ἀπὸ τοῦ Μαριανδυνῶν κόλπου, μέχρι τοῦ πρὸς Φοινίκην κειμένου, τείνει τὰ ἐς θάλασσαν μέχρι Τριοπίου ἄκρης : ineptum est, quod vulgo legitur" [This sense of dxr is not, as we have seen, noticed by H. Stephens in the Thes. Ling. Græc., nor is it noticed by Æmilius Portus in the Lex. Ionicum Græco-Latinum; but it must be confessed that the passage is differently understood by Wesseling]: "alteram peninsulam faciunt sinus Persicus, et Arabicus, nimirum Arabiam: paullo post Libyam similiter axt appellat, quod sit egippuros, præterquam ubi Asiæ jungitur: Libya igitur est xr, δι' ἧς ἰσθμός ἐστι : Scylax infra, Λέγουσι δέ τινες τούτους τοὺς Αἰθίοπας παρήκειν συνεχῶς οἰκοῦντας ἐντεῦθεν εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ εἶναι ταύτην θάλατταν συνεχή, ἀκτὴν δὲ εἶναι τὴν Λιβύην : Hesych. ἀκτὴ ἐπὶ προυχούσῃ, ἐν τῷ ἐξέχοντι μέρει τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ : inde patet non peninsulas tantum, sed etiam quævis promontoria ita appellari” [This meaning also is omitted by H. Stephens]: "sane Apollonius Rhodius Acherusium promontorium dxry appellat: item Nicandri est apud Stephanum, Καναστραίης πάρος ακτής, et Hesych. Κωλιάς, ἀκτὴ εἰς Báλaoσav éxovoa, et sexcenta hujusmodi: at apud Dicæarchum ἀκτή aliud est: pro amaniis namque utitur h. v. versus sunt Posidippi de Platæis, ναοὶ δύο εἰσὶ, καὶ στοὰ, καὶ τούνομα, καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον, καὶ τὸ Σαράμβου κλέος, vulgo postremus ille versiculus pessime sic egitur, quorum verborum sensus est nullus: dxrv hic accipe pro amaniis: Glossæ, axτai, amonia: sensus vero horum verborum est, urbem non esse, quod vacua, et incolis destituta sit, maximaque parte ex amaniis constet: ubi vero Eleutheria celebrantur, quia magnus tum hominum ibi sit concursus, fieri urbem: Eleutheria namque quoque quinquennio Platais agitabantur, ut a veterum plurimis traditum est: sed v. dxrs potius hic accipe pro secreto et abdito loco, ut explicat Cl. Salmasius; non enim putat Latinum esse amœnia, de locis sine moenibus, neque Græcos unquam hoc sensu usos eo verbo vel pro amonia in illis Glossis scribendum amana, vel certe, hoc amæne, et amænum dixisse veteres, ut hilare, et hilarum, acre et acrum" [Hence it is evident that this note of Is. Vossius had not been seen by Faber]: «sed amœna, vel amœnia, Græcis axtas vocari, secretorum littorum recessus, in quibus aró maris fruebantur, ac epulabantur ut plurimum voluptarii homines, quod ἀκτάζειν dicebant, unde proverbium, σήμερον ακτάζομεν, cras in littore epulabimur, et genio indulgebimus, cujus meminit Plutarch. [Ger. J. Vossius in the Etymologicum Ling. Lat. Lugduni 64, cites the passage, but I will quote the note: " Acta, a×тr, s, vel speciatim potius litorum virides vestitus ac amœnitates; est ab ayvui, frango, quia ad litus franguntur undæ :—non quia Cicero, et Maro utuntur, idcirco passim actam pro litore dicere liceat; quippe uterque horum de Sicilia loquitur: in rebus autem externis sua res lingua licet appellare: imo, ut dixi, proprie ita vocabant amoenitates litoris, nam Servius interpretatur secreta, et amona locorum, ac in Veteri quoque Glossario legas, Amœnia, ai xrai: porro, quia veteres, quando genio indulgere velleut, actam partim piscium gratia, partim ob eorum amoenitatem, sectabantur, inde est, quod formarint verbum axráčev, quod nova voce actari dixeris: itaque quoties sese liberalius invitare vellent, proverbialiter dicebant, nepov axтáσoμsv, q. d. hodie actabimur: ponam hac de re focum Plutarchi L. iv. Sympos. Probl. iv. Tí & oi moλλoì BoúλovTα1, πρὸς θεῶν, ὅταν ἡδέως γενέσθαι παρακαλοῦντες ἀλλήλους, λέγωσι, Σήμερον εκτάσομεν; οὐχὶ τὸ παρ' ἀκτῇ δεῖπνον ἥδιστον ἀποφαίνουσιν, ώσπερ otiv"]" actas Latinos vocasse has litorum amoenitates, Servius annotavit ad Æn. v. ad h. v. • At procul in sola secretæ Troades acta :' idem confirmat Glossarium, Acta, littora amœna: hinc actare, consistere in littore, axrále: neque hoc tantum capitur de littoralibus locis, sed etiam aliis, quanquam sint mediterranei: locupletissimus est testis Hesych. οἶδε δὲ καὶ ἄλλο τι ἡ συνήθεια, καλούμενον ἀκτὴν, ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβαίνοντος οἶμαι τοῖς πλοιζομένοις λαβοῦσα· ἐκεῖνοί τε γὰρ ἐς τοὺς τοιούτους τῶν τόπων ἀποβάντες ἑστιῶνται, αὕτη τε τοὺς ἐπ' εὐωχίαις ἀφωρισμένους τόπους ακτὰς καλεῖ, κἂν τύχωσι μὴ παραθαλάσ OTES: ita lege: sic itaque capienda est vox axr apud Dicæarchum; nam Platææ urbs in mediterraneis est: Latini litora vocant locos solitarios, et desertos: Cicero de Quincto fratre, Non homo, sed litus, atque aer, et solitudo mera: ita quoque intelligendus locus ille Petronii, Nec diu tamen lacrymis indulsi, sed veritus, ne Menelaus etiam antescholanus inter cetera mala solum me in deversorio inveniret; collegi sarcinulas, locumque secretum, et proximum littori, moestus conduxi: nihil certius." Is. Vossius in Scylacis Periplum, in the Geographica antiqua Jacobi Gronovii Lug. Bat. 1700, p. 6, 8. De La Cerda, whom I have but rarely consulted upon any occasion without deriving much information from him, says upon the n. L. v. 613: " Parco aliis, qui usi h. v. videlicet Turpilio, citato a Nonio, Val. Flacc. 5 Arg. Victorino de Metris ex poeta incerto, Sancto Ambros. L. 5. Exham.: tale quiddam est auctores usos v. astu, quæ Græca omnino, et Plin. L. 7. c. 2. dixisse probata, L. 6. c. 27. Arabia eudamon, et c. 31. Hesperium ceras, et L. 2. c. 37. Corybantian pro xogußavriav: Plaut. in Pseud. Hunc diem sumsimus prothyme, i. e. #gobúμws, Martial L. 2. Hinc seras epidipnidas parabat, vtique ideva, et Eduvidas: itaque usitatum fuit inserere Latino sermoni Græcum, et Latinis literis; sed adhuc in Siculis hoc peculiare fuit, qui ute bantur eo sermone, qui permistus esset e Græcis et Latinis vocibus." Heyne says nothing at all about the word acta. The remark of F. O. Menckenius in the Observationum Ling. Lat. Liber, Lipsiæ, 1745, deserves notice: "Ne, de locis tantum usurpari h. v. exempla in Lexico [B. Fabri] adducta lectori persuadeant, operæ pretium videtur annotare etiam hominem amonum dici, h. e. gratiosum, a Tullio in Fragm. Hortensii, quod servavit Augustinus in Libro De Vita Beata, "Oratæ, homini ditissimo, amœnissimo, delicatissimo, neque ad voluptatem quidquam defuit, neque ad gratiam," et cultum etiam amoniorem homini tribui a Livio L. 4. c. 44. Ob suspicionem propter cultum amœniorem ingeniumque liberius, quam virginem decet, parum abhorrens famam." 999 A ON THE ATTIC MONTHS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. I Have lately had occasion to point out some mistakes, into which your Norwich Correspondent has fallen in his first attack against me in your No. XVI. I now think myself called upon to answer his animadversions in the same Number, on my Essay "Concerning the Shield of Achilles," which is to be found in your Journal for Sept. 1812. Mr. S. is again pleased to accuse me of introducing many novelties into my dissertations, for which, he says, I do not produce sufficient evidence, (Class. Jour. No. XVI. p. 409.); and he adds, "I will at present point out one example of this as a specimen of many others." This writer then proceeds as follows Otto Menckenius, who lived in earlier times, and of whom this Menckenius is probably a descendant, was the father of John Burchard Menckenius, and the person with whom originated the Acta Eruditorum: "Primus, ut notum est, instituti ejus auctor fuit Otto Menckenius, idque, adscitis in laboris societatem præstantissimis nonnullis viris, Frid. Bened. Carpzovio, Godofr. Guil. Leibnitio, Vito L. B. a Seckendorf, aliisque multis, ab anno inde 1682, usque ad 1707, quo ipse abiit ad superos, magno cum orbis eruditi plausu prosecutus est, ob id appellatus a cel. Jo. Guil. Nobili De Berger Dissertationum p. 502. Cratippus et Varro Lipsiensis, et a Guil. Cavio in Præfat. in P. 2, Hist. Lit. Script. Eccles. p. 7. laudatus." J. E. Kappius's Life of J. Burchard Menckenius, prefixed to his Edition of J. B. Menckenius's Dissertationum Academicarum Decas, Lipsiæ, 1734, page ii. "In your No. XI. Sir W. D. has these words at p. 19. line penult: The 10th and 11th months of the old Greek year, Maimacterion and Pyanepsion, comprehended part of September with the whole of October and part of November.' By these words it appears, that he places Maimacterion before Pyanepsion in the order of the Athenian months. This was indeed the opinion of some learned men formerly, viz. Petau and Dodwell; but as he has often quoted Scaliger as his authority concerning the order of the months, many of your readers may be apt to conceive that the above order was adopted by Scaliger also; this, however, is not the fact, for Scaliger placed Pyanepsion before Maimacterion, and brought a strong proof of it from a date in Ptolemy's astronomy." So then I have so often quoted Scaliger, that many readers may conceive, that I had his authority for placing the Attic months in every instance in the order which I have observed. 