part I

speak. The God we serve hath chosen Israel's children Forth of this land to spread his name and worship {674} Throughout the earth—and by my voice he bids thee Release our tribes from bondage, and permit Their peaceable departure to the desert.

_Pharaoh_.—And who is Israel's God, that I should serve him? Or who the God of Abram, that my kingdom Should lose a million vassals at his word?

_Moses_.—Thou askest who is God? and how shall I, A worm but crawling on his footstool, tell thee? Or how wilt thou, so blinded by a worship Degrading beyond utterance, understand? Were every thought a ray direct from heaven, And every word an angel's, I might hope— But, Prince,—the Deity I serve is God And Lord of Hosts; his name the Great Jehovah, Supreme, Omniscient, present every where— Strong to destroy, omnipotent to save. By his command—the breathing of his will— Beam'd in existence yonder brilliant orb— The infinite host of heaven—the fruitful earth Thou walk'st on and enjoyest, knowing little Of regions close around thee, and but nothing Of realms unmatch'd in beauty, which thy sons, In the hundredth generation, will not see— Nor dream of their existence. He alone Can truly claim our gratitude for blessings Shower'd without stint or measure on our heads, Love, worship, loyalty, and true obedience, But mix'd with wholesome fear. Not for thy throne, With power a hundred fold of that thou hast— Not for the sway of hosts innumerable As sands in yonder desert—or the wealth That earth contains and may produce through ages— For giant strength, or patriarch's length of days— Knowing Jehovah, would I tempt his wrath, Or brave the stroke of his destroying arm.

_Pharaoh_.—Hast thou e'er seen the God of whom thou speakest?

_Moses_.—In his essential spiritual being? never! Nor ever shall, until this mortal frame Dissolve into the dust from whence it came, And my emancipated spirit fly: I trust and hope to dwell with him forever. But in the unconsum'd, tho' burning bush, Of which I spake when first I came to thee, I have beheld the outward manifestation Of his great presence, and have heard him speak His holy purpose, and expound to me What I should say—how plead with thee for freedom.

_Pharaoh_.—Apis and Isis are the Gods of Egypt— And many more my ancestors have worshipped; I too will serve them, nor embrace a faith Preach'd by a leader of insurgent slaves, Or such as would be so. But did Jehovah, The God thou vauntest, prompt thee with a fraud? Hast thou not striven t' amuse me with the thought That sacrifice alone required your journey Into the wilderness? and when deception Might not avail, hast thou not own'd thy purpose, And claim'd a right to quit the land forever?

_Moses_.—The crowned king who broke his solemn promise To let our tribes depart, might well have spar'd A pointless sarcasm and unjust reproach To human policy. If I have stoop'd So far as not to tell thee _all_ the truth, Be sure it was to spare thy pride alone, And naught beside. But glance thine eye around— Behold our people helpless and unarm'd, Beaten with stripes, o'erlabor'd, driven and watch'd By spears of vigilant armies. Be thou judge If that deliverance can be their achievement, Or less than God can free them from thy hands; Then say if purpos'd fraud can be a means With him who wrought such wonders in the land. Let us depart, great prince. The voice of Justice, True wisdom's dictates, and thy prescient fears Of greater evils yet befalling Egypt, All speak one word; that word—Emancipation.

_Pharaoh_.—Setting aside thy magic, or the wrath, If such it be, of Israel's God, what wisdom Worthy a prince's thought, would be in this?

_Moses_.—The highest and the greatest—that which chooses Nobly t' endure a smaller present evil, And shun a distant great calamity. As truly as the waves of distant ocean, Chasing each other, rise by turns and fall— As truly as the air, surcharged with heat, Gendereth the thunderstorm which clears and cools it— So surely, in the troubled sea of life, Wrong wreaketh wrong, and evil followeth evil, And moral tempests purge the crimes of nations. When will the sons of men be taught this lesson? What tears, what blood must flow, what lands be ravaged, What empires overthrown, or peopled only With widows and with orphans, ere they learn it? The wrong is ours, but such redress we seek not; God hath our quarrel taken in his hands: Our fathers journey'd here, th' invited guests Of Egypt's king, and were by him receiv'd With hospitality and royal bounty, Which well became a prince whom Joseph serv'd. I need not tell thee of the slow encroachments By which the alien guests became thy subjects, Or call to mind the hard and stern decree Which, in a day, transferr'd us from subjection To chain'd and absolute bondage; or the edict Which gave our sons to death as soon as born: These things are fresh in memory—but oblivion Shall cover all, if thou but set us free.

_Pharaoh, to one of his Council_.—Osirion, I have ever held thee wise; Speak thy opinion of this man's petition.

_Osirion_.—Most gracious prince, as briefly as I may. The past experience fully proves this truth, That in all prosperous and happy lands There is a chain of order and gradation. Vicegerents, counsellors, governors, warlike chiefs, Subservient leaders, freeborn subjects, slaves, Link within link, each in its proper place, And guided by the sovereign hand alone. Who is not bound on earth? If any can Be free from all control save that of heaven, The greatest and the wisest only should. (_Bowing to Pharoah_.) Another truth is this—that be a nation Govern'd as though the Gods themselves were here, And order'd all things that we do on earth, {675} There will be innovators—men who seek For their own ends to break establish'd usage, And raise a storm of discord and commotion, No matter what it wreck, so they be wafted To the point they have in view; and never yet Have they begun their work at the fountain head Of a nation's wisdom, but by base appeals To the lowest passions of the vulgar herd, Furious and blind as snakes in the summer heat. This man, half hypocrite and half fanatic, Nurtur'd from childhood by thy royal sister— Rear'd in thy palaces, and stor'd with learning The most profound that Egypt could afford— In our religious mysteries deeply skill'd, And taking rank among our wisest magi— Bold, politic and crafty, aims no doubt To organize and sway a faith and nation Broadly distinct from all upon the earth. What asks he at thy hands? Emancipation! Claim'd too of right, with most rebellious threats, Even to thy face, on thy presum'd refusal— And with what justice, Pharaoh, thou mayst judge. Israel hath sojourned here four hundred years— Thriven on our soil—found refuge here from famine— Had Goshen for a heritage—and shar'd Peace and protection with thy native subjects; Shall they not share the vassalage and toil? Nor see I aught unjust that they should be Bondmen to those who fed and guarded them. Throughout the world there must be slaves and masters; The features of these men, their creed, their language, And barbarous right of circumcision, mark Them as a race made to be known as slaves: And whether it were just t' enthrall these tribes, Pharaoh, concerns not thee or us. Our sires Bequeath'd the heritage of sway to us, And their's entail'd the slavery on their sons. Never, I trust, will I behold the day When, at the bidding of a God unseen By us, and even by him who takes his name, These slaves be yielded, and the broad foundation, Our social fabric's base, be taken away. True policy, the guide which, when a king Forsakes his throne's security, is gone, Cries loudly to detain them. Where will be The public works which make thy name eternal, And raise thy kingdom to the loftiest height Of national glory, if these men be freed? And where the quiet obedience of thy subjects, When those who were their menials, and perform'd All offices of drudgery, are gone? Let these men be arrested, and their bodies Detained as hostages for Egypt's safety.

_Pharaoh to Moses_.—Hear'st thou?

_Moses_.—I grieve that thou who hast beheld God's visits unto Egypt mark'd with ruin, Canst reason yet, and listen too to others, As if it were with me, and not my Maker, Thou had'st to deal. Do I not know these magi— Their priestly craft and worthless jugglery? Presume not too far on thy power t' oppress. Though proof against remorse for what is past— Though deaf unto the cries of slaves in bondage, And dumb when words of freedom should be spoken, Prince, be not blind to thine own dearest interests— Stake not thy life, thy honor and thy crown, Thy people's safety, and thy kingdom's strength, Upon the words of the most shallow fools That ever tempted man to his destruction. Trust not their crooked policy, which bids thee Prefer _convenient wrong_ to truth and justice; Do that thy conscience whispers thee is right, And leave the rest to him who sent me hither. The God of Israel is the God of Egypt, And though unhonored, careth for her sons.

_Pharaoh to Arbaces_.—Arbaces, give thy counsel.

_Arbaces_.—King of Egypt, The sharpest evils need the sharpest cures. Here, in the very grasp of thy great power, Stands open-mouth'd rebellion; all the chiefs And advocates of Hebrew discontent Are now before thee: speak but thou the word, And ere an hour be past, their traitorous heads Shall grace thy palace wall, and their torn limbs Be sent through Goshen and the land of Egypt, A dreadful warning—and my life shall answer For peace hereafter, and most tame submission From all thy Hebrew vassals.

_Pharaoh, to Moses_.—Hearest thou?

_Moses_.—I hear, and smile to hear it. God of mercy! Look not with utter scorn on thy creation, Nor let thy anger rise, that these poor worms With barely light to view the rapid stream On which they drift from time to eternity, Must purple it with blood, and freely deal Death and extermination on each other, As though thy uncreated power and thunders Were all thy own, and thou hadst never been.

_Pharaoh, to Arbaces_.—T' imprison him and let him live, were folly— And I have yielded to my sister's prayers He should not die, unless the Hebrews rise In servile war against us. (_To Moses_.) Thou mayst leave me, And go where'er thou choosest; but thy people Go not in peace while I am king of Egypt.

_Moses_.—The wisdom that would point thee to the path Of peace, of honor, and thy Maker's favor, Is lost on thee, and all appeals to justice As well were made unto the marble steps That base thy throne. But though thou fearest not now, Hereafter thou wilt tremble, and it may be, Own, when too late, the God thou now despisest. Once more I must address thee. King of Egypt, I charge thee in the name of High Jehovah, Let all the Hebrews quit thy land in peace, And bear their wives, their offspring, and their goods Far from thy utmost limits, never more To own thy sceptre, or to call thee Lord. Nor send them empty handed. Let them take From thine own subjects aught that may be needed For journeying in the desert. Sayst thou no? Then on thy country, from the king, who sits Upon his throne, down to the meanest peasant, The curse, the peril, and the plague will fall. Darkness and tempests, pestilence and death Shall triumph yet, and wring the very hearts Of men grown faint and sick with utter ruin. {676} Nor this the worst. If then thy haughty soul Experience cannot teach, or suffering bend, Th' outstretched arm of God himself will sweep Thee and thy legions from the earth forever. And when yon pyramids, the unsolv'd enigma Of future ages, rais'd by stripes and groans Of trampled Israel—piles which thou hast built, As if t' outlast the world on which they stand, Are batter'd by barbarians, or have crumbled Beneath the sure and silent hand of time, The story of thy overthrow shall be Had in remembrance, and the name of Pharaoh A living proverb in the mouths of men For harden'd heart and blind infatuation.

_Pharaoh_.—And durst thou threaten me, thou sorcerer? Out of my presence—I defy thy magic, Disown thy God, and scoff at his commands.

_Moses_.—Aye, wage thy puny strength against th' Almighty, And feel his power, whoso name thou dost blaspheme. See in what splendor rides the sun above us; Few moments more will blot it from thy sight. (_Raising his rod to Heaven_.) Shadows of night, arise! and let the gloom, That mantled space, before the stars of heaven Hail'd the first dawning of their God's creation, Envelope Egypt! Yea, let utter darkness, Intense as pride in this besotted prince, Black as their thoughts who counsel him to murder, Enduring, all-pervading, palpable, Even to the sense of feeling, rayless, cheerless, Be as a funeral pall upon this land!

