niam a Philippo, ita Græciam a Nabide liberet. Quid de gloria Flaminini ducis belli Macedonici statuendum sit, docet formula S. C. apud Livium, lib. xxxiii. c. 32. S. P. Q. R. et L. Quintius Imp. Philippo rege, Macedonibusque DEVICTIS, liberos, immunes suis legibus esse jubet Corinthios, &c. Et Florus, lib. ii. c. xii. Successerat Philippo filius Perses, qui SEMEL IN PERPETUUM VICTAM esse Macedoniam non putabat er gentis dignitate. Quæritur jam an Quintius, qui Macedoniam vicit, ullo sensu dici possit Macedoniam a Philippo liberasse, quamvis deinde ipsa Macedonia Philippo non fuerit adempta: et si Nabidem pari modo vinceret, an non hoc ipso Græciam liberasse censendus sit? At vero omnem rem explicasse videtur ipse Justinus, qui, lib. xxx. cap. ult. hæc habet: Sed Macedonas Romana fortuna vicit: fractus itaque delivered Macedon from Philip, so he should deliver Greece from Nabis." The glory of Flamininus, the general in the Macedonian war, is sufficiently attested by the words of the senate's decree, in Livy, lib. xxxiii. c. 32. "The senate and Roman people, and L. Quintius the general, having conquered king Philip and the Macedonians, declare free and independent republics, the Corinthians," &c. Florus, lib. ii. c. 12. says, "Perseus succeeded his father Philip, and did not think it becoming the dignity of Macedon, that it should remain in subjection, in consequence of being defeated in one war." You ask, whether Quintius, who conquered Macedon, can be said, in any sense, to have delivered it from Philip, although it appears that Philip was really not deprived of that kingdom? and whether, if the Roman general conquered Nabis, as he had already conquered Philip, he did not thereby free Greece? These difficulties are solved by Justin, lib. XXX. c. 4. "The fortune of the Romans conquered the Macedo itaque bello Philippus, pace a Flaminino Cos. petita, nomen quidem regium retinuit; sed omnibus Græcia urbibus, velut REGNI (MACEDONICI) MEMBRIS, extra terminos antiquæ possessionis, amissis, SOLAM Macedoniam retinuit. In literis, ergo, Senatus Rom. ad Cos. Flamininum per Macedoniam significatur, non tantum Macedonia stricte sic dicta, et antiquis terminis comprehensa, quæ sola Philippo non fuit adempta; sed in primis ea Græciæ pars (istæ urbes), quæ extra terminos antiquæ possessionis, veluti regni Macedonici membra accesserant, quæque sub Philippo ad Macedonicum regnum pertinebant; quibus, in senatus literis, opponitur Græcia reliqua, a Nabide tentata, quæ hactenus imperio Macedonico nunquam fuerat subjecta. Hinc Senatus Rom. sententia isthæc fuerit: sicuti Macedoniam a Philippo, ita reliquam Græciam a Nabide liberet. Vel, sicuti partem Græciæ, quæ nians; so that Philip, after his defeat, having obtained peace from the consul Flamininus, preserved indeed the name of king, but kept possession only of Macedon, having lost all those cities of Greece, which, like scattered members of the Macedonian kingdom, lay beyond its ancient boundaries." In the letters, therefore, of the Roman senate to the consul Flamininus, Macedon signifies not the country strictly so called, which alone was not taken from Philip, but that part of Greece which lay beyond the original limits of Macedon; to which is opposed the rest of Greece which was then harassed by Nabis, but which had never been subject to Macedon. Hence the meaning of the senate appears to have been, that Quintius, as he had delivered Macedonia, that is, the part of Greece belonging to Macedon, from Philip, so VOL. I. H H he quæ ad Macedoniam pertinebat a Philippo, ita nunc universam pene Græciam a Nabide liberet. Quis dixerit? Non est sententia; verum est: November 17, 1756. Sint criticæ disciplinæ studiosi in sollicitandis veterum auctorum locis cautiores, et in legendis ipsis auctoribus diligentiores, atque ita intelligant, quantæ diligentiæ sit hæc critica ars, et quam temere faciant, qui, ut aliquid concoquere non possunt, aut non satis vel analogiæ respondens vel dialecticis præceptiunculis suis conveniens putant, ita mutare sustinent; quæ temeritas est, cum a multis, tum a Cel. Burmanno imprimis in præfatione aurca Phædro præmissa, reprehensa; cujus ego præfationis uti tanquam normam mihi semper pro he should deliver the rest of Greece