any written works on the subject. In some future number of this work the attempt may be made to concentrate and combine the important points deduced from the experience of our hospitals, in an article on the Construction and Management of Institutions for the Insane.

8. A Discourse on the Life and Character of the Hon. George Mathews, late Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. By the Hon. CHARLES WATTS, at the Request of the Members of the Bar of New Orleans. New Orleans. Benjamin Levy. 1837. 12mo. pp. 15.

THIS is a plain biographical sketch, very little in the style of panegyric. The facts of a life, not eventful, are detailed with modesty and distinctness, if not in a way calculated to produce a strong impression. The subject of the Discourse was a highly respectable judge of Louisiana, who died November 10th, 1836, in the sixty-third year of his age. In 1805, without any solicitation on his part, he was appointed by President Jefferson, judge of the territory of Mississippi, whence he was transferred to the territory of Orleans, in 1806. On the erection of Louisiana into a State, in 1812, he was appointed by Governor Clairborne judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and shortly afterwards, by the resignation of an associate on the bench, took the place of presiding judge. This honorable station he occupied till his death.

9.- The Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, with Notes and a Critique on the Subject of the Play. By J. W. STUART, Professor of Greek and Roman Literature in the College of South Carolina. New York; Gould & Newman. 1837.

12mo. pp.

THE Edipus Tyrannus is universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest masterpieces of the Athenian stage. In the regularity and perfectness of its plot, the polish of its style, and the appalling developement of its catastrophe, it is eminently calculated to excite the most lively interest of the scholar and the man of taste. It has scenes of passion which Shakspeare has hardly surpassed; touches of pathos and tenderness, in which the deepest feelings of the human heart are most beautifully expressed;

and over all, the cloud of inexorable destiny is gathering, from the very beginning, darker and thicker, until it bursts and pours its desolating storm upon the devoted heads of the royal house. With such claims upon the mind and heart, it is not surprising that this tragedy has been selected as a text-book, wherever Greek literature is taught, both in Europe and America; and Mr. Stuart has rendered a valuable service to scholars and teachers, by publishing the excellent edition, whose title we have copied above. The text is accurately, and even beautifully printed. This is followed by a copious English commentary, explaining difficult constructions and grammatical peculiarities, and pointing out the structure of the plot. Allusions to customs and manners are illustrated at considerable length; and numerous references to parallel passages in other tragedies are given. The essay at the end of the volume contains a critique on the subject of Edipus, as treated by other authors, particularly by Seneca, Corneille, and Voltaire. This Critique shows a just taste, and a wide range of reading in general literature. We believe the volume, on the whole, will be considered as indicating very fair scholarship, great industry, and highly respectable talents.

There are, however, a few points, which we shall not hesitate to censure. It seems to us, that the notes abound too much in learned technicals, for common use. These "lang-nebbed " polysyllables have an imposing air, and pass with many for profound learning. But the fashion is gone by, with powdered wigs and hooped petticoats; and the cumbrous array of scholastic lore, once so common, has justly fallen into general disrespect. In the next place, Mr. Stuart has adopted an unusual mode of spelling certain classical names, which looks affected. We hardly recognise our old friends, Edipus, Eschylus, &c., in the disguise of Edipus, Eschylus; and no consistency is preserved, for Ælian is written as it should be, and Edipus is himself again, at the head of the critical essay. To adopt such whimsical peculiarities, contrary to the general usage of our language, and unaccompanied by the slightest advantage, is, we must needs say it, literary foppery.

In reading the notes, a few things occurred to us, which, we think, will deserve Mr. Stuart's attention, in a second edition. The note on Teμμέvot, line 3, is wrong, as well as the remark upon the dative zAddolor. The participle evidently agrees with the pronoun understood, and the dative is constructed with it, Decked with suppliant boughs. In the note to line 91, Mr. Stuart says, "Creon is unwilling to explain tinatagóvor, in the presence of the multitude. He has learned from Apollo, that dipus himself is the murderer to be punished," &c. This is most clearly a

mistake. Creon has received an oracular respo conveyed in dark and ambiguous terms, and sai about Edipus. It merely intimated, that the cri was upon the land; and the wrath of the Gods w drawn, when that murder was expiated. Of cour been clearly informed that Edipus was the murde thing would have been settled at the outset. In pronoun ö' is referred, by Mr. Stuart, to Creo text shows, that Edipus is the person intended; ἐξαγγέλλεται may be strictly rendered in the prese "he promises," i. e. Edipus. The object of the as entreat the king, whom they regarded as the first terpose his wisdom for their deliverance. This he promised to do; and their object being attained, th Line 160, "yataozov, encircling this earth, i. e. the ritory." The epithet seems to be a general one reference to any particular territory. In the long 227-9, an explanation of vлeželov is given, from wh dissent. In connexion with sixλnua, it is translate an indictment. It means, evidently, suppressing a or keeping back, or keeping secret, a charge ag Line 231,"hov, a foreigner." It means sin Edipus has solemnly adjured the perpetrator to and confess. He next adjures him who knows, Line 263, “ ἐκείνου κρ be the murderer, to inform. ence to yvos, i. e. the child of Laius, &c." W translation censured by Mr. Stuart, the right one. plainly refers to Laius. It is the same pronoun that within two lines, where it must refer to him; and b pus was as yet ignorant of the exposure of the chil pression about the calamities of the king, in the pr does not refer to a child, but to the race or fam Laius. "Evýla tún, ill-fortune has been dri him." The verb is not from evɛlávvw, as this versi imply, but from éválkouai, to leap upon. It is a mo description of an unexpected or sudden attack of Line 270,"Tiva yns άgotov, any land capable agorov is not an adjective, but a noun meaning fruit of the earth, is the proper translation. Line 306, ἀντέπεμψεν, a verb with its cognate noun in the Iέuyao is not a noun; there is no such noun in language; but a first aorist participle, in the dative ing with quiv. Line 507, "Eni with the dative, signi power of." It cannot mean that, here. The Sphinx the power of Edipus. The chorus are speaking o

