τινι εσται. So the Harleian MS. But for παν το ισταμενον ἔν τινι κ. τ. λ. it is necessary to read παν τὸ ισταμένον ἐν τίνι κ. τ. λ., Ievery thing which stands still is in a certain thing." And for το μή μετέχειν τινος, ἔν τινι ἔσται, it is requisite to read, το μη με τεχειν τινοι ενός, ἐν τινι εσται, “ if it is common to the many not to participate of a certain one, they will be in a certain thing." For that which is common comprehends the multitude to which it is common.

Ρ. 208. 1. 15. ει δε και εδράζει τον ολον κόσμον κ. τ. λ. In the Harleian MS., by an unaccountable mistake, these words, and all that follows, are omitted, as far as to the words ταυτα μεν ουν ειρησθών κ. τ. λ. in l. 19. p. 212.; and then all that is here omitted is to be found in what follows in p. 220., after the words οτι εξαπατάτε ημας ως κ. τ. λ., in the last line of that page.

Ρ. 209. 1. 1. ει δε και, ως φησιν εκείνος, στον ζωη των ασωμάτων εστιν η κινησις. So the Harleian MS.; but for ασωματων it is necessary to read σωμάτων. For Proclus is here citing the wellknown saying of Aristotle, "that motion is as it were the life of bodies."

Ρ. 209. 1. 14. αλλ' ότι μεν εστιν εκεί και στασις και κινησις, δηλον δια τουτων, και ως η μεν εστι το αιώνιον της δημιουργικής νοήσε ως και τὸ τῆς πρόνοιας ενεργον. But for προνοιας "in this passage the Harleian MS. has ενέργειας, which I have no doubt is the true reading for as permanency is the perpetuity of demiurgic intellection, so motion is that which gives efficacy to the energy of the Demiurgus.

* Ρ. 216. 1. 15. τελευταίον τοινυν το, ω Ζήνων, δια της ανακλησεως προσρησιν εμφαίνει της επιστημης αυτου κ. τ. λ. So the Harleian MS. But for προσρησιν I read πρόκλησιν.

P. 221. Proclus, speaking of Pythodorus, one of the persons of the dialogue, says of him; ουδε αφιλοσοφος εστι κατά το ήθος, ουδε σοφιστικός, αυτός έγουν την συνουσίαν απαγγέλων, ουδε το εαυτου παθος απέκρυψεν, ίνα πάσιν εξαγγέλλη την ζωήν και εκφήνη των εις την πρώτην ουσίαν τετελεκότων. This is likewise the reading of the Harleian MS.; but instead of εις την πρώτην ουσίαν it is necessary

Thus too in the Commentaries of Proclus on the Timæus, as I have observed in my translation of that admirable work, after the words διο και το λογιον υδροβατηρας καλει τους θεους τούτους (μ. 270), the words το δε ούτως και δια ταυτα immediately follow, which belong to the Commentary in p. 266. And the part which should immediately follow υδροβάτηρας, and begins with επί δε των επομένων τοις θεοις γενων, is to be found in p. 279. line 6. from the bottom.

to read εις την πρωτην συνουσίαν, as will be evident from a perusal of the commentary of Proclus on the Introductory part of the Parmenides.

P. 223. 1. 2. Proclus having observed, that Socrates could not endure to remain in visible objects, nor to be busily employed in the monads which are coarranged with them, adds, aλx'

αυτας τας αύλους και αμέριστους και νοερας μονάδας αναφεροντ τος τον ἑαυτου νουν, και απο της προόδου της κατά το πληθος, κατα δε τινα κυκλον, επ' αυτό παλιν το εν ποιουμένου τα θεια τα μετά την γονιμον δυναμιν των δευτέρων, της προόδου το πέρας, επι την οίκειαν αρχην ανελίσσοντα. So also the Harleian MS. But after the words επ' αυτό παλιν το εν ποιουμένου, I conceive the words την επιστροφήν μιμουμένου are wanting. So that the whole passage in English, thus amended, will be: "But elevating his intellect to the immaterial, impartible, and intellectual monads, and from a progression according to multitude; and in a certain circle again making a regression to the one itself; [in so doing] imitating divine natures, who after the prolific power of secondary natures convolve the end of the progression to the proper principle of it." For in every divine order there are μov, pod80s,_xas Exiστgoon, permanency, progression, and regression.

Ρ. 293. 1. 12. οικεια γαρ τοις μεν πατρικοις και μοναδικοις δεύτεροις απο τούτων η γονιμος δυναμις, και η μέχρι του πλήθους. So likewise the Harleian MS. But after πατρικοις και μοναδικοις, it is requisite to add porn, and also after deurepois to add 8. So that this passage will be in English, conformably to what we have above observed of every divine order, as follows: "For permanency is adapted to paternal and monadic natures, but prolific power, and a progression as far as to multitude, to the natures which are secondary to these."

In the last line of the same page, I conceive with the Professor, that morous is wanting after the word σuvapny. And there is the same deficiency in the Harleian MS.

348

REMARKS ON LIVY,

LIB. III. C. 5.

Two able correspondents having already discussed this passage in the two former numbers of the Journal, I almost despair of being able to throw any further light upon its obscurities; but, as neither the conjectures of the one, nor the explanations of the other, appear to me at all satisfactory, I will hazard a few ob servations. Scribimus indocti doctique. The passage in question stands thus:

"Interim in castris Furius consul, quum primo quietus obsidionem passus esset, in incautum hostem decumana porta erupit, et, quum persequi posset, metu substitit ne qua, ex parte altera, in castra vis fieret. Furium legatum (frater idem consulis erat) longius extulit cursus: nec suos ille redeuntes, persequendi studio, neque hostium ab tergo incursum vidit: ita exclusus, multis sæpe frustra conatibus captis, acriter dimicans cecidit. Et consul, nuncio circumventi fratris conversus ad pugnam, dum se temere magis, quam satis caute, in mediam dimicationem infert, vulnere accepto, ægre ab circumstantibus ereptus, et suorum animos turbavit, et ferociores hostes fecit: qui, cæde legati et consulis vulnere accensi, nulla deinde vi sustineri potuere, quum compulsi in castra Romani rursus obsiderentur, nec spe, nec viribus pares: venissetque in periculum summa rerum, ni T. Quinctius peregrinis copiis cum Latino Hernicoque exercitu subvenisset."

