many a college freshman will henceforward be estimated at their true value. We cannot help likening the professor to the goddess Sabrina, "helping" "All ill-luck signs

Which the shrewd meddling elf delights to make;"

and we commit to his benignant influence the spirits of all sharp boys made stupid which are about to break themselves on this celebrated oration.

The professor's notes upon the text are short and to the purpose. His explanations of particular words and idioms are more serviceable than Mr. Long's, who sometimes, as in the case of persona (cap. xxix.) and locus (cap. xx.), passes over points which certainly require comment. Mr. Ramsay's notes on both of these words are excellent. The former is interesting from the many controversies to which it has given rise, especially that between Milton and Salmasius. Mr. Ramsay's opinion is, that persona is never used in the purest writers to express "an individual," but is always to be explained by the character or part which a man sustains before the world,-that which he seems to be on the stage of life. Elsewhere Mr. Long tells us that it is frequently used in its legal sense of "persons" as opposed to "things;" and hence, with the true lawyer's predilection for regarding men merely as creatures against whom legal proceedings can be taken, he would always translate the word simply as "the man," or "a man ;" an explanation which Mr. Macleane has applied in Juv. iv. 15,

quum dira et fœdior omni Crimine persona est,"—

but in our opinion erroneously: Juvenal rather means that his character is now such that nothing can disgrace it. The professor's notes on præposterus (c. xxvi.) and committo (c.xxxiv.) are also good specimens of his easy and unpretending scholarship.

In the interpretation of disputed passages Mr. Ramsay's knowledge of the language and excellent judgment show to great advantage. He has attained that happy medium between obscurity and diffuseness which nothing but a sound intellectual digestion can ensure. All his arguments are well-proportioned, and pervaded by a kind of equable noonday brightness, which never leaves us at fault for a single instant. He is exhaustive, and yet never tedious. As special instances of how much can be done in a small space when the workman is master of his subject, we would mention the note on allegatos (cap. xiii.), on dixerunt (cap. xxvii.), on the words at is eá lege quarebat (cap. xxxiii.), and on litis aestimatio (cap. xli.). The latter is so good an illustration of the professor's powers, as well as so interesting in itself for the light it throws upon Roman

criminal procedure, that we must quote it entire. The Latin stands thus:

"Hic profertur id, quod iudicium appellari non oportet, P. Septimio Scaevolae litem eo nomine esse aestimatam. Cuius rei quae consuetudo sit, quoniam apud homines peritissimos dico, pluribus verbis docere non debeo. Nunquam enim ea diligentia, quae solet adhiberi in ceteris iudiciis, eadem, reo damnato, adhibita est. 116. In litibus aestimandis fere iudices, aut, quod sibi eum, quem semel condemnarunt, inimicum putant esse, si qua in eum lis capitis illata est, non admittunt: aut, quod se perfunctos iam esse arbitrantur, quum de reo iudicarunt, negligentius attendunt cetera. Itaque et maiestatis absoluti sunt permulti, quibus damnatis, de pecuniis repetundis, lites essent aestimatae et hoc quotidie fieri videmus, ut, reo damnato de pecuniis repetundis, ad quos pervenisse pecunias in litibus aestimandis statutum sit, eos illi iudices absolvant: quod quum fit, non iudicia rescinduntur, sed hoc statuitur, aestimationem litium non esse iudicium. Scaevola condemnatus est aliis criminibus, frequentissimis Apuliae testibus. Omni contentione pugnatum est, ut lis haec capitis aestimaretur. Quae res si rei iudicatae pondus habuisset: ille postea, vel iisdem, vel aliis inimicis, reus hac lege ipsa factus esset."

:

Professor Ramsay says:

"1. The Litis Aestimatio, in criminal trials, belonged, strictly speaking, to those cases only in which the misappropriation of money by some public servant formed the main charge. Such were impeachments De Repetundis and De Peculatu. If, for example, a provincial governor was found guilty under the Lex Servilia of having extorted money from those under his sway, he was not only compelled to go into exile, but also to make restitution of what he had unlawfully seized. The punishment was thus twofold. The jury, after they had brought in their general verdict of guilty, proceeded to determine the amount to be refunded; and this was the Litis A estimatio.

