New books published by W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, Stationers' Hall Court, Ludgate Street, London.

  • Simpkin and Marshall.
Date:
[1825]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: New books published by W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, Stationers' Hall Court, Ludgate Street, London. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by University of Bristol Library. The original may be consulted at University of Bristol Library.

    3/16 (page 3)
    of the eijtire omission of the Choepliorae in this pdition (by Turnebus,) “ though the greater put t of it had appeared four years before that of Aldus, and the whole this same year jp the edition of itobortellus.” Had the Re- viewey been so well aware of the notoriety of the omissjon of this Play by Turnebus, as he would insinuate, he might readily perceive the reason why I forboye to ipentipu the fact; but this is one of his most unfortunate obser- vations, and must prove fatal to his credit as a Reviewer, for this Edition is a reimpression of the Aldine text, which Turnebus frequently amended with the assistance of a MS. of vRmqrius Ranconetus, which comprised the three first Plays ouly, and he has added a table of various lections,—it does, how- ever, contain this Play of tjie Choepliorae:—so much for the accuracy of this Gentleman’s research—What is meant by “ the greater part of it,” (the Choephorse) “ had appeared four years before that of Aldus,” I cannot com- prehend; but that the whole of it was given by Robortellus, in his Edition, is incorrect, for I verijy bejjeve that this Editor has not given one verse more of this Play than is to be found in that of Aldus, but he has distinguished these two Plays, (tjie Cjiqephora; and the Agamemuon,) and assigned to each its proper title: he has, moreover, done his Author some essential services, which I shall forbear to aptoH »>•««_ With respect to the MSS. with the assistant <>« Victorius gave u3 for the first time, the Agamemnon complete, (speaking comparatively,) it must bp. well known to eyeyy Scholar that the Vatican furnished this great man with those MSS. from which he obtained this valuable edition.—J have stated some curious facts respecting Victorius, (not perhaps generally known) under the heads of Plato and Sophocles. That the edition of Scliiitz is the best and most complete we have yet, I must still maintain, and in this opinion I am supported by the concurrent testimony of Hailes, of the Reviewer in the Bib). Crit. Anist., of Parson, Schoell, and others. In my account of Porson’s Edition of rEschylus, a too credulous reliance upon Brunef has led jne into an error, in citing one edition twice, viz. uuder the date of its typographical execution and of its publication. To Dr. J3utler 1 will readily concede every thing the Reviewer would de- sire; aud while I extol the labor and patience of this Editor, who has amassed so valuable a body of varions lections, &c. which is, however, far from beiug so complete as it might have been, I must be allowed to censure the ill taste which lias been manifested in the disposition of his materials, the few original emendations which have been made, and the little informa- tion which has been added to the gepcral stock; from which, and other causes, this edition must ever be less popular, aud, to the student, of less utility than that of Scliiitz, whom I shall consider much more capable of editing so difficult, so obscure, and so corrupt an Author as Aeschylus, than Dr. Butler; aud, while his various and numerous publications bear ample testimony to the diversity and extent of his reading, I must still hold him up as the Editor of the best and most useful Edition of this Poet. In the Second Review, dated September 3, the Reviewer wilfully stum- bles, “ t)ie Editions (of Anacreon) by Barnes, are stated in a very confused manner the article as it stands in my JYJaoual is as follows: “ Tjie Cam - bridge Editions, says Dr. Harwood, are more correct than the Loudon one of 1734.”—~‘f This work is held in considerable estimation, of which there have been many editions since this (viz. of 1705) of which we are speaking, which is, undoubtedly, the most beautiful. De Bure, No. 2528. “ This,” observes the Reviewer, “ is about as clumsy a sentence as we evermet with, and throws less than no light at all ou the subject:”—this is truly very sorry stuff! With the Edition of Aristophanes, by Iuvernizius, I have not yet had an opportunity of becoming acquainted, aud I candidly acknowledge my igno- rance. I did not, therefore, attempt to give a character of it, but bad re- course to the works of such Bibliographers as had preceded me; first of a 2