ple: But Dr. Taylor in his note on this paffage, after having cited Herodotus erroneously, as having written Пgovains inftead of Пpovos, concludes, that the Minerva at Delphi was the Vestibulary Goddess, and not the Goddess of Providence; yet at the fame time he admits, that this fuppofition is irreconcileable with the spirit and contraft of the text in Demofthenes; and confounded with the weight of teftimony he lofes his patience and his candour: "Quid igitur dicemus? An erravit Simius ille Demofthenis, antiquitatis veræ ignarus & vocabulorum fimilitudine deceptus cum hæc fcriberet? Illud quidem afferere non audeo, cum paria ferè habeat Æfchines de coronâ & probè fciam multa in vetuftis Scriptoribus reperiri poffe fimili duponía quafi ad ludibrium pofterorum referta; ftatuant ergo de hâc re, qui me otio & eruditione fuperant 22." Without pretending to any degree of erudition, approaching to that of this eminent Scholar, I will embrace his advice of affording a little more leifure in the investigation of this fubject, which has never yet been explained, though it has exercised the pen of many accomplifhed Criticks. Befides the authorities already cited, Diodorus Siculus in a paffage of the fame hiftory, correfponding with that of Herodotus, mentions Minerva the Goddess of Providence at Delphi according to the original reading of Ilgovoías; but his laft Editor Weffelingius 23 has fubstituted Προνοίας Пpovaías into the text on the fuppofition of Meurfius: This Critick in his Lectiones Atticæ 24 has a chapter on this fubject; and he there erroneously decides, that the Minerva at Delphi was Pronæa, or the Vestibulary Goddess only, and

23 L. 11. Sec. 14. p. 415.

22 Vol. II. p. 417. 24 L. 2. c. 17. Thefaur. Antiquit. Græcor. ed. Gronov. vol. v. p. 1820.

that

that the other Minerva Pronoea, or the Goddess of Providence, was worshipped at Athens: He therefore corrects Diodorus Siculus and Paufanias in order to correspond with this idea; and is not confcious of the decifive evidence which flows from Demofthenes in oppofition to this opinion. I fhall defer the coufideration of the teftimony of Paufanias, till I have mentioned other authorities ftill remaining, which eftablifh the feparate existence of Minerva Goddess of Providence at Delphi. Plutarch 25 fpeaks of fome Suppliants, who were flain in the temple of this Minerva Pronca; and Eustathius 26, in his comment on the third Odyffey, informs us, that according to the hiftory of Demetrius Phalereus Menelaus dedicated the necklace of Helen to Minerva Pronca at Delphi: This Goddess is defined by Phurnutus 27, as the intelligence of Jove, fynonymous with his Providence, and he adds, that temples are erected in honour of her. I come now to Paufanias, who speaking of four temples at the entrance of the city of Delphi mentions that of Minerva Pronoa, Goddess of Providence, as one of them: But according to his account the facred enclofure of the Delphick Temple 29 of Apollo was on the highest part of the City. Here too the original reading of IIgovoías has been altered into that of Igovaías the Veftibulary Goddefs, not only by Meurfius, but also by Spanheim 30 in his comment on Callimachus, and by Stanley in his note on the Eumenides 31 of

C.

28

25 Пgovoías. (Reip. Geren. Præcep. ed. Xylan. vol. 2. p. 825.

26 Cited in Meurfius. De Reg. Lac. c. 5.

27 De Nat. Deor. c. 20. ed. Gale, p. 184.

28 Εἰσελθόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν - ὁ τέταρτος δε Αθηνᾶς καλεῖλαι Προνοίας. (1. 8. 8. p. 816.)

29. Ὁ ἱερὸς περίβολος τῷ ̓Απόλλωνος ἀνωλάτω τῇ ἄςεως ἐςι, (Id. p. 818.)

30 In Lav. Pall. v. 121. tom. 2. p. 701. ed. Ernest.

31 V.

21.