_Pharaoh_.—Another plague. Beware, or thou mayst find The faith I plighted to my sister fail, And but for that thou hadst been dead ere now.

_Officers_.—Guard us from ruin, now, ye Gods of Egypt! See, Pharaoh! see, the deepest midnight rising Round heaven's extremest verge, and merging fast Towards the fading sun, whose sickly beams Flicker and die before the gathering horror. Great prince, relent, and let this people go; Should Egypt be destroy'd, to keep her slaves——

_Pharaoh_.—Peace, on your lives! and you, ye Hebrew leaders, Approach while I can see ye. I know not, Or care to know, if this be incantation, Or work of other Gods than those of Egypt; But while I live, and hold the sceptre here, Tho' all the accumulated gloom of hell, And all its plagues be wasted on the land, I will not let ye go, or bate one tittle Of royal right to hold ye in subjection. (_To Moses_.) Listen, and mark my words! they touch thy life: Go from my presence, nor return unsummon'd— For in the day thou seest me thou shalt die.

_Moses_.—Thou hast said well—I'll see thy face no more.

NOMS DE GUERRE.

Balzac's real name was Guez—Metastasio's was Trapasso—Melancthon's Hertz Schwartz—Erasmus' Gerard.

TO ANNA.

Full forty years have fled away Since first we hailed the wedding day, And I've been blest, as well I may, With Anna.

Though thou wert young, and tender too, When first I sought thy heart to woo, Thou'st never been unkind, untrue, My Anna.

If bent with sickness, woe, or care, Who offered up the sigh, the prayer, Or proved a watchful angel there? My Anna.

The stream of life may roughly glide, And I in anguish may be tried; I'll not repine, if by my side Is Anna.

When dwindling from me one by one, My num'rous sunshine friends were gone, Who lingered still and loved me on? My Anna.

Whilst others live in jarring strife, We pass a calm, contented life— I daily bless my matchless wife, My Anna.

O, never can affliction move The depth, the truth of woman's love! For grief and pain would only prove My Anna.

And when the closing hour draws near In which I quit this earthly sphere, I'll die repeating to her ear, My Anna!

C.

LINES.

Oh! there's a light in woman's eye— A liquid light—a living ray— Which gleams upon our pilgrim path, And guides us o'er life's rugged way: A magic sound in woman's sigh— A thrilling tone—so soft, so sweet, That, like the harp of Æolus, It seems a voice for angel meet, Wailing a lost one from on high.

IGNOTUS.

BIBLES.

The first Polyglot Bible is that of Cardinal Ximenes, printed in 1515. It contains the Hebrew text, the Chaldaic Paraphrase, the Greek Septuagint, and the ancient Latin edition. The second is the Royal Bible, Anvers, 1572: the third that of Le Jay, Paris, 1645: the fourth that of England, London, 1657, edited by Walton. There are many since, but of less celebrity.

{677}

CLASSICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY.

_Mr. Editor_—The following list of the editions of the classics fittest to enter into a literary collection of the Roman and Greek authors, was drawn up, a little while since, at the request of a friend, who is beginning to appropriate, out of his income, an annual sum to the forming of a private library. The series indicated is such as is recommended by the convenience of their form, the general goodness of their typographical execution, the correctness of their text, and the usefulness of a commentary, from which all that sort of erudition is excluded, which perpetually misses or goes beyond the mark. In such a plan, the mere luxury of editions—the pursuit of the rare, or curious, or costly, apart from more serious excellence—is, of course, to be disregarded. Beyond mere uniformity of size, I would make no sacrifice to the Graces; nor this, but that the octavo form combines the differing advantages of compactness and bulk. It neither forbids, by its diminutiveness, all explanation of the text; nor confounds you, like a folio, with the trivialities of an eternal erudition. It is, too, the form in which editions have been multiplied the most; so that it can offer, in a cheap but agreeable dress, almost every thing with which learning has elucidated the ancient writers.

I myself do not slight the passion of the mere book-fancier. In a country where the wealthiest and best-born of the land lavish their annual thousands, for the praise of possessing stud horses of the most honorable lineage, or that they may enjoy, through life, the society of grooms and trainers, it would be, perhaps, not amiss if, for mere diversity's sake, some less illiterate follies were introduced. Are the brawling and boorish fox-hunter, or the super-subtle man of the turf (races rapidly becoming the reproach of English manners and tastes) all that our men of fortune can imitate among the English gentry? Their ancestral mansions, adorned with whatever art or science can accumulate of beautiful or curious: their delightful pleasure-grounds, where the picturesque creates a thousand charmingly disposed landscapes: their museums of antiquities—their rich galleries of pictures—their master-pieces of sculpture—their noble and learned private libraries, the chief pride and ornament of every wealthy residence—when, alas! shall we, instead of what is coarsest and most immoral and least intellectual in the habits and amusements of English life, rise to even the idler and more puerile parts of Taste and Letters—the follies of the Virtuoso and the Bibliomaniac?

But “revenons à nos moutons:” let us get back to our ancients; of whom, I believe, you will find the annexed list a careful and a copious one. I have consulted, in compiling it, the following leading authorities: Morhof, _Polyhistor Literarius_; Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Graeca_; Idem, _Bibliotheca Latina Vetus_; Idem, _Bibliographia Antiquaria_; Idem, _Historia Bibliothecae suae_; Saxius, _Onomasticon Literarium_; Saldenus, _De Libris corumque usu et abusu_; Panzer, _Annales_; Renouard, _Annales des Aldes_; Cave's _Chartophylax_; Le Clerc, _Bibliothèque Universelle_; Idem, _Bibliothèque Choisie_; Bayle, _Dictionaire historique, &c._; the great French _Biographie Universelle_; Barbier, _Dictionaire des Anonymes et pseudonymes_; Cailleau, _Dictionaire bibliographique_; Harwood, _View of the Classics_; Adam Clarke, _Bibliographical Dictionary and Miscellany_; Dibdin, _Guide to the Classics_; Moss, _Classical Bibliography_; Dunlop, _Roman Literature_; Schoell, _Littérature Grecque_; Hartshorne, _Book rarities of the University of Cambridge_; Bent's _London Catalogues_; Idem, _Literary Advertiser_; Anthon's _Lempriere's Dictionary_; Watts's _Bibliotheca Britannica_; Lowndes's _Bibliographer's Manual_; but, much more than all, Brunet's excellent, exact, eminently useful _Manuel du Libraire_—a book which should be in the hands of every man attempting to pursue any thing like systematic study.

Editions of a series of Greek and Roman classics, 8vo. _cum notis selectis variorum_.

Achilles Tatius, (_Clitophon et Leucippe_) Heliodorus, (_Æthiopica_) Longus, (_Daphnis et Chloe_) et Xenophon, (_Ephesiaca_.) Bipont, 1792-4. Four parts in 3 vols. 8vo. 25 francs.

Ælian I would omit—both his _Historia Animalium_ and his _Variae Historiae_.

Æschines—in the Greek orators; which see.

Æschylus, _Tragædiae_, (à Schutz.) London: 1823, 5 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. 12_s_. 6_d_. It has the Scholia, and Schutz's Notes.

Æsop, _Fabulae_, Gr. et Lat. Leipsic: 1810, 8vo. Cum notis vario. et de Furia: accedunt dissertationes Tyrwhitt de Babrio, Huschkii de Archilocho, et Bentleii de Æsopo. There is a cotemporary, and perhaps more esteemed edition, by Coray, (Paris, 8vo.) but I should prefer the first, for the Accessus.

Agathemerus (_Geographia_) I would omit, till they publish the new edition of Scriptores Geographiæ Minores.

Alcæus, Fragmenta. Halæ: 1810—à Stange, 8vo. 5 francs.

Alciphron. I would omit his Epistles, or buy the cheap 8vo. edition of Utrecht, 1791. 3 to 4 francs.

Ammianus Marcellinus. Leipsic, 1773, 8vo. ab Ernesti. It is regarded as one of his best editions. There is an admirable Glossary to it. 13 shillings.

Ammonius _de adfinium vocabulorum differentia_, I would not have.

Anacreon, à Fischer. Leipsic, 1793, 8vo. fine paper. 16 to 18 francs.

Andronicus Rhodius, I would omit.

Anonymi Ravennatis _Geographia_, à Porcheron. Paris. 1688, 8vo. 4 to 5 francs.

Anthologia Græca, à Brunck et Jacobs et Paulsen, Leipsic, 1813-17, 4 vols. 8vo. 90 francs.

Antiphon, Andocides, &c. See Greek orators.

Antoninus Imperator, _Meditationes_, Græco—Lat. à Gattaker. Oxford, 1704, 8vo. The notes are short; it contains a few epistles, judged spurious—5 to 7 francs: or the Leipsic reprint of 1729, 8vo. 5 to 6 francs.

Antoninus Liberalis, _Transformationes_. Græc. Lat.—cum Munckeri notis, et Verheyk. Leyden, 1774, 8vo. 8 to 10 francs.

Aphtonius, _Progymnasmata_. I would omit him, unless I wished a rhetorical collection.

Apollodorus, _Bibliotheca_. Græc. Lat. à Heyne. Göttingen, 1803, 2 vols. 8vo. It is regarded as a mine of mythological learning. 24 francs.

Apollonius Dyscolus should be omitted.

Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, à Wellauer. Leipsig, 1828, 2 vols. 8vo.—or Brunck, Leipsig, 1810, 2 vols. 8vo. 20 francs.

{678} Apollonius Sophista, I would omit.

Appian Alexandrinus, _Historia_, à Schweighæuser. Lipsiæ, 1783-5, 3 large 8vos. to bind in 6: 54 francs. It is regarded as this commentator's best performance.

Apuleius, Opera. Bipont, 8vo. It stands next to the 4to. edition of Oudendorp & Rhunken. Leyden, 1786. The latter costs probably 40 to 50 francs.

Aratus, _Phaenomena_ and _Diosemia_, à Buhle. Lipsiæ, 1796-1808, 2 vols. 8vo. 23 francs.

Archilochus, _Reliquiae_, edente Liebel. Lipsiæ, 1812, 2 vols. 8vo. 13 francs.

Archimedes, I would omit, as having no literary value.

Aristides, _Orationes_,—among the orators.

Aristænetus, _Epistolae Eroticae_, Boissonade. Paris, 1822, 8vo.

Aristarchus. I would omit him, unless in a grammatical collection, or in a mathematical one.

Aristæus, _Historia LXX Interpretum_, I would omit, as supposititious, though curious for the discussion that it involves. Hodius's is the edition that contains it; and is also the best. Oxford, 1692, 8vo. 3 to 5 francs.

Aristophanes, _Comœdiae_, à Brunck. Oxford, 1810, 4 vols. 8vo. with Lexicon Aristophanicum of Sanxay, as 5th vol. (Oxford, 1811,) about 2_l_.

Aristotle, _Opera_, Buhle. Bipont, 1791-9, 5 vols. 8vo. contain the _Organon_, _Rhetorica_ and _Poetica_. The rest is not likely to be ever given: add, therefore,

Aristotelis _Ethica_, à Wilkinson, Oxford, 1818, 8vo. 9 frs.

