V 
 
 BISHOP BURGESS’S 
 
 VINDICATION OF 
 
 BISHOP CLEAVER'S EDITION 
 
 OP THE 
 
 “ Decretum Lacedaemoniorum contra Timotheutn 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 RICHARD PAYNE KNIGHT. 
 
 A most interesting work, particularly valuable for the vindication of the 
 celebrated verse of St. John. 
 
 Curious facsimilies of the Five remarkable original MSS, in the 
 Bodlean, Seldcn, Harleian, Royal, and Trinity College Libraries. 
 
 Not Printed for Sale. 
 
V •«, 
 
. u—jirtArvyj 
 
 C« 1/ 
 ✓ * 
 
 Jru C<A- ZLe- / 
 
 y 
 
 '€*</. V/tu. vM^uct A ■ o 
 
 / 
 
 /) 
 
 / /rbdt^, Jb. /. 
 
 /; > /7 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 OF 
 
 r~ 
 
 V 
 
 BISHOP CLEAVER’S EDITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DECRETUM LACED^EMONIORUM 
 
 Contra Cimotfteum. 
 
 / 
 
 7 
 
 77 
 
 »«- ■■ 
 
 & 
 
 
 S- 
 
 ~,p /' / .7. • 
 
 / 
 
U Ut L 
 
 ttyard Ic /■fic U sA /*\s ^ ^ /) / A A////f£' 7 ' 
 
 / 
 
 } L C'l> c-i /2£//iU-eA fA fd A&jf/Z-A#.'/Cv A-c? A& L-AA*-^ A 6 . C^OocdO J^t-JA h o f dC^</C s f 
 ^^ i v- lef ’y\js' j /) l£ / d/AlS A-& Ca 7 i/fa £?cjc^cf ft l / fv£<- A £X J j£ -tA Ct^vt- £uA 
 
 *4C . J>. A cu Aatf.ijJt I'tsiA A' LoAvteA dc ->A~a l^,j ^ , AA^eA/c (AlCiya-y^c^A ) a.j 
 
 N ( 
 
 Al l ^iW £ (<j JUfy ’J.-e^ e-iyU do ~b/ Aj uAyiAACJ Caxj /At£<7 dJ £y J C > O? aA 
 
 A Cat'/Ay Ah e-A fccAj . JjlcAs / A y . C^,u 2 AAj^ JAAO/, 
 
 a ' tJd Am AA& Cmd, at A <Aj ht 2o. c£*fis <T>/d ./6^.. 
 
 ( 
 
A 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 BISHOP CLEAVER’S EDITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DECRETUM LACEDiEMONIORUM 
 CONTRA TIMOTHEUM, 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE STRICTURES OF R. P. KNIGHT, Esa. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 / 
 
 
 BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. NICHOLS AND SON, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET. 
 
 / / 
 
N 
 
 
 \ , 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 ■■ o - ; /; c>a 
 
 .r *ht? 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The subject of the following pages was com¬ 
 menced as a Postscript to a Letter to the Bishop of 
 Durham, on the Origin, Form, and Pronunciation 
 of the iEolic Digamma. The Postcript has been 
 printed some years, but not published, for reasons 
 in which the Public are not interested. A printed 
 copy of it was given to Dr. Hales previously to the 
 publication of his Work on Faith in the Holy 
 Trinity ; which I mention on account of a refer¬ 
 ence, which he made to it in the Second Volume, 
 as if it had been then published. It is now dis¬ 
 tributed as presents to a few Friends, for the 
 sake of that part of its contents (p. 61—67) 
 which relates to the celebrated verse of St. John 
 in his First Epistle, the authenticity of which I 
 hope to prove on grounds of external evidence, as 
 well as internal, by Greek authorities as well as 
 Latin, in a Vindication of it from the objections 
 of M. Griesbach and others . 
 
VI 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 \ 
 
 From the singular curiosity of this ancient mo¬ 
 nument of Greek literature, it appeared desirable 
 that fac-similes should be taken of its more re¬ 
 markable manuscripts ; which has been done, and 
 will, I trust, be acceptable to the learned Reader. 
 Of the fac-similes which are prefixed to this Tract, 
 those which are from manuscripts in the Bod¬ 
 leian Library and the British Museum, were 
 copied by the Artists who engraved them. The 
 fac-simile of the Manuscript in the Library of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge, was very obligingly 
 taken for me by the Rev. James Hustler, 
 
 j J 
 
 Fellow and Tutor of the College, who afterw r ards 
 compared the lithographic engraving with the 
 manuscript, and the plate was finished according 
 to his corrections. The fac-similes have been all 
 executed since the following pages were printed. 
 
 T. ST. DAVID’S. 
 
 London , May 16 , 1821 . 
 
 X 
 
■ 
 
 *« 
 
 ? " 
 
 '.a v ; vvn 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 2 , 
 
 Fac-similes of Bodleian, Selden, Harl. Reg. et 
 Trin. Coll. Cantab, mansucripts. 
 
 Objects of the Postscript. 
 
 Language of the Spartan Decree. 
 
 Characteristics of the Spartan dialect . . . 
 
 The Decree a great literary curiosity . . 
 
 Subject of the Decree .. 
 
 Various editions of the Decree. 
 
 Text of Ed. Bas. 1570. 
 
 Text of Ed. Oxon. 1777. literis min. 
 
 Text of Ed. Gronov.. 
 
 Text of Ed. Oxon. literis maj. 
 
 Editoris Oxoniensis Latina Versio .... 
 Collation of text Oxon. with Ed. Bas. etGron. 
 
 Interchange of © et S .. 
 
 Affinity between the iEolic Digamma and the 
 
 Spartan B. 
 
 Use of P for S in past participles . . 
 
 The Latin language a species of iEolic dialect 
 Feminine nouns singular derived from neuter par¬ 
 ticiples plural.25, note 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 note 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 / 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 iEolic terminations of Latin words.25 
 
 Origin of active nouns from passive participles . 25 
 
 The simplest of our apprehensions denominated 
 
 from passive participial forms . . . ' . . 25 
 
 Ai>a§ not a mere curator or superintendent . . 2g 
 
 % 
 
 Origin and meaning of the word .... 3 ° 
 
 False assumptions of revolutionary principles . . 30 
 
 Homer’s anti-democratic principles . . . * . 31 
 
 A passage of Homer explained.37 
 
 'Eva^oviog, its different meaning, when applied to 
 
 ancient and to modern music .... 40,41 
 Moral character of ancient Greek music ... 46 
 
 The chief materials of Christian education, 
 
 what.. 48, note 
 
 Music an ordinary part of Greek education . . 48 
 
 Moral effects of ancient music.4 9 
 
 Influence of music on national manners . . 51, 52 
 
 Excerptum ex Boethii libro.55 
 
 Text of the Spartan Decree as proposed to be read 56 
 
 English translation of the Decree.57 
 
 Preservation of the Decree by Boethius ... 6 2 
 
 1 John, v. 7. preserved by Latin writers ... 63 
 
 The whole passage (ver. 7, 8.) first quoted by 
 
 Latin writers. 6 5 
 
 Comparative history of the Spartan Decree, and 
 
 of 1 John v. 7. 65 
 
 Defence of Bishop Cleaver’s list of books for the 
 
 younger Clergy. 6j —7 6 
 
 Larcher’s recantation of his anti-christian opinions 77 
 
Ex. Codice MS. Coll. Tiiin. Cantab. 
 
 mofflam tj-morbeof W'ttltws «'»'»( 1,1 
 
 trmyxw -«•(.« oaf op owohciou TIM»ptWE'H«p er r.vpo.-.iF'repAH 
 
 «iuiltr\xew / xiatrtcjxtx'in ^'pevneni" Artemi ei\*n -pr'cteT {cpzey\ 
 
 poriKirxw mu>f sa oxh at 1 ix\c xenx . TTXtf xixrxif etfrx 
 
 cor^v'uw iiitmenoc. AwotSul^tvo^ nrnltxf Uoce£ 
 
 xopxxH Bit-^XTJiXt^ XT 70 C rpe- fowx^oc ijoxi cfyoTj e jcxrtvf 
 
 "lemoUwt; Wdiruf muenum: . coy^m. 
 
 iYAXAtHETA-T TVpAXOAp TOJflfe^ A12L Texp^OAJ XOpATAp . 
 
 ,i eTim , ■moAuEvtiorvc'' $emtcc' . , X’ prof.m-pU 
 
 l&ir*p kxxioTXTo'p lomexeo'p a/ramm* Km tjci krr**f xwAtxp 
 
 oy-^rn jk-trx c'VevvwueHix, -propria™ nowen mcromaricu^ 
 
 lUT TET20fcemqp TW.TOTW GTipcjW MATCCTIEHUC 
 
 cttnvf cooftrtfu^nf *ffc jnotliuf. iwfwM t»y« u *ir*tfitt^wco 
 
 raUeWp TAXfToaeAtop'JL^cicvvj AT|TlTM etj^jme^nv ffoiTW} 
 
 •fxcic'tV'C ccnttliotvem rftT^TdAin r MQ«itu{ Mxten> ♦ ol in A.g'crtett^ «eu in 
 
 d-1) 0crpO([}OT3 - Tr&pAt^eTX'lCAcfe&l EHTO^ATONA TA"pCj\6j) 
 
 tn <Vrkif tfvlT^STtuctluem ^llW-t g’iyiTUf' 'f&littlo/a - 
 
 cmixvjxxMx rpoc xp-peTjeAiec KeicxTOTAU rumircv xiAcKeutt 
 
 &t etnitv jenvelcAn-fcm ^wca-T *iqueiu undecie^ n?u> doebnTta. *<Wcuvc . 
 
 T2cHTVp CEMjCV-Op \PA1H XV cykeHAl \XTO“P X}£0]} AlAAKKE AEAO>^- 
 d«C3Lkt»b ' Wf ' T * mborep A *ccuC*\>xivr 
 Aid? A TTEPTOyT'OVH TO ClXYClXE-Vp K-Vl JOf ETE'pO'g AV£ty.pLTI XI 
 
 ■tnno-t^vrui - mtt & w r> 4«ctH>xtn covoflvy* ^ict^udcitf 
 
 TIHWWII* EffA'H3Ji*T2U xe kxi TAtjEHAtCA JXOpAlAVj ARTA AVOW 
 A i ’ {eptem <kv<&nw ^irt>ara> tx?v })oc txvde»vf 
 
 AittcY-ftiw^ ’ ycUcTa '{'extern c'ordxrtnii 
 
 TAp'qepiTAX? YTTaxvpoaveHo rxperj rxiutfo^ ckacTo^ totx^> 
 
 cuvtf W^TLtt^V trvwvvtxr' tmz m{^xrtn xvunv ciiircxcc m jLltaui ct 
 
 T[OAlop B^poii o|UOtt exa-BETAl ETTA'HCTTA^TA^ WP^N TlTON 
 
 mcixccfT^'C' nv^ouuemcn-civt uvcTnn^vA* (ic^orc-e- ^cTLvvrtarcf a ^IoylX ccrcxYimviu 
 
 k A YTU*} ijETO^X A\E . tyo T£TA ^A^eTA^ K\e op ATOVj^u-bj^ 
 
 Jt SVfarti?l,Zilhocf r ' R/tche^rter.£? yferimlrurter ._ 
 

 £<f 77 . 
 
 1 ”" f -mt^ir 
 
 >& 
 
 ASpfe 
 
 •au< 
 
 o ^o^-aaamn 
 
 l^ttt 
 
 ^•Hwpaaau 
 
 ^ttoayn o ^cHa, -tap erjla-or opc iyitof) ( t^tap- 
 PFH -^aafeoai-atak) -crSpatl c al 
 
 W -aaeopc-j-apai^af^^ 
 

 
 dm Mtnor^euf. 
 
 err Aioe-Sop 
 
 noftrAm ctwrare 
 
 otH<ira,m fubuercrr. AmoiuWiow multttfyoceCimtfo 
 
 a*j iy-frApi^ Arroc-rpe <poaaFqoc TToAKfo^ eica 
 
 avtccttf AemolWrc nubiccns tuuetui- per ttuilcdS^ 
 
 tovj Ayaaax^FTAlTAp&koap To^tjeotj au TF&puoAy 
 
 coa^ aS <$emm tvouam wodulauoue ^enuw <% udtl^ 
 
 xopAikp kaarap Ua^oTAYop ToaaFaeop ar^vj ***t kaaTToi - 
 
 am. T lTO fvwntd & on- clm<a,ta, tvrcwuentrr' ftopruxm 
 
 kvra^ a^-rr/voap y T<U. rat)aaa;aif 
 
 no wen ttt eeo mdncu cjenuf eon fhx/uews quod eft 
 
 mi vpoa^rocTi^eK taat^op Toaa^uop Axacfcexq 
 
 molUuf dmtfionexP cndrmonteofwcxenU t^ucmonew w-u - 
 
 AtynTap eHap aaSmto irormj o/crocTpo<{>ppj dj&o- 
 {ci»--cr^p^VxTre/ic AeUv eh TomTom, xapc^ejcvHiap 
 
 rn*c-r\S t^vpvcrxbvncw Axutt.l5A.nt' faWlofd dtsperfi * 
 
 AeouApoc dTi'pc^e Aibc XEicarora^Tcum'ro; Axetcfcr 
 
 one. & emw emekf.vfon 'pctrtu.f nouetu au^ecieS tvoun Aoc 
 
 *avmp cr&^E Kot) <ypKet)aiKaTop *)Fop aul 
 
 x-ruxa end ocXXXX’. * £>e TdllDU. 1 ^) rectef ^ . -* Sc re 
 
 aUk^ Ae^oxe- ai^a Tfepro^roi^ Toctfm/VedpMXTopH 
 
 xoxef ac cu fakam; »vmo-tl)euw db^lbir AW <*i. 
 
 Tcpop ?afmi yA-TTAl xmoancoM .F'g'a^akam ae^Uai 
 
 unJecimd. cozcUm eXTenimf fuper PluaS relxcxw, 
 
 tat) Ft) Aeoa^op aayvj FXraaao^.TApTfcpaTap yxj-qMpo 
 
 feptfe col d<xrri/un ci rnam unuf V>oc uirtenr (vriaxarif c u «r' 
 
 Tap^Ttotifop ckAc Top rorap TjrojCtop Bapop 
 
 crravttr ^amuxt ne m tpaTciATaru canya-ce aUciu*<!> vnt>.u.ceret 
 
 opto^ ejva&eru ErTati cixap-raq ETjifcpE^Tnb^ aayka/ia;H 
 
 ,n?upat«atmU udcttmevru.* fir fcnrt ptutbate-c aloxia cerrawpiutn. 
 
 tprrov) aeTT°«Ts.plpFTa.p W> eop arot^&u>». 
 

 / 
 
 
 * 
 
 \ 
 
 I i 
 
 p 
 
 I 
 
 ♦ 
 
 \ 
 
 * 
 
 

lyfhUiPL'w 
 
 « , 
 
 a 
 
 g-|§'e 3 *S.f 
 
 ^ PI ?>* i ^ 
 h S&Jg..«|^ 
 
 ^>- l-» 
 
 siiSSs, 
 
 |-|S. ?N> ^'•sa^-fi! 
 
 silt t.* « 13 E%? 
 
 trri 
 
 iS?ll 
 
 agvS'SS 
 
 £«£ 
 
 i§ B E £ sill- 
 
 31 |fe I 
 
 o 52-t2, 
 
 P 
 
 2 3 Ig-a^vi 
 
 U S 2 S h* ^ 2 
 
 ♦i) S « ° t! t *3 
 
 
 * s a*ifg i 
 
 a> 2 F pg 
 
 a O & ‘ P 
 
 *l£ : Is.s 
 s f1i^S 
 
 § °- 
 
 I * 
 
 *s 
 
 ^ |Z rf *5 
 
 ’35 V I S 
 
 Jlt^e 
 
 'g-Sr.? * ? .g* 
 
 u p Br P- ° B r 
 
 x fi P-J & 
 
 fcg %? 
 
 e£ 
 
 ■ 
 
 p. 
 
 5 
 
 4>|^.-s 
 
 ■fie 
 
 3 |g 
 
 -< §3 
 
 5 3 
 
 i tAil. 
 
 fe §5 3 2* *s 
 
 * 4 ^ m z ^ 
 
 t^||$ 
 
 11^ 
 
 Iff 
 
 Z stl 
 
qtfr xljttna 
 
 cnutem-t- _ *«*****«• ^ m ttmta ctntrarcm' aa./ 
 
 o£-. OAVT4& ci op— riApATmi eWOp • C'T ^At6T£pAH, Ttcuuw. ifelH fT<M/ 
 
 nquAin . Jf 11 * - fpcotwnf . Au-rcm. cam—~ \>rcy&. fejjrcm- cord&vuitt, A ctt^amittv 
 
 . XT 1AUT. iVe Rjo t. liH Al AT^vvi. eitxAT&PA an . feu at? IIk 
 
 •f-uVuctrrr. motnilanoncm, mutat. uocef. ««wM«nf ^jetTMitumr ii^S/yC//* X 
 
 G-ernH^iH)»)^ 0 ^ 7 ^trtAHT^»At? A °^P* >TtTAfA\%vn\ mu q>r£ HW 77 -AI . 7 At-/ 
 
 prt> -in- c*«»WJ<lCTf£t»z * gifmtfr ? fhrM^nf, yuaS rib tnotuut. > , dtttijjauotn. j fro 
 
 M$AM&X7y*$o QMfiXQV ’ cynCic. TXy eucp7h\tHTv cxwp , liacJj-Ctj-i.lHTT' 
 
 eriarmonio ffocWnf. gttcvfurnv, / / witmam * uowruf. 
 
 TO. tT <3A\tt<i> 0 . AjACK&IAM *TAvrtra P0> CAft£\a0 H tt P • o y Chj\)W 
 
 rUJU^T- IdoA&tti&.t eJoittan , ’ t>eruC,bu(S > reaxt. . 
 
 A peof A^A^yf xt <)a*H ep> to svwdtiA.eop 
 
 e-t / itsptforef-/ <xccn£tl>Atnr^ cff^^nerbelim. J h&Aiofir** autzT.- y u*t£ e Ji ^ 
 
 ‘kjaToVtipOVOV' AleA’WAATAt^TtAlOT 1OAA* GTfAMAMrAT Jk:Ktvi IahshA 
 
 #u 3T. <WWT ' 1 I Ofrpn»5(mf. / fujx** fl«Af ' txhAt <cVcvm 
 
 e-fcAtfopJiw feltTAcpOH ^yTAfntWTT^V' ?tjgAl frnoxi&HO . tap. triTojj 
 
 corJ<uriZ'otwar£ ; ht- fi.yartf Uttif Srrtmf • uioen-f. /tv mutr-, 7 fpntrmtt. 
 
 oopeKACTb-p/fo'lApnoAiop. h&pQpTjfopTGMxxotTA** er^ T ‘ -- 
 
 * ^ atutuibi * intonnenietmani* vlmtuxrj pxm tr. 
 
 cJ7^PTA>^'7l7i#T-HHTiT^i4. <uhPaaoh. bteTof-i-Meh 
 
 rujr L ■ ceraxtnxutn,. 
 
 TAP. AFO HToff 
 
 TAH; C 1?ATAh. 
 
 o 
 
\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
-n r;:rg . 
 
 , v \ 
 
 jr.-a'-i » ,•**" 
 
 .1 f (\1 ■■ . 
 
 _- -— 'TT/< ‘O v 
 
 J is V ' 
 
 * v 7 * * 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Mr. Payne Knight, in his Analytical Essay on the 
 Greek alphabet, has called the Digamma Pelasgic , 
 and the Capuan figure, its Pelasgic form*. But, as 
 I observed before, this is not the kind of authority, 
 which Dawes’s argument requires. To his ancient 
 authorities for the term AEolic, as the designation of 
 the Digamma, some other ancient writers should be 
 opposed, who call it the Pelasgic Digamma. If we 
 put ancient authorities out of the question, how shrill 
 we decide between Dawes and Mr. Knight? By a 
 perusal of the Miscellanea Critica , and the Analytical 
 Essay. Comparisons are sometimes called invidious. 
 But, in this case, comparison is the only criterion, 
 which can enable us to determine, whose judgment 
 we shall follow. 
 
 Of the Analytical Essay a large portion is employed 
 on gratuitous generalities of derivation, which, of 
 course, can form no part of the comparison. But the 
 last section of the Essay is on a subject strictly philo¬ 
 logical, the right reading of the text of the Lacedae¬ 
 monian Decree against Timotheus. We have there a 
 test of the Author’s accuracy and knowledge of Greek, 
 from which the reader may easily form a comparison 
 
 * Analytical Essay, p. 10, 35. 
 
