how to separate those notions, which depended upon their own reasoning, from those facts about which they could not possibly err; and judging, as he sees fit, of the speculative part of their writings, will attach its due weight to all that can be considered historical. Habet autem, ut in aetatibus auctoritatem senectus, sic in exemplis antiquitas: quae quidem apud me ipsum valet plurimum nec ego id, quod deest antiquitati, flagito potius, quàm laudo quod est.'*

Dr. Routh has subjoined to the fragments of each writer the notes of various commentators, and his own learned and judicious remarks, which leave us nothing to desire, except it be now and then a little more compression and perspicuity. We have only one or two critical remarks to offer for his consideration, which we shall do with all deference, under the persuasion that no work was ever presented to the public in so perfect a form, as not to be susceptible of some additional polish from the labours of after-comers.

P. 42. In a metaphor, quoted by Irenaeus from some apostolical writer, occur the following words: ὅταν δὲ ἐπιμιγῇ ὁ χαλκὸς εἰς τὸν ἄργυρον, τίς εὐκόλως δυνήσεται τοῦτον ἀκεραίως δοκιμάσαι; Fronto Ducaeus suggests a better reading, axépatos, which Dr. Routh adopts. But the true reading is axépauos av, which is not only sanctioned by the analogy of the language, but by the ancient Latin translator, quis facile poterit, rudis quum sit hoc probare?

P. 75. The testimony of Aristides, given by Usuardus in his Martyrology, seems to have been taken from some Greek Menology, and not from the original work of Aristides. We conclude that the learned editor has examined the MS. Menologies in the Bodleian library.

P. 78. The concluding remarks on Aristides leave the reader with an impression, that this learned Father actually spoke his Apology for Christianity in presence of the Emperor Adrian; praesente ipso Imperatore peroravit are the words quoted from the Martyrology. But the story is exceedingly improbable; and must rest on some better foundation than that of a Martyrology, before it can be believed. The words of Eusebius are these; xal 'ApiσTelons-àπλογίαν ἐπιφωνήσας Αδριανῷ, καταλέλοιπε. Dr. Jortin properly observes, that poopwveiv means simply to dedicate a book, and the same remark may with still greater justice be applied to ἐπιφωνεῖν.

P. 227. We rather wonder, that Dr. Routh should defend the legendary account which Hegesippus gives of the death of James the Just, the truth of which has been called in question by Scaliger. We think, with Jortin, that Eusebius might with propriety have subjoined to this account his remark upon the legend of the thundering legion, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὅπη τις ἐθέλει τιθέσθω.

* Cicero pro Font. 282. b.

P.

P. 359. Synodica Epistola Concilii Caesariensis. nλoûμev dè ὑμῖν, ὅτι τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἐν ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳ ἄγουσιν, ᾗπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς. "Habet MS. Norfolc. xai oi ev 'Aλ. quod potest esse verum; id tamen ex unius codicis auctoritate recipere nolebam.' Routh. In cases of this sort, one MS. is as good as twenty. The article oi is rendered absolutely necessary by what follows: Tаρ' nμäv yàp Tà γράμματα κομίζεται ΑΥΤΟΙΣ, καὶ ἡμῖν παρ' αὐτῶν.

P. 370. Polycratis Epistola. καὶ πάντοτε τὴν ἡμέραν ἤγαγον οἱ συγγενεῖς μου, ὅταν ὁ λαὸς ἤρνυε τὴν ζύμην. We are surprised that Dr. Routh should retain this barbarous word pvue, which is destitute of all authority, when one MS. of good note, gives ps. And we are still more surprised at the following remark. 'Hesychius "Hevuev, xußíora interpretatus est. Vet. Gloss. Kußioria, cernulat. Anglice, turns topsy-turvy. In the first place, the gloss of Hesychius is manifestly faulty, and should be thus corrected: "Hgvevev, éxußiota, from ágvesiv, to tumble, whence agvevτng, a tumbler, Iliad. M. 385. ἀρνευτήρσι ἐοικώς. Secondly, in the Latin gloss for Κυβιστια, cernulat, an obvious and certain correction is, Kußiora, cernuat. Lastly, this word never means to turn topsy-turvy, but to fall headlong, to tumble. Ω ποποὶ, ή μάλ' ἐλαφρὸς ἀνὴρ, ὡς ῥεῖα κυβιστᾷ, in Homer, whence xußioτng, a tumbler, in Euripides.

