6o "TABLEAU de la PLAINE de TROYE 



(p. 338.), " It excites no wonder, that, after fo long pofTeflion of 

 " it by the Turks, not a flone fliould remain ; yet fome con- 

 '' tend againft the exiftence of Troy, becaufe no veftiges were 

 " difcoverable when Alexander founded the fecond city, 

 " whilft they admit the latter fad equally unauthorifed by pre- 

 " fent appearances *." 



In a pafTage quoted from Herodotus, in which an account 

 is given of the march of Xerxes's army from Sardes to Aby- 

 dos, the expreffion — t^v \^nv ^£ XafBuv eg d^ifs^-^v yj^^cc, is tranflated 

 advanci?ig towards the left branch of Mount Ida, different from 

 the common way of rendering it, having Ida on the left. As this 

 interpretation is difapproved of both by Mr Heyne and Mr 

 Bryant, I have no inclination to difpute the point with fuch 

 learned antagonifls, provided they can make it appear, that 

 Xerxes could and did proceed, with Ida on his left. " Ida," 

 fays Mr Heyne, " has many branches and ridges. The army 

 ** may have gone round one of thefe outfkirts of the mountain 

 ** approaching towards the fea, in fuch a manner as to leave it 

 " on the left f." 



From M. Chevalier's letters, it appears that he was fen- 

 fible that he had at times introduced unneceffary or inaccurate 

 refledlions j of which kind are thofe in Chap. VI. refpeding 



travellers 



* See, in Mr Wakefield's letter to Mr Bryant, (p. 11, 12,), a remarkable 

 izSt refpefting the total difappearance of Flaxford Church, about five miles from. 

 Nottingham. 



f I OBSERVE, too, that this notion is fupported in a paper in the fixth volume 

 of Commentt. Soc. Reg. Scient. Gotting. Ann. 1783, 1784 ; entitled, Herodoti ac 

 Thucydibis Ihracia, Jos. Christoph. Gattereri : with a map, where Xer- 

 xes's march is traced accordingly. Mr Bryant enters into a long difcuffion upon 

 the fubject, through which I have no inclination to follow him now, nor Ihall I 

 afterwards, I fuppofe, when I come to take more particular notice of his Obferva- 

 tions; but will freely confefs myfelf refponfible for the whole blame of this miftake, 

 having fuggefted the culpable interpretation to M. Chevalier, on my firft reading 

 his paper ; and I am anxious that he fhould here be cenfured only for paying fo 

 much deference to my judgment as to introduce an eq^uivalent expreffion into the 

 French original. 



1 



