σιωπηλὸς ἦν, ὁ πρότερον τῶν ἀκρί- x. T. λ. 'numen longe praestantius foedis Satyris, et hya cinthus liliis. Rufus hic contra, ut vulpes; pro'missa barba, ut hirquus; albus, ut ex urbe muli'ercula. Si tu proinde osculari debeas, mei sane os ipsum osculabere, il lius autem e mento exstantes pilos. Memineris, 'puella, quod te scilicet grex nutriit, quodque 'tamen proculdubio pulcra es.' Ad haec non amplius Chloe se continere potuit. Quumque jam laudatione illa gavisa esset, ac jamdiu osculari cuperet Daphnin, prosiluit statim, ac osculo eum donavit, rudi quidem illo, nulliusque àrtis participe, sed quod ingentem in pectore flammam excitare optime sciret. Dolens hinc Dorcon, aliam amoris viam quaesiturus, aufugit. Daphnis vero, ac si non osculo tactus, sed morsu, moestitia quadam illico suffusus est: Frigore interdum corripiebatur, cordisque insueta palpitatione: Oculos in Chloen flectere cupiebat; Ac statim ea visa, rubore totus spargebatur. Tunc primum ejus comas miratus est, quod flavae essent, et oculos, quod magni, uti vitulae, et genas, quod scilicet ipso caprarum lacte candidiores; Ac si tum primum ipse oculorum aciem quaesivisset, anteactoque tempore ipsis oculis captus omnino fuisset. Hinc non ille cibum capiebat; Sed tantum leviter degustabat: Potum, si ad id cogeretur, quo tantum os humectaret, admittebat. Obmutuerat en ille, qui pridem cicadis (gryllis) loquacior: Piger sedebat, qui olim ipsis capellis levior huc illucque movebatur. Grex ipse neglectui jam habetur: Longe projecta jacet fistula. Pallidior vultus arente herbula, matura aestate. De sola tamen Chloe loqui amabat. Ac si quando ab ea secessisset, haec secum amenti similis spargebat. . . . Vertit Hieronymus Amatius. The above fragment, which fills up the hiatus in p. 13. ed. Vil- ́ loison. (15. ed Schæfer) was copied from a Florentine MS. and published at Rome in 1810, by M.Courier, an artillery officer in the French service. It first appeared separately, and soon after was inserted into an edition of the whole romance by the same scholar. The MS. is the same, from which Chariton, Xenophon Ephesius, and De Furia's Æsopean fables have been published; and it contains also Longus, four books of Achilles Tatius, and several opuscula enumerated by De Furia, p. xxxii-xxxvii. ed. Lips. 1810. We have not seen either of Courier's publications; we derive our information from Chardon La Rochette, Mélanges de Critique, volume the second. We subjoin what seems most worthy of re mark in his notes. Line. 11. Read oτ dè μ, or, with Courier, xaì ori μ. The MS. seems to omit u, though this is not distinctly stated. 44. ἄσση, MS. 55. τίς δὲ ἡ νόσος, La Rochette. 82. φθεγγομένη, Courier. 86. τὸ ἔρωτος, or τὸ τοῦ ἔρωτος, Courier. 88. içou, MS. read ago. See Eratosthenes, Brunck. Analect. 1. p. 478. Anaxandrides, Athen. IV. p. 131. 100. xovσav is inserted by Courier. 102. La Rochette translates, hujus autem color variis coloribus distinctus erat. The sense is nebridos is erat color, ut PIGMENTIS DISTINCT A fuisse videretur. Plato, Phædo p. 110. H. St. xguxoi diesλnuuévy [† yñ] wo καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε εἶναι χρώματα ὥσπερ δείγματα, οἷς δὴ οἱ γραφεῖς καταχρῶνται. 108. MS. εκόσμησε. And 118. αὐτήν. 124. Rather, αιπόλος· τοσοῦτον οὖν κα 128. MS. omits uɛ. 147. μέγας, MS. μέλας, Courier. 148. Either omit xal before & Aóvucos, or repeat it before dxvdos. 173. ἔθραυσε, MS. ἐθαύμασε, Courier. 177-8. πρότερον, MS. N. B. μóoxov, 109. ¿gipwv, 135. and 2, 182. are indistinct in the MS. Remarks on Sir W. DRUMMOND'S "ESSAY concerning the SHIELD of ACHILLES." TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. As it is the object of your Journal to bring truth to light, if possible, with respect to various subjects in ancient times, I must observe that Sir W. Drummond introduces many novelties 'into his dissertations, for which he does not produce sufficient evidence. I will at present only point out one example of this, as a specimen of many others. In your No. XI. he has these words at p. 19. line penult. Gl. JI. The 10th and 11th months of the old Greek year, Maimacterion and Pyanepsion, comprehended