Aristotelis _Politica et Economica_, Schneider. Oxford, 1810, 2 vols. 8vo. 18 frs.

Arrian, _Opera Omnia_, à Borheck, Lemgoviæ, 1792, 1811, 3 vols. 8vo. 18 frs. Or

Arrian, _Tactica_, _Periplus Euxini_, _Periplus Erythræi_, _de Venatione_, à Blancard. Amsterdam, 1683 or 1750, 8vo. 9 to 12 frs.

Arrian, _Expeditio_, _et Indica_, à Raphelio. Amsterdam, 1757, 8vo.

Artemidorus, _Oneirocritica_, I would omit, unless I formed a collection of the whole class of writers on Divination, &c.

Athenæus, _Deipnosophistae_, à Schweighæuser. Argentorati, 1801-7, 14 vols. 8vo. 188 frs.

Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticæ_, à Gronovio. Leyden, 1686 or 7, 8vo. 10 a 15 frs.

Ausonius. I would take him only in a collection: but if apart, the edition of Tollius. Amsterdam, 1671, 8vo. 15 frs.

Avianus, _Fabulae_, à Cannegieter. Amsterdam, 1731, 8vo. 8 a 12 frs.

Avienus. I would take him in the collection of _Poetae latini minores_ (Wernsdorf.)

Babrius. See Æsop.

Barclay. His _Argenis_ is often brought into this sort of collection. Leyden, 1664-9, 8 vols. 8vo. 10 to 15 frs.

Bion, Moschus and Theocritus. The beautiful edition from Bodoni's press, (Zamagna's version; no notes) 1792, 12 to 18 frs. Or, for use,

Valcknaer's excellent edition of 1781. Leyden, 8vo. 12 frs.

Boetius, _de Consolatione_, Bertii. Leyden, 1671, 8vo. 10 to 12 frs.

Cæsar, ab Oberlino. Lipsiæ, 1805, 8vo. 15 frs. papier fin.

Callimachus, Ernesti. Leyden, 1761, 8vo.

Calphurnius, _Eclogae_, I would omit, or get in a collection.

Martianus Capella. This is only worth attention as the first attempt in scholarship of Hugo Grotius, (then 15 years old.) Leyden, 1599, 8vo. It is worth from 20 to 30 francs, with portraits of the P. de Condé and Grotius: but much less, when wanting these.

Catullus, Tibullus èt Propertius. The best edition is Vulpius's, of which the entire set (4 vols. 4to.) is a dear book. In 8vo. the edition of Gabbema, Utrecht, 1659, (in Italics) is perhaps to be preferred. Price about 9 francs. That of Grævius (1680) is much dearer, and scarcely so good. There is a very good Bipont one, which has the fragments of Gallus and the _Pervigilium Veneris_, 1783, 8vo. It has, also, a good notitia Literaria; which forms, indeed, one of the good points common to many of the Deux-ponts books.

Celsus, I would omit, as also Censorinus, _de die natali_.

Chariton, _Chaerea et Callirhoe_, à Reiske. Lipsiæ, 1783, 8vo. 12 a 15 frs.

Chion, _Epistolae_, (à Hoffman), cum fragmentis Memnonis, ab Orélli. Lipsiæ, 1816, 8 vo. Their authenticity is examined by Hoffman.

Cicero, _Opera_. Of the 8vo. editions, Ernesti's, Halle, 1776-7, 5 in 8 vols. 8vo. (with E.'s Clavis), 60 to 80 frs. (best paper) is good. Shùtz's, Lipsiæ, 1814-18, 18 vols. 8vo. is perhaps still better, 100 frs. It has, in the last volume, a good Index latinitatis.

Le Clerc's. Paris, 1827, 35 vols. large 12mo. with French translation _en regard_, is the only edition that is by any means complete. It contains a preliminary discourse; Plutarch's life, translated; a supplement from Middleton's; a copious bibliography of editions. In the 34th and 35th volumes, it has the Apochrypha and Fragments—the Invective against Sallust, and Reply; Discourse to the people, before going into exile; Letter to Octavius; Treatises on the supposititious works. In the 35th volume are Fragments, with an account of the discoveries made among the Palimpsestes, since 1814, with conjectures towards the yet undiscovered works; Fragments of Speeches, Letters, Philosophical works, Poems, and the apochryphal de Consolatione, with an Introduction. It seems to me a very agreeable literary edition. How far it is a critical one, I have never seen any authoritative decision. Though much ampler than any other, it has not, of course, the parts of orations published about 1830, by Maius, in his Scriptores Classici e Codicibus Vaticanis.

To complete Ernesti's or Schùtz's, the Respublica and these fragments are, of course, necessary.

Claudian, à Gesner. Lipsiæ, 1759, 2 vols. 8vo. 15 to 18 frs. best paper. There is also an esteemed edition by Barthius, first published, with much applause, when he was less than 20 years old. Hannover, 1612, 8vo. This, however, was one of his riper works: for he published the Psalms translated into Latin verse, at 12; and at 16, a work on the method of reading the Latin authors, from Ennius downwards.

Cœlius Apicius, _De opsoniis et condimentis_, by Dr. Martin Lister. Amsterdam, 1709, 8vo. 8 a 12 frs.

Coluthus, _Raptus Helenae_. Not worth having; but if taken, the edition of Bekker. Berlin, 1816, 8vo. It is the best text, and has seven additional verses—which are not unimportant, in a poem of 380—unless the whole should chance to be of no merit, as in this case.

{679} Conon is of little importance, even as to mythology. He may be taken in Gale's collection—Scriptores antiqui Historiæ poeticæ.

Cornelius Nepos, à Fischero. Lipsiæ, 1806, 8vo. It is edited by Harles, and regarded as an excellent performance. In fine paper, 15 frs.

Corripus, I would omit—as also Demetrius Cydnus, and Demetrius Phalereus.

Curtius (Quintus), à Pitisco. Hague, 1708, 8vo. 15 a 20 frs.

Dares Phrygius. See Dictys Cretensis.

Demosthenes, may be taken in the collection of Greek Orators, by Reiske. Lipsiæ, 1770-5, 12 vols. 8vo. Isocrates alone is wanting, in this collection.

Dictys Cretensis is a forgery not worth having, except in mere illustration of the Chivalric Romances; of which it is largely the source. Take the edition à Perizonio, Amsterdam, 1702, 8vo. 15 to 18 frs. It includes Dares Phrygius.

Diodorus Siculus, à Wesselingio. Bipont, 1790-1806, 11 vols. 8vo. 108 frs. The 11th contains indexes. It has a good notitia literaria, Essay on the Sources, &c.

Diogenes Laertius à Longolio. Curiæ Regnit. 1739, 8vo. 18 a 24 frs.

Dion Cassius. There exists no 8vo. edition. That of Reimar, Hamburg, 1750, 2 vols. fol. 84 to 96 frs. is far the best. There is a late cheap one, by Schaefer. Lipsiæ, 1818, (Græce,) 4 vols. 18mo. 15 frs.

Dion Chrysostom. His Orations are published by Reiske, but without a Latin version. They match, in form and appearance, his Oratores Attici, 2 vols. 8vo. Lipsiæ, 1784 or 98. 25 frs.

Dionysius Alexandrinus, _Orbis descriptio_, à Wells. Oxford, 1704 or 9, 8vo. 6 a 9 frs.

Dionysius the Areopagite. Not now accounted authentic.

Dionysius Halicarnasseus, _Antiquitates, &c._ à Reiske. Lipsiæ, 1774, 6 vols. 8vo. 80 to 96 frs. The last volume (unfinished at R.'s death) is by Morus, as is the interesting life of Reiske.

Epictetus, _Enchiridion, fragmenta, et Dissertationes ab Arriano digestæ_, Schweighæuser. Lipsiæ, 1799, 4 vols. 8vo. 54 frs. Add the Commentary of Simplicius, by the same editor. Leipsig, 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. 27 francs. These form a dear, but the most valuable edition.

Epicurus, _Physica et Meteorologica_. I would omit these, as every thing else not having a literary value. We want the taste and the history of the ancients—not their science.

Eratosthenes and Euclid may be omitted, for the same reason. Of the latter, however, Van Loin's edition, Amsterdam, 1738, 8vo. 4 or 5 frs. or Baerman's, Leipsig, 1769, 8vo. 3 to 4 frs. is usually taken for such collections as this.

Euripides, _Tragœdiae_. Glasgow, 1820, 9 vols. 8vo. 7_l_. 17_s_. 6_d_. It has the Scholia and the entire notes of Barnes, Beckh, Brunck, Burney, Elmsley, Herman, Hoepfner, Markland, Monk, Musgrave, Porson, Seidler, Valcknaer, Wakefield, &c. as well as a copious index.

Eustathias, _Ismeniae et Ismenis Amores_, 8vo. Paris, 1618, ed. Gaulmin. They are now regarded as the production of Eumathes, a grammarian of the 14th century, not of the Scholiast. There should be 45 pp. of notes at the end of this edition.

Eutropius, à Verheyk. Leyden, 1762, 8vo. It has the Greek paraphrase of Pæanius, and the breviary of Sextus Rufus, with a very copious and judicious selection of notes, 12 a 16 frs.

Florus, _Breviarium_. Bipont, 1810, 8vo. 4 frs: a good edition.

Frontinus, I would omit, with the other Strategetics; or buy them all (the Latin ones) in the collection at the head of which stands Vegetius; whom _see_.

Fronto. The fragments of his Orations, published by Maius, (Milan, 1815, 2 vols. 8vo.) are, I fancy, too inconsiderable or disjointed to be worth having.

Gemistus Pletho, it is not worth while to have.

Geographiæ Veteris Scriptores Græci (Minores)—a valuable and necessary book, but too enormously dear to be purchased. A new edition has been long in expectation. The old (Oxford, 1698-1712, 4 vols. 8vo.) sells for no less than 80 to 100 dollars. It contains Hanno, Scylax, Agatharchides, Arrian, Nearchus, Heracleotes, Dicæarchus, Isidorus, Scymnus, Agathemerus, Various Excerpts, Anonymi expositio Mundi, Ptolemæi Arabia, Abulfedæ Chorasmia, Ejusdem Arabia, Excerpta varia, Dionysii Orbis Descriptio.

The Geoponici, I would omit.

Hecatæus of Abdera. Mere fragments.

—— of Miletus, in Creuzer's Historicorum Græcorum Vetustissimorum Fragmenta. Heidelberg, 1806, 8vo. They also include part of the preceding. The price I cannot ascertain.

Heliodorus. In the Scriptores Erotici. See Achilles Tatius.

Hellanicus. His fragments were published by Sturz. Leipsig, 1787, 8vo.

Hermogenes Sophista. His _Ars Rhetorica_ (Coloniæ, 1614, 8vo.) I would leave for a collection of another sort.

Herodian, à Ruddiman, 8vo. Edinburg, 1724, 4 frs.

Herodotus. Schweighæuser's, (Paris, 1816, 6 vols. 8vo.) is generally esteemed the best edition. 90 frs. A new and valuable edition (by Bähr) is in progress in Germany—the first volume already out. The Translation of Larcher, (Paris, 1802, 9 vols. 8vo.) has valuable geographical illustrations. There are, besides, those of Rennel and Niebuhr—the latter printed in an English translation, London, 1830, 8vo. The Lexicon Ionicum of Portus is likewise an important aid to the study of H. (Oxford, 1810, 8vo. 9 frs.)

