Semicardinales, and several other smaller divisions, which are

&c.

There are also other names given to the winds, such as Apheliotes, Argestes, Olympias, Sciron, Hellespontius, Iapyx, It would be too lengthened a subject to treat of the physical causes by which the various winds are produced, as also of the superstitions which existed among the ancients concerning them; but these must form another paper. I will, however, subjoin the most modern division of the winds, together with the account given of them by Vitruvius.

Note. The ancient names after Ricciolus are here adapted to the modern ones, not that they will be found to correspond in every respect with each other; for the ancient and modern divisions being different, the points will also differ: these are, however, those which agree the nearest. Thus Vitruvius, reckoning but twenty-four winds, disposes the points in different order, as follows:

Into the Credit due to DIONYSIUS of HALICARNASSUS as a Critic and Historian;--By the Author of Remarks on the supposed Dionysius Longinus.'

[Continued from No. LXXII.]

̓Αρκαδίην μ' αἰτεῖς ; μέγα μ' αἰτεῖς· οὔ τοι δώσω.
Πολλοὶ ἐν ̓Αρκαδίῃ βαλανηφάγοι ἄνδρες ἔασι,

Οἱ σ ̓ ἀποκωλύσουσιν.—Herod. lib. i. c. 66.

THAT the Arcadians fitted out a fleet seventeen generations before the Trojan war; that some established themselves on the eastern, and some on the western coasts of Italy; and that the Aborigines of Latium were the descendants of these Arcadians, are fictions which should have found no place in history. But Mirum est, says the elder Pliny, quo procedat Græca credulitas! Nullum est tam impudens mendacium, ut teste careat. It is of these materials that Dionysius has formed a long and inconsistent story, in the discredit of which he has endeavored to involve the Roman historians; and to which he has so far given the appearance of truth, as to impose on Larcher, the very diligent, and in many respects the very able translator of Herodotus.

On this account the minuteness of my remarks will perhaps be excused, and the subject itself may be thought not unworthy of examination.

"Ezeüs and Phoroneus," says Dionysius, "were the first who possessed power in Peloponnesus. A short but perplexing statement: for we cannot imagine that these two were joint rulers over the whole of Peloponnesus; and he has neither informed us in what part of it they ruled, nor what name it then bore, nor how they acquired their power. No notice is taken of Inachus; but the omission may be justified, as the name belongs more properly to a river, or a river-god, than to the supposed king of Argos; and that the Greeks imagined Phoroneus to be the first man, may be asserted on the authority not merely of the Phoronis, but apparently on that of Plato: for if the account which Critias the grandfather gave of Solon's interview with the priests of Saïs may not altogether warrant Mitford's assertion, "we have indeed Plato's testimony, that earlier than the age of Phoroneus nothing was known of Greece;❞— yet the words . . . τὰ ἀρχαιότατα λέγειν ἐπιχειρεῖν περὶ Φωρωνέως τε τοῦ πρώτου λεχθέντος may be considered as agreeing with the opinions of the author of the dialogue.

But who was Ezeüs?" De Æzeis," says Sylburgius, "nihil uspiam reperi, quare suspicari liceat pro Aileios et Ailio scribendum esse 'Av et 'Alves, vel Dorico more 'Alav et’Aļāves : nam Pausanias et Stephanus Byz. tradunt Azanem fuisse Arcadis ex Eratone Nympha filium, et regionem illi a patre assignatam nominatam fuisse Azaniam, subditosque Azanes."

Although Dionysius has not mentioned in what part of Peloponnesus this Æzeüs reigned, yet by asserting that the Enotri were an Arcadian colony, and that they were successively called Ezei, Lycaones, and Enotri, he authorises our making Æzeüs king of Arcadia; and Strabo's opinion is in favor of the very great antiquity of the Azanes: but we must nevertheless reject the suggestion of Sylburgius, for we cannot make the son of Arcas cotemporary with Phoroneus. According to Mitford, "the more probable tradition, concerning the origin of Sicyon, supposed its founder Ægialeus cotemporary and even brother of Phoroneus ;" and the Arcadian town Phegeia is said by Pausanias to have been so called from its founder Phegeus, the brother of Phoroneus.

Apis is also said to have been another brother of Phoroneus; and Homer, Æschylus, Sophocles, and Strabo, as well as Pausanias, Eustathius, Stephanus Byzantinus, and the Scholiast on Thucydides, &c. may be cited to prove that Apia was the more

ancient name of Peloponnesus. We may add, too, that the Arcadians were called Apidones from Apidon, a son of Phoroneus, according to Stephanus; and the change of Æzeüs into Apis, or Apidon, will by no means overstep the modesty of verbal criticism. But it should be stated likewise, that the river Apidon has an equal, or, if we are to be guided by priority of mention, a greater claim to the honor of giving a name to the Arcadians: that, according to an author whom Stephanus and Athenæus have thought it worth while to quote, pear-trees, and not a man, gave rise to the name of Apia: that the result of Heyne's research is, "Scilicet Apia tantum poëtarum nomen factum, nunquam geographicum nomen fuit; uti plura sunt terrarum nomina, quæ tantum in poëtis occurrunt, vere in hominum usu nunquam fuerunt. Itaque non sunt probandi, qui cum Scholiast. Thucyd. I. 9. antiquius nomen Apiam fuisse aiunt, mutatum post Pelopem in Peloponnesum :" finally, that, according to the Sicyonian account given by Pausanias, Apis was not the son of Phoroneus, but of Telchis, and the greatgrandson of Ægialeus: that, according to Eschylus, the name Apia was derived from a physician, the son of Apollo, who came from Naupactum; and that not Arcadia, but Argos, was originally called Apia: and, finally, that Homer, and Strabo in his notice of the 'Anin yaia of Homer, gives us no warrant for asserting the existence of this Apis, whether he be called the son of Telchis, or of Phoroneus, or of Apollo.

The unauthorised and unsupported assertion of Dionysius is therefore our only resource. We must take his bare word for the existence of a chief cotemporary with Phoroneus, and not less powerful than he: for this Ezeüs is mentioned before Phoroneus, and his subjects were called Ezei from him; and we do not learn from history that Phoroneus gave name to any nation. As chronologists have thought fit to furnish us with two Cretan kings of the name of Minos,-"two extraordinary personages, kings of Elis, of the name of Iphitus-two extraordinary personages of the name of Lycurgus, legislators of Sparta, and so of many others,"-we need not wonder greatly at the two Lycaons of our historian. To the second he gives twelve sons; the first appears to have had

But one fair daughter, and no more,

The which he loved passing well.

But whether the natives took their name of Lycaones from the first or second Lycaon, is a point which our historian has left us to settle for ourselves. As, however, no writer prior to Dionysius appears to have mentioned more than one Lycaon