 B 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 ‘ i 
 
2 
 
 of the two authorities ; and I am the more inclined to 
 apply this test, in the hope of vindicating from the 
 unmerited asperities of Mr. Knight’s strictures, the 
 late Bishop of St. Asaph’s edition of this Decree ; and, 
 may I add ? of counteracting, in some measure, that 
 spirit of hardy and unexemplified assertion, which dis¬ 
 tinguishes the new school of criticism , and which, 
 when applied to the language and doctrines of Scrip¬ 
 ture, as we see it applied in the writings of Socinians 
 and Unitarians, by setting at nought all analogy and 
 authority, is most injurious to learning and religion. 
 
 The Decree was passed, about 400 years before the 
 Christian era, by the Spartan Senate against Timotheus 
 for corrupting the simplicity of ancient music by intro¬ 
 ducing innovations in the structure of the Lyre, and 
 increasing the number of its strings from seven to 
 eleven, which, by its variety, they thought conducive to 
 luxury and effeminacy, and injurious to public virtue. 
 The Decree is written in theiEolic dialect of Sparta*, 
 
 * iEolism pervaded almost every part of Greece, except Athens. 
 The Spartan Dialect was a species of the iEolic. It was distin¬ 
 guished chiefly by the use of P for £ at the end of words, as in 
 Ba^, for /xeAsoj : of B instead of the Digamma, as in 
 
 Be Joe, B oc^vg, Ba,(3s\io^ } for $vc } yjsXioc : of £ instead of 0, as <r* 0 £, 
 /3e<rof, TO-ao-o^, which are examples also of the preceding idioms, for 
 Shoe, e$o?, It had also the common iEolisms of a and e for «, 
 
 of o or w for ou, £ for o-, in the first futures and aorists, ev for tot* 
 for &c. Very few remains of Laconian literature are extant, of 
 which this Decree and the Spartan league in Thucydides, and the 
 Amyclaean inscriptions, if genuine, are the most remarkable. 
 Hesychius has preserved a large number of Laconian words. 
 
3 
 
 and is a great literary curiosity. Boethius, better known 
 for his work De Consolatione Pkilosophice , than for 
 his Treatise on Music , who has preserved the Decree 
 in the latter work, thus notices it. (( Consultum de eo 
 factum est , quod quoniam insigne est Spartiatarum 
 linguae S liter am in R vertentium , ipsum de eo consul- 
 turn eisdem verbis Greeds apposui” Casaubon calls it 
 antiquissimum et pulcherrimum vetustatis monimen - 
 turn *. Barthelemy thus describes the subject of the 
 Decree : 6< Timotheus was accused of having wounded 
 “ the majesty of the ancient music, and endeavoured 
 “ to corrupt the Spartan youth by the indecency, the 
 
 Meursius has collected them together in his Miscellanea Laco- 
 nica, III. 5—8. Casaubon has made a collection of such as end 
 in P. in his Animadv. ad Athen. p. 615. Of the Laconian dialect 
 Valckenaer treats largely, and with his usual pre-eminent learning, 
 ad Theoc. Adon. p. 271—292. This portion of Greek philology 
 was very little explored in the seventeenth century. Meibomius (in 
 a letter quoted by Maittaire ad Marm. Oxon. p. 653.) considers the 
 Spartan P, as a nullity, and says, even with Boethius and this decree 
 before him, that he never met with any authority for the idiom •, 
 (to which Maittaire opposes the authorities of Plato, Strabo, Athe- 
 nseus, Hesychius, Phrynichus, Eustathius, and Phavorinus ;) and 
 accordingly proposes to erase the P at the end of the words T 
 ovvHrrotfjLEvoq, #c. and to expunge the words of Boethius, which certify 
 the change of S into R. A more profligate instance of that wilful 
 depravation by which the writings of the ancients have been cor¬ 
 rupted and mutilated, is not easily to be met with. Of the iEolic 
 termination in P, and of the prevalence of this Spartan iEolism in 
 the Latin language, more will be said in this Postscript. 
 
 * Animadv. ad Athenaeum, p. 615; 
 
4 
 
 “ variety, arid loftiness of his performances. He was 
 “ ordered to retrench four strings from his lyre, with 
 “ this observation ; that such an example ought for 
 “ ever to put an end to novelties, which encroach on 
 “ severity of manners. It deserves to be remarked, 
 “ that this Decree passed about the time that the La- 
 “ cedemonians gained that celebrated victory of iEgos 
 u Potamos, which rendered them masters of Athens*.” 
 
 The first copy of this Decree was published, in com¬ 
 mon Greek , by Lilius Gyraldus, in his work De Poetis , 
 in the year 1545, which was repeated and amended by 
 Leopardus in his Emendationes , who at the same time 
 iuserted a very incorrect copy of the Decree, vetere 
 Dorica , from a MS. of Petrus Nannius. The Emenda¬ 
 tiones , though written many years before, were not 
 published till 1568. The Decree made its first appear¬ 
 ance in the printed works of Boethius, in Glareanus’s 
 edition, in the year 1546 . The last edition was in a 
 separate form by the late learned Bishop of St. Asaph, 
 Dr. Cleaver, in the year 177 7- In the interval of 
 these dates it was published, and more or less amended 
 by the Basil Editor 1570, Scaliger lfioo, Casaubon 
 iftOO, Salmasius lfi43, Bullialdus lfi44, Bishop Fell 
 1672, Gronovius lf>99, Chishull 1728, and Maittaire 
 I 732 .f 
 
 * Travels of Anacharsis, vol. II. p. 98, 99. English Tr. 8vo. 
 
 f “ In hoc Decreto emendando & illustrando certavit eruditorum 
 hominum industria, e quibus nominare licet Lilium Gyraldum dia- 
 logo IX. de poetis; PaulumLeopardum VIII. 4. Emendat.; Josephum 
 Scaligerum p. 285. ad Sphaeram barbaricam Manilii, quem sequitur 
 Jo. Fellus ad ealeem Arati, Oxon. 1672. 8. editi. p. 66 Is. C'asau - 
 
5 
 
 That the reader may better judge of the state of the 
 Oxford text, as published by the Bishop of St. Asaph, 
 and of the correctness of Mr. Knight’s strictures, I will 
 here present him with the three copies of it, which are 
 in Mr. Knight’s Essay, from the Ed. Bas. 157th 
 from Gronovius, and from the last Oxford edition. 
 To these copies I have subjoined the readings of the 
 Oxford edition as they differ from the text of the Ed. 
 Bas. 1570 , and of Gronovius. 
 
 bonum\ III. 11. ad Athenaeum; Jo. Meursium III. 5. [& II. 8 .] 
 Misc. Lacon. 5 Joh. Seldenum II. 10 . §. 8 . de Synedrio (ubi peculiar! 
 dissertatione illud SCturn exposuisse se adfirmat, quae non vidit lu- 
 cem, licet tribus verbis idem Ephororum decretum tangat notis ad 
 Chron. Marmoreum, p. 197) ; Ism. Bullialdum ad Theonem Smyr- 
 naeum, p. 295,19; Claudium Salmasium de Hellenistica, p. 82; G.I. 
 Vossium L. IV. Inst. Orat. p. 50 ; A. Schottum ad Procli Chresto- 
 mathiam, & Jac. Gronovium Praef. ad tomura quintum Thesauri An- 
 tiq. Graec.; Steph. le Moyne , p. 852. ad Varia Sacra; Thom. Plnedo 
 ad Stephan, p. 778; Edm. Chishull. p. 128. Antiq. Asiatic.; Mich. 
 Maittaire ad Marmora Oxoniensia, p. 589. 595. 598. 654. ubi 
 contra Marcum Meibomium probat Lacones mutasse £ in P. Respicit 
 illud decretum Dio Chrysostom. Orat. 32. p. 38. (Fabricii Biblioth. 
 Gr. vol. II. p. 289.) vide Guil. Fornerium ad Cassiodori lib. I. epist. 
 45 . p. 222. Heumann. etiam supra Tom. II. p. 325.” (Fabricii Bibl. 
 Gr. nov. ed. Harles. vol. III. p. 47S. not.) 
 
6 
 
 DECRETUM LACEDAEMON IORUM 
 
 ED. BAS. 1570. 
 
 1 Etsi &£ Tijxo^£og 6 MiXeoriog 7rctpoLyi[JLEVog sv Tav 
 
 2 OL[J.ET£paV 7T0\lV, TOLV 7TOi7iOLlOiU p>X7T7jV OLTipL(X<TOLg, XOLl 
 
 3 TCLV §ICL TTaV E7TTCL yop^aV Xl^api^Sl, a7TOG"TpS<J>©jU,£VO£ 
 
 4 7 roTuxpcoviav Eicraycov, XupaiVETai Tag axoag tcov vecov 
 
 5 Sta T£ ra^ 7roAup£op£ag, j*ai rag kouvotoltolq tod- 
 
 6 Twu [JLS?iEOg aysvvs, xai TOixiXav avTi airT^oav, xai 
 
 7 TETayp.svav apiLpiauiav jut,oA7T7jv siri ypcopaTog cwei- 
 
 8 < rrap^EU rourou jmsAsog fiiao-Tacnv. Avti yag Eva p- 
 () fjiovia) 7roiow avTUTTpstyov otfjLQifiau. JJapaxXa^sig Ss ev 
 
 10 tov aycova Tag EXsucnvtag Aap.aTpog auryoo 
 
 11 8 is(pr}[jLi£sT 0 rau Tip [jlv&w xiSvrjTiv. Tav yag Xsp.E- 
 
 12 Xa bbuv av oitx svSsxaTog veop ^i^ayr}V E$i$a§s. Eirot 
 
 13 7TSpl TOOTWV TOV fioLG’lhSOLV XCtl TOU p7)T0p0Q fXS[JL\pCCTai 
 
 14 T^ao^eov. Fj7ravaTiQsTOU <$s xai Tav svbsxa yapbav 
 
 15 EXTaVCDQ TCLO T7SplOL(TTCtg, E7TE l7i£ l7T0p*EV0g TOLV E7TT0L- 
 
 16 yjophov OLTTOO . To yocg 7ro7ilO g fiocpog OLTVTOV TETOLp- 
 
 17 firjTOLl Eg TOLV lltTOLpTCLV ETltySpElV * TiS^OV fJLT) XCLhUiV 
 
 18 VYjTCOV, [Xr\ TOTE TOLpOLTTTjTOLl X?<SOg OLyOpCOV. 
 
 Lectiones Ed. Oxon. ab Ed. Bas. 1570 variantes. 
 
 Ver. 1. etth^. Ti ( uocr*o£. Mi\a<xiO£ 7rapayivoM,Evoj>. 
 
 Ver. 2. 7raX'av. fjcitiocv. ocTifAcc^ti. 
 
 Ver. 3. Tav E'nTTa. RtcrapiTtv. Ver. 5. REyoraTo^. 
 
 Ver. 6. 7* T&> //.sAeo^. Ver. 7* avr Xoa^. Ver. 8. TtTOipevoif. ajU,7rEvvu- 
 Ta» Tav p,wav. Ver. 7* 8. crimcrTa/ASVo£. Tav tw. ^a^ETtv. Ver. 9. 
 Troiwv avTtiTT^o^iov. Tla^aKXaS'EJj 1 . Ver. 10. a7r^E7r»7. Ver. 11. ^iEcrxsua- 
 caTo. ^iacntEuav. Taj ZE/xsXa^. Ver. 12. w^iva. svSlkol tw£. Abest tiTa. 
 Supplet A^o^ou. Ver. 13. tovtolv. rug fioca-iXvx^. t&>£ styopug p.E/x4/acr3at. 
 Ver. 14. Tt/xoa-*ov £7ravay>cacrai. Ver. 15. (KTU[xev. 7Te^tt ap uvra\ii7ro[Atvov 
 rag ETTTa. Ver. 16. sxaaro^. ra^. t^wy EuXaj^rjrat. Ver. 17. «v. 
 
 E7Ti(J)£fEy Ti TWy nS'wv. 
 
7 
 
 CONTRA TIMOTHEUM. 
 
 ED. OXON. 1777. LITERIS MINORIBUS. 
 
 1 E7T£i0r] Ti[xqciq% 0 M iXoccrioo 7rocpoLyivo[X5Vog sv rau 
 
 2 a[xsT£pocv 7 ro?uv tclv 7 toJXeclv [xwclv oLTifxocbosi, xou 
 
 3 tolv bio. tolv ztttcl yopbov 'xicrctpiTiv olttoctt pE<po[X£Voo 
 
 4 7T07iU$WVlOLV EKTOLyWV Xu[XOUVETOLl TOLO 0X000 TWV VSWV, 
 
 5 '§101 TE TOO TTOT^O^OpblOO XOLl TOO XEVOTOTOO TCO 
 
 6 [xeXeoo aysvuT] xoi tzoixiKov ovti 07 ~7\ooo xoi 
 
 7 TETO[XSVOQ 0[X7TEVVUT0l TOV [/.COCCI' S7TI %pW[XOTOO (70VI- 
 
 8 (TTOfXEVOO TOLV TCO [XZ7\EO% ClOlpECTlV, OVTI TOO EVOQ- 
 .9 fXOVlW * 7TOICOV OLVTlCTTpofyoV OL[XOl$OV’ 7T0p0X7^0^S 10 Of 
 
 10 xoli sv tov oywvo rap E?vsucrmao A o[xoTpoo ottoezst} 
 
 11 blETXEUOLGTOTO TOLV TCO [XU(TCO OlOCTXEUOV , TOV TOLO *1,£[X6- 
 
 12 T^oo wbivo oux svbixo two vswo eOiOo^ev. A zOojfircu . . 
 
 13 7TS£i TOUTOIV TWO fio(TlXSO% XOU TWO E&OgWg p.E[X^O(T^OU 
 
 14 T IpLOTlOV, STZOVOyXOVOl %S XOU TOV EvbsXO %Op(iOV 
 
 15 EXTO'XEV TOLO TTEplTTOO U7T07\.E 17TG[XEV0V TOCO E7TT O f 
 
 1 6 Q7TWQ EXOCTTOO TO TCLO 7TG?U0g fiapOO OpWV EU7\O^T0U 
 
 17 EV TOLV %7TOpTOV ETlLpEpEV Tl TWV [XT) X07^WV 7]$WV^ 
 
 18 [Xr)7T0TS T0Lp0LTT7}TCCl XhSOg OCyWVWV . 
 
 Lectiones Ed. Oxon. ab ed. Gronoviana variantes. 
 
 Ver. 1. Ti^o( 7 io^. M lXcccio^. ira.gcc'yivoy.tvog. by. Ver. C Z. 7 tcc\bo,v. ccriyu^- 
 Ver. 3. £ 7 TTC 6 . Kkcragn IV. Vd*. 4. •TroX'jtyu ViXV. 7U)Y YSUV. Ver. 5. 
 KBYOTOCrOg. Ver. 7- <xy.7TBVW7c/,i. Ver. S. hougenv. Ver. 9. tto iuv. ccy- 
 Tio-TgoQov. TrxgxxXuS-Eig. Ver. 10. fv. Ver. 11. SiBCTKEVot'ra.jo. yvay ciot- 
 CKEVCiV. T«y TOCg. VeT. 1*2. CO^iVd. EV^lKCt. B^i^CC ftv. A'^op^&ai. Ver. 13. 
 ^F/x^ao-Sa*. Ver. 14. Ti/xoo-iov tTravayxaaat. Ver. It), oirug. Ver. 17. 
 
 tv. Ti. flS'WV. 
 
 * The Editor has restored the masculine form instead of the 
 feminine eva^owa^, in his Addenda & Corrigenda. Compound ad¬ 
 jectives usually retain their masculine form, though connected with 
 feminine nouns. 
 
8 
 
 DECRETUM LACED/EMOMORUM. 
 
 ED. GRONOVII *. 
 
 1 EttsiS?} Tijao^sog b MiA7j<nog 7rapyi[xsuo% et tolu ol[xete- 
 
 2 pOLU 7T07UU TOLU KOLiXOLlOLU [KLOOLU OLT ijUtaT OL£ St), XCU TOLU 
 
 3 SlOC TOLU E7T%OL yOpSoLU X&OLpl^lU OLTTOG-TpEt^OlKEVO^, 7T0- 
 
 4 TiUtpCOUOU EKTOLyCOV ’hO^OLlUETOLl TOL^ olxoolo Tft)g UECOO, 
 
 5 Stars Tag Ko’hu^opSiOLtj xai ra o xoliuotcltoo too jaeXsoo 
 
 6 aysuur} xou 7toixi7lolu a uti oltt7\oolo xcli tetol^evolq 
 
 7 OLfxQlSUUOTOLl TOLU [XCOOLU E7TI ^pa)[XOLTO^, CUV KTTOL'XEUOg 
 
 8 TOLU TOO {XsTiSOO SlOL(TXSlOLV OLUTl TOLL) SUOLpfXQUlOO 7T0T TOLU 
 
 9 a.7roGrrpo(pou OLfxoi/oocu’ TroLpoLx7s.rftsig Se xoli et tou 
 
 10 ayoouoi tolo EAsocriViag AoLfxoLTpog OL7rpE7rr\ Sis<r7rsu- 
 
 11 (Taro tolu too fxuQco Siolltxeiolu , Tag Tag SspisAag w- 
 
 12 Siuolo oux eu Sixoo tooo usooo SiSolxxs* SsSqxtou &olu 
 
 5 3 5 
 
 13 7 rspl TOUT(OU TOLO (BaT/A-aj, XOLl TWO EpOpOO [JLSa-p'OLTTOA 
 
 14 TlfXO^SOV, STTCLUCLyXOLTOLl Ss XOU TOLU EuSsXOL^OpS iOLU 
 
 Id SXTCL’XSIU TO.') 7T£ OITTOLo UToTlITTOUlSUOU TOLO ETTTCt* 
 
 i 3 I 3 i 5 
 
 l() 07r£g EXOLTTOIO TO TOLO 1ToXlOO ftoLpQQ OgOJV EUTiOL^TOLl 
 lj £T TaV %7TOLpTOLU STVl$SpEU TE TUOU [XT] XOLkUOU [XT] 
 
 l8 7 TOTE TapOLTT r t\TOLl xASOg OLyoOUOOU. 
 
 * This copy of Gronovius’s text is printed from the Analytical 
 Essay. The readings in which the Oxford text differs from Grono¬ 
 vius’s are at the bottom of the preceding page. Four of the read¬ 
 ings of the above text are in Mr. Knight’s edition, but not in Gro¬ 
 novius’s : line 1. a^ETf^av, 1. 3. s7r£a, 1. 16. otte^, 1. 17. te, and are 
 errors of the press for o^r^otv, Itttx, rt. Six other readings I 
 
 conceive to be also erroneous in Gronovius’s own text: 1.3. 
 for KL^X^k^lV, 1. 4. VEto£ for TUV VECDV, 1. 10. ^S0-7TEV(7XT0 for $IECTX.EV<TXT0, 
 1. 12. for $ikx, 1. 13. E(pc>£ 0 £ for eQofvg, like its article rug, and 
 1. 14. h ^Exct%o^iav for IvStKoc ^o^av undecim chordarum ; all of which 
 are correctly given in the Oxford edition. 
 
9 
 
 CONTRA TIMOTHEUM. 
 
 ED. OXON. 1777- LITER1S MAJUSCULIS. 
 
 EIIEIAE TIMOSIOP HO MIAA5IOP nAPAri- 
 NOMENOP EN TAN HAMETEPAN nOAIN TAN 
 HAAEAN MOAN ATIMAAAEI KAI TAN AIA 
 TAN HEnTAXOPAAN K1SAPITIN AnOSTPE- 
 4>OMENOP IK) AY<M)NIAN EISATON AYMAI- 
 NETAI TAP AKOAP TON NEON AIA TE TAP 
 nOATXOPAIAP KAI TAP KENOTATOP TO ME- 
 AEOP ATENNE KAI nOIKIAAN ANTI HAnAO- 
 AP KAI TETAMENAP AMnENNTTAI TAN MO¬ 
 AN EIII XPOMATOP SYN12TAMENOP TAN TO 
 MEAEOP AIAIPE2IN ANTI TAP ENAPMONIO 
 noION ANTI2TPO<I»ON AMOIBAN. nAPAKAA- 
 ©EIP AE KAI EN TON AIWA TAP EAET2 IM¬ 
 AP AAMATPOP * AnPEnE AIE2KETA2ATO 
 TAN TO MYSO AIASKEYAN TAN TAP 2EME- 
 AAP OAINA OTIC ENAIKA TOP NEOP EAIAAK- 
 2E AEAOX0AI . . riEPI TOYTOIN TOP BA2I- 
 AEAP KAI TOP E4>OPOP MEM¥AS0AI TIMO- 
 2ION EIIANArKASAI AE KAI TAN HENAEKA 
 XOPAAN EKTAMEN TAP nEPHTAP TnOAEI- 
 nOMENON TAP HE nr A HOnOP HEKA2TOP 
 TO TAP nOAIOP BAPOP HOPON ETAABETAI 
 EN TAN SnAPTAN Em<I>EPEN TI TON ME 
 KAAON E20N MEnoTE TAPATTETAI KAE- 
 OP ATONON. 
 