Hesiod, à Loesnero. Lipsiæ, 1778, 8vo. 15 a 18 frs.

Hierocles, _Commentarii in Aurea Carmina_, à Warran. London, 1742, 8vo. 10 to 12 frs. The _Facetiæ_ passing under his name are usually esteemed supposititious. His _de Providentia et Fato_ are not sought for.

Himerius Sophista. His _Eclogæ et Declamationes_, may safely be omitted.

Hippocrates, I would also omit in this collection. If he be taken, the edition of Vander Linden, (Leyden, 1665, 2 vols. 8vo.) is the proper one, but is very dear; common copies of it selling at from 60 to 80 frs.

Historiæ Augustæ Scriptores, I would not embrace in this collection. Suetonius and Eutropius you will have already taken, in another form. Spartian, Julius Capitolinus, Elius Lampridius, Trebellius Pollio, and Vopiscus are without literary value. The 8vo. edition of Leyden (1671, 2 vols.) is both an indifferent and dear book. It sells for 27 to 36 francs; while the esteemed folio edition of Paris, 1620, by Salmasius, sells at from 8 to 10 frs.

{680} Historiæ Poeticæ Scriptores antiqui, à Gale—embracing Apollodorus, Conon, Ptolemæus, Parthenius, Antoninus Liberalis; with his Dissertatio de Scriptoribus Mythologicis—may be let alone. The single edition is that of Paris, 1675, 8vo., worth 15 to 24 frs. It sometimes is dated London, 1676.

Homer. Ernesti's (Lipsiæ, 1759, 5 vols. 8vo., or its beautiful and faithful reprint, by Foulis, Glasgow, 1814, 5 vols. 8vo.—the latter having also Wolf's prolegomena) is the best general edition, costing 100 francs in the first form, and 120 in the second. The edition of Wolf (Lipsiæ, 1804-7, 4 vols. 8vo. 20 francs) should also be possessed; nor is it possible to omit mentioning Heyne's very esteemed edition of the Iliad. Lipsiæ, 1802, 8 vols. 8vo.

Horace, à Gesner, cum notis Zeunii. Leipsic, 1788; or Glasgow, 1794, 8vo. 10 to 20 frs. Bentley's emendations and notes have no doubt done much towards the elucidation of Horace; but, as a commentary, Gesner's is certainly preferable. Bentley's edition, however, as reprinted at Leipsig, 1764, 2 vols. 8vo. (15 to 20 frs.) may be added to the forgoing.

Hyginus. I would omit him, with the other mythologues.

Isæi Orationes, in Reiske's Orators.

Isocrates, Orationes et Epistolæ, à Coray. Paris, 1807, 2 vols. 8vo. 21 frs. The notes, in modern Greek, are very valuable. A learned disquisition on the Greek education and tongue is prefixed.

Jamblichus may be fairly let alone with the mystagogues.

Josephus, à Havercamp et Hudson. Lipsiæ, 1782-5, 3 vols. 8vo. 80 francs. A volume of Commentary and Index was to have followed. I do not know if it has ever appeared.

Julian Apostate. His _Cæsares_ (Heusinger, Gotha, 1736, 8vo. 6 to 8 frs.) and his _In Constantii laude Oratio_ (Schæfer, Leipsig, 1802, 8vo. 7 frs.) may be taken.

St. Justin may be omitted in this collection.

Justinian, Corpus Juris Civilis, &c. omit.

Justin. Bipont edition, 1784, or Argentorati, 1802, 8vo. 5 frs. Very good and cheap edition, with a good notitia literaria.

Juvenal and Persius, cura Ruperti. Lipsiæ, 1801 or 1818, 2 vols. 8vo. 27 frs.

Lactantius is to be omitted, of course.

Libanius, as a sophist, not an orator, may be excluded.

Leonidæ (the two) should be taken only in the Anthology.

Livy, Recensuit Drachenborch, edidit Crevier. Oxford, 1822, 4 vols. 8vo. 1_l_. 18_s_.

Longinus. Toup's (Oxon, 1778, 8vo.) though not sufficiently correct in the typography, is the _Editio opt._ It is, however, of a form somewhat too large—royal 8vo. 8 to 10 frs.

Longus, _Daphnis et Chloe_. It should be taken in the Bipont Erotici Græci; though this wants Courier's restoration of the chasm of eight pages. The latter may be seen in one of the volumes of the Classical Journal. There can scarcely be said to be any edition that contains it: for Courier's (Rome, 1810, 8vo.) was printed for private distribution only—52 copies. It has the Greek text alone. The complete version (French) may be found in the works of Paul Louis Courier.

Lucan, _Pharsalia_. Take the Glasgow reprint of the Strawberry-hill edition, cum notis Grotii et Bentleii, cura posteriore Cumberland, 8vo. 1816, 18 frs.

Lucian, _Opera_. Hemsterhuy's edition, with Gesner and Reiske's notes, as reprinted at Deux-Ponts, 1789-91, 10 vols. 8vo. 80 to 100 francs, is no doubt the completest. There is, however, the excellent and much cheaper one of Schnieder. Halle, 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. 30 francs. It has no interpretation, but offers esteemed notes, and some valuable readings.

Lucilius. That of the Vulpii, Patavii, 1735, 8vo. is no doubt best. 4 to 6 francs.

Lucretius. Bentley and Wakefield's edition, in the Glasgow reprint of 1813, 4 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. It is beautifully printed by Bell, rivalling the Foulis.

Lycophron may fairly be left to the lovers of the unintelligible.

Lycurgus. Take him in Reiske's Orators.

Lysias. Also in Reiske's Orators.

Macrobius, _Opera_, à Vulpiis fratribus. Patavii, 1736, 8vo. 6 to 9 frs. The edition of Gronovius is more commonly taken (Leyden, 1670, 8vo.) but is dearer—18 to 24 francs.

Manilius. His _Astronomicon_ may be omitted, as striving in vain to make good poetry out of very bad astronomy.

Martial. The Bipont edition, 1784, 8vo. after the _variorum_ of Schrevelius. The Amsterdam (1701, 8vo.) after the Delphin Editor Collessus, is usually taken. But it is rather dear (about 20 francs); and has, besides, a villainous collection of the _loci obscœni_ into a sort of Cloaca, at the end. There are rare copies, in which the text is in its place; but they sell very high—50 francs or more.

Maximus Tyrius. His Platonism is of very little use.

Meleager. I would take his Epigrams, &c. in the Anthology.

Menander. Of his Fragments, Meineke's edition, Berlin, 1823, 8vo. is the best. The older one of Le Clerc—which gave occasion to that fierce literary war between Bentley, Gronovius, Burmann, De Pauw and others—is very defective; though hitherto usually employed.

Minucius Felix, as purely ecclesiastical, should be omitted.

Moschion. His _de Mulieribus_ we should, of course, exclude from any but a medical collection.

Musæus. His _Hero and Leander_ is best edited by Schræder. Leovardiæ, 1742, 8vo. 10 to 12 frs. That of Magdeburg (by Carpzovius) 8vo. 1775, is of some esteem. Its preface is curious.

The Mythographi Latini, collected by Muncker, (Amsterdam, 1681, 8vo. 12 to 18 frs.) consisting of Hyginus, Planciades Fulgentius, Lactantius Placidus, and Albricus Philosophus, may be omitted.

Nemesianus. His _Cynegetica, &c._ are given in that volume of Wernsdorf's Poetæ Lat. Minores, which contains the poems _de Venatione et Piscatu_, [the 1st.]

Nemesius, _de Natura Hominis_, may be omitted.

Nicander. His _Alexipharmics and Theriacs_ may be banished, with no great harm, among the medical writers.

Nicolaus Damascenus. The fragments of his _concinnated_ Universal History should have a place in a historical, but scarcely in a literary collection.

{681} Nonnus. His _Dionysiaca_ are not yet given in a good edition. There are two unfinished editions probably yet in progress, that began to appear at Heidelberg and Leipsig, in 1819. The first is by Moser, as yet of only the 6 books from the 8th to the 13th. The other, by Græfe, contains the first 24 books, 1 vol. the text alone.

Nonnius Marcellus is confined to grammatical subjects.

Julius Obsequens. His _de Prodigiis_ may be safely omitted.

Ocellus Lucanus. His Fragments are neither important, nor of a clear authenticity.

Oppian, _de Venatione et Piscatu_. If purchased, the best edition is that of Schnieder, Leipsig, 1813, 8vo. It should, however, when bought, be given to some genius vast enough to embrace both the arts of Industry and those of Indolence.

Oratores Græci, à Reiske. Lipsiæ, 1770, 8 vols. in 12, 8vo. It brings 220 francs, entire. The latter 6 volumes may sometimes be had separate; and these, united with the London re-edition of Reiske's Demosthenes [1822, 3 vols. 8vo.] and the Isocrates of Coray, give the proper series of Orators.

Orphæus, _Argonautica, &c._ cum notis variorum, àb Hermanno. Lipsiæ, 1805, 8vo. 20 francs. It contains the discussion as to the age and author of the Orphica; a dispute set on foot by Huet, whose opinion Valcknaer, Schnieder and Hermann have since maintained; while the genuineness of the Poems has been supported by Gesner, Ruhnken and some others.

Ovid. Burmann's is no doubt the best edition; but is in 4to. and high priced—8_l_. 8_s_. The best 8vo. edition, notis variorum, is that of Cnipping, Leyden, 1670, 3 vols. 45 frs.

Palæphatus. His _Incredibilia_ are only proper for a mythographic collection.

Palladius, _de Febribus_ may, of course, be omitted.

Rutilius Palladius, _de Re Rustica_, is in the collection Scriptores rei rusticæ.

Panegyrici Veteres [latini] à Iaeger. Nuremberg, 1778, 2 vols. 8vo. 14 frs. The Delphine edition [by de la Baune] is also much esteemed; and there is a London reprint, 1716, 8vo. That of Arntzenius, Utrecht, 1790-7, 2 vols. 4to. is the editio opt. 24 a 30 frs. The collection embraces 12 panegyrics—1 of Plinius Cæcilius; 2 of Claudius Mamertinus; 1 of another Claud Mam.; 5 of Eumenius; 1 of an unknown; 1 of Nazarius; 1 of Drœpanius.

Parthenius. Of his Erotic tales, Heyne's is the best edition. Gottingen, 1798, 8vo. 3 frs.

Paterculus. Ruhnken's edition, Leyden, 1789, 2 vols. 8vo. 18 to 24 francs, is best.

Pausanias. That of Facius is much the best. Lipsiæ, 1794-7, 4 vols. 8vo. 36 frs.

Pœdo Albinovanus. His _Elegies_ are in Wernsdorf's Poetæ; as is Severus's Ætna.

Persius. See Juvenal Ruperti.

Petronius, _Satyricon, &c._ à Hadrianide. Amsterdam, 1669, 8vo. with the _Fragmentum Traguriense_ 1671. It should also include _Sulpitiæ Satyra_, _Priapeia_, _Pervigilium Veneris_, _Statilii Apologia_, and an Index of 4 leaves. The whole costs 15 to 20 frs. Burmann's 4to. edition is the best. Amsterdam, 1743, 2 vols. 4to.

