volume of the Museum Capitolinum, Pl. lxviii. It is in a rude style of execution, representing in many compartments various events taken from the poems of Homer, Arctinus, and Lesches, as is signified by an inscription on the monument itself. Part of it is lost. The names of the heroes are indicated by inscriptions placed under their figures. The incidents taken from the cyclic poets closely agree with the remaining arguments of their works, and with that of Quintus. The style of Quintus, as a poet, has been already touched on. His chief peculiarities of language, in a grammatical view, some of which indicate his age, are the following. The language, like that of the other Greek epic poems, is in general constructed in imitation of the diction of Homer, with such variations as time, and the practice of writing in a dialect which, in the later ages, had become in some degree artificial, may have naturally produced. Some frequent peculiarities which occur in the use of the prououn of the third person, connect this writer with other poets of a recent age. The pronoun si, in the dative form, is used with a strange latitude in the Argonautics of the Pseudo-Orpheus. In Quintus it occurs frequently with the power of a genitive, and even admits the connection of a participle in the genitive form, of which licence instances are cited by Herman* from Oppian, and the poem entitled Lithica. So in Quintus: τυτθὸν ἀλευαμένοιο. καί οἱ αμαρτε, II. 245. The other peculiarities ascribed by Herman to the use of this word by Quintus, seem to be doubtful. Some forms of declension occur in this poet, such as dúa and gua, which are not found in Homer. The distinction established by Dawes in the use of the optative and subjunctive moods after such particles as iva, which is not always observed by Homer, is still less regularly regarded by Quintus. He uses the phrase as opeλov adverbially, without the variation of person and power of government, which in Homer it possesses. The word ExToE is frequently employed as a preposition. Some other minute particularities of words and construction occur. The literary history of this poem may be briefly dispatched. It first became known in the western parts of Europe since the revival of literature, as we are informed in the life of Coluthus prefixed to the Aldine edition, from the discovery of a manu Orphica, p. 800. script by Cardinal Bessarion, in the church of St. Nicholas near Otranto. It was first published by Aldus from a very inaccurate manuscript, without a date. It is usually supposed to have been printed in 1521, but has been proved by Renouard to have appeared so early as 1504 or 1505. The other editions, (which are few in number) with the exception of those of Rhodomannus and Pauw, it is not necessary to mention. The former (whose edition appeared in 1604) has, in his notes, done almost all for Quintus that can be done by conjecture for a very corrupt writer. The edition of the latter, from its typography, and its collection of the notes of various editors, is the most commodious and agreeable of the editions which preceded that of M. Tychsen. The manuscripts of Quintus, which are known to exist, are eighteen, chiefly very recent. Two of these, those of Naples and Munich, are far more valuable than the rest. The former was written in 1311; the latter is only a fragment, yet, in the parts which it contains, has supplied ten verses wanting in other copies. Many of these manuscripts have been collated for the present edition. "Quantum ex hoc apparatu profecerit Quintus meus," says the editor," ipso carmine legendo intelligere velim lectores. Accesserunt ei versus XXIII. e codicibus plenioribus ducti, quorum X. solus Monacensis suppeditavit. Lacunæ insigniores expletæ sunt XVI." With respect to the improvement which the text has received in this edition, to those who are acquainted with Quintus in the former editions, it may be sufficient to observe, that it is now possible to read him throughout with little obstruction arising from gross and monstrous corruption. For how much of this benefit we are indebted to the manuscripts, and how much of it has no higher authority than the conjecture of ingenious and learned critics, we are unable to determine. For the purpose of ascertaining, in some degree, this question, we have closely collated the ninth book in the editions of Tychsen and Pauw. All the instances of variation it would be tedious to enumerate. The results we shall mention, and point out some of the most important alterations. The book consists of 545 verses; the instances of variation from the former editions exceed one hundred. Of these, nearly eighty, we believe, are either derived from the conjectures of Rhodomannus, or are coincident with them. The principal of them we shall here enumerate. V. 4. ατειρέες is well substituted for ἀπείριτοι, the reading of former editions, which cannot stand, as well from its impro priety, as from the occurrence of the same adjective in the preceding verse. The authority of the new reading we do not know. 14. The indubitable conjecture of Pauw, λαοὶ for ἄλλοι, is admitted into the text. 36. The conjecture of Rhodomannus is admitted, πυρὶ καιέμεν, for περικαιέμεν. 45. This verse is probably corrupt, the adjective δινήεις standing without a substantive. No correction of it appears in the present edition. Perhaps a line is wanting. 