Ριο ταύτας μὴ ποιήσαιτο,--πάντας μὴ ποιήσαιτο dat Paulli Manutii editio. Conjiciat igitur aliquis, extitisse quondam lectionem hanc ; nempe, εἰ γὰρ πάντα τἄλλα διοικήσειε καλῶς, δι ̓ ὧν δὲ τότε τ ̓ ἐξαρχῆς ταῦτ ̓ ἐκτησάμεθα, καὶ νῦν σώζομεν ΠΑΝΤΑ, μὴ ποιήσαιτο, (τὰς τριήρεις λέγω) οὐδὲν ἐκείνων ὄφελος.

In Androtionem. p. 600. 1. 16. ἡμεῖς τοίνυν οὐκ ἐκ λόγων εἰκότων οὐδ ̓ ἐκ τεκμηρίων ταῦτ ̓ ἐπιδείκνυμεν, ἀλλὰ παρ ̓ οὗ μάλιστα δίκην ἐστὶ λαβεῖν τούτῳ, ἄνδρα παρεσχηκότα γραμματεῖον, ἐν ᾧ τὰ τούτῳ βεβιωμένα ἔνεστιν, ὃς αὑτὸν ὑπεύθυνον ποιήσας μαρτυρεῖ ταῦτα.

Mallem ΑΝΔΡΙ ΠΑΡΕΣΧΗΚΟΤΙ, cum lectione quæ in veteribus quibusdam codicibus comparet; videlicet, ἡμεῖς τοίνυν οὐκ ἐκ λόγων εἰκότων, οὐδὲ τεκμηρίων, ἀλλὰ παρ ̓ οὗ μάλιστα δίκην ἔστι λαβεῖν, τούτῳ ταῦτ ̓ ἐπιδείκνυμεν,

In Androtionem. p. 602. 1. 10. καὶ σὺ μὴ διὰ ταῦτα οἴου σοι προσήκειν μὴ δοῦναι δίκην, εἰ γράφεις ἡταιρηκώς, ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας ἔσθ ̓ ἡμῖν ἐπαγγελία.

γράφεις) ψηφίσματα scilicet.

In Androtionem. p. 607. 1. 16. καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων, ὃν τρόπον ὑμᾶς, ἀπαγαγὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, παρακρούεσθαι ζητήσει, καὶ ἃ πρὸς ταῦθ ̓ ὑμᾶς μνημονεύοντας μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν προσήκει, πολλὰ λέγειν ἔχων ἔτι, καὶ ταῦθ ̓ ἱκανὰ εἶναι νομίζων, ἐάσω.

Legi posset, καὶ ἃ πρὸς ταῦθ' ὑμᾶς, μνημονεύοντας μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν, ΥΠΟΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ προσήκει—κ. τ. λ. p. 596. 1. 14. ὥσθ', ὅταν μὲν μὴ φῇ τὴν βουλὴν αἰτεῖν, ταῦθ ̓ ὑπολαμβάνετε. p. 603. 1. 20. ταῦτα δίκαια λέγειν ἂν ἔχοιτε εἰκότως, ἐὰν φῇ δεῖν ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν ἐνδεικνύναι.—p. 605. 1. 28.

In Androtionem. p. 608. 1. 8. οὗτος Εὐκτήμονα φήσας τὰς ὑμε τέρας ἔχειν εἰσφορὰς, καὶ τοῦτο ἐξελέγξειν, ἢ παρ' ἑαυτοῦ καταθήσειν, ὑποσχόμενος, καταλύσας ψηφίσματι κληρωτὴν ἀρχὴν, ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, ἐπὶ τὴν εἴσπραξιν παρέδυ, δημηγορίας ἐπὶ τούτοις ποιούμενος, ὡς ἔστι τριῶν αἵρεσις ὑμῖν, ἢ τὰ πομπεία κατακόπτειν, ἢ πάλιν εἰσφέρειν, ἢ τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν· αἱρουμένων εἰκότως ὑμῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν, ταῖς ὑποσχέσεσι κατέχων, καὶ διὰ τὸν καιρὸν, ὃς ἦν τότε, ἔχων ἐξουσίαν, τοῖς μὲν κειμένοις νόμοις περὶ τούτων οὐκ ᾤετο δεῖν χρῆσθαι, οὐδ ̓ εἰ μὴ τούτους ἐνόμιζεν ἱκανοὺς, ἑτέρους τιθέναι, ψηφίσματα δ' εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν δεινὰ καὶ παράνομα.

Demosthenem scripsisse puto, καὶ διὰ τὸν καιρὸν ΟΣΗΝ ΕΠΟΘΕΙ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν.

In Aristocratem.

