pene agrestes putet. At quid est tam fractum, tam minutum, tam in ipsa, quam tamen consequitur, concinnitate puerile?1 I now take my leave of the Quarterly Reviewer: I may have noticed his assertions harshly, but I was obliged to notice them strongly; for to a popular writer in a very popular Review I may say with truth: Τὸ δ ̓ ἀξίωμα, κἂν κακῶς λέγῃς, τὸ σὸν Πείσει. λόγος γὰρ ἔκ τ ̓ ἀδοξούντων ἰων Κἀκ τῶν δοκούντων αὐτος, οὐ ταυτὸν σθένει. Hitherto I have had little difficulty to overcome; but, as my present subject is the supposed Longinus, I feel in some degree embarrassed, and must proceed with caution. Let us first consider the grounds for attributing the Treatise on Sublimity to the secretary of Zenobia, or any Dionysius or Longinus whatsoever. The usual title of the treatise is Διονυσίου Λογγίνου πegì "r↓ovs, but in the Varia Lectiones we find " Par. et Vat. 1. Διονυσίου ἢ Λογγίνου. Laur. melius, Ανωνύμου. Sic in Catal. Bandinii." According to Suidas the name of Zenobia's secretary is Cassius Longinus, and I doubt much if he or any other author was ever known by the name of Dionysius Longinus. In the work itself no mention is made of any author later than the Augustan age, and as no Testimonia Veterum have yet appeared, I conclude that none are to be found. As to the author's friend, it seems to signify little whether his name is Posthumius Terentianus or Pistumius Florentianus; for although it appears from the treatise that he was a man of learning and talent, I am not aware that he has been identified by any of the critics; and before I conclude this subject I may be able to show that the real author, the Great Unknown of an earlier day, had no light reason for concealing his own name, and giving a fictitious name to his friend. As to the treatise itself, Suidas mentions several, though not all the works of Cassius Longinus; no mention however of this Treatise on Sublimity is made by him, or, as I believe, by any other author. Yet to the Cassius Longinus of Suidas, we add the prænomen of Dionysius, by virtue of an act of criticism, and then by dropping the Cassius, and taking no notice of the or the 'Avwvúpou of the Mss. we manufacture our Dionysius Longinus. ■ De Claris Oratoribus, 83. See also Orator, 67. 2 Though I differ in my conclusion both from Amati and Weiske, I. must be allowed to refer to their notes, and acknowledge my obligations to them. VOL. XXXII. Cl. Jl. NO. LXIII. H CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE. WE readily insert the subsequent letter from Mr. Clinton, in reference to the remarks made by us in our last number [Cl. Jl. No. LXII. p. 356.], on his laborious and most useful work: a work which we then recommended most strongly to the notice of the literary world, and concerning which we repeat, that a diligent perusal of its pages will greatly improve the young, and not slightly assist the adult, scholar. It would not answer the object we have in view to make our Journal a vehicle for literary dispute. Our opinion and Mr. Clinton's answer will be The now before the public-the final judges in these cases. greater part of our objections will be obviated when Mr. Clinton puts the finishing stroke to his design of rendering the whole of Grecian Chronology as clear and convincing as the part which we have had the pleasure of perusing. In reply to Mr. Clinton's notice of the Athenian population, A. C. 317. we intend to take an early opportunity of examining the question, unless he should kindly anticipate us through the medium of our Journal, or otherwise. Welwyn, Herts, July 12th, 1825. SIR,-Having observed in the Notice of the FASTI HELLENICI, which appears in the Classical Journal, LXII, some objections stated, I venture to trouble you with this letter, containing a reply to those objections, trusting that you will have the candor to insert it. The reviewer (p. 358) objects in the first place to my division of the subject. He thinks that the battle of Charonea would be a proper termination of the 2d period, and seems to intimate that the 3d period ought to conclude at the extinction of the Achæan league. If we were to confine our view merely to the civil affairs of the republics of Proper Greece, these two events would undoubtedly be convenient epochs. But I proposed to extend my survey to the Greek kingdoms of Asia, Macedon, and Egypt: and, although some of these, as the Macedonian, were conquered before the extinction of the Achæan league, yet others subsisted long after that date; as, the Syrian Monarchy brings us down within 68 years, and the Egyptian within 30 years, of the Christian era. The characters which marked the 124th Olympiad were these: 1. The Achaan league commenced at that date. 2. Great revolutions occurred in Asia in consequence of the death of Seleucus. 