The words, tamen, enim, neque, atque, nisi, perhaps quasi, ita, quia, modo, &c., belong to a class of words which are scarcely entitled to any great share of the voice. Thus we find, 1, 2, 65, tamen vix; 2, 1, 35, pes | tis tamen | tibi. So the particle tametsi is only a contracted form of tamenetsi ; 2, 1, 47, verum enim quando ; 2, 3, 2, ver | um enim ver | 0; 5, 5, 24, enim vi | di; Andr. 1, 3, 1, enim ve | ro. Bentley elides the m. 3, 4, 13, neque faci | am. Without absolutely writing nec, we may give the same sound to neque (and to atque that of ac). So nisi may be prounounced ni; and, perhaps, quasi, quai. As to quia and ita, we have to guide us, 4, 2, 27. quia mise | ram; 1, 1, 10, Ego quia; 5, 1, 41, Ita ut volumus; 5, 1, 1, Ita ut dix [i; and from the Andria, 2, 3, 25, Itan cred | is. Modo, used as a particle, not having any representative in the derived languages, we must avail ourselves of the compound quomodo, which belongs to them all under the respective forms of-com, Rom., como, Span., comme, Fr., come, Ital. A monosyllabic form of the particle (by omission of the consonant) is well suited to the lines Ad. 5, 1, 59, modo faci | to; Eun. 2, 2, 51, illam age modo | and perhaps necessary in-Andr. 2, 1, 2, modo e Davo; Andr. 2, 4, ̊6, modo ut pos | sim. The line of the Adelphi from which we have last quoted, has for the final iamb-vi | dero atque ; but then the following line begins with a vowel-illi &c. We are somewhat tempted to transfer the conjunction to the second line, for atque illi would not be a very outrageous spondee pronounced as ac 'li. However, this same word atque performs the same duty of up again in 3, 3, 21, 22; and a third time in 3, 4, 19, 20.

A few stragglers must be brought up, and we shall have done. The little word esse (frequently no more than an enclitic) naturally admits of abbreviation as 5, 5, 8, Id esse for a trochee. So erit cannot always be pronounced in the received manner. It seems sometimes to require the sound of er't, just as we find est, volt, fert, for esit, volit, ferit. That the sound of the word was in some way incomplete can scarcely admit of doubt, when we find such feet as :-Prol. 4, se ipse erit; | vos eri | tis; 2, 1, 26, fecisse erit meli | us; 3, 3, 57, spero erit similis. The greatest metrical difficulty in the whole play is perhaps to be found in 1, 2, 37, amat dabi | tur. That dabitur may possibly constitute a trochee we have already mentioned in treating of the letter b; and it is also possible that the final t of amat may not require to be sounded before a consonant so closely allied to it as d. But these more violent elisions,

as Bentley has pointed out, are only met with at the beginning of lines; whilst, on the contrary, it may be observed that contractions freely allowed in the other parts of a verse are less admissible at the close of a line.

The words apud, domi; senex, senectus; pater, soror, may occasion difficulty, unless we are prepared to contract or shorten them in some way. The analogy of père and sœur seems to explain the two last; but domi and apud cannot be illustrated in the same way. The reader may form his own opinion of them from the following references-2, 1, 44, domo me; 3, 3, 35, est domi ha | biturus; 3, 3, 59, domi habuit; 4, 5, 39, domi vir | ginem; 4, 7, 28, faci | as domi erit pro | &c. (perhaps dom | y er't); 4. 7. 28, domus sump tuosa: whilst on the contrary, in 2, 4, 22, we find domum cum obsonio-and for aput, 1, 2, 74; 3, 3, 50; 3, 5, 2; 4, 1, 1; 4, 1, 19; 4, 2, 34; together with 4, 2, 44; 5, 1, 13; 5, 2, 19. With regard to senex and senectus, as they are found in 4, 8, 6, senex nos | ter, and 5, 1, 47, viti | um senectus, we may perhaps deduce the true explanation from the form of the genitive senis, or the comparative senior, so that the ec in these words should be disregarded. Thus we should have something like Sen' noster and viti | um sen' tus. It is in accordance with this that we find senectus as a participle of the verb seneo. Lastly, is the adjective

sentus, a reduced form of senectus?

It has been objected to a system of evanescent letters, to which we have referred so many of the metrical difficulties occurring in Terence, that if these words were so pronounced in one passage of an author, they must have the same power in other passages, and that letters which are not to be sounded in Terence, must be treated in the same way in Virgil. It is a sufficient answer to refer the reader to his own language; where he will find numerous instances of words, which in one passage are pronounced fully, and in another lose a whole syllable. And secondly, those licences and contractions which are so common in the language of conversation, are not suited to the dignified and slow delivery of the tragic or epic muse. Indeed, the term licence is incorrect. It would, on the contrary, be a greater licence, it would be mere solemn absurdity, to pronounce distinctly every separate syllable in a common dialogue.

We have carried this article to a much greater length than we had intended; and yet there are perhaps some few lines of the Adelphi left unnoticed, in which the principles we have contended for may not be found sufficient. But we must pass them over at any rate for the present. Though we

have more particularly examined one play of Terence, yet what we have said will apply to the others; and we believe that but few iambic or trochaic verses in them will occasion much difficulty to those for whom we are writing-industrious students.

HARRIS'S BOOKS.

