ceptions. Aineias, Areius, Heracleius, Leiandros, the Heilots, and the Seirens are left in their modern state of mutilation -Eneas, Arius, Heraclius, Leander, Helots, Sirens. The Persian emperor is Dareius in the article on himself, but is changed into Darius in that on his conqueror Alexander. The heroines Medeia and Hecabe remain Greek in their own places in the Dictionary, but become Latin in the Medea and Hecuba of Euripides. In like manner the hero called Heracles when sane, becomes Hercules when dramatised as mad. For Aias, which according to Dr. Smith's general rule should be as, the monstrous Anglo-Latin corruption Ajax is retained. Our old friends Draco, Phormio, Philo, are elongated into Dracon, Phormion, Philon; while Plato, Apollo, Leo, preserve their abbreviated extremities. Moira, with her attended Moiragetes, maintains her native Greek diphthong, which is refused to the grammarian Moris and the orator Morocles. In the Dictionary of Antiquities these anomalies are still more frequent, the Greek and Latin forms being alternately adopted or rejected in the same word and the same page, sometimes in contiguous lines. The rule as to the diphthong ei is violated in numerous instances, as in Daricus, Hypogeum, Mausoleum, Orichalchus, &c. In words compounded of Cheir, we have Cheirotonia and Cheironomia; elsewhere Chirographum, Chiridota, Chirurgia. The word written Cheiramaxium in one place becomes Chiramaxium in another. The ou diphthong, commonly latinised into u, is retained in Boule, Probouli, and some other forms. Gerusia alternates with Gerousia, The Boule of the Dictionary of Antiquities is relatinised into Bule in the Dictionary of Geography. On the other hand, the Odeum and Museum of the former work are rehellenised into Odeium and Museium in the latter; while the Lyceium of the geography is described in the biography as the Lyceum in the neighbourhood of the temple of Apollo Lykeios. The ai diphthong, transformed into a in Hetæra, is retained in Hetairesis, also in Amphiaraia, Aliaia, &c. The oi, latinised in Metoci and Perioci, remains Greek in Apoikia, Synoikia, Chalcioikia (elsewhere Chalcioicia). Hodopæi and Hieropoii occur in contiguous lines. The Greek ypsilon is rendered in numerous words by the Latin u; as in Catalusis, Argurion, Thusia, Adunati, Orugma, Kerux, &c. These latter forms are so contrary to all precedent or analogy, that we at first supposed them to be oversights or misprints, until led to infer from their recurrence in different texts that they are part of the same capricious system.

All this anomaly and inconsistency is but a natural result of

an author venturing to set at nought the standard usage of his mother tongue, in deference to the speculative theories of fanciful innovators. Even could the system here so inconsistently applied be consistently carried into effect, the result might be very good Greek archæology, but it would still be abominably bad English style. An English writer is, we maintain, as much bound to write on Greek subjects in classical English, as if he wrote on English, French, or German subjects. For behoof of those who insist on rigidly Hellenic forms in treating of Hellenic history, the best plan will be to write in Greek at once. But it is not fair in authors who treat those matters in English, to shock their reader's taste by such solecisms as Alexandreia, or Pheidias, or Lykeios, or many others still more offensive that might be quoted from the page of popular advocates of these pedantic theories.

The departure from established usage in the Dictionaries has not certainly been carried to an extent which can diminish their practical value. In justice to Dr. Smith it must also be remembered, that much may here be owing in the first instance to the caprice of individual contributors, which, as formerly remarked, the editor may not have always found it easy to restrain. Still, however, the responsibility for purity and propriety of orthographical detail rests ultimately on his correcting pen, which we doubt not will be more freely adhibited in future editions. We are the less inclined to believe that he can deliberately have sanctioned such irregularities, from being able, with as much sincerity as satisfaction, to state that we scarcely know an author in his own peculiar department of literature, whose language generally is more simple and elegant, or more free from pedantry and affectation.

Dr. Smith's plan of allotting separate articles to the Greek and Latin varieties of the same deity, and treating the one variety under the Greek, the other under the Latin title, has no doubt much plausibility. In every scientific work on mythology, such a distinction requires to be drawn; and in a lexicon this mode of drawing it may seem natural and reasonable. Upon the whole, however, we prefer the old method of treating each deity in a single article under the more familiar Latin title. We prefer it, first because it is the old method, sanctioned by our native usage; and secondly, because we consider it the best method. Where, as in all, or most of the cases here in question, the characters and attributes of certain varieties of the same mythological personage have been so long connected, or it may be confounded, as to form branches of a single subject, the

nicer investigation, either of the connexion or the confusion, is, we apprehend, more likely to be obstructed than promoted by their being treated as entirely different subjects.

We must also demur to Dr. Smith's appeal, in vindication of his own method, to the universal practice of the Germans.' Even were the appeal justified by the fact, we should dispute the inference, on the ground of there being here no sufficient analogy between our own case and that of our learned neighbours. The polite language of Germany first began to be settled less than a century ago. It is still but half settled, and, in regard to the feature here in question, is not likely to be ever entirely settled. The difficulty which the Germans experience in harmonising non-Germanic terms, ancient or modern, proper or common, with their own vernacular idiom, combined with their fondness for introducing them, is a prominent defect of their style of composition. Their habitual practice of writing Greek and Latin names in particular, in every conceivable variety of modes, Greek, Latin, French, and German, is still a chaos of crudities, savouring partly of barbarism partly of pedantry, such as we fervently hope will never be drawn into precedent by our native scholars.

