to shout aloud, line 109, as we may suppose they accordingly do, the three last lines.

Ol. XI. Here, at line 24, there is one of those decided breaks which seem to require our intervention ex machina. We conceive the poet to have begun; the chorus to have struck in at line 9, comparing itself to the dry pebbly bed of a xeμappos in summer, till filled by the poet with the stream χειμαρρος of music; 15-19 exarchus; 20-23 chor.; 24-34 exar.; 34-42 chor., in allusion to Anaxilaus, king of Rhegium; 43-63 exar. ; 64-96; then the poet concludes.

In the grand ode, Pyth. I., we have, according to Kircher's document, the exarchus to line 2. Now we would let the chorus sing to eλeλiçoμeva, and leave the elaborate description of the eagle to the poet alone as far as line 10; chorus to the end of the antistrophe; exar. to line 17; chorus then to line 28; exar. to line 35; chorus then to line 40; exar. the next strophe; then chorus 47-57; exar. the two next lines; then chor. 60-80; 81-92 aveμoev; chor. 92-98; exar. concludes. The picture of the eagle is too minute and too particular for the voice of the chorus, and by giving that to a single singer, the grandeur of the lines about the volcano is thrown out more prominently; the transition, too, from the blessed gods to the Titans, is more natural and easy. After the loud thunders of Ætna cease, a single voice is heard making intercession for the new victorious city. Toward the end, the good wishes and congratulations are public and choral, while the warning cautions are spoken by the poet himself.

Pyth. VIII. The noble opening of this ode,-alluding to the war with Athens, then on the point of breaking out, we may well suppose to have been sung by a chorus of Æginetans in their own persons down to line 28. After this follows what could not well be put into the mouth of a choral band, as will be evident to any one who considers the whole structure of the passage, and the pavraoia of Amphiaraus ; and, above all, what comes after line 56, where the poet speaks evidently in his own person. But from line 61 to the end, the mixture of triumph and gloomy anticipation is the very voice of the public feeling of the island.

Pyth. X. Exarch. 1-6; chor. 7-26. Here the transition is very sudden, and the fable seems dragged in, iππηdoν πλо

κаμwν, if we suppose the whole chorus to continue speaking; but from the exarchus such rapid movements are expected. Let them continue therefore down to line 36; then chorus to line 50; exarch. to 68; then chorus concludes.

That charming ode, the 4th Nemean, was sung solo, as we learn, both from the absence of antistrophe and from line 15, where he says, "Surely if your father Timocritus were yet "warmed with the bright sun, often would he, with the Ly"dian harp, hanging over this melody, be singing your trium"phal song." It is interesting, therefore, to compare this ode with the wider and larger compositions, which were unfolded and displayed, like the purple tapestry in the Choephora, by the evolutions of the chorus. Here one finds a

shorter and more compact style of diction, and a more lively variety of allusions, with quicker transitions. The poet, like the bee, darts (Ovvel, Pyth. X. 54) instantly from sounding the sweet depth of one flower into another.

Nem. VIII. The chorus begins down to line 15; then follows one of those movements which it seems to us could never have been written for a chorus. The poet is beginning to compare the wealth and prosperity of Ægina with that of Cyprus, but suddenly breaks off and turns to another subject. He then, πρopaoiv μev, speaks of himself as the object of envy, but the chorus well understand that he alludes to the impending enmity and envy of the Athenians, and join in, heart and soul, line 24, in the contrast which is drawn between the straightforward Dorian Ajax, and the TоλUтроπos character of an Ionian sort: line 40, the poet re-appears in his own person, and rejoices that if he cannot assist them in the war, at least he may celebrate their peaceful triumphs. We must suppose, from the beginning of the ode, that the young man was going to be married.

Isth. II., line 42. The difficulties which beset this passage seem insuperable if Nicasippus was the exarchus, as Ulrici supposes; for, in that case, who speaks to him? or how was the line spoken?

Isth. IV. After those inimitable verses, lines 49, 50, it seems requisite that the exarch. should speak alone when it is said, "nevertheless quench in silence the boast"; as the chorus could hardly be supposed to abstain of itself from

such a theme, or so quickly to descend from such an exaltation.

Isth. V., line 35, there occurs one of the harshest transitions in all Pindar. Indeed, a speech of the kind that follows, and the whole conception of the scene, is not adapted for choral delivery. We would suppose, then, the exarch. to begin down to line 7; then 7-13 chor.; 14-21 exarch.; 22-35 chor.; 35-59 exarch.; 60-73 chor. ; exarch. concludes.

