Septuagint are, σε οὗτός ἐστιν ̓Ανὰ, ὃς εὗρε τὸν Ἰαμεὶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὅτε ἔνεμε τὰ ὑποζύγια Σεβεγὼν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ.”

In hopes that some good Scholar will clear up this seeming contradiction,

I remain, Sir, Your's,

J. H. M. S.

Considering the death of Joram king of Israel, and of Ahaziah king of Judah, as the era from which we reckon, we find that Jehu was made king of Israel anno 1. He was succeeded by Johoahaz anno 28. (ch. x. 36.) Joash succeeded him anno 45. (ch. xiii. 1.) and was succeeded anno 61. (ch. xiv. 23.) by Jeroboam.-Now though this date coincides with the 15th year of Amaziah's reign, as it should do (ch. xiv. 23.) yet the preceding dates differ much. In chap. xiii. 1. Jehoahaz is said to have begun his reign in the 23d year of Joash, and to have reigned 17 years; but in the 10th verse of this chapter we learn that he was succeeded by his son in the 37th year of Joash. But to proceed-Jeroboam died anno 102. (ch. xiv. 23.) which was the 14th year of Azariah's or Uzziah's reign (ch. xv. 1.) and we find, (ch. xv. 8.) that Zechariah reigned over Israel, six months during the 38th year of Azariah's reign. Hence this question arises, who governed Israel those 24 years, namely from the 14th to the 38th year of Azariah? It is not probable that there was an inter-regnum, and the less so, since Zechariah succeeded his father; nor can the passage be rendered, as I have heard it attempted, that Zechariah reigned till the sixth month of Azariah's reign. The most probable answer to this question which I can discover, is hinted by Tremellius in his note upon ch. xv. 1. where he says that Uzziah had already reigned 24 years, namely, 12 years during his father's exile at Lachish, and 12 years after his father's death; indeed Tremellius reads the verse thus: "Anno 27mo Jarobhhami regis Israelis: regnabat Hhazarja, &c. &c. whereas our Bible reads it, "began Azariah......to reign." It is true, that if we consider that Azariah had reigned 24 years in the 27th year of Jeroboam, the chronological difficulty vanishes but even though we should allow that Azariah might not be considered as king (though he reigned over Judah) during his father's life-time, yet I think that he can scarcely be said to begin his reign 12 years after his father's death.

:

Being, as I have before observed, unacquainted with Hebrew, I shall adopt Tremellius's reading, and consider that Uzziah began his reign 12 years before his father's death; namely, in the year 64. And Jeroboam's death in the year 102, will therefore be the 38th year of Azariah, and consequently Zechariah succeeded immediately after his father's death; and was killed by Shallum the same, or the following, year; Shallum himself being put to death, Menahem assumed the sovereign power anno 103, which is the 39th year of Azariah, (ch. xv. 17.) He was succeeded by Pekahiah, anno 113, (ch. xv. 17.) Pekah succeeded Pekahiah anno 115, (ch. xv. 23.) which is the 52d and last year of Uzziah; Pekah was slain by Hoshea, who immediately succeeded him anno 135, (ch. xv. 27.) Here another question arises; was this year, as it is said to have been (ch. xv. 30.) the 20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah? It certainly was 20 years posterior to the death of Uzziah; but Jotham only reigned 16 years (ch. xv. 33.) and had therefore been dead four years before the murder of Pekah. The expression may be correct in the Hebrew language, but it certainly is not in the English. The cause given for it by Tremellius is rather weak, "quia ejus (Achazi) ad huc nullam mentionem fecit, tempus describit à superiore rege.""-Hoshea submitted to Shalmaneser anno 144 (ch. xvii. 1.) which accurately coincides with the 12th year of Ahaz.Another remark I shall make upon the word "Posteà," with which Tremellius begins the fourth verse of this chapter

"Posteà invenit rex Assyriâ in Hoschehhâ conspirationem. The word "Posteà" I suppose to be in the Hebrew, since Tremellius has not written it in Italics; and if it be, I can see no reason why it should be omitted in our translation: it certainly is wanted; since it was not till the sixth or seventh year after Hoshea's submission that Shalmaneser besieged Samaria (ch. xviii. 9.) The city was taken anno 153. (ch. xviii. 10.) and then "the Lord removed Israel out of his sight!" But it appears rather strange that the nine years Hoshea had reigned, previously to his submission in 144. seem totally omitted in the account of the latter part of his reign. Hence the year 151. (ch. xviii. 9.) is called the seventh year of Hoshea's reign, and the destruction of Samaria is said to

have happened in the ninth year of that unfortunate monarch-the last of the king's of Israel.

