598 Badge of the Percy Family.-Assyrian Chronology. [XCY. lier; Dr. James Mackenzie, author of the "History of Health."-At the Theatre Mrs. Siddons first displayed her abilities.-At the Commandery, during the battle of Worcester, Duke Hamilton died.-On the East side of the Cathedral is the house where the patriot Lord Somers was born. Dec. 1. And again : "Then journeying to the holy land, But first the silver crescent won, Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, S. T. E. G. Dec. 13. Mr. URBAN, YOUR Correspondent, Mr. Gage, YOUR has opportunely answered (at p. 297) my query respecting the Crests and Badges of the Percy family; and mentions the ancient Badge of the Crescent as used by the Earl of Northumberland in the time of James the First. This has been used by the family, from time immemorial, to the present period. The crescent encloses. 265) remarks, that the names ISAAC NEWTON (Chron. a double manacle or fetlock, in a partycoloured ground, the form of which charge has always been misrepresented on plate, carriages, escutcheons, &c. of this noble House. - Edmonson's "Baronagium Genealogicum" has it the most perfect, but not exactly; in consequence of which, allow me to send you a sketch, as taken from ancient tracery on different parts of Alnwick Castle, co. Northumberland, with a brief mention of its antiquity. In Knaresborough Church, county of York, a female of the Percy family, recumbent on an altar-tomb (erected in the reign of Elizabeth) rests her foot against a crescent. At Percy's, in the parish of Scotton, co. York, the crescent appears on the cieling of the hall in several places, of a very early date. A quotation from an old ballad will further illustrate the subject: "The Minstrels of that noble house With silver cresents on their arms p. of the Assyrian Monarchs recorded by Ctesias and the ancient Greek and Latin authors who copy after him, have no affinity with the names of those mentioned by the inspired writers; except that of Sardanapalus, whose name he had met with in Herodotus. (Euterpe, c. 150.) He adds, that although Herodotus (whose numbers concerning these ancient times are all too long) makes the duration of the Assyrian empire only 520 years, Ctesias makes it 1360. I shall not follow this able writer in the arguments which he deduces from Scripture to prove the recent origin of the Assyrian empire, when Sennacherib invaded Judæa; and that Pul was the first conqueror among these Monarchs (see p. 267, &c.); but shall proceed to expose the absurdities and inconsistencies which abound in the received history of Assyria. First. The number of the Monarchs, and the duration of their reigns, are variously delivered by the different historians. Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii. c. 21, 23, 28) says, the descendants of Ninus reigned for 30 generations and 1360 years; as he professes to copy from Ctesias. Agathias (De Imper. et reb. gest. Justiniani, lib. ii.) and Syncellus (Chronograph. p. 286, ed. Venet. p. 359, ed. Paris) ascribe the duration of 1306 years to this Monarchy, but the right reading in both these authors is probably 1360, as in Diodorus. Paterculus (lib. 1, c. 6) says 1070 (some copies 1230) years; and 33 Monarchs. Syncellus (p. 132, ed. Venet.) says Sar PART II.] Chronology of the Assyrian Empire. Sardanapalus was the 41st Monarch, and says, the Monarchy lasted 1460 years, ending (according to the same author) A. M. 4675. Syncellus (p. 133) quotes Cephalion, as saying that the descendants of Ninus reigned above 1000 years; and that no one of them reigned less than 20; and adding that Ctesias relates the names of 23. Justin says, the empire (lib. 1. c. 2) lasted 1300 years. Secondly. Not even 41 Monarchs (the greatest number any author mentions) could reign even 1000 years, the least number ascribed to them. In my former communication, I think I satisfactorily proved it impossible for any number of Kings to reign more than 18 years, one with another. Let us, however, admit for once that they might reign 20 years. Even in this case the 41 Monarchs could only fill up a period of about 820 years. Thirdly. If these Monarchs were so effeminate as described, how could they have retained so extensive an empire so long? If they were not effeminate and cowardly, it is plain the historians are fabulists, because they all agree in saying they were. Sarda napalus is said to have far exceeded all his predecessors in luxury and effeminacy; and yet he is said to have commanded four armies in as many battles, and afterwards to have destroyed himself and family on a funeral pile. Herodotus mentions Sardanapalus as very rich, and describes a successful attempt to rob his treasury: but as he either had written or was preparing to write a History of Assyria (see Clio. c. 106 and 184), he does not mention the destruction of Nineveh. As this history has not been preserved, we unfortunately are left very much in the dark on this subject, and can draw no conclusion from our author's silence here. Fourthly. Ctesias and his followers say that it was Arbaces a Median, and Belesis a Babylonian, who rebelled against Sardanapalus, and destroyed Nineveh the first time: and Herodotus says that Cyaxares, the Median Monarch, conquered Assyria (Clio. c. 106); and in the concluding verse of the apocryphal book of Tobit, Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus are said to have destroyed it. Newton, c. 6, 310, (and others I believe) thinks that He 599 rodotus has erred, in placing Cyaxares before Astyages, and that Astyages was son of Phraortes. Assuerus and Astyages are universally allowed to be the same King of