Phædrus, à Schwabio. Brunswick, 1806, 2 vols. 8vo. 16 francs, engravings. It has a life—an excellent notitia literaria—a dissertation on the age of Phædrus—another on the Fables of Gabriel Faernus—34 Fables è MSto. Divionensi—a copious Index; and supplenda. There are some castrated editions of Phædrus.

Phalaris, à Boyle. Oxon, 1718, 8vo. 7 frs. Though now regarded as certainly spurious, the epistles are worth having, for the sake of the literary controversy, and Bentley's masterly investigations on Phalaris, Æsop, &c. London, 1817, 8vo.

Philo Judæus may be left among the mystic and ecclesiastic writers.

Philo Byzantinus is of little worth, even in a geographical collection.

Philostratus. His _Life of Apollonius_, his _Heroica_, _Icones_, and _Lives of the Sophists_ may be all omitted. There is no uniform edition, except in folio. The 8vo. of Boissonade, Paris, 1806, is of the Heroica only.

Phlegon Trallianus. His fragments are of no value.

Phocylides. The fragments attributed to him are too slight and too uncertain to collected.

Photius. Of his Myriobiblon, there is no 8vo. edition.

Pindar, à Heyne. Göttingen, 1798-9, 3 vols. in 5, 8vo. 45 to 60 francs. It is the best. Its Leipsig copy of 1817, in 4 vols. 8vo. may be taken equally well.

Plato. The Bipont edition, 1781-8, 12 vols. 8vo. is certainly to be preferred. Besides its other auxiliaries, the discourse of Thiedman (in the 12th vol.) on the Philosophy of Plato, is highly valuable. It grows dearer every day; now worth probably 150 francs. Good editions have since been published by Bekker and Ast—the former reprinted in London, 11 vols. 8vo. 10_l_ It is well to mention the Translation into French, which Cousin is now publishing, and of which some 7 or 8 vols. have appeared.

Plautus, à Bothio. Berlin, 1804-11, 4 vols. 8vo.; the last occupied with notes. It offers a much emended text, and a metrical restoration—1_l_. 1_s_.

Plinius, _Historia Naturalis_, à Franzio. Lipsiæ, 1776-91, 10 vols. 8vo. This is the edition usually adopted for such a collection. It is, however, too copious, and wants taste. It would, perhaps, be well to abandon, in this instance, the 8vo. size, and take the beautiful and esteemed edition of Brotier, printed by Barbou, Paris, 1779, 6 vols. 12mo. Its price is about 45, and that of Franzius about 60 francs. It may be remarked, however, in regard to the latter, that its 10th vol. is made up of some curious Dissertations. It possesses, too, in the 1st, 2d, and 3d, various other auxilliary pieces of value.

Plinius the Younger. His _Panegyricus Trajani_ is in the collection, already indicated, of the Panegyrici Veteres Latini.

Plinius, Epistolæ, à Gierig. Lipsiæ, 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. 17 frs. The edition of 1806, by the same Editor, is still better, and includes the Panegyric. It is about the same price.

Plotinus, _de pulchritudine_, may be omitted, unless in forming a philosophical collection. It is the only one of his works published in an 8vo. form. Creusner, Heidelberg, 1814, 21 francs. It includes, besides Wyttenbach's notes, Anecdota Græca; Procli disputatio de unitate et pulchritudine; Nicephorus Nathaniel adversus Plotini de Anima; Lectiones plotinicæ.

Plutarch, _Vitæ_, à Coray. Paris, 1809-15, 6 vols. 8vo. 108 frs. It is the best edition of the Lives, Heeren's {682} dissertation “_de fontibus et auctoritate Vitarum par. Plutarchi_,” Göttingen, 1820, 8vo. is an indispensable critical adjunct to the Lives.

Plutarch, _Moralia_, à Wyttenbach. Oxon, 1795-1810, 13 vols. 8vo. 5_l_. 5_s_. It is reputed the best edited book that ever came from the classic press of Oxford—we might almost say, of England. It is the chef d'œuvre of Wyttenbach; having occupied 30 years of his life.

Poetæ Latini Minores, à Wernsdorf. Altemberg, 1780-98, 6 in 10 vols. 8vo. 72 frs. Far the best collection; including, besides those of Burmann's collection, many others: that is, it has Nemesianus and others, de aucupio, Venatione et piscatu; Nemeseani Laudes Herculis; Ausonii Mosella et de ostreis; the Idyllia et Bucolica of Calpurnius, of Sidonius Syracusanus, of Serverus Sanctus, Bede, Septimius Serenus; Ausonii Cupido Cruci affixus, Cassius Parmensis, &c. &c. These are the contents of the two first volumes only. The third contains the lesser Satyrists, with some Elegies and Lyrics: the fourth, Heroic Poems: the fifth, Geographic ones: the sixth, Agricultural and rural, with some amatory and convivial ones.

Poetæ Minores Græci, à Gaisford. Oxford, 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. 7_s_. It is much approved.

To these I would decidedly add the little collection of Pope, Selecta Poemata Itatorum qui latiné scripserunt. London, 1740, 2 vols. small 8vo. It is far the most charming body of Modern Latin Poetry that exists. Price, 10 to 12 francs. It embraces Eclogues, Odes, Elegies, and a Sylva, from Sannazaro, the Amalthei, Vida, Fracastoro, Politian, Jano Etrusco, the Strozzas, Ariosto, Sadolet, Buchanan, and others.

Polybius. Schweighæuser's, Leipsig, 1789-95, 7 in 9 vols. 8vo. is undoubtedly the best edition of this most important historian. It offers a very complete Apparatus to him. There are geographical and historical Indexes, and a Lexicon Polybianum. The Notes are excellent; the arrangements of the fragments, admirably luminous, according to Gibbon, who commends the whole performance very highly. It is thought least excellent, in the elucidation of the Achæan League. Price 120 francs. There is a Supplement, by Orellius, containing the Commentary of Æneas Tacticus. Leipsig, 1818, 8vo. 8 francs.

Polyænus. His _Strategemata_ do not come within the plan of this collection.

Pomponius Mela, Gronovii. Leyden, 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. 12 to 15 francs. That of Tzschuckius, Leipsig, 1807, 7 vols. 8vo. is usually said to be the best; but is entirely too bulky and too dear—108 frs.

Porphyrius. His _de Abstinentia ab esu animalium_ is the only one of his works printed in 8vo. except his Life of Pythagoras. He is, however, only fit to be passed over.

Proclus. His Platonic Commentaries, and his Astronomical works may all be omitted.

Propertius, Barthii, Lipsiæ, 1777, 8vo. 7 francs. That of Kuinoel, Leipsig, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo. 24 francs, were better, if it were smaller. Of the best, which is unquestionably the elegant one of Vulpius [Patavii, 1755, 2 vols. 4to.] there is no other impression. It is also a dear book—48 to 60 frs.

Prudentius should be omitted. He is below the age of either Poetry or Classical Latinity.

Psellus _de Lapidum Virtutibus_, _Synopsis Legum_, _de dæmone_, and his mathematical works may all be safely omitted.

Quintus Calaber. His _Prætermissa ab Homero_ are of too low an age, except for a collection intending to be absolutely complete.

Quintilian, à Spalding. Leipsig, 1798-1816, 4 vols. 8vo. and a 5th, in 1829, by Zumpt, containing supplemental notes and an Index: 55 a 60 francs, for the whole. It is much the best edition. It of course excludes, as spurious, the _Declamationes_, and the _de Claris Oratoribus_.

The Rei rusticæ Scriptores, I would exclude, except so far as embraced in the body of the works of their chief authors.

Rhetores Selecti Græci, edente Gale, Oxon, 1676, 8vo. worth 10 to 15 francs, is a collection worth having. It embraces Demetrius Phalereus, Tiberius, Anonymus Sophista, and Severus Alexander.

Of the Rhetores Latini, there is no 8vo. edition. There is a 4to. edition by Capperonnier, Argentorati, 1756, 8 to 10 frs. It embraces Rutilius Lupus, Aquila Romanus, Julius Rufianus, Curius Fortunatianus, and others.

Gale's two other collections—his Historiæ Poeticæ Scriptores antiqui [London, 1675, 8vo.] and his Opuscula Mythologica, Ethica et Physica [Amsterdam, 1688, 8vo.] may be taken or omitted, according to one's view. The latter [Gr. and Lat.] comprises Palephatus, Heraclitus, Phornutus, Sallustius Philosophus, Ocellus, Lucanus, Timæus, Locrus, Demophilus, Democratus, Secundus, Sextus Pythagoricus, Theophrastus, Heliodorus Larissæus, &c.

Sextus Ruffus. His _Breviarium_ and _de Regionibus Urbis_, are of little consequence.

Rutilius Numatianus. His _Itinerary_ is in Wernsdorf's Poetæ Lat. Minores.

Rutilius Lupus, _de figuris Sententiarum et Elocutionis_, is proper only to a Rhetorical collection. It has been edited by Rhunken, along with Aquila Romanus and Julius Rufianus. Leyden, 1768, 8vo. 7 to 10 frs.

Sallust, à Krotscher, Lipsiæ, 1825, 8vo. Its price I cannot ascertain. Gronovius's, Leyden, 1690, 8vo. is likewise good, but somewhat dear—18 francs. The 4to. edition of Havercamp, Amsterdam, 1742, is much approved, but somewhat overloaded with Commentary. That of Wasse [Cambridge, 1710, 4to.] is excellent, 10 to 15 frs.

Sappho. See below.

Scribonius Largus. His _Compositiones Medicæ_, [Pharmacy] are in very bad Latin, besides being out of our range.

Scriptores Antiqui Parabilium Medicamentorum, ab Ackermanno, is another collection of the same sort—to be, therefore, passed over.

Scriptores Erotici Græci. See Achilles Tatius &c.

Scriptores Physiognomoniæ Veteres, à Franzio, may also be omitted.

Secundus [Joannes.] His _Basia_ and _Epithilamia_ are elegant and pure enough to enter into a collection of classic Latin poets. There is an 8vo. edition, Warrington, 1776. I do not know its present price.

Sedulius. His _Carmen Paschale_ has no merit but that of orthodoxy; which, in poetry, is no great affair.

Sappho. The last edition [that of Vogler, Leipsig, 1810, 8vo. 6 frs.] is said to be without criticism, though {683} surcharged with notes. It is better, therefore, to take Wolff's 4to. one, Hamburg, 1733, 12 to 15 francs, joining to it his

Poetriarum [Græcarum] Octo fragmenta, Hamburg, 1734, 4to. 12 to 15 francs. It contains the remains of Erinna, Miro, Mirtis, Corinna, Telesilla, Praxilla, Nossis and Anyta—the eight who, with Sappho, make those usually known as the Greek Muses. There is a third collection of Wolff, _Mulierum Græcarum quæ oratione prosa usæ sunt, fragmenta_. Gottingen, 1739, 4to. 12 to 15 francs. It forms, with the two preceding, an interesting series.

Seneca. The Elzevir edition [by Gronovius] Amsterdam, 1672, 3 vols. 8vo. is most esteemed, but is become too dear—60 to 80 frs. The later one of Ruhkopf, Leipsig, 1797-1811, 8vo. 5 vols. 1_l_. 16_s_. is regarded as very excellent.

Severus [Sulpitius.] His _Historia Sacra_ is of too low an age.

