to some particular points of criticism, on which they might have been employed at the time, and without attending to the other places, in which they would have admitted that the Digamma might have been inserted. Dr. Bentley's insertions appear to have been very scanty. And with respect to that learned critic's projected edition of Homer with the Eolic Digamma, mentioned by Dawes, it was perhaps one of those numerous projects, which literary men are apt to form, and of which many, like castles in the air, through the multiplicity of their pursuits and the shortness of human life, come to nothing. Dr. Bentley also had announced, in like manner, his intention of giving a new edition of the Greek Testament from new manuscripts collated, and ancient versions compared. Dr. Middleton pronounced it supra vires, and it came to nothing.-Non omnia possumus omnes.

As it is not intended to resume the subject of the Æolic Digamma in what may hereafter be offered on the language of Homer, it may not be improper to subjoin here as follows.

Not having met with this letter, expressive of the aspirate, in the most ancient manuscripts of Homer, which it has fallen in our way to peruse,' and never having heard of any that has it, we called the character mysterious, not doubting however that the Eolians expressed it. The manuscripts of Homer, not excepting the very ancient, are allowed to be very much corrupted:2 but that most magnificent and elegant edition, the Editio Princeps, printed at Florence, a. 1484, under the direction of a learned Greek, Demetrius Chalcondyles, who followed the best of them, has no trace of it. Nor does it occur in the earliest grammars by learned modern Greeks.3 In speaking therefore of this character as mysterious, and, in putting the question how all these Digammas had fled from Homer, it was only intended to say, that such as may even

The Townley Homer, as it is called, (purchased by Dr. Burney, out of Mr. Townley's collection) now in the Brit. Museum, and the Greek Manuscript of Homer in New College Library, Oxford.

Bernardus Nerlius in the preface to this Aldine edition observes as follows, of Homer, qui quidem ob incuriam et negligentiam librario rum ita sui dissimilis videbatur, ut in nullo fere codice quamvis perveteri integer agnosceretur. Yet he has only the rough and smooth breathing as now used, no Æolic Diganima, or F aspirate; and he had, as he said, besides, with study compared the Commentaries of Eustathius.

3. Gram. Gr. Chrysoloræ et aliorum: Ald, 1517.-Theodori Gaza, Paris. 1518.

have doubted of its reality, may at least have some ground for their opinion, though for some observations that may solve this difficulty we refer to Mr. Knight's Prolegomena. And as the following passage from his Analytical Essay on the Greek Language seems to be as exact, though in few words, and satisfactory an account as any that has been given of the Digamma, we shall close with it our present paper.

“An ancient scholiast, cited by M. de Villoison,' says that, when the H became a vowel, it was divided into two letters, the first of which, F, was employed to signify the aspirate, and the second, 7, the slender, or simple vowel sound. Quintilian and other old grammarians seem to have held the same opinion so that there can be no doubt that these marks were so employed in the manuscripts of their times. There is, however, no instance of the in any ancient monument now extant, or in any manuscript anterior to the ninth century, though the occurs upon the medals of Tarentum, Heraclea, and Lesbos, and also on the Heraclean tables, and an earthen vase published with them by Mazochi; who has conjectured, with much ingenuity and probability, that these two notes were first employed in opposition to each other, to signify the thick and slender enunciation of tone, by Aristophanes of Byzantium, the inventor of the accentual marks. The present notes (*) and (') are corruptions of them, which were gradually introduced to facilitate writing.4 Dr. Taylor supposed that the H was the Ionian aspirate, the F the Dorian, and the F the Æolian; but we find the F in its Pelasgian form, E, with the on the Heraclean tables; and the Lesbians, whose coins have the latter aspirate, which he calls Dorian, were Æolians."

By way of postscript, we must add, that notwithstanding the reputation obtained by Dawes in this country, Mr. Knight maintains he was mistaken both as to the form of the Digamma, and, frequently, as to the words, to which it ought to be added: and that by his way of handling the subject he has brought this branch of criticism into some disgrace among the learned in other parts of Europe.