64. ἴσαν is properly received from the correction of Rhodomannus for ἔσαν. 100. This corrupt passage is well restored either from authority or ingenious conjecture. We shall transcribe the readings of the two editions. 104. Some verses respecting the vicissitudes of human affairs which here occur, being in rather a more vigorous strain than is usual with the versification of Quintus, we shall on that account transcribe them. ἢ οὔπω τόδε οἴδατ ̓ ἀνὰ φρένας, ὡς αλεγεινοῖς In the last of these lines gya is received from the conjecture of Rhodomannus, for egy, a reading devoid of sense. 155. In this extremely corrupt passage the ingenious and clear emendation of Rhodomannus is received into the text. The old reading is, ἵπποισι δ' ἐκέκλετο μακρὰ τινάσσων Εὐκλήρου δ' ἔχε μαστιν. The sense of the passage is clearly restored by reading, ἵπποισι δ' ἐκέκλετο μακρὰ τινάσσων εὔληρ', οὐδ' ἔχε μαστιν. 252. αἰχμής appears in this edition at the conclusion of the verse, in place of the former reading puns. The variation is probably taken from the manuscripts. 263. The hiatus of the common editions is supplied from the manuscripts by the insertion of the following verse: ως ἄρ ̓ ἔφη· δνοφερὸν δὲ νέφος καθύπερθε Κρονίων. 307. For οιωνοί κατέλιπον is read οιωνοί κατέρυκον, a good emendation, probably derived from manuscripts. 353. This verse also supplies a new and valuable reading, In the former editions it is obviously corrupt. Οι δ' ὅτε δὴ Λήμνον κίον, ἠδὲ καὶ ἀντρον κοῖλον λαίνεον. The conjecture of Rhodomannus for κοῖλον is ἴκανον οι ἴκοντο: duvov, the reading of the present edition, is much better. 375. This passage is in the former reading extremely corrupt. The correction of it is dubious. The elision of the final syllable of ouvexx before the pronoun oi, which the present edition exhibits, is not agreeable to the usual practice of Quintus and the other epic poets. 384. του ἀπὸ στυφελοῖο, τὸν οἱ ἐνομόρξατ' ὁδοῦσι This verse will be improved by reading rude. The aspirate of the pronoun o has usually the power of producing a position. 390. The indubitable correction of Rhodomannus, ixpos for xpos, is received into the text. 455. For πίσσα περιδμηθεῖσα is read πυρὶ δμηθεῖσα : a correction which we likewise find inserted in the margin of a copy formerly in the possession of Gilbert Wakefield. 461-463. These verses are represented according to the very excellent conjecture of Rhodomannus. They stand thus in the old editions, and may afford a specimen of the corruption of Quintus: τὸν δε στερεον και ἄνουσιν ὠκύτερον ποίησεν· ὅδ ἤματος αιψηροῖο The emendation is indubitable. ὠκύτερον ποίησε νοήματος αιψηροῖο. The care of the typographical execution is highly spoken of in the preface. The errors are not, in fact, numerous, but some of them are rather gross. Thus, in the 9th book, (vv. 59, 448) δυσμηνίες and για occur for δυσμενέες and διαν. We have also to notice a typographical barbarism which defaces this and other books printed by the Deuxpont Society; the employment of the VOL. III. NO, VI. EE separate characters ET to denote the numeral Bau episemon, which has no other affinity with them than its accidental similarity of form to the contracted character used for those two letters. We have derived so much satisfaction from the perusal of this work in its present state, that we shall be much gratified by seeing the completion of it in the publication of the second volume containing the annotations. As far as we can judge without the possession of the authorities, it bears the marks of being executed with fidelity and diligence. The observations of Heyne, announced in the title, are reserved, we suppose, for the next volume. 1812. ART. XXIII.-Some Account of the Life and Writings of James Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux. By Charles Butler, Esq. London: Longman and Co. WE have read with interest the small volume now before us. Allowing for the partiality of a biographer, and for the natural bias which, in the present instance, he may he supposed to derive from being himself a Roman Catholic, we are enabled, by the perusal of these pages, to form a tolerably fair estimate of the character and attainments of the distinguished prelate whose life they record. James Benigne Bossuet descended from an ancient and noble family in Burgundy. He was born on the 27th of September, 1627. An ardour for study was discovered in him in his earliest years, and the Bible having accidentally engaged his attention when he was a mere boy, he perused it with exquisite delight; his attachment to the sacred pages increased with his years; and he was generally supposed to know their whole contents by heart. He first studied at the college of Jesuits at Dijon, where, from his laborious application, he obtained the nick-name of Bos Suetus Aratro, in allusion to the surname of his family. Afterwards he removed to the college of Navarre at Paris. The principal of this college was Nicholas Cornet, a person of great learning, and one of the earliest and most formidable antagonists of the Jansenists. In 1652, Bossuet received the order of priesthood, having previously taken the degree of doctor. His first preferment we are told was a canonicate in the cathedral church of Metz, and he was successively raised to the rank of archdeacon and dean of that church. The affairs of the cathedral making it necessary that he should go to Paris, he frequently |