Silius Italicus, Ruperti, Gottingen, 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. is the best edition, 18 frs. The Preface is by Heyne.

Sophocles. London, 1819, 3 vols. 8vo. 1_l_ 8_s_. It is a reimpression of Brunck's, with the Scholia; Fragments; a Lexicon Sophocleum; an Index; Excerpts from the Variæ lectiones of Erfurt's edition; some inedited notes of Charles Burney; the Scholia of Demetrius Triclinius, &c.

Statius. That of Veerhusen, Leyden, 1671, 8vo. has been the most esteemed, but is very dear—30 frs. Lemaire published a very excellent edition in Paris, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo. Its price I cannot ascertain, but it is probably 12 francs per volume—the usual rate of his collection of classics.

Stobæus, _Eclogæ ethicæ et physicæ_, à Heeren. Gottingen, 1792, 2 in 4 vols. 8vo. 30 francs.

Stobæus, _Florilegium_ by Gaisford, Oxford, 1822, 4 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. 8_s_.

Strabo. That of Siebenkees and Tzschucke [Leipsig, 1796-1818, 7 vols. 8vo. 108 francs] is usually preferred. Corey, however, published at Paris, 1816-19, in 4 vols. 8vo. an excellent edition, with much improved readings, and a very judicious commentary. It has no Latin Version. 54 francs. This may be said to be part of that excellent performance of Coray and du Theil, the French translation of Strabo; of which the notes and dissertations offer such important illustrations of the Geographer.

Strato. His _Epigrams_ are in the Greek Anthology. See Anthologia.

Suetonius, à Wolf. Lipsiæ, 1802, 4 vols. 8vo. 36 francs. It has the notes of Casaubon and Ernesti; the _Ancyran Monument_, and the _Fasti Prænestini_. There are also many notes of Ruhnken.

Synesius. His _Hymni_, _Epistolæ_, _de Insomniis_ and _de Febribus_ may all be passed over.

Tacitus. I should prefer the Commentary of Brotier to all others. The original edition, [4to. Paris, 1771, 4 vols.] is scarce and dear. Valpy has reprinted it very handsomely, London, 1812, 5 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. 18_s_. To Broitier's notes he has added a selection of others, and the inedited annotations of Porson. There is a very excellent edition, remarkable as a monument of feminine scholarship, by Mrs. Grierson, Dublin, 1730, 3 vols. 8vo. 1_l_. 18_s_.

Tatian. His _Oratio ad Græcos_ might be passed over, were it not that, in this Temperance Society age, it is well to commemorate the sole surviving production of him who was the first to forbid the use of wine in the Eucharist.

Terentianus Maurus may be passed by, or taken in some grammatical collection.

Terence. Zeunius's is the best edition; accurate, but very ugly, in the original impression. There is a very handsome, but less correct London reprint, 1820, 2 vols. 8vo. retaining the Notes and Subsidiæ of Z. It adds a selection from other annotators. 1_l_. 11_s_. 6_d_.

Tertullian, we may, of course, pass over.

Theocritus is given in Gaisford's Poetæ Minores Græci.

Theodorus Prodromus. His _Rhodanthe et Dosicles_ is regarded as one of the poorest of the Greek romances.

Theodosius _de Sphera_, we will, of course, pass over.

Theognis. His _Sententiæ_, with those of the other Greek Gnomic poets, should be taken in Brunck's collection—the new edition, Leipsig, 1817, 8vo. 10 frs.

Theophrastus. His _Characters_ alone come within our plan. Of these, the best edition is that of Ast, Leipsig, 1816, 8vo.

Thucydides. The Bipont edition, 1788-9, 6 vols. 8vo. is most in request. It is formed upon that of Wass and Dukker, with annotations by the Bipont Society—75 francs. There are later editions, by Hackius & Bekker, of which I can ascertain every thing except the critical merit: the former, London, 1823, 3 vols. 8vo. 1_l_. 11_s_. 6_d_. the latter, Oxford, 1821, 4 vols. 8vo. 2_l_. 12_s_. 6_d_.

Tiberius Rhetor. See Rhetores Selecti Græci, à Gale.

Tibullus. Heyne's edition, as revised by Wunderlich, Leipsig, 1816-17, 2 vols. 8vo. 25 francs, is the best.

Tryphiodorus. His _Ilii Excidium_ may be passed over.

Tyrtæus. His remains are found in the Anthology of Brunck.

Valerius Flaccus. The edition of Harles, Altenburg. 8vo. above 1300 pp. is accounted the best. It is founded on Burmann's. 20 frs.

Valerius Maximus. Kappius's, Lipsiæ, 1782, 8vo. 9 francs, is unquestionably the best edition.

Varro. I would take the edition of Henry Stephens, Paris, 1573 or 1581, small 8vo. 9 to 15 francs. The Durdrecht edition, 1619, may have some advantage over it: but I would take the other, merely as a specimen of the Stephens press. It is also cheaper.

Verrius Flaccus, and his abreviator Pompeius Festus may be passed by, unless in a grammatical collection. He is also the supposed author of the Fasti Prænestini.

Vibius Sequester, _de fluminibus_, is of little importance.

Aurelius Victor. The edition of Pitiscus, Utrecht, 1696, 8vo. 12 a 18 francs, is the best for our purpose.

Virgil. Heyne's edition is esteemed, on all hands, the chef-d'œuvre of all classical criticism. The Leipsig reprint of 1800, 6 vols. large 8vo. 130 francs, is the best. It is adorned with 204 very agreeable vignettes, and is every way a beautiful book. Lemaire was to have reproduced it, with additional notes, in his Bibliotheque des Auteurs classiques latins. Four vols. had appeared some time ago. There is also a very handsome reprint by Priestley, London, 1821, 4 vols. 8vo. 4_l_. 4_s_. As a {684} critical adjunct to Virgil, Uraini's Virgilius Collatione Scriptorum Græcorum illustratus, may be taken. Leovardæ, 1747, 8vo. 8 to 10 frs.

Vitruvius. If he be taken, the edition of Schnieder, Leipsig, 1807-8, 3 vols. 8vo. 45 francs.

Xenocrates the Physician. His _de alimento ex aquatilibus_ may be omitted.

Xenophon. Schnieder's edition of Leipsig, 1800, reprinted at Oxford, 1812, 6 vols. 8vo. is certainly the best.

Zosimus. Reittemeier's edition of his _Historiæ_, Leipsig, 1784, 8vo. is reputed the best—10 frs.

E. W. J.

_S. C. College_.

TRIBUTARY STANZAS

_To a young officer of the United States Navy, lost at sea._

BY HENRY THOMPSON.

I shed the warm tear still for thee, Friend of boyhood infancy; And memory delights to view The sunny haunts our childhood knew. Thy form in midnight's hallow'd sleep Comes back, its promis'd vow to keep; But ah! too soon the visions end That image thee! my boyhood friend. Long I've wept for thee in sorrow! Long I've vainly striv'd to borrow The thought that life doth still remain To bring thee back to me again. And years have fled away with me, Since thou wert shrouded in the sea; Since thou wert laid beneath the foam You lov'd to call your only home. And thou art now beneath its breast, In the deep coral grave of rest; And long the wave will kiss the shore That thou wilt visit—never more! But when from the deep, rocky bed The sea gives up its mighty dead, We'll meet where ocean cannot part The feeling and the faithful heart. Till then, sleep on in thy ocean grave, And long I'll love the murm'ring wave Because it comes from the distant sea, To whisper something still of thee!

_Alabama, Oct. 1836_.

RIGHT OF INSTRUCTION.

Hulc legi nec abrogari fas est, neque derogari ex hac aliquid licet, neque tota abrogari potest: nec vero aut per senatum aut per populum solui hac lege possumus: neque est quaerendus explanator aut interpres eius alias; nec erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis; alia nunc, alia posthac; sed et omnes gentes (nostri Reipublicæ) et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis continebit. _De Republica_.

Si a jure decedus, vagus eris, et erunt omnia omnibus incerta. _Coke_.

Rerum ordo confunditur si unicuique jurisdictio non servetur. _Id: Proem 4th Institute_.

A disposition to conclude my side of this subject in a single essay, caused me to obtrude myself at an unreasonable length upon the readers of the Messenger, in the last number. Nothing could have induced me to trespass again, but the introduction of new matter by JUDGE HOPKINSON, which requires consideration even more imperiously than his first letter, both from its intrinsic importance, and the respect due to his more deliberate investigation; and the belief that, though but the ghost of a champion against an accomplished knight, my previous occupancy may keep more worthy combatants from the field.

The Judge reiterates again and again his singular idea of the _novelty_ of our doctrines. He says “politicians of a later date are its authors. It was unknown to those who made the Constitution—as well as to those writers and speakers who afterwards attacked and defended it.” To support this idea, he refers freely to _the secret proceedings and debates of the Convention_ by CHIEF JUSTICE YATES, and LUTHER MARTIN'S communication to the Maryland Legislature.

After the long digression in his first article against the impropriety of inferring opinions from the, comparatively, elaborate debates of the State Conventions, it is a little surprising to find such vast premises sustained only by scraps and fibres torn from MR. YATES'S maimed and meagre skeleton of debates. But to answer we must follow him.

No body of men ever encountered successfully greater difficulties than the Federal Convention. Nothing but a stern conviction of the necessity of doing _something_ prevented a dissolution without effecting _anything_. Federalism and Nationalism, Democracy and Aristocracy, Monarchy and Republicanism, and every combination, of all, had to be reconciled in one uniform system. The fears entertained by the small states of the large ones had to be allayed, and the fears of all the ultra-state-rights-men, had to be satisfied of their safety from the strangling grasp of the federal arm. At the same time the party had to be satisfied which demanded more of their due weight for the large states than they possessed under the confederation, and the national government-men who demanded sufficient strength and perfection in the form of the federal government to enable it to act independently of state action, and even in spite of it. Our government is a happy compromise of these conflicting interests. MR. MADISON was in favor of a national government, perfect within its own sphere, leaving the state governments only to manage their local concerns, but with no power to interfere with the operations of the United States' government. LUTHER MARTIN was in favor of equality and mere federation of the states, and conducting the federal government by _states_, and not its _independent_ action.

The principles of the first set of resolutions, appear to have met MR. MADISON'S views, and were probably written by him, or with him, though offered by GOVERNOR RANDOLPH, who “candidly confessed that they were not intended for a _federal_ government,—he meant a strong _consolidated_ union, in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated.”

This is the system of government to which the Judge refers us, as containing the idea, in the fourth resolution, that senators ought “to hold their offices for a term sufficient to insure their independence, namely, seven years,” and that they ought to be “ineligible to state or federal office _during their term of service_.” This resolution was written with the avowed object of {685} keeping the state governments from interfering in any way,—even by the allurements of office,—with an officer who was designed to be an intrinsic part of an entirely separate consolidated general government; and the _rejection_ of that very system and the reasons assigned for it in the debates, prove, beyond doubt, that the objection to it was because it left the states, _as states_, and their governments and sovereignty, without representation, and of course without protection. The Judge quotes a _rejected_ clause, to prove the _adoption_ of its principles!