3. The power of the Romans first began to be known and felt by the Greeks. But the Civil Chronology was only a part of my design; it was also my purpose to include the literature of Greece; and, with a view to this, the battle of Charonea was no epoch at all. Demosthenes at that date was still in the midst of his career; his best oration having been delivered eight years later; Alexis was still in the midst of his comic exhibitions; Aristotle had not yet settled at Athens, and the four schools of Philosophy had not yet assumed their ultimate and permanent form. But by fixing the termination of the 2d period at the 124th Olympiad, I arrive at a point at which the division of Philosophy into its four sects was now perfected; I include the whole life of Menander, and the first exhibitions of the last comic poet of Athens; and I reach a new literary era, the commencement of the school of Alexandria, which is to be fixed to the beginning of the reign of Philadelphus. The second objection of the reviewer is, "that I am guilty of a species of tautology in mentioning particular persons as florishing in different years: that, if Pythagoras florished in 539 and died in 472, he must have florished during the whole of the intermediate time, and it was unnecessary to mention this." -It was my object through the whole course of the work to assemble all the evidence that could be collected for the establishment of each particular fact; and when the time of Pythagoras was to be determined, it was material to record where he was placed by the testimonies of ancient writers. Thus in 533 I inform the reader that Diodorus placed this philosopher at Olymp. 61. in 531, that Clemens and Cyril placed him at Olymp. 62. The reader learns at 525 that Eusebius referred him to Olymp. 63. 4., and at 520 that he is mentioned again by Eusebius at Olymp. 65. All these were necessary as particles of that mass of evidence which collectively enables us to fix the time of Pythagoras. The reader again is informed at 546 that Hipponax is placed by the marble in the times of Croesus and Cyrus; and at 539 that Pliny refers him to Olymp. 60. These are two concurrent witnesses, each confirming the other. Passages like these are not tautology, but the production of new evidence in corroboration of the fact which it is proposed to Of lbycus it is told at B. C. 560. that Suidas places him at Olymp. 54. and the reviewer thinks it quite unnecessary for me to mention in 539, that Eusebius refers him to Olymp. 60. But, in my opinion, this latter piece of information is by no means rendered superfluous by the former; for it did not. follow that because Ibycus florished in 560, he was therefore necessarily still alive in 539. In each of the years 498, 496, 495, (which the reviewer quotes as open to the same objection) the reader will find that new facts are produced. Nor was the enumeration of the years of the Ionian war without its object. The chronology of that war had been erroneously laid down by great authorities, whose positions I examine in the Appendix, c. 5.; and it was necessary to the establishment of my own positions, and to the refutation of theirs, that each successive year of that war should be carefully marked. The reviewer observes that "if B. C. 513. was the 1st year of Hippias, it required no great powers of calculation to infer that B. C. 511. was the 3d." Undoubtedly it did not. But that undeniable proposition has been stated by me at B. C. 511. in order to be made the foundation of an argument. There were apparent contradictions in the testimonies to the time of Hippias: he was said to be expelled in his 3d year, in his 4th year, and in the 20th year before the battle of Marathon. I therefore state the completion of his 3d year in Hecatombæon, B. C. 511. in order to arrive at the conclusion which the reader will find in my Tables, at B. C. 510. The last objection of the reviewer is to my account of the numbers of Attica in B. C. 317, which I state at 539,500. He "cannot comprehend this arithmetic;" and "it appears to him that 21,000 Athenian citizens, 10,000 metiques, and 400,000 slaves, would give 431,000." It is true that my account in the Tables stands at present without explanation, for a reason which is hinted in the preface, p. iv.; namely, that this explanation was reserved for the Appendix. But the reviewer would have had no difficulty in comprehending my arithmetic, if it had occurred to him that 21,000 Athenian citizens expressed those only who had votes in the public assembly, or all the males above the age of twenty years; that the 10,000 μétoixo described only the males of full age; and that in both these cases the women and children were to be added. Mr. Gibbon, and others, in order to obtain the total numbers, multiply by 4, and state 124,000 as the total free population: the Baron de Sainte-Croix, in a dissertation on this subject, in Mém. de l'Acad. tom. 48, multiplies by 41, which gives 139,500. I have followed the latter mode of computing; and 400,000 slaves (which I agree with Gibbon in understanding to express all the slaves of either sex and of every age,) added to 139,500 free inhabitants, will give 539,500 for the total numbers, as I have stated them. HENRY FYNES CLINTON. FOR 1825. SCULPTURE. Marmoris aut eboris fabros aut æris amavi HORAT. Ep. Lib. 11. i. 9. THE winds were hush'd on Pindus—and the day Bask'd in the heaven's blue beauty-and were still :- There, by lone mount, and vale, and deep-brow'd dell,- And the sweet sadness of the midnight moon- Woo'd thy warm thoughts-and made their dwelling there. 'Tis said what minstrel doubts the legend's truth?— The day-god lov'd thee from thine earliest youth, And pour'd around the musings of thy heart 10 20 30 |