This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/
ἮΙ]
600081554T
λλι A 3ι
ANNQ.NOXY EZOLPOT
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ KAPXHAONOZSE ΠΕΡΙΠΛΟΥΣ.
ΘΗΒΑΪΚΟΣ ΚΩΔΗΞ
ΔΙΑΛΑΜΒΑΝῺΝ ΠΕΡῚ TQN ΤῊΣ KAPXHAONOZ ΕΙΚΟΣῚ KAI ΔΥῺ ΠΡΩΤῺΝ ΔΥΝΑΣΤΩΝ.
ΑΝΔΡΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ ΔΙΟΔΩΡΟΥ͂ TOT ΘΑΣΙΟΥ͂ ΚΑΙ AIOTIMOT ΜΕΤΑΓΕΝΟΥ͂Σ ΤΟΥ AAPAMTTTHNOYT
ΚΑΙ ETEPOY ΤΙΝῸΣ ΑΓΝΩΣΤΟΥ͂ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΟΥ ΔΕΙΨΑΝΑ.
a.
THE
PERIPLUS OF HANNON,
—, oa -— OO oe ee Om ee te eee
KING OF THE KARCHEDONIANS,
CONCERNING THE LYBIAN PARTS OF THE EARTH BEYOND THE PILLARS OF HERAKLES,
-“---- .
WHICH HE DEDICATED TO KRONOS, THE GREATEST GOD,
AND TO ALL THE GODS DWELLING WITH HIM.
It is, perhaps, one of the three copies which Evagrios, the sun of Evagrios, the Mygisian, made in the third year of the 182nd Olympiad, namely, in the year 50 before Christ, and presented to Epimachos, son of Aristagoras, Archon of Alexandria, as ἃ token of gratitude, as is stated at the conclusion of the present volame. It was discovered at Liverpool, in the Egyptian Museum of ΦΌΒΕΡΗ Mayer, Esq., on the Twenty-ninth of July, 1860, by Konstantinos Snsonrpzs, Pu. D., etc., etc., by whom it is specially published now, for the first time, with Annotations, and explanatory and corroborative Prolegomena. In addition to it there are added the Théban fragment of papyrus, which contains a synoptical History of Two-and-Twenty Kings of Karchéd6n; and, moreover, a small fragment of Androsthenes, son of Diodoros, of Thasos, from the Third Book of his “ (kistika”; and another of an unknown author, perhaps of Diolimos, eon of Metagenes, of Adramyttion; both written on one piece of papyrus, some years before Christ; and, in addition to these, some other historical relic of an unknown author. All these fragments of papyrus literature are now published, together with a faithful fac-simile of the original of Hannon.
@
: SuuBovdds ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος τῶν πραγμάτων."
LONDON : TRUBNER & CO., No. 60, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1864.
er Z F/
LIVERPOOL :
PRINTED BY DAVID MARPLES, LOBD STREET.
- TAs ΠΡΟΞΈΝΩ, TOY BAZIAEIOT TQN EAAHNQN KAI INMOTH: TOY APFYPOT ZTATPOT TOY ΣΩΤΉΡΟΣ
STAMATIQ: N. ΦΡΑΓΚΟΠΟΥΛΩι,
ANAPI Καλῶ, KAPrA@Qs KAI MOTINN ΘΕΡΜΩι GIAEQTH: KAI ΠΑΙΔΕΙ͂ΑΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΊΣ ΚΑΙ ΤῊΣ ΤΩΝ ΦΩΤΩ͂Ν ΜΗΤΡΟΣ ΚΛΕΙΝΗΣ ἩΜΩ͂Ν ΠΑΤΡΙ͂ΔΟΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ EYTEPTETH: THN BIBAON THN AE
ANATI@HZI
ΣΙΜΩΝΙΔΗΣ.
Σταματίῳ N. Φραγκοπούλῳ Σιμωνίδης πλεῖστα χαίρειν, καὶ ἐῤῥῶσθαι.
᾿Αδείᾳ τῇ σῇ, ὦ φίλων φίλτατε, ἀναθέτων σοι καὶ τὸν τοῦ “Avywvos βασιλέως Καρχηδονίων Περίπλουν, ταμάλιστα εὐχαριστεῖ με.
Ποιῶ δὲ τοῦτο οὐ κολακείας ἕνεκα, ἀλλὰ σεβασμοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὰς πρὸς τὴν πάσχουσαν κοινὴν ἡμῶν πατρίδα Ἑ)Ἥ λλάδα, τὴν ἀρχαίαν τῶν Μουσῶν κοίτην, καὶ τὴν τῶν φώτων ἑστίαν μεγάλας cov εὐεργεσίας, καὶ δι ds, ἀφανῶς πῶς καὶ ὑπὸ τὸ κάλυμμα τῆς μετριοφροσύνης, καθεκάστην ὑπὲρ τοῦ φωτισμοῦ καὶ τῆς προόδου τοῦ μαρτυρικοῦ γένους ἡ ἡμῶν παρέχεις βοηθείας, ἐφάμιλλος τῶν μεγάλων τῆς πατρίδος εὐεργετῶν γενόμενος.
Δέχου τοίνυν, ὦ χρηστὲ πολίτα, καὶ τὸ φιλοπόνημά μου τοῦτο ὡς σεβασμοῦ ἐλάχιστον τεκμήριον, ἅμα δὲ καὶ φιλίας καὶ εὐγνωμοσύνης, καὶ ζῆθι ἐς Λυκάβαντας én’ ἀγαθῷ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καὶ εὐκλείᾳ ᾿Εθνικῇ.
Ἔν Λιβερπούλῃ, τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ ᾿Ιαννουαρίου μηνὸς τοῦ ἔτους φωξδύν.
CONTENTS.
I.
Page
The Theban Codex — concerning the first Twenty-two Kings of KarchédGn ...............cseeeeeee 8 I.
Historical Fragments of an unknown Author ........ 6 ινννννννννννννεννν νον νον νον νυν σε κεν ον οονεν νον σον 15
A Fragment of Androsthenes, son of Diodoros, of Thasos, from the third Book of the
TOMAS cio Poh bce can cap Gaaiincacardadinaseuatehinds tas eee aden aha aleaeelag yan wae wees νων δὰ κὸ ena 17 Il.
From Diotimos, son of Metagenés, of Adramyttion .........ὐνννννννννονννννν κοννν σεν εν νον σον ον νον ονοονν 17 IV.
The Periplus of Hannon, King of Karchéd6n ...............ssecseecessecseccceseaesceeeseeseaseceneceees 24
WORKS BY DR. K. SIMONIDES.
Κατάλογος τῶν ἐκδεδομένων συγγραμμάτων K. Σιμωνίδου διδάκτορος τῆς Φιλοσοφίας.
SPS er eer Se &
μω
11. 12. 13. 14.
" ᾿Αρχαιολογικὴ Ἰστορία τῆς Καρικῆς Χεῤῥονήσου, καὶ κυρίως τῆς πόλεως KNIAOT.” Ἐξεδόθη ἐν Μόσχα, τῷ 1842 ἕτει. “ Χημικὰ ᾿Αθωϊτῶν." "Ev Ὀδησσῶ, τῷ 1848.
“ Ὑπόμνημα Ἱστορικὸν τῆς καθ᾽ μᾶς ᾿Αγιογραφίας καὶ τῆς τῶν ᾿Αθωϊτῶν ἁγιογράφων." Ἐν Ὀδησσῶ, τῷ 1848. ““ Περίληψις ἹἸστορικὴ τῶν iv Αθαωνγι ἱερῶν μονῶν." Ἔν Ὀδησσῶ, τῷ 1849,
““ ᾿Αρχαιολογικὰ ὝὙπομνήματα." ἊἜν Κωνσταγτινουπόλει, τῷ 1848.
““ Περὶ Δυκιαχῶν καὶ Καρικᾶν γραμμάτων Birla δύω." Ἐν Σμύρνη, τῷ 1843.
“Ἧ ᾿Ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ ᾿Αποστολικοῦ «πατρὸς Βαρνάξα." Ἔν Σρύρνη, τῷ 1843.
"“Μάχαιρα, ἣ κατὰ τῆς Δυναστείας τοῦ “Ὄθωνος. ᾿Αθήνησι, τῷ 1848.
“Ἢ ὀρθόδοξος φωνή." Τ᾿Αθήγησι, τῷ 1848.
“ Συμαῖς, ἢ Ἱστορία τῆς ἦν Σύμη ᾿Απολλωγιάδος Σχολῆς." ᾿Αθήνησι, τῶ 1849.
‘* Γεωγφαφικά τε καὶ Νομικὰ τὴν Κεφαλληνίαν ἀφορῶντα." ᾿Αθήνησι, τῷ 1850.
“'ῬὙπόμνημα περὶ τῶν Ἱερῶν Γραφῶν." "Ey Κωγνσταντινουπόλει, τῷ 1850.
“ κατὰ Παπιστῶν καὶ Καλξίνων." Ἔν Κωνσταγτιγουπόλει, τῷ 1800.
‘* Κατάλογος τῆς τοῦ Σιναίου ὅρους Βιδλιοθήχης, καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίον Σάξξα, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Βασιλόπαιδος Παύλου." Ἐν
Κωνσταγτιγουπόλει, τῷ 1860. ᾿
15. 16.
“Ὃ Βυζαντινὸς Ὀξελίσκος. "Ev Κωνσταντινουπτόλει, τὼ 180]. “ Ὑπόμνημα πρὸς τοὺς πατριάρχας Κωγστάντιιν καὶ Αγθιμον περὶ τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιδιοῤῥύθμων μονῶν τοῦ ᾿Αθωνος." "Ey
Κωνσταγτινουπόλει, τῷ 1852.
17. 18. 19. Lwypadov
“Ἕρμηνεία δακτυλιολίθων τινῶν. "Ev Σρύρνη, τῶ 1852. “Κατὰ Στεφάνου Κουμιανούδου" Ἐν Ὀδησσῶ, τῷ 1853. “'Ἑρμηνεία τῶν Ζωγράφον ὡς πρὸς τὴν Ἐχχλησιαστικὴν Ζωγραφίαν, συγγραφεῖσα μὲν ὑπὸ Διονυσίου ἹἹερομιονάχου καὶ τοῦ ἐκ Φουρννὰ τῶν ᾿Αγράφων, Ἐκδοθεῖσα δὲ ὑπὸ Σιμωνίδου Jawarn τῶν τυπογράφων Φ. Καραμπίγου καὶ Baga.”
᾿Αθῆγησι, τὰ 1858.
20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 380, . 3ι. 32. 33. "4. 35. 36. 37, 38. 39. 40.
“Ἤθη καὶ “Εθιμα τῶν ἀρχαίων Αἰγυπτίων." Ἐν Μόσχα, τῷ 1853.
“' Σπουδαῖον ὑπόμγημα περὶ τῶν EE καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἀπογράφων τοῦ ᾿Αποστολικοῦ πατρὸς Ἑρμᾶ." Ἐν Μόσχᾳ, τῶ 18ὅ8. ‘< Μεταγραφαὶ αὐτόγραφοι" Ἔν Μόσχα, τῷ 1853.
“Ἐγκώμιον Κωνσταντίνου ᾿Ακροπολίτου εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Κωνσταντῖνον." Ἔν Λονδίνγω, τῷ 1853,
“ Σύμμιγα." "Ev Μόσχα, τῷ 1858, καὶ ᾿Οδησσῶ, τῷ 1854.
"“. Λυκιακά. "Ev Ὀδησσῶ, te 1854.
“ Αὐτόγραφα." ᾿Ἐξεδόθησαν δὶς, ἕν τε Μόσχᾳ, τῷ 1858, καὶ Ὀδισσῶ, τῷ 1854.
‘© Συλλογὴ ἀνεκδότων Ἑλληνικῶν παπύρων. ‘Ev ὈΟδησσῶ, τὼ 1854.
“«“Ἑλληγικὰ κεράμια. ‘Ey Μόσχα, τῷ 1854.
"€ Σπουδαιοδιόμιον" Τύποις Κανσταγτινουπόλεως, τῷ 1854.
"OQ ᾿Αναιδὴς λογοκλόπος." τύποις, Κωνσταγτινουπόλεως, τῷ 1854.
“Ἐπιγραφικὸν μνημεῖον." ᾿Αθήνησι, τῷ 1855.
“ Περὶ τῆς γνησιότητος τοῦ Οὐρανίου διατριξὴ πρώτη, γερμανιστί." Ἐν Μονάχῳ, τῷ 18586.
“ Νικολάου τοῦ Μακαριωτάτου Ἐπισκόπου Μεθώνης Συλλογισμὸς περὶ τοῦ Παναγίου πνεύματος." Ἔν Μωάχω, τῷ 1857. “Μέμνων σύγγραμμα ἀρχαιολογικόν." Ἔν Μονάχω, τῷ 1857.
‘© ᾿Ορϑοδύξων ᾿Ἑλλήνων Θεολογικαὶ Γραφαὶ τέσσαρες." “Ev Λονδίνω, τῷ 1858.
“ Ἐπιστολιμαία περὶ Ἱερογλύφων διατριδή." Ἐν Λονδίνω, τῷ 1860.
“ Μαδέρειος Κώδηξ. Ἔν Λονδίνω, τῷ 1861.
“ Γεωργίου Σχολαρίου ἔχθεσις περὶ τοῦ Γένους τῶν Μελισσηνῶν. Ἐν Λονδίνγω, τῷ 1862 ἔτει.
“περὶ “Qpou τοῦ Νειλοπολίτου καὶ τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὑτοῦ." ‘Ev Λονδίνω, τῷ 1863 ἕτει.
“Codex Friderico —Augustanus et. ἐγράφη μὲν ὑπὸ K. Σιμωνίδου. Ἐν “Alam τῶ Spx τῷ 1839, ἐξεδόθη δὲ
ὑπὸ τοῦ Καθηγητοῦ Τισσενδορφίου τῷ 1846 "Ev Assia.
41. ἐξεδύθη δὲ
“ Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus— Petropolitanus.” Ἐγράφη μεὲν καὶ τοῦτο ἐν “Adam τῷ ὄρει ὑπὸ Σιμωνίδου, ὑπὸ τοῦ καθηγητοῦ Τισσενδορφίου, ὡς ἀρχαῖον δῆθεν, iy Λιψεία τῷ 1863, δαπάνη τοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος πασᾶν τῶν Ῥωσσιῶν
᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ δευτέρου.
42.
“«ἥλγγωγος Τερίπλους, κι τι A. ‘Ev Δογδίνω, τῷ 1864.
PROLEGOMEN A.
WHERE, how, and when the Evagrian MS. on papyrus which contains the Periplus of Hannon was discovered has been mentioned, both in the Introduction of the “ Mayerian Codex,” at pages 7 and 9, and in the title of the present volume; but, although thus indicated, it is requisite we should add that it was brought from Thébes, in Egypt, with numerous other papyrean rolls, either by the Rev. H. Stobart, or by J. Sams, Esq., who was well known as a collector of antiquities, and was purchased by Mr. Joseph Mayer, together with many other rolls of papyri. It is believed that the MS. in question belonged to the collection of Mr. Stobart; but it is not possible to ascertain with absolute certainty whether it came to Mr. Mayer through this source, or through Mr. Sams, as the rolls had in degree been mixed up with each other in the cases. Having procured them at a small expense, he simply arranged them in the cases of his Museum, without thinking of their contents; for he was ignorant himself, as was also their previous possessor, what these antiquities contained.
It appears that subsequently they have been partially injured by unsuccessful attempts to unroll them. Besides this, from want of care on the part of the proprietor, the damp was allowed to destroy many of them; for they were heaped up near the moist walls of the Museum, behind glazed doors which excluded the air. After this, viz., on the 13th February, 1860, I was invited by Mr. Mayer, the owner of the Museum, to examine all its contents; which laborious task I undertook, and in the progress of which I discovered, on the 29th of July, 1860, amongst many other MSS. elsewhere noticed, the Periplus οὗ which I now treat. This occurred in the presence of Mr. Mayer, before whom the papyrus was unrolled, and secured upon linen and paper.* Mr. Mayer, on learning its contents from me, was, like myself, much pleased,
* That I unrolled the Papyrus in his Museum, Mr. Mayer acknowledges in the following letter :—
“THE MAYER MANUSCRIPTS. ‘SLIvERPOOL, December 18th, 1861.
“You have in your review of the recent publication of Dr. Siménidés made use of my name. I therefore claim the insertion of a few lines defining my own position in reference to the Papyri, which you have thought proper to notice in such unqualified terms of distrust. The simple facts are, that the MSS. of which the fac-similes are before the public are part only of a collection which I acquired from two different sources, viz., from the late Mr. Sams and from the Rev. H. Stobart; and as they have been disarranged more than once in my Museum, it is not in my power to state with perfect accuracy from which of these two sources any particular Papyrus was derived.
B
2
and the following day exposed it. in his Museum, with the following note written upon it with his own hand, in pencil :—
‘The travel of King Hannon, of Carthagena — Voyage in Africa, 50 years before Christ.”
“Dr. Simonidés was introduced to me, as stated by him, at my Museum; and after we had been acquainted . for some time, and he had given me in writing his interpretation of several of the hieroglyphical inscriptions in the Museum, I requested him to unroll and decipher for me some of many rolls of Papyrus which were on my shelves; and he shortly afterwards commenced his operations in the Library of the Museum, the necessary materials for the unrolling, such as linen, starch, etc., being supplied by the Curator, who attended on him, and, with myself, saw many of the MSS. opened.
“Dr. Simonidés told me during the time that he was thus engaged that the Papyri were of extreme Biblical interest, and from time to time the results of his discoveries were communicated to the papers.
“T leave to Dr. Simonidés himself the vindication of his character from the charges brought against him; but it is absolutely necessary that the public should be made aware that the Papyri in question are in no way connected with Dr. Simonidés, except in as far as he has unrolled and illustrated them, and that they are, and have been for some years, the property of, “Yours respectfully,
“JOSEPH MAYER.” »
‘
In reply to an article in the Parthenon of January 17th, appeared the following letter in the Parthenon of January 8lst and February 7th.
“ MAYERIAN PAPYRI. “To the Editor of the Parthenon.
‘‘Sm,— Will you allow me space for a few remarks upon the subject of the genuineness of Mr. Mayer's Papyri, in reply to your article in the Parthenon of January 17th?
“The assumption that Mr. Mayer (whilst taking no active part in the exhibition of the Papyri, and not entering into controversy upon their merits) is desirous of hearing the opinions of all comers as to the value of his manuscripts, is perfectly correct; though he does not need public opinion to convince his own mind of their genuineness. But, in justice to that gentleman, it should also be remembered that he has done more than merely exhibit his treasures; he long ago published an account of the unrolling of the Papyri, which should have prevented your making the disparaging statement that “the exact circumstances under which Simonidés unrolled the Papyri are extremely difficult to come at: it is stated that the unrolling took place at Mr. Mayer’s house.” If you will refer to the Atheneum of December 28th, 1861, you will find a letter from Mr. Mafer, in which a complete though succinct account is given of the unrolling of the Papyri in his Museum. If more details are required than are contained in this letter, and if the word of Siménidés is not to be taken, application should be-made to Mr. Mayer for a more explicit narrative; and when that gentleman declines to furnish all the information in his power, and not till then, will it be allowable to make such a statement as that above referred to.
“T venture to suggest, in the second place, that if the object be to give to the public an opportunity of forming a correct judgment, the facts, whether more or less recent, should be given with as much precision as possible; and that if it were necessary to make the statement that Simdnidés produced in England, in 1858, certain manuscripts which were at once pronounced to be forgeries, it should have been made in so circumstantial a manner that the ordinary reader might have the opportunity of discovering the names of the experts who gave the decision, and the grounds upon which their judgment was arrived at; for if the public, who will have forgotten the details of the present discussion in 1873, are then merely told, that in 1863 Simonidés exhibited in London a manuscript of Hermippos, which was pronounced to be a forgery, they will be as unreasonably predjudiced against him as they are likely to be by the bold statement just referred to. I suppose the manuscripts of which you speak were those submitted to the Royal Society of Literature, and for the examination of which a special committee was appointed, whose report, if brought before the public at the present juncture, would be of service—not, it is true, in the determination of the genuineness or
* Vide Atheneum and the Literary Gazette, December 28th, 1861.
3
»
This note, and others in the same hand-writing on various papyri, are preserved as important evidence.
I afterwards took the Periplus to my own home, in order to copy it at leisure, and to prepare it for publication. About the middle of October of the same year an
spuriousness of the manuscripts lately exhibited, but in their appreciation of the character of the discoverer. Would the Society object to the publication of this report?
“Your observations are confined to the Papyri on which are inscribed the letters of Hermippos, and especially to the long letter which contains a Hieratic inscription in the midst of a Greek text. The latter was so far from forming what you considered a reasonable accompaniment to the five genuine Hieratic lines, that these appeared to you like an island of truth floating in the midst of a Red Sea of falsehood. You accordingly made a close examination of the physical aspect of the manuscripts. Whilst it will be seen that I venture to differ entirely from the conclusion to which you were led by this examination, I would earnestly invite the more careful inspection of the physical peculiarities of all the Papyri of Mr. Mayer, as I believe that, after diligent microscopic scrutiny, each fragment may be pronounced genuine or spurious upon external evidence. The nature of the discovery next made was twofold:—1. A general muddy pink tint. 2. Little flecks of blotting-paper. Now a pink tint caused upon the surface of Papyrus by the application of blotting paper, and not resolvable by a low magnifying power into distinct specks, must be in reality a stain, caused by the discharge of the red colouring matter, and its retention on the surface.
“T assert that not only does no pinkish stain of any kind exist upon the surface of this Papyrus, but also (after repeated experiment) that it is physically impossible to communicate any such stain to Papyrus by the application of blotting-paper in any way which ingenuity can suggest; and I respectfully challenge you to exhibit in public, at the next meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, your modus operandi, or to make a disclaimer of this part of your statement. I need hardly say that if the tint were resolvable, an almost infinite number of infinitely small specks would be needed for its production.
“The second discovery was that of the little flecks of actual blotting-paper which exist upon the surface, not only of this, but of other Papyri in the collection. And from this point I wonder that you did not carry on your reasoning one step. Granted that the surface of the Papyrus had been freed from its Hieratic contents in the way suggested, in what relation to the Greek characters would the blotting-paper have been found? Under them, of course; but, as was pointed out at the exhibition of the Papyri, the only specks of blotting-paper which exist are over the letters, and one, large enough to be the father of all the rest, is unfortunately on the Hieratic inscription. One cannot help feeling that those who are really qualified to be the teachers of the people should take a great deal more pains in their investigations before pronouncing a judgment. In the present instance I am sure that you were led away by finding what appeared to you a gross inconsistency, and that this feeling unconsciously tinged your subsequent examination. It was due to your readers to have alluded to the statement made by myself at the meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, that Simonidés used red blotting-paper in the process of opening the fragment of St. John’s Gospel which he unrolled at my house, and that this amply accounted for the presence of any number of little specks of that material, which: would adhere wherever there was on the surface a spot of the paste used in fixing the Papyrus to the calico.
“In conclusion, I must be allowed to remark, that I believe no person, however skilful jn the detection of fraud, would have come, after an unbiassed examination, however minute, to the same conclusion as yourself.
“I speak with some little confidence, as I have been engaged in the rather arduous task of spelling out, letter by letter, with a magnifying glass, the whole of the contents of this Papyrus, and I can unhesitatingly say that not the slightest symptom exists of any difference of texture or surface between the portion covered by the Hieratic and that covered by the Greek text; but that, on the contrary, the whole writing is incon- testably written with the same ink; and the same lapse of time, be it longer or shorter, has left its unmistakeable traces upon Hieratic and Greek letters alike. I shall perhaps be allowed to make some remarks on the text of this manuscript at the next meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, when, with the permission of the Council, it will be again exhibited.
“JOHN ELIOT HODGKIN. “West Dersy, January 27th, 1863."
“[I have but very few words to say upon the above. Mr. Mayer's letter in the Atheneum of December 28tb, 1861, does not tell us what opportunities Simonidés had of manipulating the Papyri without witnesses.
4
extraordinary popular festival took place in Liverpool, in honour of William Brown, Esq., who had built a magnificent public library and presented it to the inhabitants of that town. I was invited to the meeting, and requested to report on the manuscripts on
Mr. Mayer is confessedly unable to identify the Papyri now produced with those which he saw unrolled. With regard to the pink tint, whether Mr. Hodgkin can see it or not, I can but repeat that I saw something which appeared such to me, and that it led to the discovery of small flecks of blotting-paper (of which the existence is admitted), which are decidedly pink. As to the exact position of these flecks I will not venture to speak, not having the papyrus at hand, except in regard to the large piece alluded to by Mr. Hodgkin as being on the Hieratic inscription. I recollect such a fleck, which is, if I am not deceived, towards the edge of the Hieratic text, and in that part which has obviously been partially erased and re-touched by an ignorant hand.
“ Blotting-paper may have been used, for aught I know, for other purposes besides that of erasure. That Mr. Hodgkin saw it employed in some way or other, in the process of unrolling which he witnessed, proves nothing.
“It has puzzled some persons to explain whence a sufficient quantity of blank Papyrus could have been obtained for the whole of the Greek texts produced by Simoénidés. When the fragments are torn, ragged, and dirty, the idea of the erasure of a previous text naturally presents itself. There are some large specimens, however, in very good condition. I take this opportunity to suggest that these may be written on the backs of Papyrus rolls, which, more often than not, are free from writing, and would afford ample space. The ‘other sides being pasted down, it may be difficult or impossible to find out now what writing they may have borne.
“Ὁ, W. GOODWIN.)”
“ To the Editor of the Parthenon.
“Srr,—I am glad to have it in my power to offer something more than a recapitulation of my former assertions in reply to your short appendix to my letter of last week. I stated at the meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, in reply to a query from Mr. Vaux, that Mr. Mayer was unable to identify any of the Papyri then exhibited as having been formerly in his Museum. I took for granted Mr. Mayer's statement to me that they could not be positively identified, and could make no other reply. I had expected that the Society would have examined the manuscripts principally on their own merits, and that the exact links in their previous history would have been less regarded than their physical peculiarities, as I conceive it to be impossible so cleverly to forge documents of this class that the eye of a laborious and systematic scrutator shall ultimately be deceived. Being entirely unprepared for this perfectly legitimate inquiry as to the possibility of tracing the manuscripts from the shelves of Mr. Mayer to the table on which they were then displayed, I had made no enquiries upon the subject, except from Mr. Mayer, who, being unable to identify them positively himself, though satisfied, on other grounds, of their genuineness, seems to have taken no further steps in the affair.
‘A few days ago it occurred to me that the Curator of the Museum, in whose presence the Papyri were unrolled, would be able to give some information about them. I have, accordingly, on several occasions, questioned him very closely upon every matter which occurred to me touching the opening of these manuscripts. He unhesitatingly assured me, in reply to my queries, that all the Papyri but four® were opened in the library of the Museum; that the operation of laying down and adjusting the fragments of those which were in bad condition occupied Simoénidés, in many instances, two or three days, in consequence of the shattered state of the Papyrus, which, in many of the rolls, was so dry and crumbling as to fall to pieces in moving from one part of the case to the other; that Simonidés workad hard for several weeks, unrolling, tracing, and deciphering, and that he freely explained, not only to Mr. Mayer, but also to those visitors who wished to see the :manuscripts, their nature and contents; that the library in which he worked was accessible to all visitors, and that he, the Curator, was in the room at intervals throughout the day, and supplied him with such materials as he required; that the manuscripts never left the library at all before the meeting held in the Museum on the Ist of May, 1860, when the announcement was made by Mr. Mayer of the important nature of some of their contents, and that the bulk of them remained there, under lock and key, until the 7th of August, when the whole of them passed into the possession of Siménidés, for the completion of the
* Of these four, two have been opened in my presence (one since the exhibition of the manuscripts), and the others are now in my house.
5
papyrus which I had discovered in the Mayerian Egyptian Museum, and of those in my custody for translation, together with those belonging to myself. Mr. Mayer wrote
to me the following letter on this subject :— “ Wednesday, October 17th, 1860.
“Dean Srm,—I am going to exhibit some Manuscripts at the Soiree given by the Mayor, at the Town Hall, on Friday night. If you could let me exhibit those you have on papyrus I should be obliged. I will send on Friday morning for them. I send you a ticket for the Soiree on Friday night,
“And am, Dear Sir, yours truly, “Fo Dr. Sreonrpes.” “JOSEPH MAYER.
On receiving this letter, with the invitation, I hastened to gratify those gentlemen with an account of the Manuscripts. Accordingly I reported upon them in the parlour
fac-similes; that Simonidés at first traced the manuscripts for this purpose in the library, and that it was only after his illness and his absence (for some two months) in London, that, on account of the close and unwholesome air of the Museum, he commenced to trace them at home. In reply to my query whether he could identify the Papyri if he saw them, he said he could, and especially described several of them by their shape and other peculiarities.
“T have since shown to the Curator all the Papyri in my possession, including the long letter of Hermippos, and the fragment containing a portion of the history of Carthage, and he immediately recognised them all ; the two latter he described as having come out of the same large roll, which contained a considerable number of pieces; he informed me of his own accord from which case he took it, and added that it was one of Mr. Stobart's manuscripts, and that he remembers their coming to the Museum, and still has the tin boxes in which they were preserved. Though these Papyri of Mr. Stobart’s were stronger than some of the others, they were extremely fragile, and only capable of being unrolled a very little way; and as a considerable number of pieces of different descriptions were contained in the same roll, it was, in my opinion, quite impossible for Mr. Stobart* to pronounce upon the character of more than the external coil. I have also shown to the Curator the fac-similes published by Simoénidés, a copy of which he had never seen before, and I feel sure that you would be satisfied with the simple and ingenuous manner in which he states his conviction that these are exact imitations of the Papyri which he saw unrolled. I do not, of course, mean to assert that he would be able to give the same definite declaration of identity as regards the text, which I can give to the more important portions of the fragment of St. John’s Gospel which I saw opened; his testimony is that of an ordinary honest and attentive observer, who has had a set of objects for so long a period continually under his eyes as to become well acquainted with their general characteristics. He is a straightforward, plain-speaking man, and his evidence is' natural, and manifestly sincere.
“TI would suggest that if any gentlemen have a particular desire to trace the history of these Papyri, they should oross-examine this witness in London, as I think it very likely that Mr. Mayer would spare him for a couple of days for that purpose.
“TI must now say a few words on the “ blotting-paper” question. I am sure the public will expect from you a more explicit reply to my letter than you have yet given. You stated your conviction that the manuscript containing Hieratic and Greek writing had been tampered with, and the bulk of the former character removed by blotting-paper. My reply was, that the appearance which you fancied you saw could not exist at all as a result of the application of that substance; and, secondly, that the position of the portions of blotting-paper which do exist, above the Greek text, entirely refutes your hypothesis. Some more definite reply than you have yet made is due, I submit, in common fairness, after so grave a charge as that which you have made, against “some person or persons unknown.” I am in this instance the defender, not of Simonidés, but of the unfortunate Papyrus itself, which, if gifted with the power of thought, would consider it very hard measure to be so lightly accused of bearing false witness after a preservation from countless dangers for some sixteen centuries.
“In reference to the last paragraph of your note, which assumes—rather, I think, with the animus of an opponent than with the impartiality of a judge—the probability that Simonidés has forged the texts in question, I would suggest an experiment on a tolerably large scale to demonstrate the posstbility, not only
* Mr. Stobart’s letter to the Atheneum, December 14, 1861.
8
these, the first four lines of the fifth column belong to the text of the Periplus; the remaining twenty-nine comprise — first, an important historical sketch of six Kings of Karchédin; second, the time of the translation of the original into Greek (for it was written at first in the Pheenician language); third, by whom it was translated into Greek, and re-copied, and for what purpose. This has been already published in the “ Mayerian Codex,” pp. 23, 24, and is more fully explained in the following pages.
But it is necessary to premise something about the ancestors of the King and writer Hannén, as well as about himself and Karchéddn, and afterwards concerning the design of the Periplus, and its transcription.
All historians aver that Lybian Karchédén was a colony of Phonicians; on this point they are agreed, but they differ about the period of its colonisation. For some relate that Karchédin was founded 50 years before the capture of Ilion; and others, again, assure us that the city was built 340 years after the destruction of Lion. But at what period did this destruction take place? Even this still remains unsettled. For Timseos says that Ilion was captured 1343 years Before Christ; Hérodotos, 1270; the Parian Marble, 1209; Eratosthenés and Apolloddros, 1184, or, according to others, 1183; Démocritos, 1150. Who of these is right? Heaven only knows.
The French Chronologists prefer the testimony of Hérodotos; the English and German writers, that of Eratosthenés and Apollodéros. Now which of these judges are we to follow? I have no personal opinion to maintain. Let the ancients speak for themselves.
But, besides the time of the foundation of Karchédon, its first builder is a subject of dispute. Some think that a certain Zoros (or Ezoros, according to others) and Karchédon, Phoenician men, were the first founders of Karchédén. Others say Didi, the Tyrian, whom some historians surname Elissa, Ana, and Chartagena (or Chartigeena, for thus the Théban papyrus has it). Other historians, again, say that it was named formerly Keenepolis (new city), and Kadmeia, Oinousa, Kaccabé, Origé, Chartigesna, Tarsos, and Byrsa, the name of its acropolis, was afterwards applied to the town itself. But when and from whom did this celebrated Lybian town adopt these various surnames ? No one can say. I have no opinion to offer; but I place before my readers, for the solution of these difficulties, the following papyrus, as incontestable, from its antiquity. It begins as follows :—
* * * * * *
heap ὑγτας THE earliest inscription of the Kings of Karchédén is in the Asclépieion* at ὙΠ Byrsa, in Phoenician letters, upon a brazen pillar decorated with golden Kedmos, Ornaments. It is as follows :—Kadmos, the Phoenician, having set out from Tyre with seventy vessels, according to a decree of the Tyrians, anchored
ΤΠ. in the port οὗ Arrhema, in Lybia, compelled by the wintry weather, and built Hnousos. a town called Kadmeia, which he governed during fifty years. Against whom i320 -Anousos, nephew of Menevachés, King of Lybia, having come, conquered him
* Appianos says that there formerly existed in the acropolis of Karchédon which was named Byrsa, a
temple of Asclépios, superior to and richer than all others. See in the Book of the Karchédonians, Book 8, ¢ 130. Strabon himself agrees with Appianos in Book 17, ch. 3, p. 14.
9
in battle, and seized the city, which he named after himself, Atnousa, and reigned there twenty-three years. He, again, having been taken by stratagem, by Drdouktias, son of Kadmos, surnamed Kakkabos (signifying horse-headed), was crucified. Kakkabos, having assumed the reins of government, called the town Kakkabé. On constructing a harbour,‘ he dug out a horse’s head, and at the same time the figure of a trident, wonderfully formed by the bones of the animal. For this reason, having erected a magnificent temple, he dedicated the temple, as well as the city, to the god Poseidén; wherefore the emblem of Poseidén is a horse and a trident.