How many years before Christ was Rome built? is a question which every one should be able to answer; it is generally said to have been 753. It is as generally said, and on as good, nay, better authority, that the olympic games, at which Corabus gained the prize, and from which epoch the Grecians used to reckon, took place A. C. 776. Hence then Rome was built 23 years after the first olympiad: but how can this be reconciled with Diodorus Siculus account-ἐκτισμένης γε τῆς πόλεως κατὰ τὸ β ἔτος τῆς ζ. ὀλυμπιάδου. Diod. Sic. lib. 7. ap. Georg: Mon: "conditâ enim urbe anno II. Olympiadis VII." I am, Sir, Your humble servant,

J. H. M. S.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. SIR,

INCLOSED you will receive the drawing of a ring, which was lately found in hoeing turnips in this neighbourhood; it is of pure gold, its weight is nearly equal to three guineas and a half. If any of your correspondents will explain the devices and inscription, and what has been its use, they will much oblige Your obedient Servant,

Barnard Castle, Jan. 2.1811.

J. W. SMITH.

We conceive the ring to have been worn as an amulet; its devices are of a religious nature, and drawn from Scripture. The first globule is probably Judas. The third looks like the descent from the cross, or the flight into Egypt. The fifth Jesus betrayed. The seventh Jesus bound and

scourged.

The intermediate contain an abbreviation of JESUS CHRIST. This is our conjecture; but we shall gladly give place to a better. ED.

L. C. VALCKENARII ADNOTATIONES IN

XENOPHONTIS MEMORABILIA.

NO. II.

Απομνημονευμάτων] Libros vocat 4. Gellius N. Α. xiv. c. 3. quos

dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarios composuit Xenophon. Ciceroni de N. D. i. c. 12. citatur Xenophon in iis, quæ à Socrate dicta retulit. Gracis ἀπομνημονεύματα, rarius dicuntur ὑπομνημονεύ ματα· ἐθικὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα, Diogeni Laërt. iii. 34. ἀποφθέγματα Σωκράτες in Scholiis ΜS. in Aristid. secundum Theonem in Progymn. c. v. Απομνημόνευμα πρᾶξις ἐστιν ἢ λόγος βιωφελής, Ipse Xenophon in Epistolis Socrat. xviii. πεποίημαι δέ τινα ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους : hos commentarios missurum se scribit examinandos amicis; Ep. xxii. vereri se, an persona Socratis satis sint digni: sed illud inprimis notabile, quod scribit in Epist. xv. p. 38, 10. δοκεῖ χρῆναι ἡμᾶς συγγράφειν, ἅποτε εἶπεν ἀνὴς καὶ ἔπραξεν· καὶ αὕτη ἀπολογία γένοιτ' ἂν αὐτῇ βελτίστη εἰς τὸ νῦν τε καὶ εἰς τὸ ἔπειτα. Hæc ἀπομνημονεύματα pra bent Xenophonteam Socratis Apologiam: respondet enim in his Xenophon ad singula accusationis capita: præterea in Arte Rhetor, inter Opera Dionys. Halic. ii. p. 103. 34. Socratis ἐγκώμιον scripsisse dicitur Platᾳ ἐν ἀπολογίας σχήματι Xenophon autem ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν· ὡς γὰρ ἀπολογόμενος ὑπὲρ Σωκράτες ἐγκώμιον Σωκράτες περαίνει. Quæ vulgata prostat ut Xenophontis Σωκράτες ἀπολογία, est illa hoc ingenio capitali, si quid judico, prorsus indigna, ab eodem conflata, cui finem Cyropædiæ debemus et alia quædam, quæ vulgò leguntur ut Xenophontea.-Ceterum ex his eximiis libellis dictorum factorumque Socratis, popularis Socratis est philosophia petenda, non ex Dialogis Platonis; Socrati multa tribuentis, de quibus ne cogitavit quidem, ex Pythagoreorum hausta commentariis.

In L. i.

