of the language, if understood as Hermann and others have explained it, unaddressed; but we observe that in a small appendix Mr. Badham has wished to cancel the conjecture ἀπρόσφθεγκτον, which was first suggested to him by Hermann, and he has rightly explained the passage by the well-known formula λέγουσ ̓ Ἰάσον ὡς κάκιστος ἦν ἀνήρ. Ἐτεκτήναντο με απόφ θεγκτον ὅπως γενοίμην δίχα is simply they secretly contrived as to me that I should be made separate.' The happiest of all the restorations in this play is certainly that in the scene between Thoas and Iphigenia, which students will, no doubt, remember as remarkable for the edifying variety in the order in which the lines follow each other. Mr. Badham, who seems to have a wholesome dread of transpositions, has restored the order of the MSS. and the sense of the passage (v. 1178, &c.) by a most easy and natural remedy :— Ιφ. καὶ πόλει πέμψον τιν ὅστις σημανεῖ. Θο. ποίας τύχας; Ιφ. καὶ φιλῶ γ' οὓς δεῖ μάλιστα. Θο. τοῦτ ̓ ἔλεξας εἰς ἐμέ; The reading of the Florentine MS. seems to be φίλων δ' οὐδεὶς. The first source of error, as we are informed in a note, was mistaking the sign of the circumflex accent for the straight line drawn above the preceding vowel which is the compendium of the letter v. From the same cause λ was corrupted into πλεϊν, in Helena, 1667, until Professor Cobet pointed out the error. Another specimen of gentle but effectual emendation is the more worth mentioning, because it shows how extremely scrupulous the collators of manuscripts ought to be in marking down even those varieties of reading which may at first sight appear nothing but useless blunders. In the Helena, at line 517, the Chorus gives an account of the success which has attended Helen in her endeavour to meet with Theonoa, and to ascertain from her the real condition of the absent Menelaus :— ἤκουσα τᾶς θεσπιωδοῦ κόρας, ἃ χρήζουσ' ἐφάνη 'ν τυράννοις Here the reading of the best MS. is ἐφάνην, which Mr. Badham has adopted and written thus ἐφάνη 'ν. Of the conjectures in the Helena, the happiest appear to us to be the following: 183, omit ἀνεβόασεν, and place a sign of hiatus after ἔλακεν; 277, ἀφ' οὗ for οὗτος; 507, σχήσει for ἔχει; 688, τίς μοι for ὤμοι; 907, καιρίως for μακαρίως; 1000, φανήσεται for φανήσομαι; 1279, ἐξέλου for ἐξελῶ ; 1457, αὔρας for αὔραις. A A large proportion of the notes is taken up in exhibiting instances, many of them highly amusing, of palæographical confusions among them the illustrations on the last Chorus of the Helena, of compendia mistaken for complete words, and vice versa, are the most interesting-and the restoration of a passage in Livy is so felicitous that we cannot forbear transcribing it:- 'In Liv. 1. 22, cap. 34, Consulatum unum certe plebis Romana esse : populum liberum habiturum ac daturum ei qui magis vere vincere quam diu imperare malit. Verba sunt Ter. Varronis in Fabianam cunctationem acerbè concionantis. Nemo semel monitus dubitabit quin mature legendum sit, quod in ma uere facile potuit corrumpi.' We now take our leave of this performance, and of the preface thereto, which contains many ingenuities of a like kind, with the expression of much satisfaction at the endeavour here manifested, and with the hope that, in any future attempts, the editor will remember that he is an editor, and not suffer himself, in a fit of hastiness, to become the most useless of all possible authors, by supplying from mere invention the gaps of an author whom it would be presumption to rival. From Aristophanes downwards Euripides has been the public butt and the private favourite of all philosophical minds. This is why so many more of his plays have reached us than of Eschylus or Sophocles: why he was, as well as is, so much oftener quoted-witness the number of his fragments which have been preserved. He is not to be compared with Eschylus for the sustained poetry of his diction; nor can he, as a dramatist, in the strictly technical sense of the word, compete with Sophocles-for action is not his forte. He who excelled in this, and had the skill to preserve an unity of plot through a curious complexity of details, was doubtless well appreciated by a refined auditory educated in austere principles of art; but Euripides addressed himself to a larger class; his aim was to teach the people, to educate them into a capacity for sentiment and reflection. Hence he must needs become less dramatic, and deal more with the feelings and thoughts of those whom he impersonates; and if sometimes we are offended by this licence pushed to an extreme, so that the poet himself obviously talks through his character, we may fairly plead for him that, in his desire to communicate his mind to even the meanest of his countrymen, he designedly set aside the rules of an art which he must have thoroughly understood. If his kings talk like beggars --or again his domestics utter thoughts worthy of philosophers -it is owing to the conviction which filled him that there is a common ground of humanity which brings men far closer in reality reality than the accidental differences of life seem to indicate. Of course, the haters of popular education hated him as they hated Socrates-charged him with sophistry and impiety as recklessly as they had charged his great teacher; but neither the one nor the other is answerable for the spirit of speculation that was then extending through all classes, much less for the direction which it finally took; they could neither allay nor excite it: to give it wholesome tendencies, to make it subservient to moral good, was the honest endeavour of both. But to teach, whether children or people, you must begin by pleasing them; and that which pleaseth the multitude will be very different from that which is addressed to the more strictly schooled intellect. This accounts for all those peculiarities in Euripides which are commonly called marks of a degenerating drama; the too florid lyrical measures, the excessive variety of unconnected incident, the strangeness of the story, the bustle of the stage. A dramatist must write for an audience; but the only audience which he thought it worth his while to labour for was one which could be gained only by the condescension of his genius to their capacity; and were they not worth gaining? Could a man who felt conscious of possessing such an exquisite power of pathos help believing that it was a faculty most nobly employed in taming democratic fierceness? Assuredly, if any virtue can be instilled by education, it is that of humanity; most cruelty, especially of a mob or of children, is thoughtlessness, and in numberless cases nothing is needed for the removal of it but awakening gentler sympathies by skilful delineations of suffering. It is here that Euripides is strong, and it is here that he is nobly simple. Yet this great popular instructor passes with some for a caviller, this most tenderhearted poet for a woman-hater, this author of pure eloquence for a maker of phrases! ART. VIII.