In the days of early infancy, long ere scholastic labours have infringed upon the liberty of the future student, he is surrounded by the tattered remnants of those gay pictured books, which are continually issuing from the press at the corner of St. Paul's Churchyard, for the amusement, if not for the edification, of the rising generation. Harris's books' are, therefore, associated with the first pleasures of childhood; and Dame Trot and her Cat,' The History of the House that Jack built,' and other similar productions, notwithstanding the march of intellect,' still triumphantly retain their station in the nursery.

Although these erudite works continue to find a place in the catalogue of the above respectable publisher, and although no inconsiderable proportion of his numerous publications is devoted merely to entertaining narratives, adapted to progressive ages from infancy to youth, still amusement does not hold her reign in this juvenile library to the exclusion of more substantial and useful objects; but instruction, too, is combined with its lighter and more attractive partner.

An inspection of Mr. Harris's catalogue cannot fail to afford satisfaction to the judicious preceptor. The design of many of the works which it contains is most excellent, and their titles induce a belief that they will prove a rich accession to the means of imparting useful knowledge. But an examination of the works themselves, conducted with every expectation of deriving profit and pleasure from their perusal, produces in us a feeling of disappointment, arising from the insufficient amount of talent which is in general displayed in their execution.

We cannot but regret that so few writers of really sound judgment and competent knowledge are led to devote their attention to this most important branch of literature. It may be that as every subject is apparently engrossed by the crowd of works which are constantly published for the benefit of young people, the modesty of real talent retires from the contest, deeming it presumption to treat on what has been

already discussed by others of supposed experience. Thus the field continues too much in the occupation of commonplace minds, who, with every disposition to do what is most rational, and most conducive to the proper instruction of youth, only contemplate things in the detail, and appear little qualified to take an adequate view of the true end of all education.

To expose the errors of conceited ignorance, or to condemn the dogmas of presumptuous prejudice, would be to some an easy and, perhaps, not altogether an unpleasing office. But to speak in any terms, save those of commendation, of works which are dictated by praiseworthy motives, is indeed an ungracious task: nor can we too gently point out those defects of style and manner, which only render information thus clothed less attractive, and, therefore, less useful; reserving our graver disapprobation for that inability which gives imperfect and confused ideas of a subject, and bestowing our severest censure only on those faults which would instil false and pernicious notions into the tender mind.

An attempt has been made in a former number to show how materially history may, by an able writer, be made to assist in the formation of character, by offering to the contemplation of youth a comprehensive view of human nature, and of the motives which should actuate man in his journey through life; thus inciting to all that is great and good, and tending to exalt the character by purifying the heart.

Several histories of our own country appear in the catalogue now before us; but in vain we seek in them for those enlarged views and that impartial narrative which are so essential to the usefulness of historical works, and without which they must, in fact, be pernicious.

One is at a loss to conceive why so meagre a performance as the History of England, by the Rev. Mr. Cooper, should be in so great request as to have reached the twenty-first edition-a result which we should only have thought probable in the absence of all other historical notices of this kingdom.

In this work the two last reigns, those of George the Third and Fourth, occupy more than half the volume. Two or three pages are all that are usually allotted to each of the preceding reigns, and nearly a third of this small space is engrossed in summing up the character and personal endowments of the prince, whose good or bad qualities cannot be in the least deduced from the short list of events by which their enumeration is preceded; the pupil is therefore taught to believe, on * Second Number, Art. Darton and Harvey's books.'

the authority of the Rev. Mr. Cooper alone, without any facts being brought forward in support of the assertion, that one prince was brutally cruel and vindictive, perfidious, lewd, perjured, and rapacious'-p. 49; that another was temperate, modest, and devout; and that a third was 'courteous, affable, and eloquent.' Should not an author consider it rather a responsible office thus to impress on the youthful mind a bias, which, perhaps, no after perusal of history may totally eradicate?

The character of Charles the Second, that personification of all that is vicious in man, and despicable in royalty, is thus laid down, without one action of Charles being recorded to exemplify a single attribute with which he is here invested:

Charles the Second was in his person tall and swarthy; and his countenance was marked with strong, harsh lineaments. His penetration was keen, his judgment clear, his understanding extensive, his conversation lively and entertaining, and he possessed the talent of wit and ridicule. He was easy of access, polite, and affable. Had he been limited to a private station, he would have passed for the most agreeable and best natured man of the age in which he lived. His greatest enemies allow him to have been a civil husband, an affectionate father, and an indulgent master; even as a prince, he manifested an aversion to cruelty and injustice. Yet these good qualities were more than overbalanced by his weakness and defects. He was a scoffer at religion and a libertine in his morals; careless, indolent, profuse, abandoned to effeminate pleasure, incapable of any noble enterprise, a stranger to manly friendship and gratitude, deaf to the voice of honour, blind to the allurements of glory, and, in a word, wholly destitute of every active virtue.'-p. 83.

Are children, then, to be told that the dark shades of the picture are only weakness and defects? What right-feeling parents would not turn from the temporising historian with indignant warmth, and endeavour to shield their children from the benumbing influence of worldly precept, by giving to vice and hypocrisy their right names?

Wolsey, who made so conspicuous a figure in the reign of Henry the Eighth, is here mentioned but twice, and then only incidentally. We are told that by his assistance, Henry, in 1533, divorced Catherine of Arragon.' Now this is quite a new version of the fact, as all authorities extant are, we believe, agreed, that to Wolsey's vacillating conduct in that affair, his own ruin must be ascribed.

In the concluding reigns, impartiality and moderation are attempted, but the anti-catholic spirit of the author too plainly, and on more than one occasion, is exhibited. In speaking of the ministry of Mr. Canning, the historian thus remarks: