It was usual, soon after Wolsey's college was completed, to send the principal young men of birth and fashion to be educated there as at a public school; they went very early, and received the same discipline as they would at Eton or Winchester; for it must be remembered that Westminster was not placed upon its present establishment till Queen Elizabeth; and the Dean, Censor, and Tutor, acted literally the part of schoolmasters. To this Public School, for it could be called by no other name, we owe the accomplished and learned Lord Surrey, Sir Philip Sidney, and others equally eminent with those who are brought against us. Of Sir Philip Sidney, Wood writes thus: "while very young, he was sent to Christ-Church to be improved in all sorts of learning."

The same may be said of other great characters in English history, who were sent to Oxford, to the Public Schools attached to different colleges: Sir Walter Raleigh to Oriel, Rochester to Wadham, at twelve, Wolsey, so early as eleven years old, to Magdalen, Richard Hooker, at thirteen, to Corpus, Clarendon, at thirteen, to Christ-Church. These accomplished characters, said by the Critic not to have been educated in Public Schools, were all, in fact, so EDUCATED!

"O Shame, where is thy blush!

If thou canst mutiny on a Critic's cheek!”

Of Sir Walter Raleigh, Wood says: Being entered at Oriel, "where his natural parts being strangely advanced by academical learning under an excellent tutor, he became an ornament to the juniors." The same may be said of many other eminent men, whom England has produced, in history, in science, and in learning; and many of these enumerated in the review before us, Bacon, Selden, Sir Isaac Newton, &c. So that, if these great men have not been educated at Westminster, Eton, or Winchester, still they are direct examples against the fallacious conclusion drawn by the Reviewer; "that the English have done almost all that they have done in the arts and sciences, without the aid of that system of education, to which they are attached.”

This will be explained more particularly as we proceed. It may be proper to mention here, that we shall consider in the sequel, whether the great men, who were privately educated, would not have been more free from imperfections, if they had been educat ed otherwise.

L.

Among the poets enumerated by the critic, it may also be observed that Congreve, Goldsmith, Parnell, and Swift, began their studies at Trinity college, Dublin, at the age of thirteen.

EURIPIDIS HERCULES FURENS.

Recensuit GODOFREDUS

HERMANNUS. Lipsia, apud Gerhardum Fleischerum, Jun. 92116. Small 8vo.

1810. pp. xxiv

THE Hercules Furens of Euripides is so full of difficulties, that a reader of ordinary sagacity, who peruses it attentively in the very best edition, will hardly be able to find ten lines together, in which the received text is perfectly intelligible and satisfactory. Such, at least, is the impression with which we, whose trade it is to hunt after corruptions and obscurities in the writings of the ancients, have always risen from the perusal of this tragedy. We rejoiced, therefore, when we were informed, that an edition of it had been published by a person so well qualified to execute the duties of an Editor as Mr. Hermann; who reigns without a rival among the Greek critics of the only country, except our own, in which Greek criticism is cultivated. Among English scholars, Mr. Hermann does not appear to us to enjoy that portion of reputation, to which he is justly entitled. The English are exceedingly prone to undervalue the abilities of the learned on the continent. Mr. Hermann, in particular, is not only a German, but in consequence of his rashness in publishing an edition of the Hecuba of Euripides, in opposition to that of Mr. Porson, has the misfortune to stand as an object of scorn and derision in several parts of Mr. Porson's writings. It may be added, that Mr. Hermann is best known in England by his work on Greek and Latin metres; a book of which too much ill cannot easily be said, and which contains a smaller quantity of useful and solid information, in proportion to its bulk, than any elementary treatise, on any subject, which we remember to have seen. In all probability, he has long repented of writing that book. Whatever he may have been formerly, undoubtedly he is now a very considerable proficient in his art, although he has not altogether abjured the critical heresies of his youth. Few living or deceased scholars have labored more successfully in exploring the mysteries of the Greek language, and in exposing them to the popular eye.

His edition of the Hercules Furens, however, which we have lately received, has disappointed us. This disappointment, indeed, is in some measure our own fault. As we expected, without

sufficient grounds, a volume of respectable size and thickness, we have certainly no just reason to be dissatisfied at receiving a thin and diminutive pamphlet. The editor of a Greek author has an undoubted right to make his commentary as concise and as jejune as he pleases, provided that he actually performs all that he professes to perform. The edition now before us, however, does not seem to be executed in a manner altogether consistent with the confidence, with which the Editor's power of conquering difficulties is announced in the beginning of his preface, which we subjoin.

"Quum Euripidis aliquam fabulam in publicis meis scholis interpretari constituissem, neque invenirem editionem, quæ et exiguo pretio parabilis esset, nec textum haberet a criticis aut nimis, aut minus, quam par videretur, mutatum; ipse animum adjeci ad edendam aliquam hujus poëtæ tragœdiam. Prætuli autem aliis Herculem furentem, tum quod hæc fabula in melioribus est, tum quod non est ex his, quæ in carminibus antistrophicis nihil proprium habent, tum denique quod difficultates, quibus laborat, maximam partem vinci posse videbantur.”