 * This reading was undoubtedly intended by the Editor ; for so 
 it is expressed in the other copy \ and in all the Oxford MSS. 
 And so it ought to have been printed in the Analytical Essay. 
 
10 
 
 EDITORIS OXON1ENSIS LATINA VERSIO. 
 
 Quandoquidem Timotheus Milesius adveniens ad nostram urbem, 
 antiquam illam musicam dedecorat, eamque septem chordarum ci- 
 tharizationem aversatus, dum nimiam varietatem sonorum intro¬ 
 duce, aures juvenum corrumpit, & per multas chordas & novitatem 
 melodise pro simplici & uniformi (voces) induit musica ignobili & 
 varia, in Chrornatico genere componens musicae apparatum, & pro 
 continuo (cantu) faciens responsionem antistrophicam, [ scilicet , ut 
 sint periodi cequalcs & sibi invicem respondentes'] : quinetiam quum vo- 
 caretur ad Eleusinise Cereris ludos indecorum fabulse apparavit ap¬ 
 paratum, nimirum Semeles partus, ut non oportebat, juvenes do- 
 cuit : Placere itaque ut Reges & Ephori ob haec duo, [scilicet impi- 
 ctatem, & ob ea quae in musica innovaverat ,] turn reprehendant Timo- 
 theum, turn cogant insuper undecim e chordis rescindere servantem 
 tantum septem : ut unusquisque videns civitatis gravitatem vereatur 
 in Spartam inferre aliquid bonis moribus non conveniens, ne forte 
 olim turbetur decus certaminum. 
 
 In printing the preceding copies of the Decree Mr. 
 Knight has given not a very favourable specimen of his 
 own Editorship. He has com mitted twoerrors in printing 
 the text of the Basil edition: t>is<p7)[j.i%£To for olto, 
 
 and s7T£iAsi7ropi£i/op for S7n7^si7r. In the Oxford copy he 
 has left two readings, which ought not to be there, 
 evagpiowag, which the Editor corrected in his Addenda 
 8$ Corrigenda; and AAMATPOS, which was an 
 error of the press for AAMATPOP; as is evident from 
 the second copy, which is in the smaller letter. In 
 Gronovius’s copy he has introduced four errors of the 
 press, which are not in the original, cqxsTegav, a, 
 o7Ts§, rs. We will now see, if he has succeeded better 
 in censuring the Editorship of others. 
 
 In order to pass a right judgement on the Oxford 
 edition of this Decree, Mr. Knight should have been 
 well acquainted with the labours of preceding Editor 
 
11 
 
 and with the new materials , which the Oxford Editor 
 collected from MSS. for the improvement of the new 
 edition. Of the former Editors Mr. Knight seems to 
 have known very little. For he says, that “ Gronovius 
 first endeavoured seriously to restore the text of the 
 Decree.” How contrary this is to the fact, we know 
 from two competent judges, Fabricius and Chishull. 
 When Fabricius first published his Bibliotheca Graeca 
 (Hamburg. 1705 .) Gronovius was tb elast of many Edi¬ 
 tors ; yet Fabricius says, “ In hoc decreto emendando 
 & illustrando certavit eruditorum hominum industrial 
 And who were these eruditi homines which preceded 
 Gronovius ? Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, &c. Of 
 Scaliger’s edition Bishop Fell says : Verum Jos. Sca¬ 
 liger notis suis in Manil. ex MSS. codicibus (ut ait) 
 priscam illi fiormam restituit. Scaliger however left 
 not a little to be done by future editors. Of the several 
 preceding editions, the text which Chishull preferred 
 was not Gronovius’s, but that of Bullialdus, of which 
 Maittare gives the following account. “ His addendus 
 est Ismael Bullialdus in Theon. Smyrn. editione, Lutet. 
 Paris. lfi 44 . 4 . p. 295- Bullialdus in restituendo hoc 
 decreto scribit se usum fuisse pluribus libris MSS. Se- 
 verini Boetii de Musica, quos nactus est in Bibliotheca 
 Regia, Thuana, & Abbatiae Sancti Germani in Pratis, 
 sed prae caeteris libro MS. vetustissimo nitideque ad- 
 modum in membrana scripto bibliothecae Petri et 
 Iacobi Puteanorum fratrum, ex quo libro totum fere 
 correxit. Id observandum est Chishullianam Decreti 
 descriptionem in omnibus fere cum Bullialdiana con- 
 venire ” (Ad Marm. Oxon. p. 595- Not.) 
 
12 
 
 Mr. Knight was as much mistaken in his account of 
 the new critical materials , and in the general notice 
 which he gives, of the Oxford Edition. “ In the 
 “ year 1777 a more correct copy (of the Decree) was 
 published from some Manuscripts at Oxford, accom- 
 “ panied with variations found in other Manuscripts 
 “ belonging to the University; and a critical and ex- 
 “ planatory Commentary by the learned and respect- 
 “ able Prelate, who published it. This copy , with the 
 Ci variations, was as follows.” The copy, which follows 
 these words of Mr. Knight, is not a copy of the Oxford 
 edition of the Decree, but a manuscript exemplar made 
 up of the several Oxford MSS. The more correct text 
 of the Oxford edition is contained in the two copies, 
 which occur at the end of the Commentary p. 42— 
 45 . and in this Postscript p. 7 and p. 
 
 He is not less mistaken, in all the particulars, which 
 compose the following censure. After quoting the copy 
 of the Bishop of St. Asaph’s text, which is in litteris 
 majusculis, he says: “This only shews that the learned 
 “ Prelate did not exactly know the value of his own 
 “ publication ; for most of his emendations are either 
 “ unnecessary , or tend to the same end, as those of the 
 “ old transcribers, that is, to eject every curious pro - 
 “ vincial peculiarity not readily understood, and to 
 “ fill its place with a word from the more known dia- 
 “ lects. Like other Editors, both ancient and modern, 
 “ he found it more easy to alter than to explain.” Of 
 the strange misapplication and extreme injustice of this 
 censure the reader may easily judge from the collation 
 
13 
 
 even of the second Oxford copy (literis minoribus) with 
 the text of ed. Bas. 1570, and of Gronovius, in tire pre¬ 
 ceding pages of this Postscript, but still more from the 
 copy in p. 9. It will be there seen that the Editor’s 
 express purpose was not to modernize the text, but to 
 restore its archaisms, as in the following readings : 
 
 Bas. vel. Gronov. 
 
 T ifJLo&sog B. Gr. 
 fJ.0h7TY}V B. 
 ar^cLtrag Sr) Gr. 
 xfoapityv Gr. 
 afAtyisMUTai Gr. 
 TraLpax\rfttzis Gr. 
 exroLiAEiv Gr. 
 
 &c. 
 
 Oxon. lit. min. 
 
 TljXOO'iO^ 
 
 [KWOLV 
 
 olti^clSSei 
 
 xirrapiTiv 
 
 ay.7TEVVUTOU 
 
 7rupax\o&Et{> 
 
 S7CTOLp*SV 
 
 & c. 
 
 Bas . vel. Gron . 
 
 £7 tsiSy) Gron. 
 
 0 B. Gr. 
 dpLETSpOLV B. 
 
 f.KOiCLV Gr. 
 
 Tcov vswv B. Gr. 
 fjw&a) B. Gr. 
 ocysuur) Gr. 
 
 OL7rpE7T7) Gr. 
 
 E$a)t> Gr. 
 
 &c. 
 
 Oxon. lit. maj. 
 EHEIAE 
 
 HO 
 
 HAMETEPAN 
 
 MOAN 
 
 TON NEON 
 
 MTSO 
 
 ATENNE 
 
 AnPEnE 
 
 ESON 
 
 &c. 
 
 In this majuscular copy the Editor has archaized the 
 orthography throughout, not only by following the 
 
14 
 
 Spartan form of P for %, of S for 0, A A for SA, &c. 
 but by prefixing H to the aspirated vowels, and substitut¬ 
 ing E and O for 73, which were not generally adopted 
 by the Greeks till after the date of this Decree. But 
 in his revisal of the text only one word (< pot or <pav) has 
 been ejected from the text, as inexplicable, and that 
 had been already ejected by Casaubon ; and not one 
 “ curious provincial peculiarity" has been exchanged 
 for a word from a more known dialect, which had not 
 been preferred by some preceding editor, as will be 
 shewn below. 
 
 The ingenious Author had prepared his readers for 
 the harshness and inaccuracy of the preceding censure, 
 by the following petulant and groundless reproach. 
 “We find in the Lacedemonian Decree against Ti- 
 “ motheus before mentioned AIAAKKE for EAI- 
 “ AAKSE, to which the Oxford Editor, with presump- 
 “ tuous and inauspicious hand, has changed it.”* Who 
 would suppose, that this confident language is in direct 
 contradiction to the fact ? The Oxford Editor has not 
 changed the text to any new reading, but has retained 
 the original reading of Glareanus. ESi8a§; is probably 
 not the right reading ; but it was the reading of Gla- 
 reanus’s Manuscript, and of his edited text, as sfifioarxE 
 was of Casaubon’s. Whether SiSaxxs, or SiSotxx 7 ], or 
 Soixxs, be the right reading, will be inquired hereafter. 
 
 I proceed now from the Authors general censure 
 to his application of it to particular passages of the 
 
 * Analytical Essay, p. 23. 
 
15 
 
 Decree, the text of which, he says, has been either un¬ 
 necessarily changed, in the Oxford Edition, frotn com¬ 
 mon terms to more ancient, or ignorantly , from an- 
 
 • 
 
 cient terms to more common, that is, from curious pro¬ 
 vincial peculiarities not easily understood to words of a 
 more known dialect, the Editor finding it more easy to 
 alter than explain*. And, first, as to the unnecessary 
 changes. 
 
 133 * Ci The change of 0 to 2 is unnecessary ; for 
 “ though the Lacedemonians pronounced these two 
 “ dental aspirates in the same manner, it does not ap- 
 “ pear, from any genuine monument of their writing, 
 “ that they confounded them in orthography.” This 
 idiom the Author afterwards calls “ the vicious pro¬ 
 nunciation rather than the established orthography of 
 the Laconians^.” How far these observations on this 
 Laconian idiom are just, may be determined by its 
 use,—by the occasions on which it was used, and the 
 persons using it. The Lacedemonians used the X in¬ 
 stead of 0 on the most solemn occasions, in their oaths 
 and public treaties. Oi AoixsSocijLcoi/ioi rovg Aiocxovgovg 
 
 OfAMOVTSS, V7\ TO) §iO), (pCKTlU , OtVTl TOO, jUia TOOg 0EOt)gf. 
 
 Maittaire quotes an example of Xao from a Spartan 
 league, and of Xnog from a league between two Cretan 
 tribes. He brings also the authority of Aristotle for 
 this idiom of the Lacedemonians in their language of 
 admiration, saying (rsiog aurip for Qsiog avrjp. Examples 
 of this idiom in a variety of other words may be seen in 
 
 * Analytical Essay, p. 133. f Ibid. p. 136. 
 
 X Gregorius de Dialectis ed. Koen. p, 137. 
 
 « 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
16 
 
 Maittaire, Valckenaer, and Koen Apollonius Dys- 
 colus says, Ot aA 7 .oi Awgisig T7)Qov<ri to 9 * Aaxafueg fit 
 
 to Q £ig g [LSTaftoLh'kovG’i. But Eustathius (ad Odyss. A. 
 p. 1702 .) and the MS. Etymol. quoted by Koen ascribe 
 this idiom generally to the Dorians, as Hesychius does 
 to the Carystians, Cretans, Eleans and Paphians, who 
 were Dorian nations. In conformity to the prevalent 
 useof this idiom,Salmasius correctedTqxoQsogand 
 in this Decree, to Tifj.o<reoo and y.utra), which, with one 
 necessary correction, were adopted in the Oxford edi¬ 
 tion. Of this idiom in a proper name the Etymol. MS. 
 (p.714.) has brought an example in 2 i<ru$og for Osoero- 
 <pog.~^ But our ingenious Author says, there is “ no 
 trace 9 of this idiom in “ any written monument of the 
 Laconians.” J I have quoted two written monuments, 
 and the authority of Aristotle, for the idiom, in words, 
 where a vicious pronunciation was least likely to have 
 prevailed. But if we had merely the authority of the 
 ancient grammarians, we could have had no more doubt 
 of the idiom, than of the thirty dialects of the Area - 
 dians, Alexandrians , Macedonians , Corcyrceans, Co¬ 
 rinthians , of which we have nothing but relics in 
 
 single words preserved by Hesychius and others. If 
 the ancient grammarians had said as much of the Pe- 
 lasgic Language , we might have had some reason for 
 
 * Maittaire de Dial. p. 147. Valckenaer. Epist. ad. Rover, p. 
 lxx.iii. & ad Theoc. Adon. p. 277- sq. Koen ad Gregor, p. 137. 
 
 f In TKTvQoq is a double Laconism, in the use of £ for © and of T 
 for O, as in ovu^-afor ovojua. 
 
 t P. 15, 16. § Maittaire de Dial. p. 267—282. 
 
17 
 
 admitting a Pelasgic Dialect, and a Pelasgic Vau, if 
 not a Pelasgic Digamma. 
 
 P. 133. “ The same may be said of the change of I 
 “ for the T in all those instances, where this last vowel 
 cc is usually employed - 9 for Eustathius tells us, that it 
 “ was the practice of the later Doric and iEolic to put 
 “ the I for the Y: and the uniformity of it in this copy 
 “ of the Decree shews, that it was intentional.’’ There 
 has been no change from 1 to u. The 0 of the Oxford 
 text is the reading of all the preceding editions. The 
 text, which the ingenious Author here calls this copy , 
 is not the text of any one manuscript, but is a compo¬ 
 site text collected by the Oxford Editor from the se¬ 
 veral Oxford Manuscripts which he had collated. The 
 argument, therefore, from its uniformity is a mere 
 phantasy. The KipLotiverou, 7 roki^op^ia^, and afx^isvvirai 
 of some manuscripts, are TwpaivsTai, 7 roXo%op 8 ictg, and 
 in the Selden MS. and also in the Bodleian 
 in the last instance. Neither is this composite text 
 uniform in the use of t for 0. For it reads (not i7roXi- 
 7 ro[U mov, but) u:ro?u7rojU£Vov with all the MSS. In Ma¬ 
 nuscripts which are not of great antiquity, the 1 and u 
 may be easily mistaken for each other by transcribers, 
 from similarity of form. The modern Greeks, too, 
 gave the same sound to 73, i y and 0 , a vicious pronun¬ 
 ciation, which has been the source of many errors in 
 MSS. 
 
 In the passage of Eustathius quoted in the Analy¬ 
 tical Essay , there must be some error. For in the 
 terms 8 u(ppog, $i<f>pog, the common form is in 1 (%«ppo$), 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 the dialect in u (hvQpog, if there ever was such a word), 
 in which the change, as it is called, is from t to u, con¬ 
 trary to the two examples, [Aoutra , p,oiG*a, and ruTrrotxra, 
 tottoktol, in which the common term is in t>, and 
 the dialect in i, and the change therefore from y to i. 
 The remark of Eustathius was probably intended to 
 be confined to the diphthongs ot> and o i. For it is 
 well known that the modern Doric and ZEolic used oi 
 for ou, as in p.o*<ra for p,ou<ra. In the ancient ZEolic, 
 and the Latin, it was MYSA. Joannes Grammaticus, 
 indeed, quotes nj/TjXoj/, i\|/o&£V, and i7rsg, as ZEolic for 
 u\[/*jXov, u\f/o^sv, and But a very accurate ob¬ 
 
 server of these matters says : Nobis nondum licuerat 
 ullum hujus permutationis istarum vocalium ZEolicae 
 exemplum observare*. 
 
 P. 134. 44 The inserting the common aspirate too, 
 44 and not the Digamma, is improper: for both these 
 44 letters were dropt from the alphabet nearly at the 
 44 same time, and neither of them occur [occurs] in 
 44 inscriptions of so late a date as this Decree, unless 
 44 indeed it be upon some coins of Elis, Heraclea, and 
 44 Tarentum, the age of which cannot be ascertained, 
 44 and the columns of Herodes Atticus, written in imi- 
 44 tat ion of the ancient orthography. To these, per- 
 44 haps, may be added the Heraclean tables, which 
 44 have both aspirates, but the age of them is uncer- 
 44 tain.” Here are exceptions of the Author’s own 
 admission, quite enough to destroy his objection. 
 Mazochi, the Editor of the Heraclean tables, had no 
 
 * Fischer. Animadv. ad Weller. Gramm. Vol. I. p. 102. 
 
19 
 
 doubt (nullus igitur dubito) that the date of the tables 
 was very little later than the year of Rome 430, and 
 very little earlier than the 300th year before Christ*, 
 which was nearly a century later than the date of the 
 Lacedaemonian decree. The ingenious Author’s chro¬ 
 nological objection, therefore, to the insertion of the 
 aspirate, H, and of the Digamma, in the Decree, is 
 groundless. His objection too, that, as the Digamma 
 was not admitted, therefore the aspirate ought not, is 
 equally incorrect. For if the Digamma and the aspi¬ 
 rate are inadmissible, they are so for very dissimilar 
 reasons. Instead of the Digamma the Spartans made 
 use of B. “ What the Digamma was to other Mo- 
 
 lians, says Toup, (( that B was to the Spartans •J-.” 
 The admissibility of H is rendered doubtful by the 
 aversion which the iEolians generally had to aspirated 
 sounds. They were, eminently, called /iAomxoi 
 They said appeg, Ofipeg, for rjpsig, ufxsig. Whether, 
 therefore, the aspirate H be properly prefixed, in this 
 Laconian Decree, to the words 6 , oc[xsTepav, See . may 
 be doubted, but not for the reasons assigned by our 
 Author. 
 
 P. 134. “ It was customary to drop the aspirate 
 “ from the consonant, as has been shewn in the in- 
 “ stance of the Zanclean and Theban medals ; whence 
 
 * Mazochii Tabulae Heracl. p. 134. 
 f Toup. Emendationes, Vol. III. p. 474. 
 
 + AAAo i [X.SV 'E \\y)vs$ Soicrvvovcri roc, (puvneni »* AioAstj h ov$cc[jm$. Apol¬ 
 lonius Dysc. See this^passage and various Scholia on Aristophanes 
 and Theocritus quoted by Maittaire (De Dial. p. <203). 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 C{ I have no doubt but that MITOS, which occurs (in 
 ct the genitive case) for MY 0 O 2 , is the true word, and 
 u not MY 20 S, which the Editor would substitute, 
 “ though it has a different and incompatible meaning.” 
 Our Author has here involved himself in a confusion 
 of terms, which he might have avoided if he had stated 
 the three genitives f utco, [xocrsog, instead of their 
 
 nominatives jt urog, p,o&og, pivo-og, the last being the 
 2 Eolic nominative of | ilvo-co for p,v$a),J'abulce, and also 
 the common nominative of puxrsog, sceleris. The usual 
 reading of this passage of the Decree is which 
 
 Salmasius corrected to [mutco, according to the Spartan 
 idiom. In one MS. it is written p^irco, which our 
 Author prefers. But purco cannot be the right read¬ 
 ing, for it is the iEolie genitive of purog, citharce jides , 
 a meaning quite foreign to the passage, whereas pujfrco 
 has the same meaning with and cannot be con¬ 
 
 founded with the genitive of p^orrog, scelus , which 
 
 * 
 
 is fMKrsog, or, Laconice, fxucrsog. M itcd, and not 
 IxvG-to, is the incompatible term. Mu<ra>, therefore, or 
 p><ro, in the more ancient orthography, is undoubtedly 
 the true reading. The error of i for u, in purco , from 
 which neither MSS. nor inscriptions are exempt, is the 
 same as was before noticed. 
 