P. 472. Anonymi Presbyteri apud Clem. Alexandr. fragm. Michaelis supposes the elder here referred to, to be Pantaenus, the instructor of Clement; an opinion rendered probable by the expression, ὁ μακάριος Πρεσβύτερος. The later Greek writers give to paxágios the same sense which those of an earlier age attach to μa xxgirns, a person not long since deceased. So in a fragment of Dionysius, p. 167, ὁ μακάριος ὑμῶν ἐπίσκοπος Σωτὴρ, your late bishop, Soter. Sometimes, however, it is applied to a living person, as in the epistle of Alexander, vol. ii. p. 39 : ταῦτα τὰ γράμματα ἀπέστειλα διὰ Κλήμεντος τοῦ μακαρίου πρεσβυτέρου,—ὃν ἴστε καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ ἐπιγνώσεσθε. Valesius renders ἐπιγνώσεσθε amplius cognoscetis, and Dr. Routh does not correct him. It should be salutabitis. mywóσnew, in the ecclesiastical writers, signifies to recognize and salute. See Valesius, in Euseb. p. 220.

V. II. p. 78. An anonymous writer against the Montanists, after mentioning the common report, that Montanus and Maximilla hanged themselves, and that Theodotus, having committed himself to the devil, was rewarded by a broken neck, observes, with more caution than is common amongst the ecclesiastical writers, ¿λîà μŋ' ἄνευ τοῦ ἰδεῖν ἡμᾶς, ἐπίστασθαί τι τῶν τοιούτων νομίζομεν, ὦ μακάριε, which words, if we adopt vóige, the reading of one MS. afford very excellent sense: But do not consider us, my worthy friend, as sure of the truth of such stories, seeing that we have not been eye-witnesses.' We are therefore surprised to find the learned editor overlooking so obvious a correction, and proposing the following read

ing:

ing : ἀλλὰ μὴν ἄνευ τοῦ ἰδεῖν, δεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐπίστασθαι περὶ τῶν τοιούτων voμíloμev, which he translates, sed profecto, nisi ipsi viderimus, de rebus hujusmodi assensionem nobis inhibendam putamus, giving to ἐπίστασθαι a sense which belongs only to ἐφίστασθαι, a perfectly different word.

μου

P. 111. Julii Africani Epist. ad Origenem. Xaïge xúgié pov xai υἱὲ, καὶ πάντα τιμιώτατε Ωρίγενες, παρὰ ̓Αφρικανοῦ. This is surely a very strange beginning, my lord and son. We suspect it should be read, xúgié pov viè, sir, my son. So in the epistle of Alexander, p. 39. xúgiol pov adeλpol, gentlemen, my brethren. In the next place, the true reading is unquestionably κατὰ πάντα τιμιώτατε. The words xal and xarà are frequently confounded. Alexander, p. 41, Tòv xatà πάντα ἄριστον καὶ κύριόν μου (καὶ) ἀδελφόν.

Ρ. 112. Καὶ παραδοξότατα πως αὐτοὺς ἀπελέγχει, ὡς οὐδὲ Φιλιστίωνος pipoc. Dr. Routh proposes ovdi Dioτíwvos μipos, an alteration which does not please us. The sense is, in such a manner as not even one of Philistion's mimes would have done. Martial, Mimos ridiculi Philistionis. But since it is probable that Philistio acted his own mimes, as Laberius did, we had rather read ws oûdè ÞiλioTiar o piuos. Concerning this Philistio, the reader may consult Scaliger on Eusebius, p. 179, and the Variae Lectiones of Janus Rutgersius, IV. 12.

These fragments of Julius Africanus, now for the first time collected into one view, to the number of fifty-six, form a most valuable portion of the book. The second volume concludes with a learned dissertation upon the word μoooos, which was invented by some unlucky controvertist to plague and perplex the church for all time to come, and to set men together by the ears about an inexplicable phrase, intended to express that which, in the nature of things, cannot be expressed at all by human language.

We have noticed only two typographical errors of importance. Vol. ii. p. 174, 2. διιῤῥάγη σιδηρὰ for διεῤῥάγη σιδηρᾶ, and p. 374,9, ἀντίστατο for ἀνθίστατο. It is impossible to speak too highly of the learning and judgment, as well as the piety, displayed in the notes of Dr. Routh, who has spent the greater part of his leisure hours for the last five and twenty years in bringing to perfection the work before us: and he has spent them well; not in that inactive ease, into which the presidency of a collegiate establishment is so apt to lull its possessor; but in labouring to promote the cause of truth and orthodoxy, by bringing, as it were, into one focus the scattered rays of those luminaries of the church, which are still conveyed to us by reflexion, long after their orbs have set. When the work shall be completed by the addition of two more volumes, it will be a xτμa és άeì to the church; and whatever reception it may meet with in these half-learned and cavilling times, the author is sure of his reward.

ART.