In so far, however, as the authority of the German school may be worth anything, it is unfavourable to the new method. The latest verdict of that tribunal upon the question at issue is that of Professor Pauly's work, embodied in seven dense volumes, and attested by a list of fifty-seven contributors, comprising the well known names of Grotefend, Creuzer, Nitzsch, Bähr, &c. In the preface the editor expresses his intention of adopting, as the title of each article, the Latin form of the name or word where such exists, the corresponding Greek term being, where necessary, parenthetically subjoined. And this intention has, upon the whole, been consistently fulfilled.

We may perhaps appear to have done but scanty justice to the very able Editor of the Dictionaries, as well as to the many excellent scholars who have assisted him in his arduous task, by dwelling so much on the few defects—so little on the many and obvious merits-of these volumes. But we have done so advisedly. The British classical public has long ago delivered a unanimous verdict in their favour, and it would be superfluous to commend in detail a series of works to which every scholar pays the tribute of habitual and constant reference. We have considered it therefore the more useful course to endeavour, in our capacity of censor rather than of eulogist, to contribute our mite to the improvement or ultimate perfection of what are already, and will long probably remain, the best and completest

works

works on the important body of subjects which they embrace. In regard to the general plan of the English and German compilations, we have been led, on the whole, to give a preference to the latter. In learning and research the two may be considered as nearly on a par. But on a fair estimate of the actual substance of each, and of the intrinsic merits of the individual articles, whether as to completeness, sound practical commentary, or perspicuity and facility of style, we do not hesitate to award the palm of superiority to the Dictionaries. It is gratifying to reflect,-dependent as we have been of late years for so much of what is new and valuable in the educational branches of classical literature, on translations from foreign, chiefly German publications,—that in this instance our native scholars have produced a work which may more than challenge comparison in learning, extent, and critical method, with the best that have hitherto appeared in any other country.

Of the smaller compilations of Dr. Smith, the titles of which have also been placed at the head of this article, it will suffice to remark, that they are concise but comprehensive summaries, for the benefit of less advanced scholars, of the varied learning and critical research embodied in his more voluminous publications. They have thus the advantage, not very common in elementary books, of comprising the results of investigations more extended than could ever have been undertaken for such a subsidiary purpose, and of furnishing every tyro, in the clear and masculine language of the editor, with the latest conclusions of the best scholars at home and abroad.

ART. V.-1. Télégraphe Electrique: Documents relatifs à l'Etablissement de Lignes Télégraphiques en Belgique. Bruxelles, 1850.

2. Electric Science: its History, Phenomena, and Application. By F. C. Bakewell. London, 1853.

3. The Electric Telegraph: its History and Progress. By Edward Highton, C.E. London, 1852.

4. Guide to the Electric Telegraph. By Charles Maybury. 1850. 5. Historical Sketch of the Electric Telegraph, including its Rise and Progress, in the United States. By Alexander Jones. New York, 1852.

6. The Electro-Magnetic Telegraph; with an Historical Account of its Rise, Progress, and present Condition. By Lawrence Turnbull, M.D. Philadelphia, 1853.

7. Traité

7. Traité de Télégraphie Electrique. Par M. l'Abbé Moigno. 2nd edit. Paris, 1852.

8. New York Industrial Exhibition. Special Report of Mr. Joseph Whitworth. Presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty. London, 1854.

IF

[F a needle turning upon a pivot were fixed at York, and if, by a wire placed in close proximity to it, the needle could be made to move to the right or to the left through the agency of a power applied at the other end of the wire in London, and if it were agreed that one motion of the needle to the left should signify a, and one to the right b, &c.,* we should have just such a contrivance as the common needle telegraph now in use.

Such is the dry statement of a problem the more detailed working of which we are about to explain to the reader.

When a schoolboy places a sixpence and a piece of zinc in juxta-position with each other in his mouth, he immediately perceives a singular taste, which as instantly disappears upon their separation; it is an experiment which most of us have performed, wondered at for a moment, and then forgotten. How little did we ever dream that, in so doing we were calling into life one of the most subtle, active, and universal agents in nature-a spirit like Ariel to carry our thoughts with the speed of thought to the uttermost ends of the earth-a workman more delicate of hand than the Florentine Cellini, and more resistless in force than the Titans of old!

If now we place a piece of zinc, Z, and of copper, C, in a glass of acidulated water, instead of in the saliva, of the mouth, and if

* Code of Letter Signals in the needle telegraph commonly used in England. Two needles are generally employed, in order to facilitate the transmission of signals:

Let a denote a deflection of the left-hand needle to the left, a to the right; b a deflection of the right-hand needle to the left, b' to the right. Then here is the code:

TETETE

F

G

a' a

αα

α

a' a'

a' a' a'

bb'

b'b' br

Y

a'db' b'

a' a' a' b'b' b'

Thus F is indicated by two successive deflections of the left-hand needle to the right; R by a simultaneous deflection of both needles to the left. Where both needles are required they may be and are deflected simultaneously; where one only is used its deflections must of necessity be successive. The sign + means ⚫ I do not understand;' the letter E' I do understand.'

we