Skip to main content

Full text of "The Classical journal .."

See other formats 


Google 


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 individual 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


and we request that you use these files for 


+ 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 
ai[http: //books . google. com/| 


nimore 
‘brary. 
A: Sue 3 


A 3 


9015 00393 433 1 


University of Michigan ~ BUHR 


στρ 


φῶ 37 
C6) 
SRS 


> 


| THE 


CLASSICAL JOURNAL:. 


FOR 


MARCH anv JUNE, 1819. 


VOL. XIX. 


Ὦ φίλος, εἰ σοφὸς εἶ, λάβε μ᾽ ἐς χέρας" εἰ δέ γε πάμπαν 
Νῆϊς ἔφυς Μουσέων, ῥίψον ἃ μὴ νοέεις. | 
Epic. INCERT. 


Condon : 
PRINTED BY A. J. VALPY, 


TOOKE’S COURT, CHANCERY LANE; 
SOLD BY 
LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN; F.C. AND 
J. RIVINGTONS; SHERWOOD AND CO., PATERNOSTER 
ROW; PARKER, OXFORD; BARRETT, CAM- 
BRIDGE; MACREDIE AND CO., EDIN- 
BURGH; CUMMING, DUBLIN; AND 


ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 


—_— ee 
1819. 


ΤῊΣ 


CLASSICAL JOURNAL: 


FOR 


MARCH anv JUNE, 1819. 


VOL. XIX. 


"MN φίλος, εἰ σοφὸς εἶ, λάβε μ᾽ ἐς χέρας" εἰ δέ γε πάμπαν 
Νῆϊς ἔφυς Μουσέων, ῥίψον & μὴ νοέεις. 
Epic. INCERT. 


Mondon ; 
PRINTED BY A. J. VALPY, 
TOOKE’S COURT, CHANCERY LANE; 
SOLD BY 
LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN; F.C. AND 
J. RIVINGTONS; SHERWOOD AND CO., PATERNOSTER 
ROW; PARKER, OXFORD; BARRETT, CAM- 
BRIDGE; MACREDIE AND CO., EDIN- 
BURGH; CUMMING, DUBLIN; AND 


ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 
—_—— aes 


1819. 


ERRATA. 


No. XXXV. p. 154. 1, 14. read DO" 
.17. for 1, read LXX. 
19. dele NIT 
20. read JN‘ 
10. read “TY, and add NY¥ 
' 155. 22. read NIWAY 
23. read D1 
35. read Syriace 
Ὁ penult, read Doederlein. 


No. XXXVI. p. 380, Instead of ““ἐῤῥώγασιν pro éppayn, gushed ” 
read, ἐῤῥώγασιν pro ἐῤῥάγησαν s. ἔῤῥαγεν, gushed. 


CONTENTS OF ΝΟ. XXXVII- 


A Repry to the QUARTERLY Ravizw on the New Trans- 
lation of the Bisue from the Original Hebrew. By J. 


BELLAMY. (Concluded. ) οουθοσοοθοοοθοφοοοὺ COEEEO 


Loci quidam Luciani, emendati atque explanati; a Joanne 
Szgacer, A. B. Now ΧΙ. cccccccccccccscccscceves 
Of the IeNORANCE of the most celebrated MopERNs re- 

lative to the PoiLosoPuy of ARISTOTLE. (Concluded. ) 
STANLEI11 Not# quedam in CaLiiMacuuM. No. rv. 
Observations on some Onrations ascribed to CicERo. 
No. τ. ssesescececeecerecscsccsecccseesseeeenes 
HyrotnHeses of Mr. Bryant and Mr. Fazer reconciled 
Odes by Professors HERMANN and BorricER, in comme- 
moration of the King of Saxony’s JuBILEE, Sept. 1818 
Nora# et Cure sequentes in Anati DiosEmza, a Th. 
Forster, F.LS. No. tv. cocccccscccececenccces 
Oxford Prize Essay for 1818. Biography. ceccesscacne 
Observations on Professor HERMANN’s Review of the 
New Edition of SterrHens’s GREEK THESAURUS. 


(Concluded. Baer rececs 0000000008 00 08 e000 sere 


my 


PACE 


7 


84 


108 


iv “CONTENTS, 
| oo PAGE 
Sur SiMONIDES de Céos cecccccvcccenccccscccceces 115 


De Carminibus ARISTOPHANIS Commentarius ; auctore — 
G. B. Pars VII, coccccecce cccccccceccccecccecces 195 
CAMBRIDGE TRIPOSEs, as connected with the lighter His- 
tory and with the Literature of that University's cocccecce 13] 
Life of Herne. Part 1. ΠΝ .. 186 
Emendationes BENTLEAI m OVIDIUM coccce cccccccece 1698 
The Encuisu Lirurey : illustrated by its Version into the 
Latin and Greek Languages .-sscsessvesceccoseses 178 
Notice of A Second Memoir on Basyton, by Ὁ. 7. 
RICH, Esq.c-+ccvcccacccccvcccvcdcccccncsenseeeses 70 
Notice of “ An TAR, a Bedoueen Romance,” translated from 
the Arabic, by T. HAMILTON, Esq, sccvcescccocsees 189 
Apversagia Litgearia. No. x1x.—Fragment of a 
_ Poem on the Actian War, copied from a MS. taken 
from Herculaneum ; supposed to. be written by C. Ra- ἢ 
birius— Remarks on two passages of Sophocles, Ed. 
Br.—Politiani Carmen—M. 5. Viri multis nominibus di- _ 
lecti desideratique ; ‘Frank Sayers, M. D.—Anthologiz 
ante Jacobsium inedite epigrammata tria correcta—Scali- . 
ger de Accentibus—In ‘quendam parvum et macilentum. 185 
Notice of a VineicaTION of the MasTER of ExETeR 
ScHOOL se cccceeesccceccescceceseesess eccccesoos 192 
Literary Intelligence +--cssoccscccscccceccscsseseveee 197 


Notes to Correspondents Coecer pacees vegans cesses oons 200 


CONTENTS OF ΝΟ. XXXVIILI. 


Dissertation. on St. Paut’s Voyage from Cesarea to Puteoll ; 
‘ on the wind Euroclydon; and on the Apostle’s Shipwreck 

on the island Melite: [With a plate.] deccceceeecssees 
Oxford Prize Poem :—Vis Magnetica. -seceecsccosvees 
Letters on the ancient British LANcuaGE of Conn waALt. 


A Latter on the PorRTLAND VASE. ce ccacccccccs eevsecce 


A Second Reptry to the. Further Remarks in the QuaR- 


_TERLY Review, No. xxxvuit.on the New Trans- 
LATION Of the BIBLE. cssccocerecccccccccausescces 
Emendationes BEenTLe! in Oviprum. Pars II. 9... 666. 
Notice of ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ MHSEIA. Evriripis ΜΈΡΕΑ. 
In usum studiose juventutis recensuit et illustravit PeTRUs 
ELMSLEY, A. M,ccccsccccccs cevccsccenesccoccces 
Notice of AcapEMic Epnors ; or Recollections of Youth. 
By a member of the University of Cambridge.+++++ee+s: 


PAGE 


201 


216 
221 


- 226 


233 


258 


267 


290 


αὐ 


Ὶ 


cs 


bd 


CONTENTS. 


On the- Science of the Eacypttans and CHaLpgEans. 
NO. VI. cecccv ee cewccccccecces eee ces cceccececces 
De Carminibus ArRISTOPHANIS Commentarfus. Auct. 
Ὁ. B. Pars viti.essocccccecccvcccccscveccceevess 
BABY LON. cccceccccccscccscscccvcceveccccceseces 
“Notice of the GEpipus ROMANUS, ceveccccesscceeces 
MISCELLANEA CLASSICA. No. VI. seccccnececccccece 
An Essay on Moons. Part 1. By the Rev. Dr. NeiLson, 
Professor in Belfast College. seccecesecccevcccccees 
Dissertatio Literaria de OsTRACISMO ATHENIENSIUM. 
Pars 1. cccccscccccccscccvacesaveerecseccccscese 
Poem by the KinG of PERSIA; sssseeeece conse seeese, 
“Apversaria Lirerapra. No. xx.—On the utility-and 
the’ propriety of studying the Classical. Writers in public 
Schools.—-Upon the Pensea of the Ancients. —On the 
“philosophical meaning of the words Bios, κίνημα, evepy ner, 
and αἰσθημα.-- Οπ Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of: the latter 


PAGE 
406 
315 
321 - 


323 
325 


336 


345 
358 


part of the 9th and 10th chapters of Genesis.—Palindrome: 359 


Literary Intelligence. +. eesesees eocbovegsecerce Caer odes 366 


Notes to ‘Correspondents, «ὁ 6 ὁ 9. seeceesececs eosveeeses 376 


‘THE 
CLASSICAL J OURNAL. 
: | NO. XXXVI. | 
‘MARCH, 1819, 


ΕΝ ᾿Α REPLY " 
To the Quarterly Review on the New Translation of 
the Bible from the Original Hebrew. By J. BEL- 
LAMY, ᾿ | | 
No. II.—{Continued from No. XXXVI. p. 231.] 


——p-ai- aa 


Tune is no difficulty in the application of this word DY grnaa-: 
rom, when “ the nicety of construction,” which this gentleman 
talks about, is understood. The difference of the application de- 
pends on the difference of the orthography, or, if this extraordinary 
Hebraist will again allow me, “ the nicety of construction ;” for, 
throughout the Scripture, when this word is written with the ἡ vaz, 
or In its absence, with the vowel holem, pronounced gnaarom; 
It uniformly signifies naked. Job 1. 21—xxiv. 7, 10—xxvi. 6— 
Eccl. v. 15—lIsa. xx. 2, 3, 4, 58—Amos ii. 16., as in the 
received translation. But when the root of this word is applied 
by the sacred writers to mean prudent, subtle, crafty, it is not 
written with the holem, or the o, but with the shurik, or the long 
u. Gen. ii. 1—Prov. xu. 16, 29—xiiti.1.6.—xiv. 8—xxii. 3—. 
Xxvil. 12—xiv. 15—Job v. 12—xv. 5—Prov. xiv. 18., and@. pro- 
nounced guaaruum. ‘Therefore the passages in Job 1. 21—xxiv. 
7—Isaiah xx. 2. are perfectly right as they stand in the received. 
translation: there would have been no necessity for the ADvo- 
CATE for received errors to ask, “ What would be the sense of 
these passages, if prudent were substituted for naked?” had he 


understood ‘“ the niceties of construction” between ony gnaarom, 
“naked,” and DY gnaaruum, “ subtle or prudent.” Examples 
of this description, where an alteration is produced by the intro- 


VOL. XIX. Cé Jl. NO. XXXVII. A 


Q Α Reply to the Quarterly Review 


duction of « instead of 0, are to be found even in our language ; 
fs in the word poor, with the u, is pour—fool, foul, &c.. From 
which it will appear to the learned reader, that the ADVOCATE has 
yet to learn even the rudiments of the Hebrew language, though 
he has - presumed to represent himself as deeply learned in “ the 
peculiarities of idiom and the niceties of construction.” But, as ἢ 
have observed, he is not alone: many there are, and he 1s one— 
desiring to be a teacher of the law, understanding neither what he 
says, nor whereof he affirms. 

What now becomes of the ostentatious conclusion of this gen- 
tleman’s note, where he says, “ It were endless to recite passages 
of this description, in which the undoubted sense of the word 18 
4 naked,’ and in which it would be im contradiction to all sense, as 
well as in opposition to all authority, to give it the sense of ‘ pru- 
gent,’ which Mr. Bellamy has the confidence to say it cannot 
bear ?” Let the learned and the impartial reader determine. 

It is therefore undeniably evident, that this important passage in 
the original Hebrew has no reference whatever to the bodily na- 
kedness of our first parents, because the word DY gnaaruumim, 
which the translators have rendered naked, never means nakedness 
of the whole body: but throughout the Scriptures it signifies, even 
in the received translation, wisdom, prudence ; to be wise in heart : 
“1 wisdom dwell with prudence.” —“ The wise in heart shall be 
called prudent.’+>Prov. xvi. 21.—‘* Wisdom applied to practice— 
Practically wise.” Johnson. The passage is truly rendered, 
‘¢ Thus they were prudent for they had not shamed themselves,” 
or, “ they had not made themselves ashamed.”’: ΣΝ 

-On the passage Gen. vi. 6. the critic indulges his spleen to 
an excess. The version reads, “ lt repented the Lord that he 
had made man.on the earth, and 11 grieved him at his heart.” 
I have shown that the word Ὁ) yinaachem, never means to 
repent throughout the Scripture ; that in nearly seventy places it is 
rendered to be comforted, satisfied, according to idiom ; and that 
where it is translated repent, it's improperly translated. I do not, 
as this “ perverter” of my words says, * quietly allow sixty pas- 
sages Gere this word is translated repent,” to be right. - 
τς But I am told, that I “ spend much time in going through all 
these texts, and attempting to show that, in each, the word comfort 
should’ be substituted for repent.” He affirms, “ We need not say 
that his labor is unsuccessful, unless indeed the success he aims at 
be to discredit the Bible by making it unintelligible. For instance, 
1 Sam. xv. 29. ‘ The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent.’ 
How absurd must it be to say, ‘ The Strength of Israel will not lie, 
mor be comforted? ” But the Critic has been too hasty in his 
conclusion, as usual ; if he had had patience to examine the nar- 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. ὃ 


rative, he might. have been convinced that. there is no absurdity 
in the New Translation. God had declared to Samuel that Sail 
should cease to reign, and: therefore to this part of the text heé 
says, The Strength of Israel will not lie. But if the following 
clause were to be rendered nor repent, it would be a repetition ὃ 
the preceding one: that is, if he had repented, as he had declared 
that Saul should no longer reign, it would have involved him m-the 
first; for to repent would have been to have acted contrary to the 
first declaration; and therefore it would oily have been a repeti 
tion. ‘This gentleman forgets that Saul had now repented, but 
Samuel informs him, that the Strength of Israel would: not be satis- 
fied by his repentance. Surely there is no absurdity in’ this, it 
being the literal meaning of the word DMD yinaachem, in every 
part of Scripture in the-common version; except, as observed; 
where the translators have improperly rendered it repent. Nei- 
ther is there any absurdity im Job xln. 6. Lf he abhorred himself 
on account of his sin, he necessarily repented; therefore, if 
IIT nichamti, were translated I repent, τὰ would amount to ἃ 
repetition. Here again this hasty writer forgets, that: Job at this 
period, while he was in this abject state, received consolation from 
God; who had comforted him while he sat in dust and ashes: 
So much for this sagacious gentleman’s grammatical knowledge of 
the Hebrew in question. Now fur a specimen of his logic: 
“© When he (God) 15 said to have repented, it is not meant ἴῃ a 
human sense, that he felt sorrow for what he had done; but unly 
that he changed his outward conduct towards men, in consequence 
of their altered behaviour towards him.” But in such ‘case God 
is subject to change, and to change as often as men “ alter theif 
behaviour toward him.” ‘Then it follows, that man can cause 
God to change his. mind, whenever it shall please him to commit 
sin. It-is however said, “ Iam the Lord: I change not.” Mal. 
ni. 6. If the reader do ‘not say that this is a suinmary of unintel- 
ligible doctrine which nearly borders on: blasphémy, I shall’ be 
mistaken ; for it amounts to nothing more nor less than this-—the 
word repent does not always mean repent. The New Transition 
silences the objeetions which have for ages been advanced against 
. this scripture as it stands in the received version; without having 
recourse to the absurd conclusion of this critic, that the com- 
mon received sense of words may cease to convey their customary 
sense.” It is not common sense to suppose, that such ah unscrips 
tural notion was ever in the contemplation of the’ sacred writer. * 


Ne 


* Vide Johnson. 