from Nabis, who had actually made himself master nearly of the whole of that country. This is not merely a conjecture sage, November 17, 1756. Those who apply themselves to criticism ought to be cautious in conjectural emendation, and diligent in classical study, that they may perceive what vast application this critical art requires, and how rashly those behave, who immediately alter a passage which they do not at first sight understand, or which seems to them inconsistent with their rules of grammar or logic. This rashness is justly reprehended by many, and particularly by the illustrious Burinan, in his valuable prefice to Phædrus; which, as I have always made it the rule by which my own critical labours propositam habui, ad quam quicquid est hujus facultatis dirigerem, ita lectionem omnibus his vehementer commendatam esse cupio, qui in hoc genere elaborare volunt. His, quæ præfiscine dicta velim, præmissis, accedo nunc ad eam disputationem, quæ circa dubia quædam Justini loca docte versatur. 1. Emendatio loci lib. ii. cap. 3. § 18. manifeste corrupti (cujusmodi corruptio in numeris admodum proclivis, et propterea etiam frequens est) quæ sciscit vulnus sanari, mutando MD. vel CIƆƆ. in XV. non potest non omnibus cordatis se probare; quanquam ipsa tam pudendi erroris ratio in obscuro lateat: et ut verum fatear, curiosa mihi, ne quid gravius dicam, semper visa est ea cura ac diligentia, quæ in investigando ac definiendo eo ponitur, quod mille diversis modis accidere ac oriri potuit. Corrupta lectio ita se habet: his igitur Asia per mille quingentos annos vectigalis have been directed, so I would warmly recommend it to all those who pursue the same walk of literature. Having made this preparatory observation, I proceed to the difficulties in Justin, about which so much learning has been employed. 1. The emendation of the manifestly corrupt passage in lib. ii. c. 3. § 18. (a corruption depending on numbers, and therefore as natural as frequent,) which corrects the error by changing fifteen hundred into fifteen, must be approved by all judicious critics. The cause which introduced the faulty reading into the text is uncertain; and the question that has been so industriously agitated concerning it, appears to me more curious than useful, since the error might have originated in a thousand different sources. The corrupt reading runs thus: "Asia was tributary to the Scythians fifteen hundred years." We agree that it should be corrected thus: lis fuit. Convenit inter nos de sincera lectione ita restituenda: his igitur Asia per quindecim annos vectigalis fuit. Tu vero, pro tuo acumine, in ipsa corrupta lectione videris tibi cernere haud obscura quædam pristinæ lectionis vestigia; atque illud per mille ex permissa natum esse tibi persuades; ut vera hujus loci lectio hujusmodi sit: his igitur Asia permissa quindecim annos vectigalis fuit. Contra hoc lectionis supplementum, cujus ego necessitatem nullam video, monui, codices antiquos, qui numeros literarum notis descriptos præferunt, huic tuæ conjecturæ nullo modo favere. Et quamvis non negaverim dari codices antiquos qui numeros integris vocibus expositos efferant; mihi tamem persuasum est, plurimos dari antiquos libros, in primis historicos, in quibus frequentiores calculi occurrunt, qui numeros literarum notis descriptos repræsentent: huic vero persuasioni fidem faciunt et exempla et testimonia luculentissima: unicum e multis afferam Galeni de Antidot. I.— ΤΕ "Asia was tributary to the Scythians fifteen years." But in the corrupt text you think that obscure traces of the genuine reading may be discerned, and imagine that per mille had crept into the text, instead of permissa; explaining the passage as if " Asia had been permitted to be tributary to the Scythians for fifteen years." I observed that this emendation, for which I see not any necessity, is rendered highly improbable, because in ancient manuscripts the names of numbers are expressed, not by words, but by letters used as numeral marks; and though they are sometimes expressed by words, yet this is not frequent, especially in works of history. This assertion is confirmed by innumerable testimonies; I shall be contented with referring to that of Galen de Antidot. I.—It is a subject |