MR. MADISON was opposed to the amendment. He did not wish to leave the state legislatures this modicum of federal power, because he wished a distinct and _independent_ government. He must have foreseen the exercise of instructions and recognized the right; or he could not have used the expressions which fell from him when the right of election was given to state legislatures. All who knew MR. MADISON, or are at all familiar with his history, and his writings on the formation of the constitution, must remember that he was haunted and hag-ridden by a terror of disunion; and federal weakness, which, to us, at the present day, would seem almost a monomania, if recent startling events had not fearfully proven that this phantom is ever armed and ready to assume a tangible shape, and realize, in practice, those terrible consequences which his second-sighted sagacity could so manifestly mark in the dim picture of the future. His fear of the state legislatures led him to favor GOVERNOR RANDOLPH'S proposition,—which was to have the senators selected by the house of representatives, out of a certain number of persons nominated by the state legislatures. This would have adroitly used the best possible body for judicious nomination, without giving it the power of appointment. Without representation, they would have been without the right of instruction, and the election being made by the house of representatives, the constitution of the senate would have had another _national_ feature, and its members been removed as far as practicable from state influence.

When the first and fatal blow was stricken at this system by giving the election to the Legislatures, MR. MADISON'S hopes of a national government, entirely distinct and independent of state governments, were at once prostrated. Then he used the language quoted by Judge H. “We are proceeding in the same manner that was done when the confederation was first formed. Its original draft was excellent, but in its progress to completion it became so insufficient as to give rise to the present convention. By the vote already taken, will not the temper of the state legislatures transfuse itself into the senate? Do we create a free government?”

Our distinguished opponent asks what would he have said, had he known that a right of instruction would be claimed? He could have said no more—indeed he could not have used so much force without knowing it. How else can the _temper_ transfuse itself? Is it only by an election every _six years_, leaving the senators independent in the interval? Would not the legislative _nominations_ have _transfused the temper_ quite as effectually? The legislatures would only have nominated those who concurred in sentiment with a majority of their members; and all that the house of representatives would have done would have been to elect the most moderate, if they differed, and the most violent if they agreed with the state legislature. The difference between the two modes, as to the transfusion of temper, was almost nothing without instructions, but very great with it; and as Mr. M. seemed to think the amendment almost annihilated his scheme, we must suppose he objected more to the incidental right of instruction given by the vote, than the principal right of election from which it flowed. Notwithstanding Mr. M.'s strenuous opposition, the change was made by a vote of _nine states to two_—thus evincing a decided determination in that body to enable the states to defend themselves, and _transfuse their temper_ if necessary. Judge H. tortures Mr. M.'s objections to the new system into an evidence of ignorance of one of the most important consequences of that system, without a knowledge of which, his reasons would have been of little force, and his fears utterly without foundation.

The clauses which the Judge quotes in the fourth resolution, were left in their original form by the advocates of state power, in the first consideration in committee, being satisfied with their great gain in the mode of election; but they were afterwards stricken out, being a part of the scheme which had been rejected, and inconsistent with the spirit of the amended resolution. The proposal and subsequent rejection of the express terms of senatorial _independence_, prove that the convention disapproved of the idea; but Judge H. quotes it as evidence of “an intention to make the senators equally independent of the several states and of the United States.”

The objections of LUTHER MARTIN to the _possibility_ of senators doing their own will instead of that of their states, modern times have proven to be too well founded, but his opinions upon that subject being analogous to those of PATRICK HENRY, I refer to my last number for the answer. He does not yield the right, but complains of the power of senators to disobey, without being punished. He does not say, as the Judge supposes, “that senators are _not_, precisely what the advocates of instructions say they _are_,” but that they _may do_, precisely what we say they _ought not_. He is directly opposed to MR. MADISON, and fears the senators may stop that transfusion of temper, which the latter thought they could not legitimately stop. MR. MARTIN would not have objected to this system, if senators had been elected for shorter terms, and paid by the states, and subject to recall, because then he would have thought them sufficiently dependent on their states. But none of these would have given the state any control over them except by _instructions_.

MR. WILSON was with MR. MADISON and GOVERNOR RANDOLPH, opposed to the election of Senators by state legislatures. Because he thought they ought “_to lay aside their state connections and act for the general good of the whole,_” and that the general government ought not “to be comprised of an assemblage of different state governments.” Mr. W. wished senators elected by _districts_. He wanted an _independent_ national government, and thought the laying aside state connections incompatible with legislative elections, and that this mode would make the general government an assemblage of different state governments. He wished the senators to be by a DIFFERENT CONSTITUTION, precisely what Judge H. contends they NOW ARE, and Mr. W. contended that they could not be by our present {686} system. Yet he is quoted to prove that under this constitution “the senators for each become the senators of all,” and that “the senators from Virginia become as independent of her as those of Massachusetts.” If Mr. W. thought so, he was arguing against himself. Nothing but instructions could possibly make the senate an assemblage of different state governments; and the doctrine of the senators from each state loosing their connection and becoming senators for all, made it the reverse, and a senate as strictly national and independent as Mr. W. could wish. The defeat of MR. WILSON proves that the convention did _not_ wish senators to lay aside state connections, and _did_ wish the senate to be an assemblage of state governments; and the reasoning of himself and his party proves that they thought such would be the operation of the present system if adopted. Thus we have the evidence of both majority and minority—the whole convention—against the opinions of JUDGE HOPKINSON, and his coadjutors of the present day.

MR. ELSWORTH wished the senate to have “_wisdom_ and _firmness_, as a protection against the hasty and inconsiderate proceedings of the _first branch_;” and yet he wished an election by the legislatures. This speech was in opposition to MR. WILSON'S motion for the people to elect by districts. If he had wished the wisdom and firmness as a protection from the “wild and inconsiderate democracy of the state legislatures,” as the modern doctrines contend, would he have preferred that body as electors?

MR. MASON said, on the same proposition, “It is equally necessary to preserve the state governments, as they ought to have the _means of self defence_. On the motion of MR. WILSON _the only means they ought to have would be destroyed_.” On the debate as to _equality_ of votes in the senate, a similar contest arose, with a similar result. In that debate JUDGE ELSWORTH remarks, “If the larger states seek security, they have it fully in the first branch of the general government. Small states must possess the power of _self-defence or be ruined_. Will any one say there is _no diversity of interests in the states_? And if there is, should not those interests be _guarded_ and _secured_? But if there is none, then the large states have nothing to _apprehend_ from an equality of rights.” This is all utterly inconsistent with the idea of the “senator for one being the senator for all,” so far as to set the interests and wishes of his own state at defiance. The states-rights-men, and the small states obtained this protection and security after an arduous and manly struggle—are they to lose it by construction and recreancy of representatives? It may be to the interest, perhaps, of the large states for a time, to establish this doctrine, but it would speedily swallow all in the federal Maelstrom. If, for instance, Pennsylvania should ever wish a national bank, it might be agreeable to turn the voices of New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island in opposition to the deliberate will of those states, by persuading their senators that they were senators for the union and not of those little states, and that the interest of Pennsylvania ought to be considered before that of their diminutive states. But it would be very unpleasant for her own senators to tell Pennsylvania, in spite of instructions, we voted money for a steamboat canal from the Ohio to Baltimore, because it would benefit all the western country, and we are senators for all.

After the vote was carried in favor of the legislative elections, GOVERNOR RANDOLPH moved to strike out the term of _seven years_, and make the senators go out in classes, as that body might possibly always sit, “perhaps, to aid the executive.” “The state governments will always attempt to counteract the general government.” Requiring that _body_, as a body, to act with _firmness_, does not imply the duty of a senator to resist his own state. The arrangement of _classes_ shows what is meant. That arrangement gave no facilities for disobedience to instructions, and hence could not contribute to their _firmness_ in that sense. But the arrangement in classes leaves the senate always ready to act—“it might possibly always sit”—“to aid the executive”—to act perhaps against a state which was attempting to counteract the general government, and the term of whose senators had expired, and which had refused to elect others. If all the senators had gone out at the same time there would have been none to act. GOVERNOR RANDOLPH had tried to make the _individual senators independent of their states_. Failing in this, he now tried to make the _body_ as firm and strongly permanent as he could, by not allowing all to go out at the same time. If his object had been thus to defeat the previous vote, and render the senators independent, his amendment would have been rejected. A similar struggle was again raised upon the question of paying the senators, the length of their term, and a power of recall, but the friends of the states, and federative principles yielded these minor points, believing themselves secure in the elections and instructions and equality of votes in the senate. The leaving the pay of senators to depend upon the states, was making the federal _government_ too degradingly dependent upon the states. Not to have power to pay its own officers, would have left it almost as powerless as the old confederation, and it was thought, too, that it would lead to federal corruption, and thus defeat its own object, by making senators look exclusively to the federal government for honor and emolument. This would have been an awkward and humiliating check upon the body, without giving much control over its members. The example of unpaid parliaments was quoted with effect. We learn, then, from the debates, that the convention meant the states to act _as states_ in the senate, in all respects as they had done under the confederation, except that the senator had power to make a law instead of a treaty, and his action was final without a subsequent ratification by his state. They never meant to change, in any degree, the state power of directing him.

The national-government-men contended that the states would have too much power—the states-rights-men that they would have just enough for protection—the ultra states-rights-men that they would not be sufficiently protected, because there was no means of controlling a wilful senator. Without the right of instruction their disputes amount to nothing. The first class ought to have been satisfied, for they lost nothing; the second class ought to have seceded as they threatened, for they gained nothing; and the third class was guilty of the folly of asking a remedy for the violation of a right which did not exist. They were all mistaken—all wrong, and ignorant of what they asked and what they accepted, and we of the present day can see their errors! There is nothing new under the sun. The {687} question we now discuss is the same under a new name which was discussed in the convention. A question of _power_ between states and general government and large and small states. What was lost in constituting is to be regained by construction. What _states_ refused to give up, is to be cozened out of their _agents_. In all the conventions however, our misguided ancestors considered the senate as the last remnant of the federative features of the old government, and that senators represented distinct sovereignties, and were on the footing of ambassadors or the members of the old congress as to their constituents, and only legislators as to the general government.[1]

[Footnote 1: Of this, abundant evidence may be adduced. _Mr. Ames_, in the Massachusetts convention, assigned the ambassadorial character of senators as a reason for the length of their term.

“The senators represent the _sovereignty_ of the states; in the other house individuals are represented. The senate may not originate bills. It need not be said that they are principally to direct the affairs of war and treaties. They are in the quality of _ambassadors_ of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the _state legislature_ less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper.

“But whom in that case would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the constitution. What would become of the _state governments_, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which it is conceded would subvert the new constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes and feelings and local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the constitution—they will protract the period of our liberties—they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.

“A very effectual check upon the power of the senate is provided. A third part is to retire from office every two years. By this means, while the senators are seated for six years they are admonished of their _responsibility to the state legislatures_. If one third new members are introduced, who feel the sentiments of their states, they will awe that third whose term will be near expiring. This article seems to be an excellence of the constitution, and affords just ground to believe that it will be in practice, as in theory, a _federal_ republic.”