’ 


( 
4 "A Reply to the Quarterly Review ὁ 


.. I shall end my remark on this part, by giving the crude state» 
ment of this writer. He says, “ Now, ina literal sense, (Ὁ attri- 
bute satisfaction to the Deity, is as inconsistent with the per- 
fection of his nature, as to ascribe to him any other passion or 
feeliug.” Surely he has never considered the obvious meaning 
of words, or he would not say that satisfaction is a passzon, 
This word meaus the final end—where there 1s no desire—com-~ 
plete fulness—a state of perfect peace—rest—tranguilljty: a 
state incapable of any passion, of any addition, of any diminution : 
therefore truly applicable to the unchangeable Jehovah. Mal. 
li. 6. “I am the Lord; I change not” And thus the first 
article of the church of England, with tu. utmost propriety, 
describes God as being without passions; because he necessa~ 
rily isin that eternal state of tranquil satisfaction. But repen- 
tance is a passion; and if the passion of repentance were to be 
applied to God, as repentance is to think on anything past with 


' sorrow, it would affect the majesty of God—it is altogether mappli- 


cable to the Divine Being. ‘Thus by attributing the passion of re- 
pentance to the unchangeable Jehovah —the imperfection of man to 
the great fount of infinite perfection ; this writer declares himself to 
be in direct opposition to that luminous article of the church, 


which so truly declares God to be without passions, in a state of 


invariable tranquillity and peace, ‘ With whom there is no varia- 
bleness, neither shadow of turning,” Jam. i. 17. 

But he says, “ He (Bellamy) is so profoundly ignorant of the 
plainest forms of speech, as not to know that the impersonal ex- 
pression, ‘ it repented the Lord—it grieved him,’ is merely ano- 
ther mode of saying ‘ the Lord repented—he grieved or was 
grieved.’” 1 would ask the candid and the learned reader, as 
there is no authority for the “ impersonal expression,” “ it re- 
pented the Lord—it grieved him,” in the Hebrew ; to whom is 
the abusive term “ profoundly ignorant,” applicable? to this abu- 
sive reviewer, who is not capable of informing his readers that 
neither the neuter pronoun it, nor the third person singular him, 
occur in these words in the Hebrew—or to ?gnorant Bellamy, who 
translates the words as they stand in the Hebrew, literally? This 
writer may talk about “ the peculiarities of idiom, and the nice- 
ties of construction,” and that my knowledge of Hebrew “ con- 
sists in little more than the more ordinary and obvious rules 
of grammar ;” but before a person presumes to talk in this 
affected style of deep learning in Hebrew, he surely ought to un- 
derstand his Hebrew grammar. It does not however appear that 
he possesses * ammmetical knowledge. in. Hebrew, or he 
would Γ΄ rd person singular preter of the 
verb, ὁ a, with the neuter pronoun ft, 


\ 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation. of the Bible. § 


and the pronoun of the third person singular him. 1 shall have 
Occasion to show the public some of his “ niceties of construc- 
tion” in Hebrew, when I come to say a few words on Gen. ii. 25. 
᾿ς And lastly, I would ask this captious writer, what absurdity 
there is in the New ‘Translation of Jer. xviii. 8.? If the reader 
turns to ch. vi. page 39, on the note Jer. xviii. 8, he will find that 
this writer has given a false quotation. 1 have not translated it, ἢ 
‘will be comforted,. as he bas the confidence to declare I have ; but 
according to the idiom of the verb, 1 bave translated the ‘word, 
Then I will be satisfied. I forbear to make any remarks on mis- 
representation ; he is now before a tribunal, the public, who love 
the truth, and who will not fail to reprobate an attack conducted 
with so much virulence, erroneous quotation, and falsehood. ‘The 
- case will be precisely the same iu all the texts where the translators 
have erred, ἴῃ using the word repent—for the word DM) yin- 
aachem, embraces no other meaning than comfort, or satisfy, 
throughout the Scripture. From which it is evident that ihe. asser- 
tion of this unguarded writer that this word. bears the sense of 
repent, is contradicted by the impossibility of the thing as applied 
to God; by the translation of the very same word, both conso- 
nants and vowels, Gen. xxxvili. 12. ‘“‘ And he (Judah) was com-. 
forted, or satisfied.” See also 2 Sam, xii, 24. ““ And David com- 
forted.” Gen. xxiv. 67. ‘ And Isaac was comforted.” Ch. 1]. 
21. “ And he comforted them.” Now as it is not said that Judah 
repented, that David repented, that Joseph repented, when he con- 
soled his brethren, that Isaac repented, or that the friends of’ Job. 
repented, when they comforted him—so neither can it be said that 
God repented that he had made nian. ΕΣ 
This caviller says, “ But to proceed to Mr. Bellamy’s proof 
of error. Let it be remembered, that in support ‘of the received 
sense, there is the same concurrence of all authorities ancient 
and modern, which we alleged in the former instance; . that 
the Septuagint version, the Syriac, the Targum, the Samafi- 
tan, the Arabic, the Vulgate, besides every known commentator 
and interpreter, ancient and modern, are all in. perfect agreement, . 
all opposed to Mr. Bellamy.” And yet every intelligent reader 
will readily allaw that, notwithstanding the concurring testimony of 
all these “ authorities ancient and modern,” the translations I have 
so given are .perfeetly right, arid sanctioned by. the Hebrew. Let 
‘the public judge how far this writer deserves credit, where he says, 
p. 253, “ ‘The principles of its grammar and construction have 
been explored.” It is obvious that those who “ explored” it, 
like this pretender to Hebrew criticism, . did ‘not understand the 
- grammar of the language, admitting they had the Hebrew Bible 
| before them. . - ᾿ ΝΕ ΝΕ Ι 


6 . A. Reply to the Quarterly Review 


This ADVOCATE for received errors proceeds ; ‘The second word, 
which Mr. Bellamy affirms to have. been wholly misunderstood, 1s 
IMI yithgnatseeb, usually translated ‘he grieved himself,’ but 
which, as he maintains, signifies ‘he idolised himself.’ He might as 
well assume any other meaning.” [ must here again show, that when 
the caviller is determined to carry his argument, he does not hesi- 
tate to coin a word, where it neither is to be found in the Hebrew, 
nor in the common version. But I have-not said that the word 
DWI yithgnatseeb is translated he grieved hinself, in this pas- 
sage, Gen. vi.6. Yet the reader may suppose by this representa- 
tio, that I have so stated the common version. I have said that 
the translators have rendered it, and it grieved him ;” and that, as 
there is no pronoun of the third person, him, in the word, it 
cannot be so translated. 1 have also said, it is in the Hithpael 
(reflective) conjugation, consequently it cannot be said, either as it 
respects God or man, that ‘it grieved him at his heart.” He 
proceeds: .“ Mr. Bellamy however is a contemner of all ordinary 
authorities; we will therefore bring against him one which we 
know to be paramount with bim; we mean. that of Mr. John 
᾿ Bellamy. ‘The word ὩΣ) gnatseeb, occurs in Hithpael only once 
ia the Bible, besides the passage before us, viz, Gen. xxxiv. 7. 
and there he translates it in the very sense which,. in the present 
text, he rejects as impreper. The sons of Jacob came from the 
field—-and the men grieved themselves ID¥YIV yithgnatseebou. 
Hather.Mr. Bellamy 15 right in rejecting the received sense of the 
word,-or.he is wrong. If right, why does-he not-reject it uniform- 
ly? .If wrong,. why does he reject it at all? What can be const- 
dered certain in language, if such arbitrary assumptions are allow- 
ed? and above all, what is to be thought of a man who thus adopts 
in one page, what he rejects as inadmissible m another?” Here 
are four questions in about as many lines; I will reply to 
all of them. . It is not true that I “ reject all authorities :” I reject 
all such.authorities as are not consistent with the Hebrew text, but 
i:revere all. such authorities as agree with it; 1 have therefore 
referred to Bochart, Buxtorf, Calmet, Lightfoot, &c. And among 
the string of authorities referred to by this intemperate writer, ἢ 
reject the most. ancient of thems, even the LX X, when it stands 
opposed to the. Hebrew.; and he. also acknowledges that it .is 
imperfect. _And in doing this 1 have the sanction of Origen, 
Jerome, Usher, Wall, and other learned men who have critically 
exammed it. ΝΞ : 

. - I will now examine the authority which the apvocaTe brings 
against me, which he states to be Mr. J. Bellamy against Mr. J. 
‘Bellamy. ‘-He refers to -Gen. xxxiv. 7. where .he says, “ 
translate this word in the very sense which, in the present text, I 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 7 


reject as improper.” In the firat place, this is not the same word ; 
—and secondly, though it be in the Hithpael, or reflective conju- 
gation, it does not fallow that the same radical form of the word 
should always have the same mode of expression, because the com 
struction and adiom vary the expression; yet it will always partake 
of the meaning of the root, either in a nearer or in ἃ remote degree. 
vs in 2 Sam. xvis 19. TAYN egnebod, “ should I serve,” is pro- 
perly rendered, Jer. ἢ. 20. “ I will transgress.”—2 1p kidmou, 
Peal. Ixviii. 25. “ went hefore,’-—is in Isa. xxi, 14. “ they: pre- 
vented.”—iWpit hikshak, ‘‘ would hardly let us go.” Exod. xii. 
15.—is in i Kings xi. 4. “ grievous,” &c. 

So , which, as ἃ noun, means bread, because the consecrated 
bread was not cut, but: braken with the: teeth ; so a8 a verb it 16 ape 
plied to fighting, because a sword is as the ‘teeth. And: thus it is 
applied as a verb, to fight. 2 Sam. xii. 27. 1 have fought. And ao: 
for other words: This is the same im all languages ; and, to com 
vince the reader, | will refer him to words in our language. The 
letters p—r form the root of a word; but, according to its orthe- 
graphy, it has different modes of expression, viz. poor, pare, peer, 
pure, pier, pore ;—again, the letters s—t, set, sit, sat, sot.; or the 
letters p—n, pen, pin, pux, and the like. Thus, according to ortho 
graphical arrangement, it is the same in Hebrew, with this diffen- 
ence, that the sense, though remote, is always derived from, and 
consequently connected with the root. In the passage under re- 
view in Gen. vi. 6. the word ΝΠ" yithgnatseed, 15 thus written, 
and it is thus erroneously translated, “6 and it grieved him :” but 
there is no authority either for the neuter pronoun it, or the pro- 
moun of the third person Aim, therefore cannot posaibly be twane- 
dated, “‘ and it grieved him.” _- 

But. if the word grieved were to be retamed, the word ἈΝ - 
should be rendered; “ he grieved himself”. But the word, ch. 
-xxxiv. rendered, “ were grieved,” differs m ‘its application accord- 
ang to idiom ; and consequently varies the mode of expression. it 
is thus erroneously translated, “‘ were grieved;” the verb is in Hith- 
pael, or the reflective conjugation, viz. “ they grieved. themselves :” 
for there is neither authority nor necessity for the verb mere. 
‘This is the reason why I reject the anthonties which this apvo- 
CATE mentions, because they do not agree with the Hebrew ; and 
they attribute those imperfections to God, which: are only appt- 
cable to man. But what is worse, they represent the Fountam of 
infaite Wisdom, who, as his great name TT JEnovan, declares, 
comprebends.the past, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE, as doing 
at one ime, what he repents of at another, and thus thet it griesud 
fam at his heart: by which he 1s brought to a ‘level with mas, who 
kmowe net to-day what ehall be to-morrow. . , 


8 A Reply to the Quarterly. Review 

- This word is applied by the sacred writers to idols, and to tdola- 
trous worship, in a primary. sense; and in a secondary sense, 
according to idiom and orthography, to a grievous state of 
mind, principally in consequence of having departed from the 
worship of God .to:that of idols; because instead of succour, the 
-worship of idols always brought grief and distress to the worship- 
pers., The passages where the radical. word in various forms is 
applied agreeably to the secondary sense to grieve, are many, 
.1 Chron. iv. 9.—Isa. xiv. 3.—Prov. x. 12, &c. and. where, ac- 
cording to the primary sense, it is applied to idols, and idolatrous 
worship. Isa. xlviii. 5.“ mine idol.” Jer. xxii. 28. “ idols.”— 
Hos. iv. 17.—Jer. xliv. 19. “ to worship her.” Here then is the 
reason why 1 do not reject the word uniformly. The language 
can be considered as certain. without any “ arbitrary assumptions,” 
because the application, as well as the orthography, varies the 
mode of expresston. I leave the. unprejudiced public to.deter- 
mine, whether I have merited his application at the conclusion of 
shis paragraph, where he says, “.What 15 to be thought of a man 
-who thus adopts in one page, what he rejects as madmissible. in 
another.” ‘This gentleman, as I shall show below, pays no atten- 
tion to the application and orthography of the language, though he 
‘attempts to talk Jearnedly about the “ peculiarities of idiom, and 
the niceties of construction.” Now as it is evident, from .what 
has been said above concerning the words repentance.and saéis- - 
faction, that repentance is a passion, and therefore cannot be 
applied to God, because he is without passton, and that as sai?s- 
Sfrction is not a passion, and is with the utmost propriety applied 
to God: so neither can grief, which is a passion, and applicable 
only to man who is imperfect, be in any sense whatever applied to 
‘him who alone is perfect, and consequently without passion. — . 

. -This writer says, “ We have, perhaps, said enough of Mr. 
-Bellamy’s discoveries respecting the meaning of Scripture. At 
the risk, however, of being tedious, we will advert, ‘as briefly. as 
we can, to another instance. It is a received part of scriptural 
history, Gen. xxii. 2. that the Almighty proved the faith and. obe- 
dience of the patriarch Abraham, by commanding him to sacrifice 
the child of his hopes; that the. patriarch prepared to obey the di- 
vine ‘command, and that in consequence of his ready. obedience, the 
" -great promise was made to him, that in his seed all the families 
nations) of the earth should be blessed.” But 1 positively deny 
that “ in consequence. of his ready obedience [to this command- 
Ment]}.the great promise was made to him, that -in his seed all the 
‘families ‘of the earth should be blessed.” ‘ We have, perhaps, said 
enough of Mr. Bellamy’s discoveries: says the ADVOCATE: 
the reader will see that there is no small degree of presumptuous 


- on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. .9 


ostentation in this remark. The learned and the impartial reader 
will determine, whether such: presumption do not arise from its 
offspring, ignorance. ‘This promise was made at a priur- period, 
when Abraham was 99 years old, 40 years before this transaction, 
when the messengers were sent to destroy the cities of the plain, ch. 
xviil. 18. And in verse 19. of the same chapter it is said, “ For I 
know him that he will command his children and his household 
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord; that the Lord 
may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of -him.” 
There was, therefore, no necessity for God to tempt Abraham, in 
order to see whether or not he would be obedient to his command. 
Abraham was now far advanced in life, and it was necessary that 
Isaac should be fully instructed.in the representative worship con- 
cerning the coming of the Messiah, and acknowledged by the great 
congregation at Salem, as the presumptive representative, or type 
of the Messiah. Abraham was therefore commanded to take him 
to mount Moriah (where the temple of Solomon was afterwards 
built), for that purpose. | : . 