 P. 134. “ The change of the T to A in nOIKITAN 
 “ is right; and also that of A to the O in the last syl- 
 “ lable of KANOTATOP; but the substituting an E 
 “ for the A in the first is wrong/ Here has been no 
 change in the Oxford text from T to A. Tloixihav is 
 the reading of almost every edition from the Princeps 
 
21 
 
 editio to Chishull. Neither has there been any change 
 from A to E ; for no edition has xolvotoltqq. But in 
 xsvotcltoq there is a change peculiar to the Oxford edi¬ 
 tion. KAIvoTarog of other editions is KEvoraro g in 
 the Oxford text. This our Author says is wrong ; 
 but he gives no reason, why it is wrong to substitute e 
 for a or cti. In the ancient dialects there are examples 
 of both, as in tuttoixs^su for T 07 rTop.sQot 9 ^rspcog for 
 (rog. E, however, is not substituted in the Oxford 
 text for a, but for ou. In Glareanus, Scaliger, Salma- 
 sius, Chishull, it is KAI vorarog, for which the Oxford 
 text has KEvoTaTog. And thus for at we find s. in vseiv, 
 A^-yjvsou, &c. and in the termination of the Latin infi¬ 
 nitives, as in esse for stvat. In the word ^evog we ap¬ 
 pear to have some evidence, that xatvog was anciently 
 written xsvog. For tgsvog, peregrinus , novus , before the 
 invention of the double letters, was written crxsuog, as 
 (rxi<pog for £t(pog. The Oxford Editor’s text has also the 
 authority of the Magdalen MS. which has xsuorarog. 
 
 P- 134 . u ATIMASAE seems to be the proper form, 
 “ and not ATIMASAEI, the sense requiring a past 
 “ imperfect, rather than a present, and the omission 
 ‘‘ of the augment being common to Homer, Hesiod, 
 ce and Herodotus.’* Poets and Ionic writers are not 
 very legitimate authorities for the language of an JPlo- 
 lie Senatus consultum. But leaving this to be de¬ 
 cided by our Author, as a question of taste , we may 
 contend, on stronger grounds, that a past imperfect 
 tense is here wholly out of place ; the offence, against 
 which this Decree was directed, being perfect and pre - 
 
22 
 
 sent at the time of the Decree. “ Timotheus has dis¬ 
 honoured, and does dishonour, the ancient music/' 
 This sense of the passage is determined by the accom¬ 
 panying present tenses, 7 roLpoLyivop*svoq, oL7roo-Tps$o[j.£voo, 
 sKrayaju, TiUfjLociusroti, otfAtpisMUToii. The Doric form of 
 arijxa^o) is anpLacr^a), the Laconian aTipt>otSSa). Chis- 
 hull reads arijutao-Sst, Salmasius otnp.a(r^r). Valcke- 
 naer, in a passage to be quoted under the next remark, 
 expresses his surprise that Salmasius should not have 
 adopted the Laconian form in AA. In his younger 
 days, when he wrote his Epistola ad Roverum, he 
 read olti^u^s, but, in his later and more elaborate 
 notes on Theocritus, he has preferred the present 
 form, aTip*od>$si *. 
 
 P. 134. “ KI0APIEIN, or KI 0 APIKSIN, is also 
 u more consistent with the roughness of the dialect, 
 “ than KISAPITIN, given by the Editor, or KITA- 
 “ PITIN, which one MS has, and which is less ob¬ 
 jectionable.” Valckenaer thought very differently. 
 He preferred the Laconian form in % to the common 
 form in 0, xi^upi^iv to xi®api{;iv. “ Formae Laco- 
 “ nicae in aSSm & Mco cum essent ex Aristophane 
 “ notae, mirum est, cur non olti^ol^s posuerit Sal- 
 (a masius in Lacedaemoniorum Senatus consulto, qui 
 “ (de Hellen. p. 82) solus in illo restituerat rav 
 a ptfiv* nam xiOapanv scripserat Leopardus, Emend. 
 “ viii. c. xiv. et Scaliger ad Manil. p. 426. xiQapi%iv 
 Casaubon, Bullialdus, et Edm. Chishull.’^ 
 
 * Ad Theoc. Adoniaz. p. 276. 
 
 f Epistola ad Roverum, p. lxxvii. 
 
23 
 
 P. 1 36. “ The change of IIAPAKAE 0 EIS to IIA- 
 “ PAKAA 0 EIP may be right so far as substituting 
 “ the E for A ; but terminating words of this class in 
 “ P is unjustified by authority, and inconsistent with 
 “ analogy, and certainly inadmissible in any dialect.” 
 The Author, if I mistake not, is neither correct in his 
 concession , nor in his objection . Before the invention 
 of the long vow r els, a and s were used for 73, but not in¬ 
 discriminately. Such words as 7roi£a>, xol^eco, were 
 formed thus : 7 tojsco, 7 roiE(ra), 7rs7roiExoL , 7T£7roi£jxaj, s7roi- 
 s%ev, toieSsis (not sttoio&sv, noiofosig, xho&Eig, &c.), as 
 / KSTaxiVEfrai , xivscng, &c. of which examples may be 
 seen in Scaliger and Salmasius, quoted by Maittaire*. 
 I prefer, therefore, Trapax^Eig to TrapaxKoiSeig. But 
 what must we say to the Laconian termination in P, 
 against which, in words of this class , the Author has 
 pronounced the most exclusive reprehension ? So de¬ 
 cided and comprehensive a sentence should not have 
 been left to gratuitous assertion, but should have been 
 substantiated from the express judgement of some an¬ 
 cient grammarian, or from the natural incompatibility 
 of the letter with this class of words , in proof that 
 they are excluded from the general observation of the 
 ancients, namely, that the iEolians in general, but 
 especially the Lacedaemonians, Eretrians, and Eleans, 
 used the P for X at the end, and some of them also 
 in the middle, of words. It is a question worth in¬ 
 vestigating, as it may serve to explain the origin of 
 some grammatical forms in Latin as well as in Greek. 
 
 * De Dialectis, p. 165. 
 
24 
 
 That the class of words, to which TrapaxXrfistg be¬ 
 longs, is not, generally, excluded from this idiom, is 
 evident from this very Decree, in which we have the 
 participles, 7rapoLyivo[Asvog, a7ro(TTp£<po[£evog, rsTotpLsmo, 
 (ruvKrTapsvog. We have here the passive and middle 
 species of this class, of time past and present; and 
 Hesychius has preserved two participles of the active 
 species ; auag for amg, which he explains by yxoiHrct * 
 (from avia, the original of Ba ivw, as svco is of Venio), 
 and ap*7riTT0Lg for apx parrag, which is rendered by 
 7rapoiraTTo[j.£VY}. We have, then, participles active, 
 passive, and middle, of time present, past, and in¬ 
 definite active, which end in P. Can there be any 
 thing in the nature of the first aorist passive, which 
 could unfit it for the use of this favourite letter of the 
 Spartans ? and render it, so terminated, “ inadmissible 
 in any dialect P” The remark which contains this 
 most exclusive negative, is couched in the high lan¬ 
 guage of amplification, but not, therefore, more likely 
 to be true. It is incapable of proof. Indeed all dia¬ 
 lects are out of the question but one, the -ZEolic and 
 its several species, Laconian, Eretrian, &c. 
 
 The Latin is one of its species^; but the Latin has 
 no aorist: our Authors negative cannot, therefore, be 
 proved from the Latin. It will not, however, be 
 
 * The termination in a^like /xaxag, was applicable to both genders. 
 
 f The Crotoniatae, Locrenses, Campani, Brutii, Sabini, Sam* 
 nites, and Tarentini, were colonies from Lacedaemon. See Meursii 
 Miscell. Lacon. Lib. 1. c. vii. The Roman manners, and language, 
 partook much of the Spartan character. 
 
25 
 
 foreign to our purpose to trace its relation to the 
 .iEolic, in this particular idiom, by the termination of 
 participial nouns in R. For all such nouns as factor, 
 domitor , captor , pastor , &c. I conceive to have been 
 participial forms of the past time, and candor, ardor, 
 dolor , &c. of the present. The passive participles 
 jactus, domitus, &c. were anciently written factos, 
 domitos , and, iEolic^ybcfor, domitor. Though these 
 are now called passive forms, they had anciently an 
 active as well as passive signification, as many have at 
 present, such as 7 rsTroir\p.oLi, ^sScopr)fxai, See. There is a 
 large list of verbal nouns which are obviously passive 
 participial forms, such as flexus, nexus, sumptus, mor- 
 <sus, &c. * Even the simplest of our apprehensions 
 were thus denominated: auditus, visus , tactus , odo- 
 ratus , gustus, and that which comprehends them all, 
 sensus , from which we have auditor , visor, with the 
 -ZEolic R, and so from spectatus , or spectatos, spec¬ 
 tator. 
 
 By the same analogy the Greek verbal nouns iroi- 
 yryg, axpoarris, sopsrrjg, xTKrTrjg, xpirrjg, &c. are derived 
 from passive forms in their active signification, and are 
 sometimes terminated in S, sometimes in P, and some¬ 
 times in both, as and 
 
 * Sapientia, prudentia, constantia, consequents, &c. are also par¬ 
 ticipial forms. By a remarkable deflection from their original 
 form, they became singular feminine nouns from neuter participles 
 plural; and with some reason, wisdom, prudence, constancy, not 
 consisting of single actions, or qualities, but of results and habits 
 accumulated and confirmed by experience. 
 
26 
 
 As agents and actions derived their signification from 
 the past time, so qualities and permanent properties 
 were denominated from the present; as candor, ardor , 
 dolor , nitor , &c. By the same analogy, from aco, auo), 
 clamo, came the Laconian aj 3 o>g clamor; as u&og aqua, 
 does from Ja>, from whence also sudor. — But, to 
 return to the Lacedaemonian Decree, and to Mr. 
 Knight’s remarks. We proceed now from his charge of 
 unnecessary alterations from common terms to more 
 ancient, to that of changes ignorantly made from an¬ 
 cient terms to more common. That the Editor, whose 
 express purpose it was to restore the archaisms of his 
 text, should nevertheless have u ejected every curious 
 provincial particularity, not easily understood ,” or that 
 his emendations should have had such a tendency, is 
 incredible. But we will see, how Mr. Knight has veri¬ 
 fied his assertion. 
 
 P. I34 . ec AioLipecrivfor AIASKEINor AIA^KEIAN, 
 is too violent an alteration.” Neither bicLcrxeiv nor §*a- 
 tnesi olv is the reading of any edition of the Decree. 
 A ioa%s(nv should rather be compared with $ia,o-TOL<nv 9 
 which is the reading of the princeps editio , and of Ca- 
 saubon. Leopardus • and Salmasius read Sisiriv, Scali- 
 ger ftvarx'heia.v. 
 
 P.135. “IIOITAN the Editor has changed to nOION, 
 cc or Troian.” HoiTav is notThe reading of any edition ; 
 and of but one MS. Of course here has been no 
 change from 7toitolv , but from ttoiolv, the reading of the 
 princeps editio , into kokov and toiov. Uokov is also the 
 reading of Scaliger, Casaubon, and Chishull. 
 
2 7 
 
 P-135- “ I prefer the reading of the Manuscripts, 
 
 <£ no IT AN, considered, as the accusative feminine of 
 “ the participle aorist, contracted, after the Doric man- 
 (C ner, from 7roi7j<roc<rai/, to ttohtolv, and by a change of S 
 “ to T, TroiTai/.” IIo itolu, which the author calls a Do¬ 
 ric contraction for 7roir\(roi(roLv, is, I believe, without 
 analogy or example. The third plural of aorist verbs 
 is sometimes contracted from — olg-olv to av, but never, 
 I think, the singular feminine of the aorist participle. 
 
 P. 135- “ Ai8axxe in the MSS. is right, as before 
 
 “ observed. The Editor’s alteration to e8i8a being the 
 “ same as a change of 07 jxs, or 8coxs, in Homer and 
 “ Hesiod would be to E 0 HKSE or EA 12 KSE.” 
 Atiaxxs maybe theManuscript orthography for 8i8ctxxrj, 
 (as ctysvvs, and airpeTrs in the same MSS. is for uyswr^ 
 and aTrpsTTTj,) which is an iEolic form of 8i8uxxsi: or it 
 may be a corruption of e8i8olxxe, which I am more 
 inclined to think. Ai8axxr), however, is the reading 
 of Salmasius, and is quoted by Maittaire as an example 
 of iEolism for 8i8u(rxsi. There are traces of 8i8otxx7j 
 in Glareanus’s AIAAXID. That the Oxford Editor 
 did not alter 8i8otxxs to e8i8ol^e, but retained e8i8oc§e 
 from Glareanus, has been before noticed. If we could 
 suppose SiSaxxs to be the unaugmented form, Homer 
 and Hesiod would not be proper authorities for such a 
 form in a prose Senatus Consultum. Besides, a change 
 from 8i8ocxxs to s8i8a^s, from one legitimate form to 
 another, would have been not at all similar to chang¬ 
 ing $7 )xe and eficoxs to and sficoxa-e, which are 
 
28 
 
 merely imaginary forms adopted by Lennep* to ac¬ 
 count for the anomalous aorists sG^xa and sbcox a. 
 
 P. 135. “ The syllable or <J>AN, which the Edi- 
 “ tor rejects as useless and inexplicable, relates either 
 “ to the Senate, who enacted, or to the Senator, who 
 u moved the Decree.” But as the Author does not 
 explain to ivhich it relates, nor how it grammatically 
 relates to either, it must be considered, in its present 
 state, as unexplained and inexplicable. It is not in 
 the text of the princeps editio; nor in the edition of 
 Casaubon. The Oxford Editor is therefore not with¬ 
 out authority for the omission. Some word of con¬ 
 nection or inference , seems to be wanting. Scaliger 
 has supplied (from MSS. as it seems) <pav. Other 
 MSS. have (pot or Chishull has (perhaps from 
 
 conjecture) 7ra, which he translates utique. The text 
 of the princeps editio shews the kind of word, which 
 is wanted. Instead of SifiaxxY). Asfioffiou ?rspi toutcov — 
 Glareanus has there given,— s$i$a§s. EITA 
 7rspi toutcov x, t . X. Eira is a term of inference^ like 
 ouv and youv. As EITA appears in no other MS. but 
 Glareanus’s, it was probably a gloss of the term oblite¬ 
 rated, which I am inclined to think was yoov , afterwards 
 corrupted into <pav. Amongst the Doric words used 
 by Herodotus, Maittaire mentions cov and ycov for ouv 
 and youv. With this reading the passage will stand 
 thus : Aefioffiai ycov 7 rspi toutcov. 
 
 * Lennep. de Analog, p. 73. ed. Scheid. 
 
 f Devarius de Particulis, p. 132. ed. Lips. 1793. 
 
29 
 
 P. 135 * u and 67 ravoLyxa(rai given by the 
 
 €C Editor are likewise wrong, the forms [xsijl\!/octtoci and 
 “ BTroLvoLKCLTou in the MSS. being more consistent with 
 “ the dialect, which transformed the 2 into T, as well 
 “ as dropt the consonant.” Msp^ao-^cti is the reading 
 given by Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, andChishull; 
 and avoLyxotfrai or s7ra.myxeL'roLi , or £7roLmvxa^oci, by the 
 same learned men. Our ingenious author says that 
 te the dialect transformed the 2 into T.” It did, but 
 not indiscriminately, nor on all occasions. The very 
 terms before us are generally examples of a different 
 idiom. In the futures and aorists of verbs and par¬ 
 ticiples the JEolic changed 2 into 3 , and therefore in 
 such words as s7rotvoLyxa(rou they said E7ramyxa^ai, or 
 £7roLmvxoL^oLi, as Chishull reads it. Our author will, I 
 believe, find it difficult to produce a single adequate 
 authority in support of ixe^oltto.i or s7ravaxa.Ta.i. In 
 Valckenaer’s Epist. ad Roverum, p. 6 5, are several in¬ 
 stances of verbs in acrQcci, and uniting both forms in 
 3 and 2© 5 as Sixa^aaSaL, o7rcopi^oL(r^ai, xoiTat'a.aSoti, 
 
 7 ro^app.o£ao'&on. 
 
 P. 135? 13^- “ Though the word EIIANAKATAI 
 u does not occur elsewhere, in the same form, we have 
 “ other words of the same extraction and signification , 
 “ as axog, care , and amxcos, carefully; which, as Eusta- 
 “ thius observes, are from the same root as aand 
 tc amo-cra), words which do not imply, in Homer, 
 u the office and power of a king, in the present sense, 
 “ but merely a curator , or superintendant .” This 
 remark is quite in unison with the spirit of that uti- 
 
30 
 
 kingly period, at the commencement of which it was 
 published. In the year 1791 the King of France was 
 become the prisoner of his people; and in the follow¬ 
 ing year Royalty was abolished by the National Con¬ 
 vention. It may be always useful to keep in mind the 
 false assumptions on which revolutionary principles 
 rested. We are here told, that in Homer does 
 not imply the office and power of a King in the 
 present sense, but merely a curator or superintendant . 
 No proof is brought from Homer; but an appeal is 
 made to Eustathius; and, as in these cases frequently 
 happens, the words quoted are in contradiction to the 
 author’s assertion. Eustathius says, Avoltcto. g exaXouv 
 rovg fioccnTisag 01 TraXaiot 81a to amxmg, y)youv sTipeT^cog, 
 
 Toov 'TnOTETArMENHN, The ancients called 
 kings avoLxrsg, on account of the care , which they had 
 of their subjects. The term tbroTgrayjULsvoi is neces¬ 
 sary to the meaning of amxrsg, and implies not merely 
 subjection in one party, but dominion in the other. 
 Ava§ in Homer never means less than dominus . Te- 
 lemachus says to Antinous, ami; eropai ^sTEpoio 01x010, 
 I will be the sovereign of my house , or family. 
 (Odyss. a. 397*) In this sense amxrsg and $[xu)eg, 
 domini and servi, are opposed to each other. (Odyss. 
 g. 320.) Family dominion implied all the authority 
 belonging to a King, as the sole Governor, or Monarch, 
 of his people, not as a mere curator or superintendant, 
 in subordination to some Head. In this sovereign 
 sense the term was applied to the Gods. In the Odys¬ 
 sey (tt. 387.) the kingdom of Ithaca is called Telema- 
 
31 
 
 chus’s by inheritance , Tarpaiia. But nothing can mark 
 more strongly Homer’s anti-democratic principles, 
 than his language in the second book of the Iliad, in 
 which he describes the office and authority of kings, 
 as derived from Jupiter, and their power, as heredi¬ 
 tary ; and condemns the government of the many. 
 
 O OX OLyO&OV 7T0'h.VX0ipCLViri' slg XOipaVOg SGTTft), 
 
 Efc fiotvihsvg, (o efiooxe Kpovou 7raig ayxu7iopLr}Tsa> 
 'Stxrpcrpov t &sp*t<rTag, ha spi^ 0 t(n 7 isuj)* 
 
 Suptog 8s p,eyag etrri Siorpecpscou 
 
 Tipr) 8* ex Aiog s<m, (pihei 8s s pi^nera Zevg.^f 
 
 The following passage shews not only the heredi¬ 
 tary descent of Agamemnon’s power, but his sove¬ 
 reign authority over Argos, and the adjacent islands.;}; 
 
 - am xpeim Ayap.sp.vct)v 
 
 EtTTJ, <rXV)7TTpOV EJ£COV‘ TO [LEV 'H<pai<rTO£ xa[AS TSO^COU’ 
 
 'Hcpaicrrog p.sv 8coxe A li Kpovicovi avaxrr 
 A vtolq apa Zevg 8coxs 8taxrop(p ApyeiCpovrr^ 
 'Eppt*siag 8s am § 8wxsv TlsXo7ri Tk’hvfennrcti' 
 
 Aorap 6 avre Tls'ho’fy 8cox Arpei , 7 roiptsvi AaeW 
 Arpeug 8s $vr\(rxa)v shine ftoTwapvi 0us<rrv)* 
 
 Avrag 6 avre Suscrr Ayap.ep.vovt \sits (pop^vat, 
 
 IIo Wyiari vrjfroicn xat Apysi izavrt amcrcrstv. § 
 
 * Iliad. B. v. 204. f Ibid. v. 196. 
 
 X Those interesting Islands, which are now under the protection 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 § Iliad. B. v. 100. 
 
32 
 
 Plutarch therefore, or whoever was the Author of 
 the treatise Trspi rrjg 'Oprjpotj Troirjcrscog, might well say 
 ot Homer, T 7 ]V {rev flanheiav Sr oTirjg rrjg 7roirjG'scog 
 ovo{ra%cov xai eyxco{ria^cov , His descriptions and epi¬ 
 thets of Kings, his Siorpe(pea)v $a(rikr\cov, and Seicov 
 fioi(ri7i7)a)V, give an impression of the kingly office and 
 power not inferior to their modern character, and very 
 different from our Author’s mere curators and siiper- 
 intendants. 
 