In Aristocrat. p. 626. 1. 21. ὅ τι δὴ βούλεσθε ὁρᾶτε, ἵνα τοῦτο λέγω πρῶτον ὑμῖν. περὶ τοῦ παρανόμου βούλεσθε πρῶτον ; τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐροῦμεν, ἃ δὴ δεόμαί τε καὶ ἀξιῶ παρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν τυχεῖν, δίκαια

ὡς ἐμαυτὸν πείθω. Γ. τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐροῦμεν ΗΔΗ. δέομαι ΔΕ καὶ ἀξιῶ παρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν τυχεῖν—κ. τ. λ.

In Aristocrat. p. 629. 1. 16. καίτοι ταῦτα πάντα ἀπείρηκεν ἄντικρυς καὶ σαφῶς ὁ κάτωθεν νόμος μηδὲ τοὺς ἑαλωκότας καὶ δεδογμένους ἀνδροφόνους ἐξεῖναι ποιεῖν.

Atqui lex proxime subjecta etiam damnatos, compertos, homicidas sic afficere diserte et plane prohibet.

In Aristocratem. p. 634. 1. 7. οὐκοῦν εἰ μὲν ἐάσομεν ὑμᾶς, τούτων συμβάντων, οὐ καθαροῖς οὖσιν ὁμοῦ συνδιατρίψομεν. εἰ δ ̓ ἐπέξιμεν, οἷς ἐγνώκαμεν, αὐτοὶ τἀναντία πράττειν ἀναγκασθήσομεθα.

Distinguendum f. οἷς ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτοὶ, τἀναντία πράττειν α. lis rebus, quas decrevimus ipsi, (Aristocratis psephismate vide- . licet) adversari cogemur.

In Aristocratem. p. 636. 1. 19. ἐνταυθὶ δύο δηλοῖ δίκαια, ἃ παρ' αμφότερα οὗτος εἴρηκε τὸ ψήφισμα· ὅτι τε ἐνδεικνύναι δίδωσι τὸν ἀν δροφόνον, καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸν ἀγώγιμον οἴχεσθαι λαβόντα· καὶ ὅτι, ἐὰν κατίῃ τις ὅποι μὴ ἔξεστι, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δίδωσιν, οὐχ ὅπη βούλεται

τις.

· αὐτὸ τοῦτο) ενδεικνύναι scilicet.

In Aristocratem. p. 637. 1. 2. ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ ἐν ἄθλοις ἄκων, ἢ ἐν ὁδῷ καθελών, ἢ ἐν πολέμῳ ἀγνοήσας, ἢ ἐπὶ δάμαρτι—τούτων ἕνεκα μὴ φεύγειν κτείναντα.

Legendum censeo, ἢ ἐν ΟΧΛΩ καθελών, in turba, casu. Magno conatu magnas nugas dixerunt hic multi.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE ZODIAC
OF DENDERA.

THE removal of the Circular Zodiac of Dendera from Thebes to Paris having in some degree revived the question respecting the antiquity of several monuments of this description in Egypt, I beg leave to transmit to you the following observations on this interesting subject.

They form one paper of a series which I had the honor of laying before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle on Tyne, on the subject of the age of the world, as indicated by geological and astronomical phenomena.

The favorable manner in which this society was pleased to receive it, encourages me to hope that there may be something

in it of interest to the public at large, and this belief induces me, with much diffidence, to solicit for it a place in your valuable journal,

It is a matter of much surprise and regret, that a satisfactory explanation of these Egyptian figures should have remained so long a desideratum in antiquarian literature, and I shall feel highly gratified if the following observations shall tend to shorten the controversy regarding them. In my humble opinion, the chief obstacle to the setting this matter at rest, has been a blind adherence to the first impression made upon the minds of those modern travellers, to whose industry the learned world is indebted for the knowledge of their existence.

This impression was, that these groups of figures were astronomical representations of the heliocentric circle. Some philosophers both in France and Britain acted upon this erroneous opinion, and by assuming, of their own authority, false data for their calculations, deduced conclusions at variance with truths respected from the earliest times, which, coming from a quarter where the amount of learning gave weight to opinion, could not fail to have an influence, more or less, on minds the most fortified against philosophical scepticism.

The influence of this false reasoning is now rapidly passing away, and the following remarks are offered for publication, in the hope that they may be the means of suggesting those arguments which are yet wanting to its final extinction.

The novel view which I have taken of this subject, might, perhaps, (since the appearance of Dr. Richardson's travels in particular,) be supposed not original, did I not mention that this paper was written several months before the publication of that work. Without farther preamble, I now proceed to the subject.