. [have said in my note on this passage, that “ our first inquiry 
will be concerning the true translation and application of the word 
WHY hagnaleehou, which in the common version is rendered, 
“‘ and offer him up.” Thia verb is in the Hiphil conjugation, 
which means to cause the thing to be done. It is used in the fol- 
lowing sense, Exod. viii. 5. “ and cause to ascend.”—Numb. xx. 5. 
“‘ have ye made us to ascend.”—Ch. xx. 5.—Ezek. xxiv. 8. “ that 
it might cause to ascend.”—Amos, iv, 10. “‘ and I have made to 
ascend.” . " 

The word ΓΝ is rendered properly by. “ burnt-offering,” but 
the 5 prefixed, requires the same rendering, as in Gen. ul. @1.: viz; 
to, or concerning. ‘The clause will then literally read agreeably to 
the original, and in perfect conformity with the divine denunciations ‘ 
concerning human sacrifice; thus: “ And bring him to;’—or, 
“* cause him to ascend tg, for,” or “ concerning.an offering.” τ... 

This writer says, “ Now let us consider with what palpable 
Inconsistencies this new interpretation invests the whole narration 
It is first stated that God tempted or proved Abraham, which ma-. 
nifestly implies that some signal trial of his obedience was to. fol- 
low. Then, according to Mr. Bellamy, there merely ensues a 
command of the plainest kind, and one which involves no trial, yiz; 
to go with his son, and offer sacrifice on a particular mountain.’ 

. I know it is said in the common version that “ God tempted 
Abraham :” but I have not said that ‘‘ God tempted Abraham.” 

I have shown that this translation cannot be admitted, without ἢ 
involving the Scriptures in palpable contradiction: had the authors 
of the common version translated from the Hebrew, and had they 


10 A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


noticed what the Apostle says, they must have given the word M03, 
srissach, which they have rendered “ did tempt,” its radical mean- 
ing. The Apostle says, “ neither tempteth he any man.” Jam. 1. 13. 

‘¢Or proved Abraham,” says the ApvocaTe. In future I 
hope he will learn to state the difference between tempi and prove. 
To tempt, according to our best writers, and according to its 
acknowledged sense, means to solicit to ill—to entice by present- 
ing some pleasure or gratification to the mind. But to prove, 
means to evince, to show by argument or testimony—to experience. 
(Johnson.) Thus God proved, showed, evinced to Abraham, the 
necessity of taking Isaac to the mount Mortah, for him to be in- 
structed concerning. the burnt-offering as representative of the Mes- 
siah. Therefore the words proved Abraham, do not “ imply that 
some signal trial of his obedience was to follow,” as this wnter 

saystheydo. I know, as well as he can tell me, that if the com- 
‘ mon translation could be admitted; this would be the case ; 
_ but, as I have shown im the most satisfactory manner, that is, agree- 

ably to the positive declaration of Scripture, “‘ God doth not tempt 
aay man:” nothing therefore could pessibly come from God as a 
command by way of temptation, for Abraham to offer up his son 
for a burnt-offering. | : 

But the great question is, How came any part of the command- 
ment to be so misunderstood by Abraham? If the reader attends 
to the history, he will find it was the constant and universal belief 
of the church, to the time of Abraham, that agreeably to the an- 
cient promise, a person was-to appear, who was to restore man to 
the state of happiness and peace, which was enjoyed in the para- 
disaical state ; that is, a state in which sacrifices were unnecessary ; 
who was to show man a new and living way, an inward sacrifice 
by the silence of all flesh. Zach. ii. 13. i. e. the-evil propensities, 
which in a state of nature oppose the divine commands. Now 
concerning the coming of this person, Abraham had been preaching 
for more than half a century; he was fully instructed and believed 
that this person was to be offered up as a sacrifice ;.and when he 
‘was informed by the divine communication from above the cheru- 
bim, that Isaac was the person in whom “ all the nations of the 
earth were to be blessed ;”—-and that the covenant was to be esta- 
blished with Isaae, ch. xvii. 19.:and also believing, as the Apostle 
plainly says, that God would raise him from the dead, Heb. xi. 19. 
he concluded that Isaac was to be the sacrifice, or in other words 
the Messiah; and yet.that he should not Jose him, but that God 
would exert his power in his immediate resurrection. _- 

Bat though God, knowing all things, could need no proof 
respecting the faith of Abraham, the mistake isto which he was 
porhitted for a short pericd to fall, was well calculated to esta- 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 11 


blish the veracity. of Abraham in respect to: the faith which he . 
preached concerning the Messiah, who was to abolish all sacri- 
fices. I say, to prove to the congregation at Salem his faith; for 
what greater proof could they receive of his fixed belief that the 
Messiah should not see corruption, than the readmess he manifest- 
ed to offer Isaac up as the great sacrifice? And in this view, which 
the passage comprehends, the faith of Abraham was proved before, 
and for the-confirmation of the church.. Now it 15 not strange, as 
it may appear to some, that Abraham, under a belief that suse was 
the Messiah, should have taken the words, ‘cause him to ascend,” as 
having reference to the offering up, as we have it in the common 
version, of the Messiah ; for the words which, in reference to sacri- 
fice, are usually translated “ offer up,” are literally in the Hebrew, 
“cause to ascend.” -Now, though the common reader may not 
know the fact so well as our learned Critic, “ the. peculiarities 
of idiom, and niceties of construction are such;” even in all lan- 
guages, that a misapprehension on the part of the hearer or reader, 
will often create an ambiguity, where there would otherwise be 
none-—and this was the case with. respect to the father of the faith- 
ful—a man too well instructed respecting the enormity of human 
sacrifices; but who, at the same time, knew, though he mistook 


the period of completion, that in his posterity all the nations of the ὁ. 


earth were to be blessed. | 
' "The Critic says to my translation of this word: “ But, says 
Mr. Bellamy, legnolah, means, concerning ἃ burnt-offering. 
Yo this we answer, to give the preposition the sense of conceming 
is very unusual, if at. all admissible.” From this remark, I am 
convinced, were this gentleman to have a Hebrew Bible put into 
his hand, that he: could not read a single verse grammatically ; his 
- Hebrew is only retailed from my translation, or he might have 
satisfied himself that the preposition 5/amed, means of, or concerning, 
very frequently in Scripture. See Numb. viii. 20.—1 Sam. xvil. 
22.—Isa. v. 20.—Gen. xx. 18. of, &c. 
Again, the ADVOCATE says, “ We answer further that we-can 
produce a competent authority,—no less in fact than his own, to 
convince him that the received translation is right: For in thé 
same chapter, the very ‘same words occar; and how does he 
‘ translate them? Not according to-his new discovery, but exactly as 
they have been rendered by others, and as they are rendered in our 
received version. We have thus another unequivocal proof that 
Mr. Bellamy does not himself believe what he asserts respecting 
the error in the received translation ; for in the space of eleven 
verses, he adopts that as right which he had before condemned 88 
wrong.” Ido not know what this gentleman will make. of me 
at last; he here labors to make me a most profound violator 


12 A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


of truth; for if Ido not believe what I have asserted respect- 
ing the error of the received translation, 1 should consider that 
I had committed the greatest sin that man can commit, a sin which 
cannot be forgiven, viz. contradict the inspiration of the: sacred 
Scripture. I am also branded by this intemperate writer, with 
“ effrontery, ignorance,-inconsistency, incapacity.”- We shall see 
in the sequel to whom these opprobrious terms are applicable. 
What! “ convince me from my own authority that my transla- 
tion” of this passage, is contrary to the express command of God ! 
which he must do if he: could convince me that this passage In 
the received translation is right. Has he never heard of the 
‘ niceties of construction,” and “ peculiarities of idiom?” Yes, 
indeed, he makes free with these learned terms, because he pre- 
sumes to think that few of his contemporaries at Cambridge are 
acquainted with the Hebrew language—he is however mistaken 
᾿ἴῃ this also: and would have us to understand that he is perfectly 
acquainted with the meaning and application of these terms of 
Hebrew learning. -He should have known, that, according to the 
“ niceties of construction,” the 2 takes a variety. of prepositions 
iu our language. See Gen. xxiv. 54. unto.—Chap. xiv. 19. of. 
—Numb..xvi. 24. from.—1 Kings, vi. 22. by.—Prov. ix. 14. at. 
—Exod. xiii..7. with.—Lev. v. 5. against, &c. Kc. Kc; But this 
angry, and therefore hasty, writer, appears to be altogether unac- 
quainted with the “niceties of construction,” of which he assumes 
to talk so learnedly. Instead of this, therefore, being as he says, 
“ another unequivocal proof that: Mr. Bellamy does not himself 
believe what he asserts respecting the error of the received transla- 
tion ;” it is a manifest proof of this person’s critical incapacity to 
translate a single verse of the original Hebrew Bible. 
. The Anvocate for the errors’ in. the -common version, 
further observes, “ How infinitely inferior is a translation of this 
hard and dry nature, to that in use, where there Js such an accom- 
modation to the native idiom, as to make the language easy and 
intelligible, and yet no essestial departure from--the original.” I 
have given evident proof of the most “ essential departure from 


the original ;” aud I will now, by contrasting a few passages, give. ἡ 


the reader the means of determining, whether my antagonist be 
Justified m calling my translation ‘‘ bard and dry.” - 


RECEIVED VERSION. NEW TRANSLATION. 
Gen.i. 1. In the beginning In the beginning God created 


- God created the heaven and the the substance of the heaven and’ 
— earth. the substance of the earth. 


‘on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 13 


- My objector says, “ the substance of, Mr. Bellamy conceives, 
he says, to be. the meaning of the word JN eth, which precedes 
DMV hashamaayim, and Y ONT ha arets, the heaven and the 
earth. .Now it-is the, opinion of Hebraists of the first autho- 
rity, that JIN eth, preceding a naun after an active verb, is merely 
the mark .of the accusative case.” I know it has been so said by 
those who read Hebrew by the help of a lexicon; but no critic 
in Hebrew will:say so: it is not the mark of any case, and this 
gentleman is constrained to allow that Parkhurst w-of the same 
opinion. .But I have a higher authority than that of Parkhurst, or 
any critic. I have said that if IN eth be a sign of the accusative 
case, it must here have two signs ; as ΟΣ ΣΝ eth hashamaayim, 
which I render. “ the substance of the. heaven,” presents both 
DN eth and ΤΊ ha: thus either the AN eth, or the 7 Aa, must in | 
such case be unnecessary. See note on Gen. 1. 1. 

He adds, ‘It is true that Parkhurst: considers IN to mean 
the very substance of a thing, the, the very; but allowing him to 
be right, the proper translation would be, the very heaven, and the 
very earth.” I reply, undoubtedly it would, if we could descend to 
make, nonsense of it, as the Critic has done to suit his purpose. 
Why not use the word substance, instead of very, as this is the 
word which Parkhurst says embraces the meaning of JIN eth? 
Aad he is supported im this opinion by all criticsin Hebrew. This 
writer is perhaps not aware, that by rejecting the word AN eth, 
he is establishing the doctrine of the. eternity of matter. We 
have often been asked by infidels: “ From whence came the 
matter out of which God created the heaven and the earth? for 
no mention 18 made in any of the common versions in the first 
verse concerning the origin of matter.” I have shown that the 
FN eth, comprehends every thing in itself, descriptive of the thing. 
- to which it is applied; and here it is applied to the substance out. 
ef which God created the heaven and the earth. It is the same 
as the Alpha and Omega of the Greek, the ἀρκὴ καὶ τέλος ; and in 
this sense the Redeemer applies it to himself. But this gentleman 
is really so. defective in the original Hebrew, and so eager to 
find fault with every thing in my translation, that though I have 
said repeatedly, wherever our idiom will allow of the translaficn 
of JIN eth, it always elucidates the subject, yet he bas either not. 
read what I have said, or if he has read it, he is not willing to: 
acknowledge it. He may take which he pleases, both are against. — 
him. His remark, therefore, ‘‘ That I translate it in the first 
verse, and leave it out in some others,” fails in producing a con- 
viction that [ have not been consistent; unless he can show, that, 
where I do ,not translate, the idiom of our language would have 
allowed it to be translated. _ 


14. . A Reply to the Quarterly Review 
᾿ (ὁ Brom these examples,” says my assailant, “all concurring in 
a sidgle chapter, our readers will be sufficiewtly enabled to appre- 
ciate Mr. Bellamy’s pretensions. to an improved translation of the 
Bible.” From these’ examples, however, made by this intem- 
perate writer, the public ‘ will be sufficiently enabled to appre- 
ciate his pretensions” to give a true: estimate of my translation. 
To the Hebrew ‘scholar it will be evident that he is altogether 
destitute of those qualifications which are absolutely necessary for 
Hebrew criticism ; and to those: who do not understand Hebrew, 
{have as clearly shown, and 1 pledge myself to show more fully 
and decidedly in the course of my work, that the received version 
was not translated from the Hebrew only; and if iy limits 
would allow it, I could here refer to hundreds of passages, which were 
translated nether from the Hebrew nor the Greek ;. and that all his 
boasting affirmations concerning the few passages he has pretended 
to examine, unfairly preparing the mind of the reader by his pre- 
tension to “ the peculiarities of idiom and the niceties of construcé 
tion,” are groundless. = - : : 

This writer refers to what I have said concerning words printed 
in italics in the received translation, and says, .“ We alluded to his 
assertions respecting the words inserted in italic, as interpolations 
which obscure the sense, make the Bible speak what it never did 
speak, &c. As this 1s a matter of importance, we will trace these 
italics through a considerable part of the first chapter of Genesis ; 
it will then appear that Mr. Bellamy himself has for the most part 
mserted the very same words ‘which the authorised translators have 
done.” But he should have known that the verb in all such pas- 
sages is understood: [| have therefore not marked it in’ italies, for 
words necessary to the' sense are-always comprehended in the ori- 
ginal, which shows that all italics are not improper. Buit the 
italics I refer to, “ which obscure the sense, and make the Bible 
speak what it never did speak,” are of another description. See 
where, in the following passages, the received translation reads 
better. without the italics. Gen. 1. 16—ch: ii. 50. “41 have given,” . 
the verb occurs in the: preceding verse—eh. xiii. 9—ch. xvii. 16— 
ch. xxvii. 46— Exod. xxv. 10— Numb. ix. 22— Deut. xxiv. 14 
—xxvi, 14—xxvi. 5—@ Kinws x. 94. &e. Kc. At ver. 830: “1 
have given: every green herb for meat;” this contender. says, 
“¢ Here, in consequence of the distance ‘of the verb ‘I have given,’ 
ver, 29. from the words which it governs, ‘ every green herb,’ the 
tratislators-have not left ‘it to be understood, but most. properly 
have supplied it for the sake ‘of chearness. Mr. - Bellamy on the 
contrary has not supplied it, and has left the sense perfectly unin- 
telligible, for he has placed a full stop at the end of ver. 29.” I 
have surely left out these three words, for ‘no other reason than that 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 18 


they are not authorised by the Hebrew: and as to leaving “ the 
sense perfectly unintelligible,” let the reader judge whether or not 
he can understand it. Here follow the two verses: ‘ Moreover, 
God said, Behold, 1 have given to you (Adam and Eve) even every 
herb bearing seed, which ‘is upon the face of all the earth; and 
every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree, yielding seed: to you it 
shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, also to every 
bird of the heaven, yea to all moving on the earth, in which is the 
soul of life; even: every green herb, for food: and it was so.” 
Surely it must be evident that there was no necessity to mend-the 
passage by interpolating the words, “41 have given.” The sense 
is perfectly intelligible: I will be bold enough to say, that a 
school-boy who can read his Bible will understand it perfectly. 

