4. To our conceptions there is something strange, and almost ludicrous, in the idea of disputes and arbitrations among the dead. We are wont to conceive of the old mythological Hades as it was modified by after writers, Virgil for instance, from whom our earliest notions on this subject are commonly derived, and who, writing in the full sun-shine of Grecian philosophy, has certainly imparted to the material conceptions of his predecessor a refined and spiritual character which does not in strictness belong to them. To this must be added the habitual influence of Christian ideas, influencing insensibly even our recollections of Paganism. But the Hades of the Odyssey is of a very different description. It is neither Platonic, nor Pindaric, nor Virgilian, nor Miltonian. It is merely a kind of appendix to the living world; an unsubstantial state indeed, and one of no great enjoyment, but in all other respects bearing a close resemblance to it—a cold and shadowy reflection of this life. Homer's ghosts are as earthly as his gods. They pass into Hades, not indeed so insensibly as the souls of Swedenborg, who, as he informs us, sometimes remain days and weeks together in the spiritual world without discovering their change of situation; but with all their humanities about them, their partialities, passions, and even appetites ; there is a community, and distinctions of rank, (v. 484.) a house of Hades, &c. Among such a set of beings the occurrence of disputes, and the want of an arbitrator to decide them, are as conceivable as among the palpable visions of the Swedish seer. Sed manum de tabula. It may perhaps be thought that we have expended a good deal of discussion on an unimportant point; especially as the passage in question is confessedly of later date than (what are called) the genuine parts of the Odyssey. We think, however, that the matter was worth determining; at any rate, our remarks may serve to amuse the reader. Our readers will not, perhaps, quarrel with us for concluding these dry discussions with the following very pleasing stanzas from a modern poet, containing a happy allusion to a notion which appears to have been in some degree common to the Homeric times and those of the Old Testament. (Il. xiii. 71. ἴχνια γὰρ μετόπισθε ποδῶν ἠδὲ κνημάων ̔Ρεῖ ἔγνων ἀπιόντος, ἀρίγ VITO DE DEO! TEρ so Virgil, Æn. i. 402. Dixit, et avertens rosea cervice refulsit, &c. Compare Judges xiii.) 1 We allude to their drinking the sacrificial blood. O'er hill, and dale, and distant sea, Nay, thou art now so dear, methinks, But bind the closer round the heart. For now we sever each from each, ΒΟΙΩΤΟΣ. CLASSICAL CRITICISM. XENOPHON'S ANABASIS. THE Classical Journal cannot be an improper channel respecting hypotheses and annotations in connexion with the classics. I may have had forerunners in the observation I wish to make; but I am not aware that any, even among the learned commentators and sagacious interpreters that adorn the present age, have noticed the strange blunder that I wish, with deference, to point out. The error to which I allude, appears in a lengthy note on lib. i. cap. 2. § 9. of Xenophon's Anabasis, which occupies several columns in the edition Lipsiæ, Schneider, 1815; and is copied verbatim, without further comment, in Townsend's edit. 1823. Hutchinson is very laconic on the subject, and says nothing to make the matter clearer. It seems to me strange that so many quick-sighted annotators, in collecting the several sums of the forces under Cyrus's generals, to compare their amount with Xenophon's total, should pass without a syllable, without a glance, the 1000 orirai and 500 weλraoral under MENO (recorded in sect. 6.); who with his men cuts no unimportant figure in the subsequent history. Adding these sums to the others given in the text of the Lipsia and Townsend's edit., we have as follows: Total, 2100 πελτασται οι γύμνηται, as opposed to ὁπλῖται. Now I humbly suggest that it may be allowable to deduct the 200 Togóraι, because they are a third sort (or denomination) mentioned only with Clearchus, the other orparnyol having only two sorts, i. e. ὁπλῖται and πελτασταὶ or γύμνηται ; and because Xenophon himself may by a very accountable oversight, or perhaps even purposely, have omitted them in bis summation of the muster. The above reckoning of onλira is 300 too much, but is decidedly better than the 1000 too little of the Lipsia and Townsend editt. So also 2300 is a better approximation to åμpì roùs dioxiλíovs than 1500. But now observe, that if we add Meno's armament to the sums as given in the prolix note, with Pasio's and Sosias' amounts corrected; i. e. add 1000 åπλīraι to 10,000,and 500 weλraoraì to 1500, we then gain the exact sums mentioned in round numbers by Xenophon. Which of these two methods of enumerating the forces and explaining Cyrus's muster-roll may have the vantage ground, an bumble individual like myself, who have "small Latin and less Greek," is incompetent to decide. At any rate, the accession of Meno's forces helps the computation; and it is unaccountable how they came to be banished from the eyes of the quick-sighted erudite annotators that have speculated with such prolixity and apparent minuteness on the subject. I do not know whether they intend the reference given at the end of their remarks to assist themselves and their readers, or to involve them with slighter hopes of release in the labyrinth into which they have led them. It seems to me to have the latter effect; for when to