 Amt; therefore I conceive to be not from am and 
 ai<r<rco, nor from avaxoog s^eiu, nor even from avco s%eiv 
 ra^iv, but from avco, sursiim eo, ascendo, and to be 
 the same with a mg, qui sursum wit, evectus est , as 
 opvit; is the same with opvig, xhat~ with xhqg, Tifoat; 
 with K&ag, puat; with poag, &c. Hesychius has pre¬ 
 served the Laconian form of amg in avaq, from avco in 
 its uncompounded sense of rjxco. From avag comes 
 the feminine avarra, avatrcra. 
 
 P. 13b. Nsrov in the Manuscripts is only wrong 
 “ in the first letter, which should be a B, Berov, or (as 
 “ in the Etymologicum magnum) Bsttov, the regular 
 u Laconian form of Fe^ov.” Bsttov has no relation 
 whatever to Fe^ov. The former is the neuter nomina¬ 
 tive for B bcttov, # Vestis; the latter, the genitive for 
 rfrcuv, morum, the Laconian form of which is Becrcov, 
 or Betrov, B being their substitute for the Digamma. 
 
 P. 13d. “ E<rov, substituted by the Editor, is taken 
 Cf from a note to Hesychius, who gives B ecrov, as Laco- 
 
 * Bf ixTov, ro 1/xccTiov. Etymol, Mag. 
 
33 
 
 man for sSog, and Yloccrou for 7 roiQog.” B sgtov could 
 not be Laconian for sQog, nor Tcufrov for 7ro&og, 
 because, though they used ^ for N, they never reversed 
 this idiom. Bs<rov and 7ra<rov were corruptions of $£<ro£ 
 and 7rao-og. And so they are corrected by Valckenaer 
 ad Theoc. Adoniaz. p. 282. In this Decree, for pj 
 xotXaiV £§wv we should read pj koCKwv fiz<rwv. 
 
 P. 13b. Note. cc I have before observed the double 
 “ power of this word, similar to that of habit in our 
 “ own language.” The significations of &og and etrSyg, 
 or sor^og, and of their Laconian forms 0£<ro£ and fiscrrou, 
 fcrroi*, never reciprocate. E §og never signifies vestis, 
 nor comuetudo, ?nos. The Latin Habitus, as 
 
 well as the English, derives its ambiguous meaning 
 from a very different class of associations, like its rela¬ 
 tive s^ig in Greek. 
 
 P. 13G. “ Tctpapsrou in the manuscript is right, 
 and not TapctTrsTou, given by the Editor.” TAPAT- 
 TETAI (or TctpotTTYjTcci litteris minoribus,) is given 
 not by the Oxford Editor alone, but by Glareanus, in 
 the princeps editio, by Scaliger, Casaubon, and Gro- 
 novius. 
 
 P. 136. “ It (rotpotpsroLi) being the Laconian form 
 
 “ of the second Aorist subjunctive middle , and not 
 “ the present of the subjunctive passive. In common 
 u Greek it would be TapourrjTOLi, or raparriTou, from 
 “ rapoL(T(r(D or rapar-ran” In what new system of Pa¬ 
 laeography, or thesaurus of “ unlicensed Greek,” the 
 Author found rapaa-Tjron to be the 2d. aorist of rapot G-tra*, 
 
 I cannot conjecture. Whether the characteristic of 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 the present be in 5 ) 2 J or TT, the second aorist does 
 not vary with such difference, but has in either case T 
 for its characteristic, and not S or T. Tapayyrai, 
 therefore, is its legitimate form, in common Greek, 
 and not TapacrrjTcti or rapotrr]Tou. Much less could 
 TOLpapsrou be the 2 d. aorist of Tap<x&(rco.* But Mr. 
 Knight says, that TOLpapsrai is “ the Laconian form of 
 “ the second Aorist,” that is, the Laconian form of a 
 word which is not Greek ( rapaa-riroLi ), or of a word 
 which is Greek ( [rapayr}Tou ), but which will not admit 
 the Laconism in the beginning, the middle, or the 
 end of it. 
 
 I have now examined both of our Author’s charges 
 of unnecessary and ignorant alteration, and find the 
 former very ill supported, and the latter wholly unve¬ 
 rified. Where then should fall the imputation, which 
 he brought against the Oxford Editor, of ignorance 
 and presumption ? 
 
 The reader, who has followed me thus far in the 
 examination of that portion of the ANALYTICAL 
 ESSAY, which contains the Author’s remarks on the 
 Oxford edition of the Decretum Lacedaemoniorum 
 contra Timotheum , if he has also read the MISCEL¬ 
 LANEA CRITIC A of Dawes, will, I think, be of 
 opinion, that a comparison of the former with the lat- 
 
 * Instead of rc^arr^T cu Salmasius reads ra§ virtutis, of 
 
 which an account will be given in the following pages. 
 
35 
 
 tei 5 can detract nothing from the critical authority of 
 Dawes, nor give any .weight to arbitrary innovations 
 on the established language of antiquity. 1 conclude 
 therefore, as before, that the -ZEolic Digamma ought 
 not to be called Pelasgic, because it was never so 
 called by the Ancients,—because a generic term cannot 
 be applied to a particular dialect: because its ancient 
 name was Vau, and not Digamma;—and because the 
 term. Digamma, was not in the primitive Greek al¬ 
 phabet, but is, comparatively, a modern term. 
 
 Mr. Knight justly observes, that the Lacedaemonian 
 Decree is “ a very important monument of antiquity,”* 
 though he seems to have very incorrectly studied its 
 idioms, and character, and, of course, very imperfectly 
 appreciated its value. It is important from its connec¬ 
 tion not only with the ancient language of Sparta , but 
 with her music and manners and religious institutions . 
 As the ingenious Author was desirous of “ enlivening 
 the dryness of grammatical disquisition,” he might have 
 done so from the connection, which this Decree has 
 with many interesting subjects, much more acceptably 
 to his Christian readers, than by the levity and pro¬ 
 faneness of his caricature of the great Patriarch of the 
 Deluge.^ 
 
 Mr. Knight confined his view to the grammatical 
 character of the Decree, yet the consideration of the 
 Spartan Music, in its national character, and the his¬ 
 tory of the printed text of the Decree from the end of 
 
 * Analytical Essay, p. 15. Note. 
 
 D 2 
 
 f Ibid. p. 61. Note. 
 
36 
 
 the fifteenth century to the latter half of the eigh¬ 
 teenth, are necessary for determining the right reading 
 and meaning of the Decree, and for estimating the 
 merits of the Oxford Edition. His imperfect know¬ 
 ledge of the preceding editions of the Decree, and even 
 of that which he undertook to censure, I have already 
 noticed. It is also fully exemplified in the following 
 short passage. Of the Lacedaemonian use of P for S 
 “ we have a curious example in the Decree against Ti- 
 u motheus, the Milesian Musician, 'preserved by Boe- 
 “ thius , in his treatise on Music, and more correctly 
 cc republished from a Manuscript at Oxford, in the 
 “ year 1777.”* In this most extraordinary literary 
 notice of the Decree,—from Boethius to the Bishop of 
 St. Asaph,—there are not less than twelve centuries 
 sunk. It was preserved in the sixth century, and re¬ 
 published in the eighteenth! Whether it was ever pub¬ 
 lished since the origin of printing, before the Oxford 
 republication , we are not here informed. This how¬ 
 ever is a mere omission. But when we are told, it was 
 “ republished from a Manuscript ,” the information is 
 very erroneous. The Oxford Editor collated not less 
 thanjfee Manuscripts, the Bodleian, and the Seiden, 
 the Magdalen, Corpus, and Balliol MSS. Again we 
 are told, that it was more correctly republished from a 
 manuscript at Oxford. What Mn Knight calls a ma¬ 
 nuscript , was a composite exemplar taken from the 
 five MSS. The Editor expressly says, that there was 
 
 * P. 15. 
 
3 7 
 
 not one of the Oxford MSS. which was not equally cor¬ 
 rupt with. the printed copies; u Nec profecto affirmare 
 u ausim ullum quidem e Codicibus Oxoniensibus ex- 
 “ tare, qui non ceque corruptus sit, ac ii, quos antehac 
 excudi curaverunt viri literati.” 
 
 Of the Oxford Editor Mr. Knight says, “ Like 
 <c other Editors, both ancient and modern, he found it 
 ‘ c more easy to alter than explain.” That it is often 
 more easy to alter than explain, (though it must be ad¬ 
 mitted,) our author has not proved from the Oxford 
 Edition. But I will here exemplify it from his own 
 Essay,* by his alteration of a passage of Homer, where 
 Antinous says to the other suitors of Penelope, in reply 
 to their objection to his proposal of putting Telema- 
 ehus to death: 
 
 Ei S’ v[JLtv bye pvQog acpotuSa vei, AAA A ^ouXsc^^•£ 
 Avtov re %a)eiv, xai £%eiv 7roLTQoSioL 7 tolvtcl 
 
 On this passage Mr. Knight observes, “ though the 
 “ elision of T removes the metrical difficulty,the greater 
 cc difficulty still remains; for the word aXAa, as Clarke 
 ce has observed, is totally incompatible with the sense, 
 ec which requires a conjunctive instead of a disjunctive . 
 “ I would therefore read, 
 
 Ei S* vy.iv bye fJLv&og a(pau$avei, HAE KAI cwtqv 
 B ooKecrSe ^coew” 
 
 In the common reading of this passage, and its ma¬ 
 nuscript variation, there is more than enough to deter 
 
 * Analytical Essay, p. 41. 
 
 f Odyss. v, 387 * 
 
38 
 
 from so violent an alteration. In the first place we 
 have manuscript authority for reading BOAES 0 E in¬ 
 stead of QouXsor^rs, by which we not only restore the 
 metre, but recover, if not “ a curious provincial peculi¬ 
 arity,” at least a curious archaism. In the next place 
 the apparent difficulty of the term AAAA gives it an 
 advantage over the correction ijSe xoli . For if 7jSe xou 
 had been the original reading, no probable reason 
 could be given, why it should have been changed to 
 aXhoL. But if aXXa was the original, the same diffi¬ 
 culty which offends Mr. Knight, would have induced 
 a glossator to substitute ijSe xai. It is a difficulty that 
 requires explanation rather than alteration . We are 
 told indeed on the authority of Dr. Clarke, that aXAa 
 is totally incompatible with the sense. Dr. Clarke is 
 not quite so positive. He says “ aXka hoc in loco non 
 recte se habere.” But the sense , it is said, requires a 
 conjunctive instead of a disjunctive. Let us examine 
 the passage. Here are evidently two contrary propo¬ 
 sitions, one to kill Telemachus, the other to save 
 his life. And contrary propositions certainly admit a 
 disjunctive particle. If it were written up.ii/ 07s p.u^og 
 oux av&cLvsi, aXXa 3oXstr^-s, there could be no difficulty 
 in the term aXXa. And as oupcci/Savsi involves oux in its 
 negative a, and therefore has the same meaning as oux 
 avSavsi, the difficulty is not in the sense, but in the 
 construction. And as all MSS. concur in the reading 
 of aXXa, the right conclusion seems to be, that the in¬ 
 volved negative may have, at least in the language of 
 poetry, the same construction, as the expressed. If 
 
39 
 
 aXhot 0 o Tiscr^e clotov ts gcosiv were in one MS. and vjSs 
 xai otitTov 0 ouXs<r&s gaoeiv in another, the former, by a 
 common canon of criticism, would be the preferable 
 reading, on account of its apparent difficulty and its 
 archaism . 
 
 A want of explanation has, in another passage of the 
 Analytical Essay # , led Mr. Knight into a correction of 
 a different kind. Of the word <ra)<n in Herodotus^ he 
 says <c Valckenaer would make orcon an abbreviation of 
 “ (rrj^roinri , but improperly; for it is the regular Ionic 
 “ contraction of SOFOY 2 I and SOFONSI.” To 
 charge Valckenaer with a grammatical error is an ha¬ 
 zardous experiment, and, at all times, likely to recoil 
 on the animadverter. His words are: “ Hue respiciens 
 Etymologus, p. 710 . 41. 'H^oSoto^, inquit, too <tcd to 
 Tpirov to)V 7rhrftovTixa)V avri too (rrftoom'j, Repe- 
 
 riuntur et vohtiv olvti too vrftoocw, & alia hujus generis 
 apud Atticos plurima.” Here is not a word said of ab¬ 
 breviation . The Etymologist by olvti too (nftoo<riv 
 does not mean that rrcooriv is an abbreviation of <r7]&ou- 
 but merely that it is used instead of the common 
 term (rrftooa-iv . As he says elsewhere, enr&a, olvti too * 
 not that siaSot was an abbreviation of ytjsig, but 
 that the former was an ancient or poetical form, used 
 by Homer, instead of the latter, the common term. 
 The Etymologist indeed expressly says, that xri is 
 (not an abbreviation of (r^ooariu , but) the third plural 
 of §«). When we meet with such misconstructions and 
 
 * P. 104. 
 
 f Lib. I. p. 95. ed. Wesseling. 
 
40 
 
 incorrectness , in an Analytical Essay on the Greek 
 Alphabet, how can the Author evade his own censure 
 of Fourmont: “ Nothing exposes ignorance so effec- 
 “ tually, as an unsuccessful attempt at scientific ac- 
 “ curacy*.” 
 
 When he says, that the Oxford Editor found it more 
 a easy to alter than explain,” he forgets that he him¬ 
 self has explained nothing in the Decree; and that the 
 Oxford Editor has the merit of having solved a diffi¬ 
 culty in a very important word, Evappoviog, which, from 
 its apparent inconsistency with the context, and with 
 the express purpose of the Decree, Dr. Burney says, 
 some translators had omitted-^. Timotheus was cen¬ 
 sured and punished for corrupting the simplicity of 
 the ancient music, and for substituting the chromatic 
 melodv instead of the enharmonic . But in the usual 
 
 %r 
 
 technical sense of the word, the chromatic was more 
 ancient and more simple than the enharmonic , which 
 was the last in the historical order of the three musical 
 species, JDiatonic , Chromatic , Enharmonic , and was 
 considered as the highest stage of musical refinement. 
 Where, then, was the offence in substituting what was, 
 comparatively, simple instead of that which was highly 
 complex and artificial ? Dr. Burney, who saw the dif¬ 
 ficulty, in great measure removed it, by suggesting, 
 that there must have been two species of enharmonic, 
 ancient and modern; and that the enharmonic, for 
 which Timotheus substituted the chromatic, was the 
 
 *P. 118. 
 
 f Burney’s Hist, of Music, Vol. I. p. 45. and 411. 
 
41 
 
 ancient species. To support this suggestion, nothing 
 was wanting but the aid of grammatical explication. 
 The Oxford Editor has applied this remedy ; and has 
 shewn, that, in its primary meaning, svupp.oviog is equi¬ 
 valent to continuus , and is therefore opposed to what 
 is discontinuum , and fractum, which was the character 
 of the dithyrambic poetry, to which the later music 
 owed its origin. Plutarch calls the new music xoltsoc- 
 yrjioi, and Quintilian, modis fracta. The Editor has 
 also illustrated the meaning of emppoviogby its opposite, 
 s^otp^oviog. In the sense of continuus , ava ppoviog is the 
 same as SiaTovog, the term by which the simplest of 
 the three species was denominated. In the Decree 
 T£Ta[xsuog (which the Editor has explained by tjttTuo- 
 fjisuog from Hesychius) is the term which corresponds 
 with svotppLoviog, and, in its origin, is the relative of 
 Siarovog. But though smppoviog in this sense was ap¬ 
 plied to the ancient music, and opposed to the varied, 
 multiplied, and antistrophic character of the new, yet 
 it became afterwards the appropriate term of the latter 
 music, not by any contradiction in the term, but by 
 the force of one of its most general significations. 
 C A ppovia, a derivative of app.0^0, or a pa), apto , has its 
 meaning from aptitude and consonance. E mppoviog 
 therefore was applied to both species, as expressive of 
 musical harmony, but ceased to designate the old 
 music, when it became eminently appropriated to the 
 new, and was replaced by another term, harovog, more 
 specially significant of its regularity and simplicity. 
 
42 
 
 V 
 
 Aihaxxe, hihaxxrj, Sihaa-xei, ehiha^e, and ehihatrxe are 
 various readings of that passage of the Decree, which 
 contains the second charge against Timotheus. The 
 choice of the reading depends on the meaning which 
 we attach to the passage, whether it is to be understood 
 in a moral or dramatic sense. Aiharxeiv means both 
 moral instruction , and dramatic representation. Of 
 the former meaning no example can be necessary. Of 
 the latter a few will be sufficient. Apioov hi&upayfiov 
 TTpcorog av'ApcoTrcov EAXAAEEN. Dion. Chrysost. p. 
 455 * from Herodotus, who describes the invention of 
 Arion more fully: hfeupapfiov, irpayrov av^payiraov rwv 
 yp*sig ih[xev, 7roir)craura re xai QVQ\Ka<ravra xai AIAA- 
 3ANTA ev K opiv^rm. L. I. 23 . “ the first who com¬ 
 posed, and named, and publicly recited, the dithyram- 
 bic poem.” Tootov tqv %opov evixcov yev Aaxehaipovioi, 
 EAIAASKE he Aewvihag, (that is, Leonidas was the 
 X°P t i7°Sj) by a metaphor taken from the stage*. (Max¬ 
 imus Tyrius Dissert. 37* §• b.) To carupixov hpafxanov 
 EAIAASE. (Athenseus Deipnos.) AIAAHAS tqv 
 JJorivrjv, xai vix^crag. Lucian. Vol. III. p. 22 J* The 
 expression is followed by the Latin writers. Vel qui 
 praetextas, vel qui docuere togatas. (Horat. Art. Poet.) 
 Cum Orestem fabulam doceret Euripides. (Cicero 
 Tusc. L. iv.) Docere Orestem , docere Pytinen , docere 
 Semeles partus , are all of the same import, and mean 
 edere , exhibere , or scribere fabulam. If hihacrxeiv were 
 
 * So Euripides in. his Phoenissss : Cl 7 roKu/xo^So; —xia/juoy av<xv\o- 
 
 70C Toy 
 
I 
 
 43 
 
 used here in the sense ot moral instruction, it might be 
 in the present tense. Far though the action was past, 
 the consequences were present: “ he describes to youth 
 the religion of their country, not as he ought to do 
 by his improper descriptions he caricatures, and vili¬ 
 fies, and degrades it. In this sense the reading should 
 be SiSaxxsi or SiSaxxr). But if it refer only to the past 
 recital, as the context appears to require, then either 
 Glareanus’s age, or Casaubon’s sfoScarxs, or rather 
 its Laconian form, would be the preferable 
 
 reading. Being invited to the musical contests at the 
 festival of Eleusinian Ceres , he composed a poem un¬ 
 suited to the occasion; for he represented to our youth 
 the pains of Semele , at the birth of Bacchus, very un¬ 
 becomingly, tolq ya^ rag SsjxeAag wfitmg ovx evihxa rwg 
 vscog sSiSaxxs. 
 
 The conclusion of the Decree contains a declaration 
 of the purpose which the Spartan Senate had in view 
 in the censure of Timotheus, ending with these words, 
 p]7T0T£ TAPATTHTAI xkzoo AF&N&N, as it is com¬ 
 monly read. But the purpose of the Senate appears, 
 from the readings of some MSS. to have been much 
 more important than is expressed by this common 
 reading of the Decree. 
 
 The last words of the princeps editio Bas. 1546 . are 
 ju«7]7rGT£ T(x.poLTT7)TOLi TcXsog ayopwv. This is also the 
 
 * The expression has a strong intensive meaning, like the lan¬ 
 guage of Scripture: <e which thing ought not to be done. 
 
 f The imperfect form daunts is the usual language of agonistic 
 inscriptions, as etokl is in works of art. 
 
44 
 
 reading of Bas. 15 JO. Instead of ayopcov, Scaliger, 
 Casaubon, Gronovius, Bishop Fell, and Bishop Clea¬ 
 ver, have aycovaw. But Salmasius reads, with a most 
 important difference of meaning, p.7) ttottol g a pzroLQ 
 xXsog ayourwu, non ad virtutis gloriam conducentium. 
 Chishull also reads rag a p*T<x%, but instead of otyovTcov 
 has anixwu. According to the commonly received 
 reading, the final purpose of the Decree was, that the 
 glory of the games knight not he disturbed; according 
 to Salmasius’s, it was to prevent the introduction of 
 any thing into Sparta, not conducive to the honour of 
 virtue , and the reading of Salmasius has the authority 
 of Manuscripts. 
 