part of September with the whole of October." By these words it appears that he places Maimacterion before Pyanepsion in the order of the Athenian months. This was indeed the opinion of some learned men formerly, viz. Petau and Dodwell; but, by his having often quoted Scaliger as his authority concerning the order of the months, many of your readers may be apt to conceive, that the above order was adopted by Scaliger also; this, however, is not the fact, for Scaliger placed Pyanepsion before Maimacterion, and brought a strong proof of it from a date in Ptolemy's astronomy. Petau and Dodwell attempted to refute this, yet, in my own opinion, without success; and their opinion was afterwards totally refuted by Spon, who found a catalogue of the Athenian months inscribed on stone, in which Pijanepsion occurs before Maimacterion; see it in his Liste des Peuples de l'Attique in tom. II. of his Voyages à la Haye, No. 104. Notwithstanding this demonstrative proof, Dodwell pretended, that Spon had copied it inaccurately; but this has been since refuted, two others having been since discovered, which are now at Oxford, and published in Chandler's Marmora Oxoniensia, No. 21 and 54; are we to believe our own eyes, or the learned imaginations and contentions of ingenious authors? Dodwell indeed pretended still farther, that the Athenians in different ages altered the order of their months, but he could not produce any satisfactory proof of this; and yet Sir W. D. has again revived this error, and delivered the same erroneous opinion as if it were a certainty, although refuted by ocular demonstration. Besides this, we have the decision of the celebrated antiquary Abbé Barthelemy in direct contradiction to Sir W. D. In 1792, he published a Dissertation sur une ancienne Inscription Grecque at Paris, to which he subjoined some short dissertations in form of notes, one of which is relative to this very subject, at p. 88. In this he urges again against Dodwell and Corsini, who had adopted the same error: "Ce témoignage de Spon, que le père Petau ne connut pas, est si frappant qu'il ébranta Dodwell, et força Corsini de supposer que dans le siècle où les inscriptions de Spon furent dressées, le Pyanepsion avoit avancé d'un dégré, et pris la place de Maimacterion: mais je vais montrer que ce changement n'a jamais eu lieu, et que plusieurs siècles auparavant le Pyanepsion occupoit dans le calendrier Attique le même rang que lui attribuent les inscriptions de Spon. M. Chandler trouva dans la maison d'un Grec un marbre en lettres tres anciennes; il n'en put copier qu'un fragment, qu'il a inséré dans son excellent recueil (pars I. syll. et not. p. 25)." In this fragment we have a fourth inscription to the same purport; and, if I recollect rightly, Corsini himself mentions a fifth to the same effect in Italy. Are all these testimonies then to be annihilated by a writer's mere opinion to the contrary? Barthelemy goes on to express himself thus: "Ceux qui tiendroient encore à l'opinion consacrée par les noms de Petau, Dodwell, et Corsini, seroient forcés d'admettre pour deux mois de l'année Attique une étrange suite de révolutions vers l'ann. 430 avant J. C. Pvanepsion est le quatrième mois, cent ans après il devient le cinquième, vers le tems de Hadrien il redevient le quatrième, et deux siècles après, ces deux mois changent encore de place. Ces témoignages positifs, ces monumens incontestables, placent pour tous les temps le Pyanepsion au quatrième rang des mois Attiques et Maimactérion au cinquième. On n'oppose à cela que des inductions tirées de quelques passages susceptibles de différentes interprétations: il me semble que l'inscription de M. Chandler ne permet plus de hésiter sur le choix: Je vais plus loin, et j'ose avancer que si les savans cités plus haut l'avoient connue, je n'aurois pas eu la peine de combattre leurs opinions." p. 96. Besides these testimonies, he adds that Harpocration says positively, that Pyanepsion preceded Maimacterion. This I have not examined, but when he adds that Suidas does the same, it is a mistake, for Suidas says nothing concerning the