Proleg. in Homer. p. 5. where the marks, through an error of the copyist or printer, are transposed.

Lib. i. c. 4. and Gramm. vel. Putch. Col. 1829. et seq.

3 Comm. in Tab. Heracl. p. 127.

Ibid.

s Ad Marm. Sandvicense, p. 45.

6 Analyt. Ess. on the Gr. Alphabet. p. 34.

NOTICE OF

PROFESSOR COUSIN'S Edition of the two first books of PROCLUS on the Parmenides of Plato, 8vo. Paris, 1821.

THE volume containing these commentaries, is the fourth which Professor Cousin has most laudably given to the public, of the works of Proclus; and I trust that the same zeal and the same ability which induced him to bring to light these inestimable works, from an oblivion no less long than disgraceful to countries which profess to be polished, will also enable him to publish all that remains of the writings of this Coryphæan Platonist, and incomparable man.

These commentaries, indeed, are justly called by the Professor," an ancient, great, and venerable monument of Grecian and Egyptian wisdom;" and to the generality of readers, and in short, to every one who has not legitimately studied the philosophy of Plato, they will also be what he denominates them, obscure. But by the man who has happily penetrated the depths of that philosophy, at which, as Bishop Berkeley well observes, many an empty head is shook, they will be found to be as clear an explanation of dogmas and truths, which, though in their own nature most luminous, but to the multitude impenetrably dark, as it is possible for the most enlightened genius to, effect. And hence this work is very properly said by Damascius 3 to be vπepaιpovoa εnynois, a super-excellent exposition.4

2

Among the Harleian manuscripts in the British Museum, there is a copy of these commentaries, of which, by permission of the Trustees of that excellent Institution, I made a transcript, upwards of thirty years ago. And the following are the emendations, which from a frequent perusal of this work, I have been induced to consider as not only probable, but for the most part indispensably necessary.

In the first place, in p. 4. 1. 12, which is towards the close of a most splendid exordium, in which Proclus magnificently invokes the several orders of those divine powers that are

3 Vid. Photii Biblioth. p. 1070.

+ I refer the English reader, who has a genius for such speculations, to the 3d volume of my translation of Plato, in the notes on which, I have given the substance of this admirable commentary.

eternally rooted and centred in the great first cause of all, he also invokes his preceptor, Syrianus, as follows: avηTXWσre de TAIS εαυτου καθαρωταταις επιβολαις ο τῳ Πλατωνι μεν συμβακχευσας ως αληθως, και ο μεστος καταστας της θείας αλήθειας, της δε θεωρίας ημιν γενόμενος ταυτης ηγεμων, και των θείων τουτων λόγων οντως ιεροφάντης. In this passage, o μeσтos xaтaσtas, is evidently erroneous. The Harleian Ms. has ομοστιος καταστας ; but this is not more sound than the other. Instead of these therefore, I read opoσTeyos xaтaσтαтns. For as both Syrianus and Proclus labored in endeavouring to restore the philosophy of Plato, hence Proclus very properly calls Syrianus his associate in the restoration of divine truth.

*

The words that immediately follow are, ov syw pain an φιλοσοφίας τυπον εις ανθρώπους ελθειν, επ' ευεργεσία των τηλε ψυχων, αντι των αγαλμάτων, αντι των ιερων, αντι της ολης αγιστ τειας αυτής, και σωτηρίας αρχηγον τοις γε บบบ ουσιν ανθρωποις, και τοις εισαυθις γενησομένοις. And they apply, according to Professor Cousin, to Syrianus. But though grammatically considered, they evidently admit of this construction; yet when they are attentively examined, it will be found to be impossible that they should be applicable to any individual of the human species, however exalted above the rest of mankind by superior genius and virtue. I conceive therefore, that as Proclus had just before implored divine assistance, in order that he might participate in perfection of the most mystic theory of Plato, which is unfolded in the Parmenides, he afterwards speaks of the philosophy of Plato in the above beautiful manner. Hence it appears to me that two or three lines are wanting, and that this passage is a part of a sentence containing a most magnificent encomium of the Platonic philosophy; viz. "that it came to men for the benefit of the souls that are here, instead of statues, instead of temples, instead of the whole of sacred institutions, and that it is the primary leader of salvation to the men that now are, and to those that shall exist hereafter." This conjecture is greatly confirmed by the following passage in Suidas, in which philosophy is said to proceed from the first cause, through all the middle divine genera, and the more excellent natures posterior to the Gods, as far as to the dregs of beings [i. e. as far as to matter itself, which is the last of things] but that religion which is the worship of the Gods, originates from adorning causes. ιερατική, και φιλοσοφία, ουκ απο των αυτών αρα αρχων. αλλ' η μεν φιλοσοφια απο της μιας της παντων αιτίας εις την υποσταθμην των οντων καθηκουσα, δια μέσων των όλων γενων