The last words of this extract appear to promise a more correct text, and a more elaborate commentary, than the editor has actually given. It is possible, indeed, as the edition is principally intended for the use of the students who attend Mr. Hermann's lectures, that he may not chuse to diminish the value of the viva voce interpretation, which he dictates to his auditors, by furnishing them with a printed explanation of the difficult passages of his author. We, who are unacquainted with Mr. Hermann in his professorial capacity, and consider him only as an editor, have frequent occasion to complain both of his silence, and of the Spartan brevity with which he speaks, when he thinks proper to open his lips. We will produce the first example of this brevity which V. 9. Κρέων δὲ Μεγάρας τῆσδε γίγνεται πατὴρ, Ην πάντες ὑμεναίοισι Καδμεῖοί ποτε Λωτῷ ξυνηλάλαξαν, ἡνίκ ̓ εἰς ἐμοὺς Δόμους ὁ κλεινὸς Ηρακλῆς νιν ἤγετο. Mr. Hermann has the following note on the second of these verses: Reiskius et Tyrwhittus s Non opus, It is evident, that any reader who approves of the alteration proposed by Reiske and Tyrwhitt, will require something more to reconcile him to the common reading, than Mr. Hermann's non opus. If we may judge of the generality of Mr.

Occurs.

Hermann's readers by ourselves, they would gladly exchange those two words for a short explanation of the passage, or for a reference to some passage of similar construction. We cannot sup pose, that in Mr. Hermann's judgment, the construction is so simple and obvious, as not to stand in need of any illustration.

Perhaps, however, as we have already observed, the editor reserves the interpretation and illustration of this and other similar passages, for his public or private prelections on this tragedy. We proceed, therefore, to the consideration of the manner in which he has perfornied what is now commonly considered as the most important function of an editor. We mean the emendation of the author's text.

Although manuscripts of this play exist, which have never yet been collated, there is good reason to suspect, that they do not materially differ from those which have already been examined. Whatever their value may be, Mr. Hermann probably had no opportunity of procuring access to them. The truth is, that the labors of Musgrave, and other editors of Euripides in former times, have nearly exhausted all the accessible sources of emendation, except conjectural criticism. It is chiefly, therefore, by the faculty of producing conjectural emendations, that a modern editor can hope to distinguish himself as an improver of the poet's text. And certainly there is no parallel in the annals of criticism to the manner in which the poor remains of the scenic poets have been torn and mangled by the critics of the present generation.

Compared with our Wakefield, of whom more hereafter, or with Bothe, Jacobs, Seidler, and many others of his own countrymen, Mr. Hermann presents an example of eminent moderation. Except in the choral odes, and other lyric parts of the tragedy, his own alterations of the received text are neither numerous nor violent. He has seldom admitted the emendations of his predecessors without sufficient reason. He has even passed over many of them in silence, which appear to us to be indubitably true. the course of this article, we shall have occasion to mention several corrections of this kind, which Mr. Hermann has neglected.

In

Mr. Hermann's moderation, however, does not extend to every part of the play. His tenderness towards the received text instantaneously deserts him, when he hears the sound of the lyre, or sees the chorus preparing to cut capers in the orchestra. It seems to be

now a settled point in the circles of Upper and Lower Saxony, that the word monostrophic, as well as the idea, is to be banished from the purlieus of the Attic stage. Not content with antistrophizing the orάosμa μéλn, or regular choral odes, the modern school is resolved that no monody of one of the persons of the drama, no lyric dialogue between two persons, or one person and the chorus, no short interjectional song of the chorus, expressive of grief, hope, terror, or joy, shall remain in its ancient state of monostrophicity. To antistrophize the lamentation of the chorus over the fate of Hercules's children, which occurs in the Hercules Furens, and the subsequent dialogue between the chorus and Amphitryon, would have been no easy task, as long as the strophes and antistrophes were expected to be of a certain length, and to be arranged in a certain order. But it is now discovered, that a single verse, or even a single word, is capable of making a complete strophe or antistrophe, and that the corresponding portions of the whole ode need not be disposed in any perceptible order. For the benefit of our younger readers, we will briefly describe the German process of antistrophization, according to the most recent improvements. Take a page of Plato, Demosthenes, or any other prose Greek author. Find as many pairs of lines as you can, taking care that both lines of the same pair bear some resemblance to each other in the arrangement of the long and short syllables. Suppose, for instance, that a faint resemblance subsists between the fourth line and the fourteenth, the fifth and the ninth, the seventh and the twenty-fourth, the tenth and the eleventh, and so on. Improve the resemblance by altering the text without scruple. Then intitle the fourth line Strophe A, the fourteenth Antistrophe A, the fifth Strophe B, the ninth Antistrophe B, and so on. When you have antistrophized as much of the page as you can, there will probably remain a considerable number of lines, which refuse all assimilation or fellowship. As much of this brute matter as stands at the top of the page before your first strophe, must be intitled Пpowdós. Towards the middle of the page, a series of refractory syllables is called Merdos, and at the bottom, 'Endós. You are not restricted as to the number of Macedoì, but the fewer of them that you exhibit, the neater will your arrangement appear. The use of antistrophes composed entirely of dashes or asterisks, is an excellent expedient to