Kakkabos, having governed forty-seven* years, left the government to his son Zearos, who, having ruled fourteen years, was totally destroyed by Orzgon, nephew of Ainousos; and Origdn held the government for fifty years, and gave his name to the surrounding territory, as well as to the town itself. After him Menessés, his son, took the government, and a great earthquake happening in that country, the town was destroyed, and became deserted by its inhabitants. After twenty-four years, Ezoros, the Tyrian admiral, being deprived of office, and sailing around Lybia with thirty-seven vessels, and in consequence of a severe winter, took refuge in the harbour of Origdn, which was deserted. On examining the country, and admiring its situations, he built a town— Ezoris— and ruled it seventy-seven years. After his death, Tarsos, his son, assumed the government, and ruled the country during eighty- three years, and named the city after himself. After him reigned Jaros, the son of T'arsos, who conquered a large space of territory. He having reigned during seventy-eight years, his son Zéros succeeded to the government, At that time Didé, fleeing from her brother, Pygmalidn, the murderer of her husband, took refuge at Ezoris. Being of a fair countenance, and rich, Zoros married her. After living with Didd for a little time, he died of a sickness (or, as others say,f by poison, at the hands of Didd; hence her name Didd, which means a murderess), in the fifty-eighth year of his reign, and left the power to Didd. Didd then, having assumed the government, at first beautified the town with buildings, and constructed dock-yards; and she first named the town Chartigena, having given the name from Chartigena, a Phoenician town (for in it she was born). She also built a citadel having the form of a hill, similar to Byrsa, from which circumstance the name was derived, and strongly entrenched it. Having ruled thirteen years alone, she fell, contending valiantly, in a certain battle against the Lybians, and Chartigena was taken and pillaged by Jarbas, son of Iarvas, King of the Nomades, and Mazikes. The city yielded, after a short struggle, to Iarvas, who named it the Kené-Polis, and built in it palaces, and ruled over if twenty-two years. Then Karchédon, nephew of Iarbas, residing at Tyre, and learning what happened to Chartigmna, set out from Tyre with seventy-two ships, and anchored at Chartigeena on the tenth day. Having fought against the Lybians,
9 Colamn 2. + Column 3. Cc
10
he conquered them in battle by stratagem, and at the same time obtained
Hous, possession of the city, which he called Karchédén, after himself, and ruled 38. over it thirty-three years: he was a good king. Then Hannon, the son of 782
xv. Karchéddn, succeéded him, and, having governed during thirty-eight years, EzerosIV was attacked by Azdros, the Dynastés of Lybia, with a large army, with whom
ἴδ. he fought, and was completely overcome by him, and Karchédon destroyed, πατάξῃ Which city remained a desert during thirty years. On the first year of the seventh Olympiad,* Karchédon, of Phoenicia, the son of Mardanos, attacked the Lybians with powerful forces, and conquered, in three battles, Zaras, the second XVII. successor of Azodros, and ruled over Lybia. Having then built again Karchédon, he ruled over it, and over the country of Zaras, full thirty years. After xvtu, him Arrhachon, his son, ruled seven years. He died childless, and Hanndn, Henndn IX his nephew, ruled over the Karchédonians seventy years. After his death,
es. Phagethon, the son of Hannon, reigned for fifty-three years. And after Phogetiin Phagethin, Melampus, the son of Phagethén, succeeded to the Karchédonian
63, throne, and ruled eight years. He also died childless, and Hannon, his ae maternal uncle (a man of large ideas, who built the towns towards the west
Melampus and south of Lybia, in the fifth yeart of the government of Melampus), was 884. proclaimed king by his people. Having conquered a great part of Lybia, Haw and successfully and powerfully ruled over the Karchédonians sixty whole years,
ἘΣ his son Hannon succeeded to the power for two years. During his days xxii. Asarachos, chief of the Lybian Nomades, attacked the Karchédonians with a
Hanndn IV Jarge force, and Asarachos fell in the battle before his king, and the great 522. part of the army was slain by the Karchédonians.
i * Ἕ * ἰὴ *
Unfortunately this precious historical fragment ends here. What it contains will reconcile many disputed opinions of several historians, as it will also refute many others. And first, concerning the time in which Karchédon was first founded.
Appianos says, in his writings on the Karchédonians, that the Phoenicians built that town fifty years before the capture of Ilion.
* 752 B.C. + $87 B.C.
t The Phenicians built Karchédon, in Lybia, fifty years before the capture of Ilion. Zoros and Karchédon were the founders of it. But, as the Romans and Karchédonians themselves think, Dido, a Tyrian woman, whose husband Pygmalion, a tyrant of Tyre, had killed, and concealed the deed; but that Dido ascertained the murder in a dream, and set out with much treasure and a band of men who fled from the tyranny of Pygmalién, and arrived in Lybia, where Karchédoo now exists. Being driven away by the Lybians, they requested to have a small portion of land for a habitation, as much as the skin of a bull would encompass. They laughed at the smallness of the demand of the Phonicians, and were ashamed to refuse so small a favour, and were particularly at a loss to imagine how a town could be built in so small a space; and desiring to see what the cleverness of the design consisted in, they agreed to give the land, and the oaths were exchanged. The Phosnicians, having cut the skin into small strips, put them round the place where the citadel of Karchédon is now; and from this Byrsa is named. LEustathios relates similar things about Did6 and Byrsa. [See note to 12th page, §y.] But the historic Thébaic fragment relates the event otherwise. [See concerning it in page 9.] But I myself rather prefer the report of the Thébaic fragment, as more probable than the fabulous stories of the other writers.
11
The capture of Ilion took place (according to Timmos) 1343 years before Christ. If to these years fifty be added, the years before the capture will make 1393 years. Then Timeos agrees with the Thébaic historical fragment, as well as Appianos, about the time of the foundation. For, taking as a basis the first year of the seventh Olympiad (which coincides with the 752nd year before Christ), in which Karchédon, son of Mardanos, fifteenth King from Kadmos, the first founder of Karchédén, according to the Thébaic papyrian fragment, built again Karchédon, destroyed by Azoros, and deserted, and adding into one the numbers of the years of the rule of fourteen years of different dynasties before it, as well as the time of its desolation and anarchy, and taking at the same time the 752 years of the second Karchédin, of which we now treat, to the days of Christ our Lord, we have the number 1393, namely, the year in which the founding of Karchéddn took place. And from the number of these years, if we subtract the fifty years, we have the remainder 1343, namely, the year of the destruction of Ilion.
Then Appianos, having spoken truly as to the time of the foundation of Karchédon, was mistaken in saying that Zoros and Karchédon, or Didé, were the first founders of the city, as well as all the other historians who adopt his opinion. Stephanos of Byzantion,* and Eustathios, the learned annotator of Dionysios Periégétés,t relating that this city was once called Kadmeia (§€.), certify what the Thébaic fragment affirms; for it relates that Kadmos was the first founder, after whom the town was named Kadmeia. Zoros ruled over Karchédin the tenth after Kadmos, and Dido eleventh after Kadmas. Karchédon the first (for another of the same name existed) was the thirteenth after the first.
Byzantios, who said that it was named Oinousa (write -2nousa), was correct in his assertion; for A‘nousos, the nephew of Menebachés, a Lybian King, having driven Kadmos from the country, after conquering him in battle, reigned himself over Karchédon, which he especially called Anousa, in honour of himself.
Nor are those in error who say that the city was formerly named Kakkabé (§ «.), for Didouktias, son of Kadmos, surnamed Kakkabos, for the reason already given, having acquired sovereignty of his country, properly changed its name to Kakkaba.
* “ Karchédon, metropolis of Lybia, a most celebrated town (Chalkedén, a town of Bithynia, has the letters lt and k instead of p and x), so called from Karchédon, the Phenician. It was named New Town, and Kadmeia, and (Enousa (t.e. A©nousa), and Kakkabé, which, in their own language, signifies “ horse-headed.” There is another Karchédon, a city of Ibéria, which was also named the Kené-Polis. Eutropios says there is also another Karchédon in Armenia. The citizen is called Karchédonios. Karchedonios was a great and learned man, and Klétomachos, son of Diognétos, who was surnamed Asdrubas, was an academic philosopher, successor to Karneadés, of the Kyrénian School, who, m the twenty-eighth year of his age, arrived at Athéns quite ignorant of the alphabet, which he acquired only during the time that he was studying under Karneadés.”— Stephanos Byzantius.
+ “ τοῖς δ' ἵπι Καρχηδὼν (8 4.) πολυήρατον ἀμπίχει Sppeoy, Καρχηδὼν, Λιδύων pois ἀτὰρ πρότερον Φοινίκων" Καρχηδὼν, ἣν μῦθος ὑποαὶ (οἱ μετρηθῆναι." (Διονύσιος ‘sy Οἰκουμεένης περιηγήσει, Στίχ. 195.) “Besides these, Karchédon surrounds a beautiful harbour; Κατοπόάδη, belonging to the Lybians, but
formerly to the Phoenicians; Karchédon, which the fable relates was measured by an ox.”— Dionysios’ Travels Around the World, verse 195.
12
But Eusebios and Syncellos, in saying that the city was called Origd* before it was called Karchédén, unwittingly show their ignorance. For Origd, who was living some years before Karchédén, having come against Zearos, successor to Kaccabé, seized the kingdom for his own (for he was nephew of /®nousos), and destroyed Zearos, with all his house.
But when LEustathios, the Annotator (δ β.), says that Tarsos was also named Karchédén (having obtained his information from ancient annals), he speaks correctly, since Tarsos, having succeeded Ezoros his father, named the town Tarsos.
* Karchédén was built by Karchédon, the Tyrian, but some others say by Did6, his daughter, after the Trojan events, in the year 183. Before this it was named Origd. (Eusebios, in the first Discourse of the Annals, page 36, and in his Chronological Kanon, pages 126, 185. Edition of Amsterdam, 1658.) Georgios Syncellos affirms the same. See page 340, vol. I., ed. Bonn, and on pages $24 and 345.
(8 4.) Because Karchédon (Eustathios remarks) is the chief town of J.ybia, having formerly possessed a colony of Phosnicians, being after the Nomades. But he says that it has a good harbour; for, being built on the peninsula, it is well situated: the town is famed by historians, and possessed of great wealth and power. Therefore Dionysios also with admiration makes frequent and enthusiastic mention of it, saying, Karchédon belongs to the Lybians, but formerly to the Phoenicians. Karchédén, as the fable says, has been measured by the skin of an ox. In as many lines he thrice mentions the name of Karchédén. But they say that Karchédon, after being laid waste at the same time with Korinthos, was rebuilt by Cmsar, the aforesaid god (whose son was Sebastos), who sent there Roman colonists.
(§ 8.) Some say also that the sacred writers intend by Tharssis (or Tarshish), not Tarsos, but Karchédon, situated in Africa. δ
(§y) The story relating to the aforesaid ox is the following :— Dido, the sister of Pygmalion, daughter of Agénor, or of Bélos, King of the Tyrians (who was also called Elissa and Ana), having married Syncheos, a Phoenician, lived at Tyros. Him Pygmalion murders, for the sake of his wealth, whilst they were travelling together. But the murdered man revealed this event to his wife in a dream, and advises her to fly; because there was no trusting Pygmalién, for he’ preferred money to natural ties. Didé takes with her certain of the Tyrians, and carries off also her wealth, and comes to Lybia, but Iarbas, King of the Nomades and Mazikes, wished to send her away. The woman, however, requested to be given to her for money a portion of land which the skin of an ox could cover. Having obtained the demand, which was considered very small, she takes a skin, and cuts it into thin strips; lengthening it, she procured the land which was enclosed by the strips in length and breadth. She circumscribed a great space for the town by that stratagem, and thus Karchédon, belonging formerly to the Phanicians with Dido, now belongs to the Lybians. The inhabitants called her Did6, as some would say, murderess of her husband; and thus they calumniated her likewise, as being guilty of killing her husband, for the murder committed by her brother. And the citadel of the town, after the aforesaid story of the ox, was called in ancient times Byrsa,
(§ 2.) It is also said that the aforementioned Iarbas, having purified the city after its foundation, called it in the Lybian tongue the K:ené-Polis; and it was afterwards named Karchédon.
(8 ..) Others account for the name thus:— Karchédon, the town, is derived from Karchédon, a Phosnician ; and it was also named Kené-Polis, and Kadmeia, and Kakkabé, which signifies “ horse-headed” in the vernacular language. They say that from this town comes Kleitomachos, the academician philosopher, surnamed Asdrubas, who became a pupil of the wise Karneadés in his twenty-eighth year, a man ‘who came to Athéns ignorant of the first elements, and yet attained to great learning, by the aptitude of his nature and assiduous study.
(§¢-) Seme relate this concerning Karchédén:—that the men came with Elissa, namely, with Dido, being occupied in digging for the foundation of a city, and finding a head of an ox, abandoned the digging, as if they feared labour and continual servitude, which the ox undergoes. And having dug around a palm, tree planted there, they discovered a horse's head, and imagining this signified leisure and food given by others, as even to the horses, they built in this place Karchédon, which was destitute of good water, and for that reason was called Kakkabé,+ as is stated above.— Eusiathios, in his Annotations on Dionysios.
+ The Thebaic Codex relates otherwise concerning the digging of the horse’s head, &c. See page 9.
13
Georgios, of the Kedres, says with truth that it was named Chartigena,* for the Thébaic fragment confirms this.
And, lastly, those are in the right who say that it was called Karchédon, after its founder Karchédon. For a certain Karchédon re-built that town, which was destroyed in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, namely, 752 before Christ; for, with the Thébaic papyrus before us, and Apidn himself, with Josephus, in the second Discourse against Apion, declare distinctly this. Apion, the most reliable of all, fixed the exodus, correctly, about the seventh Olympiad, and in the first year of it he says that the Pheenicians built Karchéd6n. The reason why he added this building of Karchéddn was to be sure to strengthen his assertion by so evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this character confutes his assertion; for, if we may give credit to the Phoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony to Karchédon, they relate that Heirdmos, their king, was above one hundred and fifty years earlier than the building of Karchédién, concerning which I have formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records.
But although Josephus tries to falsify this proof of Apién, and affirms that the founding of Karchédén is more ancient than the year which Apion fixes, he speaks correctly; and yet neither of these erred. For Dido, the sister of Pygmalion, or Phygmalion, as Josephus affirms (see in his Discourse against Apion, 1, §§ 17, 18), with other historians, built Karchédon, and particularly its citadel, before Karchédon, and Karchéd6n again built it, after being destroyed, and abandoned altogether, by Azéros, King of Lybia.
It was built after a hundred and thirty-six years, and not more than a hundred and fifty, as Josephus affirms in the first and second books of his Discourse against Appianos, saying that the Temple of Solomon, in Jerusalem, was built a hundred and forty-three years and eight months earlier than Karchédon. But these opinions of those two men, namely, Josephos and Appianos, are confirmed by the Thébaic historical fragment, which expressly states that in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, Karchédon, son
* “Then A®neias, son of Anchisés, the Phrygian, flying from the destruction of Ilion, came to Lybia, to the Phoenician Did6, surnamed Elissa; and, having lived there, left her secretly, and fled for fear of Iarbas, King of Africa. Did6 came from a small town, Chartiké, situated on the coast of Phcnicia, between the limits of Tyre and Sidén. That Dido was very rich— married to a man, Synchsos, whom her brother, in the chase, murdered, for he envied bim 88΄ ἃ rich and great prince; for on horseback, in pursuit of a wild boar, he ran behind him, and slew him with his spear, and, having taken his remains, he threw them down a precipice, and, on his return, said to those who asked him that he had fallen headlong down a precipice in pursuing a wild boar. Pygmalién himself wished to kill his own sister also, and seize her wealth. Her murdered husband, Syncheos, appeared to Didé in a dream, and said to her, “Your brother killed me,” (pointing out to her the place of the wound,) and added, “fly, lest he also kill you. Thereupon Dido left her brother secretly, taking all her wealth, and, embarking on board a vessel, set out from Phanicia, and came to Lybia, and builded Chartagena, which is Neapolis, and reigned over it, and died after a prudent life.” (See “Synopsis of History,” by Georgios Kedrénos, pages 245, 256, vol. 1st. Edition, Bonn.) But Georgios Syncellos calls Didé Karthagena, and the town also built by her; and these are his words:— “After him (Metinos) Mygdalién, son of Plysmanos, year 47, in the seventh year of his reign, his sister, Karthagena, having fled into Lybia, built a town, Carthagena, which is Karchédén. In the twelfth year of the reign of Sirodmos the temple in Jerusalem was built. From him to the foundation of Karchédén are 143 years 8 months (see page 345). Here it is remarkable that Syncellos calls Pygmalion Mygdalion, and Josephus Phygmalion; and Heiromos is called after him Sirémos, Cheiramos after Tatianos.
14
of Mardanos, the Phoenician, having attacked the Lybians with powerful forces, conquered, in three battles, Zaras, the second successor of Azoros, and ruled over Lybia, and having built Karchédén, ruled over it, and all the country of Zara, thirty full years.
But Didd, who was many years earlier than the aforesaid Karchédon, flying from her brother Pygmalién, and taking refuge at Karchédon, with her wealth, when Zoros was the ruler of the country, married him, and ruled over Karchédon, succeeding to the power immediately after his death. And Dido arrived at Karchédon shortly after the death of King Zoros, to whom, on his death, in the year 888 before Christ, Dido succeeded, and ruled gloriously over the Karchédonians thirteen whole years, and, having materially benefited the Karchédonians, died heroically in a certain battle against the Lybians, which took place 875 years before Christ.
From all that we have premised, we may conclude that the historians of Karchédén have not left correct accounts; some things they omitted, some things they transformed, and to some things they gave a mystical colouring. Therefore the moderns, being ignoraut of the true fact, left out altogether what was antecedent to Didd and Karchédon, attributed to Didd and Karchédon, not merely many acts which really occurred after their time, but also many which took place before them. Whereas we are now assured, by the incontestable evidence of the Thébaic fragment, that Karchédon had not a single founder or restorer, but many.
What a treasure of historical truth, then, was contained in the lost part of this Thébaic testimony of two thousand years! which, certainly springing from the sourccs of truth, could dissipate the darkness of the ignorance of so many centuries, and irradiate with the light of truth the horizon of history, which some rash historians (and not a few psuedo-critics of the present age) have endeavoured by ridiculous sophisms to overshadow with the dark cloud of ignorance. But as it is, this most precious fragment, preserved to us by a miracle, hath shed sufficient light on the more ancient and darker portion of the history of the Karchédonian nation.
This was discovered in the collection of the celebrated Mr. Joseph Mayer. It is one English foot four and a quarter inches in length, and one foot in breadth. 718 papyrus has the colour of the sponge, and is of a kind called by the Egyptians ASACHAM, namely, “ beautiful-leaved.” It is written in uncial characters, and with the ink called by the Egyptians Mrerrua, namely, “useful.” It is called caligraphically ASCHNALIA. The whole of it is comprised in a hundred and fifty-one lines, which are divided into four columns, of which the first and second contain thirty-seven lines ; the third, thirty-eight; the fourth, thirty-nine. I am able, from my knowledge of paleography, to state with confidence my belief that it was written shortly before the Christian era.
These remarks are sufficient, I think, about the papyrus. My readers can see other particulars in its faithful fac-simile.
Having, then, spoken what is requisite about this most remarkable Thébaic relic, I think it not proper to omit at present the discovery of other similar historical remains, which was made on the 8th of June of the present year, but select from these synoptically what are essential; for both of them are very interesting to our subject.
15
They are three in number, written in the third century after Christ. Though torn into small pieces in every part, and destroyed by time, they record the battles of ancient nations which we cannot find in any of the writers or poets known to us.
One of these contains thirty lines, and relates, first, that between Assamenes, chief of the tribe Nomades, and Damoras, general of the Karchédonians, two great battles took place formerly (at what period is not known). In the first battle Damoras was totally vanquished, and saved himself by flight. He lost in this battle the greatest part of his army, and Menimou, his first-born son. In the second battle Assamenes is completely defeated, and at the same time dies by the spear of Damoras.
The second fragment, the most interesting for its chronology, says that in a certain battle (perhaps against the Karchédonians), Nemes, the general of Nassamon, lost his life. In the fourth year of the fifth Olympiad, Kadmos, the fifteenth king of the Karchédonians, vanquished in battle and totally destroyed the Nassamones, the Galigammes, and the Auschises, who came against him with great forces. These are ancient nations of Lybia, of whom Hérodotos speaks a great deal in the Melpomené. In this battle Démachos, the King of the Nasamones, and general of all the combined force, was taken prisoner, and conducted to Karchédon. These events took place in the seventh year of his reign, namely, 757 before Christ. It relates many other events about this battle, besides another battle between the Lycians and Pamphylians, which took place in the same year in which the aforesaid battle occurred. They are all contained in twenty-eight lines.
The third fragment, containing twelve lines, relates to an irruption of Karians and Pamphylians into Lycia, of which they destroyed the towns Dedala and Arykanda. The chief of the Karians was Erymanthos, and of the Pamphylians Euthydémos, the son of Karnos.
In a few words, these are the contents of the interesting documents, which it has been judged proper to publish with fac-simile; which, with their contents, and their true translation, can be seen, by those who desire it, at the end of the present volume.
Who, then, is the writer of these? I know not. Perhaps it is the same who wrote the two. fragments published in the Mayerian Codex; for the writing, the style, the papyrus itself, strengthen this conjecture. But, unfortunately, he is yet unknown. But Time, the revealer of all secrets, will, perhaps, unfold this for the benefit of literature.
We come now to speak about the writer of the Periplus— Hannon. For our aim at first was not to relate about Karchédon, but to say something correctly about the ancestors of the author of whom we treat, and afterwards about the author himself. Some of the modern critics contend, without any proof, that the Periplus which has come down to us is a work, not of the Karchédonian Hannén, King of Karchédon, but of some other person. Others, again, of different opinion, accept, and affirm with ancient proof, that this work is the genuine production of Hannon, which is indeed true. For Aristotelés, of Kyréné, also mentions it in the book “Περὶ Oavpaciwy ἀκουσμάτων ” (about remarkable relations), speaking thus:— “It is said that all the parts beyond the Héracleian Straits burn, some constantly, some only during the night, as the Periplus of Hannon affirms.”
16
And, still further, Athéngos, in the third book of his Deipnosophiste, has mentioned Hannén in these words :—
“El μέν te τούτων ᾿Ιόδας ἱστορεῖ . * # * Χαιρέτω Λιβυκαῖσι βίδλοις, ταῖσί τε “Αννωνος πλάναις."
“Tf Iobas relates any of these * * #® * T don’t care, In Lybian books and wanderings of Hannon.”
Again: Marcianos, the Héracleitian, from the Euxine, in the epitome of Artemidoros and Menippos, mentions, with many others, the name of Hannin thus:—‘“‘ Also Appelas, the Kyrénean; Euthymenés, the Massalistés; Phileas, the Athénian; Androsthenés, the Thasian; Kleon, the Sicilian; Eudoxos, the Rhodian; Hannon, the Karchédonian, wrote certain parts, some of all, the interior sea, and others of the navigation of the exterior sea.”
In addition to these, Arrhianos, in his history of India, speaks thus of Hannon :— “Hannon, the Lybian, having come from Karchédon, sailed out of the Straits of Héraclés into the ocean, having on his right the Lybian coast. His voyage was directed towards the east during thirty-five days; and on steering towards the south, he suffered great tortures, through scarcity of water, and intensely hot weather, and warm streams running into the ocean.”
Nor has Aristeidés, the Byzantian, overlooked the writings of Hannon, but, having alighted on them, read them, as he relates in his book upon the Egyptians (see Book Second, page 474) the following :—‘“ But the Karchédonians who sailed out of Gadeira, and who inhabited the deserted towns of Lybia, did not bring home that report, nor did they inscribe or deposit anything in the temple, but wrote quite a different and absurd account. I say that it is proper to publish and disseminate also this, like the Karchédonian princes, who inscribed letters on behalf of these in some of the public temples.”
"So says Aristeidés; but the learned Hérodotos, who travelled in Lybia, and ascertained many facts, and wrote very curious things, did not omit whatever the Karchédonian historians relate about the nations which dwell beyond the Straits of Héraclés, but gave to history all this, with his usual graphic simplicity. Thus even the father of history himself immortalises the writings of HannGn.
‘‘On them,” says Hérodotos, “ border the Gyzantians, amongst whom a vast deal of honey is made by bees; very much more, however, by the skill of the natives. The people all paint themselves red, and feed on apes, whereof there is an inexhaustible store in the hills. Off that coast, as the Karchédonians report, lies an island, by name Kyrannis, the length of which is two hundred stadia; its breadth is not great, and soon reached from the main land, and abounds with olives and vines. There is in the island a lake, from which the young maidens of the country draw up gold dust, by dipping into the mud birds’ feathers smeared with pitch. If this be true I know not. I but write what is reported. It may be even so, however, since I myself have seen pitch drawn up out of the water from a lake in Zakynthos. In that very place TI spoke of there are many lakes; but one is larger than the rest, being seventy feet every way, and two fathoms in depth. They let down a pole into this water, with a bunch of myrtle tied to ome end; and when they raise it again, there is pitch adhering to the myrtle, which has the smell of bitumen, but is in other respects preferable to the pitch of Pieria. This they pour into a trench dug by the side of the lake;
17
and when a good deal has thus been got together, they draw it off, and put it up in jars. Whatever falls into the lake passes underground, and comes up in the sea, which is distant four stadia. So, then, what is said of the island off the Lybian coast is probably true.
The Karchédonians also relate the following:— There is a country in Lybia, and a nation, beyond the Pillars of Héraclés, which they are wont to visit, where they no sooner arrive but forthwith they unlade their wares, and, having arranged them properly along the beach, leave them, and going aboard their ships, raise a great smoke. The natives, when they see the smoke, come down to the shore, and, laying out to view so much gold as they consider the worth of the wares, retire to a distance. The Karchédonians thereupon disembark, and examine it. If they think the gold equivalent, they take it, and withdraw; but if it does not seem to them sufficient, they re-embark, and wait patiently. Then the others approach, and add to their gold till the Karchédonians are satisfied. Neither party deals unfairly with the other; for they themselves never touch the gold till it comes up to the worth of the goods; nor do the natives ever carry off the goods till the gold is taken away.” (See “Melpomené,” §§ 194— 197.)
I have myself, besides the aforementioned proofs, some other testimony, equally strong, on a fragment of papyrus, which has been hitherto unknown. It contains some information respecting the settlements on western shores of Lybia which were colonised by Hannon, and confirms the opinion that the Periplus belongs to him, and affords other interesting matter, on the testimony of Androsthenés, son of Dioddros, the Thasian, admiral of Alexandros the Great, a man who composed many learned treatises, and particularly the Periplus of the southern coast of Asia, which he circumnavigated with Nearchos, at the command of Alexandros, conqueror of the world. These treatises are, alas! all destroyed by ‘ime, except some very short fragments discovered in Mr. Mayer's Museum, as we related in the introduction to the Mayerian Codex, page 8. The fragment of which we now speak is the following :—
“And Melitta having a very fertile soil, Hannon, the Karchédonian, founded a town in the first year of the forty-eighth Olympiad — 598 before Christ. The town was built at the mouths of the present Salathés, a river, which was formerly called Emegis. And the temple of Aphrodité Chrysoros is situated upon the summit of the right bank of the river, in the midst of the town. In this temple is to be seen a golden column, about the height of a man, on which are read the contests of Melittian heroes, and many good deeds of the priests of the goddess on another golden column. Bachon, the chief of the Lybian Nomades, destroyed Melitta, which was formerly very strong. This opinion Androsthenés, the son of Diodoros, the Thasian, confirms, in these words (in the third book of his Gikisti1ka):—‘The town Melitta being inhabited, Hannon first built, as his travels affirm, and erected a temple of RAMMERA BEA, that is to say, of Aphrodité Chrysoros, in the town, very wonderful indeed. But Bachon, the Lybian, with great forces invaded the country, and vanquished the Melittians in four battles, seizing and destroying the town. After some time it was rebuilt by Autolalians, more splendidly than before, and was again destroyed by civil war. In the third year of the seventy-first Olympiad, 489 before Christ, 102 years after its first foundation, Asdroubas, the Melittian, becoming powerful, built the town for the third time, and dedicated it to Arés Agemmanios [always plunged in war], and raised a magnificent temple in it. §§ Klytomédés, the son of Théramenés, the Kalathinian, gives similar statements in the fifteenth of the Lybian Annals. Gerrhé was also founded by the Autolalae, and is ruled by tribes. There are eight tribes in it, namely, Gerrhara,
Marrha, Aderrhé, Esthabé, Meathé, Ephara, Mothis, and Choramethis.’”’ D
18
And here ends this evidence, the truth of which another writer, Eustratios, affirms, who flourished in the fifteenth century after Christ, and composed many other annotations to the Periplus of Hannon, which I shall add to the Periplus, for they contain many things deserving of great consideration. Eustratios agrees with these writings in the following words: —‘“* Hannon built, after the foundation of Acra and Melitta, a city which became very productive and powerful in later times. It was built towards the sources of the river Salathos, on each bank. The temple of the Aphrodité Chrysoros was built on the hill, situated in the midst, on the nght bank of the river. But at length it was destroyed by the Nomades tribes, and at last became a desert. But it was re-erected by the Autolale, who conquered the whole country, and named it Salathé, after the name of the river. These people built another town, named Gerrha, farther than Melitta, and another again at the mouth of the river Chousarios. Upon the cape Gennaria, which forms the harbour of the town Chousarios, a temple of the Gennarian Poseidon was erected. This is a building of Gennarios, a local hero, by whom the cape was named Gennaria. It is also related that this town was destroyed a second time, and rebuilt by the Melittian Asdrubas, an enterprising man, as says the Thasian Androsthenés, with Diotimos, son of Metagenés, of Adramyttion, in the fifty-third book ( Παντοδαπῶν ᾿αναγνωσμάτων᾽ (of Miscellaneous Readings).”
And this is all that Eustratios says, which, as we see, not only agrees with Androsthenés, but adds more than this, from different sources, altogether unknown to us. Besides these assurances which he gives us about the town Melitta, Salathé, Gerrha, the river Chousaris, city Chousaris, and Cape Gennaria, and the hero Gennarios, after whom was named both the cape and temple of Poseidon erected on the cape, he also relates about Diotimos, son of Metagenés, an ancient historian of Adramyttion, and about his writings called “ Miscellaneous Readings,” and divided into eighty-six volumes, which are all, unfortunately, lost. |
The fact that Eustratios makes mention of Diotimos, and that Androsthenés, as quoted by Diotimus, gives the same testimony as that writer, encourages us in the belief that the author of the fragments under consideration is Diotimos, who, speaking about the western and eastern Lybia, and bringing as a witness Hannon, King of Karchédén, quotes the histories of Androsthenés for further certainty of what he writes. If Diotimos is the writer of the aforesaid fragment (for other of the ancient lost historians wrote of the Lybian nations beyond the Héraclean Straits), it is a valuable discovery.*
Stephanos, the Byzantian, alone mentions this man (as far as I know), in two places of his Ethnica. First, under the name Passargadae (which he mentions in the 65th book of Miscellaneous Readings); and, secondly, under the name Gargara, as follows:— There (namely, among the Gargarians) Diotimos, the Adramyttian, taught letters, of whom Aratos spoke —
“ Αἰάζω Διότιμον, ὃς ἐν πέτρῃσι κάθηται, Παισὶ Γαργαρέων βῆτα καὶ ἄλφα λέγων." =
((1 praise Diotimos, who is sitting on the rocks, With the children of the Gargarians, teaching them the alphabet.”
« Eleven of his Epigrams are preserved in the Anthologia Greca, p. 183, vol. 1. Ed. Jacobs. Leipzig, 1794.
19
This is sufficient at present about Diotimos. The fragment which is attributed to Diotimos is in length eight aud a quarter inches, in breadth the same. The writing is small, but easy to read, which is called caligraphically Anttcallicratian writing, namely, too small for Callicratés, the Lacedemonian, who flourished in the fifth century before Christ, and used to write with very small letters; as also did Myrmecidés, the Milétian, contemporary with Callicratés, of whom we read in the general history of Zélianos as follows (17th par.):—‘ Of the smallest Carriage and Elegy.— These, then, are the small works, the most admired of Myrmécidés, of Milésia, and Callicratés, of the Lacedwmon. They constructed carriages covered by a fly, and wrote an elegy of two verses on one grain of sesame, with golden letters, neither of which, I think, the wise will eulogise; for what is that but waste of time?’ (See in book first.) The whole of it is composed of fifty-two lines, which are contained in two columns. The papyrus is of the kind which by the Egyptians is called Maraba, namely, “hard.” The ink is of the same composition as that of the Thébaic papyrus. Its writing is attributed to the first century before Christ.
Additional authorities in favour of the Periplus being ascribed to Hannon are the following :—
I, ‘“ Hanno Carthaginiensis exploratum missus ἃ suis, cum per Oceani ostium exisset, magnam partem ejus circumvectus, non se mari, sed commeatu defecisse, memoratu retulerat. Et mox: Super eos grandis littoris flexus grandam insulam includit, in qua tantum feminas esse narrant, toto corpore hirsutas, et sine coitu marium sua sponte foecundas: adeo asperis afferisque moribus, ut quaedam contineri ne reluctentur vix vinculis possint. Hoe Hanno retulit, et quia detracta occisis coria pertulerat, fides habita est.” (Pomponius Mela, lib. iii. c. 9.)
II. ‘“ Hanno, Carthaginis potentia florente, circumvectus ἃ Gadibus ad finem Arabiae, navigationem cum prodidit scripto.” (Plinius in Hist. Natt., lib. ii. c. 67.)
III. “ Fuére et Hannonis Carthaginiensium ducis comentarii, Punicis rebus floren- tissimis explorare ambitum Africae jussi: quem secuti plerique ἃ Grecis nostrique, et alia quidem fabulosa, et urbes multas ab eo conditas ibi, prodidere, quarum nec memoria ulla, nec vestigium exstart.’’ (lJdem, lib v. c. 1.)
IV. “ Penetravit in eas (Corgadum insulas) Hanno Poenorum Imperator, prodiditque hirta feminarum corpora, viros pernicitate evasisse: duarumque gorgorum cutes argumenti et miraculi gratia in Junonis templo posuit spectatas usque ad Carthaginem captam.” (Idem, lib v. c. 36.)
V. “ Prodidit Xenophon Lampsacenus Hannonem Poenorum regem in eas (gorgadum insulas) permeavisse, repertasque ibi feminas _aliti pernicitate, atque ex omnibus quae apparuerant, duas captas tam hirto atque aspero corpore, ut argumentum spectandae rei duarum cutes miraculi gratia inter donaria Junonis suspenderit: quae duravere usque in tempora exidii Carthaginiensis.” (Julius Solinus, sup. finem, cap. 56.)
VI. “Quod Aristides et alii nonnulli ὃ veteribus, et multi ὃ recentibus fabulosam existimant hanc Hannonis narrationem, in eo plurimum illos fefellit ratio. Dignum est enim hoc monumentum quod cum cura illustretur, non tantum veritatis ergo, sed et gratia antiquitatis, cum id omnibus Grecorum monumentis longe sit vetustius.” (Tsaacus Vossius, in Observationibus ad Melam, p. 302.)
20
Dion Chrysostomos says concerning the colonies of Hannon :—‘ Hannon, the Karché- donian, makes the Karchédouians Lybian, instead of Tyrians; and says that they inhabited Lybia, instead of Phoenicia; and that they got much wealth and great trade, and harbours, and many triremes, and ruled over much land and sea.” (Olaf, vol. i. Reicke. p- 582.)
Stephanos of Byzantion, in his general Descriptions of Nations, has made mention of Hanndn and his Periplus, not once, or twice, or three times, but often. And the reader may see the proofs in the Notes. But what need is there to speak of the proofs? the Thébaic Codex of Hannon itself acknowledges this, in the preface.
Hannon says that the King of the Karchédonians dedicated his Periplus to the greatest god, Kronos, and to all those dwelling together in the same temple.
“Tt was resolved by the Karchédonians that Hannon should sail beyond the Columns of Herakles, to build Lybiphoenician towns. He sailed, conducting his large vessels, seventy-seven in number, and a great many men and women, numbering thirty thousand, and provisions and other necessary things.”
The testimony of the copyist Evagrios is very strong, who flourished in the first century before Christ :—
“ His son having reigned fifty-three years, Melampus, son of the latter, succeeds to the power, but, being condemned by fate to be childless, Hannon, his maternal uncle, seizes the power, and reigns over the Karchédonians sixty years. He it was who, before his reign, built the Lybiphoenician cities beyond the Straits of Héraklés, by command of the Karchédonians, as his Periplus shows, which he engraved on a stone, in Phoenician, depositing it in the temple of Kronos, the protector of the city.”
Also the Thébaic historical fragment strengthens more and more all the proofs, and contains this :—
“ After Phagethon, Melampus, son of Phagethdn, inherited the government of the Karchédonians, and ruled over them eight years. Having died childless, Hannon, his maternal uncle, a magnanimous man (who built the towns towards the western and southern Lybia, in the fifth year of the reign of Melampus—587 before Christ), was proclaimed King by the people.”
Hanndn composed his Periplus, not in the Greek language, as some think, but in Phoenician, as Evagrios, Dionysios, and Eustratios testify, and dedicated it to Kronos, protector of the Karchédonians. And this is not a subject for contradiction; for Hannon, being a Phoenician by origin, and living at a period in which the Greek tongue was not popular, as in the days of Alexandros the Great and his successors, wrote in his vernacular language, and dedicated his writings to his country’s temples, and to his fatherland.
