Mr. S. gives too many letters at the close of the fourth line. For these reasons we prefer the reading of Bab. : ὑπὸ τούτων κ[ατα]γορευθεὶς ἐν τῷ [δικα]στηρίῳ ἢ ἀπο[θανεῖ]ται ἢ ἐκ τῆς πατ[ρίδος] EKTEσEÏTαι aνT...)]—22 (xi 1), 2. Messrs. B. and Bab. have both recognised rúxns, and this is adopted by S. in his second recension. Is there in these words an allusion to the times of the Battle of Charoneia? In the conclusion of the Fragment Mr. S. has written: οὐ πάντα δι[καίως ἂν α]ὐτῷ ἡμεῖς [ὑπη]ρετοῦμεν καὶ [δὴ καὶ ἀ]πο[θ]νή[σ]κοιμ[ε]ν [ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ (scil. τοῦ δήμου.) [(So too Bab., with this exception that, following more closely the traces of the MS., which, at the commencement of the eleventh line, seems to furnish ειδ...., he has edited: καὶ, εἰ δ[έοι, ἀ]ποθνή[σ]κοιμεν instead of καὶ [δὴ καὶ ἀ]ποθνήσκοιμεν.)] Τo the reception, also, of δ[ικαίως ἄν,] appropriate as it seems, some hesitation arises from the fact that a space of precisely the same extent with this hiatus in the following line is occupied by the letters van only, and Bab., therefore, writes: δικαίως αὐτῷ ἡμεῖς ἂν ὑπηρετοῦμεν,— collocation of the words which is certainly admissible. Mr. B. has preferred díkať åv. -24 (xi). This Fragment is so exceedingly mutilated that little more can be made out than στῆσαι εἰκό[να ̓Αλεξάν]δρου βασιλέως ... The next line begins with KHTHEOE, over which stands a correction represented by Mr. B. as 77 Tov, and by Mr. S. as T TOU, whilst Bab., who gives in plate 1 a Facsimile of the passage, supposes, but assuredly without reason, that it is a scholium, and cannot well have been any other word than потоν. At all events Tou seems certain, and the first letter may also have been 7. We, however, know just as little as the editors, how to deal with this lacuna. [(In the first line of this column . . . OT.... and in the second εβουλε. ... can be distinctly recognised, and are in fact exhibited by Bab. . Perhaps we may read: . . . ὅτ[ε Δημοσθένης] ἐβούλε[το ̓Αθήνησι] στῆσαι εἰκό[νας ̓Αλεξάν]δρου βασιλέως καὶ Ni]n[s] Tis de[ou... After the OE we imagine that the Facsimile exhibits distinct traces of an O, and it may probably be assumed that the correction ( Tov) above the line refers to the combination of the masculine form Oco[], with the feminine of the article. On the acquiescence of Demosthenes in the proposition submitted by Alexander respecting his own apotheosis cf. Deinarch. against Demosthenes, c. 94 : λέγων ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸν δῆμον ἀμφισβητεῖν τῶν ἐν τῷ ovpav@ τov 'Aλežávdow, with Mätzner's note, and on the statue of Alexander at Athens, Pausan. Attic., c. 9.)]-28 (vi), 2. Mr. S. edits: καὶ τὸ μὲν κατηγορεῖν ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ καὶ ἐξελέγχειν τοὺς εἰληφότας τὰ χρήματα καὶ δεδωροδοκηκότας κατὰ τῆς πατρίδος ἡ[μῖν] προ[ςήκει], ξέν[ους τε καὶ φίλους] κατη[γοροῦσι]· τὸ δ[ὲ...