.. Of the above quotation, J. W. in the last Number, p. 29., very considerately favored the public with a translation; the accuracy of which in some few respects, with due deference to its general merits, I must take the liberty of questioning. J. W thus commences:

"In the mean time the Consul Furius, after having at first unmolested (by assault) suffered siege in his camp, sallied from the Decuman gate upon the incautious enemy:" and so convinced is he of the propriety of this interpretation of quietus, that he recurs to it in the conclusion of his article: "Now the writer plainly narrates, that Furius and his forces were really besieged at the arrival of Quinctius; and brings in view before his readers the falling fortune and sad dilemma of the Roman army, con

trasted with their situation at the former period, when they were indeed besieged; but, as pointedly remarked, quieti, unmolested; the enemy durst not attack them." The obvious contradiction involved in the application of the epithet unmolested to a besieged army, J. W. has endeavoured to obviate by the introduction of the words "by assault" in a parenthesis; there are however other objections equally obvious, but not equally surmountable: 1. There is a manifest opposition between the passive submission of the Consul to the blockade in the first instance, and his subsequent sally on the unguarded enemy. 2. The adjective incautum is by no means indicative of alarm on the part of the besiegers, but rather of the blind and presumptuous confidence arising from previous successes; it being evident, that, if the Romans had been so formidable, that "they (the besiegers) durst not attack them," they would either have been apprehensive for their own safety, or have been on the watch for some favorable reverse to present itself. 3. On which side fear was most predominant, is clearly deducible from the weak and irresolute conduct of the Consul, whose extreme terror ne qua, ex parte altera, in castra vis fieret, (lest "an attack from some other quarter might be made on his camp," as J. W. translates it, but which would have been more correctly rendered the other, that is, the opposite quarter) totally incapacitated him from following up that advantage which he had most decidedly obtained. 4. In opposition to J. W.'s assertion that "the enemy durst not attack them," we are distinctly informed in the commencement of the chapter that an assault was actually made upon the camp: "Multi per eos dies motus multique impetus hinc atque illinc facti, quia, superante multitudine, hostes carpere multifariam vires Romanas, ut non subfecturas ad omnia, adgressi sunt: simul castra obpugnabantur." That obpugnabantur is distinct from obsidebantur, I presume, J. W. will not question. The following passage from Livy, lib. xxi. c. 8., clearly points out a difference: "Obsidio deinde per paucos dies magis, quam obpugnatio fuit, dum vulnus ducis curaretur." And, which is still more decisive, in the chapter preceding the one under discussion we have this sentence:"Primo concursu pulsus se in castra recepit: neque is finis periculi fuit: namque et proxima nocte et postero die tanta vi castra sunt circumsessa atque obpugnata, ut ne nuncius quidem inde mitti Romam posset.

3

*

"

That J. W.'s interpretation of quietus in the present instance is incorrect, I consider as clearly proved; that the word may sometimes have the meaning which he has affixed to it, I do not

deny. Its primary sense, however, as derived from quiesco, is undoubtedly a middle one; but as he who keeps himself quiet, is in general in the least danger of being molested, we may thus arrive at this secondary signification. In Livy, lib. ii. c. 24., we have, "quum et foris quieta omnia a bello essent," where quietus may be rendered unmolested; and similarly in the passage before us, had the words of Livy been quietus ab oppugnationibus, J. W.'s translation might have been valid, but without such an adjunct cannot possibly be so.

Facciolati has noticed one of the uses of quietus to be de his, qui bello abstinent, of which he gives the following instances: Sallust. Or. 1. ad Cæs. de Rep. ord. 2. Homines concurrere in castra tua, et aperte quietis mortem, rapinas minitari. Justin. 7. fin. Non contentus submovere bella, ultro etiam quietos lacessit.

J. W. thus proceeds in his translation: "This sally carried out too far the Lieutenant Furius, (brother of the Consul) and, [who] in the eagerness of pursuit, noticed neither his own men retreating, nor an assault of the foe in his rear. Thus intercepted, after repeated efforts to make his way to the camp, he fell while vigorously encountering the enemy. And the Consul, on the information of his brother being surrounded, resolved upon battle, and hurrying with more temerity than caution, into the midst of the engagement, he received a wound, and was with difficulty rescued by his soldiers around him."

Dr. Adam, in his Roman Antiquities, p. 371., renders Legatus by Lieutenant-General, which certainly conveys a more adequate idea of the rank of a Legate, who was next in command to the Consul, than our title of Lieutenant.

As J. W. expresses a wish to be very exact in the use of par ticles, I would suggest to him, for the words " and the Consul," to substitute “the Consul also," which, I think, without excessive refinement, will be found, on an examination of the passage, to be better adapted to the sense of the original.

Conversus ad pugnam, resolved upon battle. From this singularly erroneous interpretation, it would be inferred, that such an idea had now for the first time entered into the mind of the Consul; whereas, from the narrative of Livy, we learn, that an engagement had actually taken place a very short time previous; that, in consequence of the cowardly retreat of the Consul, the more enterprising Legate had been surrounded by the enemy; but that, on the news of this disaster, the Consul resunied his courage, and returned to the fight, with the vain hope of retriev