-1. Hora Liturgica; containing-I. Liturgical Discrepancy, its Extent, Evil, and Remedy, in two Letters to the Clergy of his Diocese. II. Liturgical Harmony, its Obligations, Means, and Security against Error, whether Popish or Puritanical; in a Charge to Candidates for Holy Orders. By the Right Reverend Richard Mant, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor and Dromore. 1845. 2. How shall we Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England? By James Craigie Robertson, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, Curate of Boxley. 1843. 3. Church Difficulties. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry Archdeaconry of Middlesex, in May, 1851. By the Ven. John Sinclair, A.M., Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Vicar of Kensington. 1851. 4. Lights on the Altar not in use by authority of Parliament in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward VI.; with Remarks on Conformity. By the Rev. S. L. Vogan, A.M., Prebendary of Wightering, and Vicar of Walburton-with-Yapton, Sussex. 1851. 5. On the Use of Lights on the Communion Table in the Daytime. By the Honourable and Reverend A. P. Perceval, B.C.L., of All Souls College, late Chaplain to the Queen. 1851. THOSE of our readers who recollect the view which we took in May, 1843 (Q. R. vol. lxxii.) of the Innovations attempted of late years in the ritual of our Church by a class of the clergy commonly called Puseyites, will be prepared for, and, we trust, participate in, our satisfaction at the admonitory letter recently addressed by twenty-four English Prelates to the clergy of their dioceses. The intrinsic importance of that document-its, as we may say, synodal character-and its close connexion with subjects already so often discussed in our pages, induce us to place it in extenso at the beginning of this article: We, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, do most earnestly and affectionately commend the following Address to the serious consideration of the clergy of our respective Dioceses : -- J. B. (Sumner) CANTUAR. C. T. (Longley) RIPON. G. (Davys) Peterborough. Beloved Brethren,-We have viewed with the deepest anxiety the troubles, suspicions, and discontents which have of late, in some parishes, accompanied the introduction of ritual observances exceeding those in common use amongst us. 'We long indulged the hope that, under the influence of charity, forbearance, and a calm estimate of the small importance of such external forms, compared with the blessing of united action in the great spiritual spiritual work which is before our Church, these heats and jealousies. might by mutual concessions be allayed. But since the evil still exists, and in one most important feature has assumed a new and more dangerous character, we feel that it is our duty to try whether an earnest and united address on our part may tend, under the blessing of God, to promote the restoration of peace and harmony in the Church. The principal point in dispute is this-whether, where the letter of the Rubric seems to warrant a measure of ritual observance, which yet, by long and possibly by unbroken practice, has not been carried out, the clergy are either in conscience required, or absolutely at liberty, to act each upon his own view of the letter of the precept rather than by the rule of common practice. Now, as to this question, we would urge upon you the following considerations :-First, that any change of usages with which the religious feelings of a congregation have become associated is in itself so likely to do harm that it is not to be introduced without the greatest caution; secondly, that, beyond this, any change which makes it difficult for the congregation at large to join in the service is still more to be avoided; thirdly, that any change which suggests the fear of still further alterations is most injurious; and, fourthly, that, according to the rule laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, where anything is doubted or diversely taken "concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in that book, the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in that book." The fair application of these principles would, we believe, solve most of the difficulties which have arisen. It would prevent all sudden and startling alterations, and it would facilitate the reception of any change which was really lawful and desirable. We would, therefore, first urge upon our Reverend brethren with affectionate earnestness the adoption of such a rule of conduct. We would beseech all who, whether by excess or defect, have broken in upon the uniformity and contributed to relax the authority of our ritual observances, to consider the importance of unity and order, and by common consent to avoid whatever might tend to violate them. In recommending this course as the best under present circumstances, we do not shut our eyes to the evil of even the appearance of any discrepancy existing between the written law and the practice of the Church. But there are many cases where the law may be variously interpreted; and we believe that we are best carrying out her own principles in urging you to have recourse in all such cases to the advice of her chief pastors. 'But beyond mere attempts to restore an unusual strictness of ritual observance, we have to deal with a distinct and serious evil. A principle has of late been avowed and acted on, which, if admitted, would justify far greater and more uncertain changes. It is this-that as the Church of England is the ancient Catholic Church settled in this land before the Reformation, and was then reformed only by the casting away of certain strictly defined corruptions; therefore, whatever form or |