Media. Nabuchodonosor was a name common to the Kings of Babylon. Although Herodotus does not say that the King of Babylon assisted the Medes, yet it is highly probable, as the King Labynetus (Clio, 74) was the mediator between Astyages (or_Cyaxares)__and Alyattes the Lydian, B. C. 585. Thus we find that it is agreed on all hands, that the Babylonians and Medes were the destroyers of Nineveh; but that it is supposed to have been twice destroyed, because chronologers ascribe each to a very different epoch. But we may remark that Justin and Paterculus only mention one destruction of the town; and that Herodotus and the Scripture also only mention one; but as some will have it, a quite different event. This destruction of Nineyeh is variously dated. Sir Isaac Newton places it B. C. 609; Mr. Gibbon, &c. 606; Larcher, 603; Arnald, 613, or the 29th year of King Josiah. If Newton has rightly placed the Trojan war B. C. 904, Diodorus himself affords us a clue to the discovery of the truth; as he says the destruction of Nineveh followed that of Troy 306 years; consequently this would be dated about 600 B. C. Those who suppose that this town was twice destroyed, date it from Eusebius, B. C. 820, from Justin, B. C. 900. Blair, Gibbon, Paterculus, 740, Lavoisne, 747. From Chronology, therefore, arises the only objection which can be made to the supposition, that the different historians alike relate the same event. Of one thing we are certain, that Ninevel was destroyed about 600 B. C. as the Scriptures prove. Of the other we can have no certainty, as the relaters of the same fact disagree with one another, and place it in very different years. The artificial chronologers (as Newton calls them) do not here even agree; and upon their authority only do we deny that there was but one Nineveh; and weary ourselves in making useless conjectures, in order to explain a difficulty which we ourselves have created, and which is completely ideal. For the rest I refer my reader to Sir Isaac Newton's work. SEPTEMDECIMUS. Mr. 600 Mr. URBAN, Monument at Waterloo.-Singular Epitaph. Nov. 12. WHATEVER has a reference to the Field of Waterloo, must be extremely interesting to the world in general, and to Englishmen in particular, who bore so distinguished a part in a battle, which in its consequences put an end to a bloody and protracted war, which for more than a quarter of a century had deluged the Continent with blood, and to a system of sanguinary and unprincipled ambition, by which one individual had brought in calculable misery on the civilized part of the human race, and had shed the blood of millions in the pursuit of his lawless and tyrannical system of aggrandizement. Without further preface, permit me to extract from the perishable pages of a daily newspaper the following description of a "Monument at Waterloo," from the pen of Mr. J. Deville, a visitant of the spot: "This Monument is an earthern mound or hill of immense size, being upwards of 700 feet diameter at the base, and 2160 feet in circumference. It is 200 feet high, and 100 feet in diameter at the top. There is a double carriage road winding round it in a spiral form, and supplying an easy method of ascent for carriages to the very top; and by this road the materials have been and are conveyed to complete the work. In the centre is a shaft of brick, which is carried up from the bottom, and is still going on. It is to be 60 feet higher than the top of the Eastern mount, making the whole height 200 feet. It is intended for a pedestal to receive a lion, the crest of Belgium, which will be 21 feet long, and 12 feet high, and which is ready to be put up when the I work is completed. The mound has been 18 months in hand, and is to be finished within six more. For the first six months, 2000 men, 600 horses, and as many carts as could be kept at work, were employed upon it, and the number has been only diminished as the termination of the work approached. It is of the conical form, with the top cut off, and out of it the shaft or pedestal for the lion rises. At present it has a pleasing appearance, from the great number of horses, carts, and people, ascending and descending by the winding road." Not doubting but that the insertion of this extract will be means of further inquiry and elucidation as the work proceeds, I remain, Mr. URBAN, [XCV. Dec. 23. THE inclosed Epitaph is from a very scarce book in my possesItinerum Delicia; seu, ex variis Masion, entitled "Variorum in Europâ nuscriptis selectiora tantum inscriptionum maximè recentium MonuGermanica, Helvetia et Bohemiâ, Damenta. Quibus passim in Italiâ et niâ et Cimbriâ, Belgio et Galliâ, Angliâ et Polonia, &c. Templa, Aræ, Scholæ, Bibliothecæ, Musæa, Arces, Palatia, Tribunalia, Poetæ, Arcus Triumphales, Obelisci, Pyramides, Nosodochia, Armamentaria Propugnacula, Portus Asyla, Edes, Cœnacula, Horologia, Pontes, Horti, Villæ, Agriaria, Thermæ, Fontes, Monetæ, Statuæ, Tabulæ, Emblemata Cippi Sepulchra, &c. conspicua sunt. Præmissis in clariores urbes Epigrammatibus, Julii Cæs. Scaligeri. ‘Ömnia nuper collecta et hoc modo digesta à Nathane Chrytæo. Editio Secunda. Apud Christophorum Corvinum, 1599." The book is dedicated to Christian, third King of Denmark, Norway, &c. If you think it worthy a place in your valuable Miscellany, it will be Hattering to an old Correspondent. The following Epitaph is from the Church of S. Spiritus in Sienna. PART 11.] [ 601 ] REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 07. A Manual of Classical Bibliography, comprising a copious Detail of the various Editions, Commentaries, and Works critical and illustrative, and Translations from the English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, and occasionally other Languages of the Greek and Latin Classics. By Joseph William Moss, B.A. of Magdalen Hall, Oxford. 