word, the statue is that of Chabrias, as is proved by the following passage in the life of that hero, by Cornelius Nepos: -" He is also accounted one of the most consummate generals, and he performed many memorable exploits. But what he is most celebrated for is the stratagem fallen upon by him in the battle which took place at Thebes, when he came to the assistance of the Boeotians. On that occasion, the great Agesilaus seeing him deserted by the mercenary troops, felt confident of victory, when Chabrias commanded the remaining phalanx to stand, and pressing his knee firmly against his shield, and advancing his spear, he taught them how to receive the charge of the enemy. Agesilaus perceiving this new movement, had not the courage to advance, and those of his troops who had already rushed forward, were recalled by the trumpet. This event was celebrated throughout Greece to such a degree, that the statue which the Athenians placed in honor of Chabrias in the public forum, was, at his own

* Cap. i.

request, represented in that very attitude. This circumstance gave rise to the custom, ever since adopted by the Athletæ, and other such professional persons, of choosing for their statues those positions in which they had appeared at the moment of victory."

The reader may perhaps hesitate to concur at once in my idea, but I think I can very soon convince him of its correctness. The position of Chabrias does not appear to be identically the same with that in which we behold the Borghese statue. The projected spear is common to both, but the phrase, obnixo genu scuto, is explained by the commentators by obnixo in scutum, obfirmato genu ad scutum; that is, that Chabrias showed his soldiers how they should plant their knees firmly against their shields, and thus, under cover of the latter, await the enemy. The statue, on the contrary, holds the shield elevated above the head. But, what if the commentators are mistaken? What if the words, obnixo genu scuto, should not be taken together, but obnixo genu be read alone, and scuto either alone also, or in connexion with

the immediately succeeding words, prqjectaque hastâ? Make but a single comma, and the similitude is as complete as possible. The statue is that of a soldier who, obnixo genu, scuto projectaque hasta impetum hostis excipit; it represents what Chabrias did, and is in fact the statue of Chabrias. That the comma is really wanting, is shown by the conjunction que added to projecta. This particle would be superfluous had obnixo genu scuto been intended to be read together, and it is, in fact, therefore omitted in some editions. *

With the high antiquity which would thus belong to this statue, the form of the characters in the inscription engraved on it by the sculptor completely coincides. Winkelmann himself has inferred from this inscription that it is the most

I have translated the passage of Nepos, in the preceding pages, according to the common reading. Were the alteration made which Lessing here very ingeniously suggests, the effect would be to convert the words "pressing his knee firmly against his shield," &c., into "pressing his knee firmly forward, be taught them how to receive the charge of the enemy on the shield and projected lance."-Note of the Translator.

ancient of the statues now in Rome, to which the sculptor has affixed his name. I would leave it to his acute observation to determine whether he can observe anything in the style of art which could militate against my opinion. Should he honor it with his approval, I may flatter myself that I have pointed out a better example of the felicity with which the classic writers and the ancient works of art reciprocally throw light upon each other, than is to be found in the whole of the ponderous folio of Spence.

TWENTY-NINTH SECTION.

Remarks on some slight Mistakes committed by Winkelmann in his History of Art.

The extensive reading and accurate knowledge of art which Winkelmann has brought to the execution of his work, have enabled him to proceed with the noble confidence of the ancient artists, who directed all their energies towards the most important points, and either passed over the subordinate parts with an almost studied negligence, or left them entirely to other hands.

It is no small praise to be censured only for such faults as any one might easily have avoided. They are apparent on the most superficial perusal; and if they are alluded to, it will only be for the purpose of reminding those petulant critics who fancy that nobody has eyes but