30 λοξοπόρου σελάγεσκε κατ' αιθέρα καὶ πυροέντων 14 ἐς πόλον ἰθύνεσκον, ἵν ̓13 εὐκόσμοισι πορείαις 16 φέγγος ἐπ ̓ ἀρτίγονον βρέφος ἄγαγον· ἅδε γονήων" 40 αζομένως 18 τιμὰν ἔτι νηπιάχως 10 ὑπὸ μαζῷ 20 22 19 κωρισμοῖς ἐδίδαξα μελίφροσι· φοιτάδι δ ̓ ὀργα 24 20 Ross has ΔΩΡΙΣΜΟΙΣ, for which Bergk writes δωρησμοῖς. 21 This is the emendation of Bergk and Welcker; the stone has MYKAMQΝΟΣ. 22 The stone has ΜΕΛΑΜΦΑΡΟΝ, which is retained by Welcker. 23 The stone has ΔΑΙΞΑΔ. ΩΝΑΠΟΜΕΙΡΩΝ. Welcker conjectures δαϊξάνδρων δ ̓ ἀπομείρω, οι απαμείρω, οι ἀπαείρω. 24 Welcker has the same emendation as Bergk; the reading of the stone is ΕΣΤΥΣΟΝ. 25 Is the emendation of Welcker and Bergk, which agrees with the inscription ; Ross has ΤΕΘΟΩΙΜΕΝΟΣ. 29 α ὅσσα δ ̓ ἐμὸς γνώμων νόος Εἴσιδ(ος) 5 ἐς πέρας ἰθύνω· τὰ δ ̓ ὑπείροχα πάντ'2 (άμα κῦρος ὑποκλάζοισ', ὑπάταν βασιληΐδα τιμάν πτήσσονθ'30 ἀμετέραν· δεσμῶν δ ̓ ἀέκουσαν ἀ ἀλλύω· πλωτὰ δὲ φιλεύδιος Αμφιτρίτα νηυσὶ μελαμπρώροισιν, ὑπαὶ παχνωδέος αὐχμα 10 ανίκα μειδάμων ἱλαρὸν ἑρύθοισα παρειὰν ἀμπετάσω Τηθύν γλαυκώλενον· ἐν δὲ περη 32 εν βένθεσιν ἀστιβέα πλαγκτἂν ὁδὸν, εὐτέ με Ꮎ κορθύσῃ, κλονέω· παντᾷ δὲ μελανθέϊ ροίζῳ σπερχόμενος βαρὺ πόντος ἐνὶ σπήλυγξι βαθε 15 μυκατ ̓ ἐξ αδύτων· πράτα δ ̓ ἐπὶ σέλματι δού κολπωτὴν ὀθόναισι θοὰν τρόπιν ἰθύνεσκον, οἶδμα καθιππεύοισα· δαμαζομένας δὲ θαλάσσα ὠκυπόροις ἐλάταις ἑλίκαν ἔστασε χορείαν Δωρίδος εὐλογία· περιπάλλετο δ ̓ ἐν φρεσὶ θ 20 εἰρεσίαν ἀδάητον ἐπ ̓ ἔθμασι παπταινοίσας. Ίσις ἐγὼ πολέμω κρυερὸν νέφος ἕρκεσι μόχθ ἀμφέβαλον κλήζοισι πολυκτέανον βασίλειαν θεσμοφόρον· νάσως δὲ βαθυνομένας ἀπὸ ῥι 36 35 26 The stone has ΒΑΣΙΛΗΙΟΝ, which is retained by Welcker. 27 The stone has ΑΚΤΕΙΝΕΣΣΙ. 28 The stone has ΥΠΕΙΡΟΧΟΠΑΝ. ΚΑΙΣ. Welcker proposes ὑπείροχα πάντα (καὶ ἁμὸν). 29 Instead of Tuάv the stone has only ΤΕ, which Welcker fills up τειμάν. 30 This is the emendation of Welcker and Bergk; the stone was afterwards found to have likewise ΠΤΗΣΣΟΝΘ. 31 Ross has only ANAI; Welcker áváγκην, which is confirmed by the stone. 32 Ross has TPIOYN 33 The transcript of ΥΣΗΙ. But Welcker a that κορθύσῃ, the conject confirmed by the inscript 34 The emendation of Bergk, which is confirme Ross has ΕΣ. 35 The stone has ETO ker reads ἐτ ̓ ὄμμασι. 36 Is the correction of Bergk for ΝΑΞΟΣ, and reading of the inscription ἐς φάος ἐκ βυθίας ποτ ̓ ἀνάγαγον ἰλύος αὐτά, 25 ώρεα καὶ πεδίω)ν σπορίμαν βάσιν, ὀργάδα τ ̓ ἄκραις στηρικταῖ(s) μαλοκόμοι . . . .... · ρον ὑπερτείνοισα, βοαύλοις . αν' ἐπαφριούντι δὲ Νηρεύς πλάζετ ̓ ὄχῳ, νήχων περὶ μάρμαρον ἄνθεσιν ἄχνας 38 βω ποτὶ ματέρ ̓ ἀπεικάζοισαν οτειραν ὑπερναλοις δὲ κεραυνῶ (β)ολαῖς στιβαρὰν θνατοῖσιν ἀπειλών. 39 The nature of the characters of the inscription, as well as the orthography of words and proper names, afford no criterion to determine the time in which the inscription was made; for there is nothing either in the form of the characters or in the orthography which does not occur in inscriptions of the long period from the beginning of the first century B. C. to the middle of the fourth century of our era. The style, language, and prosody, on the other hand, are of a nature which enable us to form some more definite idea as to the time to which the hymn may belong. The style, though it is not without elegance, is bombastic, pompous and fantastic, such as we find it in the epic poets of Egypt towards the end of the fourth century of our era. The language is not always pure Greek, and there are words and forms of words which do not occur in other ancient writers or inscriptions. Upon these circumstances Bergk founds the conjecture, that the author of our hymn was probably a native of Egypt, a conjecture which derives at least some support from the subject of the hymn itself. And while thus the style and diction would lead us to place the author of our hymn in the fourth or fifth century of our era, the 37 Ross has ΕΠΑΦΡΙΘΕΝΤΙ. Welc- 39 The reading in Ross is ΠΟΤΙΜΑ ΤΕΒΑΠΕΙΚΑ = ΟΙΣΑΝ, for which Welcker reads ἀπεικάζοισαν, which is also the reading of the stone. Bergk reads απεικασθεῖσαν. 40 The stone has ONATΟΣ, which both Welcker and Bergk have corrected into θνατοίσιν. ideas and sentiments expressed in the poem itself refer him to an earlier period. It seems clear that verses of the first column, which describe the powers of must have been written at a time when these pow recognised in a great part of the Roman empire. N that in the reign of Theodosius, towards the end century the heathen temples of the East, and especi Egypt were shut up or destroyed; and it may be regard that from the year A. D. 391, Christianity was the re eastern provinces of the empire, although it is at th attested that pagan worship was still practised in secr places. The hymn to Isis therefore, which was in a a public monument dedicated in her temple in Nax posed at a time when the worship of this goddess flourishing condition, that is, towards the end of the th latest about the middle of the fourth century of the C If this supposition is correct, the author of our hymn of the forerunners of the numerous Egyptian poets wh the fourth and fifth centuries. The fact of Isis being in Naxos, is attested by an inscription in Boeckh's Cor ii. N. 2348, and may also be inferred from the the name of Isidorus in an Andrian inscription publ Bas (Inscriptions Grecques et Lat. Fasc. v. 176.) of dedicating hymns to divinities, which were engraved or marble-tables and set up in the temples, is Pausanias (ix. 16. § 1) mentions such a hymn of 1 he dedicated to Zeus Ammon, and which was en column in the temple of Ammon in the oasis. Our too speaks of a σorýλŋ (v. 4) at Memphis, on which t Isis were probably celebrated in such a hymn. L. S oem itself compel us to and especially those of it is at the same time sed in secret in various was in all probability le in Naxos, was com goddess was yet in a of the third, or at the of the Christian era. ar hymn would be one poets who start up in Isis being worshipped kh's Corpus Inscript. m the occurrence of ion published by Le 176.) The custom engraved on columns es, is very ancient. an of Pindar which was engraved on a Our hymn to Isis which the powers L. SCHMITZ. III. GREEK TOPOGRAPHY. COLONEL LEAKE'S TOPOGRAPHY OF ATHENS, WITH Second Edition. London, 1841. 2 Vols., 8vo. EVERY one who has paid any attention to Greek topography, must know what an epoch was made by the appearance of the first edition of Col. Leake's work on the topography of Athens. The tide of mistakes which had gone on unchecked, and even accumulating, since the beginning of scientific investigation at Athens under Spon and Wheler, in 1675, was then, at last, arrested in its course, and the names of the existing remains were, for the most part, incontrovertibly settled. The positions then laid down by Col. Leake have indeed, in some details, been modified since, and may be modified still more, but these modifications have been such as not to affect any point in the rest of the topographical arrangements. All subsequent inquiries have rested on the basis which he formed, and have only tended to confirm and strengthen it. His merit, with regard to Greece, has been what Robinson's Researches in Palestine have been to that still more interesting, yet up to this time comparatively unexplored country. In both cases, it is the supplanting of guesses by knowledge, the application of conscientious and learned inquiry to the task, instead of fanciful and ignorant conjecture. But if the appearance of Col. Leake's first edition may be considered an epoch, as marking the commencement of topographical knowledge of Athens, his second edition may be considered an epoch also, as marking the rapid progress which has been made in the twenty years' interval between them, not only in actual knowledge, but in the greater depth of research, the greater liveliness with which his conclusions are put before us, the greater connexion which is shown to exist between the several parts. This new edition, whilst it is the most important, is yet not the only sign of the increased attention now paid to Greek topography. The |