! These more excellent natures are dæmons, and heroes.

θείων τε και των μετα θεους κρειττόνων, και εν τρίτῳ φασι βημάτι φαινομένων την δε ιερατικην η εστι θεων θεραπεία, εντεύθεν πόθεν από των περικοσμούντων (forte περικοσμιων) αιτιον (φασι) αρχεσθαι, και περί αυτα πραγματευεσθαι, κ. τ. λ. Conformably to this also, Plato says in the Timæus, that a greater good than philosophy was never imparted by divinity to man. Proclus therefore, living at a period in which the Grecian theology was in a most fallen condition, speaks thus magnificently of the philosophy of Plato, as of a thing designed by Divinity to be a substitute for temples and statues, and the worship of the Gods.

In the next place, Proclus, speaking of the analogy of the persons in this dialogue to the things which are discussed in it, and to the order of beings in the universe, says, (p. 19. 1. 7.) ο δε δη Κεφαλος, και οι εκ Κλαζομενων φιλοσοφοι ταις μερικαις ψυχαίς και τη φύσει συμπολιτευομενοι, ιέναι την ομοίαν έχοντες εν τούτοις χωραν, ατε δη και αυτοί φυσικοί τινες οντες. In this passage, for συμπολιτευομενοι, it appears to me to be necessary to read συμπολιτευομέναις. So that the meaning will be, that Cephalus and the philosophers from Clazomenia, are analogous to partial souls, [i. e. to such as human souls] and to such as are conver sant with nature, because they have a rank similar to that of these philosophers, who were physiologists, as being of the Ionic

school.

Ρ. 35. 1. 19. και είναι αναλογου ως ο δημιούργος προς τα εγκόσμια, το εν προς παντα απλως δε ουχ ενός τις γαρ θεος και αυτος, ο γαρ κατά το εν θεος, ου τις θεος, αλλ' απλως θεός. Τις δε θεος ο δημιουργός, διοτι θεου τις [lege τινος] εστιν ιδιότης η δημιουργική, και άλλων ουσων ιδιοτητων, θείων μεν, ου μεντοι δημιουργικών. Το this passage some words are wanting, and there is also in it an erroneous punctuation. The words which l conceive to be wanting are του δημιουργου ενός τινος οντος, which should be inserted immediately after το εν προς παντα. And the erroneous punctuation is in τις γαρ θεος και ουτος, and also in τις δε θεος ο δημιουργος, neither of which is interrogative. Hence the whole passage will be accurately as follows: και είναι αναλογον ως ο δημιουργος προς τα εγκόσμια, το εν προς παντα του δημιούργου ενός τινος οντος, απλως δε ουχ ενός τις γαρ θεος και ουτος, ο γαρ κατα το εν θεος, ου τις θεος, αλλ' απλως θεος, τις δε θεος ο δημιουργός, διοτι θεου τινος εστιν ιδιότης, κ. τ. λ. 1. e. “ As the Demiurgus is to mundane naturés so is the one [or the ineffable principle of principles] to all things; the Demiurgus being a certain one, but not simply one. For the Demiurgus is a certain God. For the God which subsists according to [or is characterised by] the one is not a certain God, but simply God. But the