vaffals of the manor compofed the judges of the manor court, or hallmote, whofe fentences these magiftrates carried into execution.

3dly, The ranks and privileges of the inhabitants appear to have been the fame in town and country. Befides lagmen, as already noticed, we find mention made of thanes in general, as refiding in towns, and performing the fame duties with thofe of the country. Next to the thanes, burgeffes are enumerated, and thefe appear to have been in very different fituations. Some of them are described as poffeffing lands and houses in full property with jurifdiction, and fubject to no rent or cenfus to any perfon; others of them as proprietors of manfes fimply, and ftill enjoying jurifdiction, even within this fmall property; and others, without this advantage, being fubjected to the jurifdiction of particular perfons, and yielding to them, or to others, a cenfus or a confuetudo. In fine, others are mentioned, whofe manfes belonged in property to individuals, to whom they yielded rent and fervices: And, in fome cafes, thefe different fituations appear to be more or lefs blended together. Befides these burgeffes, notice is taken of bordarii foccomanni, &c. as affifting the burgeffes to pay the customs or rents due by them. The burgeffes indifcriminately are every where mentioned as yielding military fervice, and fubject to the burdens attending it, according to a certain modus, established, as it fhould feem, by custom chiefly. And citizens likewife partook of the sports and amusements of the nobleffe of the country.

In the country, the fame ftate of perfons appear. We do not, indeed, find the term burgeses applied to them. But there are numbers of people mentioned among the inhabitants of the country, that feem to differ in no refpect from burgeffes, except in wanting that name, which, it is evident, the nature of their place of refidence could not admit of giving them. Thus, we find there people poffeffing fingie manfes, or fingle roods or half roods of land, and fometimes larger quantities, as ploughgates, and yielding military fervice, and various cuftoms, to the king or individuals. The rights of the owners of these lands likewife appear to have differed in the fame way as thofe of burgeffes, and to have been fubjected to a fimilar diversity of burdens. I need not add, that we find the whole country abounding with foccomanni, bordarii, porcarii, bovarii, who appear to have been in fome degree of fervile condition, and diftinguished from each other chiefly by names derived from the particular fpecies of rent or fervice yielded by them, or other fuch little circumstances.

The above particulars, and the authorities on which they are flated, appear to me, when maturely confidered, to leave no reafonable doubt, that the towns enjoyed no peculiar fyftem of adminiftration, but were diftinguifhed merely as places of fome ftrength, where authority was better enforced, and where the fmaller proprietors, and perfons of fervile condition, who had preserved or obtained a degree of liberty, reforted in numbers, for the fake of mutual protection. If the town belonged to an individual, it was governed in the fame manner as the reft of his eftate. If the town belonged to different people, it formed, along with what was afterwards called its liberty (i. e. the banlieue or territory adjoining and

belonging

belonging to it), a divifion of the country, or a political community, and was ranked and governed accordingly.'

Thefe obfervations are important and juft. But the quotation, we are afraid, will ftill leave room for regretting, that in academical difcourfes, Mr. M. fhould not have paid more regard to precifion of ftyle, neatness of compofition, and beauty of illuftration.

The next article is a differtation to prove, that Troy was not taken by the Greeks. By John Maclaurin, Efq. Advocate, now a Lord of Seffion. In this Effay, the author follows the footsteps of GEBELIN DE LA COUR, in his Monde Primitif, and of Mr. Bryant, in his Mythology. In addition to the authorities cited by these writers, he produces that of Dio Chryfoftomus, a Greek author, who lived in the time of Trajan, and whose works were much esteemed for purity of ftyle, and depth of obfervation. Dio wrote two differtations on Homer: in one of which, he gives his panegyric as a poet; but, in the other, takes him feverely to talk as an hiftorian. The latter differtation of Dio Chryfoftom (of which not one commentator on Homer makes mention) contains an account of the Trojan war, quite oppofite, in moft particulars, to that of Homer; and this, Chryfoftom fays, he made up, partly from the information of an Egyptian prieft, and partly from what appeared to himself the most probable. Chryfoftom then proceeds to prove by argument, that Homer's account muft appear, when examined with attention, to be false, abfurd, and contradictory to itself. Cafaubon, who writes fome notes on Dio Chryfoftomus, fays of this differtation: "Dignus plane liber hic, quem legunt philologi, et quicunque in veterum fcriptis cum judicio cupiunt versari; quamvis et pro Homero multa dici poffunt." The fame criticifm applies to Mr. Maclaurin's difcourfe, whofe ingenuity amuses, though his arguments do not convince. His ftyle is a model of neatness and fprightlinefs, of which take the following fpecimen:

The Greeks, by Homer's account, were always greatly fuperior in numbers to the Trojans and their auxiliaries; and, for more than nine years, they had Achilles with them*, whom Homer has, on all occafions, reprefented as perfectly irrefiftible to the Trojans. How then came it about that the war lasted so long?

