perused the article in No xxv. of the Class. Journ.) that the explana tion and reading of the Inscr. are only an incidental object of the paper, which was published in your Journal for the purpose of relating the circumstances and facts of the discovery, they having been much misrepresented. M. Jaubert and M. de Villoison knew very well that no person in the French expedition had deciphered one word of the in scription, and that M. Jaubert's copy brought by him to Paris 1803, was nothing more than our copy, which had been supplied to him at Alexandria, where, as well as in Italy, it had been general circulated and M. Jaubert may perhaps have verified it by comparing it with the original upon the column. Neither M. Jaubert not M. de Villoison however had the candour to state these circumstances, (of which it is impossible they should have been ignorant) in their publication of the inscription at Paris, where it would perhaps have been a crime in those days to lose any convenient opportunity of detracting from Englishmen, and of adding, quocunque modo, leaf of laurel to the great nation. These unworthy feelings, however, are now at an end, and I am sorry therefore to find your annotator (inadvertently perhaps,) giving countenance to the unfair proceeding of M. Jaubert and M. de Villoison. He is incorrect also in saying that M. de Chateaubriand transcribed M. de Villoison's explanation into his book, for M. de Chateaubriand's remarks upon the inscription are confined to a very few suggestions, and instead of the word o Tarov, which M. de Villoison has well supplied in the first line, M. de Chateaubriand proposed copúrarov. The following words of M. de Chateaubriand may be here inserted, as furnishing evidence upon the present enquiry.

cr

...." l'inscription de la Colonne de Pompée. Je crois être le premier voyageur qui l'ait rapportée en France. Le monde savant le doit a quelques officiers Anglois; ils parvinrent à la relever en y appliquant du plâtre. Pococke en avoit copié quelques lettres; plusieurs autres voyageurs l'avoient apperçue; j'ai moi même déchiffré distinctement à l'œil plusieurs traits, entr'autres le commencement de ce mot ALOK-qui est décisif. Les gravures du plâtre ont fourni ces quatre lignes." Then follow the four lines as originally copied by me in the spring of 1802. They are of course the same characters which M. Jaubert brought to France, and which were furnished to M. de

For a proof of this, see Mémoires sur l'Egypte, (Vol. 1. p. 64.) where M. Norry regrets that the inscription is no longer legible.

Chateaubriand at Alexandria, exactly in the same manner as M. Jaubert procured his copy.

M. de Chateaubriand was misinformed as to a copy of the inscription having been taken in plaster. No plaster was ever used, but an impression of a part of it was taken in sulphur, which totally failed of the desired effect, and contributed not in the least to the deciphering, which was never assisted by any thing but the rays of the Sun at a particular angle, by frequently viewing the letters at various distances, and by keeping the surface continually wetted with water.

As I am speaking of the misrepresentations, that have been made upon the deciphering of this inscription, I shall take the opportunity of saying, that by no person have the circumstances been less fairly stated than by Dr. E. D. Clarke in the 3d volume of his travels. He takes great pains to assert "that to Lieutenant Colonel Squire the literary world is exclusively indebted for the discovery of the inscription on the pedestal of Pompey's Pillar," as Dr. Clarke wishes it still to be called; that "in September 1801, the inscription was not known to exist, and was considered not merely as illegible, but as altogether lost," and that "all the information, afforded by the inscription itself, would have been consigned to everlasting oblivion, but for the important discovery made by Lieutenant Colonel Squire, of some remaining characters upon the pedestal." Without stopping to consider how an inscription mentioned by Pococke and so many succeeding travellers down to the year 1799, could be considered as totally lost, and not known to exist in 1801, I shall merely state, that I myself, in Sept. 1801, in company with Colonel Squire, as well as other persons, did, in consequence of the information contained in Pococke's book, visit the column, recognize the existence of the inscription, and the identity of two or three of the letters mentioned by that traveller; though without having then the opportunity of observing the important assistance to be derived from a particular light, or the leisure and other conveniences necessary for prosecuting the enquiry.

Dr. Clarke represents Colonel Squire as having made a claim to the discovery in a private letter contradictory of his public narrative of the transaction as printed in the Archæologia, vol. 15. p. 59. But there is no such claim in the letter of Colonel Squire. He speaks only of having discovered most of the letters before the arrival of Mr.

'This is the date of M. Norry's memoir, first published in the Décade. Egyptienne at Cairo.