And who is his first Greek translator? Evagrios says that it was Polykleitos, son of Melikerios, the Kyrénian. And when? At the same time (ke says) in which Alexandros, the son of Philippos, was born, namely 356 before Christ. We believe that the text of the Periplus was known to other learned Greeks, before the Greek translation of Polykleitos. This is also stated by Dionysios, the metropolitan of Lybia, whose Discourses we shall presently notice. For at Karchédoén itself, and in its surrounding barbarian towns, particularly in the Greek towns of Kyréné, there existed many Greek
21
philosophers, occupied in many things. And we have the authority of Hérodotos, who, being one century later than Polycleitos, and visiting Lybia, learned its contents, and selected not a few materials from it, which he inserted in the Melpomené, as we have shown. Nor was he unknown to the historian Palephatos, nor to the geographer Skylax, nor to Ekateos, the Milésian, nor to Ephoros, the Kymean, nor to Kastor, the Rhodian, who are posterior to Polycleitos; because they also relate many geographical names and nations mentioned in the Periplus of Hanndén, as is proved in my notes. But we may be told that it is probable that these men did not learn what they wrote about western and southern Lybia from Hannon, but from their own observations, made in visits to the nations beyond the Héraklean Columns. This is also very probable, and not wonderful, for each of them writes from his own knowledge, whatever he writes about those nations. But Eustratios, the Symean, in the Annotations to the Periplus of Hannén, says of Hannin himself, and of the Periplus:
‘Hannon, after arriving at Karchéddn, and writing his Periplus in the Phoenician language, upon a column, and reading it, as was customary, in the assembly, deposited it, after dedication, in the temple of Kronos, as Kastér affirms. Hannin, having obtained regal honours, reigned eight years over the Karchédonians, after the death of Melampus. Hannon held the power in the fourth year of the forty-eighth Olympiad (584 before Christ), and, having ruled over the Karchédonians paternally during full sixty years, died in the fourth year of the seventy-first Olympiad (524 before Christ), the Periplus being composed in the Phoenician language, as it is said Polycleitos, the Kyrénan, translated it into Greek. Before him Kadmos and Aristagoras, the Kyréneans, translated it also; but I do not know what became of their translation; and Polycleitos had undertaken a different one from the existing copy, which has been corrupted not a little by the errors of the copyists.”
From this fragment, besides the information we obtain about Hannén, we learn also that another translation of the Periplus took place before Polykleitos, by Aristagoras and Kadmias, which is likely to have been destroyed by Time. And Polykleitos had undertaken another. As the matter stands, the Greek translation of the Periplus which has come to us is attributed to Polykleitos, according to his copyists, Evagrios and Dionysios and Hustratios. As we can judge, the trustworthy and excellent Greek translator of this Periplus was Polykleitos, the Kyréngean. And from this translation of Polykleitos one Evagrios, son of Evagrios, native of Mygism, a city of Karia, having obtained a copy, made three transcripts, and presented them to Epimachos, Archén of Alexandria, on account of his generosity, in the third year of the 182nd Olympiad, viz., 50 years before Christ. One of these it is, perhaps, which has come safe to us as by a miracle.
But if any one is incredulous, and says, “And do you, Simdnidés, believe that this copy is the one of those three which Kvagrios wrote?” I shall answer him, “Friend! no one can assert it; because in that time there did not exist the custom of ratifying the autograph of this or the other man with the Mayor’s seal, nor with the signatures of witnesses. But the paleographic knowledge which I have obtained from reading and assiduous study of thousands of manuscripts, on various subjects, of every period, before Christ as well as after Christ, and likewise the particular knowledge
22
about the different writing materials of the ancient nations and towns, which I have acquired by long experience and readings of ancient writings, and particularly of the librarians of Pergamos, Alexandria, Byzantion, and Athos, who were privately engaged in this, namely, of the knowledge of the manuscripts, the style of writing of every town, the distinction of the papyri of every Egyptian country and period, the mode of preparing the skins, and, besides, the ancient distinction of the ink, and the change by Time (arising from the different preparations of the skins and atmospheric influence) —this experience, I say, obliges me to believe, and say before the world, that this work was certainly written in the period before Christ, as is shown by its style of writing, which is particularly called Epiakammos, by the papyrus, which is of Saitices preparation, and by the ink with which it is written (of Aléthemtcean composition, and called <Aléthemicon). The correct style of the writing confirms my opinion, for no copy of this Periplus which exists in the European librdries has so many orthographic variations, some of which are very important, and are noted in their proper places. I will add the testimony of Dionysios, the metropolitan of Lybia, in his work on the homonymous poets and writers :—
“ Hanndn was the son of Ezdros, the Karchédonian, and uncle of Melampus, twentieth King of Karchédon, whom he succeeded after his death (as he died childless), in the fourth year of the forty-eighth Olympiad (584 years before Christ), and having ruled sixty years over the Karchédonians, died, aged a hundred, as Chardn, the Naucratean, and Charon, the Kyrénean, relate. Many of the ancient historians attributed to this King, the Periplus beyond the Straits of Héraclés. He composed it in the Phoenician language, and dedicated it to his paternal temple at Karchédon. Many others, and particularly Greeks, translated it, but principally Polycleitos, the Kyrénean, who translated it more carefully into the Greek language, ss is judged from the metropolitan copy in Alexandra. This Polycleitos was contemporary with Aristotele. Polycleitos also composed the Archwology of Kyréné, in three books, and of all Lybia in thirty-four volumes. He died at Alexandria, in the second year of the 116th Olympiad (315 years before Christ). Besides him there existed others named Hannon, as the following: — First, Hanndn, son of Asserymos, from Tyre, who wrote about the loss of the Tyrians, as Menandros, the Ephesian, says. Second, his nephew, who ruled over the Tyrians the tenth before Heirdmos, as Dios affirmed. Third, of Apamia, who was an historian, flourishing in the first Olympiad. Fourth, the son of Karchédon, who ruled over Karchédén thirty-eight years before the first Olympiad. Fifth, the son of Astartos, nephew of Arrhachos, King of Karchédon, who succeeded to Arrhachos in the first year of the sixteenth Olympiad, as Chardn, of Naucratis, mentions. Sixth, the son of Hannon, grandson of Ezéros, obtained the power over the Karchédonians for two years, after the death of his father, Hannén, in the end of the second year of the sixty-second Olympiad. The seventh was the son of Abdémon, who flourished in the eighty-fifth Olympiad, and conquered the Lybian Nomades; Imilcon was his son, who was in the expedition of Hannibas against Sicily, in the third year of the ninety-third Olympiad. Eighth, called Hannon The Great, who wrote the Archwology of Lybia in the Phanician language; he flourished in the fifty-seventh Olympiad. Ninth, the son of Boumilchar, a celebrated general of the
23
Karchédonians. Tenth, the son of Hannibas. [Eleventh, the son of Abibalam, who lived in the 130th Olympiad. Twelfth, a great general of the Karchédonians, who existed in the 140th Olympiad. Thirteenth, the son of Aristagoras, prince of Alexandria, who flourished in the 170th Olympiad, and composed the Archeology of Egypt, in thirty-three books. Fourteenth, He of Ephesos, son of Neandros, born in the second year of the 142nd Olympiad, who wrote many learned treatises, as follows : — Annals of the Ephesians, in four books; Archeology of Knidos, in two volumes; Lives of Celebrated Men, in twenty volumes; Voyage Round the Earth; History of Persia, in two volumes; History of Lyciaca, in seven volumes. He died at an advanced age; it is related that he died, being fully one hundred years of age, when sacrificing.”
We gather’ from this passage that the text of the Periplus was known to many learned Greeks before the translation by Polycletes, as has been before mentioned.* We will now inspect the text of the Periplus in the Evagrian Codex, and its variations from the other Codices known to exist in Europe, which, we think, will establish its great value as compared with any others which have been edited.
* This Periplus was also known to Hermippos, of Bérytos, for he makes mention of it in an epistle to Horus; as also of one Callimachos, who annotated the Periplus of Hannén. His letter is as follows :—
“Ἔρμιππος “Ape πλεῖστα χαίρειν. Χαιρήμων, καὶ “Opec, καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς͵ καὶ Χίνωφις, ὦ τέκνον, φασὶ τὸν κύκλον καὶ τὴν χεῖρα διαδόσεως εἶναι σύμφολα. ἩἨΐ δὲ σύζευξις, τῶν στρουθοκαμηλίων πτίλων καὶ ἡ τοῦ κύκλου γραφὴ τὸν ἐν πᾶσιν ἀληθεύοντα καὶ ἀδιάψευστον λόγον σημαίνι. Τὸ δὲ Μωσραχαὲ σύμξἭβολόν (ἐστι δὲ τοῦτο στόμα καὶ γραφὴ κάθετος) χλεύην εἰκάζει. τὸ δὲ “ADups δνομά ἐστιν ἐπίθετον τῆς Ἴσιδος" ἑρμηνιυόμενον δὲ τοῦτο, οἶκον φράζει κόσμιον “Qpov. TS δὲ "ARE ὄνομα ἔχθραν σημαίνει, ἣν καὶ ἐρεφαίνει λέοντος χαθημεέγου ypapn, Τὸ δὲ Miv ὄνομα αἰσθητοῦ ἔστι καὶ ὁρατοῦ κύσμου μήνυμα. Ὃ δὲ σχοῖνος ἐστι φυτὸν Θαμνῶδες καὶ καλαμοφόρον ἐν τοῖς ἐνδοτέροις τῆς Αἰγύπτου μέρεσι φυόμενον. Τοῦτο οὖν οἱ Αἰγύπτιο' κηπεύονντες τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ καλάμοις χρᾶνταί" εἶσι γὰρ καλοὶ πρὸς γραφὴν λίαν. Al ὃ καὶ γράμματα τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους δηλῶσαι βουλομένους, σχοίνιον κάλαμον, καὶ σ'χοίνιον κόσκινον ἅμα μεελανοδοχείω γράφοντες, σημαίνουσι. Σημαίνει δὲ τὸ σύμ(ολον τοῦτο ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε καὶ ἱερογραμματία καὶ πίρας ἀγαθόν. Καὶ τοσαῦτα μὲν ἐνταῦθα περὶ τῶν συμ(βολικῶν ἀποριῶν σου. Τὰς δὲ «ερὶ ἽΑΛννωγος τοῦ Καρχηδονίον καὶ τοῦ Περίπλου αὑτοῦ δισταγμούς σοῦ Καλλίμαχος λύσει σοι ὁ Καρχηδόνιος καὶ σχολιαστὴς ἽΑννωγος, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος πλὴν τούτου. "“Εῤῥωσο." (Vide ΟΟΡΕΣ Mayertanus, p. 24.)
24
ANNQN KAPXHAONIQN BACIAEYC TON NEPINAOYN ΚΡΟΝΩΙ SEQ! MELICTQAl ΚΑΙ TOIC CYNNAOIC MACIN. ἜΔΟΞΕ Kap- χηδονίοις “Avywva πλεῖν ἔξω Στηλῶν ὅ Ἡρακλείων καὶ πόλεις κτίζειν Λιβυφοι- νίκων. Καὶ ἔπλευσε πεντηκοντόρους ἑπτὰ πρὸς τοῖς [€] ξήκίον) ra ἄγων, καὶ πλῆθος ἀν- ρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν εἰς ἀριθμὸν μυριάδων τριῶν [καὶ σιτΊία κ[αὶ τὴν ἄλλην πὶαρασκενήν. Ὡς δ᾽ ἀναχθέν- 10 τες τὰς Στήλας παρημείψαμεν καὶ ἔξω πλοῦν δυοῖν ἡμερῶν ἐπλεύσαμεν, ἐκτί- σαμεν πρώτην πόλιν, ἦν τινα ὠνομά- σαμεν Θυμιατίήριον, ἢ ἐν 7 καὶ ἱερὸν Βου- λαίου Διὸς ἱδρύσαμεν' πεδίον δὲ τῇ πόλει, 15 μέγα ὑπὴν καὶ βαἰθύ]σκιον. Κάπειτα πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἀναχθ ἔν)τες ἐπὶ Σολόεν- ta,t Λιβυκὸν ἀκρωτήριον λάσιον δένδρεσι, συνήλθομεν. Ἔνθα μικρὸν χροϊνίς σαν- τες καὶ Ποσειδίῶνος ἱερὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐγγὺς 20 λόφου ἱδρυσ[άμ]ενοι πάλιν ἐπέβημεν πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα ἡμέρας τρεῖς ἥμισυ, ἄχρις ἐκομίσθημεν εἰς λίμνην
οὐ πόῤῥω τῆς θαϊλά)ττης κειμένην, καλάμου μεστὴν π]ολλοῦ καὶ μεϊγ]άλου'
25 ἐνῆσαν δὲ καὶ ἐλ[έφ]αντες καὶ ἄλλα θηρία νεμόμενα πάμπολα. Typ τε λίμνην παραλλάξαντες ὅσον ἡμέρας πλοῦν, κατῳκίσαμεν πόλεις πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ καλουμένας Καρικόν τε Τεῖ-
80 Xos | i καὶ Τύττην, ὃ καὶ “Axpay, | καὶ Μέλιωγτταν, Ἷ καὶ ᾿Αραμβυν"" καὶ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐταῖς ἱδρύ- σαμεν τέσσαρα, Appovos ἐν Tur- ™, ‘Appovias ἐν "Axpy, Xpvcoplos] Μελίττῃ, Πολυβούλον ᾿Αθηνᾶς] ἐν
35 ᾿Αράμβυϊ. Κἀκεῖθεν δ᾽ ἀναχθέυ[τ]ες
The title which is generally prefixed to the text of Hannon is as follows : ~ ““Amenee Καρχεδονίων βασιλέως περίπλους (διήγησις" Vossius ) τῶν ὁ wip τὰ; Ἡρακλίους Στήλας AiCuxan τῆς γῆς μερῶν, ὃν καὶ ἀνέθηκεν ἔν τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου τεμένει, δηλοῦντα τάδε" I think, however, that this has been inserted by the copyists, and is not part of the original composition.
3. Ἕδοξε —In the copy of Eustratios, ““Ἔδοξε τοῖς iv ἀρχῇ Καρχηδονίοις. Same edition, read ἔδοξεν. 6. Kat ἔπλευσε πεντ. ἑπτὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἐξήκ: --- This passage in the common editions occurs without the adverbs “ἑπτὼ, πρὸς voc. In the same edition the reading is ‘‘iwaeucty,” etc. 1]. ‘Exticaxey—In the MS. of Eustratios, “ κἰκίσαμεν." 18 — 15. Θυμιατήριον, ἐν ἢ καὶ βαθύσκιον. Kaw:—In the common texts the reading is, “ἀνομάσαμεν Ou’ πεδίον δ᾽ αὑτῇ μέγα ὑπῆν. κἄπειτα," ete. 18. Ἔνθα μικ. xp. καὶ Π. lap. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐγ. λόφ. 1p:—In the text of Eustratios, “ἔνθα fainpcy χρονίσαντες χρόνον," etc. In our common edition the reading ls, ““ἔγθα Ἰτοσειδῶνος ἱερὸν ἱδρυσάμενοι πάλιν," etc. 21. ‘He. τρεῖς ἥμισυ --- ΤΏ common edition, “ἡμέρας ἥμισυ." 22, Αχρις ἐκ, eto.—In the MS. of Eustratios, “ ἄχρις αὖ ἰκομείσθημεν εἷς λίμ" μεγ, καὶ οὗ πόῤῥω," etc. 23. Θαλάσσης in the common edition. 25. Ἑνῆσαν δὲ καὶ 1A —“‘ ἐγῆσαν δ᾽ αὐτὴ So in the Codex οὗ Eustratios. 25. Καὶ ἄλλα --- Τὰ the common edition, “καὶ τάλλα." 28. Kat. «πολ' πρὸς wi—In the MS. of Eustratios, ‘‘xar. πόλεις wives,” οἷο. 29. Θαλάσση in the common edition. 31— 935. “ApapaCur: καὶ ἱερὰ ᾿Αράμβυϊ, Κακεῖθεν, etc.—In the common Codices this passsge starts thus: “καὶ Αραμθυν Κακεῖθεν," etc. (Between the two last words all is wanting.)
ἊΨ
25
HANNON, KING OF THE KARCHEDONIANS, DEDICATES THE PERIPLUS TO THE MIGHTY GOD KRONOS, AND ALL THE GODS
WORSHIPPED IN THE SAME TEMPLE.
7 1. It seemed good to the Karchédonians that Hannon should sail beyond the Pillars of Héraclés and found cities of Lybiphcenicians. And accordingly he sailed, taking sixty-seven fifty-oared galleys, and a multitude of men and women, to the number of 30,000, with provisions and other equipments.
42. And when we had put to sea and passed the Pillars, and voyaged two days’ sail beyond them, we built the first city, which we named Thymiatérion, wherein we erected a temple of Zeus Bouleos, the counsel-giving; and there was a plain, great, and darkly-shadowed, below the city.
48. Thence setting sail to the west, we came to Soloeis, a promontory of Lybia, thickly covered with trees.
44. After staying there a short time, and erecting a temple to Poseidin, on the neighbouring eminence, we sailed again towards the east for three days and a half, till we came to a lake not far from the sea, full of reeds, many and large. In it were elephants, and other beasts of all kinds, feeding.
q 5. And after coasting by the side of the lake for about a day’s sail, we built cities by the sea-side, called the Karikon Teichos, Gytté, Akra, and Melitta, and Arambys. And in them we erected four temples, one of Ammén in Gytté, one of Ammonia in Acra, one of Chrysor in Melitta, and one of Athéné, Polyboulé, in Arambys.
Confirmatory testimony from the unpublished work “ Tue ΕἸΤΗΝΙΚΑ" of STEPHANOS Byzanrios, and Evsrrartios.
* “@YMIATHPION, πόλις Λιδύης πρὸς ταῖς ἐκζολαῖς τοῦ Σουδούρου ποταμοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῇ Maupeucia olucuim, κτίσμα Καρχηδονίων, ἐν % καὶ ἱερὸν Βουλαίου Διὸς, “Avene ἴδρυμα τοῦ τῆς ἀποικίας ἡγουμένου’ Μετωνομάσθη δὲ αὕτη καὶ Σουβουρὶς ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον, ἀπὸ Σουβξούρου φυλάρχου Μαυρουσίων, τοῦ τὴν πόλιν ἀγακτίσαντος ἐρημωθεῖσαν ὑπὸ ἐμφυλίου πολέμου, καθὰ “Ἑκαταῖός φησιν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑτέρα πόλις ΘΥΜΙΑΤΗΡΙΑ, θηλυκῶς, Λιξίον ποταμοῦ ἐγγύς. Θυμιατηρίων ἄποικος αὔτη" τὸ ᾿Εθνικὸν Θυμιατήριος."
+ “ΣΟΛΔΟΕΙ͂Σ, ᾿Ακρωτήριον Μαυρουσίας, ἐφ οὗ καὶ ἱερὸν ᾿Ωχεανοιόρου Ποσειδῶνος ἅγιον “Arie κτίσμα."
** ΣΟΛΟΕΝΤΙΣ, κωμόπολις Μαυρουσίας ἐπὶ τοῦ Σολόεντος ἀκρωτηρίον κειμένη ὃ ἐξ αὑτῆς Σολοιντιεύς" εὕρηται δὲ καὶ Σολογτιήτης καὶ Σολοεγτίνιος παρὰ Κάστορι τῷ “Podio.”
1 “ΚΑΡΙΚΟΝ TBIXOZ, πόλις Λιθύης ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῶν Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν καὶ «πρὸς ταῖς ἐκξζολαῖς τοῦ Φθαάθου ποταμοῦ. “Away κτίσμα, ὡς Ἔφορος πέμιττη, τὸ ἐθνικὸν Καρικοτειχίτης.
8 “ΤΎΤΤΗ, worse Λιδύης πλησίον OYNA τοῦ ποταμοῦ. Κάστωρ by τοῖς Νόστοις, ἐκλήθη δὲ αὕτη καὶ Σουρίγα, dwi Σουρίγον Γεττούλου τοῦ τῆς χώρας ἄρξαντός ποτε. Ἕστι δὲ καὶ αὕτη “Αγνωνος χτίσμα τοῦ Καρχηδονίου, ὥς wep καὶ τὸ ἐν αὑτῇ ἱερὸν “Appeorveg ἅγιογ' ὁ πολίτης Τυτταῖος."
|| “ἌΚΡΑ, Λιβύης πόλις, ἔγγυστά wou τοῦ ποταμοῦ Σούδου οἰκισθεῖσα ὑπὸ “Αγνωγος, οὗ καὶ τὸ ἐν αὑτῇ ἱερὸν τῆς ᾿Αμμωνίας ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱστορεῖται ἵδρυμα εἶναι. Τὸ τοπικὸν ᾿Ακραῖος." ᾿
4 ““ΜΈΛΙΣΣΑ, πόλις Λιξύης ἄποικος Καρχηδονίων ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν τοῦ Σαλάθου ποταμοῦ οἰκισθεῖσα. Ἕστι δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἱερὸν μέγιστον Χρυσόρου ᾿Αφροδίτης, ὅ φασιν οἱ πολλοὶ, ἐν οἷς καὶ 'Εκαταῖος περιηγήσει ᾿Ασίας, “Αγνωνος χτίσμα εἶναι. Ὃ οἰκήτωι Μιλισσαῖος. Ἢ χώρα Μιλισσαία. Ἕστι καὶ ἐν Κυριακῶ κώμη Μίέλισσα Κρητῶν κτίσμα. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Μελισσηνὸς, ὡς Κυζικηνός."
ee ΦΑΡΑΜΒΥΣ, πόλις Λιδύυς Καρχηδονίων χτίσμα, ἐν 9 καὶ τὸ ἱερὶν τῆς Πολυξούλου ᾿Αθηνᾶς “Αγγῶγος ἀνάστημα. ᾿Εχτίσθη δὲ αὕτη ἐγγὺς τοῦ ᾿Οφιώδους ποταμοῦ. Ἑκαταῖος περιηγήσει ᾿Ασίας. Ὁ οἰκήτωρ'᾿ ᾿Αράμξυος,"
E
26
ἤλθομεν ἐπὶ μέγαν ποταμὸν A[t- ξίαν," ἀπὸ Λιβύης ῥέοντα. Παρὰ δ᾽ αὐ- τὸν νομάδες ἄνθρωποι Λιξιᾶται βο- σκήματ᾽ ἔνεμον, παρ᾽ οἷς ἐμείναμεν
5 ἄχρι τινὸς, φίλοι γενόμενοι, καὶ θυσί- ας ἐπετελέσαμεν Ἄμμωνι τῷ Θε- ᾧ. Tov[rwly δὲ καθύπερθεν Αἰθίο[π]ες φ[κο]υν [πά]ντως ἄξενοι, γὴν νεμόμενοι} θηρι- adn, [διειλ]ημμένην ὄρεσι μεγάλοις, ἐξ ὧν
10 ῥεῖν [φασι] τὸν Λιξίαν' σέβουσι δὲ οὗτοι πᾶν- τες, καὶ τούτων μάλιστα οἱ ᾿Αμμωνεῖς, Ἄμμωνα, ὃν ᾿Αμμαχὰ ἰδίᾳ προσαγορεύ- ο[υσ]ι. Περὶ δὲ τὰ ὄρη κατοικεῖν ἀνθρώπους ἀλλοι]ομόρφους, ὠγλοδύτας" οὗς ταχντέ.
15 ρουΐς ἵππων ἐν Tela ἔφραζον οἱ Λεξι- ara. εἶναι. Λαβόντες δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἑρ- μηνέας, παρεπλέομ[εν τὴν ἐρήμ]ην πρὸς μεσημβρίαν δύω ἡμέρας: [ἐϊκεῖθεῖν δὲ πάλιν πρὸΪ]ς ἧ- λιον [ἀϊνίσχοντα ἡμέρας. δρόμον.
90 Ἔνθα [εὕρομεν ἐν μυχῷ τινὸς κόλ- που νῆσον μικρὰν, κύκλον ἔχου- σα[ν)]) σταδίων πέντε; ἣν κατῳκίσαμί|εν, K]ép- νην] ὀνομάσαντες, ἀπὸ Κέρνη[ς τῆἸς ἐ. μῆς θυ]γατρὸς, πρώτης τῆς πεντηκον-
25 τόρου ἀποβιβ ασθ[είση]Ξς. Ἔτεκμαιρό- μεθα δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἐκ το]ῦ περίπλου κατ᾽ εὐθὺ κεῖσθαι [Kap] δόνος᾽ ἐώκει γὰρ ὁ πλοῦς ex τε Καρίχη Ἰξόνος ἐπὶ Στή- λας" κἀκεῖθεν [ἐπ] ἢ Κέρνην. Tovr-
30 τεῦθεν εἰς λίμν[η]ν ἀφικόμεθα, διά τινος ποτα[μο]ῦ μεγάλον δια- πλεύσαντες Χρέϊτ]ουὶ καλουμένου. “Ἐνταῦθα τελευτ[ᾳ] νόσῳ Χρεμέτης ὁ ἡμέτερος πρὸς μητρὸς θεῖος,
35 καὶ πρὸς τῷ ποταίμῳ)] θάπ]τεται, καὶ ἡρῷ-
1. Ἐπὶ yiyay—In the manuscript of Eustratios, “ἐπὶ τὸν μέγαν. Asgiav—In the common edition, “ Aiger.”
3. Aguitas—In the common edition, - Aitiras.” 5. This passage, in the common Codices, occurs without the adverb, “καὶ θυσίας ἐπετελέσαμεν " Auman τῷ Θεῶ." 8. Alb. ὥκουν πάντως ἄξενοι γῆν vys.—In the MS. οἵ Eustratios this passage stands thus: “ Aibiewss ὠκουν πάντως ἄξενοι μὲν, ἱεροὶ δὲ, γῆν νεμεόμενοι " etc.; but in the common version 80: Aibiswes ὥχουν ἄξενοι, γῆν," ete. 10--18. ‘Pi φασι τὸν Δίξεν. περ δὲ τὰ Spe κατακεῖν ἀνθρ., etc., is the reading of common Codices. 15. οἱ ΔΛιεξιᾶται sivas. Λαβόντες --- ‘tol Αἰξῖται. AaCcrric™ in the common Codices. 18. Ave ἁμέρας --- “ δύο a." So in the common Codices. Ἐχεῖθεν δὲ πάλιν ---" ἐχεῖθεν δὲ αὖ πάλιν" in the MS. of Eustratios. 23. Kipvay svys., ἀπὸ Κέρτης, ete.— The common Codices have “ Κέρνην ὁ ὀνομάσαντες. Ἐτεκχμαιρόμειθα δὲ αὐτὴν ἐκ τοῦ wep.”, ote. 82. Π. μ. διαπλεύσαντες Χρέτου καλουμένου ὃ et ἀπὸ τοῦδε. Εἶχε νόσους ὃ λίμνη --- This passage, in the ee Codices, = thus: “ποταμοῦ μεγάλου διαπλεύσαγτες, Xpitac (ὦ διομα Χρέτες. od. Firmin Didot.) Εἶχε ὃ νόσους & λίμνη,"
° ““ΑΙΞΙ͂ΑΣ, ποταμὸς Αἰδύες μέγιστος, awe ἼΑμμωνος Αἰξιάτου (τίσμα δὲ τοῦτο Διξίου ἀρχιφύλου Διξιατὰν) λαζὼν τὸ ἱπίχλησιν, Κάστωρ ἐν ἐζξέμη Νόστων. Ἔστι δὲ mers winsg Διξύης, ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Λίξου ποταμοῦ, ὡς ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἐν πρώτη
a
27
4 6. Thence we set sail, and came to the great river Lixias, flowing from Lybia. On its banks nomade men, called Lixiate, were herding cattle. With these we made friends, and remained for some time, and offered sacrifices to the god Ammon.
{ 7. Beyond these dwelt thiopians, altogether inhos- pitable, inhabiting a country abounding in wild beasts, and intersected by great mountains, from which they say the Lixias flows. All of these, especially those called Ammonians, worship Ammon, whom they call Ammacha in their own dialect. Round the mountains dwelt, it was said, men of strange shape, called Troglodytes, whom the Lixiate asserted to be swifter in running than horses.
18. Taking interpreters from among them, we sailed along the desert, towards the south, for two days, and thence again to the east a day’s course. There we found, in the recess of a gulf, a small island, having a circumference of five stadia, which we colonised, and named Kerné, from my daughter Kerné, who was the first to land from the fifty-oared galley. And we calculated from the voyage that the island lay in a straight line with Karchédon, for the distance from Karchédin to the Pillars, and thence to Kerné, seemed the same.
49. Next we tame to a lake, sailing up a large river called Chretés; here Chremetés, my maternal uncle, died of disease, and was buried by the river side, and a shrine
Λιξυκῶν' καλοῦσι γάρ τιγες τῶν ἱστορικῶν καὶ Λίξον τὶν Διξίαν, ὥς wtp ad ἕτεροι καὶ ᾿Αξίωνα, καὶ Eleva, καὶ Κοσσενίαν, καὶ Noviov, καὶ Χαράγγην μετωνόμασαν. Τὸ τοιρικὸν τὸ ποταμοῦ Mhdnc τὸ δὲ τῆς Λίξα πόλεως ᾿Ἐθνικὸν Λίξιοι, Λιξίτης καὶ Λιξάται παρά τισι."
+ “ΚΕΡΝΉ, νῆσος Λιζύης by τῷ μυχῶ Αθθωρᾶ κειμένη, iy ὅ καὶ πόλις ὁμώνυμος, καὶ ἱερὸν Ka praiag ᾿Αθηνᾶς Καρχηδονίων κτίσμα. “Exandn δὲ ἥ τε πόλις καὶ h νῆσος οὕτως, ἀπὸ Κέρνης θυγατρὸς Ανγωνος ἀποξιξασθείσης τῆς γηὸς φρώτης, καὶ τελευτησάσος καὶ ταφείσης iv αὑτῇ" καθάπερ Δαμόγας καὶ cin τούτω Κάστωρ καὶ Ἑκαταῖός φασι. Τὸ Ἐθνικὸν Κερναῖος."
“Μικρὸν χρονίσας τοίνυν ὁ “Away ἐν τῶ ΛΙΗΙ͂Α woraus, καὶ λαξὼν παρὰ τοῖς Αἰθίοψι διερμηνέας, ἄρας ἱντεῦθεν περιέπλεεν ἐπὶ δύω ἡμέρας τὴν μεσημβρινὴν ἐρήμην Λιζύην. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα «ρὸς ἀγατολὰς ἡλίου" στραφεὶς, καὶ πλοῦν ἡμέρας παήσας, εὖρε νῆσον παρὰ τῷ μυχῶ ᾿Αθθωρᾷ πέντε σταδίων ἔχουσαν τὸν ὅλον σπερίπλουν͵ ἐν ἢ ἐγκαθορμεισθεὶς, ἐξῆλθε τοῦ «λοίον πρώτη, καὶ ἱπίδη τῆς γήσου ἡ τοῦ Ανγγωνος θυγάτηρ Κέρνη" ἀφ᾽ ἧς καὶ KEPNH ἡ νῆσος ἐκλήθη. Κατοικίσας οὖν καὶ ταύτην ὁ “Avvor παλῶς, ἤγειρε καὶ στήλην ἐπὶ τοῦ τάφου τῆς θυγατρός. κατίστρεψε γὰρ ἐν αὐτὴ τὸν βίον ἡ Κέρνο καθάπερ σὺν τῷ Κάστορι καὶ Δαμόγας φησ'ν."--- ΕΥΣΤΡΑΤΊΟΣ.
ΠΕ ΚΧΡΕΤΗΣ, ποταμὸς Αἰδύης μέγιστος, ὃς ὕστερον Χρεμέτης μετωνομάσθη: ἀπὸ Χρεμέτου “Avance Κυξιρνήτου ταφέντος wap αὐτῷ, ᾿Ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ Σταχειράχης μέγας, καὶ Στεχείραμμις, καὶ Σάλσιχος, ἀπὸ ὁμωνύμων τῆς χώρας τυράγνων. τὸ τοπικὸν Χρεμέτης καὶ Χρεμετήτης."
“Ὠκίσας τοίνυν τὴν Κέρνην ὁ “Anay ἀφίχθη, καθάπερ αὐτός φησιν, tic λίμνην διάτινος μεγάλου ποταμοῦ, ὦ ὅγομα ΧΡΕΤΉΣ. Εἰσξάλλει δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς οὗτος εἷς τὴν λίμνην ἀθρόως" καὶ ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τὴν θάλλασσαν' κλύζεται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τὰ πρὸς ἑσπέραν τῆς λίμνης, καὶ ἄξατα πάντῃ καθίστησιν aita. Ἔν τῷ ποταμῶ δὲ τούτω κατίστρεψε τὸν Οἷον ὁ πρὸς μητρὸς θεῖος τοῦ “Αὐγῶνος καὶ κυξεργήτης τοῦ στόλου ΧΡΕΜΕΤῊΣ, καὶ ἐν ταῖς διξιαῖς τοῦ ποταμοῦ θάπτεται ὄχθαις, ὥς περ σὺν τῶ “Αννῶνι καὶ Κάστωρ μαρτυρεῖ, Ἠγέρθη δὲ τῷ Χριμέτη καὶ ἡρῶον. Ὁ δὲ ποταμὸς τῆς τοῦ Κυδερνήτου μιτίσχε προσεγορίας κατὰ δόξαν τοῦ ἕΑννωνος. Ἐκλήθη δέ ποτε οὗτος καὶ Σταχειράχης μέγας, πρὸς διάκρισιν τοῦ προμγημονευθεύτος μικροῦ. Ἔτι δὲ καὶ Στεχείραμμις, ἀπὸ Στεχειράμιμεως ἀνδρὸς Αἰγυπτίου τοῦ τῆς χώρας κρατήσαντός ποτε, Εἶτα δὲ καὶ Σάλσιχος, ἀπὸ Σαλσίχου ἡγεμόνος τῆς χώρας. Ἔν 43 τῇ λίμνῃ ταύτη, ἣν μάλιστα ὁ Κάστωρ XIMAIPAN ἐκάλεσέν, εἶσι τρεῖς ἕτεραι νῆσοι τῆς Κέρνης μείζονες, ὧν ἡ μὲν πρὸς τῇ ἡπείρω ΧΕΦΡΙ͂Σ, φησὶν ὁ Κάστωρ, προσαγορεύεται. ἡ δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν “AAEMMIZ, ΝΟΥῚΣ δὲ ἡ τρίτη." — ΕΥ̓ΣΤΡΑΤΙΟΣ.
