no mention of other specified purposes as palisades, gates, &c. might in a few days consume a very large stock of such materials, and all that Homer says upon the occasion in reference to either party, is ἕτεροι δὲ μεθ' ύλην. We learn that immediately on the conclusion of the Truce, the Trojans and Grecians commenced their labours. The sun had just risen (H. 421.) the day, and probably part of the night, was spent in consuming the bodies, and having performed this duty, the Grecians returned to their ships. Before it was quite day-light while light was yet doubtful, Ημος δ' οὔτ ̓ ἄρ πω ἠὼς, ἔτι δ' ἀμφιλύκη vù, a select band of Achæans made a barrow on the plain to contain the ashes of their companions. Near this they erected their wall and towers, sunk a wide foss, and defended it with palisades, and completed their work at sunset, Δύσετο δ' ἠέλιος, τετέλεστο δὲ ἔργον Ἀχαιῶν. We cannot easily admit that this period was more than an entire day, and it may be remarked that the only difficulty of importance connected with this operation, the indifference of the Trojans to its progress, becomes much more inexplicable under Mr. Bryant's hypothesis. Professor Heyne seems to puzzle himself very unnecessarily on the subject of the wall, to which, indeed, he very unwillingly gives the name assigned it by Homer, reixos. "Besides it," he says, "a rampart is constructed which the poet terms a wall." (Essay 102. 5.) At xvi. 396. 7. (he observes) occurs the remarkable expression μeonyù vŋwv, καὶ ποταμοῦ καὶ τείχεος ὑψηλοῖο, betwixt the ships, the river, and the town. When Patroclus drives the Trojans finally from the camp, he cuts off the retreat of a part of the fugitives to the city, forces them back towards the camp, and falls on them betwixt the station of the ships, the river, and the city. Here it is difficult to form a distinct idea of the topographical situation, unless we understand it thus: first, between the ships and the river, then further on between the river and the town. I would ask what occasion there is for all this (vii. 491.) and Bryant himself, p. 12. says: "there must have been an ample forest at the Throsmos to have afforded such convenience so soon." I cannot help observing in this place how completely inadequate to all the purposes of nicer enquiry, is the translation of Pope, who is full of original error, and unacknowledged obligation to his predecessors. Wakefield, who does justice to the Poet, has industriously exposed the numerous faults and plagiarisms of the Translator, who becomes less tolerable upon every renewed acquaintance with Homer. The work of Cowper, however liable to the objection of asperity, is a valuable addition to the literature of the country. difficulty, or rather why is any mention made of the town or city? Because Prof. Heyne despised the lofty wall or rampart of the Greeks, a proof of the insignificance of which he draws from the fact, that Sarpedon seized with his hand the battlements of the breastwork." The value of this proof must evidently depend upon the meaning of the word eraλs, which may possibly have been extended downwards, and, when itself destroyed, have exposed the wall above, in the manner described by Homer. But would not the same argument apply against the propriety of the adjunct i↓ŋλòs, when connected with the city or town wall itself? Patroclus three times ascended it without difficulty, and, but for the intervention of Apollo, would have entered the town by this road, by this reixeos voto, II. 702. We know in general that the Tupyous of the Grecian wall were lofty, (vnλoùs) and that the wall itself was μéya. (H. 388. 463. M. 257.) But how did it happen that the learned Professor overlooked the Teixeos vnλoto, II. 512. M. 388. which is this very insignificant rampart of the Greeks, and not the wall of Troy? The discovery of this passage would have saved an infinite deal of trouble and anxiety. We cannot collect from any part of Homer's narrative from which side the rampart extended. We have nothing to lead us to the situa tion of the τύμβος ἄκριτος, nor to the exact relation intended by προτὶ autóv. This want of precision leads of course to an infinite expense of critical labor, and to directly opposite results from those on whose judgments we are most disposed to rely. As the objects themselves are, however, of so little importance as never again to occupy the Poet's attention, there is no reason why we should further examine the sources of a discrepancy which can occasion no practical incorvenience. [To be continued.] "The position of the Túμßos äxpires must have been on the left wing, (says Prof. Heyne, Top. of Troy) to which it must have served for a protestion. But as the river Simois ran on the same side, it is not clear what was the position of the Mound in relation to the river, and what was the situation of the left wing, and particularly what was the position of the ships, and of the post of Ajax with respect to both. In the assault of the camp which took place on this wing, no mention is made either of this river or the mound." See also Exc. i. in vii. Heyne agrees with Bryant as to the time occupied in the construction of the rampart, &c. on the ground, however, that it could not have been completed in the time assigned. "Non facile hæc omnia die 23, 24. perpetrata ad unum diem revocari possunt," &c. &c. Exc. i. in xviii. All this cannot be easily settled unless we knew of what number the select band consisted. A few thousand men may effect a great deal in a very short space of time. 344 MOHAMMEDES. Carmen Præmio dignatum in Coll. Ed. Chr. Oxon. 1787.. Sed tu qui tandem, quibus aut venisti ab oris, QU'A patet in pontum latè porrecta Erytbræum, 7 Ignotas terras, alienaque quærere regna... Necdum soliciti rerum cognoscere causas, Ille adeò donec Nabatheæ gloria gentis Sensim emollivit populum Mahumeda ferocem, Numinis, et pœnas Erebi, et loca fœda minatur, Littore in Ausonio hæc simulatâ mente Propheta ; Hic illic strages et tristia funera spargit. His ex principiis, atque hâc ab origine crevit Jam dicam Syriæ victas longo ordine gentes, Impediunt; jam Böstra brevi obsidione tenetur, Atqui olim, ni vana fides, venientibus annis Tempus erit, quum res Arabum melioribus ibunt Quum pater Omnipotens, et clarâ in duce patebit. Gens effræna diu densisque immersa tenebris In lucem exsurget, rigidique insignia Martis Te, Christe, atque tuas tandem venerabitur aras. JOHN BURROWS. ON THE DERIVATION OF Antea, Antehac, Postea, Posthac, Postilla, Posteaquam, Interea, &c. In these and similar words the terminating particles, Eo, hac, and illa have been by grammarians and lexicographers uniformly held to be accusatives plural under the government of the preposition with which they are compounded. At first view, indeed, this mode of formation appears perfectly natural, and such as to account not unaptly for the application of these terms, as they are actually employed in the ordi |