1, 18. Τὲς ἀμφὶ Θρασύλον καὶ Ἐρασινίδην] Xenophon de re sua atate omnibus nota tantum scripsisse videtur: ἐπιθυμήσαντος τῇ δήμε παρὰ τὰς νόμες ἐννέα στρατηγές μια ψήφῳ ἀποκτεῖναι πάντας· recentior ad hæc adjecisse, τὰς ἀμφὶ Θρασύλον καὶ Ερασινίδην : quæ mihi minus VoL. IV. No. VII.

etiam commodè verbis videntur Xenophonteis interjecta; scripta tamen ab historiæ veteris perito. Nomina quidem x ducum alio ordine recensentur Xenophonti 'Exλ. i. p. 259. 19. quem sequitur Diodor. Sic. xiii. c. 74. sed à Philochoro junctim videntur memorati Thrasyllus (gárvλhos an Ogarúhos scribatur perinde est :) et Erasinides : ubi enim Aristoph. Ran. v. 1227. ἐστρατήγησέν γε μετ ̓ Ερασί. νίδε. in Scholiis dicuntur morte damnati, έτος τε και—Θράσυλλος, Περικλῆς, Αριστοκράτης, Διομέδων, ὥς φησι Φιλόχορος. Lysias Orat. xxi. p. 376. memorat τάς μετὰ Θρασύλλα δέκα, et paulo post Ερασινίδην. Pausan. vi. p. 470. ̓Αθηναίοις ἐς Θράσυλλον καὶ τὰς ἐν ̓Αργινέσαις ὑμᾶς τῷ Θρασύλλῳ στρατηγήσαντας προπετείας ἔστιν ἔγκλημα. Diodoro Sic. xiii. c. 101. hi duo quoque fuerant memorati govλdos nai 'Eguoivíðns' non Kædλiáðns' quod et Wesseling. suspicabatur. Decepit is locus Nath. Forsterum notis in Platonis Apol. Socr. p. 349. alterius tum loci Diodori immemorem. Alibi rarò hi duo nominantur; et, ubi infortunii circa Arginusas et calamitatis ducum fit mentio, ferè tantum oi dixa orgarayol memorantur. Quod Socratem ait Xenophon populum super eâ re noluisse in suffragia mittere, in ndéanow inc‡npicas, (conf. T. H. in Lucian. i. p. 158.) idem aliis verbis expressit 'Exλ. i. p. 263. 41. et 'Amour. iv. 4. 2. Diogeni Laërtio dicitur ii. 24. μόνος ἀποψηφίσασθαι τῶν δέκα στρατηγῶν, solus absolvisse decem duces. quæ pervertit interpres Latinus: ceteris enim Prytanibus solus ego ἐναντία ἐψηφισάμην, inquit in Platonis Apologiâ Socrates.

2, 20. Εσθλῶν μὲν γὰρ ἄπ ̓ ἐσθλὰ διδάξεαι] Legit ista Plato ἐν τοῖς eyelos Theognidis, excitans in Menone T. ii. p. 95. et videntur, quæ nobis supersunt, Theognidea ex variis Elegiis conflata.- His iisdem versibus usi sunt Xenophon in Symp. p. 511. 4. (partim Aristoteles Eth. Nicom. x. c. 12.) Musonius Stobæi p. 371. 50. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. v. p. 677. 32. conf. Th. Gataker. A. M. i. 5. p. 174. E. In his quæ reperitur apud plerosque lectio, didáğıαı, vulgatæ videtur μαθήσεαι præferenda: συμμιχθής legatur an συμμι· yes, perparùm interest.

2, 30. Οτι ὑϊκὸν δοκό η πάσχειν ὁ Κριτίας.] Syllabam à vicina litera hic absorptam puto, scribendumque ὅτι οἱ ὑϊκὸν δοκοιη π. id est aur quod in his adest apud Suidam in V. 'Yunóv et in Photii Lex. MS. öтi vεxòv (sic legitur et ap. Thom. M. in "'Yulov sed præstat alterum:) αὐτῷ δοκοίη πάσχειν ὁ Κριτίας Εὐθυδήμῳ προσκνήσασθαι ἐπιOvμv. Verbum Xenophontis adhibuit, in nomine lapsus, Maximus Tyr. xxvi. 8. Κριτόβελος Εὐθυδήμῳ προσκνήσασθαι ἐρᾷ. Protulit ibi Xenophontea D. Heinsius p. 57. cujus notæ locum invenire debuerant in Edit. Londin. Dionis Chrysost. Or. vi. p. 90. B. Diogenes