28
ov αὐτῷ ἐγ[εἴρεται. Ὁ δὲ Χρέτη[ς Χ]ρεμέτης ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν προσαγορεύεϊ σῖθαι ἀπὸ τοῦδε. Εἶχε δὲ νήσους ἡ λίμνη τρεῖς μείζους τῆς Κέρνης. "Ad ὧν ἡμερή- ὄ σιον πλοῦν κατανύσαντ]ες, εἰς τὸν μυχὸν τῆς λίμνης ἤλθο[μ]εν, ὑπὲρ ἣν ὄρη μέγιστα ὑπερέτει[ν]ε, μεστὰ ἀνθρώπων ἀγρίων, δέρμα[τα] θήρεια ἐνημμένων, οἱ πέτροις βάλλοντες 10 ἀπήραξαν ἡμᾶς, κωλύοντες ἐκβῆ- ναι. ᾿Ἐκεῖθε[ν πλέοντες εἰς ἕτερον ἤλθο- μεν ποταμὸν μέγαν καὶ πλατὺν ye- μοντα κροκοδείλων καὶ ἵππων ποτα- ιίων, Ἔνθα ᾿Αστραῖος ὑπὸ κροκοδείλου 1ὅ δια[φ]θείρ[ ετ] Jar ὁ [κ]υβερνήτης" ad οὖ μάλ]ισίτ]α καὶ ὁ ποτα- pols τ]ῆς προσηγορίας ἔτυχεν Ἐντεῦθεν δὴ πάλιν ἀποστρέ ψαντες εἰς Κέρνην ἐπανήλθομεν. *Exet- θεν δὲ ἐϊπὶ μεσημβρίαν ἐϊπλεύσαμεν δυώδεκα ἡμέρας, τὴν [γῆ]ν [παρ]αλεγόμενοι, ἣν 20 πᾶσαν κατῴκουν Αἰθίοπες φεύ οντες ἡμὴ καὶ οὐχ ὑπομένοντες: ἀσύνετα δ᾽ ἐφθέγγοντο καὶ τοῖς μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν At- ξιάταις. Τῇ δ᾽ οὖν τεζλευταίᾳ], ἡμέρᾳ προσ- ὠρμίσθημεν ὄρεῖσι με͵γάλοις δασέσιν. 25 Ἦν δὲ τὰ [τ]ῶν δένδρων [ξύλ]α “εὐώδη τε καὶ ποικίλα. [Π]Ἰεριπλεύσαντες [δ]ὲ ταῦτα ἡμέ- ρας δ[ύ]ω ἐγενόμεθα év θαλάττης [χ]ά- σματι ἀμετρίτῳ, ἧς ἐπὶ θάτερα πρὸς τῇ γῇ πίεδίον] ἦν κάρτα σκιερόν' ὅθεν νυ- 80 κτὸς ἀφε[ωρ]ῶμεν πῦρ ἀναφερόμενον tiga ae κατ᾽ ἀποστάσεις, τὸ πλέον, τὸ δ᾽ ἔλ]αττον. Ὑδρευσάμενοι δ᾽ ἐκεῖ- θεν ἐπίλέ]ομεν εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν ἧ- μέρας πέντε παρὰ γὴν, ἀχρισοῦ ἤλθο- 8ὅ μεν εἰΐς μέγαν] κόλπον, ὃν ἔφασαν ot ἑρμηνέ. es κ[αλεῖσθαι Ἑ σ]πέρον Keépas.t Ἔν τούτῳ νῆ-
3. Εἶχε δὲ νήσους ---““ἔχει δὲ νήσους" in the MS. of Eustratios, 11. Ἐκεῖθεν πλέοντες --- “ ἐκεῖθεν δὲ πλέοντες in the copy οὗ Eustratios. 141--- 16. Ἔνθα ᾿Αστραῖος, οἱ ἵτυχεν. Ἐντεῦθεν δὴ --- This passage, in the common MSS., occurs without the adverbs, “" Ἔνθα ᾿Αστραῖος ὑπὸ κχροκοδείλου et ἔτυχεν." 16. Ἐντεῦθεν --- “Obs” in the common MSS, 18. Δυώδεκα --- Τῇ the common MSS. "δώδεκα." 22. Λιξιάταις (Λεξιάταις in the original) — “ Διξίταις " in the common MSS. 26. περ. δὲ raiva—In the MS. of Eustratios, “" Περιπλεύσαντες δὲ τὰ ὅρη ταῦτα." 27. Δύω --- δύο" in the common MSS. 20. πεδίον ἦν κάρτα σκιερόγ' ὅθε! ---- Ἴ τι the common MSS. the reading is, ‘‘ wstin ἦν" ὅθεν," eto. 84. ᾿Αχρισοῦ --- ““ ἄχρι" in the common MSS.
om ‘AZTPAIOZ, ποταμὸς Λιβύης, Κροκοδείλων ἔμπλιως καὶ ἵππον ποταμίων, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ᾿Αστραῖος Κυξερνήτης ἽΑννωνος δεύτερος διαφθαρεὶς, ὁ ποταμὸς τῆς προσυγορίας ἔτυχεν.
“εἰσῆλθε δὲ ὁ “Ανναν καὶ εἰς τὸν μυχὸν τῆς λίμενης καὶ τὰ iwie αὑτὴν ὑπερτείνοντα ὅρη ἐθεάσατο Ἦν δὲ ταῦτα μεστὰ ἀγρίων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ δέρμασι θηρίων «περιζεζλημένων, Οὗτοι ὡς ἐθεάσαντο τὸν τοῦ ἽΑννωγος στόλον τῇ ἡπώρω προσμίξοντα πέτροις
29
was erected in his honour. From this circumstance we deter- mined that the Chretés should be called Chremetés. The lake contained three islands larger than Kerné, from which, accomplishing a day’s sail, we came to the end of the lake, beyond which stretched very great mountains, full of wild men, clad in the skins of beasts, who cast stones and drove us off, preventing us from landing.
410. Sailing thence, we came to another large and wide river, full of crocodiles and hippopotami. Here Astrewos, the pilot, was killed by a crocodile, from which circumstance the river received its name. Thence we turned back, and returned to Kerné. |
{ 11. From this we sailed twelve days to the south, coasting along the land, all of which was inhabited by Aithi- opians, who fled from us, and would not await us. They spoke in a language unintelligible even to the Lixiate on board with us.
{ 12. On the last day we came to anchor near great mountains, thickly wooded. The timber of the trees was odoriferous, and variegated.
{ 13. Having sailed round these for two days, we came to a vast opening of the sea, on the other side of which, towards the land, was a very shady plain, whence we saw fire issuing, at intervals, in all directions, sometimes more, sometimes less.
414. Having taken in water, we sailed thence straight forwards, until we came to a great gulf, which the interpreters said was called HesPEROU KERAS (the Horn of the West). In it
δάλλοντες ἄγωθεν ber’ αὑτῷ μεγάλοις ἠνάγκασαν ἀποπλεῦσαι. Καὶ δὴ ixwasicac τὴν ταχίστον ὁ “Avan, εἷς ἕτερον ἦλθε «οταρεὸν μέγαν τε καὶ εὐρὺ λίαν, ὃς οὐ μόνον κροκοδείλων, ἀλλὰ χαὶ ἵππων ἔγεμε ποταμίων. “Ev δὲ τῷ ποταμῶ τούτω ὁ τὸν Χρεμέτην διαδεχθείς κυξερνήτης ᾿Αστραῖος ἑκξὰς τῆς νεὼς ἀπρονοήτως, διεφθάρει ὑπὸ κροκοδείλου' δι᾽ ὃ καὶ ὁ ποταμὸς ἌΣΤΡΑΙΟΣ ἐπὸ τοῦδε ἰκλήθη. ἨἨγέρθη δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἼΑννωνος χαὶ igs Αστραίω μέγιστον, καθὰ “Ἐφορός φησι. Τούτου δὲ γενομεένου ἀνέστρεψεν αὖθις εἰς Κέρνην ὁ “Avra. — ΕΥ̓ΣΤΤΡΑΤΙΟΣ.
+ “ἙΣΠΈΡΟΥ ΚΕΡΑΣ, κόλπος μέγιστος τῆς ἑσπερίας Λιξύης, ἐν ὦ καὶ νῇἦσος Ἐχχαδία καλουμένῃ, καὶ λίμνη ἐν τῇ νήσῳ θαλασσώδης, καὶ νῆσος Ἕμ μα iy τῇ λίμνη, εἰς ἣν καὶ “Ava ὁ Καρχηδόνιος ἀπίθη μετὰ τῶν σὺν αὐτῶ, καθάπερ ἱστορεῖται wap Ἐφόρῳ καὶ Κάστορ. Τὸ τοπικὸν Ἑσπεροκεράτιος καὶ Ἑσπεροκερατίτης,"
“Περιπλεύσας δὲ χαὶ ταῦτα ὁ ἼΑνγων δυσὶν ὅλαις ἡμέραις, ἐγένετο ἐν χάσμωτι θαλάσσης ἁμετρίτω, ὃ Κάστωρ ΧΟΥΔΑΡΙΝ φησὶν Αἰθίοπες προσαγορεύουσι, NIAN δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς καὶ Πτολεμαῖος" ὃ τι Νίας, ἀνὴρ Φοίνιξ sass word τῆς χώρας, κτίζει πόλιν, Νίαν παρὰ τῷ χάσματι, dp’ ἧς καὶ Nia τὸ χάσμα ἐκλήθη, καὶ ὁ δ αὐτοῦ ῥέων ὁμειώνυμος σψοταμός. "Hy δὲ ἔνθεν καὶ ἶνθεν τοῦ χάσματος πεδίον ἀπέραντον, κατὰ Κάστορα, καὶ σκιερὸν λίαν κατὰ “Avrora. Καὶ ἦν μεὲν τῇ ἡμέρα οὐδαμοῦ ἰωρᾶτο πῦρ, iv δὲ τῇ γυχτὶ πανταχοῦ κατ᾽ ἀποστάσει. Καὶ ἐν μέν τισι μέρεσι πλέον, ἐν δέ τισι ἔλαττον, ἵντισι δὲ διαρκῶς ἄχρι πρωΐας, ἕντισι δὲ ἄχρι πρώτης φυλακῆς, καὶ ἕντισιν ἄχρι τρίτης, καθάπερ Κάστωρ αὑτὸς ἰδὼν γράφει. Πρὸς δεξιὰ δὲ τοῦ χάσματός, φησιν ὁ αὑτὸς Κάστωρ, στιν ἱερὸν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἅγιον κατὰ ῥυθμὸν Αἰγυπτιακὸν ἱδρυμένον, καὶ παράδεισος μεγαλοπρεπὴς πέριξ αὐτοῦ. "Ex δὲ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὕδωρ Cover ἡδύτατον καὶ ἰσχυρῶς πρὸς τὸ χάσμα ῥέει. "Ex τούτου οὖν τοῦ ὕδατος ὑδρευσάμενος ὁ “Awe, φησὶν ὃ Κάστωρ, ὡροίξη πλέων πρὸς τὰ ἵμαροσθε. Καὶ δὴ ἡμέρας πέντε περιπλεύσας, ἦλθεν εἰς μέγαν κόλπον ᾿Αλλουὺλ Megat καλούμενον ἰγχωρίω φωνῇ δύναται δὲ τοῦτο εἶπεῖν ἙΣΠΕΡΟΥ ΚΕΡΑΣ, iv ὦ νῆσος μεγάλη ἐστί ἜΧΧΕΔΙΑ καλουμένη, καὶ λίμνη θαλασσώδης ἐν αὐτο: ἐν δὲ τῇ λίμνῃ νῆσος ἑτέρα ἜἝΜΜΗ τοὔνομα. Ele ταύτην ἀποδὰς “Anan μετὰ τῶν σὺν aire, οὐδὲν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑώρακε θίας ἄξιον" ἐν δὲ τῇ νυκτὶ, πυρά τε καιόμενα πάμπολα, ἅμα δὲ καὶ φωνὴν αὐλῶν ἤκουα, καὶ κυμξάλων καὶ τυμπάνων πάταγον, καὶ χραυγὰς πολλάς. ᾿Ανθρώπων γὰρ Αἰθιόπων, φυσὶν ὁ Κάστωρ καὶ σὺν αὑτῷ ὁ Ἕφοζος, παίγνια τὰ τοιαῦτα. Ἑϊώθασι γὰρ οἱ Ἑσπέριοι Αἰθίοπες καίειν πυρὰ κατὰ νύκτας πολλὰ xal ὄργανα κρούδιγ, θεοῖς εὐλογοῦντες' ὅτι ἀπηλλάγησαν τοῦ καύσωνος τῆς ἡμέξας' ᾿Ἐπειδήπερ οὗτοι τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν ἡσυχίαν ἄγουσι, τὴν δὲ νύχτα πάντα ποιοῦσι τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ τίρψιν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὰ πρὸς πόλεμον ἁἀσκοῦσν."--- ΕΥ̓ΣΤΡΑΤΊΟΣ.
30
aos ἦν μεγάλη Kat ἐν τῇ νήσῳ λί- pun θαλαττώδης, ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ νῆ- σος ἑτέρα, εἰς ἣν ἀποβάντες ἡμέρας μὲν οὐδὲν ἀφεωρῶμεν ὅτι μὴ ὕ-
5 Any. νυκτὸς δὲ πυρά τε πολλὰ καιό- μενα, καὶ φωνὴν αὐλῶν ἠκούομεν κυμβάλων τε καὶ τυμπάνων πάτα- γον καὶ κραυγὴν] μυρίαν. Φόβος οὖν ἕἔ. λαβεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ οἱ μάντεις ἐκέλευ-
10 ον ἐκλείπειν τὴν νῆσον. Ἰαχὺ δ᾽ ἐκ- πλεύσαντες παρημειβόμεθα χώ- ραν διάπυ ὦ τς θυμιαμάτων μεστήν' μέγιστοι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς πυρώδεις ῥύα- κες ἐνέβαλλον εἰς τὴν θάλατταν.
15 Ἢ γῆ δ᾽ ὑπὸ θέρμης ἄβατος ἦν. Ταχὺ οὖν κἀκεῖθεν φοβηθέντες ἀπεπλεύ- σαμεν, τέτταρας δ᾽ ἡμέρας φερόμε- νοι, νυκτὸς τὴν γῆν ἀφεωρῶμεν φλο- γὸς μεστήν: ἐν μέσῳ δ᾽ ἦν ἠλίβατόν τι
20 πῦρ, τῶν ἄλλων μεῖζον, ἁπτόμενον, ὡς ἐδόκει, τῶν ἄστρων. Τοῦτο δ᾽ ἡμέρας ὄρος ἐφαίνετο μέγιστον, Θεῶν ὌΟχημα καλούμενον. T[pt]ratoe δ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν [πυρ]ώ- εἰς ῥύακας παραπλεύσαντες
25 ἀφικόμεθα [εἰς κόλπ]ον Νότον Κέρας! λε- γόμενον. Ἔν δὲ τῷ μυχῷ νῆσος ἦν, ἐοἰκυία τῇ πρώτῃ, λίμνην] ἔχουσα: καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ νῆσος ἦν ἑτέρ[α, pelorn ἀνθρώπων γρίων. Πολὺ δὲ πλείους ἦσαν γυναῖκες, δασεῖαι
80 τοῖς σώμασιν: ἃς οἱ ἑρμηνέες ἐκά- λουν Γορίλλας. Διώκοντες δὲ ἄνδρας μὲν συλλαβεῖν οὐκ ἠ]δυνήθημεν, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἐξέφυγον τὰς χεῖρας ἡμῶν, κρημνοβάται ὄντες. καὶ τοῖς
85 πέτροις ἀμνυνόμενοι' γυναῖκας δὲ τρεῖς: at δάκνουσαί τε καὶ σπαράτ- τουσαι τοὺς ἄγοντας ov |x ἤθελον ἕπεσθαι. ᾿Αποκτείναντες μέν τοι αὐτὰς ἐξ-
1. "Hy μεγάλη ---- “ἐστὶ μεγάλη" in the MS. of Eustratios. 2. Θαλαττώδης ---“ θαλασσώδης᾽" in the common MSS. 19. A‘ fy ἐλίβ. ---- “δ᾽ ἐστιν ἡλίβ." in the MS. of Eustratios. 26. ““Νῆσός ἐστι" ---βο in the MS. of Eustratios. 33. ᾿Αλλὰ πάντες ἰξίφυγον τὰς χεῖρας ἡμῶν, κρημ. --- Τὰ the common MSS. this passage stands thus: “ἀλλὰ φάντες μὲν ᾿εξέφυγον, κρημνοξάται,᾽" etc.
“ΘΕΩ͂Ν ὍΧΗΜΑ, Ὅρος Διδύης μέγιστον MAMMA ᾿ΑΦΡΑΙ καλούμενον ἐγχωρίω φωνῇ, ὥς wip παρὰ Κάστορι εὕρηται γιγραμμένο. TS στοιικὸν Θεοχημαῖος."
31
was a large island, and in the island a lake, like ἃ sea, and in this another island, on which we landed; and by day we saw nothing but woods, but by night we saw many fires burning, and heard the sound of flutes and cymbals, and the beating of drums, and an immense shouting. Fear therefore seized on us, and the soothsayers bade us quit the island.
415. Having speedily set sail, we passed by a burning country, full of incense, and from it huge streams of fire flowed into the sea; and the land was inaccessible, because of the heat.
416. Being alarmed, we speedily sailed away thence also, and going along four days, we saw by night the land full of flame, and in the midst was a lofty fire, greater than the rest, and seeming to touch the stars. This by day appeared as a vast mountain, called THEON OcHEMA (the Chartot of the Gods).
417. On the third day from this, sailing by fiery streams, we came to a gulf called Norou Keras (the Horn of the South).
4 18. Im the recess of the gulf was an island, like the former, containing a lake, and in this was an island, full of wild men. By far the greater number were women, with rough hairy bodies, whom the interpreters called Gorillas. And when we pursued them, we could not catch any of the men, who all escaped our hands, being climbers of preci- pices, and defending themselves with stones. But we took three women, who bit and scratched those who led them, and would not follow. So we killed and flayed them,
+ “NOTOY KEPAZ, κόλπος τῆς iowtpine Λιδύης μέγιστος, ty ὦ καὶ νῆσος MAPPA καὶ λίμνη by τῇ νήσῳ, καὶ νῆσος ἐν τῇ λίμνη ΦΑΡΡΑ Γαμάλλων καὶ Γοριλλῶν ἔμπλεως, § καὶ ἽΑννων προσέμιξε καὶ τρεῖς συνέλαδε τῶν κατοίκων" ὁ τοπίτης Νοτοχερατήτης."᾽
“Ταχὺ δὲ καὶ τὴν χώραν ταύτην ἐκλειπὼν ὁ “Away, φόξζου ἕνεκα, «εριέπλεε τὴν ἤπειρον ἐπὶ τέσσαρας ἡμέρας, ἣν περ ἑώρα κατὰ vinta φλιεγομένην πανταχόθε. “By δὲ τῷ μέσω ὑπερμέγεθες wip ἕτερον, ὑπιρέχον τῶν ἄλλων. Ἐδόκει γὰρ τοῦτο ἄσπτισθαι τῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀστέρων. Καὶ τοῦτο μὲν τοιαύτην ἐν νυκτὶ ἐποίει θέαν καταπληκτικήν, Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ spec
ἐφαίνετο ἀντὶ πυρὸς μέγιστον πάντων, ὃ καὶ MAMMA ‘AOPAL ἐγχωῤίω gem καλεῖταί, φησιν ὁ Κάστωρ, δύναται δὲ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἑρμπνευόμενον ΘΈΩΝ “OXHMA."— ΕΥ̓ΣΤΡΑΤΙΟΣ.
“Ἐγτεῦθεν οὖν τρεῖς ἔτι ἡμέρας περιπλεύσας ὁ “Away ῥύακας πυρώδεις, ἀφίχθη εἷς κόλπον τρὰ ἘΔΕΧΘΙΑ ΜΕΡΑΙ καλούμενον, τουτέστι NOTOYT ΚΕΡΑΣ. Ἔστι δ᾽ ἐν τῷ μυχᾶῶ τοῦ κόλιου νἦσος τῇ πρώτη παραπλησίᾳ ἔχουσα καὶ νῆσον καὶ λίμενην by αὑτῇ, &, νῆσος, καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἦν μεστὴ ἀγρίων, ὧν τὸ πλεῖστογ μέρος ἦσαν γυναῖκες" εἶχον δὲ τὸ σῶμα δασὺ ὅλως, τὴν δὲ φωνὴν ζωώδη καὶ ἀσύνετον τὸ παράπαν. Ἑκαλεῖτο δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἑρμηνέων τὸ μὲν ἄῤῥεν τούτων γένος Γάμιαλλοι, τὸ δὲ θύλη ΤΓορίλλαι, ὃ ἑρμηνεύει τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἀνδρόμορφοι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον γυναιχόμορφοι. Συνέλαξε δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀνδρομόρφων τούτων ζώων ὁ “Avvay οὐδὲν, nalros word, ὡς ἱστορεῖ, μοχθήσας" ἦσαν γάρ, φησι, χρημνοξάται καὶ τοῖς πέτροις ἀμευνόμενοι, πρόσθες δὲ καὶ ταχύποδες wavy. ΓΤυναικομόρφους δὲ τρεῖς συνίλαξεν, ἃς ἀποκτείνας ἐξίδειρε διὰ τὸ δάκνειν καὶ σπαράττειν τοὺς ἄγογτας αὐτὰς, καὶ μὴ θέλειν ἀκολουθεῖν αὐτούς. τὰς δὲ δορὰς ἐκόμισεν εἷς Καρχηδόνα, ἃς καταφανεῖς ποιήσας πᾶσιν, ἱνίθηκε καὶ ταύτας σὺν τῷ περίπλω αὑτοῦ ἐν τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου ἱεῶ. ἊἙπλευσε δὲ ὁ “Αγγων μετὰ ταῦτα πρσωτέρω οὐδαμῶς" ὅτι τὰ πρὸς διατροφὴν ἐπιτήδεια ἐξέλειπον αὐτῷ."---- ΕΥ̓ΣΤΡΑΤΙΟΣ.
ae Ta ele τὸν “Ama τοῦ Εὐσσρατίου ὑπομνήματα ἐκτεταμένα ὄντα καὶ σπουδαῖα λίαν, δημοστευθήσονται ἐν ἰδιαιτέρω λίω.
32
ἐδείραμεν καὶ τὰς δορὰς ἐϊκομίσαμεν εἰς Καρχηδόνα. οὐ γὰ[ρ ἔτι ἐπ]λεύσαμεν προσωτέρω τῶν σιτί[ω]ν ἡμᾶς ἐπι- . λιπόντων" ὄ ΚΑΡΧΗΔΩΝ Μαρδάνου ὁ Φοίνιξ Καρχηδόνα κτίσας, ἐβασίλευσεν αὐτῆς ἔτεσι Λ΄. Τούτῳ δὲ γίγνεται παῖς ᾿Αῤῥάχων ἐκ Θάῤῥας γυναικὸς, ὃς καὶ τὴν ἀρχ[ὴν] παρέλαβε τὴν πατρικήν. Ot- τος δὲ ἔτεσιν |Z’ ἄρξας, καὶ ἄπαις ἀποθανὼν εἰς ταν ἢ 10 τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν ἀφίκετο ἡ «ἀρχή. Γίγνεται καὶ τούτῳ παῖς Φαγέθων, ᾧ καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴ χὴν δί. δωσι τελευτήσας. Ηρξε δὲ οὗτος ἔτεσιν Ο΄. Ὁ δὲ τούτον “παῖς NI” βασιλεύσας, Μελάμπους ὁ] τού- του παῖς τὴν [ἀρχὴ]ν ἐκδέχεται, ὃν μάλιστα ἄγονον 1ὅ ἡ “πεπρωμένη κ]αταλαβοῦσα" ὝἍννων ὁ πρὸς μη- τρὸς θεῖος [τ]ὴν ἀρχὴν κατάσχει, καὶ Καρ- δονίων ἄρχει ἔτεσιν EB Ἔστι δὲ α[ὐτὸς οὗτος ὁ καὶ τὰς Λιβυφοινίκων πόλεις τὰς ὑπὲρ τὰς ἫἩρακλεί ου]ς στήλας προτο[ῦ βασιλε]ῦσαι κτί- 20 σας Καρχηδονίων ψηφίσματι, [καθά vie. καὶ ὁ περίπλους αὑτοῦ δῆλον τοῦτο ποιεῖ; ὃν ἐπὶ λίθου] χία- ράξας γράμμασι Φ[οι]νικικοῖς ἐν τῷ Tov πο- λιούχου Κρόνον ἱερῷ ἀνέθηκε' καὶ ὃν Πολύκλειτος Μελικερίου ὁ Kupy[valios ava, 25 γνοὺς, ἐξελλήνισε πρῶτος, [καὶ τοῖς Ἕ]λλη- σι διέδωκε, καθ᾽ ὃν χρόνον ὁ τοῦ Φιλίππου ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἐτέχθη. Περιτυχὼν δὲ ἀπόγραφον τούτου Εὐάγριος Εὐα- γρίου ὁ Μυγίσιος, τρία ἐπίοιή]σατο ἀπόγραφα 80 ὑπὲρ ᾿Ἐπιμάχον ᾿Αρισταγ[ pov] ᾿Αλεξανδρέ. ov ἄρχοντος," καὶ δῶρον ἱπροσ͵]ήνεγκεν, εὐγνωμοσύνης ἕνεκα, τῷ τρίτῳ ἔτει τῆς PIIB’ Ὀλυμπιάδος.
8. Σιτίωγ --- ἸῺ the common MSS. “ σίτων." 18. "Heke οὗτος ων ὀκτὼ, καθὰ ὁ Θυδαϊκός φησι πίναξ (Spa ἐν σελίδι 10) καὶ βὰν καὶ Θεόπομεπος ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόπομπον τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἐσιστολὴῆ (a) ἐκδοθείσῃ ὃ ἐν ᾿Οδησσῶ τῷ 1854 ἐν a) ἡμετέρα τῶν ἀνεκδότων Ἑλληνικῶν παπύρων" ὑπὸ Καλλινίκου Ἱπρομιονάχου. 4380. Τὰ Ἐπιμάχω τούτῳ ἥγειβαν ποτὲ οἱ ‘An Eestpa i (na CaCatcirar ἐκ τῆς ἑξῆς ἐπιγραφῆς) ἀνδριάντα" ὅτι ἦν ἀνὴρ καλὸς κα γαθὸς καὶ τῶν ᾿Αλεξανδρίων εὐεργέτας, οὐχ ἧττον δὲ καὶ τῶν Μουσῶν προστάτης. Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Οάθρου αὐτοῦ ἐπέγραψαν τάδε :---
“ Ἐσίμαχον τὸν ᾿Αξισταγόρου ἄνδρα καλὴν
“κἀγαθὸν γενόμενον, καὶ τῶ δήμῳ τῶν ᾿Αλεξαν-
οἱ Siow πολλαχῶς εὐεργετήσαγτα ἐν τῇ ἑπτακαιδὲ- “καιτεῖ ἀρ ἢ αὐτοῦ, ναῶν ἰδεύσει καὶ μευσείων καὶ γυ- ‘* μνασίων, ὁ δῆριος ἐγείρει εὐγνωμοσύνης ἕνεκα."
᾿ανεκαλύφθη δὲ τὸ ζάθρον τοῦτο ἦν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ τῷ 1802 μηνὶ Αὐγούστω, by ὦ pee ὁ ἀείμνηστος Μιχαῆλος Τοσίτζας καὶ ὁ αὐτάδελφος αὑτοῦ Κωνσταντῖνος ἤγειραν ᾿Ελληγικὰ ᾿ἰκπαιδεστόρια ἀῤῥένων καὶ θηλείων ἰδία δαπάνη, καὶ τῷ Ἑλληνικῷ δήμῳ τῷ
ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρεία ἐδωρήσαντο μιμηταὶ ᾿Ἔπιμάχου γενόμενοι.
Ἢ δὲ ἐπιγραφὴ αὐτὴ αὕτη ἐξεδόθη τὸ πρῶτον ἦν Μόσχα τῷ 1858 ἐν τῇ τρίτη σελίδι τῶν ἡμετέρων αὐτογράφων μεταγραφῶῦν. ἰξίδωκε δὲ καὶ ταύτας, τὰς μιταγραφὰς, ὁ προῤῥηθεὶς Καλλίνκος.
ο΄ -
—“— -
33
and took their skins to Karchéddn, for we sailed no farther, our provisions running short.
(19. Karchéddn the Phoenician, son of Mardanos, founded Karchédon, and reigned over it thirty years. He had a son by his wife Tharrha, named Arrachon, who succeeded to the throne of his father. He reigned seven years, and on his dying without issue, the kingdom devolved on his nephew Hannon. His son was named Phagethén, to whom he gave the kingdom at his death. He reigned seventy years, and his son fifty-three years, when Melampus, son of the latter, succeeded. Fate having removed him without leaving issue, his maternal uncle, Hannon, took possession of the kingdom, and ruled over the Karchédonians sixty years. He it was who, before reigning, founded the Lybiphosnician cities beyond the Pillars of Heéraclés, as his Periplus shows, which he engraved on stone in Phoenician, and deposited in the temple of Kronos, the protector of the city, and which Polykleités of Kyréné, son of Melikerios, read and first translated into Greek, and published among the Greeks, about the time when Alexandros, the son of Philippos, was born. Evagrios, the Mygisian, son of Evagrios, meeting with a copy of it, made three transcripts for Epimachos, son of Aristagoras, Archon of ᾿ Alexandria, and presented them as a gift in return for his generosity, in the third year of the 182nd Olympiad, (te., B. C. 50).
(a), “Exes δὲ τὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ὧδε:--
“Θεόπομπος Θιοπόμπω ule φιλτάτω χαίρειν. Ἐγὼ μὲν, ὦ τίκνον, οὐδὲν περὶ τῶν τῆς Καρχηδόνος δυναστῶν οἶδ᾽ ἀχριδῶς Χάρων δὲ ὁ Ναυκρατίτης, καὶ Χάρων ὃ Κυρηναῖος, καὶ Οὐράνιος ὃ ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς φασιν ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν βασιλικαῖς ἀναγραφαῖς, ὡς δύω wpic τοῖς εἴκοσιν Ὦρξαν τῆς Καρχηδόνος δυνάσται ὀνομαστοὶ, «ροτοῦ τοὺς κατοίκους ἀριστοκρατηθῆναι. Τούτων δὲ πρῶτος ἀναγράφεται ΚΑΔΜΟΣ, ἀνὴρ Φοῖνιξ, ὁ καὶ τὴν πόλιν πρῶτος οἰκίσας, καὶ ΚΑΔΜΕΙΑΝ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καλέσας. ᾿Ὠκίσθη δέ, φησιν ὁ Οὐράνιος (ὁ καὶ μᾶλλον τῶν ἄλλων φιλοκχρινόΉσας τὰς περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐθνῶν δυναστείας καὶ οἰκίσεις),), ἣν καὶ ἑἐδδομήκοντα καὶ χίλια ἔτη πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου πόλεως χτίσεω. Ἑφσῆτὰ δὲ καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἑπτακόσια καὶ χίλα πρὸ ἡμᾶν (β). Ἦρξε δὲ ὁ Κάδμος, φασὶν οἱ αὐτοί, ἔτη πεντήκοντα. Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον AINOTEOL ἄρχει δεύτερος τρία καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη. Τρίτος δὲ ΔΙΔΟΥΚΤΙΑΣ ἑπτὰ χαὶ τεσσαράκογτα ἦτη. ΖΕΑΡΟΣ δὲ τέταρτος τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη. Πέμπτος δὲ ὈΡΥΓΩΝ πεντήκοντα ὅλα ἔτη. ΜΕΝΈΣΣΗΣ δὲ ἔκτος ἔτος ἦν μόνον" ἐφ᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡ «πόλις κατιστράφει ἀπὸ σεισμοῦ δεινοῦ, Ταύτην δὲ ἀναχτίσας EZOPOZ μετὰ τίσσαρα καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη, βασιλεύει ταύτης ἕξδομος ἐπέτεσιν ἑπτὰ φρὸς τοῖς ἰδδομήκοντα, καὶ “EZOPIN τὴν «λιν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καλεῖ. ΤΆΡΣΟΣ δὲ εἶτα τῆς χώρας ὄγδοος δυναστεύει ἔτη τρία καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα. ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ Ταρσὸς ἢ χώρα ἐπεκλίθη. Εννατος δὲ ἼΑΡΟΣ ἔτη ὀκτὼ καὶ ἐδδομήκοντα. δΔέκατος δὲ ΖΩΡΟΣ ὀκτὼ καὶ πεντήκοντα ἔτη. ΔΙΔΏ δὲ ἐγδικάτη ἕτεσι τριακαίδεκα, Δωδέχατος δὲ ἸΑΡΒΑΣ δύω καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη. ὙἘρισκαιδέκατος δὲ ΚΑΡΧΗΔΩΝ ὃς καὶ τὴν πόλιν KAPXHAONA μετωνόμασε, καὶ ταύτης ὄρξεν ἔτη τρία καὶ τριάκοντα. Τεσσαρασκαιδίκατος δὲ “ANNOQN ἔτη ὀκτὼ καὶ τριάκοντα" ap οὖ “AZQPOX ὁ Λίξυς καὶ Λιδύης μέγας δυνάστης εἰσθαλὼν εἷς τὴν χώραν χυριεὐειοκαὶ κατακυριεύει αὑτῆς δέκατος πέμπτος ἐπίτεσι τριάκοντα" τὰ δὲ τῆς πόλεως τείχη ἰσχυρὰ ὄντα κατασκάπτει. ᾿Ανακτίσας δ᾽ αὑτὴν αὖθις ΚΑΡΧΉΔΩΝ τις ἕτερος, Φοῖνιξ καὶ οὗτος, ἄρχει ταύτης ἐκχαιδέκατος τριάκοντα ὅλα ἔτη. Μεθ᾿ ὃν ᾿ΑΡΡΑΧΩΝ ἄρχει ἑπτακαιδίκατος ἔτη ἑπτά. ᾿Ὀχτωκαιδέκατος δὲ “ANNQN ἔτη ἐξδομήκοντα. ᾿Ἐννιακαιδίκατος δὲ ΦΑΓΈΘΩΝ ἕτη τρία καὶ πεντήκοντα. Τοῦτον δὲ ΜΕΛΑΜΠΟΥΣ διαδέχεται καὶ Καρχηδονίων ἄρχει εἰκοστὸς ἐπ᾿ ἔτεσιν ὀκτώς Πρῶτος δὲ καὶ εἰκοστὸς ὁ τὴν Ἑσαερίαν AiCiny οἰκίσας “Away ἑξήκοντα ὅλα ἔτη, ἙΕἰκοστὸς δὲ δεύτερος ὁ τούτου υἱὸς “ANNON δύω μόνα ἴτη" ἐφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὸ χράτος τῶν δυναστῶν κατελύθη ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου. Περὶ τῶν δυναστῶν δὲ τούτων «πολλὰ ἱστοροῦνται καὶ Spa τοὺς ἀναγραφεῖς αὑτῶν. Ἕῤῥωσο. Θήδηθεν. Ξανθικοῦ μεηνὸς φρώτη μεσοῦντος."
(β). Ὁ Θεόπομπος ἐγεννήθη, καθά φησιν ὁ Λιδύης Μητροπολίτης Διονύσιος, τῶ ὀγδόω Era τῆς τοῦ Διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ ξασιλείας, ἦτοι τῶ 204 με, Xp. ζ(ιοὺς δὲ 87 ἔτη ἐτελεύτα τῷ 387. Ὅτε δὲ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην ἔγραφεν ἦν, ὡς ἴοικεν, ἐτῶν 80. ᾿Αγάγνωθι τὸν Ciov τούτου ἐν τῇ β΄ σελίδι τῶν ἡμετίρων ἩΘΩΝ καὶ ἘΘΙΜΩΝ τῶν ΑΡΧΑΙΩΝ ΔΙΓΎΠΤΙΩΝ, ἔκδοσιν Μόσχας τοῦ ἔτους 153. |
F
SOME ACCOUNT OF A GOLD BREAST-PLATE, TAKEN FROM AN EGYPTIAN MUMMY CASE,
AND NOW IN THE COLLECTION OF ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPH MAYER, ESW., F.S.A., Etc.
BY KONSTANTINOS SIMONIDES, Pu. Ὁ.
(READ 97H MAY, 1861.)