ε]ἰληφότας . . . ή βουλή. These restorations cannot possibly be correct; for no guest-friends of Hyperides, or of the other accusers, were implicated in the matter, since the charge concerned Athenians. alone, and throughout this Oration there is no recognition of Demosthenes as a friend of the speaker. In our judgment Mr. B. seems. to have hit the truth, and with a few trifling alterations we would read: ἡ[μῖν] προ[ςέταξεν [ἡ βουλὴ τοῖς] κατη[γόροις]· τὸ δ[ὲ κρίνειν τοὺς ειληφότας τὰ χρήματα κ. τ. έ. Moreover, no other council can here be alluded to than that of the Areopagos, which is expressly named in the words immediately following. The lacuna between vi and xiia (29,) Mr. S. would from the sense restore as follows: διόπερ δεῖ πάντας [ν]μ[ᾶς ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ κολάσαι τοὺς μεταφέρειν ἐθέλοντας ἐκ τῆς πό]λεως. We think this suggestion inadmissible, more especially on account of the words εἰς τοὺς τάφους τοὺς τῶν роуóνш, which, were it adopted, would stand in no intelligible relation with the preceding or subsequent context. Mr. B. has properly referred to Deinarch. against Demosth., § 109, ff., where our whole passage seems to be imitated, and has conjectured as the exordium : διόπερ δεῖ πάντας ὑμᾶς — ἀποβλέψαντας κ. τ. έ. ;—the first infinitive which depends on δεῖ being τιμωρήσασθαι τοὺς ἀδι ROVνraç. In ll. 14, 15 (xii, 1) dλλm is not completely preserved. Mr. B. thinks that dλ[2à] kai may be distinguished.-30 (xii). At the close of this Fragment we believe that the sense requires: οὕτω καὶ Δημοσθένης τι πρὸς [ὑμᾶς] κλαιήσει, [ἐξὸν αὐτῷ] μὴ λαμ βάνειν.

So far the Fragments before us may be confidently assigned to the Oration against Demosthenes. There still remain three passages which decidedly do not belong to it, and seven others (xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii) with which nothing can be done, since they contain only single words or a few letters and flourishes; e. g., Fr. xx . . . . . N... IIA. . . . O . . . II . ., Fr. xxix, [7]EПOMPE. The three passages first alluded to (ix, xiii, xvii) are printed separately by all the editors. It is clear, as Böckh has most correctly explained, that ix and xiii form part of the exordium of a Defence against a public prosecution. The same scholar (as also Mr. S.) at first considered Fr. xvii as a portion of an Oration respecting an inheritance, but as a more attentive investigation convinced him that this is by no means a necessary supposition, he subsequently attempted to prove it, as suspected by Mr. Bab., part of the same Apology as ix and xiii. Sauppe has advanced conclusive reasons against this hypothesis in the Orat. Att. ii, 352b, 22, Note. The editors, however, unanimously pronounce them Fragments from the Speeches of Hyperides.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. V.-5

To the illustration of these Fragments the commentary of Messrs. B. and S. has made important contributions. Mr. Babington confines himself principally to the quotation of parallel passages from the grammarians and other ancient writers, which he has taken diligent pains to collect, but with which he often intermingles much unnecessary matter, as e. g. in the note on 5, 5 (iv), where he elucidates Dewoikóv by citing the well-known passage from Harpokration; and again in that on 20, 24 (xiv ), where the same author's enumeration of the three Gymnasia is in like manner brought forward in explanation of 'Akadηuías. We have noticed also several errors in interpretation, as e. g. in understanding Tò Tоúrov 20, 4 (viii) to refer to the Areopagites, where the Sycophants, with whom Hyperides includes Demosthenes, are evidently meant. Sauppe has conferred a special service by his luminous treatment (in the Philologus, p. 647) of the question as to the importance of the disclosures made by these Fragments in reference to the personal characteristics of Hyperides, and the nature of the legal proceedings instituted respecting the Harpalian treasure, as also by his brief but comprehensive delineation of the course and circumstances of this singular prosecution. The result at which he arrives is that Demosthenes, through the combined action of the Macedonian faction and of those among their opponents who were for war with Alexander at any price, was implicated without any fault on his part in the trial referred to, and by its instrumentality overthrown. The party with whom he had acted, and to which Hyperides also belonged, could not forgive him for having restrained the Athenians from plunging for the sake of Harpalos into a contest that must necessarily have terminated in the total ruin of their city.

Upon one question Sauppe has only touched, and excused himself for the present from its more precise investigation, -we mean the relation of the Oration of Deinarchos to that of Hyperides. We hope that at a later period he will pursue further the intimations he has given. Important doubts have been already expressed against the Oration of Deinarchos abstractedly considered (cf. Westermann, Quæst. Demosth. 3, 118, ff.), and to these it may be added that it now appears to be a mere copy of the Oration before us. So at last respect will be paid to the judgment of the often unduly despised Demetrios of Magnesia (whom Bentley, Opusc., p. 372, calls summum criticum atque historicum) in the sentences preserved by Dionysius in his dissertation upon Deinarchos, e. 1 : καὶ νομίσειεν ἄν τις ευήθεις εἶναι τοὺς ὑπολαβόντας τὸν λόγον τὸν κατὰ Δημοσθένους εἶναι τούτου· πολὺ γὰρ ἀπέχει τοῦ χαρακτῆρος· ἀλλ' ὅμως τοσοῦτον σκότος ἐπιπεπόλακεν, ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους αὐτοῦ λόγους, σχεδὸν ὑπὲρ ἑξ.

ήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ὄντας, ἀγνοεῖν συμβέβηκε, τὸν δὲ μὴ γραφέντα ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ μόνον ἐκείνου νομίζεσθαι. Before our Fragments were discovered, we entertained the opinion that the three Orations upon the trial of Harpalos, which are imputed to Deinarchos, were not actually delivered before the court, but were to be regarded as model speeches or scholastic performances, although we saw no reason for denying them to be the production of Deinarchos, especially since Dionysius (c. 10) enumerates them amongst his genuine compositions. Now, however, we no longer doubt that they are of later manufacture, and accelerated by their divulgation the loss of the genuine speeches of Deinarchos.

ART. V.-HENGSTENBERG ON THE PENTATEUCH.

Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. By E. W. HENGSTENBERG, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. Translated from the German, by J. E. RYLAND. Edinburgh, 1847.

IN the introduction to these volumes, Dr. Hengstenberg enters into a discussion of the causes of the denial of the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and gives us the views of some of the most eminent theologians and historians on the subject. He shows that it is not for the want of historical and traditional evidence that its genuineness is denied-nor for the absence of that kind of proof which leads the critic to acknowledge the genuineness of Herodotus, Thucydides, or Josephus-but that the consequence of its acknowledgment is the real cause of it. For if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, its last four books, at least, must contain matters of fact, real miracles and prophecies, which the Rationalists as much abhor as nature does a vacuum. Setting out with what is a mere petitio principii,— the impossibility, at least the violent improbability, of miracles and prophecies-they deny the genuineness of every writing which would establish them. The Rationalists act in direct opposition to the rule laid down by Bacon, the father of experimental philosophy, that we are first to collect facts, and then form our theory.

Another cause of the denial of its genuineness, is a misapprehension of its spirit and doctrines. Wherever principles are inculcated

We have a remarkable instance of this in Strauss, who, in the third edition of his Life of Jesus, seemed disposed to abandon his objections to the genuineness of the Gospel of John, but in the fourth edition resumed them again, principally, as he confesses, because "without them one could not escape from believing the miracles of Christ."

which are regarded as inconsistent with the divine character, the suspicion is started that they did not proceed from Moses. But where dogmatic prejudices do not exist, the genuineness of the Pentateuch is acknowledged; and it is pleasing to see the ablest historians, even in Germany, take the side of orthodoxy on this subject. Heeren,* John Von Müller, Wachler, Leo, Ranke, and Ideler, acknowledge it. So, it would seem, does Von Rotteck. Schlosser admits that the principal portions of the Pentateuch proceeded from Moses, and Luden thinks that the greater part of the Jewish history is evidently true. The arguments in proof of its genuineness are so cogent, that some of the Rationalists themselves admit the Mosaic authorship of its principal portions. Eichhorn, in the first edition of his Introduction to the Old Testament, asserted the genuineness of the whole, a few interpolations excepted; but in the last edition he modified his views, and considered that some parts of the Pentateuch were written by Moses himself, and the rest by some of his contemporaries. Gesenius, who belonged to the same party, was, it appears, during the most of his life, an advocate of the late origin of the Pentateuch; yet he subsequently modified his views, and in the eleventh edition of his Hebrew Grammar,† he remarks, doubtfully, that "it is still a subject of critical controversy whether the Pentateuch proceeded either wholly, or in part, from Moses."

Dr. Hengstenberg expresses very strongly his indignation at the manner in which the Pentateuch has been attacked. In reference to De Wette, he says: "A criticism so ridiculously absurd as his, if it had been directed against the genuineness of a profane writer, or against a portion of profane history, would now be considered as being quite out of date, or would only have sufficed to confer on its author the unenviable celebrity of a Hardouin." And he says further, in reference to the principal oppugners of its genuineness: They are systematically ignorant of the ablest vindications of the genuineness of the Pentateuch. They do not read them, much less refute them." These strictures are perfectly just.

The most natural way to establish the genuineness of the Pentateuch, is to show that it has existed ever since the time of Moses, and has always borne his name. That it has existed ever since the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, is admitted by all parties; but some of the Deists and Rationalists contend that it

Heeren has not expressed himself as fully as some of the others; he nevertheless regards the history in the Pentateuch as true.

Professor Conant's translation, p. 8.

A Jesuit in the seventeenth century, who denied the genuineness of the histories of Tacitus, Livy, &c.