66

P

66

as something that had happened to Edipus, or in respect to him with which he had something to do. "Basávon, pledge given." Line 525, “ πρὸς τοῦ for It means test, or trial. Tivos quvon, literally, by whom was it accused, which is the sense of qaiva, in Hom. Od. xx. 309." The word has no such meaning, either here, or in the passage cited from Homer. In this line it means simply appeared. The line in the Odyssey occurs in a speech of Telemachus, after one of the suitors had thrown an ox-hoof at the unknown Ulysses, in which he tells the offender what he would have done to him, had the stranger been hit; therefore, he adds, by way of menace, untis μοι ἀεικέιας ἐνὶ οἴκῳ φαινέτω, let no one show his insolence, or insolent doings, in my house. Show is the proper translation here, and it cannot possibly mean accuse. The connexion of the words plainly indicates this, for Telemachus goes on to say, that he is no longer a boy, as he once was, but a man, and they will find it out. Line 624, “ οἷόν ἐστι τὸ φθονεῖν, what is your grudge, or the cause of your grudge, against me ? In this interpretation, Mr. Stuart follows Hermann and others. But in our judgment it is incorrect. Creon knew already the ground of the hatred of Edipus; he was suspected of a conspiracy against him. It would have been idle for Creon then, to insist on the king's showing what was the cause of his grudge; that had already been shown. By translating the words literally, we have a meaning appropriate to the scene, and probable in itself. They may be rendered "what it is to hate." Lines 783-4, “oi Se Svagógus Touveidos yov, they impatiently reproached." Here a very common idiom is misunderstood. Edipus had been informing his supposed parents of an insult he had received at a feast. The words cited above describe the manner in which they received the tale, and mean, "they were indignant or impatient at the reproach," and not they reproached impatiently. Line 1428,"ou6gos isgos, in reference to the sprinkling by lustral water." The meaning is simply, "sacred shower." Creon is describing the horrible pollution of the crimes of Edipus, which neither earth, nor sacred shower (or rain), nor light will admit, and urges the attendants to remove him from sight. The epithet sacred is applied by the poets to all the powers and appearances of nature, and to all natural objects, such as mountains, rivers, lakes, the sea, light, heaven, &c.

We have selected only a few of the passages which we had marked, in reading, as objectionable. We are aware, that it is easy to find fault with a work of this kind, by seizing upon small inaccuracies, and by representing mere differences of opinion as radical errors. In fact, a formidable list of real mistakes may be

made out by any one, who chooses to look with microscopic eye at any work of philological disquisition; and yet these mistakes may have a scarcely perceptible effect upon the substantial value of the book. But several of the errors of interpretation that we have pointed out, in the notes upon this tragedy, seem to us of a different description, and to merit consideration; though we repeat, that on the whole, we regard it as a valuable addition to our means of classical instruction.

10.Speech in Behalf of the University of Nashville, delivered on the Day of the Anniversary Commencement, October 4th, 1837. By PHILIP LINdsley.

THIS is one of the most truth-telling and amusing speeches we have ever had from the great West. It is an upright and downright defence of University systems in general, and the Nashville University in particular. Mr. Lindsley talks to the westerners in their own free and bold fashion, and we venture to say they like him all the better for it. He tells them, in a style bordering on conversational plainness, as many truths as they can digest before another commencement, on all the great topics of liberal education; and scatters, with the breath of a most searching ridicule, the prejudices and absurdities with which, it seems, Nashville, like some other cities, is overflowing, in relation to the University. There are those, we doubt not, who have been shy of the University, ever since the last anniversary. The benefits of scholarship, the advantages held out by Universities, the causes why so many young men fail to make the best use of them, and the remedies which ought to be applied to existing defects, are discussed with thorough knowledge, a fearless spirit, and uncompromising independence.

We notice, in passing, the following remarks. "Both Harvard and Yale usually employ six or eight tutors, according to the actual number of students, averaging commonly between two and three hundred. These perform all the drudgery of elementary drilling, and attend the daily routine of recitations in the classroom; while the professors read lectures, and maintain the dignity of science and of the Senatus Academicus." Now the worthy President must have been dreaming of some University in the fabled Atlantis, in the isles of the Blest, or perchance in Nephelococcyggia, when he uttered that last sentence. Such a professor would be worth travelling a hundred miles to see. Sure we are, that he cannot be found in New England. Our naturalists have