Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

P. 171. "Lexicon rs Tpau. in Cod. 1630. Koxλlas, ô Vide Suid. ap. Editores Thes. Steph., in Ind. ad Fasc. 1. et 2. p. xiv. n. 1.

στρογγυλοειδὴς τόπος.” Vide S

P. 124. "Ad Tergάyyoupa vide Cang." Adde Nov. Thes. G. L. 429. b-32. a.

P. 297. "Non novi, quid sit ayoпavritys: Incola forsan urbis, cui nomen "Ayios Пlávτes. Et quod sequitur nomen dyoxairns, explicandum simili modo videtur. Coray putat posse legi αγιολίτης, Monachus nempe in Monasterio 'Αγίου 'Halov, vel Incola urbis sic vocatæ." Vide Nov. Thes. G. L. 1340. d-41. a.

P. 41. De à vide Lex. Vocc. peregr. in Gr. Scriptt. obviarum cccxxxix. et Schneider. Ind. ad Rei Rustic Scriptt. v. Far.

Thetford, 1819.

E. H. BARKER.

P. S. Psellus de Lap. ap. Schleusner. Lex. in N. T. v. "Ιασπις: Η ἴασπις φύσει κρυσταλλοειδὴς, ὀλίγου ἐπιτεινομένη τὴν χροιαν, καὶ ἀρίστη μὲν ἡ πορφυροῦσα, δευτέρα δὲ ἡ * φθεγματικωτέρα,

παράλευκος, ἔστι δέ τις καὶ ἀεροειδὴς ἀναστέλλει. “ Lege * φλε Yuatinarega, ut patet e Diosc. 160. de jaspide, 'O è xpuotunλώδης, εοικως φλέγματι,” inquit Schleusner. in nova Edit. quæ hoc ipso anno Lipsiæ prodiit. Sed 1. pro lege-ut patet, V. D. scribere debuerat legendum-ut patet: 2. pro Diosc. 160. scr. Diosc. 5, 160.: 3. verba, ori de Tis xal deрwins ἀναστέλλει, perperam citantur, pro ἔστι δέ τις καὶ ἀερώδης, avarréλλe dé: 4. ipsum eodem modo ex eodem auctore hunc Pselli locum correxerant Editores Stephaniani Thesauri, quorum hæc sunt verba in Ind. ad Fasc. 1. et 2. p. xxiii. 1. Φλεγματικωτέρα reponendum esse pro φθεγμ., ut exhibetur in Schleusneri Lex., patet e Diosc. 5, 160. de jaspide, 'Ο δὲ κρυσταλλώδης, ἐοικώς φλέγματι.” Forte suo in Codice Boissonadius ypatinarépa reperiet. In Psello Maussaci, Tolosa 1615. edito, vertitur: "Melior ille, qui magis est vocalis parumper albus." Vocalem quidem Memnonis statuam novimus, ejusque historiam in Savary's Letters on Egypt, cum fructu legimus, sed quid sit vocalis lapis Tάnpeipos, ipse viderit Maussacus.

1821.

VOL. XXIII. Cl. Jl.

NO. XLV. G

CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

I HAD Occasion some time ago, in the course of my reading, to compare the accounts of the office of Quæstor, left us by the two principal Roman historians, Livy and Tacitus: when, to my great surprise, I found their statements to all appearance completely and irreconcileably at variance. 1 communicated this singular discrepancy to such of my acquaintance as seemed most conversant in these matters. Not one however could assign any satisfactory solution. As my last expedient, I here lay the two differing accounts before your readers; persuaded that, if any explanation can be given, it may reasonably be expected from some one of those many eminent scholars, who are in the habit of communicating their lucubrations to the public through the medium of the Classical Journal.

"Iisdem consulibus P. Dolabella censuit 'spectaculum gladiatorum per omnes annos celebrandum, pecunia eorum, qui quæsturam adipiscerentur.' Apud majores virtutis id præmium fuerat, cunctisque civium, si bonis artibus fiderent, licitum petere magistratus ac ne ætas quidem distinguebatur, quin prima juventa consulatum ac dictaturas inirent. Sed quæstores, regibus etiam tum imperantibus, instituti sunt: quod lex curiata ostendit, ab L. Bruto repetita. Mansitque consulibus potestas deligendi, donec eum quoque honorem populus mandaret: creatique primum Valerius Potitus, Æmilius Mamercus LXIII. anno post Tarquinios exactos, ut rem militarem comitarentur. Dein gliscentibus negotiis, duo additi qui Romæ curarent. Mox duplicatus numerus, stipendiaria jam Italia, et accedentibus provinciarum vectigalibus. Post lege Sullæ viginti creati supplendo senatui, cui judicia tradiderat : et quamquam equites judicia recuperavissent, quæstura tamen ex dignitate candidatorum, aut facilitate tribuentium, gratuito concedebatur, donec sententia Dolabellæ velut venum daretur."

Tacitus, Annal. xi. 22.

Here Tacitus expressly asserts that two Quæstors were created "ut rem MILITAREM comitarentur," some time before (DEIN gliscentibus negotiis) the Quastores URBANI had any existence. How far this statement agrees with what we are told by Livy, the following passage will show.

"Quemadmodnm bellum minore, quanı timuerant, dimicatione erat perfectum, sic in urbe ex tranquillo nec opinata moles discordiarum inter plebem ac Patres exorta est, cœpta ab duplicando quæstorum numero: quam rem, ut præter duos URBANOS quæstores, duo consulibus ad ministeria BELLI præsto essent, a consulibus relatam, quum et Patres summa ope approbassent, consulibus tribuni plebis certamen intulerunt, ut pars quæstorum (nam ad id tempus patricii creati erant) ex plebe fieret."