The remarks of Mr. King in the _same convention_, upon the same subject, lead irresistibly to this conclusion, although it was attempted to be reasoned away by Judge H. in his first letter—“The senators,” said Mr. K. “will have a _powerful check_, in those men who wish for their seats, who will _watch_ their whole conduct in the general government, and will _give the alarm_ in case of misbehavior.” (This is one distinct check and Mr. K. proceeds.) “And the _state legislatures_, if they find _their delegates_ erring, can and will _instruct them. Will not this be a check?_ When they hear the voice of the people _solemnly dictating_ to them _their duty_, they will be bold men indeed to act _contrary to it_.” (This makes obedience a _duty_, and the boldness and hardihood not of that virtuous kind which the Judge supposes.) “These will not be instructions sent them in a private letter, which can be put in their pockets; they will be public instructions, which all the country will see; and they will be hardy men indeed to violate them.” (This seems to suppose meanness enough to violate secret instructions, but not audacity enough to violate them in the face of day.) “The honorable gentleman said, _the power to control the senate is as great as ever was enjoyed in any government;_ and that the members thereof will be found _not to be chosen for too long a time_. They are, says he, to assist the executive in the designation and appointment of officers; and they ought to have time to mature their judgment. If for a shorter period, how can they be acquainted with the rights and interests of nations, so as to _form advantageous treaties_?” If this is not our doctrine in full, we give it up. Here is length of term advocated, not to strengthen in disobedience, but to _mature judgment as to officers_, and _acquire information as to treaties_; but as to legislative proceedings, “if they are found erring, instruct them.” Instructions are given as the remedy for a term _too long_ for _legislators_, but necessary to enable them to execute properly their executive duties.

A similar view was taken by _Mr. Parsons_ of _Newburyport_, who thought “suitable checks had been provided to prevent an abuse of power, and to continue _their dependance on their constituents_.” _Mr. Neal_ asks, “If we should ratify the constitution and _instruct_ our first members to congress, &c. &c., is there not the highest probability that every thing which we wish may be effectually secured?” _Mr. Symmes_ finally withdrew his opposition, and would, “especially as the amendments were to be a _standing instruction_ to their _delegates_, until they were obtained, give it his unreserved assent.”

So in the _New York convention, Mr. Hamilton_ says, “It will be the interest of the large _states_ to increase the representation. This will be the _standing instruction_ to their delegates.” He then argues at length to prove that the will of the people must prevail over that of the members of congress, and thus speaks: “If the general voice of the people be for an increase, it undoubtedly must take place. They have it in their power _to instruct their representatives_; and the state legislatures, _which appoint the senators_, may _enjoin_ it also upon them.”

In the same convention, _Mr. Jay_ says, “The senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures: they will certainly choose those who are most distinguished for their general knowledge; I presume they will also _instruct them_; that there will be a _constant correspondence_ supported between the senators and the _state executive_, who will be able, from time to time, to afford them all that particular information which particular circumstances may require.” He seems to have considered senators in the light of _ambassadors_, and never to have contemplated the contingency of a state executive's refusing to send instructions to senators!

There was an attempt made in this convention to carry an amendment, making senators ineligible for more than six years in a term of twelve, and subjecting them to a power of recall, but it was negatived—its opponents alleging that the _states_ had as much power of _control_ as any constituents ought to have, or as the _people_ had in the other house, and that to render senators ineligible a second term would be highly impolitic—excluding useful and experienced citizens from office.

In the convention of _North Carolina, Mr. Davie_, in giving the reasons for the introduction of a vice president, says: “It was owing with other reasons, to the _jealousy_ of the _states_, and particularly to the extreme jealousy of the _lesser states_, of the power and influence of the larger members of the confederacy. It was in the senate that the several political interests of the _states_ were to be preserved, and where all their powers were to be perfectly balanced.” Hence, he concludes, the _casting vote_ ought to be in the hands of a man, possessing the confidence of all the states in a great degree, and responsible to no particular one.

In the _convention of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wilson_, in answer to the fears of some as to the _independence of senators_, says: “In the system before you, the senators, sir, those _tyrants that are to_ devour the legislatures of the states, are to be _chosen by the state legislatures themselves. Need any thing more be said on this subject?_ So far is the principle of each _state's retaining_ the power of self-preservation, from being weakened or endangered by the general government, that the convention went further, perhaps, than was strictly proper, in order to secure it; for in this second branch of the legislature, _each state_, without regard to its importance, is entitled to an _equal vote_.” Further on, he says: “The truth is, and it is a leading principle in this system, _that not the states only_, but _the people_ also shall be here represented.” Again: “_States_ now exist and others will come into existence; it was thought proper that they should be _represented_ in the general government.”

Such were the opinions of those who “assisted in framing the government;” but the idea now is, that senators _represent_ and protect, not their own states, but the whole union, even in opposition to the interest or safety, and expressed wishes of their states.]

One remark of Judge H. will finish our consideration of this portion of his letter. “This (right of instruction) {688} is practically to give the legislatures a power to recall their senators, as instructions may always be given, which _must be disobeyed by an honest man_.” Such could not be given by an _honest man_. This supposes a _majority_ of each legislature always dishonest, and ready to pass dishonest instructions, not to effect legislation, but merely to eject an _honest_ senator. What could induce this? only _one_ could take the place, and the rest must be prostrated, unless the people too be dishonest. A new election would place honest men in power, _they_ would give honest instructions to the dishonest senator, and by our rule he must obey and honest measures prevail, or give place to an honest man. So that the rule is likely to work as much good as harm in any contingency, unless honest men are necessarily corrupt state legislators, or a dishonest man an honest senator, or the _people_ thoroughly corrupt. If the latter is true, unless we could find an honest king, we must be content with a corrupt government.

In his former letter the Judge complained that there was no mention of this right in the constitution,[2] and now declares that “not a syllable can be found any where from any body which hints at this right.” I trust this popular periodical now bears many syllables from high authority having an “awful squinting” that way, and visible to the naked eye. But there is still higher evidence, not only of the knowledge of this right by our ancestors, but of the high value and sanctity of it in their estimation. It was incorporated into the first Virginia bill of rights, thence copied _verbatim_ by the Virginia convention on the federal constitution, in a bill of rights which that body proposed to attach to the federal constitution, and copied again _verbatim_ in the recommendations of amendments by the _North Carolina_ convention on the constitution.[3]

[Footnote 2: _Mr. Bowdoin_. “The whole constitution is a declaration of rights. The rights of _particular states_ and private citizens not being the object or subject of the constitution, they are only incidentally mentioned. In regard to the _former_, it would require _a volume_ to describe them, as they extend to every subject of legislation not included in the powers vested in congress.”—_Debates Massachusetts Convention_.]

[Footnote 3: See fifteenth article of Virginia bill of rights, _passed unanimously_ in the Virginia convention, _June 12th, 1776_, in these words. “XV. That _the people_ have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for the common good, _or to instruct their representatives_; and that _every freeman_ has a right to _petition_, or _apply_ to the legislature for redress of grievances.”

In Virginia convention on the federal constitution, Friday, 27th June, 1788, _Mr. Wythe_, from the committee on amendments, reported the Virginia bill of rights, with this preamble, “That there be a bill of rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following.” (Here follows the bill, including the fifteenth article.) The same clause, with others, was carried in the North Carolina convention, by a vote of 184 to 84, the minority objecting to other clauses. This proves that the right was _known_ and _valued_, as a _natural_ and _unalienable_ right of the people, and of course the states when constituents, and considered a _different thing_ from _consultation_, _petition_, _advice_ or _remonstrance_. _Every freeman_ may _petition_ or _remonstrate_, but the _people_ must _instruct._]

JUDGE HOPKINSON “has not referred to the opinions of MR. BURKE, because the argument stands here on a different and stronger ground.” Yes, stronger—on our side. _First_, because states are represented _as such_, in their _sovereign capacity_; and apart from general representative principles, their ambassadorial character requires obedience. _Secondly_, because small districts elect for vast regions in England, and here power is equally distributed, for the avowed purpose of equal representation and protection. And _thirdly_, because in England a member of the House of Commons has no constitutional right of _resignation_; it is prohibited; and by our rule, he must there obey in _all cases_.

As to the _first_, even Blackstone admits that members of Parliament ought to obey if they represented separate communities, and did not serve for the whole realm. He says, “every member is chosen for the whole, and hence is not bound, like a deputy in the United Provinces, to consult his particular constituents.” But here they are elected for _states_, by analogy to the old congress and the diet of the United Provinces.[4] MR. HAMILTON says in the Federalist, (No. 9,) “The proposed constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the state governments, makes _them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate_, and leaves to their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.” MR. MADISON says, in No. 45, “The _state governments_ may be regarded as _constituent_ and essential parts of the federal government.” MR. LANSING, who had been a member of the federal convention, said in the New York convention, “I believe it was undoubtedly _the intention of the framers of this constitution_ to make the lower house the proper, peculiar representative of the interests of the people—the senate of the _sovereignty of the states_.” For this reason he wished a power of recall to make them more dependent upon their states, “of whose independence it was _designed by the plan_ that they should be the bulwark, and check to the encroachments of the general government.” MR. SMITH, in the same convention, was also very apprehensive of senatorial disobedience, and advocated Mr. Lansing's amendment. He says, “with respect to the second part of the amendment, I would observe, that as the senators are the _representatives of the state legislatures_, it is reasonable and proper that they should be _under their control_. When _a state sends an agent_ commissioned to transact _any business_, or perform _any service_, it certainly ought to have a power to recall him.” I presume this authority, with that in a previous note, will sufficiently establish this point.

[Footnote 4: “In Switzerland and _Holland_ the different parties (states) send deputies, commissioned and _instructed_ by themselves, who debate, but have no other power than what is conferred only by the people, or may be subsequently given.” (_Harrington_, _Oceana_, 51.) This bears a close resemblance to the powers of the old congress.]

II. As to the second reason, it received sufficient consideration in my former number.[5]

[Footnote 5: _Judge Hopkinson_ is against _all instructions_, but thinks his reasoning stronger in the case of senators, because the right is not reserved. I am for _all instructions_, and especially those to senators, because of their character as ambassadors, representing sovereignty, and because it is a reserved state right, secured by our international compact, in which all is reserved which is not _given_, and in which a representation of sovereignties, as such, was insisted upon and yielded. But even as to popular instructions, the case is much stronger here than in England, for reasons intimated in my last. Lee us see how it has stood there, long before the reform bill, and long before the American {689} revolution brought up all the questions of representation and taxation for discussion and decision. In the most ancient times, when the connection between vassal and lord was very close, and the vassal had little to which the lord could not lay claim, the commons were considered as represented in the commune concilium, by the lords and great barons under whom they held; but the king's tenants _in capite_, holding _immediately_ from the crown, could not be considered, by the most liberal construction, as thus represented, and they were therefore admitted into parliament, in propria persona, in their own right. When these became too numerous thus to be admitted, they of their own accord, to avoid inconvenience, appeared by _proxy_. As the towns, cities, and boroughs began to receive incorporations, to grow in importance and wealth, especially personal property, an aliquot part of which was always granted, they too being unrepresented by the lords, were required to send _proxies_; and it was subsequently extended to knights for the shires, as the feudal fetters wore away. These _proxies_ had no power but that conferred by their constituents. (See Pettyt's Antient Right of the Commons of England, p. 14; 1 Gordon's History of Parliament, 215)—(Lex Parliamentaria, 113 and 117.) “And Note, If any new project was proposed in Parliament for raising subsidies or supplies, the commons usually replied thereto that they were not _instructed_ by their principals in that matter, or that they durst not consent to such tax, &c. without conference with their countries.” “And Note, Blackstone (