‘¢ But Mr. Bellamy,” says this gentleman, “ plumes himself on 
his attention to punctuation. ‘ I bave paid,’ he says, (Introd. p. xi.) 
‘ particular attention to the punctuation. In the common version, 
we frequently find it so neglected that the first proposition iw 
made to run into the second, the second iato the third, by whieh 
the true sense is not known: I have therefore closely adhered to 
the Hebrew punctuation, which will be found to add great light 
to numbers of passages bitherto obscure. ” He proceeds, “ We 
will give a few specimens of his skill in this department. The 
following passages are pointed exactly as they are in his. book.” ‘. 

Gen. 1. 1. “ In the beginning God created, the substance of the 
heaven.” ‘The reader may soon satisfy himself that this ig.an 
inaccuracy ; for at the word heaven [ have put a comma, but this 
writer has put a period. | 

Ver. 10. “ And God called, the dry land, earth.” I have put 
a semi-colon at earth; but he says, “ here follows a specimen.of 
my skil],” and be puts a period at earth. 

i. 10. “ And a river went forth from Eden; to water the 
garden :” I have varied here also from the pointing in the received 
translation, but the reader will remember that I have said, “ I have 
closely adhered to the Hebrew punctuation,” and the reason why 
1 have done this is, that, by the Hebrew punctuation, the minor 
and the major propositions are accurately divided. By this gen- 
tleman’s mode of reasoning, however, I see he is altogether a 
stranger to minor :and major propositions in Hebrew; so that 
‘‘ the peculiarities of idiom and niceties of construction,” afford 
him no assistance. But he says, ‘‘ These specimens, and similar 
ones, pervade the whole work.” Not these specimens; for these 
Specimens are not to be found in my work, but in the unfair re« 
presentation of this interested writer. Again, “ We kgow not that 
in any book of any.kind:” “any book,” comprehends a “ book 
ef any kind.” 1 mentoon this to show, that this gentleman does 


16. - A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


not always write accurately. He however allows, p. 278, “ that 
the translators have neglected punctuation.” But with regard to 
punctuation, though in some instances important, it is of the least 
weight ; it does not interfere here with the translation. 
_ We know not,” says he, “ that in any: book of any kind, we 
ever saw a system of punctuation so decidedly absurd.” He 
should have qualified this by saying, ‘ according to his opinign.”. 
‘This .dogmatism puts me in mind of the Pythian goddess, beyond , 
whose decisions there was no appeal. I will venture to say, and 
dare this gentleman to a public trial, that. with all his knowledge of 
punctuation, he is not capable of taking an unpointed chapter in 
the English Bible, and of pointing it, as it should be, according to 
the minor and major propositions in each verse in. Elebrew; no, 
nor as it 15 pointed in the common version : and that if a number 
of persons were to make the experinient, they would all disagree ; 
such 1s the.random method of this gentleman's punctuation. Now 
if this be the case at present, notwithstanding our advancement in. 
learning, what must it have been 200 years ago, when the present 
Bible was revised? But self-defence, we are told, is the first law 
of nature; this gentleman’s own Bible is the common version. 
- But if a thousand persons were to take each the same chapter 
unpointed, and were to point it according to the minor and major 
propositions, and the branches of those propositions, as pointed in 
the Hebrew, they would all agree. 

But'lie says, “‘ We beg our readers not to believe that he (Bel- 
lamy) has followed, as he asserts, the Hebrew punctuation. His 
system, we can assure them, is entirely his own.” I pledge myself 
to show that I. have paid particular attention to ‘the punctua- 
tion, and that 1 have been always guided in my translation by the: 
Hebrew, in the major and.minor propositions in every. verse. It 
is rather singular, however, that this inconsistent writer should 
aHow, in p. 278, “ that the translators have neglected the punc- 
tuation.” If so, surely the word of God ought to be put into the 
hand of the people properly pointed. This, of itself, is a strong 
argument in favor of a revision of the scriptures. | | 

Ver. 6. The very same word 1) vihz, which [ have rendered 
in the 3d verse, Be, viz. Be light; and on which account this 
gentleman says, “We have seldom met with a remark founded on 
more consummate ignorance. He does not seem to know that 
the word ἐξέ, is auxiliary in the form of the third person impera- 
tive; he renders, be, be 1ὲ :” but there is no neuter in Hebrew ; and 
as I considered it the duty of a translator to be faithful, I have 
therefore rendered the. word as. the sacred writer has written it, in 
the simple, but: most expressive imperative, Be. And 1 appeal to 
every man of judgment, as there is fo authority for the word ἐρέ, 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. - ΤΊ 


whether this be not the most correct, as well as the most consistent 
with the awful fiat of the ALMicuty, “ He spake, and it was 
done.” : | : 

Ver..10. The Reviewer objects to my translation of ΘΠ mp? 
lemikveh hamayim, i. 6. “ the conflux of the waters.” The word 
Mp? lemikvehk, is one, which means an assemblage, or conflux ; 
and not two, viz. the gathering together, as in the common version ; 
it is an obvious repetition, for the “‘ gathering of the waters” must 
necessarily be “ the gathering together of the waters.” And yet, 
though this is literally opposed to the original, this gentleman: has 
said, that it “ is much more simple and agreeable to the original.” 

Ver. 11. “ The earth shall germinate grass.” On this the critic 
observes, ““ ΤῸ say nothing of Mr. Bellamy’s not knowing ἃ 
neuter verb from an active, how much more simple is our version, 
© The earth shall bring forth grass??” But this is a quotation 
nearly from my translation, not from the received translation. I 
have translated, “ the earth shall germinate grass ;” but the re- 
ceived translation, “ let the earth bring forth grass.” The reader will 
observe, that he here prefers iny rejection of let, though he has 
not had the candor to say so. He adds, “ We seldom have 
met with a remark founded on more consummate ignorance.” 
Had he not here approved it, he would have given the quotation 
from the received translation. So much for the AnvocaTE’s 
remark on the auxiliary /et. I leave the impartial, disinterested, 
and temperate reader, to apply the UNCHRISTIAN words “ con- 
summate ignorance.” ‘The word NUW tadshee, is rendered “ bring 
forth : as the word is simple, [ thought it more consistent with 
the original, not to render it as a compound word; the sacred 
writer having set me the example. 

“ Fruit yielding seed with its fruit in it.” The critic says, “ In 
the last words is a positive error, for he has wholly omitted the 
relative pronoun “WN esher, in the expression 12 WN WR.” This 
is a “ positive error,” for I have translated it. ‘he word WN 
esher, embraces the meaning of with, as will be evident to this 
gentleman if he will turn to his “ peculiarities of idiom and nice- 
ties of construction ;” for the following word ὩΣ zargno, has the 
pronoun of the third person masculine singular, which literally 
reads “ his seed ;” and this clause reads, according to the Hebrew, 
“‘ with his seed in him.” But as our language has a neuter, and 
as we apply z¢ to all things inanimate, I have accommodated it to 
the English idiom, as it is in the common translation. By thus 
rendering the word WR esher, by with, as its obvious meaning in 
this clause, we avuid the interpolation of the third person singular 
ts, Where then is the ‘ positive error?” or how is it that he who 
charges me with beiug “ a daring perverter of the truth,” has the 


VOL, XIX, Cl, Jl. NO. XXANM, S 


18 A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


confidence to say that I have “‘ wholly omitted the relative pronoun 
“WR esher?” Here, I repeat, I have another opportunity—(but 
indeed the opportunities are so numerous, that [ cannot open a 
single page where they do not occur) of referring this gentleman 
to his ‘ peculiarities of idiom and niceties of construction ;” for 
he either does not know, or is not willing to acknowledge, which 
is more blameable, that the word “WR esher, according to “ the 
peculiarities of idiom and niceties of construction,” embraces the 
sense of twenty-two words, conjunctions and pronoun relatives, in 
the English language. He further says, “Mr. Bellamy has made 
a similar mistake at ver. 12.” ‘The reader may easily see to whom 
the word mistake 1s applicable. 

Ver 20. “ The water shall bring forth abundantly the soul of - 
life.” The erudite critic says, ‘““ Had Mr. Bellamy endeavoured 
to translate the verse into nonsense, he could not have succeeded 
better than he has done. The words ΤῊ WD) nephesh chayah, 
which he renders ‘ the soul of life,’ evidently mean ‘ the living 
creature, the creature, or the moving creature that hath life,’ as 
our translation gives it.” But [ beg that he will not be so hasty 5 
it is easy to use the word “ nonsense,” but we shall find that L 
have translated literally according to the Hebrew, .and that the’ 
received translation is incorrect, as well as this writer. 

The word iT chayah, rendered “ living,” is not a. participle 
active, but a substantive. See Gen. xviii. 14. “ to the time of 
life :” but to say, “ to the time of living,” agreeably to this gen- 

eman’s reasoning, would indeed be “ nonsense.” 2 Kings iv. 16, 
17.; the words therefore under consideration cannot be translated 
‘¢ living creature.” ‘That any objection could possibly be made to 
WI nephesh, as signifying ‘“ soul,” is equally astonishing. But 
the reader will see through all this; for this liberal and disin- 
terested. reviewer and biblical editor is, on this as ou other occa- | 
sions, merely laboring in his vocation, and of course must defend 
the common translation, even where it is defective in mood, tense, 
person, &c.: all must be made to appear right, and as perfect as 
the Hebrew : like the council of Trent, who declared the Vulgate 
to be as pure as the Hebrew, and thus sealed it with their infalli- 
bility, although it has so many marks of human fallibility. See 
the learned Bates, Integ. Heb. Text. 

The words Tt WD) nephesh chayah, cannot possibly have any 
other rendering than “ soul of life,” and not the “ moving creature 
᾿ that hath life.” Had I given such a translation of these two words 
as this, I should have said, Surely this gentleman is justified in 
saying, “ Had Mr. B. endeavdured to translate the verse into 
nonsense, hé could not have succeeded better than he has done.” 
Did this writer never hear of a certain description of men called 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 19 


infidels, who have often brought forward this verse, to show, as 
they term it, the disordered state of the Bible? who have often 
told us, that “ this could not be written by any one who knew 
how to write?” and the reason they assign is, that ‘the sacred 
writer could not say, ‘ the moving creature that hath life ,’ because 
it is evident that all creatures capable of moving must necessarily 
have life.” 

The words ΓΤ W5D3 nephesh chayah, have by the English trans 
lators been rendered “ moving ¢reature;” but if so, then the 
words, “ that hath life,” are an mterpolation. But that the reader 
may be certain that these wotds mean “ soul of life,” I refer him 
to the following passages where the word W5) nephesh, is uniformly 
rendered “ soul,” in constriiction with MT chayah, “ life.” Gen 
xl. 15, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27 — Exod. i. 5—Josh. x. 29—1 Sam. xxv. 
29 — Ezek. xxii. 25. &c. And this is the translation which the 
most approved lexicograpliers have given to these two words. 

I have translated, ver. 31. “ ‘Thus God provided for all that he 
had made.” This translation has been approved by some of 
the first Hebrew scholars in this country. But with this gentle- 
man, all must be condemned; for he says, ““ Here is a needless 
departure from the original, which simply says, “God saw all 
that he had made.” The first thing that led me to suppose that 
an improper word had been chosen, was the expression “ God - 
saw all that he had made:” this, I concluded, could not be 
doubted ; he who made all things, must necessarily see all things. 
And then turning to the statement of the sacred writer in the two 
preceding verses, I found that, “ God having given every herb 
bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree 
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed—to every beast of 
the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that 
creepeth upon the earth, for food ;” that God having thus provided 
for all that he had made, I found that the verb N°), rendered m 
the conmmon version, ‘“‘ and he (God) saw,” required to be ex- 
pressed in conformity with the preceding passages. I have there- 
fore translated it as the same word 18 translated in Deut. xxxiil. 21, 
‘* And he provided the third part for himself.” Here is the self- 
same word, both consonants and vowels, necessarily translated 
by the word provided ; it is a remote sense of the word to 866, 
for a person must see before he provides: and it is in perfect 
conformity with the provision which God had made for mian 
and for every living creature. The reader will be disgusted with 
the false. statement of this writer, when he reads his unjustifiable 
declaration concerning my translation of this passage, viz. “ Here 
is a needless departure from the original.” It is, | grant, a de- 
parture ftom the common version, but not a departure fromthe 


20 = A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


original. If he mean the common version, the common versiets 
is not the original—If he mean the original, he has not.acquainted 
himself with “ the peculiarities of idiom and the niceties of con- 
struction,” or he would not have said, that the translation of NW 
was ‘a departure from the original.” 
I have said that this gentleman, because I introduce the objec- 
tions of infidels with a design of silencing such objections, almost ° 
ts me down as an infidel, saying, “ Language like this naturally 
feads to a suspicion, that the writer is secretly endeavouring to 
serve the cause of infidelity, and to undermine as much as possible 
the credit of thé Bible.” He very consistently proceeds to say, 
“.. As far as outward professions go, he appears to be a believer in 
its divine original.” I ask the unprejudiced reader, was ever such 
incongruity crammed into the pages of any reputable Review? 
_ In the close of this angry writer’s remarks, ‘he returns to the 
temptation of Abraham; ἰ naturally expected he had done with 
that subject: however 1 must endeavour to follow him. He 
says, “ On Abraham’s temptation, Mr. Bellamy observes, ¢ Ie 
appears by the common version that all the nations of the earth 
swere to be blessed, because Abraham had hearkened to the voice 
of God. But as this is contrary both to scripture and reason, it 
will also appear plain that the translation of this clause is not con 
sistent with the onginal. We cannot hesitate in concluding that 
the happiness or blessing of any nation, or individual, never de- 
euded on the obedience of Abraham; viz. because he had 
earkened to the voice of God.’ ἢ. 
_ “Nowitis well known,” says the critic, “to every reader of scrip- 
ture, that the blessing to be conferred on all nations was never under- 
stood to depend on Abraham’s obedience or disobedience. The pro- 
mise of a Redeemer had been made in express terms long before.” I 
am happy to find that this was so well known, as this gentleman 
‘says it was.; but I will venture to say, if he will try the experi- 
ment, that ninety-nine out of a hundred will understand it accord- 
ing to the common version, that “all the nations of the earth” 
were to be blessed in the posterity of Abraham, because he had 
vhearkened to the voice of God. But why did not this reviewer 
inform his readers, that this verse was improperly translated, that 
the word IDV Aithbaarachou, rendered “ shall be blessed,” 
should be translated as it is im Jer. iv, 2. “ they shall bless them- 
selves : as it is in the Hithpael conjugation. Not that they 
were to be blessed because Abraham had hearkened to the voice 
of God, but that they were to bless themselves in his posterity, 
because the Messiah was to appear in it. 
‘I'Le form of blessing the people before the time of Moses, was 


in the name "TW °N Εἰ Shaddai, which is rendered in our com- 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 21 


mon version, Gop ALMIGHTY. But from this period the form 
of blessing was in the name MY JEHOVAH. See Numb. vi. 
24, 25, 26. because this renewal of the dispensation under 
Moses was to be the last renewal before the appearance of the 
Messiah, dccording to the words of Moses, Deut. xvi. 15. “ The 
‘Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst 
of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye hearken:” 
when all sacrifices were to be abolished, and when the divine com- 
munication from God by his word, was to be the same as it was 
in the beginning. This was the reason why the apostolic church 
adopted the doxology ; used every Sabbath-day, but not under- 
stood, and of which 1 am not ashamed to acknowledge [ have 
been as ignorant as other people ; viz. “As it was in the begin- 
ning,” (the divine communication without sacrifice) ‘1s now, and 
ever shall be, world without end:” showing the permanency of 
the Christian church. And therefore the form of blessing was to 
be in the name Γ᾽ JEHovAn, which word in its literal form 
comprehends the past, the present, and the future: the whole reve- 
lation of God to man. By the posterity of the woman—the Shiloh 
of Jacob—the Lord of David—the Redeemer of Israel—the Lamb 
of God—the Lion of Judah—and the Saviour of men. 

