ancient Greeks; and the less probably as, while this single sound, _ee_, is overcharged by so many different representative characters, the sounds we usually give to these characters and combinations would be left without any representative signs. This would imply either that they had not these sounds in their language, or no signs for their expression. Probability appears to me, therefore, against the practice of the modern Greeks of giving the same sound to all these different representatives, and to be in favor of that of foreign nations, who, adopting the Roman characters, have assimilated to them, in a considerable degree, the powers of the corresponding Greek letters. I have, accordingly, excepted this in my adoption of the modern pronunciation. I have been more doubtful in the use of the αυ, ευ, ηυ, ωυ, sounding the υ, upsilon, as our _f_ or _v_, because I find traces of that power of υ, or of _v_, in some modern languages. To go no further than our own, we have it in _laugh_, _cough_, _trough_, _enough_. The county of Louisa, adjacent to that in which I live, was, when I was a boy, universally pronounced Lovisa. That it is not the _gh_ which gives the sound of _f_ or _v_, in these words, is proved by the orthography of _plough_, _trough_, _thought_, _fraught_, _caught_. The modern Greeks themselves, too, giving up υ, upsilon, in ordinary, the sound of our _ee_, strengthens the presumption that its anomalous sound of _f_ or _v_, is a corruption. The same may be inferred from the cacophony of ελαφνε (elavne) for ελαυνε, (elawne,) Αχιλλεφς (Achillefs) for Αχιλλευς, (Achilleise,) εφς (eves) for εϋς, (eeuse,) οφκ (ovk) for ouk, (ouk,) ωφτος (ovetos) for ωϋτος, (o-u-tos,) Ζεφς (zevs) for Ζευς (zese,) of which all nations have made their Jupiter; and the uselessness of the υ in ευφωνια which would otherwise have been spelt εφωνια. I therefore except this also from what I consider as approvable pronunciation. Against reading Greek by accent, instead of quantity, as Mr. Ciceitira proposes, I raise both my hands. What becomes of the sublime measure of Homer, the full sounding rhythm of Demosthenes, if, abandoning quantity, you chop it up by accent? What ear can hesitate in its choice between the two following rhythms? "Tὸν, δ' απαμειβὸμενος προσεφὴ πόδας ωκὺς Αχιλλευς, and, Τον, δ' απαμειβομενός προσεφὴ ποδας ώκυς Αχίλλευς," the latter noted according to prosody, the former by accent, and dislocating our teeth in its utterance; every syllable of it, except the first and last, being pronounced against quantity. And what becomes of the art of prosody? Is that perfect coincidence of its rules with the structure of their verse, merely accidental? or was it of design, and yet for no use.