“ Περιπόθητέ μοι φίλε κύριε Σιμωνίδη,
“᾿Ανέγνων Ἑλληνιστὶ ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ ἀριθμῷ τοῦ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΥ͂ τῶν ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΩΝ AAQN” τῆς 16 ᾿Ιαννουαρίου τοῦ ἔτους 1862, ἑρμηνείαν χρυσοῦ τινὸς βασιλικοῦ Αἰγυπτιακοῦ ἐπιστηθίου, καὶ εὐχαριστήθην ὑπερβαλλόντως, ὧς καὶ ἅπαντες οἱ φίλο. "Hon δὲ ἐπιθυμῶ ἵνα μάθω, ἐὰν ἐξεδόθῃ καὶ ᾿Αγγλιστὶ ἡ αὐτὴ ἑρμηνεία, καὶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐφημερίδι, καὶ ἐὰν ἐπεκρίθῃ. “Ere δὲ ἐὰν σῴζονται παρὰ σοὶ αὐτόγραφοι ἐπιστολαὶ, ἤ συλλογή τις ὑπογραφῶν τῶν ἐπισήμων ἀνδρῶν τῆς ᾿Αγγλίας, καὶ κυρίως τοῦ νῦν ἐπισκόπου τοῦ Λονδίνου, τοῦ Κυρίου Θωμᾶ Οὐριχθίου (Thomas Wright), τοῦ Κυρίου Ῥοβέρτου Κούρσωνος (Β. Curzon), καὶ τοῦ πρὸ μικροῦ τελευτήσαντος Γεωργίου Λεουϊσίον (Sir G. Lewis), καὶ ἐὰν ἧἦ δυνατὸν ἀποκτῆσαι Kaye αὐτόγραφον τούτων, διότι πρὸ πολλοῦ ἀθροίζω τὰ τοιαῦτα, καὶ ἤθροισα πολλά. ὝὙγίαινε λοιπὸν καὶ ἀξίωσόν με διστίχον ἀπαντήσεως. Ὃ κομιστὴς τῆς παρούσης μου κοινὸς φίλος Ἱλαρίων ἐγχειρίσει σοι εὐάρεστα τῆς Σμύρνης γλυκίσματα, ἃ καὶ κατεσκεύασεν ἡ νεάνις Μελπομένη. ‘Ev Σμύρνῃ τῇ 28 Σεπτεμβρίου τοῦ ἔτους 1868.
““Ὃ σὸς φίλος καὶ ὅλος πρόθυμος els τὰς διαταγάς σον “ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΙΟΣ:"
* Vide “ Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire,” new series. Vol. i., Session 1860-61, pp. 305—810. Ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ ἔχει οὕτως “On a Gold Plate, embossed with Hieroglyphics, in the Museum of J. Mayer, F.S.A., etc. By C. S., Ph. D., etc. etc., ete.”
“THE HISTORIC SOCIETY.
“ Last evening, Mr. Mayer, of Lord Street, Vice-President of the Historic Society, gave his usual conversazione to the members and friends, on the close of the Session. A numerous and fashionable company, including the officers of the various literary and scientific societies of Liverpool, accepted Mr. Mayer's invitation, and soon after seven o'clock every room of his splendid museum of antiquities, etc., in Colquitt Street, was filled with the guests. Each apartment was brilliantly illuminated, and every facility afforded for inspecting the
36
Παρθενίῳ Σιμωνίδης πλεῖστα χαίρειν. Τὸ ἐπιστόλιον σον ἐπέδωκέ μοι ὃ φίλτατος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιλαρίων ἐκ Παρισίων χθὲς ἐλθὼν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ δῶρα διᾶπερ καὶ εὐχαριστῶ cot. Ἣ δὲ μετάφρασις τοῦ ἐπιστηθίου ἐξεδόθη καὶ ᾿Αγγλιστὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐτησίοις συγγράμμασι τῆς ἱστορικῆς ἑταιρίας. “Exes δὲ αὕτη ᾧδε ----
THE Museums of Europe have been enriched by a vast number of Egyptian treasures, brought from that country into the west, from time to time; and though the specimens which have been thus imported are so numerous, too many lie forgotten and unnoticed on the now deserted floors of the wilderness cities, dnce the most magnificent in ancient Egypt. And it is very probable that many antiquities of the highest interest still lie thus hidden in the earth, for the wrecks of ancient Egyptian greatness have ever been found thus buried. These records (as far as we are at present acquainted with them) embrace, first, matters concerning the religious and political government of the state; and, secondly, those connected with the customs and usages of the various towns. Others, again, relate to the history of illustrious men, and even of private individuals. And not a few of them are full of sententious utterances, which exhort to all kinds of learning, and of virtue. Some of these writings are executed upon papyrus, and some upon stones; some upon linen, and some upon wood; some upon different metals, as brass, silver, gold, and alloys of these; and some, again, upon fragments of earthen vessels, and urns of baked clays. The greater part of the inscriptions are in hiero- glyphics, but some in the demotic, and some in the hieratic characters. A most precious specimen of this class of antiquities is in the possession of Mr. Mayer, valuable alike from its material, which is pure gold, and from the intrinsic interest of its contents. It is a plate, 1 foot 10 inches long by 7§ inches wide, of the thickness of a sheet of cardboard, and has embossed upon it hieroglyphics emblematic of divinity,
valuable collection of works of art, ancient MSS., and illuminated volumes, together with rare curiosities of our own and other lands, ete., ete.
“Mr. J. E. Hodgkin then read a translation of a Paper by Dr. Simonides, relating to a Gold Breast- plate, now in Mr. Mayer's Museum, but which had been taken from a mummy case, at Thebes. The plate is 1 foot 10 inches long by 7§ inches wide, is of pure gold, and is covered with hieroglyphics, embossed upon it. The interpretation of these hieroglyphics, as given by Dr. Simonides, shows that the Egyptians of the period to which the plate belonged had very correct and advanced ideas upon the subject of the immortality of the soul, and that they firmly held the belief that the body would be raised and exist in an incorruptible state in a future world. The person four whose mummy case this breast-plate was executed seems to have been a General of Upper Egypt, but no further information can be gained about him. The interpretation of the apophthegm embossed on the plate was illustrated with a variety of remarks by Dr. Simonides, confirmatory of the opinion expressed as to the enlightened views of the ancient Egyptians — that the body should rise again, and, with the soul, live for ever, thus teaching the primary truths of the Gospel. The doctor also enlarged upon the assistance which their writings afforded to Greek philosophers.
“Mr. Craig Gibson proposed and Mr. A. C. Newton seconded a vote of thanks to Dr. Simonides, for his Paper, and to Mr. Hodgkin, for the translation of it.
‘Mr. Mayer having thanked the company for their attendance, hoping it would not be the last time he would have the pleasure of seeing them there, the party broke up.”"— The Liverpool Mercury, Friday, May 10, 1861.
“THE HISTORIC SOCIETY.
“Last evening, being the night of the closing meeting of the Session, Mr. Mayer invited the members of the society, and a number of friends, to assemble at his Museum, in Colquitt Street. There was a large
37
and of life and death. It was found in a mummy case of some General of Upper Egypt. What his name was I know not, for the ἐπιστήθιον, as the plate is called, does not enable us to determine it. But it is likely that the mummy case contains the particular apophthegm of the general instead of his name (as was the custom among the Egyptians). If we had, then, a copy of the apophthegm, we could easily make out what sort of a man he was, and when he flourished; but I am not without hope that Mr. Mayer, who is so zealous in the pursuit of antiquities, may have a copy procured of the inscription referred to, which is still preserved in Egypt; and, also, of all the sacred writings which are inscribed in the case; for who knows, if this course be pursued, what historical truths we may not discover, which may reveal errors of historians of the present age. As, however, we unfortunately have not yet this information in our possession, let us commence by simply interpreting the symbolical writing on the breast-plate which lies before us.
Interpreted, the symbols read thus:—‘ Having been clothed with manhood by the Divine Power, I despised death often; and having become at last a suppliant for true wisdom, and having participated in it, I contemplated the might of Night and of Day, and of Death and of Life. And, therefore, among the living I remain, immortal, and my dust, fashioned by Phthal, though corruptibly, yet of incorruptible clay, is watched by Heavenly guardians, till the time when it shall again become, not this time the corruptible, but the incorruptible abode of an immortal creation.”
Thus runs the interpretation of the symbolical writings; but the sense, being entirely metaphorical, must be elucidated in order to be thoroughly understood.
“Having been clothed with manhood by the Divine Power,’—that is, having been arrayed with power by God, I often despised the inevitable dangers which threaten our lives. For who that believes in the living God can die? None. Here the faith of this man in God is seen; and not in this record alone, for in all the Egyptian monuments, reverence to God is manifest. “ And having become at last,” οἷο. etc.— that is, that first, while leading a military life, and always putting his trust in God, he despised the dangers of battle when engaged with his enemies, and afterwards, when
attendance of ladies and gentlemen, and after the innumerable objects of interest in the Museum had been examined, Mr. Mayer was called to the chair, and delivered an address on ‘The Art of Lithography, or Engraving on Stone.’ After thanking his numerous audience for their presence, he spoke of the different ancient nations who possessed a knowledge of the art, the more important of whom, with the exception .of the Greeks, were well acquainted with it, and carried it to great perfection. He referred to the different styles prevalent amongst the different peoples, and singled out particular signets, etc., belonging to celebrated individuals of ancient times. After the age of Augustus, however, the art of engraving on stone declined, and its revival did not take place until the middle of the fifteenth century. Speaking of the great value of particular signets, he referred to one for which the Empress Josephine gave two thousand francs. His own collection contained many valuable specimens. Lieutenant-Colonel Brown proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Mayer. He was sure that it gave them great pleasure to be there that evening; and, after passing a high eulogium upon Mr. Mayer, for his industry in collecting such a vast number of interesting objects, and the good that had accrued from it, he had the pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to his excellent friend, Mr. Mayer. Dr. Hume seconded the motion, and thanked Mr. Mayer especially on behalf of the Historic Society. He announced that the annual excursion of the Society would soon take place. Mr: Hodgkin then read a Paper, by Dr. Simonides, upon ‘A Gold Breast-plate, found upon an Egyptian Mummy.' Mr. Gibson proposed a vote of thanks to Dr. Simonides and Mr. Hodgkin, referring to the former gentleman's attainments in literature. The vote was unanimously awarded,”— The Daily Post, Liverpool, Friday, May 10, 1861.
®
38
he had left this arduous ‘career, in his intercourse with the wise he became truly enlightened, and perceived the real powers of Nature. For to the light (that is, the Sun), and to the darkness (that is, the Moon), the Egyptians ascribed the cause of the Creation and Destruction of all corruptible things, as well as of the incorruptible body ; and they called both these luminaries “ordained agencies.” Thus, then, being instructed by the power of Reason, he became acquainted with the force which rules in Nature, that is to say, he understood that there is one God, who created all things, who preserves all things, and who maintains the universe in harmony. Having learned these things, and having faith in God, he obtained immortality, his spirit being taken to rank with the immortals. ‘And my dust,’ says he, that is, my body, which (Phthai) Φθαὶ (evidently Anpsovpyds, the Creator) fashioned corruptibly (for corruptible is all creation), of incorruptible clay, te. of the elements of the earth (for this is incorruptible and eternal, all that is made from it returning to it again) is watched by heavenly guardians, that is, is guarded by those elements from which it proceeded, until its spirit, which was abiding with the immortals, returns to it, and then it will become the immortal dwelling of an immortal creation. He evidently believes that his body shall be raised again at a future day, and that the immortal spirit shall return to it, and him with it to all eternity.
From this last paragraph we have abundant evidence that the Egyptians, who also taught metempsychosis, were persuaded that those who lived virtuously should rise from the dead, both soul and body, and should live for ever.
And so they taught truth, even the truth of the Gospel. From the nation which became the teacher of the lawgiver of the Hebrews (as Scripture affirms)*—I mean of the prophet Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, was likely to have some correct notions about God and the immortality of the soul. “He,” says the high priest of the god Chemma Malchis (Χεμμὰ, Μάλχις), son of Schethis (Σχέθις), “is our ruler; he is our guardian; let us therefore love him from our heart, and those gods also who dwell in the same temple, and let us worship them with the unfeigned homage of our hearts, and in this we shall always be honoured and esteemed.” + Thus also the Apostle Paul preached to the Athenians, saying to them, “In whom we live and move and have our being, as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also His offspring. Inasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”{ Arethas is the poet (quoted by Paul), who, being in Egypt, and being taught for a considerable time by the Egyptians, obtained many correct views, which he translated into Greek, and gave to his countrymen. The purity of the doctrine of the Egyptians as to the omnipotence of God is attested, not only by the words of the high priest Malchis, but also by many other apophthegms of the priests, and especially by the following inscription, which is written, generally, near the god Ammon, in hieratic characters, and which,
* «And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds."—AoTs vii. 22.
+ Vide “A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters,” pp. 12—89. By K. Simonidés.
t Vide Acts xvii. 28.
39
being interpreted, runs thus:—“I am the inward and self-begotten, I bring forward invisible things from the invisible world into light by a word both to have beginning and existence: all things visible and invisible are by my word, by which also are upheld all “things corruptible.”* The spirit breathed by this sentence differs in no respect from that of the Sacred Writings, for it ascribes the existence of all things to one God, eternal, invisible, and self-begotten, whom the Egyptians specially called ᾿Αμμάω καὶ ‘ayaa (λα ποὺ and Thamaa).
The Egyptian nation, then, -held similar doctrines to the above, and especially insisted that the god Thothis (evidently the Word of God) enjoins all mortals to worship God the Maker of all; and their attention was directed rather to the future than to mortal affairs. t
I could still further elucidate the foregoing apophthegm, but this will suffice for the present. When, at some future time, I revert to the subject, it will be in greater detail.
We must warmly congratulate Mr. Mayer, the lover of antiquity, on his possession of this treasure, from which we have elicited some important matters hitherto unknown.
It will be seen by the preceding remarks that the Egyptian remains afford great interest, especially on subjects connected with ethics, and that they may be rendered extremely useful to literature, if properly interpreted.
These truths the noble Platén, and Pythagoras before him, with Anaxagoras, and others of the ancient sages, acknowledged, and they became what they were by appropriating the spirit of these writings. The Egyptologers of our time publish continually bulky volumes of reproductions of Egyptian writings, but they throw no further light upon the matter than to tell us, “This is Φθαὶ (Phthai); this is Ammon; this is Osiris— Osiris and nothing more.” They say that all the records of the Egyptians contain nothing but proper names; and they give lengthy and laughable catalogues of these names; but the symbolical they seem entirely ignorant of, and neglect totally. May we be preserved from the errors of such men (who conceal and disguise the truth as they think fit), and may we be enabled to gain a clear knowledge of the mystery of the early ages of the world, over which the Almighty power reigns supreme. And so to the Creator and Governor of all, be glory, now and for evermore!
* Vide “The Memnon,” p. 25.
+ Chenophis, son of Horus, and a native of Panopolis, says, in his Book of Sacred Apophthegms, that the sentence which we have been discussing was often quoted by Thonsdhis, sister’s son of Smendis, the King of Egypt, the first of the twentieth dynasty (according to Manethén, of Sebennytos), who also reigned as viceroy of the Thebaic thirty-two years. Uranius, of Alexandria, Manethon, of Alexandria, and Charén, of Naucratia, make the same statement.
᾿
40
Καὶ ἐνταῦθα ely καταλήγει & ᾿Αγγλικὴ τοῦ imornbion μετάφρασις. Ἐπιστολαὶ δὲ σώζονται wap ἱμοὶ οὗ μόνον, ὧν συ ἀναφίμεις by τῇ ἱαιστολῇ σου τισσάρων ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλαι ἄλλων ἐπισήμων ἀνδρῶν τῆς Ἐσσερίας Εὐρώπης περὶ παντοίων ὑποθέσεων πραγματινόμεναι, ὥς περ καὶ οὖκ ὀλίγαι τῶν ἡμετέρων. Καὶ ἰδοὺ δίδωμί σοι πρῶτον ἱντύπως τὸ κείμενον τεσσάρων ἱσιστολῶν τῶν ὧν σημειεῖς ἀνδρῶν. TS δὲ ὁμιωόγραφον αὑτῶν ἰγχειρίσει σοι 6 κοινὸς ἡμῶν φίλος Ἰλαρίων, ὅπως ἀπαρτήσης τὴν συλλογήν σου. Ἔχει δὲ 4 τοῦ viv ἐπισκόπου Λονδίνου ἐπιστολὴ τόν δὲ τὸν τρόπον :---
“ FurHam Parace, S.W., January 21st, 1863.
‘“Sm,—I beg to acknowledge with thanks the copy of the Fac-similes of the portions of St. Matthew's Gospel, etc., edited by you, which you have been so good as to send me. ἐς Believe me, “Yours faithfully, “Dr. C. SmONIDES.” “A. C. LONDON.
Ἢ δὲ τοῦ ἀειμνήστου καὶ πολυμαθοῦς Srm G. Cornnewatt Lewis ἔχει ὧδι :---
“ ΚΕΝῚ ΗουῦΒΕ, ΚΙΙΘΗΤΈΒΕΙΡΟΕ, July 14th, 1862. “Srm,— Pray accept my best thanks for the interesting publications which you have had the kindness to send me. I rejoice to find that you are not inclined to receive the doctrines and interpretations of the Egyptologers with the undoubting faith which has been generally accorded to them, and I trust that you may
be able to accomplish your design of collating Greek authors whose writings throw light upon the true meaning of the hieroglyphic character of Egypt.
“TI remain, Sir, “Ever yours faithfully, “Dr. ConSTANTINE SIMONIDES.” “@Q. C. LEWIS.
‘H δὲ τοῦ Κυμου THomas Waricut περιέχει τάδε :— “14, Sypnzy Srreet, Brompton, S.W., “ Wednesday Evening. (Nov. 20, 1860, Post mark.] “My Dear Sm,— Besides sending me the description of the wash for bringing up the Palimpsest in the MS. of Uranius, will you be so good as send me, to-morrow, a copy of the title, consisting of the first words of the Palimpsest itself, as it will be useful to me in something I am going to write. And also could you give me a copy of the passage from Stephanus Byzantinus, in which he speaks of Uranius, and his work. This latter would save me having to go into town, to the British Museum, to make the reference. “T am perfectly convinced of the genuineness of the Manuscript of Uranius. 41 am, my dear Sir, “Very faithfully yours, “De. C. ΒΙΜΟΝΙΡΕΒ." “THOMAS WRIGHT.
Ἢ δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ῥοδέρτου Κούρζωνος γράφει τάδε :---
624, ARLINGTON STREET, LONDON, “ August 18th, 1862.
“Dear Srmz,—I am very much obliged for the curious and very interesting books which you have been good enough to send me, and which I found, on my arrival in town, on Monday, though I had not leisure to look at them till yesterday. Mr. Mayer is fortunate in having so able an historian of his wonderful collection.
“T am, Sir, “ Yours very faithfully, “R. CURZON.”
41
Ἰδοὺ δ᾽ ἐγὼ δίδωμι σοι καὶ ἑτέραν ἑτέρου σοφοῦ “Ayydou τὴν ἑξῆς :---
“ CoLLEGmaTE INstTITUOTION [LIVERPOOL], “ October 81st, 1860.
‘“Dzan Sm,—I1 should have thanked you long ago for your kind and valuable presents, but that I mislaid your address when the first parcel came, and I was not able to recover it till the other day. I have to thank you for returning my copy of the Πηδάλιον,
: “Your very faithful and much obliged, “J. 8. HOWSON.”
Πρὸς ταύταις δὲ κείσθω καὶ ὃ ἑξῆς τοῦ γραμματέως τῆς ἦν Λονδίνω ᾿Ασιατικῆς Ἑ ταιρίας χτλ. Κυρίου Ἑ. Νοῤῥισίου.
“ ἘΌΒΕΙΟΝ OFFICE, 22nd January, 1868.
“Sm,—I return my best thanks for the valuable work which you have so kindly presented to me. I promise myself much pleasure in the perusal of your interesting dissertations, and in the examination of the beautifully executed fac-similes which they illustrate.
“T am, Sir, your most obedient humble Servant, “To Dr. ConsTaNTINE SIMONIDES.” “EDWIN NORRIS.
Εἰ δὲ CedAy καὶ τὴν τοῦ φιλέλλυνος xa) ὑπερμάχου τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἐκκχλησίας Νείλου § δ’ ἔστιν:---
{SackvinteE ΟΟΙΣ ΟΞ, East GrinsTep.]} {[London, Feb. 8, 1862, Post mark.] “Dzan Sm,—I am truly glad to know where I may address you. I wrote to you, as the enclosed envelope shews, long ago, but the letter was returned as not finding you. 41 do thank you most sincerely for your magnfficent present, which I have read with the very deepest interest. And I thank you also for your kind expression of feeling towards myself. “Perhaps you will accept, as a humble mark of gratitude, a small volume I have just published — Translations of Eastern Hymns. 41 remain, dear Sir, your obliged and faithful Servant, “J. M. NEALE.”
Πρὸς τῇ τοῦ Νείλου δὲ ἀνάγνωθι καὶ ὀγδόην τήν δὲ :---
“ὁ ὌΒΔΥΤΟΝ Grove [Lonpon], July 22nd, 1862.
‘Dean Srm,— Pray accept my best thanks for the copy of your very curious and interesting work on the valuable Papyri which you discovered in Mr. Mayer's collection, and also for your Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters, which I shall read with much interest.
“ Believe me, dear Sir, yours faithfully, “W. C. TREVELYAN.”
Ἐπὶ πάσαις δὲ ταύταις δίδωμι σοι καὶ μίαν ix τῶν τοῦ 515 Tuomas ῬΗΤΙΣΤΡΡΒ, Bart., τὴν ἑξῆς. “ὁ MmpLe Ηλι, 22nd October, 1854,
“My Dear Srmn,—I have received the Paper, and am sorry you did not bring Eulyrus to Middle Hill. I should prefer buying that book and Symais and Byzantis to the Aschylus. It will answer your purpose better to bring such MSS. as Eulyrus, Charon, and Laostefos, and other such books, than Hesiod, A®schylus, Palephatus, which we have already. I much regret I cannot go over to the Continent and see your Library, because it would give great pleasure to see what you have. If you could bring them to England next year I should be very glad.
“TI have much pleasure in sending your Pedigree or Yevtadcyia, and you can correct the errors for your own use. I wish you would send me a catalogue of all the Greek MSS. you have at Athens; and wishing
you a safe return to England, ““T remain, dear Sir, yours truly,
“T. PHILLIPPS.
“P,S.—I wish you would send me complete copies of the two newspapers which I saw here, one about the Monastery, and the other about Ismail.” G
42
Καὶ οὕτως ἦχει καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν. Ἐπίκρισιν δὲ κατὰ ἣ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἑρμηνείας τοῦ ἐπιστηθίου οὗκ εἶδον, οὐδὲ ἥκουσα, πλὴν τῶν ἐν τῇ ϑῦ καὶ 86 σελίσι δύω σημειώσεων τῶν αὐτικόων ἐφημεριδογράφων ἙἭ μοῦ καὶ Ἡμερουσίου Ταχυδρόμου, καὶ τοῦ ᾿Λγγέλου τῶν Βυζαντινῶν λαῶν (Spa ἐν ἀριθμῶ To lav. 10 ἕτους 1862.) Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐπιστολιμαίας wep ἱερογλύφων ἡμετέρας διατριξῆς ἀνέγνων ἄχρις ἡμέρας τρεῖς μόνας, ὧν ἢ πρώτη ἰδημοσιεύθη τῷ 1860 Δεκεμ. 21 ἐν τῷ Ἡμερουσίω Ταχυδρόμωῳ τῆς Birmingham, καὶ ἥν ὅρα καὶ iy τῇ ϑύη σελίδι τοῦ Μαῦερείον Κώδηκος. Ἢ δὲ δευτέρα iy
τοῖς τῆς “ Βάθης Χρονικοῖς " δημοσιευθεῖσα τῷ 1862 Μαρτίου 18η ἐστίν ὅδε : ---
“THE SIMONIDES CONTROVERSY. (The Bath Chronicle, Thursday, March 18, 1862.)
“Baron Humboldt declared that Simonides was ‘an enigma,’ and no doubt had sufficient reasons for his declaration; he might also have added that Simonides was a marvel, for never did any man possess in 80 extraordinary a degree the faculty of setting people by the ears, of provoking dissension, and of creating strife. No matter in what country or among what people M. Simonides makes his appearance, he is instantly involved in a fray. He has visited at various periods nearly all the capitals of Europe, and in each his name is remembered in connection with some fierce dispute or desperate quarrel. From his earliest youth it has ever been the same. He first appeared in Athens, bringing with him a chest full of MSS., obtained according to his statements, in Mount Athos, where he had been residing in a monastery with his unole. A meeting of Greek professors was at once called to inspect them, and almost before Simonides had breathed the Athenian air, he had driven all the learned doctors of the Greek capital to the verge of distraction, and had incited them to a quarrel so fierce that it is waged down to the present day; the King and the Government became involved in it; politics and Pelasgian characters became somehow mixed together, and Simonides speedily found Athens much too hot for his health. He went to Constantinople; similar results followed. Some two or three pachas and as many foreign ministers and diplomatists squabbled about the genuineness of a MS.; each faction obtained adherents, and the strife became so violent that Simonides found it desirable to bid farewell to the Byzantine shores. After an interval he turned up again in Prussia. He was introduced to Lepsius, Tischendorf, Dindorf, and others of the learned, and ere many days had passed he created 80 terrible an uproar that the entire learned world was convulsed. It resulted in his own confinement in prison, but even after that the quarrel continued. It spread all over Germany; it culminated in Berlin; and was only finally quelled by the allied interference of the governments, and the expulsion of Simonides from German territory. After another interval, he made his appearance in England. The British Museum had enjoyed a lengthened period of learned repose, but no sooner did Simonides set foot in London than the Museum authorities were startled from their tranquillity in a most unpleasant manner. The Museum had purchased some of the Simonides MSS. The public now raised a cry that the Museum had been imposed on, and had purchased forged MSS., whilst Simonides at the same moment charged everyone connected with the Museum with profound ignorance of paleography and archsology, and with general incapacity. The quarrel raged with violence for a long time, but at length it was thought that Simonides had been put down and extinguished. Suddenly, however, he was discovered in Liverpool, and the archives of the previously peaceful Historical Society will tell the extent of the dissension he introduced. He divided a society, formerly the most friendly, into two opposed factions; he destroyed all unanimity in its action ; he raised all sorts of unpleasant feelings among the individual members; and excited two of them, both well-known archeologists, to so furious a degree, that they soundly belaboured each other in the literary columns of a London contemporary. Nor has his fatal faculty of provoking frays been manifested only among learned societies: when he cannot procure doctors to set by the ears he is contented with smaller fry. In Alexandria, where professors are scarce, he contrived to quarrel with some Arabs, pistolled two of them, received some ugly wounds on the head and face from a third, the marks of which are still visible, and parted with a small knob of his os frontis, detached by the sabre of a fourth. In Macedonia, his native country, though he was only at the time on a visit, he succeeded in getting up a very pretty little insurrection among his countrymen, and in conjunction with a few choice spirits who joined him in the leadership of the patriot bands, he, one fine morning, fell on a detachment of Turkish soldiers, drove them into a river, and destroyed some one hundred and fifty of them before breakfast. In this interesting transaction he received a spent ball in his chest, and had a musket bullet through his thigh. But we have no space to record the escapades of M. Simonides, which extend over nearly twenty years, and the scenes of which are laid variously in Abyssinia, Siberia, Mesopvtamia, Persia, Arabia, and the site of those ancient nations who dwelt at the foot of the Himalayah range. Everywhere the same fatality has attended him. He has beep abused, vituperated, and denounced in nearly every civilised language; books have been
43
written against him, newspapers have continually been striving to expose him; he has been accused of literary forgery, imposture, and swindling, but in every case the accusation has fallen through, for though accused and condemned he has never been convicted, nor, indeed, has the evidence against him ever risen to anything definite and precise. In each case of accusation the verdict of impartial men has been “ not proven,” and Simonides has gone his way. No sooner has he been crushed out of one place than he appears in another with almost pantomimic rapidity, and, with an extraordinary pertinacity, instantly renews his charges of ignorance against the learned men of the land, and re-asserts his declaration that he alone possesses the key to all the mysteries and lore of the ancient world. His declaration he supports with considerable skill, and, in the numerous publications that he contrives to issue, he displays a large amount of learning of the most abstruse character. It is with one of these,* upon the subject of Egyptian hieroglyphics, that we have now to do.
“Two years since Simonides was introduced, in Liverpool, to a gentleman named Mayer, who has collected one of the finest museums in the country. In fact, the Mayer Museum is one of the curiosities of Liverpool. Mr. Mayer conducted Simonides over his collection, and, aware of his great reputation as a decipherer of ancient MSS., submitted to his inspection a mass of papyri in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, demotic, Coptic, and Greek characters. Some of these Simonides says he has deciphered recently, and he has published a large volume of fac-similes, respecting which we may have a few words to say on another occasion. Besides papyri, Mr. Mayer possesses a large number of Egyptian antiquities, many of them bearing hieroglyphical insoriptions. These Simonides declared himself able to interpret, and, selecting several at random from the collection, he at once proceeded to decipher them. The method employed by Simonides is totally different to that accepted by Egyptologists as the true system. So different are the two systems that, if Simonides is correct, all the Egyptologists of the present day —the followers of Champollion, Lepsius, and Bunsen—are utterly wrong, and must have been labouring under a delusion the most extraordinary ever recorded in the annals of literature; or, on the other hand, if the system of Champollion is correct, and the discoveries of Young and the later Egyptologists are genuine, then must Simonides be an arch impostor, and deserving of all the opprobrium to which he has been subjected. A short explanation will render the matter perfectly simple, even to those who have no knowledge of the subject.
“The present universally-accepted system of deciphering hieroglyphics was invented by M. Champollion, who founded his method on a comparison and analysis of the tablets or cartouches bearing the names of Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and Berenice, expressed in hieroglypbics. His method starts with the idea that hieroglyphics are phonetic, each representing an alphabetical character. Thus he says the L in Ptolemy is represented by a lion, because the Egyptian for lion was labo, and the hieroglyphical lion represents the first letter of its name. In this manner each hieroglyphic represents a single letter. Each letter may, however, be represented by numerous hieroglyphics—in fact by any hieroglyphical drawing of an article the name of which begins with the letter desired to be represented. By a highly ingenious process, never satisfactorily explained, M. Champollion succeeded in assigning to the various hieroglyphics their several alphabetical values. He decided which meant A, which meant B, and so on, and by this means he in time obtained words. Here, however, he became greatly embarrassed. The Egyptian language was lost, and he could not discover the meaning of the words he had thus obtained. In this dilemma he hit upon the plan of making the Coptic language answerable for the Egyptian, and he even went so far as to declare that ‘the Coptic language is the ancient Egyptian written in Greek characters.’ By this means he proceeded to interpret the hieroglyphical inscriptions, and with an ingenuity that is marvellous he readily found an explanation for every inscription placed before him. The hieroglyphics contained within rings he pronounced to be the names of kings, and much of the accepted Egyptian chronology is dependent on the names thus obtained. Champollion found numerous followers. Coptio was accepted as Egyptian ; the alphabetical system was adopted throughout Europe; to this day his method is the only one practised; and the authorities in the British Museum decipher all hieroglyphical inscriptions by its means. It must, however, be remarked that the Egyptians employed three methods of writing: —1. The hieroglyphic, used in sacred inscriptions; 2. The hieratic, or the hieroglyphic, written rapidly on papyrus, in which the various characters were contracted and imperfectly formed; and 3. The demotic, the method employed by the people in the ordinary transactions of every-day life. The Champollion system does not undertake to translate the demotic, but it says that the first writing employed by the Egyptians was the hieroglyphic, and that the demotic did not come into use until a few centuries before the commencement of the Christian era.
“ This, then, is a brief outline of the system of Champollion, which Simonides characterises as nonsense. The latter declares that hieroglyphics are never alphabetical, that they are symbolical, and that each hieroglyphic expresses not a letter, but an idea; that Coptic is no more Egyptian than English is Greek; that the demotic
¢ “A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters.” By Constantine Bimonides, Ph.D. David Nutt.
44
character is the oldest, and was in use earlier than the hieroglyphic; that the rings (cartouche) do not contain the names of kings, but the apophthegms by which kings were distinguished; that the vocabulary of Egyptian words in use by the modern Egyptologist is completely false ; that even Champollion's illustration of the lion, representing the letter L, is absurd, because the Egyptian for a lion is not labo thaouraéd (labo being Carian and not Egyptian), and that no inscription has ever yet been interpreted correctly by the Champollion system. In a word, he denounces the method as a tissue of falsehoods, absurdities, and errors, and insinuates that many of the most eminent Egyptologists have been, and are, guilty of wilfal deception.
“For some time past a suspicion has existed that the theories of the Egyptologists are not reliable or sound, and these suspicions, within the past few weeks, have acquired immense force by the publication of Sir George Cornewall Lewis’s work on the Astronomy of the Ancients. Few men enjoy a greater reputation for learning than our present War Minister, and in his recently published book he points out the inconsistencies of the Champollion system with a remorseless hand, and does not hesitate to assert his belief that the key to the hieroglyphics has yet to be discovered. He says ‘ Egyptology has a historical method of its own. It recognises none of the ordinary rules of evidence; the extent of ita demands upon our credulity is almost unbounded. Even the writers on ancient Italian ethnology are modest and tame in their hypotheses compared with the Egyptologists. Under their potent logic all identity disappears; everything is subject to become anything but itself. Successive dynasties become contemporary dynasties; one king becomes another king, or several kings, or a fraction of another king; one name becomes another name; one number becomes another number; one place becomes another place.’ With these opinions of Sir Cornewall Lewis the system of Simonides entirely harmonises. Here let it be observed that where so much doubt and such great uncertainty exist, it might be expected that the exponent of a new system would meet with attention and consideration; and this, we think, has not been the case in the instance of Simonides. Nor is it a matter for surprise that Simonides should be treated with little consideration by the learned world. He comes before them with his name associated, whether truly or not we cannot pretend to say, with suspicions of literary forgery—and he himself falls tooth and nail, not only on the system of Champollion, but on its professors. Indeed, in all his writings there is a tone of personal animosity that detracts much from their merit. His illustrations of the absurdity of the accepted hieroglyphical system are, nevertheless, so forcible as to call for a more careful consideration than any they have yet received, and, however strong may be the disinclination of the learned world to listen to his not by any means politely urged claims, the statements he makes are too remarkable to be any longer ignored or passed over in contemptuous silence. Simonides, whilst ridiculing the Champollion system, demands, if the hieroglyphical characters are alphabetical, that some well-known inscription, say that on the Rosetta Stone, shall be interpreted by its means to the satisfaction of an unprejudiced jury. This has never yet been accomplished, and as to the demotic inscription on the Rosetta Stone, though the Greek translation accompanies it, no person has ever yet been able to give more than a conjectural interpretation. Sir Cornewall Lewis, speaking on the subject of the ancient writings, says:—‘ The attempts even of the most accomplished linguists to explain the inscriptions must be regarded by an impartial judge as utter failures’ (p. 887). This being the case, the arguments of Simonides, as published by him in the numerous books he has issued, assume a grave importance ; and when he asserts that Coptic is not Egyptian, he completely destroys, if he establishes his assertion, the whole Champollion system. His reasonings on this point are much too elaborate to permit of their introduction here, but it may be briefly observed that he points out that Coptic took its origin at a period when Egypt had been conquered and overrun by foreigners for more than a thousand years; that it is simply the Greek language considerably corrupted, and intermixed with Parthian, Libyan, Carian, Lycian, Arabic, and Hebrew words, and that the number of words of Egyptian origin is very limited; that the remains of the Coptic language which have reached us do not ascend higher than the third century after the commencement of the Christian era ; that the name Coptic does not appear to have been used earlier than the sixth century; and that all attempts to interpret Egyptian by its aid have failed. On this point we may ourselves venture an observation. In the British Museum there is at least one MS. in which the Egyptian language is written in Greek characters, The question of the identity of the Coptic with the Egyptian language may therefore be readily ascertained. If the Egyptologists can translate this MS. by means of Coptic and Bunsen's Egyptian vocabulary, they would establish their point; if they cannot, they must then admit their failure, and confess themselves defeated. We have only space now to notice one other argument used by Simonides, in his denunciation of the Champollion system. The modern Egyptologists state, that the hieroglyphic characters were first in use, that the hieratic followed, and that, lastly, the demotic was invented for the use of the common people. This theory, at firet sight, appears probable. It seems natural that a people emerging from barbarism should, in their first attempts to write, take the direction of picture representations. The Egyptologists themselves destroy this theory, for their whole
45
system is founded on the basis of the hieroglyphical characters being alphabetical Among the earliest hieroglyphics known to the world are those ascribed to the 4th dynasty, or about 500 years after Menes, a date variously fixed by Egyptologists at 2300 8.0. and 5200 ».c. These are declared to be alphabetical. If so, the Egyptians must have had an alphabet, and if they had an alphabet it seems pretty clear that they would use it in the ordinary transactions of life, without employing the elaborate devices of hieroglyphics. This consideration is damaging to the Champollion system, and the fact of figures of inkstands, and of the stylus, being found in the inscriptions of the 4th dynasty, almost establishes the point that writing was common among the Egyptian people. The theory of Simonides is by some considered more ingenious and probable than that of Champollion. He says that the demotic alphabet was invented firat, and that as time went on the priesthood sought to increase their power by rendering all theological matters mystical. They therefore invented a system of writing, of a secret character, in which the demotic letters for a particular word were made into a monogram, which monogram took the shape of some object resembling the idea expressed. For instance, the duckling, so commonly found in hieroglyphical inscriptions, is said by Horapollo to represent affection, and Simonides states that the figure of a duckling is drawn by combining together the five demotic characters for the letters ch-a-o-e, which is the Egyptian for love. Thus the figure of a duckling expresses, by a symbol, affection, and its component parts contain the demotic characters for the word love. This theory is extremely ingenious, and, if correct, will explain away many of the difficulties that hang around the subject. Simonides supports his theory with considerable learning and skill, and stoutly contends that writers of antiquity corroborate his views. We can, however, accompany M. Simonides no farther in his proofs of the untrustworthy character of the modern system, and can only afford space to glance over the evidences afforded of the trath of his own method.
