Reviews. 113 minary to the restoration of those which have disappeared, (see e. g. col. 5, 1. 26, col. 6, 1. 7, col. 45, 1. 25). The Scholia and Dissertations appended by the editor display his characteristic good taste and judgment. Of the articles above mentioned, those of Cobet and Kayser are the most important for our immediate purpose, the critical examination of the text. The tone adopted by M. Cobet is strongly to be deprecated. For the matter, though his objec- tions are often captious, and his emendations consequently un- necessary, he has yet offered some valuable hints ; and it is to be regretted that he has not turned his attention to the more frag- mentary of the two orations, where his acknowledged ability would have rendered great service. The most important of M. Cobet's suggestions will be noticed in the sequel. The value of M. Kayser's contribution may be collected from the matter extracted below. The importance of this recent discovery cannot be denied. As historical records, indeed, these writings must give place to the fragments of Cicero's Republic, to the Institutes of Gaius, or the treatise of Hippolytus on heresies. Beyond the additional information which they contain with regard to the ela-ayyeXla, and the elucidation of one or two minor points, the speeches in behalf of Lycophron and Euxenippus are of little historical importance. Even the fragments of the Harpalic orations, though they throw some light on the subject, are far from setting the question of the innocence or guilt of Demosthenes at rest. But the purely literary value of the former will not easily be exaggerated. We have at length a tolerably adequate expression of the oratory of the most charming, if not the most powerful, of the Attic orators. If the celebrated defence of Phryne, or the Funeral Oration, had been disentombed, we should have heard Hyperides in all his glory. But the defence of Euxenippus fairly exhibits the leading characteristics of the orator. Perhaps even the Har- palic Oration, if perfect, would not have represented him in a more favourable light, for his peculiar excellences were especially adapted to minor causes. It was the opinion of Longinus that " if Demosthenes had attempted the defence of Phryne, the con- trast would only have been a further recommendation of Hype- rides *." The armour of Demosthenes is too ponderous for the
- De Subl. xxxiv. 3.
Vol. I. March, 1854. 8