8vo. 2 vols. OUR natural reflection at sight of works of this kind is, why have we not a standard edition of each writer got up on the same principle as an authorized Version of the Bible, and illustrated in the same manner as the Del phin editions? We say the Delphin editions, not that we conceive them the best, but think that the form of the notes conveys to us the most knowledge of the meaning of the author, and the manners of the times. It is evidently useful under present circumstances, that we should know the character of the goods which we mean to purchase, but it is certainly not very pleasant to find various opinions in the Bibliographers, because it is utterly impossible for those not engaged in the very identical line of research, to tell which of these Bibliographers is right, and to ascertain this point would require a great deal of time and labour. For instance, under Ammianus Marcellinus, in the present work, I. 38, we have LUGD. BAT. 12mo, 1632, Boxhornii. Dr. Harwood calls this edition beautiful and very correct. The Bibliographical Dict. I. p. 37, says that it is very beautiful, and very incorrect." 66 We have some excellent editions of the Classicks, and we venture to say that the verbal corrections of numerous editors are in several places perfectly childish. In Burman's edition of Petronius (who by the way is utterly omitted by Mr. Moss, because perhaps deemed by him a factitious Classick, of later æra), numerous instances occur of this mischievous emendation. Works of the kind before us may warn those who are in the possession of good editions not to part with them hastily. We had an edition of Cicero's Orations by Freigius, 3 vols. 12mo, which we gave away to a person whom anoGENT. MAG. Suppl. XCV. PART II. D ther edition would have equally served; The Editio Princeps of Martial is Part 602 REVIEW.-Dr. Highmore's Arguments, &c. Part of Varro's works are lost.-To some of the editions of Tibullus are annexed Elegies, imputed to Cornelius Gallus, which Grainger says are a modern composition, the work of one Longinus Maximian, a physician (Notes on El. i. v. 3.) We do not find this noticed by Mr. Moss, i. 260. -We here stop, because Mr. Roscoe, in his Life of Lorenzo de Medici, abounds with bibliographical information, see i. pp. 30, 33, &c. &c. 3d ed. 4to, 1797.-In p. 38 he informs us, that Nicciolo Niccoli, who died in 1438, was the father of that species of criticism which corrects the defects and arranges the texts of MSS. We think that a diligent search for lost Classics ought to be made in private foreign libraries, by means of correspondence with the Literati abroad, and that lists of the lost books would be useful adjuncts to the works on Bibliography. They are commonly mentioned in the prefaces to the authors. Mr. Moss is very ample in his quotations, and has certainly taken much pains with his subject. It is not from injustice to Mr. Moss that we say no more. A gentleman who has lately published a History of Chivalry, a Mr. Mills, has thought proper to attack Dr. Meyrick's admirable work on Armour. Now we do not think a man's opinion worth a straw upon such a subject, in comparison with those of Dr. M. if he has never possessed, like Dr. M. a collection of armour. In the same manner, we should think ourselves as unreasonable as Mr. Mills, if we gave opinions in praise or reprobation of Bibliographers, without having seen the editions upon which the remarks are made. 108. Arguments for L.C.J. Mansfield's Doc IN the first Pamphlet we are in formed that the author having taken the degree of LL. D. at an English University, applied for permission to practise in Doctors' Commons, but was rejected on account of having taken deacon's orders (see p. 47), the appointment solicited being for that reason contrary to the Canons. The applicants for civilian advocacy must have, it also seems, the approbation of the Archbishop of Canterbury before they receive their diploma (if it may be so called), and hence the concern of his Grace in the affair,—a concern which we lament, because the ineligibility of Clergymen for the office should have been expressed in the Act of Parliament; but if it be the fact (and it is not denied) that the complainant, Dr. Highmore, had taken Deacon's orders (see p. 47), he must of course have sworn obedience to the Canons, and whether his postulate, that advocacy in the Commons ought not to be limited to laymen, be well founded or not, he cannot justly complain of the operation of Canons, to which he has sworn allegiance, or load the Archbishop of Canterbury with censure, because his Grace did not choose to infringe those Canons which it was his duty to support. Had Dr. Highmore thought proper to acquaint himself with the customary proceedings in these matters before he took the degree of LL. D. nothing of this would have happened. In the second Pamphlet Dr. Highmore calls himself a Commissioned Advocate, because, we presume, from pp. 67, 68, that a commission had been made out, but was revoked or not executed. The substance of this second pamphlet is "a heavy fire of grape, round, and canister," against the Bishops and Clergy (who had no manner of concern with the transaction), and we are sorry to say, that, considering the change of times, Dr. Highmore's warfare is that of a pirate, and the modes, those incompatible with He has taken up all the austerities of the usages of civilized Belligerents. ancient times, and applied them to the man, |