the 11,000 here mentioned we add the 700 brought by Chirisophus (vide cap. 4. § 3.) and the 400 who revolted from Abrocomas, the sum becomes 12,400. From this deducting 100 of Meno's lost, (vide sect. 25.) we have 12,300 instead of 10,400; while the amount of weλraorai approximates to that above computed. Who is to correct these discrepancies ? and how is it to be done? Not, I imagine, by the prolixities of unlearned, nor even of learned interpreters, however apparently good the hypotheses, and however really acute the reasonings with which their notes may abound. Sept. 1828. EBORAK. ΤΟ MR. ARCHDEACON TRAVIS, IN ANSWER TO HIS DEFENCE OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES, 1 JOHN V. 7. BY R. PORSON. LONDON:-1790. LETTER IX. Of the Greek writers that are quoted in favor of the verse. Sir, I ALMOST feel an inclination to pity you, when I enter on your Greek authorities, they are so scanty, doubtful, and suspected. According to your own computation they are only four; the Synopsis Scripturæ and the Dialogue against the Arians (both published with the works of Athanasius), the Panoplia Dogmatica of Euthymius Zigabenus, and the Greek Lectionary called Apostolos or Praxapostolos. Of these I mean to treat in their order. First, the argument of this epistle, you say, p. 49, 102, is generally allowed to be the genuine work of Athanasius. As far as I can learn, it is generally allowed to be spurious. In some editions of the N. T. it is attributed to Euthalius. It may be found in Ecumenius without any author's name. In Mill's edition it is called Sophronius's, though Mill himself, Prol. 994, thinks it may be the work of Athanasius, "not the great prelate, (for the learned have long since decided it not to be his), but another, perhaps him who advised Euthalius to undertake his edition." Certainly it would much lessen the character of the great Athanasius, if he were the real author of such a confused and imperfect abridgement. However, genuine or spurious, "this author seems plainly to refer to the verse in question." How different are opinions! Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, and Mr. Griesbach, affirm that it is not cited in the Synopsis. But let us attend to the proof. "The verse is not directly quoted-but the author of it seems plainly to refer to this verse in his summary or breviate of the fifth chapter: The apostle, says he, here teaches the unity of the Son with the Father: for this unity is not taught in any part of that chapter, VOL. XXXVIII. Cl. Jl. NO. LXXVI. O save in the seventh verse." This you had written, probably without looking at the Synopsis itself, and therefore added those useful words, "in his summary or breviate of the fifth chapter," which vanish in the second edition. A common reader might hence fancy, that the Synopsis was a correct abridgement of the whole epistle, chapter by chapter, and almost verse by verse, with the exactness and regularity of a modern commentator. But though you omit these words, you still say, at the end of the sentence, "in any part of that chapter," which supposes the very assertion you have omitted. To make the argument complete, you ought to have said, as Martin had boldly said, "in any part of the epistle," instead of mending his expression by an implied falsehood. Whoever will take the trouble of reading this same Synopsis, will find it an incoherent jumble without method or consistency. I once intended to transcribe the whole; but, to avoid the fatigue and disgust of such a task, I shall set down in their order the passages which the author cites from this epistle. i. 1. i. 5. i. 2. v. 20. iii. 8. ii. 12—14. iii. 10—18. iv. 7—12. iv. 19. 18. iii. 10. iv. 2, 3, 6. v. 16. iii. 14. iv. S. [ii. 23.] 22. iii. 13, 14. v. 20, 21. I may now safely appeal to every man of common sense, whether the place of any doubtful text in the Synopsis can determine its corresponding situation in the epistle. But perhaps the expressions are so peculiar as clearly to point out the seventh verse of the fifth chapter. "He also shows the unity of the Son with the Father." What! so brief that he cannot allow us the full sense of the passage, but breaks off a part and conceals the rest? Could he not have said, "He also shows the unity of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father," or "the unity of the three persons in the Godhead," or some one of a hundred other expressions, which every mind will suggest to itself? How strange is it, that he should transplant from the other parts of the epistle, so many phrases visible to the naked eye, and here make so minute a reference as requires the most powerful orthodox microscopes! Martin and you cautiously avoid quoting the entire sentence. "He also shows the unity of the Son with the Father, and that he who denies the Son, neither has the Father." The reference here is made solely to ii. 23, as Emlyn, in his Reply, p. 265, observed; to whom Martin Verité, p. 234, made so lame and shuffling a rejoinder, that, I fear, he was convinced of his error, though he had not the courage to confess it. If you object that the verse ii. 23. does not teach the unity of the Son with the Father, you must prove, 1. that the author of the Synopsis means unity of essence, not of consent; 2. that no ancient writer would or could interpret it in that manner. But, I hope, every person who has had the patience to read thus far, will be convinced that no mention is made of our verse in this Synopsis, but that since |