‘In the first place, it must be observed that Simonides does not assume to himself any credit for having discovered a new method of hieroglyphical interpretation. He states that he does nothing more than follow the instructions left by the old writers. Horapollo wrote ten books, treating of the interpretation of hieroglyphics, two of which have been preserved to the present day. These books explain the symbolic meaning of some 200 hieroglyphics; and as these explanations are quite opposed to the system of Champollion, the Egyptologists declare that Horapollo, who flourished about 100 years 8. σ., and was himself a priest in one of the temples of Egypt, knew nothing at all about the matter. Simonides also states that he has acquired his knowledge of the Egyptian writings and language by means of manuscripts obtained by him in various eastern monasteries and in Egypt. He says that he has in his possession, not only the eight lost books of Horapollo, but also the whole of the lost works of Chmrémon (800 books—the Egyptian words expressed phonetically in Greek characters), Chenophis, and Charon; and by the aid of these, especially of Cherémon, who wrote a vocabulary of the Egyptian language, he has mastered the ancient language of Egypt, and the whole secret of the Egyptian writings. The proofs he affords of the correctness of his own system are, however, not by any means 80 conclusive as those he gives of the incorrectness of that of Champollion. They are, nevertheless, important, and in the pamphlet before us he has adopted the bold expedient of interpreting inscriptions by his own method, and publishing them to the public. In this pamphlet he has deciphered and interpreted several hieroglyphical inscriptions in Mr. Mayer’s Museum, and has given the reasons for his interpretations, and an explanation of the process employed. He has also on several occasions expressed his willingness to decipher any inscription that may be agreed upon, und to give full explanations of the interpretation. He even avows his readiness to take the demotic inscription in the Rosetta Stone, to write out line for line and word for word the Egyptian words it contains, to give in a similar manner a word for word translation of the Egyptian into Greek, and to compare the latter with the hieroglyphic inscription. The strongest proofs he possesses he declares to be the MSS. themselves from which he acquired his knowledge. Such proofs, in the case of Simonides, will be received with very considerable doubt; in fact, as evidence, they will scarcely be received at all. Cherémon may have been manufactured by himself, and all the Egyptian vocabulary it is said to contain may be only a clever invention; but if he really has these works in his possession, he should produce them before the public, and then, whether they are forgeries or not, if they contain the lost key to the Egyptian writings and language, they are equally valuable. We are very far from saying that Simonides has convinced the world, by his pamphlets and other publications, of the truth of his hieroglyphical theories, but we do say that he has violently shaken the system of Champollion, and that, if the Egyptologists wish to preserve their credit, they must take prompt measures to dispel the strongly excited suspicions of the public,” *
* “TA μετὰ τὸν ἀστερίσκον ἰκδίδονται ix χειρογράφου τοῦ συντάκτου" ὅνι οὐκ ἐξεδόθη εἰσέτι, καὶ δ, χειρόγραφον, ἀπεστάλει (40s ἀνωνύμως. Τὸν δὲ τούτου συντάκτην εἰσέτι ἀγνοῶ.
46
“And of these publications that we now have to do, and first with regard to the ‘ Fac-similes.'*
“Two years since Simonides was introduced to our esteemed townsman, Mr. Mayer, who conducted his visitor through the fine Museum he has collected. Mr. Mayer, aware of the high reputation enjoyed by Simonides as a decipherer of ancient MSS., submitted to his inspection a quantity of papyri, written in hieroglyphic, hieratic, demotic, Coptic, and Greek characters. Many of these psprri had been obtained from an old, and once well-known collector named Sams, and others from the Rev. Mr. Stobart, who had brought them himself from Egypt. These papyri at various times were unrolled by Simonides in the Museum, im the presence of other parties; they were carefully pasted on to calico, fac-similes were taken, and Simonides undertook their translation. In due time he announced that among the collection were MSS. of the most valuable character. A portion of these, being fragments of the Gospel of St Matthew, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the Epistle of St. Jude, were considered to be of an importance sufficient to warrant their publication, and the large and finely printed book now before us is a facsimile of the fragments thus discovered. No sooner was the book published than a controversy commenced. Several journals of considerable literary repute, from the mere inspection of the fac-similes, denounced them in plain terms as forgeries; and many persons, remembering the atmosphere of suspicion that surrounds Simonides, expressed opinions unfavourable to their genuineness. Some few, however, and those not the least learned or well informed, adopted the views of Simonides, and supported him in his defence. The two parties joined issue, and whilst one contends that Mr. Mayer's manuseripts are forgeries, the other accepts them es genuine remains of antiquity, dating beck to within fifty years of the commencement of the Christian era.
“ Before proceeding to notice the MSS. in question, it must be remembered that they have never been the property of Simonides; that they are not brought forward by him from his own stores, but have been for a considerable period in the possession of Mr. Mayer; and that the corinection of Simonides with the Mayer MSS. is confined to their interpretation, in which, it must be admitted, he has exhibited considerable skill. His notes and prolegomena are fall of curious information, and, whatever else may be said, no one can deny that the book is extremely interesting. Of the fragments discovered, five of them contain portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew; and at the end of one of these fragments, being the conclusion of the Gospel, occur words of which the following is a literal translation : —
“ The writing by the hand of Nikolaos the Deacon, at the dictation of Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. It was done in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of our Lord, and was distributed to the believing Jews and Greeks in Palestine.
“ This Nikolaos or Nicolas is enumerated among the seven Deacons, and in Acts vi. 5 is called ‘a proselyte of Antioch.’ If the subsctiption copied above is to be trusted, it will go far to settle the question of the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel. The authorities furnished by Simonides are all strongly in favour of the opinion that it was originally written in Greek, and was afterwar’s turned into Hebrew. Among the numerous fac-similes uf MSS. and inscriptions produced by Simonides as witnesses in favour of his opinions, is one of an inscription on a stone found at Thyatira im 1851, and which states that the Gospel of St. Matthew was first written in Greek. The date given im this inscription coincides with that given in the Mayer MS., and Simonides likewise accumulates a mass of evidence to prove, first, the correctness of this date (that of a.p. 48, or 15 after the Ascension); next, that Greek was the language in which the Gospel was originally written; and, lastly, that Nikolaos was the Apostle’'s amanuensis on the occasion. All these points Simonides in a great measure establishes, but still this does not remove the doubt that appears to hang over the MSS. Even if we take it for granted that the MSS. are the same that were brought to England by Stobart er Sams, it still remains to be proved that they are genuine. Both Sams and Stobart may have been deceived, and indeed in the case of Mr. Stobart he does not appear to have examined them with any close attention. We must, after all, look to the MSS. themselves for the proofs of their authenticity; and here, it may be observed that those who have condemned them have seen only the fac-similes, whilst those who believe in their genuineness have arrived at their conclusions after inspecting the originals. It is well known that papyrus was the oldest material for MS. of the New Testament; we do not hear of skins until the fourth century, at which time the use of papyrus was nearly abandoned. Now, as papyrus has not been manufactured for probably fifteen hundred years, to obtain blank rolls of it at the present day is simply impossible. How, then, can these be forgeries? Let it be also recollected that the papyri, upon being inspected in Mr. Mayer's Museum, in
© “Fac-similes of certain portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, end of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, discovered in the Egyptian Mussum of Mr. Mayer." London: Triabner ἃ Co.
47
some instances fell to pieces from old age and decay, and that, even with the best preserved, it was a matter of extreme difficulty to unroll them without mutilation and destruction. Blank papyrus, in this condition, if obtained, could not by any possibility have been unrolled, written upon, and rolled up again, without its crumbling to pieces under the operation.
εἰ With regard to the contents of the MSS. in question, it cannot be said they are of vital importance. It had been long suspected that a cable, and not a camel, was meant in the verse that speaks of its passage through the eye of a needle; and the other new readings are not of any great moment. Still the MSS. are of a value quite sufficient to entitle them te a full and impartial consideration at the hands of competent judges, and measures ought to be taken to procure an authoritative decision on the moot points. At present Mr. Mayer exhibits his MSS. in his Museum, and declares them to be genuine. Those who impugn their genuineness should make out their case, and produce such evidence as they may consider necessary. Then let Simonides, for Mr. Mayer, enter upon his defence. This being done—a fair trial having been accorded, and both sides having been heard—a verdict can be taken. To decide, either on one side or the other, with the matter in its present state, would be precipitate and unjust; neither men or manuscripts are to be condemned on suspicion; nor, on the other hand, do assertions, however loudly made, establish proofs. What is required in this matter of Mr. Mayer's Manuscripts is a thorough investigation, and an impartial trial before a properly appointed tribunal —for until the contending parties have had a fair opportunity of producing their evidence, any judgment given must be ez parte, and entitled to no weight or consideration.”
Ἰδοὺ δὲ παὶ ἕτεραι διατριξαὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Ματθαίου εὐαγγελίου ὑποθέσεως :—
ANCIENT BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS. (Liverpool Courier, February 28, 1861.)
“We are sure our readers will thank us for laying before them a short notice of the Paper read at the meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on Thursday last, by Dr. Simonides, to whose discoveries of fragments of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and other ancient manuscripts, in the Museum of Mr. Mayer, we before called attention. A large folio work of Dr. Simonides upon the subject has been for some time in the press, and will very shortly be published. As it is dedicated by the author to the Historic Society, he has paid them the compliment of reading, at their meeting, a considerable portion of the introduction before offering it to the public, and as it will soon be in their hands, we shall content ourselves with briefly noticing some of the chief points of interest by which our attention was attracted. The first is one which will probably startle the scientific, more than the literary world. In allusion to the subject of photography (by which process Dr. Simonides is about to reproduce his recently discovered Epistles of Hermippus concerning Hieroglyphics), he observes, in passing, that the art is as old as a.p. 500, and even states that he has publicly proved that M. Daguerre, the reputed inventor, obtained his knowledge of the process from MSS. inspected by him at Mount Athos. Such a statement opens a wide field for the discussion of rival claims between modern science and ancient literature. After clearly and satisfactorily stating how the papyri which contain fragments of the text of St. Matthew came into the possession of Mr. Mayer, he followed by a most interesting account of the custom of burying papyri and other written matter with the dead, not only in Egypt, and from the earliest times, but also in Greece, where the practice exists in a few instances, even at the present time. The next portion of the Paper was occupied with a series of accounts, from different ancient writers, of the life, miracles, and martyrdom of St. Matthew, and of his mission to the Parthians and Medes. After which the question of the date at which the Gospel was written, and the language in which it was composed, were very fully handled, and the author’s views (which, of course, assume a Greek, and not a Hebrew original) supported by a great variety of extracts from inscriptions and MSS. Among the latter is a fragment of the Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, recently discovered in Mr. Mayer’s Museum, written on papyrus in the second century, and containing many other interesting records of events in the church. We understand that this fragment will likewise be published in fac-simile, at an early period. Some objections which had been raised, as to the improbability of the insertion of the name of the transcriber at the end of so early a MS. as that of St. Matthew, were met by a great number of instances in which this custom had been followed; and the external peculiarities of the fragment of St. Matthew were very elaborately treated, both as regards the character of the papyrus on which they are written, the form of the characters, and especially of the accents; and, lastly, some of the variations between the present codex and all its predecessors were alluded to. We have given but a very imperfect outline of a Paper full of interest, but we hope that the few remarks we have made will induce all those who feel interested in antiquities, for their own sake, but especially those by whom
48
the elucidation of the text of Seripture is desired, to inspect for themselves, as soon as published, a work which we are persuaded will be received with more avidity than any similar production which has appeared for many years. We think that Liverpool has great reason to be proud that in the noble collection of her spirited townsman, Mr. Mayer, should have existed such valuable documents, and that the latter gentleman has cause to rejoice in having found so able a coadjutor and expositor as Dr. Simonides.”
HISTORIC SOCIETY. (Liverpeol Daily Post, December 6, 1861.)
‘The Archeological section of the above Society was held last evening in the lecture-hall at the Free Public Library, William Brown Street, Joseph Mayer, Esq., presiding. The following gentlemen were admitted to membership :— Messrs. William Jackson, Bedford Road, Rock Ferry; John Kendal, Fishergate, Preston ; Joseph Read, Upper Huskisson Street; Nicholas Waterhouse, Rake Lane; James Mulligan, jun., of Huyton. Amongst the donations were a copy of fac-similes of certain portions of the Gospel of St Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, written on papyrus in the first century, and preserved in the Egyptian Museum of Joseph Mayer, Esq., of Liverpool, with a portrait of St. Matthew, from a fresco painting at Mount Athos, edited and illustrated with notes and historical and literary prolegomena, containing confirmatory fac-similes of the same portions of Holy Scripture from papyri and parchment MSS. in the monasteries of Mount Athos, of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, of St. Sabba, in Palestine, and other sources, by Constantine Simonides, Ph. D., honorary member of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire,” &c., &c., by the author. Mr. Hodgkins, in making the presentation, said he was commissioned by Dr. Simonides to say a few words in giving this book to the Society, which he did with very great pleasure, and had dedicated the work also to the Society. He begged to congratulate the town very much on the acquisition and publication of so valuable a work as the present. The MSS. which contained it appeared to be in date three centuries earlier than anything which had at preeent been discovered. This would not be very much wondered at when we remembered that these monasteries had been in a very small degree ransacked, and their contents now, for the first time, brought to light. To Mr. Mayer, as the fortunate possessor of these relics, and Dr. Simonides, as their expositoer, very much credit was due; and Liverpool might consider itself fortunate in being the possessor of MSS. so much older than any other extant. It might be satisfactory to the Society to know that he had seen a yet more important papyrus partially unrolled. After two hours of hard work the result was extremely satisfactory. It contained a date of sixty-six years after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, or ninety-nine years of the Christian era, and contained the last chapter of the Gospel according to St. John. The work of Dr. Simonides was then handed round, and excited the liveliest curiosity. The excellent style in which it was printed was much remarked upon, and no small meed of praise was bestowed upon the printers, Messrs. Rockliff Brothers, of this town. The paper of the evening was by Dr. Hume, D.C.L, ‘On the Heraldry of Lancashire and Cheshire. The elegant diagrams by which the paper was illustrated were much admired, and the subject-matter of the paper itself highly appreciated, by the large audience of ladies and gentlemen who Kistened to it. A cordial vote of thanks was passed to Dr. Hume, for having made a contribution so interesting and so instructive to the Society.”
DISCOVERY OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.* (The Dial, January 17, 1862. London.)
“This publication will certainly attract much attention, and will probably give rise to controversy. The odium theologicum is not more remarkable than the analagous feeling which is often generated amid philological discussion. Having always heard and held as a settled belief that the oldest existing New Testament manuscript dates from the fourth century, we are armed with a large stock of preliminary incredulity against the man who would assure us that be has discovered one which was written in the first. Dr. Simonides must expect sharp attacks, and is well able to defend himself, as he bas shown in a recent passage of arms with one of the more arrogant and fierce of our contemporaries.
4 VFac-similes of Certain Portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of 8S. James and Jude. Written on Papyrus in the First Century, and preserved in the Egyptian Museum of Joseph Mayer, Feq., Liverpool. With a Portrait of St. Matthew, from ἃ fresco painting at Mount Athos. Edited and Dlustrated with Notes and Historical and Literary Prolegomena, containing confirmatory Fac-similes of the same portions of Holy Scripture from papyri and parchment MSS. in the monasteries of Mount Athos, of St. Catherine, on Monnt Sinai, of St. Sabba, in Palestine, and other sources. By ConsTaxtTivE Simoxrpses, Ph. D., Honorary Member of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, etc., etc. Trubner ἃ Co.
49
“The reader may very naturally ask who Dr. Simonides is, for the name is probably new to most of the public. Humboldt says that he is ‘an enigma,’ and that the mystery and the injudicious commentaries upon him, by which some have made themselves ridiculous, arise from ‘the imperturbable and naturally incommunicative character of Simonides.’ We learn, however, from a biographical sketch of him, by his English friend, Mr. Charles Stewart, that he was born in the island of Hydra, in the year 1820, and that on his father’s side he comes from Stageira, and on his mother’s from Syme. ‘The family is numerous and distinguished, several of its members having occupied prominent and honourable positions in the modern history of Greece.’ Simonides studied awhile at Athens, and afterwards finding his maternal uncle, Benedict, 8 most accomplished scholar and a great linguist, in the monastery of Rhosos, on Mount Athos, he remained there, studying theology under his direction. This Benedict became in a remarkable manner the possessor of an exceedingly valuable collection of ancient manuscripts. He taught paleography to his nephew, who soon became his right hand in all matters connected with the art. At the death of Benedict in 1840, he bequeathed his manuscript treasures to his nephew, by whom they were removed to Syme. For further particulars of his life, his rare attainments and most extraordinary claims as a discoverer, the manuscripts which belong to him, and the great multitude of learned works which he has published at various times and in various places, we refer the reader to Mr. Stewart's pamphlet itself: ‘A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of his Manuscripts. By Charles Stewart. London: C. J. Skeet.
“ The manuscripts, of which the fac-similes lie before us, have been preserved in the collection of Joseph Mayer, Esq., of Liverpool. They were, along with many others, brought from Egypt by the Rev. Henry Stobart. Mr. Mayer, knowing the skill of Dr. Simonides in palwography, submitted to his inspection a mass of papyri, hieroglyphic, Demotic, Coptic, and Greek. Amongst the last, Dr. Simonides discovered five fragments of the Gospel of St. Matthew, two of the Epistle of St. James, and one of the Epistle of St. Jude. The fragments of the Gospel contain portions of the Ist, 2nd, 19th, and 20th, 27th and 28th chapters. The other fragments contain the opening of the Epistle of St. James and the conclusion of St. Jude's. This discovery was made in the spring of 1860.
“At the end of the fifth fragment of St. Matthew, which is also the close of the Gospel, occur words of which the following is a literal translation : —
‘-‘The writing by the hand of Nicolaus the Deacon, at the dictation [καθ᾿ ὑπαγόρευσιν] of Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. It was done [᾿Ἐγένετο δὲ] in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of our Lord, acd was distribute to the believing Jews and Greeks in Palestine.’
“This Nicolaus, or Nicolas, as the name appears in the English Testament, is in Acts vi. 5 called ‘a proselyte of Antioch,’ and enumerated amongst the seven Deacons. Nothing further is known concerning him, although some have supposed, on insufficient evidence, that he was the founder of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, condemned in Rev. ii. 6. 15. Mosheim thinks that the Nicolaitans here mentioned have been erroneously confounded with a party of Gnostics formed at a later time by one Nicolas. The only relation between either of them and the Deacon is probably the sound of the name. .
“If the subscription above copied is to be trusted, it will go far to settle the question of the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel. Dr. Simonides gives us a fac-simile of an inscription on a stone which was discovered at Thyatira in 1851, and which states that the Gospel was at first written in Greek and afterwards by Bartholomew turned into Hebrew. The date also agrees with that given in this manuscript, and Dr. Simonides collects a host of witnesses confirmatory of both the Greek original and the date a.p. 48, or 15 after the Ascension. The Thyatirane inscription and the other witnesses confirm also Nicolaus as the Apostle’s amanuensis.
“Tt is well known that the Egyptian papyrus was the oldest material for manuscripts of the New Testament. We do not hear of skin until the fourth century. The letters are capitals. This of itself would not establish the antiquity of the manuscript. Many modern Greeks write thus. But there are certain peculiarities, characteristic of the different periods of Greek writing, and to be appreciated only by the practised eye. Dr. Simonides affirms that the present manuscript, judged by this kind of evidence, belongs to the first century.
“The St. Matthew fragments contain some interesting various readings. Of these we mention a few.
“Chap. xix., verse 22.
‘RECEIVED TERT. ‘‘* Bot when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.’ H
50
“THE MAYER MANUSCRIPT. “*But when the young man heard this saying, he held his peaee [ἰσιώπησε)], and went away,’ etc.
“Verse 94. “RECEIVED TEXT. “*Tt is easier for a camel [κάμηλον to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ “MAYER MANUAORIPT.
‘Jt is easier for a cable Γχάλων] to go through the eye of a needle,’ ete.
‘The manner in which Dr. Simonides supposes κάμηλον to have been substituted for κάλων would reqnire too long an explanation. He has found the reading κάλων in other ancient manuscripts, and in one the same reading in the parallel passage of St. Luke. Many modern interpreters had suspected that this was the sense of the passage, and Messrs. Liddell and Scott go so far as to say that the word κάρολος, rope, though found in Suidas, was probably an invention to support the notion. But it is curious that this reading in the Mayer manuscript should support the hypothetical interpretation, though by a different word. The Talmudists say that the separation of the soul from the body is as dificult as the passage of a rope through the eye of a needle. Mahommed also says, in the Koran, that it will be as difficult for those who deny his doctrine to enter heaven as for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle.
“Chap. xxvii., verses 16, 17. S RECEIVED TEXT.
“ὁ. And they had then a notable prisoner [δέσμιον ἐπίσημον called Barabbas. Therefore, when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will: ye that I release unto you, Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?’
“wWAYER MANUSCRIPT.
““And they had then a notable . . thief (ἐπίσυμον ληστὴν), called Jesus Barabbas. Therefore, when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye now [ἤδη] that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?’
‘For the reading Jesus as the name of Barabbas, Dr. Simonides cites other authorities, especially Nectarius, the successor of Gregory of Nazianz and the predecessor of Chrysostom in the see of Constantinople.
“Verse 19. “RECEIVED TEXT. “© When he was set down on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.’ ““ MAYER MANUSCRIPT.
οἰ When Pilate was set down on the judgment-seat, his wife, Pempele [Msuwidn], sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man [ἀνδρὶ]: for I suffered many things last night in a dream because of him; and many things have I seen in behalf of this very man in a waking vision this day [iv τῇ νυκτὶ τῆς παρελθούσης, καὶ πολλὰ καθ᾽ ὕπαρ εἶδον σήμερον ὑπὶρ αὐτοῦ ixalvov].'
“Chap. xxviil., verse 6.
“ RECEIVED TEXT. ‘“¢He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.’
“ MAYER MANUSORIPT,
“(Ἢ is not here: for he is risen, even as indeed he foretold [παθά γε προεῖπε] . Come, see the place where he lay, who lords it over death [ὁ κυριεύων τοῦ θανάτου] ."
““The Notes and Prolegomena are exceedingly valuable for their information. They were written by Dr. Simonides in classical Greek, and translated into English by G. P. Silke, Esq., formerly of Queen's College, Oxford. Fac-similes of other manuscripts, besides the evangelic fragments, are given, and also lithograms of various stone inscriptions, for the purpose of illustration. Speaking of the splendid portrait of St. Matthew with which the work is adorned, Dr. Simonides says :—
51
‘¢¢ Byzantine art, though latterly confined to Hagiography, and separated from plastic art, is nevertheless, in its other conditions, a continuation of the Grecian. Hence it unquestionably results that the influence of Grecian upon Byzantine art is greater than that of the Greek orators before Christ upon the ecclesiastical writers, not only as regards invention and arrangement, but also in the mechanical and artistic execution, of which fact those who devote themselves to the history of art are gradually becoming convinced. For not only does the technicality of the style everywhere recall this influence, but sometimes, e.g., the Mother of God is represented sitting on a Grecian throne; and other similar instances might be adduced. From this may be understood that august expression, or intelligible idea, which without previous intuition is admired in the sacred portraits, often even in spite of barbarous want of akill, both in the drawing and colouring. The Byzantine, like every other declining art, in place of the ideal representations and positive conceptions of the Greeks, has fashioned certain invariable types conventionally copied, which have lasted even to the present time. These are not an imitation of any Asiatic stereotype, as some of the present writers on art proclaim, but a necessary consequence of the intellectual and moral condition of the Grecian community. The Byzantine convenjionalities, therefore, though otherwise injurious to vigour in art, are highly valuable, inasmuch as they have preseFved almost unaltered those ancient representations and ideas of the first Christian hagiographers, who, immediately after the Greeks, in the era of the first centuries, which was fall of artistic piety, gradually moulded in picture the hypothesis of the Church. And although many works of Byzantine Church architecture and hagiography are preserved, both in and out of Greece, and in Western Europe, it was believed, in consequence of no work treating on these subjects, that none were extant. But some valuable works on the subject were discovered in Mount Athos, a few years ago, concerning which the necessary information will be given elsewhere. But to return to the portrait of St. Matthew, which has been successfully engraved, and manifests a character truly and entirely apostolic. For the glance of the eyes, abstracted from all save the great object of his contemplation, the thoughtfulness of the character, the holy smile on the lips, and the cheerful benevolence pervading the whole countenance, proclaim the character of the original, and prove the painter (Hierotheus, of the fifth century) to have been one of the best masters of Byzantine art. So allow the first of the garments, termed Perimorphium, together with the Pericladoma and the Fpicladuma, all being ornaments of very ancient fashion, no less denote the affinity between Grecian and Byzantine art.’ ;
“Here, then, we must leave Dr. Simonides, to fight with critics at Ephesus, and be judged by a candid public, with regard to this portrait of St. Matthew, and the genuineness of the Manuscripts, as well as his marvellous discoveries and personal claims. We have seen and talked with the man himself, have seen and handled the Mayer and many other Manuscripts, classical and ecclesiastical. The result was highly favourable to his pretensions. The reader of the Prolegomena before us will naturally receive an impression of extensive and profound knowledge, in combination with sincerity, and even simplicity. We venture to say that that impression would be in no degree weakened, but would rather be enforced, by knowledge of the remarkable Editor. If Simonides is an impostor, and his manuscripts forgeries, then must he combine the adroitness of a thousand Chattertons and the cunning of the Prince of Serpents with a superhuman intelligence, capable of producing in these days works of various orders worthy of the classic times, of extemporising sentences worthy of Confucius, and all the while wear the aspect and speak the pure dialect of metropolitan Christianity. If the age of the Mayer fragments of St. Matthew be regarded as an open question, notwithstanding the subscription, which might have been copied with the rest, if Dr. Simonides is mistaken in assigning them to the first century, yet the forging of them is an inconceivable absurdity, and their antiquity is probably higher than that of any hitherto known manuscript of the New Testament.” *
© Ἧ αὑτὴ δ᾽ ἐφημερὶς ἰδημοσίευσε καὶ τάδε:--- “DISCOVERY OF FRAGMENTS OF PAPYRUS CONTAINING PORTIONS OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. (The Dial, August 2nd, October 4th, and December 27th, 1861.)
“During the present month a work of great interest will be published, containing a fac-simile of some fragments of papyrus upon which are written portions of St. Matthew’s Gospel, being the earliest yet discovered. The writing is by Nicholaus, the seventh deacon, who wrote at the dictation of St. Matthow himself. It appoars that Mr. Stobart discovered in ἃ sarcophagus at Thebes several papyri, which, upon his arrival in England, he disposed of, partly to the British Museum and partly to Mr. Mayer, of Liverpool. This gentleman obtained the assistance of Dr. K. Simonides, who unrolled the various papyri, and made the discovery that upon one of them were transcribed certain portions of St. Matthew's Gospel, bearing the following inscription :—‘ The writing by the hand of Nicholaus the deacon, at the dictation of Matthew the apostle of Jesus Christ; it was done in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord, and was distributed to the believing Jews and Greeks in Palestine.’ The papyrus, though torn and injured, is of great interest, as it clears up several passages, and supplies us with some lost verses. This was probably the yery MS. that Hermodorus copied seven times during the life of St. Matthew, and seven times after his death. It is written in the Greek uncial character. Our English version was translated from the eleventh copy, preserved in one of the eastern monasteries, which contains several errors. It is to be regretted that the pepyri in the British Museum stil] lie unrolled and unexamined. Messrs. Triibner will publish the work of Dr. Simonides
52
“ BIBLICAL CRITICISM. (The Homilist, February, March, and April, 1862.)
“ Matt. ii, 8, 9.
“ Καὶ πέμψας αὑτοὺς εἷς Bubasin, εἶπε, Tlopevbivrec, ἀχριξῶς ἐξετάσατε περὶ τοῦ παιδίου. ἐπὰν δὲ εὕρετε ἀςαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὑτῶ. Οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν. Καὶ ἰδοὺ, ὁ ἀστὴρ, ὃν εἶδον iv τὴ ἀνατολῇ, προῆγεν αὐτοὺς, ἕως ἐλθὼν ἔστη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον.
W
“In a manuscript which has lately been discovered by Dr. Simonides, there are several curious new readings of the above, and other passages in the same gospel. These we propose to lay before our readers. But first, they will probably like to hear something about Simonides himself, and the manuscript which he has discovered.
‘Dr. Simonides is a Greek by birth, and he speaks and writes the classic language of his forefathers with fluency, purity, and elegance. He was born in the island of Hydra, in the year 1820, being descended, on the father’s side, from many bishops and archbishops of the Greek Church. In early life he studied under the learned Benedict, the uncle of his mother, in the monastery of Rhosos, on Mount Athos. From this uncle Simonides thoroughly acquired the art of palsography, and became so great a proficient therein that few surpass him either in the practice of it or in the diagnosis of manuscripts. He has, moreover, travelled much in Egypt and the East, and has made important antiquarian discoveries. On the death of his uncle he inherited a large library of the most precious manuscripts, which had long been concealed, and which, for prudential reasons, he removed to Syme.
“The fragments of St. Matthews Gospel, which we have mentioned above, were not, however, found by Dr. Simonides in his uncle's collection, but in one belonging to Joseph Mayer, Esq., of Liverpool, who, knowing the Doctor's skill in paleography, early in the year 1860 submitted to his examination a mass of papyri. Doctor Simonides found that they consisted of hieroglyphic, Demotic, Coptic, and Greek manuscripts. On inspecting the last, he found fragments of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of Ss. James and Jude. The last fragment of the Gospel, which contains the close of chap. xxviii., has the following subscription :—
"“Ἦ γραφὴ τῇ χειρὶ Νικολάου Διακόνου καθ᾽ ὑπαγόρευσιν Ματθαίου ἀποστόλου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ἐγένετο δὲ τῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτω
τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ανγαλήψεως ἔτει καὶ τοῖς ἐν Παλαιστίνη πιστοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησι διεδόθη.
during the ensuing month, and anticipate a very large circulation, as the subject is, of course, one of great interest, both to the Christian and literary world.
‘“We understand that in literary circles a rumour prevails that the manuscript now publishing by the Russian Government, under the direction of M. Tischendorf, purporting to be a MS. Bible of the fourth century, is not an ancient manuscript, but is an entirely modern production, written by a gentlemen now alive, who will shortly take measures to establish his claim to the authorship. The manuscript is known as the Codex Sinaiticus, and has attracted a large amount of attention throughout Europe. Should the rumour prove correct, as we believe it will, the disclosures that will follow must be of the greatest interest to archmology.”—Literary Gasette, No. 161, July 27, 1861.
‘‘Our readers already know that a newly discovered text of the Gospel of St. Matthew, with a fac-simile of the manuscript, has been announced by Messrs. Triibner, as shortly to be published under the editorship of Dr. Simonides. We have been favoured by the Doctor with a sight of the manuscript. It is on papyrus, and is attributed by the learned possessor to the first century. In appearance it resembles a very large and very rotten cigar, whose ends have been cut or broken off. In ordinary hands it would crumble to pieces, but Dr. 8. has known how to unroll it with as little damage and loss as possible. It requires some sharpness of sight to perceive the characters, as time has darkened the papyrus and diminished the blackness of the ink. The characters are of course uncial, and the mode of their formation is such as refers them to a very early age. The manuscript has some interesting variations from the Elzevir text. It gives the name of Pilate's wife, and enlarges her caution to her husband by an additional clause. It assigns the name Jesus to Barabbas as well as to Christ. The somewhat difficult passage, xix. 24, is illuminated by the difference of a principal word. The approaching publication of the text and fac-simile, with introduction and notes, will probably draw considerable attention from the learned, and we hope shortly again to bring the subject before our readers. If we are rightly informed, Dr. Simonides is the fortunate possessor of other manuscript treasures, to bring which before the public would require the labours of another Angelo Maio, and which, in the interest they would excite, would recall the days of Leo X. and of Frederic Borromeo.”
“The manuscripts of Dr. Simonides having been severely but carelessly criticised in a recent number of the ene, he replies in this number by a letter to the Editor (vide p. 59), which is distinguished for vigour and moderation.”
53
“That is:—
“¢ The writing by the hand of Nicolaus the Deacon, at the dictation of Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. It was done in the fifteenth year after our Lord's ascension, and was distributed to believers, both Jews and Greeks, in Palestine.’
“Papyrus, the material on which this manuscript is written, is well known as the most ancient for manuscripts of the New Testament. We do not hear of skins, whether of vellum or parchment, until the fourth century. The characters are capitals, but of such a formation as Simonides asserts to belong distinctively to the first century. We do not ourselves suppose that the mere subscription would settle the age of the manuscript, but incline to attach more weight to the critical diagnosis of Simonides, respecting the formation of the characters. He adduces a large amount of evidence to show that St. Matthew's Gospel was not at first written in Hebrew, as some bave supposed, but in Greek, by Nicolaus, as his amanuensis, and afterwards translated into Hebrew by St. Bartholomew. The papyrus had been originally taken from a mummy. It was an usual custom with the Egyptian Christians to bury sacred writings with their dead. The same prevailed among the Greeks, down to a recent age. The following prayer is often, even now, in Corfu, written on a strip of paper, and twisted round the finger of the corpse:—
“Τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Νόμου καὶ τῶν Προφητῶν, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων Χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶν͵ ὁ πληρώσας πᾶσαν τὴν πατρικὴν οἰκονομείαν, πλήρωσον χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, πάντοτε, νῦν καὶ asl, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ᾿Αμήν.
“This is a prayer from the end of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, and is thus translated :—
“0 Christ, our God, who art thyself the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, who didst fulfil all thy Father's dispensation, fill our hearts with joy and gladness, at all times, now, and for ever, and for evermore. Amen.’
“The writer of this article has seen and handled the papyrus, has had several interviews with Simonides, and has received a strong impression of profound attainments, combined with simplicity, and an authentic and interesting type of Christianity.
“There are five fragments of St. Matthew’s Gospel, containing portions of the i., ii., xix., xx. xxvii, and xxviii. chapters. The other fragments contain the opening of the Epistle of St. James, and the conclusion of St. Jude.
“The first fragment contains nothing remarkable. In the second, the verses which stand at the head of this article, as in the received text, differ therefrom in the insertion of three words, thus :—
“Καὶ πέμψας αὑτοὺς εἰς Βηθλεὶμε εἶπε' (πορευθέντες ἤδη) ἐξετάσατε περὶ τοῦ παιδίου ἀκριξῶς. Ἐπὰν δὲ εὕρητε (τὸ γεννηθὲν), ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως καγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ. Οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν (ἀπονήρως)" καὶ ἰδοὺ, ὁ ἀστὴρ, ὃν εἶδον iv τῇ ἀνατολῇ, προῆγεν αὑτοὺς, ἴως ἰλθὼν Torn ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον.
“The reader will observe also the different position of the adverb ἀκριόῶς. Translation :---
“And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go now, and search diligeutly for the young child; and when ye
have found that which is born, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed innocently; and, lo, the star,’ etc.