Hamilton and myself at Alexandria from Upper Egypt, and there is: wide difference between distinguishing, or rather imagining the one distinguishes, separate letters and deciphering the words and general context. Nothing can exemplify this better than the copy of the inscription as attempted by Pococke, who, in endeavouring to copy that of which he had not discovered any one word, or formed any conjecture as to the general structure and meaning, was mistaken i half the letters which he supposed himself to have copied. All that Colonel Squire could boast of having done in December 1801, was to discover (to use his own words in the letter quoted by Dr. Clarke, "that the inscription was in four lines, and in Greek, and that the two first letters of the last line were wo." And this I can assert was exactly or very nearly the sum total of his discoveries when I arrived at Alexandria in March 1802, and when happening to visit the colum exactly at the right time of the day, I deciphered at the first visit the words ΕΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΑΙΓΥΠΤΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ and ΤΟΝ in two places, which shewed the construction of the sentence.2 The re mainder of the deciphered words or fragments of words were obtain ed by the joint exertions of Messrs. Hamilton, Squire, and myself, to whom I am uncertain whether I ought to add the Honourable Col Dundas, who frequently accompanied us. ANIKHTON has since been supplied by Mr. Salt, not "proposé par M. Salt," as your annotater says, but supplied by an actual inspection of the monument.

You will perhaps think this subject is hardly worth so many words as I have bestowed upon it. It is the same feeling that has made me so long neglect replying to Dr. Clarke's observations, which I cannot but consider as founded in error, and unjust towards me.

W. M. LEAKE.

There are two omissions in my former communications which I shall take this opportunity of supplying. To the article relating to the inscriptions at Skripu, published in your Journal No XXVI, omitted to annex my name, the necessity of which precaution upon these occasions is evident from the foregoing observations upon the inscription of the column of Diocletian. In the article of No, xXVIII, containing the text and translation of the Inscription at Cyretic,

There are however five lines.

2. See the account of it in the Archæologia, vol. 15. p. 59. In the same volume, p. 389, the reader may see another account of the Inscription, which has tended to support the misrepresentations that have been made regarding the discovery of it.

I omitted to caution the reader, that there was a difference in one phrase between the French translation in No. xxv, and the English translation in No. XXVIII. In the latter, in consequence of a suggestion of M. Visconti, the words, oi oủk åñò roũ ßeλríorov eiw✪óres åvaoTрépeσ0αι, are rendered "those who are accustomed to be guided by principles not the best," instead of the different meaning of "ceux qui sont accoutumés à ne pas interpréter les actions favorablement."

SOME EXTRACTS

from Arcadius Grammaticus Ms.

At the end of the last Number of your Journal, I announced my intention of publishing the book of Arcadius, Пlegi Tóvwv. I have recently received from my amiable and learned friend Professor BOISSONADE, a transcript of the Ms. 2102. " de la Bibliothèque Royale de Paris par Grégoire Georgiades Zalyk de Thessalonique," collated with the Ms. No. 2603. which bears the title Αρκαδίου Γραμματική, and no time will be lost in printing the work at the Leipsic press, under the superintendence of the illustrious Hermann. The transcriber is the same person, who collated the Mss. of Hesiod, for the readings of which the literary public is deeply indebted to Professor GAISFORD. Perhaps the following extracts from the work of Arcadius, with the comments upon them, will not be unacceptable to some of your readers.

Ετι τὰ διὰ τοῦ ωρης, Διώρης, Λυκώρης, ὅπες Καλλίμαχος ὀξύνει. Auxwpns is the name of a king mentioned in Etym. M. p. 571. 40. : Λυκωρεία (Λυκώρεια) πόλις Δελφίδος, ἐν ᾗ τιμᾶται ὁ ̓Απόλλων, ἀπὸ Λυκώρου κτίσαντος αὐτὴν, υἱοῦ Κωρυκείας, οἰκούντων (οἰκοῦντος Sylb.) iv τ Пaрvar. By Steph. Byz. he is called Auxwgeús: Auκώρεια· κώμη ἐν Δελφοῖς, Καλλίμαχος τρίτῳ, ἀπὸ Λυκωρέως τοῦ βασι News. Callimachus, in the passage here referred to by Steph. Byz. had mentioned the city Auxapela, and it should seem from the words of Arcadius that he had also spoken of its founder Auxwpns. Luciani Timon iii. p. 106. : Μόγις ἕν τι κιβώτιον περισωθῆναι προσοXeiλay To Auxwgei, i. e. Parnasso. Car. Conr. Reitzius, in his Lexicon Lucianeum, makes the nominative Auxwpns, for which he

ought to have said, with Madame Dacier ad Callim. H. in Apoll 19., Λυκωρεύς.