The AnvocaTE then, in a vein of triamph, which he would 
have the reader conclude is the result of profound learning and 
deep research, says, “ We do not think that we should have 
bestowed so much notice upon Mr. Bellamy, if the subject in 
which he engaged had been merely literary.” From what I have 
said in these pages, the reader will be able to determine on the 
merit of the lofty claims of this angry and interested writer, who 
says, “ We might then have suffered him to enjoy tranquilly a 
character for superior erudition;” who, although he has adorned 
his article with the high-sounding terms, “ peculiarities of idiom, 
and niceties of construction ;” is wholly unacquainted with them, 
a3 I have shown. | 

“ WE now,” says this gentleman, “ take our leave of Mr. B. 
with a hope that we shall never have to attend to him again on 
any similar occasion.” ‘This learned dealer in’ “ peculiarities of 
idiom,” either thinks very highly of his own powers, or misunder- 
stands the meaning of the word “ hope.” A man may wish any 
thing in spite of reason; but no man of sense, ever “ hopes” 
without a reason. I have no doubt that our learned critic earnestly 
wishes never to see another part of Bellamy’s translation from the 
original Hebrew—all who are interested in publishing Bibles will 
join ‘him in his wishes; but I tell him for his consolation, that if 
he feel so inclined, I shall furnish him with another opportunity to 


42 A Reply to the Quarterly Review 


attend me in a few weeks, by laying before the public the Booke 
of Exodus and Leviticus. 

Having now answered all the objections which this prejudiced 
and interested “6 perverter of truth” has brought against my trans- 
lation, having shown that he is destitute of those qualifications 
which are absolutely requisite for a critic in Hebrew; and that he 
is wholly deficient in that peculiar kind of idiosyncrasy which all 
the grammatical knowledge of the Hebrew cannot supply, 1 think 
It proper to say, that, however he, or any other interested or preja- 
diced writer, may be disposed to. quarrel with the following books, 
by selecting a few detached passages; I do not mean to lose any 
more time in polemical controversy. All the objections to my 
translation have hitherto been made by interested men, who have 
presumed on a lexicon knowledge of Hebrew, by which I mean, a 
reference to the root of a word, without attending to the grammar ; 
the different modes of expression according to construction; and 
what is, we have seen, as necessary, the orthography of the ἰδ.» 


guage. 

ay he testimonials which I have from many of our learned clergy, 
in which they express their decided approbation, and wish to have 
the following parts as soon as possible, together with the warm 
approbation of the intelligent public, induce me to conclude that 
I shall meet with no opposition but from publishers of Bibles, 
interested writers of Reviews, and such as have the weakness to 
say that ‘‘ the very errors are consecrated.” But such as wish to 
see the Scripture divested of those expressions, which, whenever 
they are read in our churches, cause a blush on the cheek of 
modesty, and a smile from the profligate; but which I aver, and 
shall prove, are not to be found in the Hebrew scriptures; will 
appreciate the merit even of an attempt of this nature, so much 
called for in all the nations of Europe; instead of opposing the 
man who has been endeavouring to point out the errors, the obso- 
Iete, the vulgar, expressions, put in by the revisers in the 16th 
century, and to show the delicacy and the purity of expression in 
the sacred origmal Hebrew. | 

I shall now take leave of this intemperate writer ; but before 1 
do so, I must. acknowledge, that, notwithstanding the unmerited | 
abuse he has heaped on me, I feel gratified for the opportunity 
which his ungovernable passion, hasty assertions, and general 
ignorance of Hebrew, have given me, to present in a more detached 
point of view to the reader, many subjects and modes of expres- 
sion, necessarily: arising from a close attention to the Hebrew, 
‘which before had heen blended with the leading subjects of biblical 
research ; and which had been but partially given, as 1 have pub- 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 23 


lished only the first book of the Pentateuch. Strengthened and 
supported by an accession of exalted and distinguished friendship, 
which will ever form the pride of my life; I trust, with the blessing 
of God, soon to publish, in continuation, the. Pentateuch, and 
as speedily after as the nature of the undertaking will permit, the 
remaining books. 

The candid reader and the Hebrew scholar will duly appreciate 
the immensity of the task, which at the risk of my health 1 have 
undertaken, notwithstanding my limited resources. But my mo- 
tives and my principles are, 1 presume to hope, worthy of the 
protection of my Country, and its established Church ; and, under 
the guidance of Heaven, 1 look up to both. For the condescension 
and uniform patronage which 1 have received, I shall-ever feel the 
most lively gratitude; I trust that it will still support me in the. 

_prosecution of my labors, will protect me from the insidious in- 
fluence of calumny, and the more daring violence of malice, envy, 
and all uncharitableness. 


*,* Having inserted the articles of Mr. Hailes, Mr. Leo, and 
several other communications, in opposition to Mr. Bellamy, we 
think it our duty to insert his defence of his work. However we. 
may agree with the Quarterly Review in some of its statements, 
we must declare our belief, that Mr. B. is firmly persuaded of 
the great truths of Revelation, zealously attached to the orthodox 
principles of the Church of England, and that he is sincerely 
convinced that he is essentially supporting the cause of both in 
his new translation. ‘That work is open to all the severity of critt 
cism, of which he has received an ample share, particularly in’ 
the ‘article to which he has now replied. Of his work we can 
only say, Valeat quantum valere potest. If one ina hundred 
passages of his version should be hereafter received, he will have 
conferred a signal service on Biblical criticism ; if not, his work 
will soon ‘be consigned, in vicum vendentem thus, et odores, Et 
piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis. We shall only add, 
that we shall readily admit any fair and temperate discussion on 
either side.—EpitT.. 


4 


44 | 


LOCI QUIDAM LUCIANI, EMENDATI 
ATQUE EXPLANATI3 


A JOANNE SEAGER, A.B. 


BICKNOR. WALLICE IN COMITATU MONUMETHIZE RECTORE. 


-τὐὖὮὦ» <a — 


No. XI. 


DE PARASITO. p. 868. [370. c. ed. Salmur.] καὶ μὴν, ὦ φιλότης, 
οὐδεὶς ἀκήκοος “Ομήρου, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πάμπαν ἰδίωτης τύχῃ, ὅστις οὐκ ἐπίσταταε. 
παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τοὺς ἀρίστους τῶν ἡρωῶν παρασίτους ὄντας. Inserendunt 
οὕτως.---οὐδεὶς ‘OY TNE ἀνήκοος Ὁ μήρου----ὅστις οὐκ ἐπιστάται---κ. τ. X. 

. DE ΡΑΒΑΒΙΤΟ. p. 876. (377. D. ed. Salmur.] πρῶτον τοίνυν ἴδοε 
τις ἂν τὸν μὲν παράσιτον, ἀεὶ δύξης καταφρονοῦντα, καὶ οὐδὲν μέλον 
αὐτῷ, ὧν οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἴονται. περὶ ῥήτορας δὲ, καὶ φιλοσόφους εὕροι τες 
ἂν, ob τινὰς, ἀλλὰ πάντας, ὑπὸ τύφου, καὶ δόξης τριβέντας. καὶ οὗ 
δόξης μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ τούτον αἰσχίον ἐστιν, ὑπ᾽ ἀργυρίον. Forsi- 
tan ὧν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ‘OPETONTAI. Ita τὸ “ δόξης καταφρονοῦντα " ex 
adverso staret τῷ “ ὑπὸ τύφου καὶ δόξης τριβέντας : εἴ τὸ ““ οὐδὲν μέλον 
αὐτῷ ὧν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ὀρέγονται." τῷ “ὑπ᾽ ἀργυρίου rpiBévras.” 

De ΡΑΒΑΒΙΤΟ. p. 878. [380. B. Ed. Salmur.] καὶ tas θύρας δὲ 
μάλα ἐῤῥωμένως ἀποκλείοντας, μή τις dpa νύκτωρ ἐπιβουλεύσειεν αὐτοῖς: 
δεδιότας. ὁ δὲ, τὴν θύραν τοῦ δωματίου προστίθησιν" εἰκῆ καὶ τοῦτο, ὡς 
μὴ ὑπὸ ἀνέμου ἀνοιχθείη. Interpungendum videtur, ὁ δὲ (παράσιτος) 
τὴν θύραν τοῦ δωματίον προστίθησιν εἰκῆ" καὶ τοῦτο ὡς μὴ ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμου 
ἀνοιχθείη. Idque non pre timore, sed tantummodo ne ventus aperiat. 

DE PARASITO. p. 881. (382. E. ed. Salmur.] καὶ μὴ» ὁ μὲν πλούσιος, 
κοσμεῖται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (rév παρασίτου scilt.) τὸν δὲ παράσιτον πλούσιος 
οὐδέποτε κοσμεῖ. ἄλλως τε, οὐδὲ ὄνειδος αὐτῷ ἐστιν, ὡς σὺ φῇς, τὸ παρασε-. 
τεῖν ἐκείνῳ δηλονότι, ὡς κρείττονι χείρονα. ὅπως γε μὴν τῷ πλουσίῳ τοῦ»- 
τὸ λυσιτελές ἐστι, τὸ τρέφειν τὸν παράσιτον, ᾧ γε μετὰ τὸ κοσμεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀσφάλεια πολλὴ ἐκ τῆς τούτον δορυφόριας ὑπάρχει. Emen- 
dandum videtur ; ὍΜΩΣ ye μὴ» «τῷ πλουσίῳ τοῦτο λυσιτελές εατι.---α 
Κ. τ΄ λ. 

DE PARASITO. p. 882. [384. D. ed. Salmur.] φέρε δὴ πάλιν ἀπό- 
κριναί μοι, πότερόν σοι δοκεῖ διαφέρειν, καὶ προκειμένων ἀμφοῖν, πότερσι 
ἃν αὐτὸς ἕλοιο, ἄρά γε τὸ πλεῖν, ἢ τὸ παραπλεῖν ; Tv. τὸ παραπλεῖν 
ἔγωγε. [1α. τί δὲ, τὸ τρέχειν, ἣ τὸ παρατρέχειν ; Tv. τὸ παρατρέχειν. 
Πα. τί δὲ, τὸ ἱππεύειν, ἣ τὸ παριππεύειν ; Tv. τὸ παριππεύειν. Πα. τί δὲ, 
τὸ ἀκοντίξειν, ἢ τὸ παρακοντίδειν. Tv. τὸ παρακοντίϑειν. Wa. οὐκοῦν 
ὁμοίως ἐθέλοιο καὶ τοῦ ἐσθίειν μᾶλλον τὸ παρασιτεῖν. Ty. ὁμολογεῖν 
ἀνάγκη. Forte οὐκοῦν ὁμοίως 'ΑΝΘΕΛΟΙ ’AN καὶ τοῦ ἐσθίειν μᾶλ- 
hoy τὸ παρασιτεῖν. vestigia in quibusdam edd. que exhibent ἂν 


ἐθέλοις. 
DE GYMNASIIs, p. 895, (396, E, ed. Salmur.} 4 δὲ ὥρα τοῦ Erovs, © 


»“ 


Locs quidam Luciani, &c. 25 


ὄτιπερ τὸ πυρωδέστατόν ἐστι τοῦ ἀστέρος, ὅν ὑμεῖς κύνα gare, πάντα 
καταφλέγοντος, καὶ τὸν ἀέρα ξηρὸν, καὶ διακαῆ τιθέντος. “ΑὮ ὅτεπερῖ 
Pellet. ‘ Ego Pelleti conjecturam recipiendam arbitror.” Reitzius. 
Minime recipiendam puto. 6, ri περ λιχνείας καὶ ἀπληστίας ὄφελος. 
Lucian. Timon. p. 171. formula non admodum dissimili; ubi jam 
observavi, Grzecos de omnibus, quecunque in suo genere excellant, 
sive bona sint, sive mala, istam loquendi formulam usurpare ; et sic 
ἡ δὲ dpa τοῦ ἔτους, 6, re wep πυρωδέστατόν ἔστι τοῦ dorépos.—est, Anni 
rero tempus ardor est ipse ferventissimus illius sideris, &c. . 

DE GYMNASIIS. p. 911. (414. B. ed. Salmur.] ταῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, ὦ ᾿Ανά» 
xapot, ἃ τοὺς νέους ἡμεῖς ἀσκοῦμεν, οἰόμενοι φύλακας ἡμῖν τῆς πόλεως 
ἀγαθοὺς γενέσθαι, καὶ ἐν ἐλευθερίᾳ βιώσεσθαι δὲ αὐτοὺς, κρατοῦντες μὲν 
τῶν δυσμενῶν, εἰ ἐπίοιεν. Forte οἰόμενοι φύλακας ἡμῖν τῆς πόλεως 
ἀγαθοὺς ΓΕΝΗΣΕΣΘΑΙ. 

De Luctu. p. 925. [429. E. ed. Salmur.] ἔνθα δὴ τί τῶν κακῶν 
οὐ πάσχουσι, στρεβλούμενσί re, καὶ καιόμενοι, καὶ ὑπὸ γυπῶν ἐσθιόμενοι, 
καὶ τροχῷ συμφερόμενοι, καὶ λίθους ἀνακυλέοντες. Libenter legerem, καὲ 
τροχῷ ΣΥΜΙΕΡΙΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΟΙ. : 

DE LuctTuw. p. 926. [430. D. ed. Salmur.] ἔπειδάν ris ἀποθάνῃ τῶν 
οἰκείων, πρῶτα μὲν φέροντες ὀβολὸν, és τὸ στόμα κατέθηκαν αὐτῷ, μισθὸν 
τῷ πορθμεὶ τῆς ναυτιλίας γενησόμενον. ob πρότερον ἐξετάσαντες ὁποῖον τὸ 
νόμισμα νομίθεται, καὶ εἰ διαχωρεῖ παρὰ τοῖς κάτω, καὶ εἰ δύναται wap’ 
ἐκείνοις ἀττικὸς, ἢ μακεδονικὸς, ἢ αἰγιναῖος ὀβολὸς, οὐδ᾽ ὅτε πολὺ κάλλιον 
ἦν μὴ ἔχειν τὰ πορθμία καταβαλεῖν. Ejecto ei (τῷ δευτέρῳ), legen- 
dum existimo, καὶ εἰ δαιχωρεῖ παρὰ τοῖς κάτω, καὶ δύναται παρ᾽ ἐκεί- 
γοις, ἀττικὸς, ἢ μακεδονικὸς, ἣ αἰγιναῖος ὀβολός. 