 The commonly received text corresponds very ill 
 with the general tenor of the Decree, which repre¬ 
 sents the offence of Timotheus to consist in corrupting 
 the Spartan youth by violating the simplicity of the 
 ancient music, and by unbecoming representations of 
 the public religion. The end to be answered by the 
 censure of such offences must have been something 
 consonant with the great object of their national music. 
 The glory of the 'public games was certainly not that 
 object, but the moral instruction of youth, and the 
 honour of religion, or, in other words, the glory of 
 public virtue. They annexed no other value to their 
 public games, than as they were subservient to virtue. 
 Xenophon, in his treatise on the Lacedaemonian Polity 
 (ch. x.), speaking of the pains which Lycurgus took 
 to promote the exercise of virtue even to extreme old 
 age, says, Ka Ticog fxo i fioxsi b A oxovpyog uoy*c&sTrio'oii 
 
45 
 
 » 
 
 xai y) \xzyjpi omtxoit av APETH. — ocra* oov xpsir- 
 
 TOV l|/0p£7J (TW^Ldrog, TOG’O'JTCD XCLl OI ATONES TUN 
 
 73 ol tcov ^ 12 MATflN a{~ioG'7rou$ctioTEpoi. Vir¬ 
 tue morale political, or military, was the end of all 
 their institutions ; and moral virtue, eminently, of that 
 festival which is mentioned in the Decree. 
 
 Tag APETAP x-kzotJ was, therefore, much more 
 consistent with the views of the Spartan senate than 
 x7izo$ ATON&N. If the latter had been the original 
 reading, we should probably have had a word of much 
 greater force than rapoLTTr\roLi , such as aTifxotoSrjTGu, 
 or the like, that is, not “ lest the glory of the games 
 should be disturbed ,” but dishonoured , degraded , vi¬ 
 lified. Tap apsTap, the reading of Salmasius s text, is 
 also the reading of the Cambridge MS. and of an 
 Oxford MS. quoted in p. 36 of the Oxford edition, 
 and rapaperat of another. A yovrcov or ayoVTov is also 
 
 the reading of several MSS. 
 
 From this reading, then, (per) xorrag apsrag xAeog 
 ayomov, non ad virtutis gloriam conducentium) we 
 obtain a meaning most consonant with the character of 
 the Spartan music (as a part of moral education, and 
 a means of excitement to virtue), and with the reli¬ 
 gious solemnities of the Eleusinian festival. For the 
 sake of such a reading it will be worth while to bring 
 under our view a few of the many passages of the an¬ 
 cients which shew that they made music a part of 
 moral education, and held it to be, in its grave and 
 simple melodies, conducive to virtue ; that the Spar¬ 
 tans, especially, forbad all changes in their music as 
 
46 
 
 dangerous to public morals,, and punished those who 
 made innovations in it; and that their national insti¬ 
 tutions were valued only so far as they were conducive 
 to virtue. 
 
 Music was originally appropriated to religious wor¬ 
 ship , and to the instruction of youth; two important 
 objects, corresponding with the two charges , in the 
 Decree against Timotheus, for corrupting the ears of 
 youth by his light and varied melodies, and for mis¬ 
 representing the public religion. Etti p isvtoi todu sti 
 ap^aioTBpoov ot )$s sifisvai <pa<ri Toug 'EAATjj/a^ ryv Qbolt pi- 
 xt)v [Kowrav. Ss auTvjg ryv sTi<rTr)[tJY)V 7rpog rs 0 E- 
 
 m TIMHN, xai THN TON NE£N IIAIAEYSIN 
 7 rapaXa[x0aus(r^ai. Plutarch de Musica*. Again, in 
 the same treatise, he says of its religious office and mo¬ 
 ral influence , r<o yap ovn to wpcorov aurrjg xai xa’k'kKr- 
 tov spyov 7} EIS TOYS ©EOYS sv%apurTog bttiu apoi- 
 0r), S7rofxsvov Tovrip xai ^Borepov to Tr\g >PYXHS KA- 
 0 APS ION xai spLfjLBXsg xai svappLOUiov tri/o’TrjfJLa'^'. 
 
 Such objects sufficiently account for that gravity 
 and simplicity in the more ancient music, of which 
 the Lacedaemonians were so tenacious, and which it 
 was the purpose of this Decree to vindicate and per¬ 
 petuate. 'Em yap Tim Tpo7rou, 7j TraVTsXcog o'Xiyoog (Aa- 
 XB^aipLovioi) exhst'apsvoi, oug ooovto wpog tt)U tu)V H 0 &N 
 EIIANQP 01 XSIN apiL 0 TTBiv\. Its simple and austere 
 features are strongly marked and contrasted by Athe- 
 naeus. AaxsOai[xouioi Ss [taXKTTa tom aXXeov A oopisoou 
 
 * Op. Moral, p. 1140. ed. Xyl. 
 
 { Ibid. p. 1142* 
 
 f Ibid. p. 1146. 
 
4 7 
 
 ra TraTpia <$ia<pu?iaTTOu(ri. — tj ' ftsu yap Awpiog dpfJLOVia 
 
 to ANAPI2AES ctj uipawsi xai to MEFAAOIIPEIIES, 
 xai ou ftaxs^u^svov out? ihapov , aAAa SKT0P&XION 
 xai S^OAPON, ours Ss 7 voixi\ov outie 7ro\uTpo7rov * * * § . 
 
 This contrast is concisely expressed in the Decree : 
 ArENNH xa1 IIOIKIAAN a vti AIIAOAP xai TE- 
 TAMENAP^. On which words the following pas¬ 
 sage of Plutarch may serve as a comment. Xspvr) 0uv 
 xaTa 7ravTa 73 ^loutixy}, Qewv supYjfxa oucra. JL%pYj(raVTo 
 o’ a utj) 01 7ra*haioi xa ra t rju a{~iav, eoenrsQ xai Toig sttity^- 
 fteufjLaG’i iraviv. Oi $s vuv ra (rsy.ua auTyg 7rapaiTY}(ray.s * 
 
 voi avTi T 7 )g ANAPI 2 AOT 2 xai ^sTTso-iag xai Qsoig 
 <piA7]^ KATE AIT I AN xai K 12 TIAHN sig Ta SrsaTpa 
 eicrayoufri Quintilian, who was contemporary with 
 Plutarch, has expressed, in very similar terms, the 
 difference between the ancient music and the modern 
 of his own time. Apertius tamen profitendum puto, 
 non hanc a me praecipi, quae nunc in scenis effeminata , 
 et impudicis modisyracta, sed qua laudesybrtfiwm ca- 
 nebantur§ : such as Plutarch describes it in his £71-1773- 
 ZsupaTa Aaxumxa , speaking of the Spartan music, ouSsu 
 
 ft sTspou zi%£V 73 siraivoug tow ysvixcog ^rjravTcov - siray- 
 
 ysTna ts xai y.sya’hau'ftia 7rpog APETHN 7rps7roua-a Taig 
 r)Xixiaig ||. 
 
 * Athenaeus Deipnos. L. XIV. p. 624. 
 
 ^ T ETct,[Asva,g continues, unifornnis. 
 
 X Plutarch, ibid. p. 1136. 
 
 § Instit. Orat. L. I. 10. 31. ed. Gesner. 
 
 || Sect. xiv. ed. Wyttenbach. 
 
48 
 
 \ 
 
 The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were 
 studious of every thing that had influence in the for¬ 
 mation of character and moral sentiment # , and there¬ 
 fore. preferred that kind of music which appeared to 
 them most susceptible of such effects. “ Ate ouv 
 H 0 HN [AOLTuFTOI (ppoVTlfia, TT£T70\r\\K£'J0i 01 7TOCha.lOl TO 
 SEMNON Tcou anvEpiEpyou Tr\g ftownxrjg ap^aiag irpo£- 
 Many testimonies, says Plutarch, might be 
 brought to shew that the best-regulated states made 
 the cultivation of such music a national concern. Or* * * § 
 os xai Taig £i)Vop*oTo.Ta.tg tcov i roTiscov £7n{JLEXsg yeysi/y]T(ii 
 
 (ppoVTi^a. 7 roiEi<r*Aou Trjg TENNAIA 5 poiHTixrjg, 7 roXXa 
 
 [jlsv xou aXha p,a.pTvpia, Trapa&£<r ( Aa,i etti^. 
 
 The moral influence of music rendered it, even in 
 the opinion of Aristotle, a rational part of education. 
 
 Ex [ASV OUU TOUTCDV (pOLVEpOV, QTl SuMTGil 7T010U Tl TO T7)g 
 
 ^/o^Yjg H 0 OS fJtOunxr) r 7rapa<rxs\joL%EW- Et Ss tovto Suva- 
 
 TOU 7 701SIV, $7]hOV OTl 7TpO(TOL7iT£OU XO.I 7TOLI&EVTEOV EV OLDTT\ 
 
 Toog vEoug That music was an ordinary part of 
 Greek education we learn from Aristotle and Xeno- 
 
 * A large portion of the best days of our youth is consumed in 
 learning languages. The ancient Greeks had only their own lan¬ 
 guage to learn. With very little expence of time in such initiatory 
 elements, the whole care of their education was directed to the cul¬ 
 tivation of moral principles and science. Languages must be learnt, 
 as the auxiliar means of knowledge •, but Christian history, faith, 
 
 and morals, should be the chief materials of a Christian education, 
 without neglecting the aids of logic, and mathematics, and the arts 
 of composition and elocution. 
 
 + Plutarch. Op. Moral, p. 1144. \ Ibid. p. 1146. 
 
 § Aristot. Polit. L. viii, c. 5. ed. Sylb. 
 
49 
 
 phon. I he former says, stti Ss TSTTopot t^sSou a 7rai- 
 Ssusiu sico^oco-iy ypa^aTOLy xou yo[AVo,(rTixriv, X0Ll MOY- 
 SIKHN- xoi TSTapTov svioi ypatyixyv* : the latter, soQcog 
 os 77 s^,77oo(tid sig %i$acrxoih(ov, pLO^rjCo^svoog xou ypo,y.~ 
 (xara, xoli MOTSIKHN, XOI TO. SV 770\Oi(TTpO .^. So 
 universal was this custom, that inability to play on 
 the lyre was held to be a proof of want of education. 
 But it made a part of education, not as an elegant ac- 
 com plish ment, but for its moral consequences, which 
 Plutarch has ascribed to music in terms as decided, 
 and almost as extravagant, as our great dramatic poel 
 has characterized the immoral effects of an insensi¬ 
 bility to music. Eir oov rig tov 77a.i%soTtxov rr\g pLouvi- 
 xrjg t poTrov sx77ovn]crag to%oi st 7nxe^siag rr\g 77poTr i xou<nig 
 sv ry too 77ai%og faixta., to {xsv KAAON S77a.ws(rsi ts 
 xoti a.7rot)s{~ st ai, \f js^si %s to svolvtm sv ts Toig aXhoig xoi 
 su Toig xoto poortxrjV , xai sttoli o ToiooTog xaf&apog 77 a~ 
 
 TYjg ArENNOTS 77pO.^SO)g^. 
 
 If the ancient Greeks were persuaded that the moral 
 effects of music were such as they described them to 
 be, and if music bore so fundamental a part in the 
 education of youth, it is no wonder that the Spartans, 
 especially, were averse to all innovations in their mu¬ 
 sic, from an apprehension that such innovations could 
 not take place without a change in the national man¬ 
 ners. So Plato thought, qui musicorum cantibus ait 
 mutatis mutari civitatum status^. Cicero, who quotes 
 
 * Aristot. Polit. L. viii. c. 3. f Auk so ^ 1x0 v. UoXir. ch. 2. 
 
 \ Op. Moral, p. 1146. § Cicero de Legg. 111. 15. 
 
 £ 
 
 \ . 
 
 % 
 
50 
 
 bis authority, relates also the transaction which is the 
 subject of the Spartan Decree against Timotheus, and 
 the care which the Senate took to prevent any ill con¬ 
 sequences from it. Civitatum hoc multarum in Graecia 
 interfuit, antiquum vocum conservare modum : qua- 
 rum mores lapsi ad mollitiem, pariter sunt immutati 
 cum cantibus.—- Ouamobrem ille quidem sapientissi- 
 mus Graecise vir, longeque doctissimus, valde hanc 
 labem veretur: negat enim mutari posse musicas leges 
 sine immutatione legum publicarum. — Graviter dim 
 ista vindicabat vetus ilia Graecia, longe providens, quam 
 sensim pernicies, inlapsa civium animos, malis studiis 
 malisque doctrinis repente totas civitates everteret: 
 siquidem ilia severa Lacedaemon nervos jussit, quot # 
 pluces quam septem haberet, Timothei tidibus demi^. 
 
 The consequences which the Spartan Senate wished 
 to prevent in their own country, Maximus Tyrius in¬ 
 forms us did take place in Sicily : on Acopieig ttjv ira- 
 Tpiov exsivrjv xcli opsov [/.overixrjV xaTaknrovTzg, — ENO- 
 
 0 ETSAN ojtxou ty) ixouorixy] THNAPETHN^. The 
 Greeks, who employed their grave and simple melodies 
 in the education of youth for their good effects, were 
 equally persuaded of the immoral effects of corrupt 
 music. Mou<n?«] (ptxvkrj xou aa'p.a.roL 7rovr}pa. xou Aoyo* 
 y.ojftr}pag uTro^so'sig kapfiavovTsg axokaorra 7roiov(rtu 
 H 0 H§. I have already quoted the authority of Aris- 
 
 * i.e. quot haberet plurcs, quam septem. Vulgo quod — in Timo¬ 
 thei f. d. f Cicero de Legg. II. 16*. 
 
 * Diss. x\. § 8. § Plutarch, tie Aud. Poet. 
 
51 
 
 totle in proof of the moral influence of music. I shall 
 here add a few more passages from him on account of 
 their connection with the last words of the Decree. In 
 the eighth book of his Politics he discusses the ques¬ 
 tion whether music is conducive to virtue, or not, and 
 decides in the affirmative. To his proposal o irjjeov 
 nPOS APETHN ri TEINKIN rrju p'j<nxrjv t , and 
 afterwards, Ssi opccv, si 7 rrj xcti I 1 POS TO H@QS STN- 
 TEINEI xai 7 rpog 40 PXHN, he answers, Touto 8W 
 sir) fiyAov, si 7 roioi rtvsg tol H 0 H yiyvo[As^ot 01 aurr t g. 
 AXXa [A7)v bn yiyvopLs^ct. 770101 rivsg, StjAov %iol 7 roT^haov 
 ,asv xai aXAaiv, ou% rjxiorrot xai hia tcjov 07w[atto'J fAsTicav^f'. 
 He says that the Athenians having introduced a cer¬ 
 tain species of music into the studies of their youth, 
 afterwards rejected it, when experience had enabled 
 them to distinguish what music was conducive to vir¬ 
 tue. and what was not. 'Tcrrspov o’ oL77sZoxi[LOL(T l ^r) 01 a 
 Trig Tvsipag avrrjg, fisTinov $uvol[asvcov xpivsiv to ELPG 2 
 
 APETHN, xa* to MH nPO£ APETHN, STN- 
 TEINONJ. 
 
 The Lacedemonians were of all people the most 
 likely to attend to such consequences : for Xenophon 
 says that Lycurgus made his countrymen habituate 
 themselves to the exercise of every kind of virtue; and 
 that the Spartans alone made virtue the discipline of 
 the state. ToSs ys p/qv row A vxoupyo'j 77cog ou [AsyaXwg 
 
 atgiov ayacr^ryvai; bg S7rsi$r) xars^a^sv, bn oi p.73 fiouho- 
 
 » x 
 
 * Aristot. Polit. L. viii. c. 8. p. 22*2. ed. Sylb. 
 f Ibid. p. 224. t Ibid. p. 227. 
 
 E 2 
 
 K 
 
52 
 
 fASVot £7ri[jLs\ei(r&oii T7]g otpsrrjg, oux Ixavoi sun rag Trurpt- 
 &xc avtgsiv, exswog zv ryj '2,7roLpTy r\vaLyxoL(rz AHMOSIAt 
 Tavrag HAS AS otcrxsiv TAS APETAS. * Ho'Trsg ouv 
 
 idlCOTGil TCOU l$lO)TCOV $ld(pSpOUCTlV GLpSTV), 01 CLCTXOUVTSg T(t)V 
 
 ajmsAoovraw, oureo xoli rj S 7raprrj six or eng 7 vaG’cov rcov tto- 
 
 Xecov SioKpspzif fjiour) AHMOSIAt £7nrr)8 sooner a ttjv KA- 
 AOKAiTADIAN*. It was hence that in Sparta EY- 
 KAEIA jit akierra b tstcu ry) APETH*^, the APETAP 
 KAEOP, according to the proposed reading of the last 
 words of the Decree. 
 
 If, then, KAAA H 0 H and APETH were the im¬ 
 mediate objects and the ultimate end of the Spartan 
 institutions, especially of their music, it is clear that 
 they must have been also of a Decree, the purpose of 
 which was to censure and punish Timotheus for cor - 
 rupting their music , and for an offence against reli¬ 
 gion ; and, therefore, that the concluding words of 
 the Decree should be read, as they are written in some 
 MSS. TAP APETAP XASOO ArONTGN, morum 
 non honestorum, non ad virtutis gloriam conducen- 
 tium , that is, in the language of Aristotle before 
 quoted, MH XIPOS APETHN SYNTE 1 NONTliN. 
 
 To these considerations on the ancient Greek music, 
 and its influence on national manners , we may add 
 the moral character of the festival, at which the con¬ 
 duct of Timotheus incurred the censure of the Spartan 
 Senate. The Eleusinian mysteries were esteemed by 
 the ancients, as the most important of their religious 
 solemnities. A higher character cannot be given of 
 
 * ActKEcioUp. ToXiT. C. X. 
 
 t Ibid. c. ix. 
 
53 
 
 them than in the words of Cicero, who was initiated m 
 them at Eleusis. Nam mihi cum multa eximia divi- 
 naque videntur Athenae tuae peperisse, atque in vitam 
 adtulisse, turn nihil melius illis mysteriis, quibus ex 
 agresti immanique vita exculti ad humanitatem et 
 mitigati sumus ; initiaque ut appellantur, ita revera 
 principia vitae cognovimus; neque solum cum laetitia 
 vivendi rationem accepimus, sed etiam spe meliore 
 moriendi*. 
 
 The subject, which Timotheus adopted, seems to 
 have been as ill chosen, as it was unbecomingly de¬ 
 scribed. The Son of Semele was not the Bacchus, to 
 whom the Eleusinian mysteries were consecrated. 
 The God of wine, and the patron of drunkenness, was 
 quite out of place at those august a mysteria, as they 
 are called by Cicero, who thus distinguishes the Son 
 of Semele from the Eleusinian Bacchus: Hunc dico 
 Liberum Semele natum: non eum quern nostri majores 
 auguste sancteque Liberum cum Cerere & Libera con- 
 secraverunt 'J-. 
 
 How reprehensible the Spartan Senate must have 
 thought the conduct of Timotheus, we may judge from 
 the general persuasion respecting the Eleusinian mys¬ 
 teries. Horum sacrorum earn vim esse vulgo puta- 
 bant, ut qui eis essent initiati, majorem cognilionem 
 Deorurn , acriusque virtutis stadium accepissent, unde 
 ea sacra Tstoj, Latinis initia, dicuntur, quia initium 
 vitae melioris et virtutis esse credebantur+ 
 
 * De Legg. II. 14. f DeNatura Deor. II. 24. 
 
 t Krebsius ad Plutarch, de Aud. Poet. cap. 4. 
 
