the last page of Vol. II. means Hirudo Medicinalis. The Venufina Lectiones of Klotzius, are very properly employed through the Odes, and, fo far as they could be, in other parts of Horace. From Janus, copious extracts are made through the four first books of the Odes, and his edition, it is well known, extends no further. Markland's conjectures, fubjoined to the quarto edition of the Supplices Mulieres, and Wakefield's Obfervations, publifhed in 1776, are turned to a very good account. Waddelus, is feen about eight times in the first volume, and once in the fecond. A few detached remarks, from Bos, Toup, Schrader, Mr. Gray, and the Adventurer, occur in the first volume of the Var. Edit.and in the second, we find a note from Dr. Warton's Effay on Pope, Vol. II. where the Doctor had in view the Epigram of Philodemus in Reifke's Anthologia.

To these we may add two original and very unimportant explanations, communicated to the editor, on the First and Second Odes of the first book; one statement, accompanied with difapprobation, of Mr. Wakefield's interpretation of the word grave, in Ode ii. lib. 1; one alteration in a line of Ennius, quoted by Baxter, on line 11, of Epode xvii; and one very dif‹ putable change of punctuation on line 4, Ode 37, of the first book, which may or may not be feen in any of the printed editions, and was from memory imparted to Mr. Homer, by a perfon who had no claim to the merit of propofing it. Of the information derived from Taylor's Civil Law, and Hare's Epiftola Critica, which are mentioned in the catalogue, and from a book of the latter called Scripture vindicated," which is not mentioned in the catalogue, but referred to in the notes, we have already spoken. It remains for us to exprefs our firm conviction, that the value of the Var. edit. is confiderably increased by the readings which Dr. Combe has produced from fix manufcripts in the British Museum.

In regard to Muretus, Rutgerfius, Defprez, Sanadon, Dacier, Bond, Pulman, and Schrader, we would be understood to have spoken of the notes, which are immediately and exprefsly taken from their respective writings, and inferted in the Var. Edit.; for we find the names of moft or all of them occafionally and concifely mentioned, either in the VV. LL. of the work before us, or in notes felected for that work

* All these notes, and thofe which follow, in our Review, down to the tranfpofition of a ftop, which we have noticed in Ode xxxvii. lib. 1, together with two notes in page 338, verfe 1, are figned Editor. Two notes on Ode i. from Hare, have the fame figna

ture.

from

from other writers, and especially in the notes of Janus and Bentley.

Here we think it incumbent upon us to notice a few circumftances with refpect to Janus. In pag. 93 and 94 of the Bibliotheca Critica, Part IV. the learned and acute Mr. Wagner has written several strictures upon Janus, fome of which we fhall enumerate. Janus on v. 32, Od. II. lib. 1, feems to fay that Horace drew his imagery from Quintus Calaber, quod puero vix ignofcendum, fays Wagner. The age of this writer is not diftinctly known, though it is highly probable that he lived long after Horace. Vixiffe eum Seculo quinto poft Chriftum natum Rhodomanus ex ftylo fatis probabiliter colligit.-Vid Prefat. Pauw. ad Quint. Cal. Saxius, in his Onomafticon literarium, p. 21, Vol. II. places Calaber among the carminum fcriptores qui ad tempora Principatus Anastasii Aug. referri poffunt, and of courfe brings him down to the fixth century. The Oxford editor of Ariftotle's Poetics, in duodecimo, fuppofes the work afcribed to Quintus Calaber, to be the little Iliad, and upon this hypothefis, to which few of our readers, we believe, will affent, the lines of Calaber might be known to Horace. Imaginem hanc, are the words of Wagner, ductam effe ait (Janus.) è. Q. Calabro; and, with Wagner, we think that a strange error has been committed in chronology, which, however, for our own parts, we are difpofed to forgive, on account of the high refpect we feel for Janus. We are told that Janus complains of an error in the prefs, though with what juftice we cannot determine. Klotzius quotes the fame lines, and properly fays, compara cum his apud Q. Calabrum, lib. 5, v. 71. Kumpis clepavos. x. 1. λ, Vid. P. 13, Vol. I. Var. edit.