De Luctu. p. 928. [432. E. ed. Salmur.] 68 οὖν πρεσβύτης ὁ περ- 
θῶν, οὑτωσὶ πάντα ταῦτα, ὁπόσα εἴρηκε, καὶ ἔτι τούτων πλείονα, οὔτε τοῦ 
rads εἵνεκα τραγωδεῖν ἔοικεν, olde γὰρ οὐκ ἀκουσόμενον, οὐδ᾽ ἂν μεῖον 
ἐμβοήση τοῦ orévropos. Mallem ὁπόσα EIPHKA. 

De Luctu. p. 930. [434. E. ed. Salmur.] ἂν ταῦτα λέγῃς, ὦ πάτερ, 
οὖκ οἴει πολὺ ἀληθέστερα, [καὶ γελοιότερα ἐκείνων ἐρεῖν ; Scriben- 
dum haud dubie, οὐκ οἴει πολὺ ἀληθέστερα, EI καὶ γελοιότερα, ἐκείνων 
ἐρεῖν ; etiamsi magis ridicula. 

RHETORUM PRZECEPTOR. p. 28. [46]. B. ed. Salmur.] ἐγὼ δὲ, 
ἀγεννὴς yap, καὶ δειλός εἰμι, ἐκστήσομαι ὑμῖν τῆς ὁδοῦ, καὶ παύσομαι τῇ 
ῥητορικῇ ἐπιπολάδων, ἀσύμβολος ὧν πρὸς αὐτὴν τὰ ὑμέτερα. Nemo in- 
tellexit ἀσύμβολος. male Gesnerus retinuit ἀσύμβονλος, quod olim ᾿ 
legebatur. ἀσύμβολος ὧν πρὸς αὐτὴν ra ὑμέτερα est Quatenus in cam 
non talia, qualia vos, confero. Sarcasmus: alludit enim ad illa [p. 
457, 458, ed. Salmur.] καὶ ro δεῖνα δὲ μὴ αἰδέσθῃς, κἂν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν 
ἐπὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἐρᾶσθαι δοκοίῃς. καὶ ταῦτα, γενειήτης, ἣ καὶ νὴ Ala φαλα- 
xpos ἤδη Gv. ἀλλ᾽ ἔστωσαν οἱ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ συνόντες. ἣν δὲ μὴ ὦσιν, 
οἱ οἰκέται ἱκανοί" πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου πρὸς τὴν ῥητορικὴν χρή- 


ama παραγίγνεται. πλείων ἡ ἀναισχυντία, καὶ θράσος. ὁρᾷς ὡς λαλίστεροι. 


αἱ γυναῖκες, καὶ λοιδοροῦνται περισσῶς, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἄνδρας ; εἰ δὴ τὰ 


ὅμοια πάσχεις, διοίσεις τῶν ἄλλων. καὶ μὴν καὶ πιττοῦσθαι χρὴ μάλιστα 
μὲν τὰ πάντα. εἰ δὲ μὴ, πάντως ἐκεῖνα, καὶ αὑτὸ δέ σοι τὸ στόμα, πρὸς 


26 Loct quidam Luciant 


ἅπαντα ἡδέως κεχῃνέτω, καὶ ἡ γλῶττα ὑπηρετείτω καὶ πρὸς rods λόγονε, 
καὶ xpos τὰ ἄλλα, ὁπόσα ἂν δύνηται. δύναται δὲ ob σολοικίξειν μόνον, 
οὐδὲ βαρβαρίϑειν, οὐδὲ ληρεῖν, ἣ ἐπιορκεῖν, ἣ λοιδορεῖσθαι, ἣ διαβάλεεν, 
καὶ ψεύδεσθαι: ἀλλὰ καὶ νύκτωρ τι ἄλλο ὑποτέλειν. Utitur Lucianus 
τῷ ἀσύμβολος in Dialog. Meretr. p. 811. [Joessa, Pythias, οἱ Lysias.] 
Opixrn, ὦ Avaia, πρὸς ἐμέ; καὶ καλῶς, ὅτε μήτε ἀργύριον πώποτα 
ἤτησά σε μήτ᾽ ἀπεκλείσα ἐλθόντα, ἔνδον ἕτερος, εἰποῦσα, μήτε wapado~- 
γισάμενον τὸν πατέρα, ἣ ὑφελόμενον τῆς μητρὸς, ἠνάγκασα ἐμοί τε 
κομίσαι, ὁποῖα αἱ ἄλλαι ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθῦς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄμισθον, ἀξύμ- 
βολον, εἰσεδεξάμην. p. 739. Ed. Salmur. ἔφη γὰρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπον τὰ μέλη 
πάντα πρὸς τὴν γαστέρα στασιάσαι, καὶ κατηγορεῖν αὑτῆς, ὡς μόνηξ 
ἀργοῦ καὶ ἀσυμβόλον καθεξομένης ἐν τῷ σώματι, Plutar. in Coriolan. 
Ῥ. 393. Ed. Η. Steph. αὐτὸς οὐκ ἠξίωσεν ἀποδρὰς, οὐδὲ ἀσύμβολος, οὐδὰ 
χρήξων βοηθείας, ἀλλὰ ὑπάρξας τινὸς χάριτος, ἐνδόξως καὶ μετὰ δυνά“ 
μεως ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτόν. Plutar. in Pompeio. p. 1135. Ed. H. Steph. 
PHILOPSEODES. p. 59. [495. A. ed. Salmur.] νὴ Ae, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγὼ, μάλα 
θαυμαστὸν ἄνδρα, τὸν ᾿Αβδηρόθεν ἐκεῖνον Δημόκριτον, ὃς οὕτως ἄρα 
ἐπέπειστο μηδὲν οἷόν τε εἶναι συστῆναι τοιοῦτον, ὥς γε ἐπειδὴ καθείρξαν 
δαυτὸν ἐς μνῆμα ἔξω πυλῶν, ἐνταῦθα διετέλει γράφων, καὶ συντάττων καὶὲ 
νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ᾽ huéoay —Legendum videtur, KAQEIPEEN éavrdy. 
BACCHUS. p. 79. [514. B. ed. Salmur.] καὶ τέλος κατακράτος ἑαλώ- 
κεσαν, (Indi scilicet) καὶ αἰχμάλωτοι ἀπήγοντο ὑπὸ τῶν τέως καταγελω» 
μένων (ἃ Baccho et temulento exercitu ejus) ἔργῳ μαθόντες ὡς οὔκ 
ἐχρῆν ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἀκοῆς καταφρονεῖν ξένων στρατοπέδων. ἀλλὰ τέ 
πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον οὗτος ὁ Διόνυσον, εἴποι τις ἅν. ὅτι μοι δοκοῦσι, (Kar 
πρὸς χαρίτων μή με κορυβαντιᾷν, ἣ τελέως μεθύειν ὑπολάβητε, εἰ τἀμὰ 
εἰκάξω τοῖς θεοῖς) ὅμοιόν τι πάσχειν οἱ πολλοὶ πρὸς τοὺς καινοὺς τῶκμ 
λόγων τοῖς Ἰνδοῖς ἐκείνοις, οἷον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἐμούς. οἰόμενοι γὰρ 
σατυρικὰ, καὶ γελοῖά τινα, καὶ κομιδῇ κωμικὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀκούεσθαι, ror 
avra πεπιστεύκασιν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι δόξαν αὑτοῖς ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. Ista οὐκ οἶδ᾽ 
ὅ, τι δόξαν αὐτοῖς signis parentheseos, ut mihi videtur, includenda 
sunt: οἰόμενοι yap σατυρικὰ, καὶ γελοῖά τινα, καὶ κομιδῇ κωμικὰ wap? 
ἡμῶν ἀκούεσθαι, τοιαῦτα πεπιστεύκασιν (οὖκ οἶδ᾽ 6, τὶ δόξαν abrois) ὑπὲρ 
ἐμοῦ. . : 
HERCULES GALL.: p. 83. [519. C. ed. Salmur.] οὗ yap ἔχων ὁ 
ξωγράφος ὅθεν ἐξάψει ταῖς σειραῖς ras τῶν δεσμῶν ἀρχὰς, Gre τῆς δεξιᾶς 
μὲν ἤδη τὸ ῥόπαλον, τῆς λαιᾶς δὲ τὸ τύξον ἐχούσης, τρυπῆσας τοῦ θεοῦ' 
τὴν γλῶτταν ἄκραν, ἐξ ἐκείνης ἑλκομένους αὐτοὺς ἐποίησε, καὶ ἐπέστραπ- 
ral γε els τοὺς ἀγομένους μειδιῶν .-------Ῥτο ταῖς σειραῖς legere velim' 
ταῖν χεροῖν. : | ΝΣ 
De ELEcrRo. p. 90. [526. E. ed. Salmur.] ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ οὐκ dA 
γόοις ἐντύχοις ἂν ᾿Ηριδανοῖς τισι, καὶ ols οὐκ ἤλεκτρον, ἀλλὰ χρυσὸς adrds’ 
ἀποστάξει τῶν λογῶν, πολὺ THY κύκνων τῶν ποιητικῶν λιγυροτέροις."--"---᾿ 
Leve mendum, λιγυροτέροις pro λιγυρωτέροις. ae 
“ADVERSUS INDOCTUMN. p. 107. [544. B. ed. Salmur.] ἧκεν od” 
(malus cithareedus scilicet) εἰς rods Δελφοὺς, τά re ἄλλα λαμπρὸς, καὶ 
δὴ καὶ ἐσθῆτα χρυσόπαστον ποιησάμενος, καὶ στέφανον δάφνης χρυσῆε᾽ 


Emendati dtque Explanati. 27 


κάλλιστον, ws ἀντὶ καρποῦ τῆς δάφνης, σμαράγδους εἶναι ἰσομεγέθεις τῷ 
kapxg.——Malim ἐσθῆτα χρυσόκαστον ΠΟΡΙΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ. ' 

ADVERSUS INDOCTUM. p. 119. [555. Α. ed. Salmur.] εἰπὲ γοῦν 
μοι καὶ τόδε, εἰ Βάσσος ὁ ὑμέτερος ἐκεῖνος σοφιστὴς, καὶ Βάταλας ὁ ad- 
λητὴς, ἣ ὁ κίναιδος ᾿Ἡμιθέων ὁ συβαρίτης, ὃς τοὺς θαυμαστοὺς ὑμῖν véuovs 
συνέγραψεν, ὡς χρὴ μαίνεσθαι, καὶ παρατίλλεσθαι, καὶ πάσχειν, Kab 
ποιεῖν ἐκεῖνα, εἰ τούτων τις νυνὶ λεοντῆν περιβαλλόμενος, καὶ ῥόπαλον 
ἔχων βαδίξοι, τί οἴει φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ὁρῶσιν ;---[Λις Δ ΠῸπι scripsisse 
credo ὡς χρὴ ΛΕΑΙΝΕΣΘΑΙ, καὶ παρατίλλεσθαι, καὶ πάσχειν, καὶ 
ποῖειν ἐκεῖνα. Infra in Cynico. p. 972. B. ed. Salmur. τοὺς δὸ 
viv, ob θηλῶ τῆς θαυμαστῆς ταύτης εὐδαιμονίας, ἣν ἔχουσι, καὶ περὶ 
τραπέξας, καὶ ἐσθῆτας, καὶ λεαίνοντες, καὶ ψιλούμενοι πᾶν τοῦ σώ- 
ματος μέρος, καὶ μὴ δὲ τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων οὐδὲν ἣ πέφνκεν ἔχειν ἐῶντες. ᾿ 

ADVERSUs INDOCT. p. 120. [656. C. ed. Salmur.] δέον ἔτι νῦν σωφρο- 
νήσαντα ἀποδόσθαι μέν τινε τῶν πεπαιδευμένων τὰ βιβλία ταῦτα; καὶ σὺν 
αὐτοῖς, τὴν νεόκτιστον ταύτην οἰκίαν. ἀποδοῦναι δὲ τοῖς ἀνδραποδοκαπή- 
λοις, μέρος γοῦν ἀπὸ πολλῶν τῶν ὀφειλομένων, καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνα περὶ δύο 
ταῦτα δεῖνως ἐσπούδασας, βιβλέων τε τῶν πολυτελῶν κτῆσιν, καὶ μειρα- 
κίων τῶν ἐξώρων, καὶ ἤδη καρτερῶν, wyijy.—Aliquid hic esse vitii sensit 
Solanus. Reitzii nota nemini, credo, satisfacere possit. Supplendum 
fors ξυνάγεις, καί.----καὶ yap κἀκεῖνα (ἀνδράποδα) EYNATEIZ: KAI 
περὶ δύο ταῦτα δεινῶς ἐσπούδασας, βιβλίων τε τῶν πολυτελῶν κτῆσιν», 
καὶ μειρακίων τῶν ἐξώρων, καὶ ἤδη καρτερῶν, ὠνήν. 

ADVERSUS INDOCT. p. 120. [556. E. ed. Salmur.] Pergit Lucianus : 
καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμά σοι πάνυ orovdacerar καὶ θηρεύεται. ἀδύνατον δὲ πένητα 
ὄντα πρὸς ἄμφω διαρκεῖν. σκόπει τοίννν ὡς ἱερὸν χρῆμα συμβουλή. ἀξιῶ 
γάρ σε ἀφέμενον τῶν μηδὲν προσηκόντων, τὴν ἑτέραν νόσον θεραπεύειν, 
καὶ τοὺς ὑπηρέτας ἐκείνους ὠνῇ δ᾽ ὅμως, μὴ, ἐπιλειπόντων σε τῶν οἴκοθεν. 
μεταστέλλοιό τινας τῶν ἐλενθέρων, οἷς οὐδ᾽ ἀκίνδυναν ἀπελθοῦσιν, ἣν 
μὴ λάβωσιν, ἅπαντα ἐξαγορεῦσαι τὰ πραχθέντα ὑμῖν μετὰ τὸν πότον. 
οἷα καὶ πρώην αἴσχιστα περὶ σοῦ διηγεῖτο ἐξελθὼν ὁ πόρνος, ἔτι καὶ δεέγ- 
ματα émdecxvis.—Hupusce loci sensum prava interpunctio adhue ob- 
scuravit. Gesnerus itaque eonjecit, καὶ ὑπηρέτας ἐκείνονς ὠνεῖσθαι 
ὅπως μὴ, ἐπιλειπόντων σε τῶν οἴκοθεν, μεταστέλλοιό τινας τῶν ἐλευθέρων, 
οἷς οὖν ἀκίνδυνον ἀπελθοῦσιν, &c. Sine causa, me judice: namque 
τῷ οὐδ᾽, quod in editione Flor. non apparet, ejecto, ad hunc modum 
distinguendum puto: ἀξιῶ γάρ ce, ἀφέμενον τῶν μηδὲν προσηκόντων, 
τὴν ἑτέραν νόσον θεραπεύειν, καὶ τοὺς ὑπηρέτας ἐκείνους. (plena dis- 
tinctione -post ἐκείνους posita, subaud. θεραπεύειν scilicet) ὠνῇ δ᾽ 
ὅμως, ( Nikilominus servos emere pergis, et utrumque sumtuosum mor- 
bum sive insaniam alere.) μὴ, ἐπιλειπόντων ce τῶν οἴκοθεν, μεταστέλ- 
λοιό τινας τῶν ἐλευθέρων, οἷς ἀκίνδυνον ἀπελθοῦσιν, ἣν μὴ λάβωσιν, 
ἅπαντα ἐξαγορεῦσαι τὰ πραχθέντα ὑμῖν μετὰ τὸν πότον. 

