910 
had to contend; we should have wished 
to have seen his work rather more accu- 
rate, but are very willing to admit his 
profession, when he says that he labours 
intensely to make the inaccuracies as few 
as possible; and we believe that on the 
whole the present volumes are more cor- 
rect than'that which preceded them. 
Vol. ii. p.112. Ina passage, perhaps ex- 
tracted from Dr. Harwood, the merits of 
+Rhodomannus and Dausqueius, in their 
notes on Q. Calaber, are not estimated 
with sufficient discrimination. The an- 
notations of the former are, in fact, of 
great merit, and those of the latter, in a 
critical view, of much inferior value. 
P. 117. The anonymous edition of 
Callimachus at London in 1741, is, we 
believe, by T. Bentley, nephew of Dr. Ri- 
chard Bentley. he annotations of the 
Jatter on Callimachus, appeared nearly 
half a century before. 
In p. 154, Heyne’s third improved 
edition of Tibullus in 1798, may be 
added. 
' Vol. iii. p. 129. An edition of Dion 
Chrysostom is mentioned, of the date of 
1476. We are aware that De Bure gives 
the same account ; we are aware also of 
the danger in many cases, of opposing 
probabilities to statements of facts. ‘That 
an edition, of a voluminous sophist, 
should have preceded by twelve years the 
publication of Homer, or any other con- 
siderable work of Greek literature, would 
however, be a singular phznonfenon in 
the history of learning. Jf such a book 
exist, it was unknown to Reiske, Morelli, 
and other writers. If there is any foun- 
dation for the account, perhaps some sin- 
gle oration of Dion may have been pub- 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
lished that year asa praxis. Reiske’s 
edition is here omitted; we observe, how- 
ever, that it is afterwards noticed among 
the classic authors published by that 
editor. 
P. 197. There is no entire edition of 
Euripides, printed literis majusculis, 
The edition which is here imperfectly 
described, is the same with that which 
occurs afterwards in p. 202, consisting of 
four plays. The plays published by Mr. 
Porson should have been mentioned. 
Dr. Harwood’s disgraceful criticism of 
Musgrave’s Euripides deserved severer 
censure. 
Errors in dates may often be attributed 
to the printer; they are, we believe, in 
these volumes less frequent than in the 
first, we mention: one, occurring in the 
last page of the fourth volume, merely 
because the book to which the article res 
fers, happens to lie before us. This is 
the first edition of Gildas, printed in 
1525 (not 26); a dedication is prefixed 
from Polydore Virgil, the editor, to Bi- 
shop Tonstall, dated viii Iduum April, 
1525, Londini. 
That a bibliographical work of this 
extent should have made its appearance 
in a provincial town, we regard as at 
least a pleasing proof of the spread of a 
literary taste, a result of the same spirit 
which produced the liberal and munifie 
cent institution of the Atheneum. We 
trust that our second commercial town 
will soon become no less distinguished, 
by the cultivation of letters and the 
sciences, than it already is by its opu- 
lence, and the mercantile enterprize of 
its inhabitants. 
ERRATA—In the Law Chapter, the Title of Art. III. p. 808, fhould be “ Te Continuation of a 
: ” Digef of Statute Law, by Thomas Walter Williams, Efq. Vol. III.” ; 
Same Chapter, P- 815, read the Title of Art. XVI. “ An Abridgment of Cafis argued and determined 
* in the wourts of Law during the Reign of is prefent Maje/y, by'T. W. Williams. Vol. V."" 