Livy, lib. iv. 43. Before I conclude, I wish to subjoin a few observations on part of the above-quoted passage from Tacitus.

"Apud majores," says the historian, "virtutis id præmium fuerat, cunctisque civium, si bonis artibus fiderent, licitum petere magistratus: ac ne ETAS quidem distinguebatur, quin PRIMA JUVENTA Consulatum ac dictaturas inirent."

What period Tacitus intended to designate by the words. "apud majores," I must confess myself unable to determine. We know, if Livy may be credited, that the first plebeian elected Consul was L. Sextius, A. c. 367. (Livy, vii. 1.) The first plebeian Dictator was C. Marcius Rutilus, A. c. 356. (vii. 17.) and in A. c. 351. the same person was appointed Censor, "primum de plebe." The first plebeian Prætor was Q. Publilius Philo, A. c. 336. (viii. 15.) And as we learn from the foregoing quotation from Livy, no plebeian had been elected Quæstor up to the year A. c. 421.

It is evident therefore, that during the greater part of the two first centuries of the Republic mere "virtus" and "bonæ artes," unsupported by rank, were not sufficient qualifications for holding the principal" magistratus." Should we assign any posterior period to the "apud majores" of the historian, his assertion "ac ne atas quidem distinguebatur," &c. would present an insuperable difficulty. For we gather from the notice taken of those who were elected (Consuls in particular) when under the legal age, that very few "prima juventa" obtained either the consulate or dictatorship. "In ancient times," indeed, as Dr. Adam observes, "there seem to have been no restrictions of this kind;" but we have found, that in those " ancient times," plebeians were not admitted as candidates for the chief offices of the state: and Tacitus assigns the eligibility of all ranks, and the disregard of age to the same period, whatever period that was.

Richmond, Surrey,
Feb. 1821.

ΖΗΤΗΤΗΣ:

[merged small][ocr errors]

IN that excellent and very useful publication, Dr. Murray's "Historical Account of Discoveries and Travels in Asia,” &e. which appeared in the course of last year (1820), some observations are offered respecting the ancient city of Palibothra in India. Having noticed Major Rennell's opinion, that its site was near Patna, Dr. Murray (Vol. i. p. 491.) thus proceeds :-" Amid these difficulties I shall mention a place considerably lower down the river, called Boglipoor. In the Greek orthography of Asiatic names the letters b and p, a and o, are used almost indiscriminately. Making these conversions, and softening according to the Greek euphonic system the harsh combination gl, Boglipoor is converted into Paliboor, which requires only a Greek termination to make it Palibothra. The position answers very exactly to that assigned to it by Ptolemy," &c. It is evident that Dr. Murray cannot have seen, at the time of his publishing this ingenious remark, (of which, therefore, he is fairly entitled to all the merit) Colonel Francklin's splendid work, "An Inquiry concerning the Site of ancient Palibothra, conjectured to lie within the limits of the modern district of Baughulpoor, according to researches made on the spot in 1811 and 1812." Of this work the first part was published (by Black and Co., London, quarto,) in the year 1815; and two (or perhaps three) other parts have since appeared at different times. Of the two first parts a short notice was given in the Classical Journal, No. xxxiv. (for June, 1818) p. 321.

On another subject I shall refer to Dr. Murray's work, (Vol. iii. p. 29.) where he mentions the Spanish work of Don Garcia de Sylva, who went as ambassador to Persia. Of this, he says, "It has not, so far as I know, been printed, but is found in manuscript in the British Museum." Of the printed Spanish edition I cannot give any account, but have reason to know that it is of the utmost rarity. A French translation, however, was published in Paris, 1667, entitled, "Ambassade en Perse depuis 1617, jusqu'en 1624, traduite de l'Espagnol, par De Wiequefort." This is not by any means uncommon. Respecting the Golden Fleece, which Jason brought from Colchis, and

some learned antiquaries have regarded as alluding to the traffic in wool-others, like Banier, as an ænigma almost inexplicable, and Huet as a mystery capable of different interpretations, I must here notice the ingenious conjecture of Mr. Marsden, who in his “Travels of Marco Polo, &c." p. 57. thinks that it was probably a cargo or specimen of "rich golden-colored raw silk in the hank, which might figuratively be termed a fleece," &c. This conjecture powerfully supports the opinion of Dr. Hager, expressed many years before, in his "Panthéon Chinois," wherein (p. 124.) having quoted many ancient and modern writers, he arrives at the conclusion that "la Soie pouvoit donc être cette toison. La couleur naturelle de la soie approche de l'or; en voyant de la soie écrue on croit souvent voir des fils d'or. Şi l'on donne aux épis de bled, à la chevelure blonde, l'épithète d'or, pourquoi les poëtes n'oseroient,ils pas appeler la soie une toison d'or ?" Of Dr. Hager's "Panthéon Chinois," an account was given in the Classical Journal, No. 11. p. 177. (June, 1810.)

!

P.

ORIENTAL LITERATURE.

To o a class of readers, whose numbers already very considerable are daily increasing, few publications would prove more acceptable than such a work as should place before them the names and some short notices of all the books hitherto printed, that relate to the subject of Eastern languages and literature. Towards the compilation of such a descriptive catalogue, great progress was made by that eminent Orientalist Baron Ienish, who, in the year 1780, published at Vienna, (as a preface to the new edi tion of Meninski's Dictionary) his " De Fatis Linguarum Orientalium Arabica, nimirum, Persica et Turcica Commentatio,' forming a folio volume of 164 pages. In this he stated nearly all that had been done by Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, English, Germans, and the more northern nations, respecting the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish languages. But since the publication of this volume, indeed within the last twenty years,

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »