p. 394, l. 27. Typокpáтovs] See Galen, p. 887, who after πpos οὖλα adds πλαδῶντα, μυδῶντα, αίμασσόμενα, κ. τ.λ. p. 394, 1. 28. p. 394, 1. 29. who reads σμήγμα. Aupixxiov] read Avpnλíov, as in Galen, p. 892. p. 394, 1. 31. Πυθίου πρὸς σεισμένους ὀδόντας] read σειομένους, as in Galen, p. 879. p. 394, 1. 32, 33. Διοκλέους, Κρίτωνος] See Galen, p. 880. p. 394, 1. 34. avonμepŵv] read avonμepóv. Galen, in what may perhaps be the parallel passage, reads av0wpóv, (p. 877.) p. 394, 1. 35. προφυλακτήριον] read προφυλακτικόν. See Galen, p. 875. p. 395, 1. 1. πρὸς πᾶσαν ὀδόντων ἀδ.] αδ. should be oδ., and would then be the beginning of the word ooúvnv. See Galen, p. 877. p. 395, 1. 2. TOû 'Appoda (sic)] From his having added the word 'sic," it would seem that the editor considers the name 'Appodā to be corrupt, which, however, it is not. 'Appódas, or 'Appoòâs, (for the name is found sometimes with one accent, sometimes with the other, though probably the circumflex is the true one,) is frequently quoted by Galen, though nothing is known of the events of his life. The present prescription appears to be taken from Galen, p. 878. p. 395, 1. 2. 'Apioтокράтоovs] See Galen, p. 878. p. 395, 1. 3. MEVEкpáтOUS] See Galen, p. 947. p. 395, 1. 3. Meupírov] Galen, in what seems to be the parallel passage, p. 946, reads Mexíτov, a name which (as far as I am aware,) does not occur elsewhere as belonging to a physician. If Meμpírov be the true reading, the person quoted will be Apollonius Memphites, who wrote a work on Materia Medica, which seems to have enjoyed some reputation, as it is quoted by several ancient authors. See the Biogr. Dict. of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. p. 395, 1. 5. 'Aσкλпwiadoυ] See Galen, p. 947. This Asclepiades is not the most celebrated physician of that name, commonly called "Asclepiades Bithynus," but a writer on materia medica called "Asclepiades Pharmacion," who is frequently quoted by Galen. See Biogr. Dict. of the U. K.S. p. 395, 1. 5. 'ApiσTOKλéous] See Galen, p. 936. p. 395, 1. 6. πρὸς συνάσχεις (sic)] read πρὸς συνάγχας. p. 395, 1. 7. p. 395, 1. 8. p. 395, 1. 9. 'Avopoμáxov] See Galen, p. 938. Zwpavov] See Galen, p. 956. p. 395. 1. 10. 'Απολλωνίου τοῦ Ἡροφίλου] read 'Απολλωνίου τοῦ Ἡροφιλείου, a very common error. This prescription is taken from the first book of his Evrópiora. See Galen, p. 995. This Apollonius is probably a different person from the Apollonius "Memphites" mentioned above. See Biogr. Dict. of the U.K.S. p. 395, l. 11, 12. The two next prescriptions I have not found, though probably they are also taken from Galen. p. 395, 1. 13. Ταραντινὸς Ηρακλείδης] read ὁ Ταραντίνος Ἡρακλ., as in Galen, p. 957. p. 395, l. 15, &c. Several of the proper names in the following extract are corrupt, but some of them can be corrected with tolerable certainty. p. 395, l. 19. Ywóλnpos] This name is certainly corrupt, but the correction is not perfectly satisfactory. The writer is tracing the mythological history of Medicine, which he says was first discovered by Apollo, who communicated it to the Centaur, by whom it was imparted to Esculapius, who taught it "to his children, (TOîs Taiσiv auTOû,) who were Podalirius and Hypolephus ” (οἱ ἦσαν Ποδαλείριος καὶ Ὑπόληpos). The only name that occurs to me at the moment as at all likely to be that of the person meant, is Hippolochus, the son of Podalirius; and if we give to the u the sound of the English e, (as in modern Greek,) and pronounce the word according to the accent instead of the quantity, the two names Ιππόλοχος and Ὑπόληφος will not sound so very much unlike. I do not, however, consider this emendation to be by any means certain; and I shall be glad if any of your readers will suggest a more satisfactory one. p. 395, l. 20, &c. The writer next proceeds to name the founders of the different medical sects, and the principal physicians belonging to them. He begins with the Empirici1, of whom he names four, viz., Acron of Agrigentum, Philinus of Cos, Zapañías of Alexandria, and Σερξέστας ὁ ̓Απολλώνιος. Each of these names requires a few words of comment. p. 395, 1. 21. "Ακρων Ακραγαντίνος] The writer appears to have followed Pliny, (Hist. Nat. xxix. 4. ed. Tauchn.) in attributing to Acron the founding of the sect of the Empirici; this is, however, probably a mistake, as it is expressly said by the author of the treatise Introductio, printed among Galen's works, (tom. XIV. p. 683) that the followers of this sect claimed Acron as their founder, only in order to boast of a greater antiquity than the Dogmatici. p. 395, 1. 21. Pixwos o Kos] Philinus (Pivos,) is generally considered as the original founder of the sect. p. 395, 1. 21. Σαραπίας ὁ ̓Αλεξανδρεύς] read Σεραπίων ὁ ̓ΑλεξανSpeus, who was in a manner the second founder of the sect. p. 395, 1. 22. Σερξέστας ὁ ̓Απολλώνιος] This fourth name is rather obscure, though it certainly does not mean "Serxestas Apolloniensis," (See Ind. Auct. p. 410) as we should then find 'Anoλλviatηs. For Σερζέστας, we should probably read Σέξτος, who is said by the 1 For τὴν ἐμπειρίαν ἰατρικήν, read τὴν ἐμπειρικὴν ἰατρικήν. author of the Introductio, (c. 4. p. 683,) to have belonged to this sect, and who is therefore commonly called "Sextus Empiricus." 'Aπoλλώνιος appears to be the name of one of the two Apollonii of Antioch, father and son, who are said by the same author to have belonged to this sect, and in that case, for Σερζέστας δ, we must read Σέξτος καί. There is an obvious difficulty in adopting this latter conjecture, viz. that this would make five names, whereas the writer expressly says he mentions only four. Perhaps, however, the error may belong, not to the transcriber, but to the author himself, "Neophytus Monachus," who may have mistaken Απολλώνιος for 'Απολλωνιάτης, and therefore mentions only four names, when he should have mentioned five. He might have added several other names, e. g. Menodotus, Heraclides, Herodotus, Glaucias, &c.; and in like manner several might have been added to the lists of the Dogmatici and Methodici which follow. With respect to the last-mentioned sect, only three physicians are mentioned, two of whom are miscalled. เ have in p. 395, 1. 26. Me@nowv] This mistake I have already corrected in the Penny Cyclopædia, and therefore quote the note at p. 308 of Vol. xxiv. art. "Themison:"- "In this last passage the name is written Mełnow, which error is left unnoticed by the editor, but may readily be accounted for by recollecting that the vowels and Romaic exactly the same sound, and that for many centuries past Greek words have been pronounced by the Greeks according to the accent, and not according to the quantity; so that a transcriber might easily confound two names so much alike as Theméson and Methéson." p. 395, 1. 26. Movóμaxos] read Mevéμaxos, as in Pseudo-Galen, tom. XIV. p. 684. Vol. 1. p. 14, 1. 32. 'Avtíπatpos K. T.λ.] This quotation is said by one of the other scholiasts on Homer (p. 306. ed. Bekker) to come from the second book of his work Пepi Yuxns, which therefore may very possibly be the treatise mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (VII. § 157), and attributed by Fabricius and others to Antipater of Tarsus. See the Biogr. Dict. of the U.K.S. p. 205, 1. 2. 'Poupos] The quotation from Rufus Ephesius (De Appell. Part. Corp. Hum. p. 32. ed. Clinch) is not rightly marked by the editor: it begins at Tà μeta K. T. λ. in l. 2 ; and ends at κaλOÛTI in 1. 4, not at onμaívei in 1. 6. p. 289, 1. 36. In the quotation from Oppian (Halieut. 1. 134) Mouvos is the word to be supplied. Vol. iv. p. 53, 1. 23. The verses from Nicander (Ther. 526) are written as follows in Schneider's edition :— σπέρμαθ ̓ ὅσον κύμβοιο τραπεζήεντος ἑλέσθαι p. 196, 1. 1. This is rather a singular list of eminent physicians, omitting several very important names, and inserting some that are (to us, at least,) almost entirely unknown. Puevos in 1. 4 should be written ouμevos, as in Oribasius, Collecta Medic. XLV. 24 (in the fourth vol. of Mai's Classici Auctores, &c. p. 61). Dionides in 1. 5 (if the name be correct,) may be added to the list of ancient physicians given by Fabricius and Haller. SIR, MANUSCRIPTS OF ESCHYLUS. To the EDITOR of the CLASSICAL MUSEUM. up much PERMIT me to put a question to the classical world through the medium of your publication. In the preface to Medwin's translation of Æschylus' Prometheus, published in 1832, the following passage occurs : "One thing I still lament, that the Escurial MSS. had not been collated before I began my imperfect and unworthy labours." Then follows in a note: "Mr. Fedor is now occupied in this undertaking, from which much may be expected. There have been discovered in the Escurial several MSS. of the Agamemnon, and I believe of some of the other plays, which it is hoped will clear of that obscurity that every subsequent edition only serves to increase. These long mislaid MSS. came from the Arabs, and their history is a singular one. They are said to have been stolen from the library at Constantinople, and taken in a wrecked pirate vessel" (pp. iv. v.) I find no account of these newly-discovered MSS. in the most recent editors of the Agamemnon, Klausen and Peile: but I am willing to hope that some of your readers may be better informed on the point, and will communicate what is known about it through the channel of your Museum. I remain, Sir, yours faithfully, JOHN CONINGTON. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. DIE HELDENSAGE DER GRIECHEN NACH IHRER NATIONALEN GELTUNG. Von Gregor Wilhelm Nitzsch. Kiel, 1841. THE short treatise bearing the above title, from the pen of the distinguished author of so much excellent commentary on Homer, was originally printed in the Kieler Philologische Studien, and has since been published separately. It treats of the general characteristics of Grecian legend, the primitive creation and at one time the only possession of Hellenic genius: and amongst the number of German works which have been devoted to this very enticing subject, I can name few which appear to me to contain in the same space so much both of just remark and apposite illustration'. The main purpose of Nitzsch's treatise is to consider the Grecian legends not objectively, with reference to readers or hearers of all ages and all countries, but subjectively, with reference to the Greeks themselves-not to detect and weigh out what portions of historical or philosophical truth may lie hidden among these many-coloured narratives, but to inquire with what feelings they were regarded by the Grecian public specially; in what degree distinction was made between one narrative and another, and how far the spirit of reverential faith was intersected by criticism or by partial suppressions and transformations. A few years ago, Nitzsch remarks, it was customary to distinguish too pointedly between Grecian legend and Grecian epic poetry. The legend was treated as having originally been so much history, orally handed down from the supposed date of the events recounted, but in process of time more or less garbled, distorted, or exaggerated: so that by eliminating such corruptions or exaggerations the original nucleus of history might be again recovered. The epic, on the other hand, was regarded as poetry purely and simply, having no'necessary base for its materials in the legends of the country. The researches of the last few years have tended to shew that the matters handled in the ancient epic were of the nature of current legend, but some inquirers, among whom Nitzsch reckons Niebuhr, have pushed the identity of the two a step too far: they have reasoned 1 The author of the present notice greatly regrets, on many accounts, that he did not become acquainted with this treatise of Nitzsch until after the publi Ication of his article in the Westminster |