54 
 
 Candidates for initiation at these festivals were ex* 
 horted to the love of truth and purity, and to the prac¬ 
 tice of every virtuous habit. And at a certain period 
 of the ceremonies all persons, not initiated, were for¬ 
 bidden to remain in the assembly on pain of death. 
 Lycurgus was not less anxious to secure Sparta from 
 the contamination of foreign manners. With this view 
 he restrained the Spartans from travelling into foreign 
 countries, lest they should learn their “ foreign man¬ 
 ners and irregular lives,” lua prr\ twv ^svixcov H0t2N 
 xoli BII2N oL7roiit>£V7a)v ixeracr^ma’i *. He was equally 
 careful to exclude foreigners from Sparta, “ that they 
 might not teach the citizens any bad” principles or 
 customs: orrcog oi 7rocpsiG’^souT£g [xrj thoafrxahoi KAIvQY 
 TINOS roig TrohiTaig o7roLpyco<ri. Timotheus, as a fo¬ 
 reigner, would have been excluded from the Spartan 
 festival ; but was invited ( irapaxT^r^sig ) probably, on 
 account of his celebrity in music. He therefore be¬ 
 came obnoxious to the Senate not only as an innovator 
 in music , and a misrepresenter of their religion, but as 
 & foreigner, who had made an ill use of their hospita¬ 
 lity. He was accordingly censured and punished, that 
 others might be deterred from introducing into Sparta 
 any thing immoral , or not conducive to the honour of 
 virtue, 
 
 I will now subjoin a copy of the Decree, as I think 
 it ought to be read, together with an English transla¬ 
 tion, and an extract from Boethius by way of intro¬ 
 duction to it, which may be of some use in ascertain¬ 
 ing the right reading of the conclusion. 
 
 N * Plutarch. E7rirr,o. Aaxct'v. § 19, *20. ed. Wyttenb 
 
55 
 
 EXCERPTUM EX BOETHII LIBRQ 
 
 DE MUSICA.* ^ >v t 
 
 Unde fit, ut cum sint quatuor matheseos disciplinae, caeterse qui- 
 dem ad investigationem veritatis laborent. Musica vero non modo 
 speculationi,veimn etiam morcilitati conjunctasit—Unde Plato etiam 
 maxime cavendum existimat, ne de bene morata musica aliquid per- 
 mutetur. Negat enim esse ullam tantam morum in republica labem, 
 quam paulatim de pudenti ac modesta musica invertere. Statim enim 
 idem quoque audientium animos pati, paulatimque discedere, nul- 
 lumque honesti ac , recti retinere vestigium, si vel per lasciviores 
 modos inverecudum aliquid, vel per asperiores Ferox atque immane 
 mentibus illabatur.—Fuit vero pudens ac modesta musica, dum 
 simplicioribus organis ageretur. Ubi vero varie permixteque trac- 
 tata es(, amisit gravitatis atque virtutis modurn, et pene in turpitu- 
 dinem prolapsa, minimum antiquam speciem servat. Unde Plato 
 prsecipit, minime oportere pueros ad omnes modos erudni, sed po- 
 tius ad valentes ac simplices. Atque hie maxime illud est retinen- 
 dum, quod si quoquo modo per parvissimas mutationes hinc aliquid 
 permutaretur, recens quidem minime sentiri, post vero magnam fa- 
 cere difFerentiam, & per aures ad animum usque delabi. Idcirco 
 magnam esse custodiam reipublicae Plato arbitratur, musicam op¬ 
 time moratory, prudenterque conjunctam, ita ut. sit modesta ac sim¬ 
 plex & mascula, nec effeminata, nec fera nec varia. Quod Lacedae- 
 monii maxima ope servavere, dum apud eosTaletas, Crestensis Gor- 
 tinus magno pretio accitus pueros disciplina musicse aitis imbueiet. 
 Fuit enim id antiquis in morem, diuque permansit. guoniam vero 
 eis Timotheus Milesius super eas, quas ante repererat, unum addidit 
 nervum, ac multipliciorem Musicam fecit, exegere de Laconia, Con- 
 sultumque de eo factum est. Ouod quoniam insigne est Spartia- 
 tarum lingiue S literam in R vertentium, ipsum de eo consultum 
 eisdem verbis Grsecis apposui. 
 
 Quod consultum id scilicet continet: Idcirco Timotheo MilesioSpar- 
 tiatas succensuisse, quod multiplicem Musicam reddens, puerorum 
 animis, quos acceperat erudiendos, officeret, et a virtutis modestia 
 praepediret, & quod harmoniam, quam modestam susceperat, in 
 genus chromaticum, quod est mollius, invertisset. 
 
 * Ed. Bas. 1570. p. 1371. 
 
56 
 
 GREEK TEXT. 
 
 1 Etts^ TifAoenog 6 MIAHSIOP ITAPriNGMENOP 
 
 2 EV TCLV OLf^STEpaV 7T(fhlV TOiV U AAA AN * [AOXXV CLTl- 
 
 3 pafiSsi, XOLl TCLV Old TOLD STTTd %Op$OLV KISAPIHIN 
 
 4 Of- 7 TO(TTpS<pOfJl*SVOg 7 TOAt J<^(JOViay EKTOiyCDV ’Klt^diySTdl Tdg 
 
 5 axoag tcov ysaoy, $ia rs Tag 7roXv^op3iag xai Tag 
 
 6 KAINOTATOP to) fxeXsog aysvyr) xou izoixi'Kay oluti 
 
 7 ebrXoag xai TSTd^syag apnrsyyuTdi rav [xouay, S 7 r i 
 
 8 yjpuopaTog (rovKTTafXEyo^ ray too pshsog AIASKEY- 
 
 9 AN a.vTi rag avapy.oviio, ttoioov avTicrTpotfiov ap.oi@av. 
 10 OAPAKAH0EI2 8s ey roy aycova Tag EXswnvtag 
 i l AapaTpog aTpsirr] theTxsuaffaTa Tay too piUTco 3ia- 
 
 12 (jx=uav TAP PAP Tag SsjUisAag 12 AINAP oux syoixa 
 
 13 Tcog yscog EAIAAKKE. Asfiojfoai 1T2N 7 repi TOT- 
 
 14 T 12 N Ta>g (BatnXeag xou two e$opwg pef/Af/acT^Vat IV 
 
 15 [xocriov, EH AN A N KASAI 8s xou ray iyhsxa %op$av 
 
 16 sxTOcpisy Tag TrspiTTag (nr oXs nr opisvov Tag £7rra, 07ra)g 
 IJ sxacrTOg to Tag yroTuog / 3 a pog OUT AN suTiaftrjTai su 
 
 18 Tav HiirapTav STrityspzv n tcov 9.7) xaT^cov BE^IIN, 
 
 19 H TUN jxtj nOTTO TAP APETAP *Xsog 
 
 20 ArONTON. 
 
 * Line 2. 7 ra.Xa.c 1 v is here written instead of 7 ra,\oua,v or TtaXiav 
 on the authority of Etymol. Mag. and Eustathius quoted by Mait- 
 taire p. 154. Line 12. TAP is from the text of Glareanus. Line 
 13. EAIAAEKE (of which eSAukki is the Laconian form) is the 
 reading of Casaubon. Line 15. EITANANKASAI is from Chishull. 
 Line 17. 07ttov is the reading of Bas. 1546. uittov of Bas. 1570. -oirtwv 
 of Casaubon. OIITAN is the Doric of otttwv. Bas. 1570. is oto» trans¬ 
 posed. Line IS, 19. H TON PIOTTO are from Mr. Porson. The 
 other readings which differ from the Oxford text, have either been 
 already mentioned, or will speak for themselves. 
 
57 
 
 'w 
 
 ENGLISH TRANSLATION * 
 
 Whereas Timotheus, the Milesian, coming to our 
 city, dishonours the ancient music, and, rejecting the 
 melody of the seven-stringed lyre, corrupts the ears of 
 our youth by introducing a variety of tones ; and by 
 the multiplicity of the strings, and the novelty of the 
 melody, renders the music effeminate and complex in¬ 
 stead of simple and uniform; composing his melody 
 in the chromatic instead of the enharmonic, using the 
 antistrophic change: and whereas being invited to the 
 musical contests at the festival of Eleusinian Ceres, he 
 composed a poem unbecoming the occasion ; for he 
 described to our youth the pains of Semele at the birth 
 of Bacchus not with due reverence and decorum: be it 
 therefore resolved, that the Kings and Ephori shall 
 censureTimotheus for these things, and moreover shall 
 oblige him to retrench the superfluous number of his 
 eleven strings, leaving seven, that all men, seeing the 
 grave severity of our city, may be deterred from in¬ 
 troducing into Sparta any thing immoral-^, or not con¬ 
 ducive to the honour of virtue^. 
 
 * A translation of the greater part of this Decree, was given in 
 Stillingfleet’s Principles and Power of Harmony (1771) and in Bur¬ 
 ney’s History of Music, Vol. I. p. 407. (1776.) but not an entire ver¬ 
 sion in either. 
 
 f H$wy, or s$wv,Laconice /Seo-wv, is a more comprehensive term than 
 custojns or manners ; and x.aAwv, than good. KaXuv has here the 
 same relation to virtue, as it has in xaAoxayaSia. 
 
 + t* tuv iJ.D xaA&v fiscruv, n tuv fj.n ttotto aftTaj k\so% ayovTwy, 
 allquid rnorum non honestorum, aut non ad virtutis gloriam conduces 
 tium. s 
 
58 
 
 In line 14* instead of two s<po pcog the princeps edltlo 
 has Tcbv prjTopmv, Ed. Bas, 1570* T0[J p r i TO p°$? MS. Seld. 
 and Cantab, Topsrspog, Scaligerpjropao, Casaubon styopcoo. 
 The Ephori are the magistrates, who according to Plu¬ 
 tarch* punished both Terpander and Timotheus. 
 
 Line 15, id. Instead of rcov eu$sxoi ^opSav extol[jlsv 
 raq 1rspiTTOLQ u7ro7^Ei7rQtx£Uou tolq etttol, Leopard and Ca¬ 
 saubon have extol^ovtolq tolq, Salmasius, Bullialdus, 
 and Porson, sxrajxomx. tolq, Scaliger extol^leiv tolq, 
 Ed. princeps extolvmv Tag, Ed. 1570. sxraucog Tag, 
 Dio Chrysost. sxTSfjLsiv^ rag, all the MSS. have extol^ov 
 distinct from Tag, and only Tag the article of irspirra g. 
 
 Salmasius and Porson, instead of uVoA£i7r6jX£V6v read 
 u7rG?d7rr)v povov. The MSS. and the first Editors have 
 the participle. If extol^em be right before, the parti¬ 
 ciple is necessary here. 
 
 Line 18, 19. Instead of ri fxrj xotha)v rfocbv, pL7) tots 
 rapocTTrjrou, Salmasius reads ri tjQwv 9,73 ttottol g apsroL g, 
 Porson ri [XT] xolXmv, 73 rwu ju.73 ttotto Tag apsrao. But 
 both xolXcov and t^yov, or its Laconian form, appear in¬ 
 dispensable to the passage. The concluding words of 
 the Decree, which recite the end proposed by the 
 Senate in the punishment of Timotheus, appear to re¬ 
 late, as might be expected, to the two charges alleged 
 against him in the Decree, ra p.73 xcCKcl 73^75 having re* 
 ference to his music , and tol [xrj 7rpog apsrrjv ayoura, 
 
 * EtTITYiS. AotXWV. § 17. 
 
 f It should be £kto,uhv, in the same tense as which pre¬ 
 
 cedes it. 
 
59 
 
 both to his music and his poem. Cicero seems to have 
 referred to the same two-fold view of the Senate, in the 
 passage before quoted: Graviter olim ista vindicabat 
 vetns ilia Grsecia, longe providens, quam sensim per- 
 nicies inlapsa civium animos, mails studiis malisque 
 doctrinis repente totas eivitates everteret: siquidem 
 ilia severa Lacedaemon jussit , quot plures quam septem 
 haberet, Timothei fidibus demi. Jussit can mean no¬ 
 thing less, than the Decree of the Spartan Senate; nor 
 longe providens , than the object they had in view, 
 which was to prevent the ill consequences of the mala 
 stadia , and malce doctrince , which they had witnessed 
 in Timotheus’s music, and in his poem, stadia refer¬ 
 ring to the music, and doctrince to the poem, in which 
 ra>| vzioQ oox svihxoi sihfiaxx s. 
 
 1 have admitted into the text Mr. Poison’s rcou , 
 because it seems highly probable that these words have 
 been absorbed bv the similar sound of or vyitcov, 
 
 as most MSS. have it. But 1 have retained rfiwv, in 
 its Laconian form because raw xaikwv, taken ab¬ 
 
 solutely, are not distinguishable from tcov irpog apz?r;s 
 ayovrcnv, r a xolAol being either virtue , or conducive to 
 virtue. But with (or its Laconian form,) the new 
 
 reading r; rwv creates a necessary distinction, pne clause, 
 pYj xaAcov rftcov, referring to mala studio , and (papAy 
 [aooo-ixy), and i) rmu (sc. olaAcdv) pj 7rpog apsTYjV ctyovraw, 
 referring to malce doctrince, and 7rovYipaaor[xa.Ta. 
 
 Instead of 73 IW, or I have preferred 
 
 because we know, that the Lacedemonians used 05 <rog 
 
60 
 
 for sQog, and therefore fietrcov for s^cov, or FsS-mv, with 
 the Digamma, for which the Spartan dialect used B. 
 B £(ra)V indeed is not the reading of any MSS. extant: 
 hut “ in matters of dialect, as Mr. Porson justly ob- 
 e serves, the MSS. of Boethius ought to be discarded 
 “ as incompetent witnesses 
 
 That or sQcuv, or its Laconian form, as well as 
 
 ap£TaQ, were originally in the text of the Decree seems 
 probable also from the language of Boethius in the 
 Procemium to his treatise on music, in which he has 
 introduced the Decree. He savs, u that music is mo- 
 ralitati conjuncta;” that by innovations in “ bene mo- 
 rata musica ,, the minds of those who are accustomed 
 to them, lose all sense u honesti rectique that arti¬ 
 ficial varieties in music destroy “ gravitatis et virtutis 
 modum;” and that Timotheus, by the variety which 
 he introduced into music, injured the minds of youth 
 “ et a virtutis modestia praepediret.” In Cicero, Dio 
 Chrysostom, Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Boethius, we 
 find no authority for the glory of the games , nor for 
 Mr. Knight’s Laconian aorist , rapaperat. 
 
 IlOTTO is Mr.Porson’s reading. Salmasius’s nOT- 
 TAP apsrao xheoq may, perhaps, be defended by the 
 examples, which sometimes occur, both of with¬ 
 out an article, even in a definite sense, and of the 
 connection of Tpog or tot with a noun, which is not of its 
 
 * Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms of the late Richard Porson, 
 Esq. edited and arranged by the Rev. Thomas Kidd. 
 
61 
 
 own government, such as &ta ra>v ovo[mx,to)V rrjg <rovrj- 
 Seiotg for 2ha rr]g tom ovo^arcov crvvrfireioLg in Plutarch de 
 Aud. Poet. (ed. Wyttenb. Vol. I.) but for the reason 
 suggested by the very learned Editor ArONTUN 
 has the authority of many MSS. 
 
 Boethius intimates that the Lacedaemonians ba¬ 
 nished Timotheus, exegere de Laconica. If this were 
 the case, it must have been by some act of the Senate 
 subsequent to this Decree. For here is nothing re¬ 
 quired^ but censure , and the reduction of the eleven 
 strings to seven. Suidas says, that Timotheus added 
 a tenth, and an eleventh string to the lyre. Pherecrates 
 ascribes to him twelve strings J. And as he was cen¬ 
 sured at the Carnea§, and at the festival of Eleusinian 
 Ceres, it is probable, that for the tenth string he was 
 censured at the former festival, and for the eleventh at 
 the latter ; and that he was banished for the twelfth . 
 As his predecessors, Terpander and Phrynis, were also 
 censured for their innovations in the lyre, one of them, 
 probably, added the eighth string, and the other the 
 ninth. Before Terpander’s time the lyre had only 
 seven strings. 
 
 Before I quit this interesting monument of anti¬ 
 quity, I must not omit noticing the remarkable cir- 
 
 * Animadversionum Wyttenb. Vol. I. p. 2* * * § 25. 
 
 | Except in Scaliger’s reading, e*a<rraT« te oc^ou 5 and 
 
 I find nothing that favours this reading in any printed or manuscript 
 
 copy. 
 
 + Apud Plutarch de Musica. Op. Mor. p. 1142. 
 
 § Plutarch A ukwv. § 17- cd. Wyttenb. 
 
euinstance of its preservation by a Latin writer of the 
 sixth century. It is not found in any writer now ex¬ 
 tant but Boethius, who lived nearly a thousand years 
 after the transaction to which it relates. It is not 
 expressly quoted by any writer, that has come down to 
 us, prior to Boethius ; nor does he mention from whom 
 he derived it. It is not noticed by Aristoxenus, Pto¬ 
 lemy, Plutarch, Aristides Quintilianus, or other wri¬ 
 ters on Music; nor (where, perhaps, it might have 
 been more expected) by Plato, or'Aristotle, or Cicero, 
 in their works on Government and Law ; nor by those 
 miscellaneous writers, Athenaeus, iElian, A ulus Gel- 
 lius, or Valerius Maximus: nor even by the ancient 
 writers on the Greek Dialects. 
 
 It is difficult to account for the silence of these wri¬ 
 ters, whether we consider the Decree, as a very emi- 
 nent example of the Spartan dialect and policy , or as 
 intimately connected with the history of Music. Yet 
 there can be no doubt of its authenticity. 1 he fact of 
 Timotheus’s being publickly censured for his innova¬ 
 tions in the lyre, and the reduction of the strings from 
 eleven to seven, are recorded by Cicero, Dio Chrysos¬ 
 tom, and Athenaeus, with some variety in their narra¬ 
 tives, but with expressions so nearly resembling the 
 language of the Decree, as to be little less than cita¬ 
 tions from it. Cicero’s ilia sever a Lacedaemon nervos 
 Jussit, quot plures quam septem haheret , Timothei 
 fidihus demi , before quoted, can mean nothing less 
 than this Decree of the Senate. Dio Chrysostom em¬ 
 ploys the very words of the Decree in common Greek : 
 
63 
 
 XOPA&N TAS nEPITTAS EKTEMEIN, as he 
 
 does the beginning of the Decree: T oiyapouv <pa<ri 
 
 AoLTce^onoos, EIIE1AH TIMO0EOS DAP’ 
 
 auroig.* Athenaeus also, relating the fact, with some 
 variety, has the words rag irspirrag rtov 
 
 %op$aiV. -J* 
 
 We are in possession then, of a Greek Decree, of 
 unquestioned authenticity, preserved by a Latin 
 writer, who lived nearly a thousand years after the 
 transaction; not quoted by writers whose subjects 
 most naturally admitted and even required it ; and 
 omitted in the most ancient editions of Boethius’s 
 works. 
 
 In the Scriptures of the New Testament we have a 
 
 remarkable instance of such omission. An important 
 
 passage of St. John we find first quoted at large (not 
 
 in the original words, but in the sense of the original,) 
 
 by a Latin writer, who lived more than four centuries 
 
 after the death of St. John. The absence of 1 John 
 
 v. 7 , from ancient MSS. of the New Testament, and 
 
 the Fathers, is much more easily accounted for, than 
 
 the omission of the Lacedaemonian Decree bv Greek 
 
 •/ 
 
 writers on Music, Government, and Dialects; yet 
 many learned men have doubted the authenticity of 
 the verse in St. John’s Epistle, because none of the 
 Greek Fathers have quoted the verse, even in passages 
 
 * Orat. xxxiii. p. 411. T otyctgovv Qucri AaxE^ai/xcvtouc, sthSy) T ijxoSiog 
 
 YiK; KCCf* CiVTOlZ, TYIV TE Kld’agUV (XVTOV Ottyl AEO'S'ai, X&t 7 U)V %Og$Ct)V TOL$ 
 
 tE^ i-rVas extI t should be Exra/^fiv, in the game tense as uOeXso-Sat. 
 
 f Deipnos. L. XIV. c, ix. 
 
64 
 
 where we might most naturally expect to meet it. But 
 
 1. It may have been purposely omitted in a large 
 portion of the MSS. that were written during that 
 agitated period, that intervened from the death of 
 Constantine to the reign of Justinian. 
 
 2. It may not have been quoted by the most ancient 
 writers on the Trinity, because they did not consider 
 it as a proof of the Trinity. 
 
 In support of the former reason, we know from Ire- 
 naeus in the second century, and from Origen in the 
 third, that the Scriptures were mutilated by unbe¬ 
 lievers in Christ’s Divinity, who had sometimes 
 supreme influence in the Church from the latter part 
 of the fourth Century to the beginning of the sixth. 
 Some of our oldest MSS. are ascribed to this period. 
 
 But the most extensive system of mutilation could 
 not succeed in the entire extirpation of the verse. 
 H ow then happened it, that, in the disturbed period 
 before mentioned, the verse should not have been 
 quoted by any Greek writer on the Trinity ? Because, 
 I suppose, it did not appear to them to be a proof of 
 the unity of the three Divine persons, but rather, of 
 the concurrence of their testimony to the Messiahship 
 of Christ. 
 