Arcadius has preserved the Alexandrian term ταὸς i. q. μήν, which I do not remember to have seen elsewhere, and with which the excellent work of Sturzius de Lingua Alexandrina and the Lexicons of t. Stephens and Schneider may be enriched :

-

Τὰ εἰς ος καθαρὰ δισύλλαβα τῷ ο μακρὸν παραληγόμενα ὀλίγα εἰσὶ καὶ ὀξύνεται μὲν ὅσα οὐ κύρια μὴ δὲ ἐπιθετικὰ, παὸς καὶ πηὸς, ναὸς καὶ νηὸς, λαὸς καὶ ληός· τὸ Δάος ὡς κύριον βαρύνεται, καὶ τὸ πρᾶος δὲ ἐπίσ θετον· τὸ μέντοι ταὸς παρ' ̓Αλεξανδρεῦσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ μῶν σεσημείωται το δὲ λάος παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἀπὸ γενικῆς εἰς εὐθεῖαν μετεποιήθη. In Cod. Par. 2603. we have ταως and μᾶς instead of ταὸς and μῶν. But that Taos is the right reading, is apparent from the sense of the passage.

Arcadius furnishes us with an instance of κόνειον for κώνειον, about which I have spoken copiously in the Epist. ad Schæferum,' Class. Journ. xxviii. p. 294300.:—Τὰ διὰ τοῦ ειον τρισύλλαβα προπαροξύνονται, εἰ ἡ πρὸ τέλους συλλαβὴ εἰς φωνῆεν λήγοι, ὄνειον, και νειον, γένειον, δάνειον.

*

I

The following words, which are not to be found in the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, are preserved by Arcadius. I have prefixed 1 star to such as do not occur in the Lexicon of Schneider :* Μεμψίδιος—* Λυσίδρως* Χρυσέρως* Δείλανδρος—* Ομόγραυς Υπεράοιδος—Υλοκουρὸς, ὁ τὴν ὕλην τέμνων—"Ελουρος— * Σόφιλο λος, nom. propr. * Ομόσυνος* Νομίουρος, ὁ τὴν νομὴν φυλάττων * Θέρμασσα, ἡ κάμινος— * Κραταπαλλὸς, εἶδος νομίσματος— * Μάρδος, αὐλοῦ εἶδος -* Δαμὴν—* Τελλήν Πιπελὴν — Ωλλήν * Κελήν * Κίνυψ * Σκώληψ— * Πλινθοβαψ—Πελεθοβαψ* Ψόραψ * Τυρό κλεψ—* Σκευότριψ -Ιπποβοσκός—* Ιπποβοσκῶ— * Χαμαισκώληξ Αντίσπληξ * Πόλτυνος— Εὕρω, ἀφ ̓ οὗ καὶ εὑρίσκω * Λιβανί

*

This word occurs in Lycophro v. 1111. where Muller says:-" Vit. 2. et 3. ὑλακουργός, fors. ὑληουργὸς 1. ὑλαουργός, quod i. q. υλοτόμος, ξυλοτόμος.” Υλοκουργὸς Vat. 972. ὑλακουργός Vat. 916. I entertain no doubt that ὑλοκουρὸς is the true reading, which is confirmed by Arcadius, who in all probability had the verse of Lycophro in his eye. Muller in the Index Vocabulorum has erroneously written ὑλόκουρος for ὑλοκουρός. Arcadius: Τὰ εἰς ρος ὑπὲρ δύο συλλαβὰς παραληγόμενα οὐ προσ παροξύνεται, Επίκουρος, ἐπάρουρος ὁ κηπουρός, ἔλουρος ἐθνικὸν, μελανουρος, παλίνουρος, παν λίουρος τὸ φυτόν· σεσημείωται νομίουρος ὁ τὴν νομὴν φυλάττων, καὶ ὑλοκουρὸς ὁ τὴν ὕλην σέμνων.

2 Leg. Ωλὴν, ένος, ό, whence comes Ωλένη. This word, omitted by H. Steph. is mentioned by Suidas. See Schneider's Lex. v. Ωλένη.

3 In Hesychius, whom Schneider follows, it is accented diferently, Πελι Θόβαν.