Mr. Hamilton, in his Egyptiaca, describes the Zodiac of Den

dera as follows:

The large Zodiac occupies the ceiling of the pronaon; its two inner rows contain the signs of the Zodiac interspersed with other figures, clusters of stars, and hieroglyphical inscriptions. The two outer rows contain each nineteen boats, with one or more figures in each boat, dẹcorated likewise with stars, and illustrated with sacred characters. Op entering the temple, the natural order of the signs is perceived to be from left to right; that is, beginning on the left hand near the front of the pronaon, and proceeding towards the back; they are then resumed on the right side in an opposite direction. The first which occurs in the line of the catasterisms is Leo: the last on that side is Capricornus. The first on the other line is Aquarius, and the last is Gemini. The sign Cancer appearing to be here wanting to make up the six last, Visconti concluded it to be represented under the form of a sceptre surmounted

with a hawk with these data, some philosophers have concluded that the situation of Leo ascertained the position of the summer Solstice. Visconti, however, rejects this opinion, on the ground that Libra, which, he says, must be the symbol of the equinox, would in that case be misplaced, there being only one sign between it and Leo. He then concludes that this Solstice must have been in the sign preceding Leothat is, in Cancer; and he remarks, as a proof of this opinion, that in the Zodiacal line between Gemini and Leo, there is the figure of Isis in a boat, pouring water from two jars, emblematical of the inundation of the Nile-a phenomenon always contemporary with the beginning of

summer.

The circular Zodiac is to be seen on the ceiling of an inner apartment, but the catasterisms, and the figures which accompany them, are to all appearance mingled together in so confused a manner, that nothing certain as yet can be deduced from them. In the centre is a fox or jackal; the ursa major is close to it, in the form of a female cynocephalus. A north line drawn from the centre passes through Cancer, which is here a beetle. This sign is nearer the centre than any of the others.

The eye is among the constellations; Virgo has a palm branch in her hand; Sagittarius is a Centaur with two heads, on the one is a mitre, the other is that of a hawk; he is winged, is shooting with a bow and arrows, and has a scorpion's tail besides his own. In Libra, Harpocrates is seated on the bar of the balance; Aquarius is in every respect the male character, except in having large hanging breasts. Near Capricorn, is the figure of Hermes, probably intended for the constellation Canopus; and, as in the large Zodiac in the pronaon, of the two Gemini, one has evidently been painted black, the other brown.

In another compartment of the same ceiling on which this Zodiac is painted, are a variety of boats, with four or five human figures in each, one of whom is in the act of spearing some animal or crocodile's egg: and in another part of the wall, others are equally intent on similar em ployments, stamping at the same time with their feet on the victims of their fury, among which are several human figures."

Such are the Zodiacs of Dendera; the figures on which, it is obvious, are the same with those of our sphere. It has long been a matter of just surprise that the constellations such as they are here represented, have never been referred with certainty to any particular age or country, or a satisfactory interpretation ever been given of them. Some suppose them of Chaldean, some of Egyptian invention, while others derive them partly from these countries, and partly from Scythia, assigning as a reason, that several of the signs have a common relation to every position of the globe; that Aries, and Taurus, for instance, are well associated to the labors of rural life; Virgo to agriculture; that Scorpio is emblematical of pestiferous blights; Cancer and Libra, of the motion of the sun; while Sagittarius, Aquarius, and Pisces, clearly allude to the vicissitude of climate. Their import seems equally doubtful, for at one time we find it conjectured that their adoption was founded upon

allegories supposed to be contained in the several figures, that Libra simply denoted the equality of day and night; Taurus, the season for laboring the earth; Virgo, that for gathering in its fruits, &c. Others, improving upon this conjecture, supposed that the signs served to connect the labors of husbandry with the celestial phenomena, and thus to answer the purpose both of a rural calendar and astronomical ephemeris. Mr. Colebroke says expressly, that we have the authority of the Vedas for considerMr. ing the signs as indices both to the seasons and months. Bryant was of opinion that the zodiac was nothing more than an assemblage of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Aries was a representation of Ammon, Taurus of Apis, Leo of Osiris, and Virgo of Isis. They called the Zodiac the great assembly or senate of the twelve gods. The planets were esteemed lictors and attendants, who waited on the chief deity, the Sun.

In every interpretation of these sigus, we invariably find a mixed import in regard to the whole, and frequently a variable import in respect to individual signs; and so far as I am aware, no systematic explanation has yet been given of them-an expla nation illustrative of a unity of design in their configuration and numerical arrangement. As their signification, however, would probably throw considerable light on the country and age to which they belong, I have endeavoured to supply this desideratum in the following manner, with the assistance, chiefly, of Mr. Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology. I am aware that this work is regarded by many with little esteem, but whatever may be thought of his System, it must be allowed that the accredited information which he has brought forward to its support, is of great value, and in point of authority equal to any other performance of the kind. On this account, I have, without surrendering entirely to this author, released myself from the perplexing labor of consulting numerous authorities, however important some of them may be, being convinced that a multitude of evidence is both unnecessary and embarrassing, where the matter is sufficiently obvious without it.

Mr. Bryant, in his account of the gods of Greece, observes,— I have mentioned that the nations of the East acknowledged originally but one deity, the sun, but when they came to give the titles of Orus, Osiris, and Cham, to some of the heads of their family, they too in time were looked up to as gods, and severally worshipped as the sun. This was practised by the Egyptians; but this nation, being much addicted to refinement in their worship, made many subtile distinctions, and supposing that there were certain emanations of divinity, they affected to particularise each by some title, and to worship the deity by his attributes. This gave rise to a multiplicity of gods; for the more