The only answer that can be made to this is, that the Trojans kept within their walls as long as Achilles appeared; and this Homer himself fuggeftst, though it is contradictory to feveral other paffages, where it is faid, that many battles had been fought, and great numbers flain on both fides.

But this will not prove fatisfactory, when it is confidered, that Andromache, in the interview fhe has with Hector in the fixth book, tells him, that the city was to be come at, and the wall eafily fcaled ‡;

*Il. viii. 558. † II. vii. 352.; xviii. 287.

Il. vi. 434.

and

and that Ajax, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Diomed, had three. times attempted it. If fo, what hindered Achilles to storm the town the day after he landed? How came Ajax, and the other chiefs, to be fo long in threatening an affault? Madame Dacier, in a note on, this paffage, fays, That the art of reconnoitering was not known, at this time, even to the Greeks. The abfurdity of the answer fhewsthe force of the obfervation. A wolf, fox, or other beaft of prey, that wants to get into a fold or clofe where sheep or cattle are confined, would walk round it to difcover at what place the fence was lowest.

But further, fuppofing the town to have been impregnable, how came the Greeks not to take it by blockade? They had a powerful fleet, the Trojans none; fo that it was eafy to hinder the town from being fupplied with provifions by fea; and it was equally eafy to have drawn lines around it, which would have cut off all communication between it and the country; the infallible confequence of which would have been, that the Trojans must have furrendered as foon as their stock of provifions was confumed. As the Greeks did not draw lines around the town, whilft, at the fame time, we are told they threw up a rampart before their own fhips, and as the Trojans received fuccours from their neighbours at different times, the fair conclufion is, that the Greeks were not mafters of the country, nor fuperior to the Trojans in the field, but, on the contrary, found them felves overmatched. If it fhall be faid, that the art of drawing lines was not known to the Greeks, I anfwer, that the method they took to fecure their fhips proves the contrary to be true; and, had they been ignorant of that art (if fo fimple an operation deferves that name), they never would have thought of the fiege, as they had no artillery or machinery of any kind for making a breach in the walls: befides, without any art or labour, they could have placed bodies of troops fo as to intercept all the Trojan convoys.

་

Homer admits, that the Greeks fuffered more before Troy than any mortal man could relate*: That they loft a great number of men, many excellent officers, and that Ajax, Antilochus, Patroclus,. and Achilles, the greatest hero of them all, perished in the expedition. This, of itself, affords a prefumption that they were not fuccessful. It is very improbable that Achilles fell by the hand of Paris; the truth feems to be, that he died by that of a better man. Hector poffeffed himself of his armour, which is not at all furprising, if he flew its owner; but cannot otherwife be explained: for, as to the ftory of Patroclus dreffing himself in the armour of Achilles, and being flain and ftripped by Hector, it cannot poffibly be true. Achilles was by far the strongest and flatelieft of the Greeks: Hector was nothing to him; and Patroclus again was nothing to Hector, as is evident from the anxiety with which Achilles charges him not to encounter Hector. Now, when Hector did get Achilles's armour, he found he could not use it; and, therefore, Homer+ make's Jupiter interpofe to fit it to his body; though, after all, the god did not perform the work fufficiently; for Hector owed his death to fighting

Odyff. iii. 105. Rev. June, 1789.

M m

+ Book xvii. 210,

Achilles

Achilles in that armour, as an aperture ftill remained near the throat, through which Achilles drove his fpear. If then the armour of Achilles could not be used by Hector, how is it poffible, that it could be used by Patroclus, who was fo much inferior to him? It is palpable, that he must have been almost as ill fitted with it as David was with Saul's. Homer himself admits *, that Patroclus could not wield Achilles's fpear, how then could he fupport, not to fay march and fight, under the load of his armour?

