that Mr. W. in his obfervations, and in Section 122 of Silva Critica, has judiciously explained the meaning of Horace in this word; but in the edit. he has not inferted that explanation. V. 127. He approves, and we join with him in in approving, Bishop Hurd's admirable correction of aut for et.But in the edit. he prints et without noticing his change of opinion. Of V. 212 and 213 he gives a long and elaborate explanation, no trace of which appears in the edition. V. 379, &c. he thus prints:-Hæc placuit femel, hæc decies repetita placebit, and then he transfers ludere qui nefcit down to vitioque remotus ab omni," from the place in which they now ftand, and places them before "O major juvenum," which words, in the common edition, immediately follow "repetita placebit." He moreover fuppofes, that from Quidni down to omni fhould be confidered as an objection, to which the Poet replies in a fine apoftrophe to his friend, from "O major" to imum." Now in the edition, the lines are not thus tranfpofed, nor have we any note to tell us that Quidni, &c. proceed from the mouth of an objector. Vitio alfo in the edit. is altered into vinclo. We cannot help obferving, that Mr. W. feldom or never makes any reference to the Obfervations he published in 1776. We, for our parts, efteem them as the axgolivia, or first fruits of Mr. W's Philological labours. Mr. W. himfelf, in his fubfequent publications, retained fome of the opinions he held in 1776, and in his edition we find fub divo for fub dio, and two or three other conjectures, which appear in the obferva tions-e. g. the punctuation at effulfit, Lib. IV. Ode V. and the fubftitution of regionibus for legionibus, Sat. VI. Lib. I. We shall now collect from Mr, W.'s notes on the Georgics additional inftances in which his publications differ from each other. In Page 4, of the notes on the Georgies, he fays, that in v. 30. Sat. VI. Lib. II. of Horace, he fhould read pulfas before omne quod obftat" in the edit. however, he reads "pulfes." P. 83. He would read in v. 37. Epift. XVII. 1. 1. Quid? qui provenit, fecitne viriliter? But the edit. gives pervenit. P. 124. in Lib. I. Sat. VI. He would read (as we before obferved) Vefpertinufque pererro fæpe forum; but in the edit. we have vefpertinum. Having compared the Silva Critica with the edition of Ho race, we shall state the particulars which the former contains, and which the latter omits. Section XII. Ode III. Lib. IV. v. 1. For femel before nafcentem, he would read fimul, which he explains inter nafcendum; but in the edition we have femel. Section XXVII. Ode XI. Lib. II. v. 15. For odorati he would read coronati before capillos; but in the edition is odo rati. Sect. LV. in Ode III. Lib. II. v. 13. Flores amœnæ ferre jube rofæ, for amana he would read Amynta; the edi tion, however, retains amœnæ. In the fame Section, Mr. W. would read, Tollor Sabinus, Vefter in arduum In the 6th stanza of Ode IV. Lib. III,; but arduos Sabinos appear in the edition. We in this Section find labores propofed for amores, in v. 11, Ode IX. Lib. II. but the edit, has amores. We find in the next page that in Qde X. Lib. III. Mr. W. for fupplicibus tuis before parcas, would fubítitute fuppliciis; but in the edition we meet fupplicibus. Sect. LVI. He thus reads, v. 144. Epift. I. Lib. II. Floribus et vino genium memores brevis ævi, and he fays that me mores mores belongs to Agricolæ at the beginning of the fentence.. But in the edit, we find memorem. Sect. LXV. Ode XXVII. Lib. III. For mediafque fraudes, &c. he reads thus : "At fcatentem Belluis pontum media, atque fraudes, Palluit audax." Now in the edit. at is preferved; but the fecond conjecture is abandoned, though when first started, it appeared to Mr. W. facilis emendatio, et venuftatis plena." -- Sect. CXXII. Ars Poetica. He interprets the word pulchra as we have before stated, when we spoke of his obfervations. His words are in one place, "It is not fufficient that Poetry be faultlefs;" and in the other, "Non fufficit pulchra effe poemata et fine culpâ." With this interpretation we do not meet in the notes of the edit. Sect. CXXVI. Ode III. Lib. II. He gives an interpretation of trepidare, and thus unfolds the conftruction; et lympha fugiens per obliquum rivum, laborat trepidare: which is, however, omitted in the edit.. Sect CXXXI. Lib. I. Sat. I. He defends the reading Perfidus hic caupo, and expreffes his furprise that learned men fhould have ever wifhed to alter it. In the edit. we find the reading itself, but no vindication of it. Sect. CLXI. Ode XXXI. Lib. I. He approves of Bentley's interpretation of reparata by renovata; and yet this interpretation has not found a place in the edition. Sect. CLXIV. Lib. II. Epift. I. Mox etiam pectus præceptis format amicis is the common reading. Mr. W. however, puts a femicolon after format, and for amicis he would fubftitute amicus to be joined with corrector in the next line. But the edition gives amicis. Sect. CLXXIX. Ode VII. Lib. II. For deducte he, with fome hesitation, recommends redacte; but deducte is found in the edition. Sect. CLXXXVIII. Lib. I. Ode IV. He, in v. 16, would read bea te Sexti for beate Sexti. This hafty conjecture is abandoned in the edit. where we find beate.-We pause here to deliver an opinion which was fuggefted to us by a most learned friend, and which, after much confideration, we are inclined to adopt. The 2d lines in the diftichs of this Ode are usually supposed to be trimeter catalectic Iambics. We, on the contrary, believe that they are compounded of the penthemimer Iambic, having its taft fyllable adiapogos, and of the verfus ithyphallicus, or trochaic dimeter brachycatalectic. By this mode of fcan |