 But if the most ancient writers did not notice it, 
 how came it to be quoted by subsequent writers ? 
 Probably, because being a proof of the distinct exist¬ 
 ence of three Divine Persons, they considered it, 
 secondarily, (as Scripture cannot contradict itself) a 
 proof that there are three Divine persons in one God. 
 
65 
 
 But how came a Latin writer, Vigilius Tapsensis, 
 by it, when it is not found in more ancient Greek wri¬ 
 ters ? I must answer this question by another. How 
 came the Lathi Boethius by the Spartan Decree, when 
 it was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, in Aris- 
 toxenus, or Plutarch, Aristides Quintilianus, &c. or in 
 many other writers, where it might have been ex¬ 
 pected ? 
 
 It is found in Latin MSS. of the Scriptures of great 
 antiquity. The Latin MSS. in which it is found, are 
 much more numerous, than those in which it is 
 omitted. And, though it is not found in the most 
 ancient MSS. of the Scriptures, it is quoted by Latin 
 Fathers of much greater antiquity than any of the 
 MSS. from which it is absent; and was expressly ap¬ 
 pealed to by the African Bishops in the fifth century, 
 at the Council of Carthage. 
 
 If it is found in Latin writers, and not in Greek; so 
 is the Decree. If it is omitted by Greek writers, who 
 have written largely on the Trinity; so is the Decree 
 by writers on Music, Government, and Dialects. If it 
 is first quoted at large by a Latin writer, who lived 
 four hundred years after St. John; the Decree is first 
 expressly quoted and preserved by a Latin writer, who 
 lived a thousand years after the promulgation of the 
 Decree. 
 
 In questions of this nature, the correctness of the 
 decision must depend on the critical competency of 
 the inquirer. We may, therefore, for the authenticity 
 of 1 John v. 7. appeal with confidence to Pearson and 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 Bull. If a minute knowledge of MSS. and a critical 
 appreciation of various readings, be necessary to the 
 inquiry, we may, to Wetstein’s and Griesbach’s rejec¬ 
 tion of the verse, oppose Mill’s and Bengelius’s con¬ 
 viction of its authenticity. And if, since the publica¬ 
 tion of Griesbach’s labours, Mr. Porson has brought 
 the weight of his great learning and sagacity against 
 the verse, we may, without any disparagement of his 
 judgment, allege, in support of the verse, the decision 
 of Ernesti and Bishop Horsley. 
 
 If the external evidence from MSS. be unfavourable 
 to the verse, the internal evidence is greatly in its 
 favour. The connection of the context requires the 
 verse. The earthly testimony in the 8th verse, has a 
 manifest relation to the heavenly testimony in the 
 seventh ; and the comparison in the pth verse has re¬ 
 ference to both. The use of the article with h in the 
 8 th verse, is unaccountable (as is suggested by the 
 learned Bishop of Calcutta) without the preceding su in 
 the seventh verse. The term A oyog, as it is here used, 
 is peculiar to St. John. 
 
 The authenticity of this verse (as Ernesti has ob¬ 
 served) does not depend solely on the evidence of 
 Greek MSS. and cannot be decided by them. “ Si 
 yurjcriorrig commatis septimi e solis codicibus Graecis 
 penderet, atque ex iis solis esset aestimanda, turn Gries- 
 bachius causam obtinuisset. Sed quanquam Codices 
 Graeci textus principatum in his rebus definiendis 
 tenent, tamen docti et usu criticarum rerum praediti 
 viri alia etiam adjumenta requirunt. Mihi quidem 
 
67 
 
 maxime obstat nexus cum antecedentibus et conse- 
 quentibus, quo minus sententiae eorum, qui hoc 
 comma delendum esse censent, subscribam : nam v. 9. 
 comparatio instituitur inter testimonium hominum et 
 Dei ipsius, qua haud dubie ad testes illos ccelestes 
 respicit Apostolus, quorum paullo ante meminerat.”* 
 
 II. 
 
 I cannot omit the opportunity, which this Postscript 
 affords me of vindicating the Bishop of St. Asaph’s 
 “ List of Books for the use of the younger Clergy,” 
 from a very great misrepresentation of it in the second 
 of Dr. Marsh’s Theological Lectures, not only be¬ 
 cause, I think, it does injustice to the judgment of the 
 late learned and lamented Prelate, but because it ap¬ 
 pears to me to be calculated to mislead the younger 
 Clergy, by confounding the order of their studies, and 
 withdrawing their attention from what ought to be the 
 first and last object of their Ministry. 
 
 “ A learned Prelate of our Sister University, who 
 “ has published a list of books recommended to the 
 “ younger Clergy, has made no less than fourteen 
 “ divisions in Theology, which he has arranged in the 
 “ following order: 1. The first division relates to Prac- 
 c< tical and Pastoral Duties. 2. Devotion. 3. Reli- 
 " gion in general. 4. Revealed Religion. 5. The 
 “ Scriptures. 6. Comments on the Scriptures. 7. Con- 
 “ cordances, &c. 8. Doctrines. 9. Creeds, Articles, 
 
 * Inst. Interp. N. T. p. 109. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 44 Catechism* and Liturgy. 10. Sacraments and Rites, 
 44 (subdivided into Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and 
 44 Confirmation.) 11. Constitution and Establishment 
 44 of the Church of England. 12. Ecclesiastical His- 
 44 tory. 13- Ecclesiastical Law. 14. Miscellaneous 
 44 subjects.—Then comes a second list, in which these 
 44 divisions are repeated; and lastly a third, in which 
 44 they are exchanged for another set, amounting to 
 44 seventeen, which it would be really tedious to enu- 
 44 merate. Indeed throughout the whole of this theo- 
 44 logical arrangement there is noticing like system to be 
 44 discovered: no reason is assignable for the peculiar 
 44 position of any one head: nor does this disposition 
 cC any way contribute to that, which should be the pri- 
 44 mary object of every writer— perspicuity . 
 
 44 A more judicious Prelate of our o wn University , 
 44 in the Preface to his Elements of Christian Theo- 
 44 logy divides the subject into four parts. The first 
 44 relates to the Exposition of the Scriptures; the se- 
 44 cond, to the Divine Authority of the Scriptures; the 
 “ third, to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church 
 44 of England ; the fourth, to Miscellaneous subjects, 
 44 including Sermons and Ecclesiastical History. In 
 44 this arrangement there is method. For the Bible 
 44 must be understood, before we can prove its divine 
 i4 authority; and both of these tasks must be per^ 
 44 formed, before we can proceed to deduce articles of 
 44 faith. Sermons , it is true, should not be placed in 
 44 the same class with Ecclesiastical History; and in 
 
69 
 
 all systematic arrangements, the term c Miscella- 
 (< neous should be wholly avoided.” 
 
 That the learned Professor u misunderstands the de¬ 
 sign of both these Prelates,” I am under no necessity 
 
 «/ 
 
 of proving, because it has been already done by one of 
 the most learned of our literary Journalists.* But I 
 wish to shew to those of the younger Clergy, in whose 
 studies I am specially interested, as well as to future 
 Candidates for orders, that in the Bishop of St. Asaph’s 
 arrangement of Books for their use, there is an admi¬ 
 rable system and connection; that good reasons may 
 be assigned for the position of each head in the 
 arrangement; and that the disposition is perspicuously 
 adapted to those views, which are most conducive to 
 the success of their Ministry. 
 
 I am persuaded, that the second of the learned Pre¬ 
 lates before mentioned was by no means gratified bv 
 the preceding commendation of him at the expence of 
 his right reverend Brother. I will not form any com* 
 parison of the two arrangements, but content myself 
 with shewing that the former arrangement has none of 
 the defects imputed to it by the Professor, but is syste¬ 
 matically and perspicuously suited to the purpose for 
 which it was intended. 
 
 Its purpose was to assist the younger Clergy in such 
 a prosecution of their studies, as might best qualify 
 them for the duties of their Profession. And what are 
 
 * Quarterly Review, Vol. III. p. 210. 
 
70 
 
 the sentiments and attainments necessary for their ac¬ 
 quitting themselves best in their Profession ? 
 
 I. A strong sense of duty, 
 
 II. a devout feeling and exercise of personal reli¬ 
 
 gion, 
 
 III. a decided conviction of the truth of Christi¬ 
 
 anity, 
 
 IV. a thorough knowledge of the Scripture, 
 
 V. its doctrines, 
 
 VI. and ordinances, 
 
 VII. and a zealous and practical attachment to the 
 Church, of which they are members. These are the 
 sentiments and attainments prescribed by the Bishop of 
 St. Asaph’s List. And how are they to be acquired ? 
 
 I. By the study of professional duties, 
 
 II. by Pray er, 
 
 III. by examining the evidences of Christianity, 
 
 IV. by the daily study of the Scripture, (with the 
 aid of comments, and other subsidiary means,) 
 
 V. in all its doctrines of faith and works, 
 
 VI. and the ordinances of Christ and his apostles, 
 
 VII. and by a comprehensive knowledge of eccle¬ 
 siastical history, especially of their own Church, and 
 of ecclesiastical law, as far as concerns the rights of 
 the Church, and the correct performance of their ordi¬ 
 nary duties. 
 
 With these professional sentiments and attainments, 
 I will now shew how the Bishop of St. Asaph’s four - 
 
teen divisions*, in his selection of books, successively 
 accord. 
 
 I. 1. Practical and Pastoral duties. 
 
 II. 2. Devotion. 
 
 tit f 3- Religion in general. 
 \ 4. Revealed Religion. 
 
 ■S 
 
 IV 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The Scriptures. 
 
 Comments on the Scriptures. 
 Concordances, &c. 
 
 8. Doctrines. 
 
 9. Creeds, Articles, Catechism, and Liturgy. 
 
 10. Sacraments and Rites. 
 
 Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Confirmation. 
 
 11. Constitution and Establishment of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 12. Ecclesiastical Historv. 
 
 13. Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 14. Miscellaneous subjects. 
 
 As some books are confined to single subjects, (such 
 as belong to each of the preceding heads,) others are 
 miscellaneous, and include a variety of subjects, so as 
 not to be classed under any one head. To such books 
 th e fourteenth division is allotted. This list of Books 
 was not published as a system of Theology, yet in its 
 choice , order , and connection of subjects, in their de- 
 
 * The fourfold division before mentioned, Dr. Marsh says, is as 
 follows : “ The first relates to the Exposition of the Scriptures ; the 
 «r second, to the divine authority of the Scriptures 5 the third, to the 
 « doctrine and discipline of the Church of England \ the fouith, to 
 “ miscellaneous subjects, including sermons, and ecclesiastical his- 
 “ tory.” Are these arrangements so different, that one should hardly 
 suppose their authors were analysing the same subject P 
 
72 
 
 scent (after the two preliminary points) from the gene¬ 
 ral principle of religion to the particular establish¬ 
 ment, discipline, and interests of our own Church, it 
 has every advantage of the best system. 
 
 I can hardly conceive a course of professional read¬ 
 ing more calculated to make a conscientious, able, and 
 useful minister of the Church of England, than that 
 which is prescribed by the Bishop of St. Asaph’s list of 
 books. It appears to me much more judiciously dis¬ 
 posed than the Professor’s own System of Theology, 
 To lay the foundation of Theology in a critical know¬ 
 ledge of the Manuscripts, Various Readings, and Edi¬ 
 tions of the Scriptures, is inverting the order of Theo¬ 
 logical studies. It can have no general or practical 
 influence on the ministry of the Church. It lends no 
 aid to the conversion of the infidel, or the instruc¬ 
 tion of the ignorant. The great cardinal passages of 
 Scripture derive no benefit from it. Patricius Junius 
 was converted by reading the first chapter of St. John, 
 Lord Lyttelton by the conversion of St. Paul, and 
 Gilbert West by the evidences of Christ’s resurrection. 
 If vj rwv Tvoycov xpicig 7 roXky)g earn ireipag TEAETTAION 
 s 7 ny£vu 7 )[Aa, the criticism of the Bible, in the sense 
 here adverted to, should be among the last branches 
 of Theology instead of the first. By making it a large 
 and prominent part of Theology, it fixes the mind on 
 the subsidiary means of the science, rather than the 
 end. Its end is seen in its very name. Theology is 
 doctrina de Deo , and Christian Theology, doctrina de 
 Christo Deo . Among the ancient Fathers, Theology 
 
73 
 
 was the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity. In this sense 
 they understood the words ©soAoysiy and &eo>w>yia *. 
 The knowledge of Christ, then, and of the means of 
 mans salvation , should be the governing principles in 
 Christian T heology ; and the foundation of it, as a 
 science, should be laid in such preparatory grounds, as 
 point directly and obviously to those great subjects 
 which are the ends of Christian Theology. 
 
 As all our knowledge of these subjects is derived 
 from God’s revelation of his will in the Scriptures, 
 whatever tends to certify the truth of the Christian re¬ 
 velation, and explain th e languages in which the Scrip¬ 
 tures are written, must ever be a necessary subject of 
 Theology. But Providence has so mercifully pro¬ 
 vided for our instruction in the great business of our 
 salvation, that the important truths which most nearly 
 concern us are the least embarrassed with difficulties, 
 and require none of the aids of elaborate philology. 
 Fortunately, therefore, for the generality of readers, 
 even of clerical readers, the science of Manuscripts, 
 various readings, and editions, is not among the neces¬ 
 saries , but the luxuries of literature, indispensable, 
 indeed, to the perfection of a Biblical critic, but by 
 no means so either to the well-informed Christian or 
 the sound Divine. 
 
 The sound Divine cannot possess in too great a de¬ 
 gree a critical knowledge of the original languages of 
 Scripture; but a critical knowledge of language is one 
 
 * See Eusebius’s Treatise on the subject, and Suicer’s Thesaurus. 
 
7 4 
 
 thing, and a critical knowledge of Manuscripts and 
 Editions is another. The former will be useful to him 
 in every page of Scripture; the latter only in the dis¬ 
 cussion of a few passages, in which, after all, the right 
 reading must finally be determined from other sources. 
 The Bibliography of the Bible (as I beg leave to call 
 its external criticism) is interesting and useful, and no 
 scholar ought to be ignorant of it (it is not excluded 
 even from the Bishop of St. Asaph’s Inventory) ; but 
 it contributes very little to the right interpretation of 
 Scripture-language ; for that we must not look to the 
 Symbolae Criticae, or the Prolegomena of Griesbach, 
 but to the learning of Casaubon and Gataker, of Bos 
 and Hemsterhuis, of Valckenaer, Alberti, and Kypke, 
 and to some excellent comments in our own lan¬ 
 guage*. 
 
 As one very important end of Theology is to instruct 
 the future Minister of a Parish in the knowledge of 
 his profession, the diligent aspirant to the Christian 
 Ministry, before he has finished his academical stu¬ 
 dies, will probably be well instructed in his pastoral 
 duties. But in resuming his professional studies in 
 his Parish, the young Clergyman will change the po¬ 
 sition of this branch of his studies. What was last 
 to the Academic, will be first to the Minister of a Parish. 
 The knowledge and practice of his Pastoral duties will 
 
 * The edition of the JBible now publishing by the Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge cannot be too highly valued for 
 its excellent selection of notes. 
 
7 5 
 
 be the first object, and the permanent rule of his stu¬ 
 dies. And with this object commences the Bishop of 
 St. Asaph’s List of Books for the younger Clergy. 
 How well digested that List is, how systematically 
 and perspicuously connected its successive divisions 
 are with the several branches of religious knowledge, 
 in their descent (after the two preliminary points) 
 from the general principle of religion to the particular 
 establishment, discipline, and interests of our own 
 Church, I have already shewn. 
 
 Yet however correctly and usefully arranged the 
 List is, it was not published as a system of Theology. 
 The Bishop expressly says, he is “ not laying down 
 Institutes of Divinity” He submits the List to his 
 younger Clergy as an “ Inventory ” of Books, and de¬ 
 clares his design in it was to “ shew to younger stu- 
 
 dents, literate persons especially, how much it is 
 <c in the reach of the most retired situation to procure 
 “ valuable helps in their inquiries upon every import- 
 <c ant article of their profession.” Yet the Professor 
 has introduced it into his Lectures, as an example of 
 defective analysis* ** ; and of Theological arrangement 
 
 * “ Theological writers are far from being unanimous, either in 
 “ regard to the number, or in regard to the kind of divisions, into 
 “ which Theology should be divided. In England, especially, so 
 ct little has been determined on this point, that few writers agree 
 “ in their divisions ; and in some of them the difference is such, 
 
 ** that one should hardly suppose they were analysing the same sub- 
 “ ject.” This observation Dr. Marsh exemplifies by a comparison 
 between two Lists of Books, one by a a learned Prelate of a Sister 
 
 \ 
 
76 
 
 without system , reason , or 'perspicuity ; — with what 
 justice, I leave the readers of the preceding pages to 
 determine. 
 
 The Bishop’s Inventory , by its well-digested series, 
 has all the order of system without pretending to it; 
 and it rests a young Clergyman’s conduct on two great 
 and leading principles, the want of which no system 
 can compensate, a high sense of duty and personal 
 religion ; it superadds to his literary and professional 
 acquirements something better than mere literary ex¬ 
 cellence ; and brings into exercise, and tends to per¬ 
 petuate, those serious and interesting impressions, 
 under which he pledged himself to the faithful dis¬ 
 charge of his pastoral duties on the day of his Ordi¬ 
 nation. 
 
 University,' 1 the other by (t a more judicious Prelate of his own 
 University.” The Bishop of Lincoln calls his arrangement a List 
 of Books. “ I shall subjoin a List of Books which every Clergyman 
 ought to possess. — I shall divide these into four classes.” In nei¬ 
 ther case was the List of Books proposed as a System of Theology. 
 Indeed Lists and Inventories of Books were out of place on the occa¬ 
 sion. A comparison between the Institutes of Limborch and of 
 Turretin, of Mosheim and of Doederlein, of Usher and of Fiddes, 
 &c. would have been more to the purpose. 
 
 END OF THE POSTSCRIPT. 
 
77 
 
 NOTE to page 29. 
 
 In unison with the spirit of that unkingly period (1791), I might 
 have added—of that unchristian period, with respect to the national 
 proceedings and literary productions of republican France, and for 
 some years indeed previous to the revolution. In the year 1786 
 Larcher published his celebrated translation of Herodotus," the notes 
 to which abounded with reflections injurious to Christianity, which 
 I mention for the sak£ of his memorable recantation, of which 
 more in this note. In October 1793 the Christian Calendar was 
 abolished, and in November of the same year the Christian religion 
 was interdicted * by the French Convention. We cannot forget 
 the wishes which were uttered, even in this country, in the vear 
 1796, for the return of Paganism. 
 
 Hail happy errors of delusive thought. 
 
 Unreal visions with true blessings fraught 
 Once more from heaven descend, to mortals kind, 
 
 And cast your magic spells around the mind j 
 Film o’er the sight of speculative eyes. 
 
 Nor let us feel the curse to be too wise. 
 
 But we may reasonably hope that such sentiments may have 
 passed away with many other delusions of the period which pro¬ 
 duced them. We happily have it in our power to bring at least one 
 instance of decided and explicit recantation, which cannot be too 
 generally known. In the first edition of Larcher’s Herodotus, the 
 notes were largely infected with the antichristian spirit. But in his 
 second edition (1802) he has made the amplest amends in his power 
 for the injuiy he had done to Christianity, by publickly renouncing' 
 his errors, and professing his decided conviction of the truth of 
 Christianity. He says in his preface (p. xxxviii), “ Enfin intiment 
 convaincu de toutes les verity qu’enseigne la Religion Chr&ienne, 
 j’ai retrenche, ou reforme toutes les notes, qui pouvoient la blessed 
 On avoit tire des unes des consequences que j’improuve, et qui 
 sont loin de ma pensee. D’autres renfermoient des choses, je dois 
 l’avouer avec franchise, et pour 1’acquit de ma conscience, qu’un plus 
 mftr examen et des recherches plus approfondies m’ont demontre 
 reposer sur de trop legeres fondemens ou etre absolument fausses. 
 Ea verity ne peut que gagner k cet aveu. C’est k elle seule que j’ai 
 consacre de revenir k elle d£s que j’ai cru l’avoir mieux saisie. 
 Puisse cet homage, que je lui rends dans toute la sincerity de mon 
 coeur, me faire absoudre de toutes les erreurs que je puis avoir ha- 
 sarddes, et que j'ai cherchd a propager. 
 
 * Lavoisne’s Genealogical. Historical, Chronological, and Geo¬ 
 graphical Atlas. Map 3. 
 
 
. 
 
 ; ' 
 
 /-Vs;, * v .-; 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PRINTED IN U-S.A. 
 
 
 
 
 
 I