*

to read εις την πρωτην συνουσιαν, 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, αλλ' επ' αυτας τας αΰλους και αμεριστους και νοερας μοναδας αναφερον τος τον εαυτου νουν, και απο της προοδου της κατα το πλήθος, κατα δε τινα κυκλον, επ' αυτο παλιν το εν ποιουμένου τα θεια τα μετα την γονιμον δυναμιν των δευτερων, της προοδου το περας, επι την οίκειαν αρχην ανελισσοντα. So also the Harleian MS. But after the words επ' αυτο παλιν το εν ποιουμενου, I conceive the words την επιστροφην 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 cirele 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 μόνη, προοδος, και επιστροφη, permanency, progression, and regression...

P: 223.1. 12. οικεια γαρ τοις μεν πατρίκοις και μοναδικοις δευτεροις 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 η μονη, and also after δευτεροις to add de. 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 ποιουσι is wanting after the word συναφην. And there is the same deficiency in the Harleian MS.

rodio

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 observations. Scribimus indocti doctique. The passage in question stands thus:

"Interim in castris Furius consul, quum primo quietus obsi dionem 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 convinceda 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, scones 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."

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 therank 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 resumed his courage, and returned to the fight, with the vain hope of retriev ing his former errors, and rescuing his brother from his perilous situation.

The remainder of J. W.'s translation stands thus: "This both depressed their spirits, and rendered the enemy more ferocious: who, elated at the death of the Lieutenant, and the Consul's wound, could by no effort any longer be kept in check: when the Romans driven back into their camp were again suffering siege, with prospects and forces unequal to their opponents: and their very existence would have been at stake, unless T. Quinetius with the foreign troops, and the army of Latium and of the Hernici, had reinforced them."

More ferocious, though a very literal, is scarcely a correct translation; more confident, more determined is rather the sense of the original; the following passage is exactly parallel : Livy, xxxix. 31., Atrox in principio prælium fuit, et Hispanis recenti victoria ferocibus, et insueta ignominia milite Romano accenso: Cf. xxi, 54. ii, 56. i, 53. iii, 47.

We now arrive at the more prominent difficulties of the chapter: "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." The "trifling changes" of cum into tum, and again of cum into suis, proposed by D. B. H. in No. XLVI. p. 278., J. W. has satisfactorily shown to be inadmissible. In stating his objections, however, he has not expressed himself with sufficient accuracy. I allude to the following passage: "If Livy had intended to inform us that the Romans would have been besieged again in camp, unless the arrival of Quinctius had taken place, then tum might have been used: but the verb obsideri must indispensably have been in the perfect tense obsessi essent, as a correlative with subvenisset" Now if J. W. will reconsider the subject, he will find that the correlative to obsessi essent, would be the pluperfect tense venisset. J. W. farther observes: "To render the passage unexceptionable, I would merely, after viribus pares, substitute a colon for a comma:" J. W. will perceive that I have adopted this punctuation, and if he will take the trouble of examining Drakenborch's text, he will find that it also corresponds with his suggestion. On the other hand, I would recommend the substitution of a comma for a colon, in his own translation, before the words "when the Romans driven back," &c. the adverb when, sic nude positum, being totally devoid of meaning. J. W. seems evidently to have imagined that the obscurity in