ApDVERSUS INDocT. p. 122. [558. C. ed. Salmur.] τοῦτο γοῦν xad 
μάλιστα θαυμάσειεν ἄν τις, τίνα ἀπὸ ψνχῆς ἔχων, ἅπτει τῶν βιβλίων, 
ὁποίαις αὐτὰ χερσὶν. ἀνμελέττειρ. πότε δὲ dvaywwoves. Gesnerus legit, 
τένα; πότε ψυχὴν ἔχων.---Ἐοτοδη τένα (num. plur.) ἘΠῚ. ψνχῆε. ὄχων, 
ἅπτει τῶν βιβλίων. quod minus distat. 


48 Loci quidam Luciani 


DE NON TEM. CRED. CALUMN. p. 1381. [564. E. ed. Saknur.] 
"Ey δεξιᾷ τις ἀνὴρ κάθηται, τὰ dra παμμεγέθη ἔχων, μικροῦ δεῖν τοῖς τοῦ 
Μίδου προσεοικύτα, τὴν χεῖρα προτείνων πόῤῥωθεν ἔτι προσιούσῃ τῇ 
διαβολῇ. περὶ δὲ αὐτὸν, ἐστᾶσι δύο γυναῖκες, ἄγνοιά μοι δοκεῖ καὶ Pia 
Anus, ἑτέρωθεν δὲ, προσέρχεται ἡ διαβολὴ, γύναιον és ὑπερβολὴν πάγ- 
xahov.—Forte ΠΑΡΑ δὲ αὐτὸν ἑστᾶσι δύο γνναῖκες. 

DE NON TEM. CRED. CALUMN. p. 133. [566. A. ed. Salmur.] 
φέρε δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰ δοκεῖ, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐφεσίον Θωγράφου τέχνην διέλ- 
θωμεν τὰ προσύντα τῇ διαβολῇ προτέρον γε ὅρῳ τινὶ περιγράψαντες 
αὐτήν" οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἡμῖν ἡ εἰκὼν γενήσεται. Excidisse videtur ἄκρι- 
βεστέρα. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἡμῖν ἡ εἰκὼν ἀκριβεστέρα γενήσεται. 

DE NON TEM. CRED. CALUMN. p. 133. [566. A. ed. Salmur.] τριῶν 
δ᾽ ὄντων προσώπων, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις, τοῦ διαβάλλοντος, καὶ 
τοῦ διαβαλλομένον, καὶ τοῦ πρὸς ὃν ἡ διαβολὴ γέγνεται, καθ΄ ἕκαστον 
αὐτῶν ἐπισκοπήσωμεν, οἷα εἰκὸς εἶναι τὰ γιγνόμενα. Herodot. lib. 7. 
διαβολὴ γάρ ἐστι δεινότατον ἐν τῇ δύο μέν εἰσι οἱ ἀδικέοντες, εἷς δὲ ὃ 
ἀδικεόμενος. ὁ μὲν γὰρ διαβάλλων ἀδικέει, ob παρεόντος κατηγορέων" 6 - 
δὲ ἀδικέει, ἀναπειθόμενος πρὶν ἣ ἀτρέκεως ἐκμάθῃ" ὁ δὲ δὴ ἀπεὼν τοῦ 
λόγον τάδε ἐν αὐτοῖσι ἀδικέεται, διαβληθείς τε ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑτέρον, καὶ νομι- 
σθεὶς πρὸς τοῦ ἑτέρον κακὸς εἶναι. 

Dg NON TEM. CRED. CALUMN. p. 158. [580. C. ed. Salmur.] 
dp’ οὖν τοῦ ᾿Αριστείδου ἐστί τις δικαιότερος ; ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως κἀκεῖνος συνέστη 
ἐπὶ τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα,. καὶ συμπαρώξυνε τὸν δημὸν, ἧς φησιν ἐκεῖνος 
πολιτικ ἧς φιλοτιμίας ὑποκεκνισμένος.--- ἶδοο sensu cassa ad hunc modum 
emendare velim ; ΤῊΣ ΠΡΟΣ ἐκεῖνον πολιτικῆς φιλοτιμίας ὕπο κεκνε- 
σμένος,. ᾿ 

PSEUDOLOGISTA. p. 163. [584. E. ed. Salmur.] ravra aoe καὶ 
αὐτὸς ἀπειλῶ, οὐ μὰ τὸν Ala τῷ ᾿Αρχιλόχῳ εἰκάξων ἐμαυτόν. πόθεν; 
πολλοῦγε καὶ δέω. σοὶ δὲ μυρία συνειδὼς ἰάμβων ἄξια βεβιωμένα, πρὸς 
&, μοι δοκεῖ, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὁ ᾿Αρχίλοχος αὐτὸς Seapxéoar.—Acrius esset, cot δὲ 
ΜΥΡΊΩΝ συνειδὼς ἰάμβων ἄξια, βεβιωμένα---κ΄ τ. λ. : 

PSEUDOLOGISTA. p. 164. [586. A. ed. Salmur.] εἰ μή ris ἄρα ἐξ 
Ὑπερβορέων ἄρτι és ἡμᾶς ἥκοι, ἣ és τοσοῦτον κυμαῖοε εἴη, ὡς μὴ ides, . 
εὐθὺς εἰδέναι ὄνων ἁπάντων ὑβριστότατόν σε ὄντα, μὴ περιμείνας ὀγκω- 
, μένον προσέτι ἀκούειν. Xenoph. Anab. 5. 8.2. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν καὶ yew 

μῶνός γε ὄντος, οἵου λέγεις, σίτον δὲ ἐπιλελοιπότος, οἴνου δὲ μηδ᾽ dogpal- 
νεσθαὺυ παρόντος, ὑπὸ δὲ πόνων πολλῶν ἀπαγορενόντων, πολεμίων δὲ 

ἑπομένων, εἰ ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ ὕβριϑον, ὁμολογῶ καὶ τῶν ὄνων ὕβρε- 
στότερος εἶναι" οἷς φασιν ὑπὸ τῆς ὕβρεως κόπον οὐκ ἐγγίγνεσθαι. : 
PSEUDOLOGISTA, p. 182. [602. E. ed. Salmur.] ἀγαπητὸν δὲ 
ὁπωσοῦν κλεινὸν, καὶ ὀνομαστὸν εἶναι. εἶτα καταριθμήσειν αὐτῇ ras πολ- 
Ads cov προσηγορίας, ὁπόσας κατὰ ἔθνη προσείληφας. Gesnerus legit 
καταριθμήσαις vel καταριθμήσειας. Sed sic quoque locus non sanus ; 
nam particula ’AN opus est. εἶτα καταριθμήσειας ΑΝ αὐτῃ ras πολλάς 
gov xpoonyopias. ΕΣ 
. De Domo. p. 198. [614. B. ed. Salmur.] τούτον δὲ τοῦ οἴκου τὸ" 
“κἄλλος, ob κατὰ βαρβαρικούς τινας ὀφθαλμοὺε, οὐ δὲ κατὰ περσικὴν᾽ 


\ 


Emendati atque Explanati. 39 


ἀλαϑδονέαν ἣ βασιλικὴν μεγαλανχίαν, οὐδὲ πένητος μόνον, ἀλλὰ εὐφνοῦς 
θεατοῦ δεόμενον. καὶ ὅτῳ μὴ ἐν τῇ ὄψει ἡ κρίσις ἀλλά τις καὶ Noytopos 
ἐπακολουθεῖ τοῖς λεγομένοις.---ἰπο τοῖς ΒΛΕΠΟΜΕΝΟΙΣ. nam quid 
hic λεγομένοις 2 : 

MACROBII. p. 226. [643. A. ed. Salmur.] περὶ ἔτη δὲ ἐνὸς ἀπο- 
δέοντα ἑκατὸν, γεγονὼς, ὡς ἤσθετο ᾿Αθηναίους ὑπὸ Φιλίππου ἐν τῇ περὶ 
Χαιρώνειαν μάχῃ νενικημένους, ποτνιώμενος, τὸν Εὐριπίδειον στίχον 
προσηνέγκατο, εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναφέρων, Σιδώνιόν wor’ ἄστυ Κάδμος ἐκλιπῴν. 
Legendum προενέγκατο. 

PATRIZ ENCOM. p. 233. [651. B. ed. Salmur.] κἂν ἀπορῶσι τῆς 
γῆς ἐπαινέσαι τὴν ἀρετὴν, τῶνγε ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος οὐκ ἀπορήσουσιν ἐγ- 
κωμίων. ἀλλὰ κἂν ἴδωσιν ἑτέρους σεμνυνομένους πεδίοις ἀνειμένοις, καὶ 
λειμῶσι φυτοῖς παντοδαποῖς διειλημμένοις, καὶ αὐτοὶ τῶν τῆς πατρίδος 
ἐγκωμίων οὐκ ἐπιλανθάνονται. τὴν δὲ ἱπποτρόφον ὑπερορῶντες, καὶ κουρο- 
τρόφον ἐπαινοῦσι. Rescribendum videtur τὴν δὲ ἱπποτρόφον ὑπερο- 
ρῶντες ΤῊΝ κουροτρόφον ἐπαινοῦσι. 

DISSERTATIO CUM HESIODO. p. 241. [660. Β. ed. Salmur.] ὥστε 
ἀνάγκη σοι (Hesiodo, cum nihil predixeris, et tamen vaticinandi po- 
testatem a deabus accepisse te gloriatus sis) τῶν τριῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν 
μιᾷ ye πάντως ἐνέχεσθαι" ἣ γὰρ ἐψεύσω, εἰ καὶ πικρὸν εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ὡς 
ὑποσχομένων σοι τῶν μουσῶν καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προλέγειν δύνασθαι, ἣ αἱ 
μὲν, ἔδοσαν ὥσπερ ὑπέσχοντο---ὅς. Solanus delet οὐχ. Reitzius pro 
οὐχ ὡς legit οὕτως. Melius Solanus: sed scripsit forte Lucianus οὐχ 
οὕτως ὑποσχομένων σοι τῶν Μουσῶν, καὶ (etiam) τὰ μέλλοντα προλέγειν 
δυνάσθαι. } 

NAVIGIUM SEU VOTA. p. 252. [669. C. ed. Salmur.] ὁ μὲν γὰρ 
ἄλλος κόσμος, ai γραφαὶ, καὶ τοῦ ἱστίον τὸ παράσιον πυραυγὲς, καὶ πρὸ 
τούτων, αἱ ἄγκυραι, καὶ στροφεῖα καὶ περιαγωγεῖς, καὶ μετὰ τὴν πρύμναν 
οἰκήσεις, θαυμάσια πάντα μοι édote.—Fors. καὶ KATA τὴ» πρύμναν 
οἰκήσεις. 

NAVIGIUM 8πῦ VOTA. p. 264. [681. E. ed. Salmur.] τῇ πόλει δὲ 
ταῦτα map’ ἐμοῦ ἐξαίρετα ὕπηρξεν ἂν, αἱ μὲν διανομαὶ,. κατὰ μῆνα - 
ἕκαστον» δραχμαὶ τῷ μὲν ἀστῷ ἑκατὸν, τῷ δὲ μετοίκῳ, ἥμισν τούτων, 
δημόσια δὲ ἐς κάλλος θέατρα, καὶ βαλανεῖα. Mihi venit in mentem 
elegans lectio; AAIMONIA δὲ ἐς κάλλος θέατρα καὶ βαλανεῖα.----δαι- 
μόνια ἐς κάλλος est Pulchritudtine divina, vel miranda. 

NAviG. 8. VOT. p. 272. [690.E. ed. Salmur.] πρόσειμεν δὴ, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ 
cal ὅπως ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ ἐν τοῖς κινδύνοις ἔσεσθε, μὴ δὲ προδώσετε τὸ 
“πάτριον, φρόνημα. ἤδη γάρ πον καὶ οἱ πολέμιοι ἐπιλαμβάνουσιν. ὥστε 
τὸ μὲν σύνθημα ἔστω ἐνυάλιος. Mallem, ἤδη γάρ πον οἱ “πολέμιοι 
ἘΠΕΛΑΥΝ Ν. ᾿ 

Navie. 8. Vor. p. 276. [6906. E. ed. Salmur.] εἰ δέ τι ἐν Ἰνδοῖς, ἣ 
Ὑπερβορέοις θέαμα παράδοξον, ἣ κτῆμα τίμιον, ἣ ὅσα ἐμφαγεῖν ἣ πιεῖν 
ἡδέα, οὐ μεταστειλάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐπιπετόμενος, ἀχέλανον ἁπάντων, 
ἐς κόρον. καὶ ἐπεὶ γρὺψ ὑπόπτερον θηρίον, ἢ φοῖνιξ, ὄρνεον ἐν ᾿Ινδοῖς: 
ἀθέατον τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἑώρων ἅν. Pro ἐπεὶ, quod hit 
ineptum est, imo sensum et syntaxin pessundat, legendum omnino εἴ 


80 Loci quidam Luciani, 8:0. 


πη sicubi. καὶ EL ΠΗ͂ γρῦψ, ὑπόπτερον θηρίον, ἣ φοῖνιξ, ὄρνεον ἐν "IvBots 
ἀθέατον τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἑώρων ἄν. 

ΝΑΥ͂ΙΟ. 8. VoT. p. 277. [698. A. ed. Salmur.] οἷον δὲ κἀκεῖνο ἦν, 
τοὺς πολεμοῦντας ἐπισκοπεῖν ἔξω βέλους ὑπεραιωρούμενον. καὶ εἰ δόξεεθ 
μοι προσθέμενος ἂν τοῖς ἡττημένοις, κοιμίσας τοὺς κρατοῦντας, vexgy 
παρεῖχον τοῖς φεύγουσιν, ἀναστρέψασιν ἀπὸ τῆς rpoijs.—Concinnius 
esset, ἀναστρέψας ἀπὸ τῆς τροπῆς. 

Diatoc. MERETR. p. 282. [704. D. ed. Salmur.] σὺ δὲ πόθεν 
ταῦτα ἥκονσας ; ἣ συντέθηκας αὐτὴ, ὦ Μύρτιον, καινάς τινας Θηλοτυπέαςξ 
σκιαμαχοῦσα; Tempus erat pro συντέθηκας reponere συντέθΕϊκας. 