The last ode in the series is one of the most beautiful; there is a melancholy wildness both in the treatment of the subject and in the expressive metre. Here the poet certainly begins in person down to line 5. By the way, it is to be remarked that the plural Avevтes is used here nom. abs., and immediately after depaπeve in singular 2nd person, and then the next verb in the 1st plural; 5-11 chor.; then the aλλa μoɩ seems to mark a change of persons, so let exarch. follow 11–20; then the chorus address themselves to the nymph Ægina, and go on to line 26; then follows that ingenious parable about the balance of power, which could not well have been adapted to the choral voice; this lasts from 27-46; then chor. 46-60, not without allusion to their brethren who had fallen at Salamis; 61-70, the poet concludes.

Now if we admit this theory, and allow that ó xopos, according to the expression of Diogenes Laertius, αρχαίως διεδρα ματιζεν μονος, and recollect the other means at the disposal of the poet for changing the tone of his song, such as the power of altering either the mood of the music, or the instrument altogether, and adopting at one time the enthusiastic flute, at another the equable harp, we shall be able fully to justify the most abrupt transitions: indeed, what seemed a blemish, will come out, when thus seen in the true light, as a great beauty.

We have purposely omitted all reference to the disputed passages, Pyth. V. 68, ff.; Pyth. IX. 91; Nem. VII. 85, as we thought that we could make good our case without touching them; and as to what Boeck and Dissen in their notes on them, and Ulrici in his History of Lyrical Poetry among the Greeks,' have affirmed, that in lyrical odes the first person must always mean the poet himself, we cannot but

think that the constant practice of the tragic chorus is a sufficient refutation.

Müller, in his ingenious commentary on the Eumenides, supposes the choragus to say the opalov (line 125), and the chorus to follow with their λaße, Maße. He supposes also, in that Tapodos which he has so happily and satisfactorily explained (line 300), that each clause was spoken by different voices, and even that the sentence begun by one pair (line 309), is concluded by another. In counting his

seven pairs too, the choragus, the 15th, is not included. Something in the same way Pindar (Nem. V. 25) describes the beautiful xopos of the Muses, and Apollo Musagetes in the middle, distinct from them, as their exarchus. We may recollect, too, what one of the Scholiasts says on occasion of a comparatively easy passage, Nem. IX. 19: "It is doubtful," he observes, "whether the chorus or the poet says this."

Again, there is much meaning in the words of the Scholiast to Nem. VIII. : συνταττει το προοιμιον εις το της ώρας ανθος, είτα επικωμαστικως των πατριων εφαπτεται. We know, moreover, that in the dithyramb there was an interchange of reciting and singing; and though this was introduced at a later period by Crexus (Plutarch. de Mus., 1141, A.), yet it betokens a something in the original construction of that kind of chorus at least, which must have suggested it, and prepared the way for it.

But it is time for us to have done; and we will conclude with referring the classical reader, who understands German, and is desirous of seeing more on the subject that we have been discussing, to Fr. Thiersch's ingenious essay prefixed to his edition of Pindar, and to Ulrici's elaborate volume on lyric poetry of Greece, in which he has collected all that bears upon the matter*.

*"With regard to our hypothesis of the chorus dancing in silence while the poet sang, we beg to refer to a curious account of the Guipuzcoan dances in the Foreign Quarterly, No. 4. It appears that they have thirty-six dances, each distinguished by particular ceremonies and different symbolical movements, commemorative of ancient histories; and that the tambourine player recites or sings appropriate verses to inspire the dancers, who move in silence;-verses, dances, and all, being old-established forms, handed down by tradition, like the Apxiλoxov μeλos, alluded to Olymp. xi."

ARTICLE VI.

The present Government of Russia.

MUCH has been published, and still more said, respecting the Emperor Nicholas. To women he is described as a good husband and a most affectionate father; to the Tories as a stanch ruler, and one of the pillars of conservatism in Europe; and the Radicals are told that his bearded Russians carry civilization at the point of their lances, and that Bashkir, Circassian and Turk are alike regenerated by their genial influence. The prime minister of this country, at a public dinner, declared him "inferior to no man in the world in truth, in honour and in justice;" whilst O'Connell in the House of Commons pronounced him "a miscreant." A traveller, not one of those whose judgment was blinded by the crafty wiles of an artful despot, but who observed him closely, has stated that "Nicholas is not a devil, but no angel either." From such a heap of various and contradictory opinions, proceeding from natives of the same country, who by their education and national prejudices might be expected to have formed similar judgments, what conclusion can be drawn? We remain as much in the dark as ever respecting the true character of Nicholas; and if we learn anything, it is rather what he is not than what he really is. This disagreement of opinion has its source in the partial or rather superficial views that have been taken of him. Has any one yet described him in his principal character, as ruler over a territory, than which a larger is not recorded in history? Has any one attempted to estimate his merits as arbiter of the destinies of a conglomerated population of fifty millions, consisting of races, some akin to each other, others wholly differing in origin, in language, in manners, in religion and in civilization, and all depending upon him for the improvement of their condition, both moral and physical, for justice and for happiness?