1 think I have referred only three or four times to Scaliger in the whole Dissertation; and those, who have read it without prejudice, would hardly suppose that, because I have cited Scaliger's authority in a few instances, I therefore intended them to understand, that I had his authority for every statement which I made. Unprejudiced readers must have seen that I also quoted Gaza, Petavius, and Dodwell, all of whom held very opposite opinions from Scaliger concerning the order of the Attic months. The natural inference, therefore, would have been, that I did not bind myself to abide by the authority of Scaliger in all instances, though I have admitted it in others. I have said in my Essay, (No. XI. p. 14.) that "it would require a separate Dissertation to show upon what principles I would adjust the Greek and Roman months." After having made this declaration I could not have supposed, that any reader would have expected, that I was in that Essay, at least, to have stated my reasons for sometimes agreeing, and for sometimes disagreeing with others, who have written concerning the order of the months. In placing Maimacterion before Pyanepsion, I made no reference whatever to Scaliger. I thought then, as I think now, that that great man was entirely mistaken upon this point, when he reversed the order proposed by Gaza; but it is clear, that I must have extended my Essay far beyond the usual limits, if I had entered into a discussion upon this long debated question. Mr. S., however, is pleased to say, that, in placing Maimacterion before Pyanepsion, I have "revived an error;" and he adds, that I have "delivered the same erroneous opinion as if it were a certainty, although refuted by ocular demonstration." (No. XVI. 410.) I am not aware, Sir, that there was any thing so positive and dogmatical in my words as to have deserved so sharp a rebuke, even Cl. Jl. VOL. IX. No. XVIII. Y if I had been guilty of an error, into which, if it indeed be one, such men as Gaza, Petavius, Potter, and Dodwell had fallen before me but it so happens, that unawed by the tone of your correspondent, I maintain, that, in placing Maimacterion before Pyanepsion, I have preserved the true order of the months as they followed each other in the ancient Attic year. It must remain for the readers of the Classical Journal to decide, whether, or not, I have been guilty of an error, or have made a statement without sufficient evidence or even probability in my favor. Mr. S. tells us, that Scaliger placed Pyanepsion before Maimacterion;-that Petavius and Dodwell objected to this, but, in his opinion, without success; and that their arguments have been totally refuted by Spon. I shall examine Scaliger's arguments against Gaza, and proceed afterwards to consider those which Spon has advanced in his travels, for I do not possess his other writings, and if this author be consistent, I am not afraid of his authority. 1. Scaliger begins his argument, in order to prove that Pyanepsion preceded Maimacterion, by endeavouring to show that Posideon answered to January. (De emendat. Temporum, 1. 1.) The witnesses whom he calls are Plutarch and Anacreon. Plutarch's words may be thus given in Latin-" Cæsar sexcentis delectis equitibus et quinque legionibus circa brumam atque Januarii initium, quem mensem Athenienses videntur Posideonem appellare, mari se commisit." (In Cæsare.) The mistakes committed by Plutarch concerning the order of the months have been amply commented upon by Dodwell. (Diss. 11.) With regard to the verses of Anacreon, to which Scaliger would not have resorted, if he had felt himself strong, they prove nothing more than that the poet considered Posideon as a winter month, which I shall not deny to him, since I hold that it answered to part of November and of December. But let us admire how Scaliger could appeal to Plutarch, who makes Posideon coincide with January, when this writer's testimony is plainly and directly contradicted by Aristotle, who says that the female thunny-fish seems to bring forth at two different seasons, and that the first bringing forth is spì Tov П...σEsшvα, πgo тwν троπ-about Рosideon, before the Solstice. It is clear then, from this, that Posideon preceded the winter Solstice, and that it could not accord with January. (Aristot. Nat. Hist. 7. v. c. 9.) There is, however, another passage in Aristotle, which is, if possible, stronger, and which shows that Plutarch's testimony upon this point cannot be listened to. He makes mention (Meteor. l. 1. c. 6.) of a remarkable star, which rose in the month Gamelion, at the Winter Solstice. From this it is evident, that Gamelion comprehended part of December, and part of January ; and it is disputed by none, I think, that Posideon preceded Gamelion. Theophrastus likewise (1. vii. c. 1.) places the Winter Sol |