2. In fixing the sums to be refunded, they were required to specify on what ground or score (quo nomine) each sum was fixed, stating the particulars of the offence for which restitution was to be made.

3. In performing this part of their duty, the jury had frequently an opportunity of modifying the punishment of the criminal. It is evident that when a charge was brought generally De Maiestate or De Repetundis, there must have been an infinite number of degrees of guilt; and although each of these offences was nominally a Crimen Capitale, many cases might occur in which the amount of guilt was so small, or the circumstances so extenuating, that the infliction of a Poena Capitalis would have been harsh and unjust. So, in our own courts, a person may be accused and found guilty of Manslaughter; but this term comprehends all degrees of culpability between the extreme limit of an act of homicide verging upon wilful murder, and one in which the catastrophe is the result of a slight imprudence. Hence the punishment varies from penal servitude for life to a mere admonition; the amount of punishment, according to the practice of English courts,

being determined by the judge. Now it would appear that the Iudices, when they stated in the Litis Aestimatio on what score (quo nomine) they fixed the amount to be paid, might make the offence appear of the most serious or most venial description, and they might even express themselves in such terms as to lay the culprit open to a new impeachment for an offence more serious than that for which he was under trial; but generally speaking they were in the habit of leaning to the side of mercy, and saving him from the penalties of a Lis Capitalis. In point of fact, we may infer from the expression used in this chapter with regard to Scaevola-omni contentione pugnatum est, ut lis haec capitis aestimaretur-that when an individual was found guilty generally of any offence which admitted of many gradations of guilt, it depended upon the nature of the Litis Aestimatio whether the Poena was to be Capitalis or not, the Iudices discharging the duty which devolves upon the judge according to our system.

・・・ inimicum putant esse.] Two reasons are here assigned which *tended to render jurors lenient or careless in the Litis Aestimatio.

1. They believe that the person they have found guilty will look upon them as his personal enemies, and therefore they desire to prove that they are willing to befriend him as far as they can-si qua in eum lis capitis illata est non admittunt.

2. Thinking that their duty as jurors has been discharged by bringing in a verdict, they are indifferent and careless about the subsequent proceeding-negligentius attendunt cetera.

Itaque et maiestatis.] This is the most desperate sentence in the whole passage. We have given the text of Orelli, which is supported by all Mss. except A, B ; but I am unable, without great violence, to twist any satisfactory meaning out of the words.

A, B insert maiestatis before essent, and the text stands thus in the edd. of Class, and Bait.:

Itaque et maiestatis absoluti sunt permulti, quibus damnatis de pecuniis repetundis lites maiestatis essent aestimatae; from which the following meaning is extracted: Very many persons having been found guilty when impeached De Repetundis, and the jurors in the Litis Aestimatio having implied that they were guilty of Maiestas, have, when brought to trial for Maiestas, been acquitted.

There can be no doubt that this is a distinct meaning; but I hesitate to adopt it, because it appears to me to be completely at variance with the tenor of Cicero's observations. The orator, in the preceding sentence, if I understand it aright, has asserted that the jurors were for the most part loose and lenient in the Litis Aestimatio. Itaque, he continues, as a proof of this-and then follows the sentence before us; but this, according to the interpretation of Classen, far from being an illustration of the careless leniency of jurors, would be rather a proof of vindictive persecution, since by the terms of their Litis Aestimatio they laid open the accused to a fresh charge of a most serious character; and this had happened in the case of very many individuals (permulti).

ad quos pervenisse pecunias.] When an individual was con

victed De pecuniis repetundis, and ordered to make restitution, if his property proved inadequate to yield the sum fixed, an inquiry was instituted to discover the persons into whose hands the missing property had passed, and these persons became themselves liable to an impeachment De Repetundis. Cicero here adduces as an additional proof of the leniency of jurors, that, after having, in a Litis Aestimatio, fixed upon the persons into whose hands the property unlawfully acquired had passed-the resetters, as it were, of the stolen goods-they had refused to convict these persons when brought to trial.