ART. XI. Historical Memoirs of My Own Time, from 1772 to 1784. By Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall, Bart. 2 vols. 8vo. London: Cadell. 1815.

IT is said somewhere, that there is no man the events of whose life, candidly and simply written, would not afford an amusing volume; and we so far agree in the truth of this general proposition, as to believe that if Sir Nathaniel Wraxall had candidly and simply set down every considerable passage of his own time, he might have made an entertaining register of that species of small facts, which, though interesting as connected with the manners or politics of the day, are of a nature so minute and fugitive as to escape the notice of the graver bistorian.

But Sir Nathaniel is too much an historian by profession to condescend to such an humble style, and he accordingly assumes in his Memoirs a far higher tone, and affects to consider morals and politics, men and measures, more after the manner of a philosopher than of an honest chronicler.'

Now it is with great concern we feel ourselves obliged to say, that we think the worthy Baronet has most egregiously mistaken the amount both of his resources in the way of historical information, and of his ability to give interest and consistency to the facts with which he has happened to have some acquaintance. He has little to tell, and that little he tells badly. What he advances on his own evidence is generally not worth knowing, and what he gives on the authority of others he generally contrives to render suspicious either by his manner of relating, or by not quoting his authority when he might, or by quoting authority which is notoriously incre dible.

We have not the pleasure of knowing Sir Nathaniel personally, but we perceive that he is one of those good-natured people who have a very vigorous appetite for, and a good digestion of the marvellous, and whose belief, in any fact, is strong in the inverse ratio of the evidence. Any thing supernatural, or even highly improbable, he swallows with great alacrity; but a trite and ordinary event is altogether suspicious in his eyes, if he has not some strange, little, out-of-the-way and insufficient cause to assign for it. We have no doubt that he is one of those who believe that the treaty of Utrecht was brought about by the spilling of a cup of tea on Queen Anne's brocade petticoat.

As a politician, (a character of which he seems in no small degree ambitious,) Sir Nathaniel's self-importance not unfrequently reminds us of the 'Memoirs of P. P. Clerk of this Parish,' who, with Robert Jenkins the farrier, and Amos Turner the collar-maker, held weekly councils, whereof the minister of the parish spake

VOL. XIII. NO. XXV.

N

to

to a multitude of other ministers at the visitation, and they spake thereof unto the ministers at London, so that even the bishops heard and marvelled thereat.-Moreover, Sir Thomas, member of parliament, spake of the same unto other members of parliament, who spake of the same to peers of the realm. Lo! thus did our counsels enter into the hearts of our generals and our lawgivers, and from henceforth even as we devised thus did they.'

The Amos Turner of Sir Nathaniel appears to have been Sir John Macpherson, also a baronet, sometime governor-general of India, and since known in London by the flattering appellation of the Gentle Giant,' who, with Sir Nathaniel, appears to have devised of public matters, of which they spake to other members of parliament, and they again to peers of the realm, and lo! thus their counsels, &c. &c. Q. Ě. D.

We should, however, be wanting in justice to Sir Nathaniel if we did not confess that we find in the outset of his work, a very fair and modest avowal of his total unfitness for the office which be undertakes.

'I may further add, that never having held any employment, under any minister, at any period of my life, I neither can be accused of divulging official secrets; nor am I linked, in however humble a degree, with any of those ephemeral administrations, which took place with such rapidity between 1782 and 1784. I relate the events that I either witnessed, or of which I received the accounts from respectable testimony. How imperfect a light these sources of information enable me to throw on the period of time that I attempt to elucidate, I am fully aware: but, unfortunately, those individuals who, from their rank and situation, know most of the secrets of affairs, will generally divulge least; and even imperfect light is preferable to darkness.'-pp. 3, 4.

On the other hand, against this self-pronounced sentence of abasement it is proper to set the intimation which Sir Nathaniel gives us of his resemblance to Tacitus.-Tacitus was contemporary with, and had obligations to Vespasian, Titus and Domitian; Sir Nathaniel is in the same category with regard to George III, Lord North, and Lord George Germaine; and, moreover, both Tacitus and Sir Nathaniel have written the history of their own times. There is a river in Macedon, there is also, moreover, a river at Monmouth. It is called Wye at Monmouth, but it is out of my prains what is the name of the other, but 'tis all one; 'tis so like as my fingers is to my fingers, and there is salmons in both.'

But to our British Tacitus.

In 1772, soon after Sir Nathaniel had completed his twenty-first year, he passed over to Portugal, where he seems greatly struck with the outlandish complexion of the king, Don Joseph, which was so very peculiar, that whoever looked at his majesty, immedi ately, and in spite of himself, took a lesson in geography.

One

could