matter. However, he rightly refers to Sam. Petit in his Ecloga Chronologice, as another witness, who does indeed repeatedly maintain, that several sentences in Aristotle prove, inter Boedromionem atque Maimacterionem esse medium Pyanepsionem. lib.4. p. 193. And Selden long ago informed us, that he found the same order of months in a Catalogue annexed to a MS. of Ptolemy's Astronomy, and in the same handwriting with the MS. vid. Marm. Oxon. a Prideaux p. 239. a Mattaire, p. 115. The same again in notes of Tzetzes to Hesiod, p. 125, edit. 1603; again in Thesaur. of H. Stephens, tom. iv. p. 225. Sir W. D. calls these months the 10th and 11th, because he reckons from the winter, not the summer solstice, but either way, the order is the same. Still farther, he makes Homer place the harvest in Asia Minor or Egypt in the month Metageitnion: "this will bring the time of harvest within the month Metageitnion." p. 18. Now this was the subsequent month to Hecatombon, which almost all persons know to coincide with July, therefore Metageitnion chiefly with August. This is indeed the time of harvest in our northern climate; but in Asia the harvest is finished in May, and in Egypt sooner, full two months before the time at which Homer is thus made to fix it. This disturbs and disproves his order of the whole, as being merely ingenious imagination, which cannot be supported by sufficient evidence. That Homer mentions the occupations of the four seasons may be true, but that he places each occupation in its proper month, according to the right order of the twelve Athenian months, may be amusing in speculation, but has not any foundation in truth. Norwich. S. THE BIBLICAL CRITICISM. HE opinion which formerly prevailed amongst eminent critics, of the immaculate state of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, seems to have generally given place to more just and rational sentiments, since the publication of Dr. Kennicott's valuable collations. It has been established, I conceive, by that profound and judicious critic, on irrefragable evidence, that the Hebrew text exhibits numerous errors arising from the negligence of transcribers, similar to those which have been long acknowledged to exist in the Greek text of the New Testament. It is obvious that the more frequently a book is transcribed, the more it will abound with errors of transcribers, unless carefully corrected by the 'rules of sound criticism; hence arises the advantage of collating ancient copies and versions, which were made whilst the text was free from many of those errors which disfigure modern copies. The important progress already made toward restoring the original text, both of the Old and of the New Testament by such collations, is an ample and a gratifying proof of the importance of this branch of Biblical criticism. But much still remains to be done: and the time, I trust, will arrive, when a more complete collation of those MSS which have hitherto been only partially examined, and of those ancient and valuable versions, of which no collation has hitherto been made, will throw a light on many passages which still remain obscure, by restoring the long lost original readings. (See Primate Newcome's preface to his version of the Minor Prophets.) Amongst the Ancient Versions which merit the attention of the Biblical Scholar, perhaps none has been more neglected than the ancient and faithful Syriac. "The Syriac Version," says Dr. Kennicott, (2d Diss. on Hebr. Text.) "being very literal and very ancient, is of inestimable value." "The Syriac Version," says Bp. Lowth, (Pral. Dissert. to Isaiah), is superior to the Chaldee in usefulness and authority, as well in ascertaining, as in explaining the Hebrew Text. It is a close translation of the Hebrew into a language of near affinity to it. It is supposed to have been made as early as the first Century." "Versio hæc anti quissima" says De Rossi, (Prolegomena quoted by Dr. Magee on Atonement), "ordinem ipsum verborum presse sectatur, et ex versionibus omnibus antiquis purior ac tenacior habetur." Yet notwithstanding the acknowledged value of this version, it has not |