... ut lis haec capitis aestimaretur.] The meaning seems clearly to be that which we have indicated above: Scaevola was found guilty by the testimony of very many witnesses, upon a charge altogether unconnected with the trial of Oppianicus (aliis criminibus). The greatest exertions were made that the Litis Aestimatio should be in such terms as to render him amenable to a Poena Capitalis. Few will be disposed to adopt the interpretation of Manutius: The greatest exertions were made that the Poena Capitalis involved in this charge (ut haec lis capitis) should be commuted for a fine' (aestimaretur).

However much we may differ with regard to the true interpretation of some of the above clauses, the argument of Cicero is perfectly intelligible.

'One of the facts adduced to prove the guilt of Cluentius is, that the jurors who convicted P. Septimius Scaevola stated expressly, in their Litis Aestimatio, that he had received a bribe on the trial of Oppianicus; and this,' continues the orator, 'my opponents call a legal decision (iudicium). But I need not tell you, who are so well versed in proceedings of this sort, that a Litis Aestimatio is not a legal decision (iudicium). In the first place, it is notorious that jurors, after they have brought in a verdict of guilty, are disposed to be lenient and careless in the Litis Aestimatio; and that even when, in the course of a Litis Aestimatio, they have indicated the guilt of a third person, they often refuse to convict that person when brought to trial before them. From no point of view, therefore, can a Litis Aestimatio be regarded as a Iudicium, and it ought not to be called by that name.'"

We have never until now seen this passage explained entirely to our satisfaction; for the slight hesitation evinced by the professor at the words itaque et maiestatis absoluti sunt permulti, scarcely detract from its completeness. We think the word maiestatis before essent ought to stand, as it does in Long's edition. Cicero has said that the jurors were for the most part loose in the litis aestimatio, and sometimes lenient; but clearly not always. He says that sometimes, when a previous capital assessment of damages was brought up against a man whom they had found guilty, they did not allow it to weigh in their present assessment (non admittunt); and then adds generally that they were negligent on this point because they thought their work over when the verdict was agreed upon. The inconsistencies in their conduct sprang sometimes

from mercy, and sometimes from carelessness. As an instance of the latter, he cites the well-known fact, that men found guilty of repetundae had had damages assessed for maiestas; and then says that this assessment was never regarded as a legal declaration of their guilt, for when brought to trial for maiestas they were acquitted. The words negligentius attendunt cetera do not at all preclude the idea of the jurors sometimes erring on the side of severity; and Cicero seems to have given the two sentences, itaque et maiestatis and et hoc quotidie, as instances of each failing. Mr. Long's note on this passage is exceedingly obscure, and his explanation of the words omni contentione pugnatum est ut lis haec capitis aestimaretur far from so obvious and reasonable as Mr. Ramsay's.

In conclusion, we would call attention to Mr. Ramsay's notes on cap. xlvi. relative to the punishment of soldiers, and cap. lxiii. on the slaves who were put to the torture. In each of these passages he contrasts favourably with Mr. Long, from whom he differs; and though in the latter of the two we cannot agree with his explanation, yet he states his own case more clearly and strongly than his predecessor.

دو

But the vacation has arrived. A truce to the quirks and quibbles of our learned friends, and poets reciting in the dog-days. "O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, Agricolae, we exclaim. We will put on our caligae, as Mr. Macleane would say, and go to Dr. Daubeny, -to a land of corn and wine and oil; and so will we gladden our hearts and make our countenances cheerful, and forget the horrors of murder and the dusty mysteries of the law. In truth, a pleasanter volume than this one of Dr. Daubeny's we should not care to look for. It is a peculiarly English book, and appeals strongly to an Englishman's tastes. It would not come within the scope of our present article to examine it in detail; but we notice it for the sake of the one feature which it has in common with the other works upon our list: we mean its illustrative utility. The pleasure of reading Virgil is very greatly increased by a more accurate explanation of the trees, herbs, and flowers which he mentions, of the agricultural processes which he describes, and the maxims which he enjoins upon the farmer; while, on the other hand, any difficulties presented to young beginners by the technical terms employed are here completely levelled. His chapters on live stock are most interesting. The Romans had many delicacies at their banquets from which modern taste would shrink, though whether wisely or not we cannot say. Dormice were strictly preserved; snails, periwinkles,