Latin; and therefore, in the absence of such discrimination, Ismarus Orphea, being succeeded by namque canebat in the next verse, would form an exception, or at least a limitation, to his broad position. But even if Mr. W. had discriminated, (as in fact he has not,) his friend might have said that ostrea is a word derived from the Greek language, and therefore the final vowels in it might have coalesced, Græco more, like those in Orphea, whether the next verse began with a vowel or not. To Mr. W.'s substitution of omne for omnia in Virgil, we strenuously object, because a complete sentence intervenes between his proposed reading, omne, and the word opere, to which he would refer it. If Mr. W. will look to Heinsius's note on the passage, he will find that some Mss. give omne, but that the best copies are in favour of omnia, and that omnia is quoted by Nonius, by Marius Victorinus, and by Macrobius. — Of Mr. W.'s challenge to produce more passages, his friend might have accepted with little danger; and if we undertake the office, Mr. W. will not be displeased.

Surgit

Solio tum Jupiter aureo

et imagine cereâ Largior arserit ignis?

En. X, v. 116.

Hor. Lib. I, Sat. VIII.

The coalescence of vowels is not very frequent among the writers after the Augustan age. But we will produce a few examples to refute the proposed alteration of omnia into omne, and to show that Mr. W. in his Observations, ought to have distinguished expressly between Greek and Latin words.

Nos miranda quidem, sed nuper consule Junio
Gesta.

Juvenal, Sat. XV, v. 27.

Pectora.

Aut magno feries imperdita Tydeo

Statius, Lib. III, v. 84.

Mr. W. when he wrote the close of his note on the Georgics, seems to have felt some little distrust in his own opinions; for he there refers his readers to an emendation in the 2d Georgic, where he would himself read atque, instead of aut after nec in a preceding clausula,

Nec pulcher Ganges, atque auro turbidus Hermus — As Mr. W. has not, in his edition of Horace, explicitly retracted a position, which in two of his former works he had firmly maintained, we thought it incumbent upon us to enter very fully into the question, which he started in his Observations. We suspect, indeed, that Mr. W. no longer dissents from his friend; for in the Horace he has printed nec without any remark in the notes, though it be the very reading, which, upon two occasions, he had before opposed. It is curious enough to observe the different situation of Mr. Wakefield's mind, at different times. When he wrote the Observations, his confidence was great, and his canon unqualified. When he began his note on the Georgics, he felt equal confidence; as he proceeded in it, he called in the aid of distinctions, and when he arrived at the close, he left the point to be discussed by the reader for himself. Afterwards, when he came to the passage in his intended edition of Horace, he printed nec, without even remarking that he had once earnestly contended for aut, and perhaps this complete revolution in his opinions took place, when he was reading

Horace, and, in Sat. VIII, B. I, v. 43, had met with such an instance, as in his notes on the Georgics he had declared impossible to be found.

Sat. III, L. II, v. 208. We find the punctuation rather different. In the Observations the line is printed thus,

Qui species, alias veri scelerisque, tumultu
Permistas capiet, &c.

But in the edit. we read,

Qui species, alias veri, scelerisque tumultu
Permistas, capiet.

Sat. IV, v. 16. Mr. W. in the Observations would read inriguo; but in the edit, he prints irriguo.

Sat. VI, v. 8. Si veneror stultus nihil horum. Mr. W. in the Observations proposes venor, which he afterwards found as a var. lect. in the Delphin edit. and which he condemns the editor for not having adopted; but in Mr. W.'s edit. we have veneror.

In Epist. VII, Lib. 1, v. 24.

Dignum præstabo me etiam pro laude merentis,

he interprets the three concluding words, pro laude merentis, but this interpretation does not appear in the edit. Epist. XVI. he thus points, v. 5.

"Annuimus pariter veluti notique columbi :
"Tu nidum, &c."

But the edition has a full stop at columbi.
Lib. II, Epist. II., v. 113, &c. he thus points:

"Audebit, quæcunque parum splendoris habebunt,
"Verba movere loco: quamvis invita, recedant;
"Et versentur adhuc intra penetralia Vestæ."

But in the edition he sets no comma after audebit,- he puts a comma, not a semicolon at loco,--he puts no com

maat invita,- he gives a comma, not a semicolon, at recedant, and for et before versentur he reads ut.

Ars Poetica.-In the 72nd verse, for Quem penes arbitrium est, he, in the Observations, reads Cui for Quem, and in the edit. he leaves Quem, and proposes arbitrum for arbitrium.

In v. 337, &c. he agrees with Bentley that the line ought to be suspected, as it is now pointed, and he proposes the following punctuation:—

"ut cito dicta

Percipiant animi dociles, teneantque fideles,
"Omne supervacuum pleno de pectore manat!"

His note on the passage in the edition runs thus: "Propendeo equidem in Bentleii sententiam, obelo hunc versiculum damnantis: cui vero retinendum placuerit, huic nostram interpunctionem commendamus; unde hæc exoritur sententia: Ut animi cito dicta percipiant dociles, et teneant, ita omne nimium solet effluere.' Sæpe omititur ita' in apodosi."

We suspect, as Bentley does, that the closing line is spurious. We agree generally with Mr. W. that ita is often understood in the apodosis, or return of the sentence; but on the present occasion we cannot admit his interpretation, because ut would require tenent, not teneant, where ita is followed by manat.

V. 99. Mr. W. here controverts Bishop Hurd's explanation of the word pulchra. We have been told, that the explanation was given by a man, whom the Bishop has long called his friend, and whom we reverence as a scholar. We, like Mr. W., dissent from the learned writer, and think that Mr. W. in his Observations, and in sect. 122 of Silva Critica, has judiciously explained

the meaning of Horace in this word; but in the edit. he has not inserted that explanation.

V. 127. he approves, and we join with him in approving, Bishop Hurd's admirable correction of aut for et.But in the edit. he prints et without noticing his change of opinion.

Of V. 212, and 213, he gives a long and elaborate explanation, no trace of which appears in the edition.

V. 379, &c. he thus prints:- Hæc placuit semel, hæc decies repetita placebit, and then he transfers ludere qui nescit down to 66 vitioque remotus ab omni," from the place, in which they now stand, and places them before "O major juvenum," which words, in the common edition, immediately follow "repetita placebit."- He moreover supposes, that from Quidni down to omni should be considered as an objection, to which the Poet replies in a fine apostrophe to his friend, from "O major" to "imum." Now in the edition, the lines are not thus transposed, nor have we any note to tell us that Quidni, &c. proceed from the mouth of an objector. Vitio also in the edit. is altered into vinclo.

We cannot help observing, that Mr. W. seldom or never makes any reference to the Observations he published in 1776. We, for our parts, esteem them as the ȧкpolívia, or first fruits of Mr. W.'s philological labours. Mr. W. himself, in his subsequent publications, retained some of the opinions he held in 1776, and in his edition we find sub divo for sub dio, and two or three other conjectures, which appear in the Observations—e. gr. the punctuation at effulsit, Lib. IV, Ode V, and the substitution of regionibus for legionibus, Sat. VI, Lib. I.

We shall now collect from Mr. W.'s notes on the