Upon Ode iii. lib. i. v. 9, Janus afcribes to Marcilius fome lines, which, as Wagner fays, really were written by Pindar, and we add, that they are quoted by Plutarch, in the work de tarda Dei vindicta, and may be found, p. 494, in the Oxford edition of Pindar. Janus, upon Ode xiv. lib. ii. v. 26, mentions Toup's reading of fuperbis for fuperbum, but omits the line which Toup had produced from Ion of Chios, to illustrate that reading. In Ode i. lib. i. Janus explains Sunt quos juvat, by εἰσιν ἐς τερπέζαι. But Wagner fubftitutes τέρπει. In ftanza the ifi, Od. ii. lib. i. Dira joined with grando is explained by Janus, θεοχολωνος, for which Wagner propofes θεηλαίος. On ftanza the 11th of the fame Ode, patiens vocari Cæfaris ultor, Janus writes υποφέρων καλείσθαι Καίσαρος εκδικήθης ; but according to Wagner's opinion, has is more proper than inopepwv, and rupos than axdixins. In Ode iv. lib. i. Janus explains choros ducit, by Xopusoplove, and Wagner exclaims, augeantur Lexica hâc nova loquenti

loquendi formulâ. In Ode xvi. ftanza 3, Deterret is improperly explained by παραπλήσσειν, which literally fignifies perperam pulfare et ferire, ut mali Citharodi dicuntur mapan, cum inconcinne citharam pulfant, and is metaphorically_applied to perfons who are mente perculfi et attoniti; vid. Conftantini Lexicon. On Ode xi. lib. ii. Janus explains devium, joined with fcortum, by xalxλ50s, a word, which, in the fragments of Callimachus, is ufed de Virgine, and which Janus, fays W. infeliciter tranftulit ad fcortum. In Ode xix, lib. ii. Janus explains pervicaces, by oxhnpauxevas, a word, fays Wagner, which occurs in the Old and New Teftament, and which was familiar to the Judai Græciffantes, but not to the Veteres Græci, whom Horace read. We affent to the juftnefs of Mr. Wagner's criticifms, and we have detailed them for the benefit of thofe purchasers of the Var. Edit. who may not have in their poffeffion, or within their reach, the Bibliotheca Critica, from which they are taken. Our motive for adverting to them, is to ftate, that through the good fortune or good fenfe of those who were concerned in the Var. Edit. of Horace, only one of the foregoing paffages to which Wagner objects, is found in that edition, and occurs there p. 212, Vol. I. in Var. Lect. taken from Janus. *

The length to which the Review of Horace has been already extended, compels us to omit many obfervations of our own upon the fenfe and the readings of controverted paffages, upon peculiarities in the ftyle of the Epodes, not hitherto we believe remarked, and upon the authenticity of two lines in the work de Arte Poetica, which we fhould not have prefumed to call in queflion, if our doubts had not been founded upon numerous, and, we think, weighty reafons. We cannot, however, refufe ourselves the fatisfaction of laying before our readers an interpretation of a paffage in Jerome, which occurred to us as we were going through the notes upon Horace, and the praife of which is due to the very fagacious and learned Mr. Gaches, late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. In page 285 of the Var. edit. Vol. I. are these words, Sanctus Hieronymus fcribit fe duos Scotos (h. e. Hibernos) in Gallia vidiffe humano cadavere vefcentes. The paffage which the writer of this note, probably, had in view, runs, we believe, thus: Cum ipfe adolefcentulus in Gallia viderim Attacottos gentem Britannicam humanis vefci carnibus; et cum per filvas porcorum greges, et armentorum, pecudum, que reperiant, paftorum nates et fæminarum papillas folere abfcindere; et has folas ciborum delicias arbitrari.

Mr. Gibbon falls into a great error about this paffage he writes thus; "When they hunted the woods for prey, it is faid, that they attacked the thepherd rather than his flock; and that they curiously felected the most delicate and brawny parts both of males and females, which they prepared for their horrid repafts. Vol. II. p. 531." Now Mr.

Gaches,

The preface writer of the Var. Edit. informs us, that in thofe parts of Horace's works, to which the labours of Janus were not extended, he has endeavoured to leffen this defect, by choofing the best and most useful notes of other interpreters.

Gaches, fuo marte, and without confulting Jerome, conjectured, that paftorum nates et fœminarum papillæ were ufed by Jerome, not of human beings, but of the porcorum et armentorum pecudumque greges, which the Attacotti found in the woods; and upon examining the context in Jerome, we are convinced, that his conjecture is just, as well as ingenious. The general propofition which Jerome lays down is this, Quis ignoret unamquamque gentem non communi lege naturæ, fed iis quorum apud fe copia eft, vefci folitam. If our readers will be pleased to look at the illuftrations of this pofition, in Chapter vi. Book II. adverfus Jovinianum, they will probably accede to the opinion of Mr. Gaches, when they find that Jerome mentions incidentally the eating of human flesh, and that he was led by his fubject more immediately to speak of the food which was found in abundance, by the Attacotti, in uncultivated forefts.