G 3

Æfchylus:

Προνάοι

Zichylus: But this conjecture appears without foundation in my opinion for the following reafons; because the fame word thrice occurs in Paufanias in the fpace of a page, and without any variation of a different reading; and yet he appears to be informed of the diftinction of the two words, as he speaks in another place of two ftatues of Mercury and Minerva Пpovάo 32, Veftibulary Deities done by Scopas near Thebes ; because it already appears, that the Goddess was adored under both the diftinct names of Pronæa, and Pronoa at Delphi; and it feems abfurd, that if the fcite of this temple was at a confiderable diftance from the Delphick temple, it could have been that of the Veftibulary Goddefs, which expreffion fixes the fituation, as immediately before the grand edifice. The reader will now difcover the propriety and neceffity of entering into this elaborate detail, left the paffage of Paufanias, thus corrected by these eminent Criticks, fhould have been produced against my interpretation; whereas the whole evidence, refulting from the above inveftigation, confirms it, and the truth derived may be concifely stated as follows. fchylus, Callimachus, Hefychius, and the Author of the Etymologicum, prove a Minerva Pronæa, or Vestibulary Goddess at Delphi; Herodotus, Demofthenes,

fchines, Diodorus Siculus, Paufanias, prove a Minerva Proncea, or a Goddess of Providence at Delphi: But the feite of the temple, belonging to the latter, is differently defcribed by Demofthenes and Paufanias; fince the former reprefents it at the very entrance of the Delphick Temple of Apollo; but the latter at the entrance of the city

32 L. 9. c. 10. p. 739.

of

냉...

of Delphi. If we admit in this inftance the teftimony of Demofthenes, and the expreffion of didúμ оv here alludes to objects of architecture, then as two different temples could not both be opposite to the grand edifice, instead of the temple of Minerva Pronea, the Veftibulary Goddess, we must admit that of Minerva Pronoea the Goddefs of Providence to be now in the contemplation of the Chorus: But if in preference we accede to the authority of Paufanias, then the temple of the Goddess of Providence could not from it fituation now engage the attention of the Athenian Wome and therefore the temple or ftatue of the Vettibulary Godde will be the immediate object, arrefting their admiratio Hence I flatter myself it will appear, that not only the pre fent paffage in Euripides is unravelled, but all thole cairea Authors, whofe works have in this inftance been corrected by the ableft Criticks, are fortunately rescued from the neceffity of emendation.

Verfe 192. Ὁ Διὸς παῖς.

N° X.

188. The Son of Jove.

THE figures of Hercules and his Charioteer Iclaus, in the attitude of deftroying the Lernæan Hydra, are here represented in ftatuary, or painted on the walls of the Delphick Temple: And afterwards in this Play Hercules is exprefsly

1 V. 1144.

G4

fail

3

faid to have made an avanua or offering at the Delphick ανάθημα fhrine after his conqueft over the Amazons: The labours of this celebrated Hero are alfo defcribed in another part of the Ion, as embroidered in the Delphick Tapestry. In all these circumftances it will appear from the following difcuffion, that Euripides is guilty of an anachronism: To prove this affertion, I muft calculate the precife æra of Chronology, at which the period of the Drama may be fixed by the standard of the best evidence. According to the Arundelian 3 Marbles Erechtheus the fixth King of Athens, Father of Creufa and Grandfather of Ion, followed Pandion in the Kingdom of Attica 1423 years antecedent to the birth of CHRIST; and he was fucceeded by Cecrops the Second, who is there faid to reign 1373 years prior to the fame period; fo that the reign of Erechtheus is made to confift of the very extended term of fifty years. We fhall find in the fequel of the Play

2 V. 1162.

3 Thele valuable monuments of Antiquity were brought from Conftantinople by Thomas Earl of Arundel in the year 1627, first published by Selden in 162, then by Prideaux in 1676, after they had been prefented to the University of Oxford by Henry Howard then Earl of Norwich: This edition of them was more correctly reprinted by Maittaire in 1732: To the comment on the firth Marble is here annexed a Canon Chronicus ad Epochas Marmoreas maximam partem ad mentem Johannis Seldeni, (p. 443.) This is alfo inferted in a New Chronological Synopfis of Squire, annexed to his Effay on the Ancient Greek Chronology, printed at Cambridge in 1741: Hence I have deduced the dates, which are here mentioned. Thefe Arundelian Marbles have been again published in 1763 at Oxford with still greater accuracy in the Marmora Oxonienfia by Chandler; where the Reader, by adding 264 years in order to fupply the term till the Chriftian æra to the refpective number of years, oppofire to the refpective periods there inferted, will be fatisfied of the accuracy of their correfpondence to thefe calcu lations.

It is remarkable, that four fucceflive Kings of Attica are fuppofed to

have reigned collectively 180 years. Erichthonius 50. Pandion I. 40. Erechtheus 50. and Cecrops 11. 40. (See Meurs De Reg. Ath. 1. 3. c. 15.)

And