It cannot be denied, that Achilles fell during the fiege; and it is evident the Greeks muft have been lefs able to take the town, aftet this and their other loffes, than before. Accordingly it is admitted by Homer and his followers, that they did not take it by force, but it is pretended they took it by ftratagem. Homer's ac count of which is precifely as follows +: Epeus made a wooden horfe, into which Ulyffes and the Grecian chiefs went with a body of troops; the rest of the Greeks burnt their tents, and fet fail. Upon this, the Trojans came down, and, along with them, Helen. She, attended by Deiphobus, went three times round the horfe, calling each of the Grecian leaders by his name, and mimicking the voice of his wife. This made them all, except Ulyffes, defirous to get out, or return an answer; but he reftrained them, and clapped his hand on the mouth of one of them, who was more eager to speak than the rest, and kept him gagged in that manner till Helen retired. The Trojans then drew up the machine to their citadel, and held a confultation as to what they fhould do with it. Some were for cutting it up; fome for precipitating it from the rock; but others thought it ought to be allowed to remain as a propitiatory figure. This laft opinion prevailed, and the Greeks came out of it, and, after an obftinate ftruggle, vanquished the Trojans, and plundered

the town.

The abfurdity of all this is too grofs and glaring to need refutation. Virgil faw well the objections to which it is liable, and, to obviate them, has ftrained his invention to the utmost, but in vain. According to him, this horfe was huge as a mountain; and it was neceffary it should, as it was to contain an army in its belly. It fell to the lot of Ulyffes, Menelaus, Neoptolemus, the maker Epeus, and five other leaders, to enter this machine; which they did, with a body of armed men that filled it. The reft of the Greeks failed to Tenedos, which was in fight, and there bid themselves on the defart fhore. The Trojans, thinking them gone for good, came down, and confulted about the difpofal of the horfe, as in Homer. But upon Laocoon, who oppofed its introduction into the city, being devoured by two ferpents, they put wheels to its feet, and ropes to its neck, and drew it up to the town, through a breach made on purpofe in the wall. The Greeks at Tenedos returned at midnight, having the benefit of a bright moon-fhine; and thofe in the horse having defcended by means of a rope, opened the gates to them, and the Trojans, being buried in fleep and wine, were eafily mastered.

* Il. xvi. 140. + Odyfl. viii. 500. ; iv. 271. In confpectu.

Condunt.

↑ Æneid. ii.

• Every

Every perfon who reads this with the leaft attention must perceive, that Virgil had better have couched the story in general obfcure terms, as Homer does. By being particular, inftead of mending the matter, he makes it worfe; and there is one ftriking incongruity, into which it is aftonishing he should have fallen. Tenedos, he fays, was in fight; and, no doubt, it was; for its diftance from the Trojan fhore is but forty ftadia, or five miles; it was a bright moon-fhine, and Troy stood on a hill; how then could a great army be hid from the Trojans on a defart fhore? At any rate, it is impoffible that 1200 fhips could be concealed from them. They must have feen the fleet at least. If fo, it cannot be believed, that they would have made a large breach in the wall when the enemy was fo near. But it would be improper to dwell longer here. Since the town, it is admitted, was not taken by force, and fince the ftratagem by which it is alleged to have been taken is abfurd and impracticable, the fair conclufion is, that it was not taken at all, and that we should have read the repulfe of the Greeks in verfe, if time had not envied us the works of the poets of Troy.

Let us now fee what happened, according to the Greek writers, after Troy was, as they pretend, taken and facked. If the Greeks had been, in reality, victorious, it is natural to fuppofe that they would have returned home in a body, in good order, obferving due difcipline and obedience to their general. But, inftead of doing fo, Homer tells us, that they quarrelled among themselves, differed about the courfe they should fteer; that fome went one way, fome another, and that feveral were fhipwrecked.

But this is not all: If the Greeks had been, in reality, victorious, those who returned would have been received as conquerors, with open arms by their families, and with acclamations by their subjects. But the reverfe of this confeffedly happened. Agamemnon, their captain-general, upon his arrival, was flain in his own houfe, by a villain who had debauched his wife in his abfence. Would such have been his fate, had he appeared at the head of an army of conquerors? And not only was he himself flain, but, according to Homer, all those who returned with him; yet this exploit was performed, he fays, by Egifthus, with no more than twenty men; and he reigned seven years in Agamemnon's ftead †, till he was affaffinated, in his turn, by Oreftes. Diomed was foon driven from his country, and Neoptolemus from Peloponnefus; and, according to the account of the former in Virgil, all who were concerned in the expedition against Troy were difperfed over the earth, and fuffered every where remarkable hardships and diftrefs,

En. xi. 259.

Mr. John Hill, Profeffor of Humanity (of Latin) in the University of Edinburgh, has given two Effays on the principles of hiftorical compofition, with an application of thofe principles to the writings of Tacitus. Mr. Hill, with great fuccefs, defends Tacitus and his imitators, againft the dulnefs of ig

* Odyff. iii. 136.

Mme

+ Ibid. iv. 530.

norance,