“We hope to return to the Mayer Codex in a future number. Some of the other various readings are strikingly interesting.” “We proceed to lay before our readers some of the more important and interesting various readings in the manuscript of St. Matthew's Gospel, belonging to the collection of Mr. Mayer :— “Chapter xix., verse 22. “ RECEIVED TEXT. “«'Αχούσας δὲ ὁ γιεαγίσκος τὸν λόγον, ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος" ᾿ “THE MAYER MANUSORIPT. "«"Αχούσας δὲ ὁ veavionce τὸν λόγον, (τοῦτον ἐσιώπησε καὶ) ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος." “* But when the young man heard this saying, he held his peace, and went away sorrowful.'
“The same reading appears also in a papyrus manuscript which is preserved in the monastery of Mount Sinai, and bears the name of Hermodorus, who made a copy of the Gospel a. ἢ. 98.
“ὁ Verse 21. “ RECRIVED TEXT.
“4 Πάλιν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, εὐκοπώτερόν ἶστι, κάμηλον διὰ τρυνύματος ῥαφίδος slosrbeiv, ἢ «λούσιον εἷς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν.᾿
56
imputation of his enemies that he has forged MSS. himself. When, therefore, the Fac-similes were published, there were certain persons who at once declared that they were forgeries of Simonides, and refused to accept any of the MSS. of Mr. Mayer as genuine. The subject was discussed at the recent meeting of the British Association at Cambridge, and so much light was thrown upon the matter, and Dr. Simonides replied so ably to the questions of his opponents, that much greater attention is now given to his opinions, and more weight attaches to his judgments. At the same time that the discussion upon the authenticity of the Fac-similes was in progress (a discussion in which Simonides is accused of having forged the MSS.), another discussion was proceeding elsewhere, in which a MS. written by Simonides some twenty years since was being set up by some of the most learned men in Europe as a MS. of the first century. This story is likewise curious. Professor Tischendorf having visited the Holy Land, returned to Europe with a voluminous manuscript that he obtained from the library of the Monastery of Mount Sinai. This manuscript was a complete copy of the Bible, and Tischendorf, having consulted several of his learned friends, came to the conclusion that it was at least 1,800 years old. The Russian Government were so delighted at the prospect of increasing the general knowledge of Biblical literature, that they voted a sum of £10,000 to print a Fac-simile of the Sinaitic manuscript — the earliest known copy of the Bible. The work proceeded, and in time one of the parts fell into the hands of Simonides, who at once revognised it as a MS. he had himself executed in his youth for presentation to the Emperor Nicholas, but which had been given to a former Bishop of Sinai, a friend of Simonides. He made his assertion public that the great Sinaitic MS.—the Codex Sinaiticus—the earliest copy of the Bible, had been written by himself; but Tischendorf, and the learned men of Germany, unwilling to stultify themselves by admitting its authorship, refused to recognise the claims of Simonides, and continued its publication. Things went on in this way,—some persons believing Simonides, some Tischendorf, when suddenly a Greek Archimandrite, with an unpronouncable name, wrote to the English papers from Alexandria, corroborating the statement of Simonides, and stating that he remembered seeing Simonides engaged in writing out the copy of the Bible in question, in the Ancient Greek characters, whilst staying at the monastery of St. Pantelemon, on Mount Athos. This letter was only published about a fortnight since, and places Simonides in a most favourable light before the public, for if he can establish his assertion in this matter, it makes his other stutements more credible; and it proves, moreover, that the very men who have pronounced the MSS. Simonides brought from Egypt to be forgeries, are unable to tell whether a MS. was written in the nineteenth or the first century. The whole life of Simonides has been one uninterrupted romance, and if his reputation should ever be completely established, and his various manuscripts published with his own editorial notes, the entire world of archeology will be revolutionised, and the wisdom of the Assyrians and the Egyptians made as familiar to us as the books of Horace and Virgil. The Fac-similes of St. Matthew's Gospel are very curious in themselves, and give some new readings that clear up many of the doubtful passages, whilst other portions convey information of an itneresting character. For instance, we find that the name of Barabbas was Jesus, and tbat the question asked was,‘ Which of these two men wilt thou have,—Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ?’—Jesus being a very common name at that period. The well known passage about a camel passing through the eye of a needle is found to be—not a camel—but a cable. Other readings are still more interesting; but the whole question of the value of Mr. Mayer's papyri turns on their authenticity, and judging from these Fac.similes, we do not think there can be any doubt whatever of their genuineness and high antiquity.” *
© Ἧ αὐτὴ δὲ ἐφημερὶς ἐκοινοποίησε work καὶ τάδε :—
“Talking of Greeks, it is noteworthy that within the last few days a work has been published, though as yet “only privately circulated, that will in due time produce an immense sensation among certain theological and antiquarian circles. The author is Dr. Simonides, a Greek gentleman, who has acquired a European celebrity by his erudition and learning, and who has furnished to the British Museum some of its most valued manuscripts. This gentleman, who lived a long time on Mount Athos, in Greece, has relatives among the monks who inhabit the ancient monasteries there situate. By the aid of his relatives he has succeeded in discovering and obtaining many of the rare manuscripts which have been hidden for centuries among the classic tomes of the monasteries. Some of the documents have an antiquity of more than two thousand years, and several of them are written upon parchment made from human skin. But it is not only as the discoverer of the Mount Athos antiquities that Dr. Simonides is a remarkable man. His learning and deep knowledge of the Greek language and character have enabled him to decipher manuscripts and inscriptions which have puzsgled and defied all former antiquaries, and by this means he has been enabled to cast entirely new lights upon various matters of a theological nature. The High Ohurch people will be not a little surprised when they learn the nature of Dr. Simonides’ new work, which completely upsets many of our established notions, and leads to the instant conviction that a new translation of the Testament is absolutely essential. Among the antiquarian treasures in the possession of Dr. Simonides are several MSS., saved from the destruction of the Alexandrian library, all of which, and many other extraordinary matters, are fully described in the work, the name of which, as it is written in Greek, your correspondent declines to forward, but as it is about to be published by Longman & Co., any one will be enabled to consult it who so desires.”—Brighton Observer, April 15th, 1859.
Among the books that will be published during next month is one of rare interest to the Biblical student. It is a
57
᾿Εγμιάφησαν δὲ καὶ ἕτερα πλείονα τούτων περὶ τοῦ Μαῦρείου Κώδηκος καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐκδόσιως αὑτοῦ, καὶ μετὰ viv ἔχδοξιν. ἃ πὲρ πάντα δημεσιεύσω iy τῇ κατ᾽ ἔχτασιν ἡμετέρᾳ ἀπαντήσει. Νῦν δὲ ἀνάγνωθι καὶ τὴν τρίτην ἐπίκρισιν περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἰἱπιστολιμαίας περὶ ἱερογλύφων διατριζῆς. (The Literary Churchman, March 2, 1863.) “THE ‘SINAITIC MS., DR. SIMONIDES, AND HIEROGLYPHICS.
‘ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΙΜΑΙ͂Α ΠΕΡῚ IEPOTATOIKQN TPAMMATQN AIATPIBH. ΠΑΡᾺ KQNEITANTINOY ZIMQNIAOT AIAAKTOPOZ THI ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΣ K.T.A. K.T.A. K.T.A. (A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters. By Constantine Simonides, Ph. D., etc., ete., etc.) London: David Nutt, 270, Strand. Liverpool: A. Holden. 1860. S8vo. pp. 52.
‘The genuineness of the ‘Sinaitio MS.’ is not the only question at issue between Dr. Simonides and the literary world. The ‘ Uranius,'’ the other ‘Mayer MSS.’, and the papyri, to say nothing of the vast library of ancient parchments— four thousand volumes —said to be at the disposal of the learned Greek, are not to be set aside without a real investigation. It is hard to believe that Dr. Simonides wrote the entire ‘ Sinaitic MS.’; it is infinitely harder to suppose that he forged the ‘four thousand volumes,’ or even any considerable number of them. That he has had something to do with them—has manipulated, annotated, acquainted himself somehow with the contents of some of them (and undoubtedly the ‘Sinaitic')—-there can, we think, be no doubt. The present pamphlet, on the right method of reading hieroglyphics, bears on the whole matter of Simonides’ literary character; so that we do not hesitate to call attention to it, reserving our own judgment altogether. We asked, in our last number, some explanations from Dr. Simonides, chiefly as to the name of Mr. C. Stewart, and the alleged change of certain Greek words in a printed edition of the ‘Uranius. He has not been slow to meet this document, and we have received a note from him, inclosing a long vindication. His letter is as follows :—
© φίλτατε, © AisnOe τὴν ἐπιστολήν μου, καὶ ἐπιτάχυνον τὴν δημοσίευσιν αὑτῆς. “Opa δὲ nal by τῷ παραρτήμαπτι τοῦ Μέμνονος ἐν σελίδι A’ τί περὶ τοῦ "Ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ" φημὶ, καὶ εἰπὲ τὰ δέοντα. μόνος γὰρ εἰμὶ καὶ οἱ ἀντίπαλοί μου πολλοὶ καὶ θρασεῖς, ual ὁ ἀγών μέγας. Ἔχω δὲ οὐδένα τὸν βοηθοῦντα πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας μένου. Ἔβῤῥωσο.
"Ey Aovine τῇ 3/15 Φεβρ. 1863. Ὃ asi Σὸς, Κ. ΣΙΜΩΝΙΔΗΣ. “ἸΑγτίτυπον τῶν πρώτων δύω ἀριθμὼν τοῦ Μέμνονος πέμψω σοι διὰ τοῦ ταχυδρομεΐου.
“The Memnon duly arrived, and we make the following extract from it, premising that the words in the original are, it is stated, so nearly obliterated by age, that only a few of the letters (in that passage) are clearly legible; and those few might be read in various ways. The document itself has not been touched ; the only question seems to be as to the interpretation of it.. The Memnon is an antiquarian journal, of which Simonides was editor, published at Munich, in Greek and German. The passage is as follows :—
“B(NJTP[Ij2[1] ZYN[EFPA]¥[A] BIBAO[I]® καὶ [ΩἹΣΕΜ[ΓΟἸΙΔΙΟΚΊΕΓ[ΙΠ].
fac-simile of perhaps the oldest scriptural manuscript in the world, being nothing less than the original Gospel of St. Matthew, as written by Nicholas, the seventh deacon, at the dictation of the Apostle, in the fifteenth year of the Christian era. The history of the MS. is very curious. St. Matthew dictated his gospel to Nicholas in the Greek language, and this original ΜΒ. was copied seven times during the life of the Apostle by Hermodorus, one of the earliest disciples. After the death of the Apostle it was again copied several times, one of these copies being especially sent, for the ‘avoidance of scandal,’ to the Christians of the Cnidian Chersonese. These copies of Hermodorus were the sources from which the various manuscripts of St. Matthew’s Gospel were derived. The original remained with Nicholas of Antioch, as is related by Thodorus the deacon, and Dionysias of Libra; and this identical MS., or rather fragments of it, was discovered in a coffin, in Egypt, by the Rev. Mr. Stobart, who brought it, together with many others, to England, in 1856. Some of the M88. he sold to the British Museum, where they remain to the present day, unrolled and undeciphered, but the remainder he disposed of to Mr. Mayer, of Liverpool, who entrusted the deciphering of them to the well-known Dr. Simonides. Among the rolls of papyrus was the one in question, and it is identified as being the original copy of the Gospel, in consequence of ite bearing the inscription, ‘The writing by the hand of Nicholas, the deacon, at the dictation of Matthew.’ This is not the whole of the inscription, but sufficient has becn said to show that the publication of these fragments is of the deepest interest to the literary and scientific world, while to the Biblical student it must possess the greatest importance, as it furnishes ἃ purer text than any known version of the Gospel, supplies several lost verses, and clears up many obscure and disputed passages. Whilst touching on antiquities, let it be noticed that an inscription, lately found in the ruins of Thyatira, informs us that the Apostle Matthew was the son of Alphmus and Rebecca,—that he was born at Gennesareth, in Galilee, B.c. 24,—that he first adopted Christianity in his fifty-first year, when his Great Master was in his twenty-eighth year,— that he lived to the extreme old age of 106, perishing at Hierapolis, in Parthia, after having preached the Gospel to the Parthians and Medes for many years. The inscription gives the genealogy of the Apostle in full, and details all the principal events in his life, thus supplying information hitherto totally unknown to the Christian world.”— Brighton Observer, July 26th, 1861. I
58
“The letters in brackets are supplied, and the statement against Simonides is that, in his first interpretation of the passage, he supplied different letters, so as to produce KAT EMHN IMEAN. This is quite a question of scholarship, and not of fraud; but again we say we give no opinion without seeing the MS. for ourselves.”
Καὶ τοσαῦτα καὶ τὰ τῶν διατριξῶν. “Eypadé μοι δὲ περί τῆς αὑτῆς ὑποθέσεως xal ὁ καθηγητὴς (τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν γραμμάτων τοῦ by τῇ Ἐδιμ(Ἕούγγη Τιανεπιστημίου) Ἰωάννης Βλάχιος τὴν δὲ τὴν ἐπιστολήν :---
ὈΝΙΥΒΈΞΙΤΥ, ΕἸΙΝΒΌΒΟΗ, 14th December.
“Dean Sm,— Accept my best thanks for your Treatise on Hieroglyphics, which I have read with great pleasure. I certainly believe, with you, that many of the Egyptian monuments ought to be interpreted allegorically ; but, nevertheless, I think Champollion made a great discovery, and proved it scientifically, though it has likely been extravagantly and exclusively used by Lepsias and others.
441 was not aware that the books of Cheremon and Dionystas Magnes were extant. Where can I find the passages you refer to? Are they in MS., or have they been published?
“ Sincerely yours, “JOHN T. BLACKIE.”
Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀναγνοὺς αὑτὰ ἧἡπήντησα αὑτῷ τάδε :—
Φίλτατε, ---᾿Ασμένως ἐδεξάμην καὶ ἀνέγνων τὴν ὑμετίραν ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ λίγω σοι ἐλευθέρως, ὅτι ὁ ἀοίδιμος Σαματολλιὼν ἐλθὼν καὶ γαργαλίσας μικρὸν τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἀρχαιότητα ἀπῆλθεν" Οἱ δὲ μετ᾽ αὑτὸν ἐλθόντες, ἐχάλυψαν ψευδολογία τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἥδη μετέρχονται τὴν ἐπιστήμην ὡς ἀπάτην.
Ὃ Χαιρήμων γνωστὸς ὧν παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, οὕπω ἐξεδόθη, ὡς οὖδὲ ὁ Χένωφις, οὐδὲ τὸ ὅλον τῆς περὶ Ἱερογλυφικῶν πολυτίμου δεκαζίξζλου συγγραφῆς τοῦ ᾿Ωραπόλλωνος.
Τὰ συγγράμματα τούτων σὺν ἄλλοις ἄλλων ἐν τῇ χατὰ Τιαλαιστίγην μονῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Σάξζα ἀνακαλυφθέντα, κεῖνται εἰσέτι ἀγέκδοτα. ᾿Ἐχδώσω δ᾽ αὑτὰ ἐγὼ, καὶ τὴν ἔχδοσιν αὑτῶν προετοιμάξω «ρὸ πολλοῦ. πΠροηγηθήσεται δὲ πάντων ὁ 'Ωραπόλλων εὐθὺς μετὰ τὴν ἔκδοσιν, ὧν ἰσχάτως ἀνεκάλυψα by τῷ τοῦ Μαῦέρου Αἰγυπτιακὼῶ Μουσείω ᾿Ελλεγικῶν συγγραφῶν, γνωστῶν τὲ καὶ μὴ, καθά γε καὶ al ἰφημερίδες πρὸ πολλοῦ ἐκοινοποίησαν.
~
Ἐν AslapwouAn τῇ K. ΣΙΜΩΝΊΔΗΣ. 6/18 Δεκεμε. τοῦ ἕτους 1860.
Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐγὼ τότε ἠἡπήγτησα. Σὺ δὲ ἀνάγνωθι καὶ τάδε -:--- “To the Editor of the Daily News.
‘‘Srz,— The remarks made in your leading article of Thursday, upon the present state of the British Museum, and especially of the Lycian and Egyptian antiquities, have given very great satisfaction and pleasure to all persons taking an interest in such subjects with whom I am acquainted. What is needed in the Lycian and Egyptian saloons is, not more room, but more knowledge. For some time past I have been giving my attention to hieroglyphics; and it is perfectly startling to find that during the sixty years the Rosetta Stone has been known to the learned such small progress has been made in the art of interpreting Egyptian inscriptions. Not one single inscription has ever yet been interpreted by the followers of Champollion— all that has been accomplished resolving itself into conjectural translations of portions of hieroglyphical writings. The value that attaches to these translations may be inferred from the fact that all the interpretations have been made on the supposition that the ancient language of Egypt and the Coptic are similar, which is not the case, Coptic having no more resemblance to Egyptian than English has to French. There is only one key to the language of ancient Egypt—the works of the priest Cheremon, who wrote three hundred books on the subject. A fragment of these works was some time since discovered by Mr. Birch, and a Paper on the topic was read by that gentleman before the Royal Society of Literatures which was published in the third volume of the second series of the Transactions, page 385. But it was reserved for Dr. Simonides to discover the entire works of Cheremon, and these he has now in his possession. By their careful study he has rendered the reading of hieroglyphics, and of inscriptions in the hieratic and demotic characters, a matter of comparatively little difficulty. Through his kindness and instruction I have myself made some small advance in a knowledge of the Egyptian language and characters, and being perfectly satisfied of his thorough
© Ὁ κύριος Βίρχιος (Birch) ἀνεκάλυψεν οὐδὲν τοῦ Χαιρήμεονος ἀνίκδοτον μέρος, ἀλλ᾽ 6, Ts wep ὁ τζέτζης ἀναφέρει iy τοι ἐκδεδομείνω αὐτοῦ συγγράμματι ἱπιγεγραμμίνω οὕτως “Ἐς τὴν Ὁροήρου Ἰλιάδα Ἐξήγησις ᾿ψάννου Γραμματικοῦ τοῦ τζέτζου." “Opa δὲ σὺ τοῦτο ἕν σελίδι 128 τῆς Λειψιανῆς πρώτης ἐκδόσεως, γενομένης τῷ 1812 ὑπὸ Γοδοφρέδου ἝἭἽ βμάννον.
ape Ee ee - τ πτ ς. αὶ πὐξ τ τοτὐνξααδδκ «Ἃἀσσδκαασαππσππσσσασπασναννν
59
and complete mastery of the subject, and having had frequent opportunities during the last three years of witnessing the facility with which he reads and translates both the demotic and hieroglyphical writings, I can only express my regret that some means have not been adopted to secure his services in the interpreting of the various monuments of Egyptian antiquities preserved in the Museum. The remark in your article, that it is desirable to have some explanation attached to the antiquities in the Museum, is one that is made by nearly every visitor; but how can this explanation be given until a knowledge is obtained of the nature and character of the antiquities themselves? “T am, ete., “A STUDENT OF EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.” +
Πρὸς τούτοις δὲ πᾶσιν, ὦ φίλτατε, ἀνάγνωθι ὡς ἱπίμετρον τοῦ ὅλου λόγου καὶ τὴν ἑξῆς τοῦ σοῦ Σιμωνίδου ime rodoypaginiy Awavrnew, καὶ κατανοήσεις ἀρκούντως τὸ μοχθηρὸν τῆς ψυχῆς τῶν ἀγτιπάλων τοῦ γράφοντος. Ἔστι δὲ ὅδε: ---
“THE MAYER MANUSCRIPTS. ἐς LIvERPOOL, December 13, 1861.
“To reply to your rambling criticism upon my recent publication would require talents of a very different order from any which I may possess, as 1 cannot meet raillery and satire by corresponding abuse, and as I have to depend upon the translation of my ideas into a language whose idiom is so different to my own. I understand enough of your article to acquire the conviction that it contains no critical investigation of the merits of a work which can only be examined in a quiet and deliberate manner, and which cannot be disposed of, a8 you seem to imagine, in the flippant and off-hand style in which you may with impunity handle a third-rate novel; and as you have thought proper to occupy nearly half your article with your version of my antecedents, it will be as well for me in the first place to challenge you to a proof of the matters which you allege against me as ‘certain,’ and which I once for all repel as utterly false. The little biography you have been pleased to draw up for me, is abridged from the account given in the late Mr. Sotheby's (a) ‘Principia Typographica’; and if, in alluding to statements made by you, I in any degree amplify your version, warrant will be found for so doing in the work referred to. If you have any curiosity to know the place of my birth, I may tell you that I was born in the town of Hydra, in the island of Hydra, on the Sth of November, a.p. 1820. My father’s family came from Stagira, my mother’s from Syme; and if you
(a) Ta ἀνδρὶ τούτω τρὶς ἔγραψα ζητῶν λόγον διὰ τὰς κατ᾽ ἐμκοῦ ψευδολογίας αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἃς, τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ χαριζόμενος ἔγραψε, μηδὶν αὑτὸς εἰδώς. "Hy δὲ οὗτος ὀψιμαθέστατος, καὶ ἄκριτος τὸ παράπαν, xal ἱπιπόλαιος ἐν πᾶσι, xal pendly μηδαμῶς ἐπαχριξῶς γιγνώσκων' δι᾽ ὃ καὶ πολλὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔγγραφα καὶ συγγράμματα ἐδογμάτισεν εἶναι via, καὶ πολλὰ αὖ πάλιν via, ἀφγχᾶια, ἀμαθῶς, ἐκήρυξε, καθάπερ ἀπεδείχθη ὕστερον. Αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν γραφῖισαι καὶ σταλεῖσαι τρεῖς ἱπιστολαὶ αἴϑε εἰσίν.
“14, CaLEDoNIa STREET, LIVERPOOL, January Slst, 1961.
“§in,—My attention has just been called to your remarks upon my character, in your ‘ Principia Typographica,’ which I had not heard of before. I wish to kmow whether you are willing to retract, or to prove them, before I take further steps in the matter. “Yours obediently, “gs, L. Sornesy, Esq., Wellington Streot, Strand.” “C. SIMONIDES. “ SUNFIELD Hovusk, Formsy, March 8th, 1961.
“ §rn,—I wrote to you on the Sist of January, upon the subject of your remarks upon my character in the i aa Typographica.’ I have had no reply, and shall be glad to know if you have received the letter.
“Yours obediently, “Ὁ. SIMONIDES.” *25, GRANVILLE SQUARE, PENTONVILLE, W.O.
“Κύριε, Δὶς ἔγραψά σοι ζητῶν λόγον περὶ ὧν xunxi ἀναιδεία πρὸ χρόνων κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἔγραψας τοῖς φίλοις σου χαριζόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἄχρις ἡμέρας ἡπήντησας, χαί ros παρῆλθον ὀχτὼ Eros μεῆνες.
“Ἤδη δὲ γράφω σοι καὶ τρίτον καὶ τελευταῖον, καὶ προκαλῶ σε, ἵνα ἁποδείξης τὰς κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ψευδολογίας σου, ὃ dvaxadione αὑτάς" ὅτι ἄλλως δικαιοῦμαι ἴνα σὲ καταμηγύσω ἐνώπιον τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος οὐχὶ μεόνον ὡς ἀναίσχυντον συκοφάντην καὶ ἐν πάση κακία ἱντεθραμμένον, ἀλλὰ καταδιώξω σε καὶ δικαστικῶς, “Eppes.
“Κ͵ ΣΙΜΩΝΊΔΗΣ.
"Ry Λονδίνων τῇ 6/18 Αὐγούστου 186].
“4, L. ΒΟΤΉΞΒΥ, Esg., Wellington Street, Strand.”
Ὁ ἀνὴρ οὗτος ἐτελεύτα δυστυχῶς" ὅθεν καὶ τῆς καταδιώξεως ἀπελλάγη" τὸν δὲ χρόνον tie τελευτῆς αὐτοῦ οὐκ οἶδα ἀκριξῶς.
* Vide The Datly News, August “1, 1861 London.
60
think the authenticity of the Papyri which you have professed to review will be at all confirmed by the antiquity of the family of the individual who happened to unroll them, I shall be happy to furnish you with particulars of my genealogy, embracing on my father’s side no less than thirty-seven bishops and archbishops. ‘The old gentleman,’ my late uncle, to whom you fuacetiously allude, was Benedict, the confidential adviser and spiritual father of John Capo-d'Istrias; and, after his death, Superior of the Monastery St. Pantelemon (Rosicon), in Mount Athos; and enquiries made there, or of Gregorius, recently Patriarch of Constantinople, would convince you that he was not the unknown man you would have your readers imagine. So much for the not very important matter of my genealogy.
“1 now come to your charges. In reply to the first of these, I never produced at Athens, or elsewhere, any copy of Homer with the Commentary of Eustathius: the only MS. of that author I have ever shewn is that now in the possession of Sir Thomas Phillipps; and I have no doubt that gentleman will allow its collation for the purpose of ascertaining, once and for ever, whether it contains ‘the text und errors of Wolff.’ That this is the copy alluded to may be easily ascertained by a reference to No. 929 of the Athenian journal on, in which the meeting for the purpose of discussing this and other MSS, is reported. (A copy of this journal is in the possession of Sir Thomas Phillipps.)
“Secondly, I have the MS. of Sanconiathon, at my father’s house in Syme. I did intend to publish it in Constantinople, and was only deterred by the expense of printing it in that city. I am now ready to publish it in London, if it be desired. Some of my enemies, having declared in the Athenian journal Pandora that a gentleman, who disbelieved in its existence, would give 10,000 drachms to see it, I inserted a notice in the Elpis, at Athens, and the Telegraph of the Bosphorus, at Constantinople, that if he would deposit in any Greek bank 8,000 drachms, he might take 2,000 for his expenses, and come to Constantinople to see it, and that I would allow him a month for this purpose; but he has never appeared.
“Thirdly, I did declare, and I now take the opportunity of repeating, that I have extremely important MSS. connected with hieroglyphics, viz., ten Books of Horus (commonly called Horapollo), including the two books already well known and often edited. ‘These are written on papyrus; and I also possess a palimpsest copy of two of the same books, but of a different translation. Also the Dictionary of Cheremon,—Hieroglyphic, Demotic, and Greek; and the work of Chenophis, which gives a philosophical explanation of the hieroglyphical characters.
“Fourthly, I did publish in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus explanations of the hieroglyphics on some Egyptian figures, the property of M. Cayol and of Stephanus Caratheodoris; these explanations I gave simply as a matter of friendship, and the latter gentleman made me a present of the figure I had examined, which, with the articles from the newspapers above mentioned, I have now with me. Whether the explanations given accord with the original can be ascertained by any of those gentlemen who accept the challenge which you will find at the conclusion of my letter. The history of this and most of the other charges which you have made is borrowed from the testimony of one Dr. Mordtmann, who is so freely quoted in the article by Mr. Sotheby before referred to. It will be well if you lay before your readers such information respecting this gentleman as will convince them that he deserves the incontrovertible character for veracity which these quotations assume him to possess. It is on his authority that your next statement is founded, that ‘I did not exhibit some Cuneiform inscriptions in MS. with a transcript in Phoenician,’ and it is further stated that his knowledge of the alphabets of these languages enabled him to decide that the MS. was not written in those characters at all. In reply to this, I can only say that Dr. Mordtmann did not at that time know anything of those languages, and, moreover, that the MS. in question is now in the library of Sir T. Phillipps, and can bear its mute witness to the correctness of my original statement.
“Fifthly, The History of Armenia alluded to is that of Kleandros of Philadelphia, written in the time of Justinian, a copy of which, of about the fourteenth century, I had in my possession in Constantinople, and shewed to several of the Armenian residents. I published the Preface to this work, and also fac-similes of the inscriptions in Armenian and Greek which it contained. The latter were lithographed at the establishment of M. Cayol, and I have a copy of them by me. An inspection of these will show that the proper names are such as are to be easily met with as Armenian in the works of Strabo and Appian. Tigranes, son of Artaxius, Zariadres, &c., are familiar names of men; Tegrans-certa, Artaxata, Sophene, &c., (a) of places: and there is no foundation whatever for the assertion, ‘that through my clumsiness they happen not to be Armenian.’
“Sixthly, Your lively description of my ‘ burrowing in the hole’ would lose somewhat of its zest if your readers were informed that the hole was a deep well-like excavation, into which no one could enter but by an cord and a basket, and in which neither myself nor any of the gentlemen who witnessed the operations
(a) Περὶ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου τούτου ἐγράφη πρὸ πολλοῦ ἤδη χρόνου ἰδιαιτέρα πραγματεία, ἢ καὶ δημοσιμυθήσεται προσεχᾶς.
61
would have trusted ourselves. Much more was expected than the discovery of the MS. of the Koran referred to; but I had my own reasons for not wishing that all which I foresaw might come to light should fall into Turkish hands, and I discouraged further search by all the means in my power. M. Cayol published a long article on my discoveries at the house of Ismail Pacha, in the Journal de Constantinople. This will be found, I believe, under the date of August, 1851.
‘‘Seventhly, The next allegation is that the MS. exhibited to the Royal Society of Literature as Cuneiform and Greek did not conform to the description I gave of it. As this is the same MS. to which you have already made allusion, I have only to repeat my assertion, that if any qualified scholar will inspect it in Sir Thomas Phillipps’s library, he wil] find that the Cuneiform characters are of exactly the same form as those hitherto discovered, and that the Phenician (not Greek, as erroneously stated by you) interlineation is a translation of the Cuneiform, not to be despised by those who are endeavouring to read the inscriptions at Nineveh. I believe I have now touched upon all the phases of my history to which you have been pleased to allude. 1 have not space to enter here upon the question of the authenticity of Uranius, but it may as well be stated that I am prepared to meet any number of qualified scholars in London or elsewhere to discuss its authenticity, and to hear any strictures they may wish to express.
“The list of fragments of works written upon papyrus, and unrolled by me at Mr. Mayer's Museum, is correct. These papyri are all at Liverpool, and can be examined by those interested in the subject, by a proper application to Mr. Mayer. Their number and importance is in your eyes a crime, which unfortunately it is not in my power to extenuate. That you should have come to an ἃ priori decision that, from my presumed antecedents, they are not genuine, is an error which I think you will live to regret; and I am sure that those who are really interested in paleography will prefer the result of their own inspection to the ipse dizit of a writer who has never even seen what he writes of with so much confidence. It is to be regretted that you see no cause for thankfulness to God in the discovery of the earliest MSS. of the New Testament extant; and I fear Mr. Tischendorf came in for a share of your animadversions for the praise which he offered to God for his discovery of the ‘Codex Sinaiticus.’
“It is impossible here to discuss the question of the date of the portrait of St. Matthew, or of the forms of the letters upon which you have pronounced so emphatic an opinion; these matters will receive the attention of scholars, who will perhaps devote to them a little more time, learning, and research than you can be expected to afford, and it is possible that you may regret having taken so definite a position on grounds so slight. As, however, you have assumed the post of instructor to the unlearned public, perhaps you will inform them in your next number on what authority you make the monstrous assertion, that ‘it may not be generally known, but it is an undoubted fact, that no MSS. of any kind, if we except the Hieratic papyri, are known to ascend to the first or second centuries.’ What will your readers think when they are told that they have only to refer to ‘Silvestre’s Palseography’ to find that you have made the trifling error of half-a-dozen centuries, and that they may inspect in that work fac-similes of Greek MSS. on papyrus of as early a date as the third century before the Christian Era, viz., lst. One of part of Dioscorides, second or third centuries B.c. 2nd. Fragments of Homer, é&c., third century p.c. Srd. A petition to Ptolemy, second century B.c. 4th. A musical treatise found at Herculaneum, first century 8.0. Sth. A cursive MS. of the second century a.p. This gross and fundamental error may perhaps show on what sort of evidence you would crush out of existence documents which will nevertheless assert their right to critical investigation, and will hardly be pronounced spurious on the strength of your declamation, however impetuous.
“TI should have liked, had the space which I expect to be allotted been greater, to have touched on the last of your remarks; but I think I have said enough to show the public that your matter is not reliable: and I have now a word to add, in conclusion, as to your manner. This is intemperate, vindictive, unchristian. You adopt a scriptural euphemism to veil the name of liar which you seek to fasten upon me, and you present as facts, to a public which has no means of checking your assertions, a mass of ez parte statements which I have easy means of controverting. This is not the temper in which to review a work, the sole object of which is to present to the English public fresh information on an all-important subject; and I should be sorry, though no one could be surprised, were I to reply in the same spirit.
“Lastly, to bring to an issue the various questions concerning the Interpretation of Hieroglyphics and Cuneiform Letters which have been raised by you and by your contemporaries, I hereby challenge those who are learned in these matters to a public discussion of the subject in London, at as early a period as can be arranged. Let any monument in the British Museum be selected, bearing inscriptions in either of these forms; and I will give, in writing, my interpretation of the same in the original languages and in Greek, with my authorities for such interpretation. Any committee of literary men who may be appointed shall
64
and Chenophis; in fact, there is such a mass of MSS. that if my friend had employed a factory he could not have manufactured them in a lifetime, much less have produced them from his own pen, as has been insinuated. After this I hope you will no longer entertain the idea that Simonides is disinclined to permit his archeological treasures to be examined.
‘In conclusion, I may add that the high opinion I entertained of Dr. Simonides as a gentleman and a man of honour, at the time I published his biography, has in no way diminished during the two years that have elapsed. I know him to be utterly incapable of committing the disgraceful deeds imputed to him, and firmly believe that the truth and value of his statements and discoveries will, ere long, be universally
admitted and recognised. “T am, Sir, yours, etc.,
“CHARLES STEWART.”
“THE MAYER MSS. “ Lonpon, February 8rd, 1862.
“T have a very few remarks to make in reply to your paragraph last week. As I have before said, the MSS. in question are Mr. Mayer’s property, and in his Museum at Liverpool, where any one who is desirous of inspecting them can do so. As to my producing them before a meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society, which you consider is the ‘thing just now required,’ I am quite willing, with Mr. Mayer's sanction, to do so; and they will doubtless be very carefully inspected by other paleographers, both English and foreign: but before I take any steps in this matter myself, the result of a previous examination of my MSS. must be given to the world. So long ago as May 25, 1853, two Committees were appointed by the Royal Society of Literature (see Athen. June 11, 1853); one, to report on my translation of a few lines of hieroglyphics on the Sarcophagus of Alexander, in the British Museum, which was duly submitted to them by me; the other, to give their opinion upon several Greek MSS. then in my possession. From that time to the present, no report from the two Committees has, as far as I am aware, been published; and, in common justice, these reports must be given in full before I take any trouble in submitting fresh MSS. to a similar Society.
“TI claim the publication of these’ Reports as a right; and when this has taken place, you will not
find me shrinking from the most full investigation of all that I have advanced. “C. SIMONIDES.”
Τὴν ἐνιστολὴν τοῦ φιλαλήθους Ch. Stewart παρέδωκε τῇ λήθη ὁ ἐκδύτης τοῦ ᾿Αθηναίου, ὅπως μὴ ψεύση τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ πάτρωνας, τοὺς καὶ πάσης κακίας εὑρέτας. Τοῦτ᾽ αὑτὸ δ᾽ ἑποίησαν καὶ cl τοῦ Φύλακος, καὶ οἱ τοῦ Παρθενῶνος καὶ οἱ τούτων ὅμοιοι" καὶ γὰρ ἅπαντες οὗτοι τῆς αὑτῆς κεραμίας ὄντες, συνδυάζουσιν ἀεὶ παντὶ ψεύστη καὶ ἀπαταιᾶῶνι, ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἰσχάτων ἀπεδείχθη, ὅτι οὕτω συμφέρει αὑτοῖς πολλὰς γὰρ σπουδαίας ἱπιστολὰς ἀπέῤῥεψαν οὗτοι: διότι πολλὰς περιέχουσιν ἀληθείας, ὧν μία ἐστὶ καὶ ὃ ἡξῆς :---
“To the Editor of the Parthenon.
“‘Sm,—I have only recently seen, by the kindness of one of my Greek friends, the letter signed S. Nicolaides, which appeared in the Parthenon of February 25th, 1863. I am sorry you published that letter, after the discreditable way in which the writer contradicted himself at the Meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, as I think none even of my opponents would desire such evidence for the support of their cause. As, however, you have printed his letter, I must ask you, in justice to me, to publish my reply, which I have shortened as much as possible.