Camden cites this paff ge from Jerome, but as his book was written originally in Latin, we cannot decide what fenfe he affixed to the words. The old tranflator of Camden, Philemon Holland, renders them according to the fenfe given by Mr. Gibbon; but on turning to page 99, of Mr. Gough's tranflation, we were furprifed and pleafed to find that his opinion coincides with that of Mr. Gaches, and we are happy to praife the fagacity of both. Now Mr. Gough's Camden was published in 1789; but we understand the conjecture of Mr. Gaches to have been made not long after the appearance of Mr. Gibbon's fecond volume in 1781. It is therefore clear that his conjecture was original, and doubtless Mr. Gough alfo was indebted to his own penetration only, for an opinion, which he, like every other scholar, would be glad to have confirmed by fuch authority as that of Mr. Gaches.

We have not Mr. Colman's book; but if our memory does not deceive us, he lays a ftrong and a proper ftrefs upon the tranfition which Horace makes in line 366, to O major juvenum. Now the following note which we extract from the 407th page, Vol. V. of the Mifcellanea Obfervationes, published at Amfterdam, 1745, may induce our readers to imagine, that Horace had a particular view to the poetical labours of the elder fon of Pifo, even in an earlier part of the work. We will produce the whole paffage,

Art. Poet. v. 128.

-Tuque

Rectius Iliacum carmen deducis in actus,

Plerique fic intelligi volunt, quafi fcriptum fit, deduces, et omnibus dictum Poetis, qui operam locant Theatro. At Melius aliquid offerebat vetus Scholiaftes, in vers 386. Scripfit enim, inquit, Piso, tragedias. Eum opinor, cum hanc Horatius Epiftolam componeret, in Iliade tragoedia fuiffe occupatum. Quin ratio apparet, cur de tragoedia longe plura hic funt, quam de aliis operibus poeticis.

Accordingly

Accordingly, we find that from Torrentius, Lambin, Cruquius, and perhaps Zeunius, larger felections feem to have been made in the Epodes, the Carmen Seculare, the Satires, and the Epiftles, than in the Odes, and this is a fact which deferves notice and commendation. The art of poetry is enriched by large quotations from Nannius and from Jafon de Nore's, the whole of whose very scarce and excellent work, might have been inferted, we think, without any great injury to the credit of the Var. Edit. Bishop Hurd, whofe criticifms upon many particular paffages are justly admired by those who may not agree with him in his general view of Horace's defign, is quoted four or five times on the Book de Arte Poetica, and once on the Epiftle to Auguftus. Thus have we endeavoured to give a faithful account of the multifarious matter contained in the Var. Edit. we hope to have been guilty of no material error or omission, and we believe, that the most captious Critic, will hardly accufe us of having ventured upon one unfounded objection, or one ungracious reproach.

Let us, however, hope to be excufed for expreffing at leaft our well-founded withes, that, in the abfence of Janus, a little more use had in the second volume of the Var. Edit. been now and then made of fome of the critics, whofe notes difappear after the First Book of the Odes. From Dacier, we parted without much regret; but when Janus was no longer at hand, we think that as a poet of antiquity is faid to have extracted ex Enni ftercore gemmas, fo a modern editor might here and there have gleaned valuable matter from Sanadon, Rutgerfius, &c. for the notes of the fecond volume; and in this opinion we are the more confirmed, becaufe the Satires and Epiftles of Horace, are often involved in obfcurities, which, however they may escape the attention of fuperficial readers, are known and confefled by accurate fcholars. The quick feeling, and the explicit acknowledgment of difficulties in an ancient writer, may be confidered as a moft fure as well as most honourable criterion, not only of the ingenuousness, but of the judgment for which a critic can deferve our refpect and confidence. Hactenus de Horatio, fays Markland in his Explicationes, p. 261, in quo auctore poft omnia quæ in eum fcripta vidi, innumera funt, quæ non intelligo. In toto opere vix una eft ode, fermo, vel epiftola in quibus hoc non fentio, dum lego. We applaud the fpirit of this conceffion, without acceding to the ftrict letter of it. But after repeated and diligent perufals of the writings of Horace, we know where the greatest embarraffments are experienced, and where the moft urgent neceffity exifts for every kind and every degree of aid in removing or alleviating them.

We