“To spare you details which are not at all suited to your paper, I shall not enter into many particulars as to the life of my accuser, but refer you to M. Giannakopulos, Greek Consul in Liverpool, M. Narkissos Morphinos, Archimandrite of the Greek Church, London, Basileios Moros, Archimandrite of the Greek Church, Manchester, and M. Francopulos, Greek Consul in Manchester, any of whom will, I have no doubt, satisfy you as to the real character of M. Nicolaides. It is sufficient for me here to mention the reasons which have induced him to come forward and make his false statements against me—
“1, Because I have openly exposed his unfair dealings with me in suppressing my name in the extensive notes which I added, at his request, to his work of ‘The Commentary on the New Testament,’ the authorship of which was well known to many gentlemen in Liverpool, and can be abundantly proved, if necessary.
“2. Because I would not lend him money, as I had done before, when he was in difficulties.
“8. Because I notified, as I was bound to do, to the bishops in Macedonia and Thessalia, the fact of the degradation from office, on account of heinous offences, of this SamusL Spyaros, alias S. NiconamEs, at a time when he was about to return into those parts.
9 Report of Meeting of RB. 8. L. See Literary Review, February 14th, 1868.
65
“4, Because I was compelled to write to the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, to suspend the clerk of that Church, who was engaged in a secret correspondence with Nicolaides, for the abstraction of a MS. of St. Gregorius Palamas, and because I succeeded in frustrating their intentions.
“5. Because he thinks that I have used my influence with my countrymen in England to prevent their entering into fresh subscriptions for him, they having already subscribed £400 to get him out of the country, which he did not apply to the purpose intended.
‘‘ Lastly. He is angry with Mr. Mayer and with me, because he fancies: that I dissuaded Mr. Mayer from completing the purchase of some ecclesiastical robes which belonged to him.
“Thus have I very briefly given the reasons which I believe to influence this man against me; and I will now reply to the statements he has made.
‘‘For the documents which prove my statements as to the time and place of my birth to have been correct I must refer you to the letter of M. Dracaches, in the Guardian of the 18th February, 1863. A full account of my parentage was given by Kallinikos, in five books containing archeological letters from me, which he printed at Moscow, in 1853, and again at Odessa, in 1854, copies of which are in my possession.* He cannot know my parents, for these reasons:— He was in Thessalonica, as he states, from 1839 to 1853; he could not visit during that time, if he were Archdeacon and First Secretary, ('!) small islands having no connexion with his metropolis; before 1859 my parents were for some years in Egypt, and after that date, Nicolaides, having been condemned in Constantinople, was sent thence a prisoner to Mount Athos, where he was kept in close custody, till the breaking out of the Russian War, when he contrived to escape. [1 he has seen my parents it must have been in a vision, and I should like him to describe to me their personal appearance. }
“In the third place, he says that he was Archdeacon and First Secretary of the Metropolis of Salonica: my reply is, that he is altogether ignorant of the ancient Greek language, and cannot even write a letter in it without grave errors, and it is therefore utterly impossible for, him to have fulfilled the latter office. I much doubt if he were Deacon in 1839, when he would only be sixteen years old; for, according to the 16th Canon of the Council of Carthage, the 6th Canon of the 6th Synod, and the 14th and 15th Canons of the Council of Neo-Cresarea, etc., etce., no one can be Archdeacon before the twenty-fifth year of his age. He says that he has five times visited Mount Athos. This may be true, or not; one thing I do know—that he made a long visit there, unwillingly, a3 a prisoner, and that any other visits were not made for literary. purposes, as he has not the requisite knowledge; and that he has made no catalogue of the contents of the libraries, though he may have copied one of the ordinary catalogues at Mount Athos, which are of little value, on account of the number of books which have been lost, or have perished, since they were compiled. I myself made an extensive catalogue, of which I sent copies to the Patriarch Constantius, and Alexander Stourtzas, and a part of it to Andreas Mouravieff, the General of the late Emperor Nicolas; portions of this catalogue have already been published.
“The statement of Nicolaides about the monasteries of Chilandarion (which should be Chiliandrion), Espigmenon (which should be written Eephigmenon or Esphaymenou), eto., etc., he has taken from the Hon. R. Curzon's book. I have not paid a single visit only to Mount Athos, as he would suggest, but several, both before 1851 and since, as numerous contemporary letters in the Greek journals will show. The monastery of Esphigmenon has only one head, and not two or three; and I do not remember that there was ever a hegoumenos of the name of Macarius. There was no necessity for anyone to give leave for my admission to various libraries of Mount Athos, to which I have alwaye had easy access, especially in the year 1851, when I was engaged in a general mission to the Greeks, to excite them against the Turks. Three times before this period I had spent many months in the libraries, and had discovered many valuable works, especially during my search for materials for the history of the various monasteries of Mount Athos, which I was requested by the principal men to compile, and which I completed in four thick volumes. I can refer you to the journals of Greece for proof of my long visits to Mount Athos.+ Nicolaides has brought forward the question of the Theological School without reason, for I did not mention it; but I said that I studied Theology and Paleography as a science (not as an art, which I was acquainted with before), under my uncle Benedict; and this took place in the Rossikon Monastery, and not elsewhere. This Benedict, of whose existence your correspondent is so ignorant, was one of the great men of our nation, beloved by the inhabitants of Syme, Spetza, Porus, Cythera, Cydonia, and by the still surviving Patriarch, Gregorius the Sixth, who, on resigning his patriarchate, in 1836, invited my uncle to succeed him; and all the older Fathers in Mount Athos, and the
* Vide The Literary Churchman, March 12, 1864. + Zon of 1848. Telegraph of Bosphorus, 1851, etc. K
66
monks of his own monastery, hold his name in veneration. It is he of whom the Hon. R. Curzon speaks as the hegoumenos of the Rossikon Monastery during his visit to Mount Athos, in 1837, and whom he calls ‘a learned man, and skilled in foreign languages.’ [I quote from memory.] The disbeliever in the existence of Benedict should refer to the 416th Number of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus, for December, 1851, where he will find it stated that ‘ Benedict was a man distinguished for learning and wisdom, as all who have seen him acknowledge, and that he was disposed for every knowledge and virtue.'*
* And in conclusion I must remark, that I never in my life witnessed such ingratitude as when I saw, at the Meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, the man whom I had myself benefited rise up as a false witness against me. But the man who is blamed by such a witness must account himself praised, and he who is spoken well of by such, as really censured; and he should remember the words of Phocion, who, being praised by wicked men, said, ‘Why do you praise me? [I have done no wrong.’
“JT remain Sir, yours respectfully, ἐς LiveRPooL, 8th March, 1863. “K, SIMONIDES.
“P,S.—I spent only some ten weeks with this man in Liverpool, as it is very easy to prove, and not Jifteen months, as he publicly asserted; and at this time I had only just commenced to unroll the MSS. of Mr. Mayer, which, as the Curator well knows, never left his possession till long after; and the papyri were never in the house of Nicolaides.”
Ὁ δὲ Ninerating οὗτός ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος, ὁ ὑπὸ τῆς ‘lepdc Συνόδου τῆς ἀνεξαρτήτου "EAAAIo¢ een τῆς φαυλοξιότητος αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα. Ἔχει δὲ τὸ γράμμα τῆς τοῦ ἀπενενοημένου τούτου ἀνθρώπου καθαιρέσεως ὧδε: ---
“Ἢ IEPA ΣΎΝΟΔΟΣ ΤΗ͂Σ ἘΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ.
“ Εὐλαξέστατε πρισφύτερε καὶ ἰφημέριε, τῆς ἐν AsCepwroud Ἐκχκλυσίας, τῆς τῶν ᾿Ορθοδόξων ὁμογενῶν Ἑ:λλήνων κοινότητος (a) καὶ πάντις εὐλογημένοι χριστιανοὶ οἱ τὴν κοινότητα ταύτην ἀποτελοῦντες, χάρις εἴη ὑμῖν ἅπασι, καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θιοῦ Κυρίου Παντοκράτορος.
“Teorey ἴστω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, ὅτι, ἐπειδὴ καθὰ ἐπληροφορήθη ἐπισήμως ἢ Σύνοδος ὁ Ἱμρομόναχος καὶ ᾿Αφχιμανδρίτης Σαμουὴλ Νικολαΐδης, πρῴην ἰφημέριος τῆς αὑτόθι ὀρθοδόξον Ἐκκλησίας, ὁ οἰκεία θελήσει καὶ προαιρέσει ἀποταξάμενος τῶ κόσμω καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὸν μεονήρᾳ (ἴον, καὶ ele τὸν ὑψηλὸν τῆς ἱερωσύνης (αθμὸν προξιξζασθεὶς, ἡθέτησε τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁμεολογέαν αὑτοῦ ὑπόσχεσιν καὶ συνῆψε γάμιεν μκ4θ᾽ ἑτεροδόξου γυναικὸς καλουμένης Agnes Agnew, τελεσθέντα ὑπὸ ᾿Ππρέως διαμαρτυρουμένου κατὰ μῆνα Ἰϑριον «π΄. 5.
“4 Ἐπειδὴ, προσκληθεὶς οὗτος διὰ τοῦ ἐν Αἰζερποὺλ Ἑλληνικοῦ προξένου (Ὁ) ν᾽ ἀπολογυθῆ ἐφ᾽ ᾧπερ ἔπραξεν ἀντικανονικῶ ἁμαρτήματι ἀπείθησε' καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἡ εἰρημένη πρᾶξις τοῦ ἀπενενοημένου τούτου κληρικοῦ εἶναι ἁμάρτημα, ὅπερ ἐπάγει καθαίρεσιν τοῦ οὗπερ ἔφερεν ὑψηλοῦ ἀξιώματος τῆς ἱερωσύγες κατὰ τοὺς ἱεροὺς κανόνας, ἤτοι τὸν καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων ---
“Τῶν εἰς Κλῆρον προσελθόντων ἀγάμων, κελεύομεν (ουλομένου; γαμεῖν, ἀναγνώστας καὶ ψάλτας μεόνους.᾽
“Καὶ τὸν ς΄ τῆς ἔχτης Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου :—
“4 Ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Αποστολικοῖς κανόσιν εἴρηται, τῶν εἷς Κλῆρον πιροαγομένων ἀγάμων, μόνους ἀναγνώστας, καὶ ψάλτας γαμεῖν" καὶ ἡμεῖς τοῦτο παραφυλάττοντες, ὁρίζομεν, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηδαμῶς ὑποδιάκονον, ἢ διάκονον, ἢ πρισξύτερον, μετὰ τὴν ber” αὐτῶ χωροτονίαν, ἔχειν ἄδειαν, γαμικὸν ἑαυτῶ συνιστᾷν συνοικέσιον. El δὲ τοῦτο τολμήσοι «ποιῆσαι, καθαιρείσθω."
“Διὰ τοῦτο ἡ Σύνοδος συμφώνος πρὸς τοὺς μνησθέντας ἱεροὺς πανόνας, δι᾽ ἀποφάσεως αὑτῆς, ἱγκριθείσης διὰ (ασιλικοῦ διατάγματος καθήρησεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερωσύνης τὸν περὶ οὗ ὁ λόγος ἱερομιόναχον Σαμευυὴλ Nixodaidny.
“Καὶ δὴ γράφουσα ἀποφαίνεται ἰκκλησιαστικῦς, fra ὃ διαληφθεὶς ἱερομόναχος ὑπάρχη ΚΑΘΗΡΉΜΕΝΟΣ καὶ ATIOTETYMNQ- ΜΈΝΟΣ τοῦ ὑψυλοῦ τῆς ἹΕΡΩΣΎΝΗΣ ἀξιώματος, ἀπόξλητος τοῦ ἱεροῦ καταλόγου, καὶ ὅλως ἐστερυμένος πάσης ἱερατικῆς ἐνεργείας καὶ τιμῆς.
“Τούτω δὶ οὕτως ἀπογυμνωθέντι, μηδείς τῶν ἱερέων συλλειτουργήση ἢ ἄλλην tira ἱεροπραξίαν μετ᾽ αὑτοῦ τελέση, μηδὲ τῶν κοσμικῶν τις ἀσπασθὴ τὴν χεῖρα αὑτοῦ ἢ πρισξφύτερον τοῦ λοιποῦ ἀποκαλέση.
“Ταῦτα γιγνώσκετε καὶ οὕτω ποιεῖτε, ἵνα καὶ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ χάρις καὶ τὸ ἅσειρον ἔλεος tin μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ,
“᾿Ἐξιδόθη ἐν ᾿Αθήναις κατὰ μῆνα Μάϊον 1861.”
“4. ὁ Μητροπολίτης ᾿Αθηνῶν Νεόφυτος ---- πρόεδρος." “4 ὁ φωχκίδος Δαυΐδ." “64 6 Κορινθίας ᾿Αμφιλόχιος." “ἃ 6 Quay καὶ AsCatsiange Δοσίθεος." "ἐς ὁ “Ανδρου καὶ Κέας Μητροφάνης." ΤΙΣ.
* Vide The Literary Churchman, Sept. 1, 1668, and Dec., 1868, and Jan. 2, 1864; and also The Guardian, Dec. 2, 1968, and Aug. 26, 1868.
(a) Ὃ Πρεσξφύτερος οὗτος καλεῖται Ἰωσὴφ, ὅς λαδὼν τὸ συνοδιμοὸν τοῦτο ἔγγραφον ἀνέγνωσεν iw’ ἐκκλησίας. (δ) Καλεῖται δὲ ὁ πρόξενος οὗτος Δ. Γιαννακόπουλος.
67 Ἡ δὲ ἔκθεσις τῶν περὶ οὗ ὁ λόγος παπύρων, ὦ φίλτατε Παρθένιε, “Edale χώραν τῇ ὀγδόη τοῦ ᾿Ιαγνουαρίου καὶ τῇ ἐνδεκάτη τοῦ Φεξρουαρίου τοῦ ἔτους «ωξγ'΄ ἦν τῇ βασιλικῇ φιλολογικὴ Ἑταιρία (ga by σελίδι 6, καὶ 9), ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἀπεφασίσθη τελικῶς ὅτι παρῆλθεν h ὥρα καὶ ὁ πρόεδρος διέλυσε τὴν συνέλευσι. Κατεδείχθη δὲ Sue ἡ παχυλὴ ἀμάθεια xal ἀκρισία τῶν τὴν εὐπιστίαν τοῦ κοινοῦ ἀεὶ ἐχμεταλλευνόντων ἐμμίσθων ὑπαλλήλων τοῦ Βριττανικοῦ Μουσιίου. Τὰ δὲ ἀμφοτίρωθεν λεχθέντα ἰγράφησαν πάντα στενογραφικῶς, καὶ δηομοσιευθήσονται προσεχᾶς' Nov δὲ ἀνάγνωθι καὶ ἣν ἐπιστολὴν ἁπίστειλα τῷ γραμματεῖ τῆς αὑτῆς ἱταιφίας «περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς σχεδὸν ὑποθίσεως διαλαμἝάνουσαν. Ἕστι δὲ ἢ δὲ :---
Σιμωνίδης Βωξίῳ χαίρειν.
Εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὑπερβαλλόντως δι' ὅπερ ἀπέστειλάς μοι φυλλάδιον, τὸ περιέχον τὴν τοῦ ἀνωνύμου «ερὶ τῶν τοῦ Μαδέρου παπύξων ἅμουσον ὅλως ἀναφορὰν, καὶ τὰς περὶ τοῦ Οὐρανίου ἐπιστολὰς Δινδορφίου, καὶ Παρτζίου, καὶ ᾿Ἐρενξέργου.
᾿Ανέγνων δὲ πάντα ταῦτα ἰσχεμμίνως καὶ λέγω σοι" εἶναι ἀνδρῶν λήρων ληρήματα' καὶ γὰρ τὶ ἀγαθὲν ἐξελθεῖν δύναται ἐξ ἀνθρώπων μετιρχομύνων τὴν ἐπιστήμην ὡς ἀπάτην, καὶ μηδὲν ἀληθῶς γιγνωσκόντων, εἰμὴ τὸ ἐξαπατᾷν τὸ κοινὸν ἐν σταθερᾷ μεσημζρίᾳ, καὶ ἐκμεταλλεύειν τὴν εὐπιστίαν αὑτοῦ; Οὐδὲν βιεζαίως.
Σύ δὲ γίνωσκε, ὅτι οἱ ἄνδρες οὗτοι καὶ ἵτερα τούτων πλείονα καὶ εἶπαν καὶ ἔγραψαν by ταῖς ἐφημερίσι τῆς Γερμανίας, καὶ κατ᾽ ἱμοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς γνησιότητος τοῦ Οὐρανίου, καὶ τὰ γραφόμενα αὑτῶν φυλάττω" ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ Βερολίνου ὑπέρτατον δικαστήξιον ἀπέῤῥιψε πάντα ὡς παιδαριώδη σοφίσματα, καὶ ἐμὲ μὲν ἀπέλυσε τῆς κατηγορίας ἀθωύσας κατὰ πάντα, τὴν δὲ φίλην wou τριανδρίαν ἐστιγμάτισεν ὡς φύσει δολίαν" ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὁ τύπος αὐτός. Πρὸς δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς καταδιώξεως ἔσχον δικαίωμα, ὃ καὶ ἐνήργησα ἐν μέρει, καὶ ὃ φοδοῦνται μεγάλως οὗτοι.
"O δὲ ὁ ἀναιδέστατος καὶ iv κακοῖς γηράσας γριμιεατοκάπηλος Δινδόρφιος διόπερεψέ σοι, ὥς wag καὶ τῷ Μαδὲδενίω, ἐκρεαγεῖον ὀκτὼ στίχων τῆς πρώτης σελίδος τοῦ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ σωζομένου παλιμψήστου χειρογράφου τοῦ Οὐρανίου, τὸ καὶ διὰ χειρὸς γεαγίδος (ὥς φησιν ὁ Δινδόρφιος) γενόμενόν, ἐστι προφανεστάτη πλαστογραφία Γιρμανικῆς χειρός. Καὶ γὰρ οὗ μεόνιν τὸ γράμμα ἔστιν ἀντίθετον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἢ ὑφὴ τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἡ τῶν γραμμάτων συναρμογὴ συνάδει τῷ πρωτοτύπω οὐδαμῶς. Καὶ λυκοῦμαι οὐκ ὀλίγον. ὅτι ὑπέπεσεν εἷς προφανὶς ἁμάρτημα καὶ 7 Βασιλικὴ Φιλολογικὴ ἑταιρία παραδεχθεῖσα ἀπερισκέπτως τὰ καὶ ἀνεξετάστως, καὶ μάλιστα δημοσμαύσασα τὰς μωρίας καὶ ψευδολογίας τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τούτου, τοῦ καὶ ζασιλεῖς, καὶ ἀκαδημίας, καὶ (ουλευτήρια ἐν γνώσει ἐξαπατήσαντος χάριν ἀργυρίου. Οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ὃ φράσις ΚΑΤ᾽ EMHN IAEAN, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἡ λέξις ΣΥΝΩΥΙΣΑ ἀπαντᾶτα by τῷ πρωτοτύπν, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπεδείχθη ἐν τῇ ἐν Βερολίνω ἀνακρίσει μου τοῦ χβιρογράφου ἐξιτασθίντος ἱκεῖ, ἐνώπιον μάλιστα τῶν δικαστῶν καὶ προτοῦ παραδοθῆναι μοι αὑτό. ᾿ΑΛλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἦν δυνατὸν ἐξαλειφθῆναι ποτὲ γράμιμα μικρὸν ἣ μέγα ἐκ παλιμψήστου καὶ ἵτερον ἐπ᾽ αὑτοῦ γραφῆναι, καὶ κατακαλυφθῆγαι τεχνικῶς τὸ τέχνασμα"' ὁ δὲ ἀπιστῶν λαξζέτω σπεῖραν.
Ὅπως δ᾽ ἂν ἔχη τὸ πρᾶγμα εὐχαριστῶ τὸν Θεὸν, ὅτι ἐπανελήφθη καὶ πάλιν ἡ ὑπόθεσις αὕτη πρὸς πλείονα παραδειγματισμὸν καὶ καταισχύνην τῶν ἐχθρῶν πάσης ἀληθείας ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ πρὸς αἰώνιον στιγματισμόν" “' ἀδικεῖ yap τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ὁ φειδόμενος τῶν κακῶν."
Ὑγίαινε τοίγυν καὶ ἀναγνώσεις μετὰ μεικρὸν νευρώδη ἁπάντεσγ. Παρὰ δὲ τοῦ Μαδδενίου ἐμζρυθεστέρας ἀνέμενον πτρὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς παλαιογραφίας γνώσεις, ἀλλ᾽ if ὧν εἶδον καὶ ἥκουσα, λέγω σοι ἐλευθέρως ὅτι οὐδὲν γιγνώσκει ἀληθῶς, ὡς οὐδέ τις ἕτερος τῶν ἐν τῷ Βρεττανικῷῶ Μευσείω ἐμμίσθων λογιωτάτων. ‘Tyla καὶ αὖθις καὶ πολλάκις.
Ἐν Διδερπούλη τῇ ιγ,κα' Μαΐου τοῦ ἔτους αωξγ΄.
W. 8. W. Vaux, Esa.,
Hon. Sec. of Royal Society of Literature, British Museum, London.
Abibalam - - Abazikes - - Aderrhe Σ - Adramytteion - Agénor - - - ΖΕ ηϊα5 - - - /Enousa - - ZEnousos - - Zlianos - - Afriké - ᾿ . Akra - - - Althemikon - - Alexander the Great Alexandria - - Ammacha~ - - Ammonia - Ammonians . - Ammon - - Annibas - - Aob - - - Apamia - - Apellas -ὀ ὀ-- - Apion - - - Aphrodité Chrysoro Apollodoros - - Appianos - Arabes - - Arabia - - : Arambys
Arés Agemmanios - Aristagoras” - - Aristeidés . - Aristotelés, οὗ Kyrené Armenia - Arrhachon~ - . Arrhema - - Arrbianos~ - - Artemid6ros_ - - Arykanda - - Asacham papyros - Aschalia - -
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES.
Page 23 20 17 18 12 13
9,11
8, 11,12
18, 25
19 2
22
- 17, 38 21, 22, 28
21,
27 25
11 18 19 25 17 23, 83
- 16,19
15
11
10, 88 8
16
16
15
14
14
Asdroubas - - Asia - 3 - Agklépieion - - Assamenés - - Assarachos - - Astros - - Athéneos - : Athena Polyboulos Athos - - Ξ Athyri : - Az6éros - -
Bachon - - Bélos - - - Bithynia - - Boumilchar - Byrsa - - - Byzantion§ - -
Chaerémén - -
Char6én, of Naukratis -
Charon, of Kyréné Chalkidon - -
Chartagena, or Chartigena
Chartiné - - Chenophis - - Choramethis - Chousarios - -
Chremetés — material, 27;
Chretés river 2
Deedala - - Damoras - - Démochos’ - - Dido - 8, 9, Didouktias - -
10, 11,
Dioddros, of Thassos -
Diognétos” - - Didn Chrysostomos Dionysios -
Dios - - -
Page 11, 17, 18 - 17
- 15 - 10 - 29 - 16 - 25
- 22 - 11] 8, 9, 1 5 18 Ξ 28 - 17,18 18 river, 29 - 27, 29
- 1 - wb - 1 12, 18, 14 - 9,11 - 7 ᾿ς oun - 20
11, 12, 20, 21, 22
- 22
Diotimos, son of Metagenés 18, 19
L
Elissa - Ekataeos - Emégis - - Empedoklés - Ephara - - Epigrammos - ἘΡΙΣΏΔΟΒΟΒ - Ephoros - Eratosthenés Erymanthos - Estabé - - Eudoxos - Eusebios - Eustathios -
Eustratios, of Symé
Euthymenés - Eutropios’— - Evagrios - Ezoris
Ezoros - -
Gadeira - Galigammes - Gargara - Gennaria - Gennarios’ - Gerrha -
Gerrhara - Gerrhée - Gyzantikes -
10
- . 9] - Ὁ 21,93 - . Qi oe 8 S M6 - 2. Vy - - 16 ee: 2 12, 18, 20, 21 - - 94] - . 16 εὖ, ee “11 1, 20, 21, 28 ee 49
8, 9, 10, 22
ὡ é 16
- 16 - - 18 - - 18 ‘ - 18 - - 17 - - 17 - - 17
- - 16
Hann6n, son of Ezoros 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Hannon II., son of Asserymos, of
Tyros -
- 22
Hannon III., nephew of Assery-
mos -
Hannon IV., of Ap
ania
- - 9. - 22
Hannon V., son of Karchédon 22 Hannon VI., son of Astartos - 22 Hannon VII., son of Hannon 22
Page
Hannén VIIL, son of Abdémon 22 Hannon IX., The Great - 22 Hannén X., son of Boumilchar 22 Hannon XI., son of Hannibas 22 Hannon XII., son of Abibalam 22 Hannon XIII, a great General of
Karchédén~ - 5 - 23 Hannon XIV., son of Aristagoras,
of Alexandria - 23 Hann6n XV., son of Meandros, of
Ephesos - - - 23 Heiromos - - . - 18, 22 Hermippos- - - - 3, 5, 23 Hérodotos’ - - 8, 15, 16, 20 Horos - - - - - 23 Iarbas - - . - 9, 12,13 Ibéria_ - : - - - 11 lion - - - 8, 10, 11, 18 India - - - - - 16 Iobas’~- - - - - 16 Jerusalem - - - : 18 Josephus - - - - 18 Kadmos - - - 8, 9, 11, 21 Kadmia - - 8, 11, 12, 21 Krené Polis - - - .990,11,12 Kenopolis’ - - - - 8 Kaesar - - - - - 12 Kakkabé - - 9, 11, 12 Kakkabos - - - - 9,11 Kallimachos - - - - 49 Karchédon 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 14, 15, 22 Karchéd6n~ - - - - 27, 88 Karchédon, son of Mandanos 83 Karchédonians : - - 33 Karchédonios - - - ll Kares’ - - - - 15 Karikon Teichos’ - 2 - 25 Karnos - - - - 15 Karneadés~ - . - - 1} Karthagené 2, 6, 6, 8 Kastor - - - - 21 Kedrénos - - - - 18 Kerné, daughter of Hannon - 27 Kerné Island - . Ξ 27 Kleon - - - - - 16
70
Page Klytomides, son of Theramenés 17 Knidos - - - . 23 Korinthos’ - - . - 12 Kronos - «QQ, 21, 25, 88 Kyréné - - - 20 Lybia 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27 Lykia - - - - - 25 Lixiatee - - 27, 29 Lixias river - 27 Lixious - 27 Maraba papyros - - - 19 Marchanos_ - 2 Ξ - 10,14 Marrhas - - - - 17 Markianos - ᾿ : : 16 Mazikes - - - : 12 Meathé - : Ξ : 17 Melampus_ - 10, 20, 21, 33 Melikerios - - ~ ye 33 Melitta . - - - 1δ, 27 Menandros, of Ephesos Ξ 22 Menebachés - . - 8,11 Menessés_~ - - Ξ - 9 Menimos~. - - 5 : 15 Menippos~ - - - - 16 Merrhaink - - - - 14 Metagenés - - - - 17 Mosrachané - - - 29 Mothis - - - - 17 Mygdalion - - - - 18 Mygie - - - - 21 Myrmekides - - - 19 Nassamones - - - 15 Neapolis - - - - 18 Νοδηᾶσοβθ: - . - - 28 Nomades ω -ὀ 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 22 Notou Keras - - - 31 CEkistika - - - - 17 CEnousa . : Ξ - 811 Orig6 - - - - 8, 9, 12 Palephatos : - - 2] Pamphylians - - - 15 Parian Marble - - - 8
Pergamos- - ἃ : : 22
-
Rammera Bea
Theramenés - Theon Ochéma
Zeus Boulseos
Pillars of Heraklés Plysmachos - Polykleitos, of Kyréné
Stephanos Byzantios Straits of Héraklés
Temple of Ammon of Chrysoros Aphrodites 25 of Athends Polyboulon 25
Page
- - 23 - -20,32 - - 16 - 20
- - 83 - - 18 - 28, 27, 38 - - 13 20, 21, 22, 23 - 9,18, 25 10, 12, 13, 14
17
- 18 17
18
S = 18 - . 18 £1
25
- . 18 - 11,18, 20 - 16, 22
- . 19 % 2. 18
- 8, 9, 12 - 25
33
- 17
- $1
- - 25 - - 8,11 - 27
6, 32, 33, 40
Xenophon, of Lampsakos - 19
- 8,9, 11, 14
MINAS ΤΩΝ EAAHNISTI AITANTQMENQN KYPIQN
Page “Adspepase νῆσος - - - Ὁ “Αζωρος δυνάστης - - - 88 ᾿Αθηνᾶς Πολυξούλου ἱερὸν 24. Κερναίας 27 ᾿Αθθωρὰ μυχός = : Ξ 27 “Abups - : - Ξ . 23 Αἰθίοπες - - 26, 27, 29 Alvoucos δυνάστης - - - 33 "AXpa πόλις - - - - 24, 25 ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου 28 "ANE. συγγραφεύς - - - 26, 38 ᾿Αλλουὰ Mépat κόλατος - = 29 ᾿Αμμαχά - - - - 26 ἼἌἌμμων - - - - - 26 ᾿Αμμωνεῖς - - - - 26 ᾿Αμμωνίας ἱερόν - - - 24, 25 “Apeprarvor ἱερόν - - - 24, 25 “Avvey Βασιλεὺς 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,31,33 “Ayveoy υἱὸς “Αγγωγος - Ξ Ξ 33 “Arvo ἀνεψιὸς ᾿Αῤῥάχωνος - - 28 “Avvosy θεῖος Μελάμποδος - - 23, 28 ᾿Αξίων ποταμός Ε - - 27 "AgapaGug πόλις - - - 24, 25 ᾿Αρισταγόρας - - - - 32 ᾿Αῤῥάχων δυνάστης - - - 89 ᾿Αῤῥάχων υἱὸς τοῦ Καρχηδόνος - 32 ᾿Αξίων ποταμός - ᾿ - 27 ᾿Αστραῖος Κυξερνήτης ἵΛυνωνος - 27, 28 ᾿Αστραῖος ποταμός - - 27, 28, 29 "AaG 3 Σ : - - 28 Βουλαίου Διὸς ἱεκόν - - - 24 Γάμαλλοι - Ξ : : $1 Γορίλλαι Ὲ Ξ ᾧ - 28, 3} Γύττη πόνις Ξ Ν 5 - 24, 26 Δαμόγας συγγεαφεύς - - 27 Διδουκτίας δυνάστης - . - 33 Διοχλητιανός - - - - 93
Διονύσιος Μητροπολίτης AsGung - 89
Page ᾿Εδεχθιὰ Megat κόλπος - - 31 ἜἜζορος δυνάστης 88 ᾿Εζορίς πόλς 588 *Exaratee x - 25, 27 Ἕμμα καὶ “Eagan γῆσος - - 20 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς - - - - 23 Ἐσίμαχος ᾿Αρισταγόρου - - 80, 89 Ἕρμιππος - - - - 28 Ἑσπερία Λιζύη - - - 33 “Eowigou κέρας Ξ - - 28, 29 Εὐάγριος Εὐαγρίου ὁ Μυγίσιος - 80 Εὐστρέάτις - 25, 26, 27, 29, 80, 81 Ἔφορος - - - - 2ῦ, 28,29 Ἐχχαδία νῆσος Ξ : : 290 Ζέαρος δυνάστης - - : 98 Ζῶρος δυνάστης - - - 33
Ἡξράκλειαι στῆλαι - 24, 25, 26, 80
Θάῤῥα γυνὴ τοῦ Καρχηδόνος - 80 Θεόπομπος - 5 - 82, 33 Θεῶν Ὅχημα - ᾿ 28, 80, 8] Θηζξαϊκὸς Πίναξ : 5 : 32 Θυμιατήριον - - - - 24, 26 ᾿Ιάρξας δυνάστης - - - 33 "Lagos δυνάστης - - - 98 “lote - - - : - 28 Κάδμος δυνάστης : Σ - 33 Καδμεία “πόλις - - - 33 Καλλίμαχος Καρχηδόνιος - - 23 Καλλίνικος Ἱερομκόναχος - - 32 Kagincy Τεῖχος - - - 24, 25 Καρχηδόνι. - - - - 90 Καρχηδὼν υἱὸς Μαρδάνυ - - 90 Kagynday - 26, 28, 30, 31, 33
25, 26, 27, 29, 81 Kigm @uyérng”Aweng - - 26, 27 Κέρνη νῆσος. - - 26, 27, 28
Κάστωρ "Ῥόδιος
ΟΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ.
Κυισσενίας ποταμός -. - ᾿ Κυριακὸν πόλις ᾿ 4 :
Κωνσταγτῖνος Τοσίτζας Ξ - Λιξυφοίνμες - : : ᾿ Aika worse - μ᾿ Μ᾿ a Askiaras ΕΞ Ξ ‘ :
Page 27 25 32
30 20, 27 26, 28
Λιξίας deyipudog καὶ Διξίας ποταμός 268
Λιξιάτου Λμμωνος ἱερόν -. é
Alfog ποταμός - : Σ 5 Μάμμα ᾿Αφραΐ ὅρος - 5 -
Μαξιμειανός - ᾿ : é Μάρδανος πατὴρ τοῦ Καρχηδόνος -
Mappa νῆσος . : : ᾿
Μελάμπους υἱὸς Φαγέθωνος - Ξ Μένεσσης δυνάστης - - - Μέλισσα πόλις καὶ κώμη -
Μέλιττα “πόλις Z : ᾿ Miy : ᾿ - 5 ᾿ Μιχαῆλες Τοσίτζας - Σ a Μωσραχαέ - - - Ξ
26 27
Niag δυνάστης, Nia πόλις καὶ χάσμα 20
Νούϊος ποταμός Ξ 3 : Νουΐς νῆσος Ξ - Ξ J Νότου Kigas : : : ᾧ Ἐίων ποταμός - -
Οὗνας ποταμὸς - : ᾿ : Οὐράνιος ὁ ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς Ξ :
᾿ορυγὼν δυνάστης ᾿ a 7 ᾿οφιώδης worapeds : - -
Πολυξούλου ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερόν - - Πολύκλειτος Μελικερίου ὁ Κυρηναῖος - Ποσειδῶνος ἱερόν 5. 5 - Πτολεμαῖος γεωγράφος - -
Q7 27 28, 31
27
25 30 24 29
Σαλάθις Torapedc - - - Σάλσιχος ἡγιμὼν καὶ ποταμός - Σολόεις Διδυκὸν ἀκρωτήριον - - Σολοιγτὶς χωμόπολις Μαυρουσίας - Σούδξας ποταμός . Ξ Ὲ Σουζουρὶς πόλις - - - Σούξουρος φύλαρχος Μαυρουσίων καὶ
ποταμός Μαυρουσίας -
Σούριγα πόλις - . - 5 Σουρίγας δυνάστης Γεττούλων - Σταχειρβάχης ποταμός d ᾿
Σταχείραμμις ποταμός - -
72
Page 25 Στέφανος Βυζάντιος - - 27 94 | Ταρσὸς wins - - ς 25 Τρωγλοδύται - - : - 25
25 Φαγέθων vide” Avvesvog
Φάρῥα νῆσος - - 25 Φθάαθος ποταμός - :
25 25 Χαιρήμων Ε ᾿ : 27 Χαράγγης ποταμός - :
27 Χάρων Ναυκρατίτης --- Κυρηναῖο;
- 25
Χένωφις - : 5 Ξ : Χέφρις νῆσος - - - - Χούδαρις χάσμα : : Χίμαιρα λίμενη - ᾷ : - Χρεμότης κυθδερνήτης “Αννωνος - Χρεμότης ποταμὸς - - - Χρέτης ποταμὸς Λιβύης - Χρύσορος ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερν -
᾿Ωκεανοηγόρου ποσειδῶνος ἱερόν - ἿΩρος - Ξ 7 : 7
PRINTED BY 1). MARPLES, LORD STREET, LIVERPOOL.
26,
Page 23
27
2υ
27
26, 29 28
27, 28 24, 25