DiaLoc, MERETR. p. 294. (719. C. ed. Salmur.] Lyra meretrix 
aurum, floridas vestes, et ancillas quatuor adepta est, ro μὲν πρῶτον 
κατακοσμοῦσα ἑαυτὴν εὐπρεπῶς, καὶ εὐσταλὴς οὖσα, καὶ φαιδρὰ xpds 
ἅπαντας, οὐκ ἄχρι τοῦ καγχάϑειν ῥᾳδίως, Καθάπερ σὺ εἴωθας, ἀλλὰ 
μειδιῶσα ἡδὺ, καὶ ἐπαγωγόν. εἶτα προσομιλοῦσα δεξιῶς, καὶ μήτε φενακίς- 
ὥουσα εἴ τις προσέλθοι, ἣ προπέμψειε, μήτε αὐτὴ ἐπιλαμβανομένη τῶν 
ἀνδρῶν. ΜίτοΥ. neminem ante me vidisse legendum esse, καὶ phre 
᾿ΑΚΚΙΖΟΥ͂ΣΑ, εἴ ris προσέλθοι ἣ προσπέμψειε, μήτε αὑτὴ ἐπιλαμβαν- 
ομένη τῶν ἀνδρῶν. Mediam quandam viam tenens, neque affectata 
verecundia nimis se difficilem prebendo, neque contra proterva fronte 
ipsa in viros manus injiciendo. 

DiaLoG. MERETR. p. 299. [726. A. ed. Salmur.] Ampelis : καὶ 
τοῦτο OU σοι, ὑπὸ πλουσίων οἴεσθαι σπουδάθϑεσθαί σε" οὕτω yap ἀνιά- 
σεται μᾶλλον, καὶ φιλοτιμήσεται; ὡς μὴ ὑπερβάλοιντο αὐτὸν οἱ ἀντεραν» 
σταί. *pv kal μὴν οὗτός γε μόνον ὀργίξεται, καὶ ῥαπίξει δίδῳσι δὰ 
οὐδέν. Ap. ἀλλὰ δώσει. Φηλότυποι γὰρ, καὶ μάλιστα λυπηθήσονται, 
Corrupta hec verba censeo ; inquit Solanus.—Sanari possunt forsitan 
rescnibendo, ξηλότνποι yap καὶ padlora φιλοτιμήσονται. 

DIALoe. MERETR. p. 303. (730. Ὁ. ed. Salmur.] εὖγε, οἴχου & 
Tlavyvyi.—Gesnerus legisse videtur ᾧχον, vertit enim PERIISTI. 

De MoRTE PEREGRINI. p. 336. (763. E. ed. Salmur.] weredcace 
γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἱ κακοδαίμονες (Christiani) τὸ μὲν ὅλον, ἀθάνατοι ἔσεσθαι, 
καὶ βιώσεσθαι τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον. παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ καταφρονοῦσι τοῦ θανάτον, καὶ 
ἑκόντες αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν οἱ rodXoi.—Legendum πεπείκασι γὰρ αὑτοὺς, 
et αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν." ᾿ ᾿ 

DE MoRTE PEREGRINI. p. 359. [781. A. ed. Salmur.] εἶτα éves 
τύγχανον πολλοῖς ἀπιοῦσιν ὡς θεάσαιντο καὶ atro{.—Imo ἘΠΙΟΥ͂ΣΙΝ 
Accedentibus. | 7 

SYMPOSIUM VEL LAPITBE. p, 439. [863. A. ed. Salmur.] τοιαῦ- 
τα ἔφη ἐξεργάξεται ὁ καλὸς Χρύσιππος, καὶ Ζήνων ὃ θαυμαστὸς, καὶ 
Κλεάνθης, ῥημάτια δύστηνα, καὶ ἐρωτήσεις μόνον, καὶ σχήματα φιλο- 
eé¢wv.—Libentius legerem φιλοσοφῶν. ον 

SYMPOS. VEL LAPITHR. p. 445. [869. C. ed. Salmur.] ἵνα δὲ 
μὴ ἀντιλέγωσί μοι, ὁπόσα μὴ κατὰ ταντὰ φιλοσοφοῦσι, wept γάμων, ἐρῶ 
τὰ εἰκότα, τὸ μὲν οὖν ἄριστον ἦν μὴ δεῖσθαι γάμων, ἀλλὰ, πειθομένου 
Πλάτωνι, καὶ “Σωκράτει, παιδεραστεῖν. μόνοι γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἀποτελε» 
σθεῖεν ἂν πρὸς ἀρετήν. εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ γυναικείου γάμον, κατὰ τὰ Πλάτωνι 
δοκοῦντα, κοινὰς εἶναι ἐκείνων τὰς γυναῖκας, ὡς ἔξω δήλον εἴημεν.---Ῥτο 


On the Ignorance of Moderns, &c. 45)]. 


ἐκείνων scribendum censit Solanus ἐχρῆν vel πάντων. Mallem ipse, 
κοινὰς εἶναι ἜΚΕΙΝΩΣ ras γυναῖκας. Isto ritu: ita ut precepit Plato, 

De Syria ΕΑ. p. 475. [898. D. ed. Salmur.] ra δὲ προπύλαιᾳ 
τοῦ ἱροῦ és ἄνεμον βορέην ἀποκέκρινται, μέγαθος ὅσον re ἑκατὸν ὀργυιέων. 
—In ἀποκέκρινται una litera, nempe p, mutanda. ἐς ἄνεμον βορέην ἀπο- 
κέκλινται. ἀποκέκλΛινται. 

ΟΥνιοῦβ. p. 541. [964. A. ed. Salmur.] Cynicus: τέ ποδῶν ἔστ᾽ 
ἔργον ; Av. πορεύεσθαι. Ku. κάκιον οὖν πορεύεσθαί σοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ ἐμοὶ 
πόδες, ἣ οἱ τῶν πολλῶν; Av. τοῦτο μὲν, οὐκ ἴσως. Kv. οὗ τοίνυν οὐδὰ 
χεῖρον ἔχουσιν, ΕἸ μὴ χεῖρον τὰ δαυτῶν ἔργον ἀποδιδόασιν ; (sic lego 
pro οὗ τοίνυν οὐδ' εἰ χεῖρον ἔχουσιν, ἣ μὴ, ἄς. quod in prioribus edd, 
legebatur) Lycinus: ἰσως. Ku. τοὺς μὲν δὴ πύδας, οὐδὲν φαίνομαι χεῖρον 
διακείμενος τῶν πολλῶν ἔχειν. Nisi si ἔχειν pro εἶναι positum sit, 
melius legeretur τοὺς μὲν δὴ πύδας. οὐδὲν φαίνομαι χεῖρον ΔΙΑΚΕΙΜΕ»ν 
ΝΟΥΣ τῶν πολλῶν ἔχειν. 


OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE 


-MOST CELEBRATED MODERNS 
relative to the Philosophy of Aristotle. 


Part I1.—[Concluded from No. xxxvi. p. 344.] 


Tux next extract‘ with which [ shall present the reader from the 
works of Lord Bacon, is of a most extraordinary nature; for in 
this he prefers to Aristotle Democritus, and other ancient philo« 
sophers who removed God and intellect from the fabric of things, 
attributed the structure of the universe to fate or fortune, and 
ascribed the causes of particulars to the necessity of matter, with- 
out the intermixture of final causes. And he considers these 
philosophers, so far as pertains to physical causes, to have been 
much more solid, and to have penetrated deeper into nature, than 
Plato and Aristotle. He adds also, as the sole cause of this, that 
the former philosophers never attended to final causes; but thea 
latter perpetually inculcated them. And that Aristotle is more ta 
be accused in this respect than Plato, because he omitted the 
fountain of final causes, viz. God, substituted nature for God, and. 
embraced final causes rather as a lover of logic than of theology. 
“ Quapropter philosophia naturalis Democriti, et aliorum, qui 
Deum et mentem a fabrica rerum amoverunt; et structuram uui- 
versi Infinitis nature prelusionibus et tentamentis (quas uno nomine 
fatum aut fortunam vocabant) attribuerint ; et rerum particularium 
Causas materiz necessitati, sine intermixione causarum figalium, 


88 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


assignarunt; nobis videtur (quantum ex fraginentis et reliqutis _ 
philosophiz eorum conjicere licet) quatenus ad causas phystcas, 
multo solidior fuisse, et altius in naturam penetrasse, quam illa 
Aristotelis et Platonis: hanc unicam ob causam, quod ili in 
causis finalibus nunquam operam triverunt; hi autem eas perpetuo 
inculcarunt. Atque magis in hac parte accusandus Aristoteles 
quam Plato: quandoquidem fontem causarum finalium, Deum 
scilicet, omiserit, et naturam pro Deo substituerit, causasque ipsas 
finales, potius ut logice amator, quam theologiz, amplexus sit.” 
Vol. iv. p. 98. 
. I call this a most extraordinary passage for two reasons; one, 
for its folly, and the other for the profound ignorance of the works 
of Aristotle which it displays. For can any thing. indicate greater 
folly than to prefer those philosophers who never attended to final 
causes, to those who perpetually inculcated them? For as Ari- 
stotle justly observes in his Posterior Analytics, the investigation of 
the cause why a thing is, can only be terminated by the discovery 
of the final cause. And without the knowledge of the why there 
can be no such thing as science. So that to blame Aristotle for 
perpetually inculcating final causes, is to blame him for inculcating 
that to which scientific knowledge inevitably leads, and without 
which demonstration would be useless, and investigation endless. 
But this passage also shows that Lord Bacon was profoundly . 
ignorant of the works of Aristétle. For can. any thing more. 
plainly indicate this than the accusation “ that Aristotle omitted the 
fountain of final causes, viz. God; that he substituted nature for 
God, and embraced final causes rather as a lover of logic, than of 
theology?” The accusation indeed is so obviously false, that it is 
impossible it could have been made by any one who had merely 
inspected the works of Aristotle through the medium of an index ; 
and I hardly think it would be made by any hackney writer of the 
present age, ifhe were hired to collect the dogmas of Aristotle from 
his works. For in the 7th chapter of the 12th book of the Meta- 
physics, Aristotle writes as follows.concerning the first immovable 
mover of all things, God: xives δὲ ade. ro ὀρεκτὸν καὶ To vonTOY χινεὶ 
ou κινουμένον. τούτων δὲ Ta πρωτα Ta auTa. επιθυμήτον μὲν yap TO pees 
youevov καλον᾽ βουλητὸν δὲ πρῶτον, τὸ ov καλον. ορεγομεθα δὲ ors Boxes, 
μαλλον ἢ δοκει, διοτι ορεγομεθα. ἀρχὴ yap ἡ voyois. vous δε ὑπο τοῦ νοητοῦ 
χινειται.τταλλα μὴν χαὶ τὸ καλὸν, καὶ τὸ δι᾽ αὐτὸ αἰρετον, ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ 
συστοιχία.--τοτι δὲ ἐστι τὸ οὐ evexce ev τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ἡ διαίρεσις" δηλοι- 
ἔστι yap τινι τὸ οὐ evexa, ὧν Τὸ μὲν 8στι, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι. xives δὲ ὡς 
ἐρωμενον" κινουμίενον δὲ, τ᾽ ἀλλα κινει.--τεξ αναγκὴς aga ἐστιν OV καὶ ἢ 
αναγκη καλως καὶ ουτῶς ἀρχη.---εκ τοιαυτὴς apa ἀρχῆς ἤῤτηται Ο 
᾿ θύρανος καὶ ἡ φυσις. διαγωγὴ δὲ ἐστιν, ole τῷ ἡ ἀριστή, μικρὸν ΧΘΟΥΟΥ͂ 
ἡμῖν. OUTW Yap ἀεὶ ἐκεῖνο ἐστιν. ἡμῖν μὲν yao αδυνατον" ewes και' ἡδονὴ 


relative to Aristotle. 33 


ἢ ἐνέργειαι αὐτου" καὶ δια τοῦτο ἐγρήγορσις, αἰσθησις, νοησις, ἡδίστον. 
ελπίδες και μνημᾶι δια ταυτα. ἡ Se γοησις ἡ καθ᾽ αὐτὴν, του xed αὐτὸ 
αριστου καὶ ἡ μάλιστα, TOU μαλιστα. auToy δὲ νοεῖ ο νοὺς κατα μετα- 
ληψιν τοὺ νοήτοῦ. vonTos yap γίνεται θιγγανῶν καὶ vowy. wore ταυτὸν 
yous καὶ vouTov. Τὸ γαρ δεχτικὸν τοῦ νοήτου καὶ τῆς οὐσίας, VOUS. ενεργει 
δε ἐχων. wore εχεινο μᾶλλον τούτου, ο δοκχει ο γους θειον ἔχειν. καὶ ἡ θεω- 
μια τὸ ἥδιστον καὶ ἀριστον. εἰ OUY ουτως εὖ eyes, ὡς ἡμεῖς ποτε, 0 θεος ἀεὶ, 

υμᾶστον. εἰ δὲ μαλλον, ets θαυμαστωτερον. exes be whe. και ζωὴ δὲ γε 
ὑπαρχει. ἡ yap vou ἐνέργεια, Coon’ εκεινος δὲ ἡ ἐνεργεια' evepryeta δὲ ἡ 
καθ᾿ αὐτὴν, exaivou Cun ἀριστὴ καὶ αἴδιος. φαμεν Se τὸν θεὸν εἰναι ζωον 
αἴδιον, ἀαρίατον. mote ζωὴ καὶ αἰὼν συνεχὴς Καὶ αἴδιος ὑπαρχεῖ τῳ θεω. 
Touro γαροθεος. i.e.” ‘* But it moves as follows: that which is 
desirable, and that which is iutelligible, move without being moved. 
But the first intelligible is the same as the first desirable ; for that 
which appears to be beautiful is desirable. But the first object of 
the will 19 that which is really beautiful. However, we rather 
aspire after it because it appears to be beautiful, than it appears to 
be beautiful because we aspire after it. For the principle is intel- 
ligence ; but intellect is moved by the intelligible. Moreover the 
beautiful, and that which is eligible for its own sake, are in the 
same co-ordination. But that in immoveable natures there 18 that 
for the sake of which other things subsist, division manifests: for 
there is something to which that for the sake of which a thing is 
done belongs, of which the one is different from the other." But 
the first mover moves as that which is beloved ; and through that 
which is moved, it moves other things. Hence he is necessarily 
being; and so far as he necessarily subsists, so far he subsists 
according to rectitude, and is thus the principle of things. From 
such a principle therefore as this, heaven and NATURE are sus- 
pended. But the life which he lives is the most excellent, and 
such as we enjoy for a small portion of time; for such a life is 
with him perpetual. To us, indeed, this is impossible ; but not to 
the first mover, because bis energy is pleasure. And on this account 
vigilance, the energies of sense, and inteliection, are most delight- 
fail. Hope too, and memory, are pleasing through energies. But 
essential mtellection is the intellection of that which is essentially 
the most excellent ; and the most essential of that which is most 
essential. Intellect too, understands itself by the assumption of 
the intelligible : for it becomes intelligible by contact and intellec- 
tion: so that intellect is the same with the intelligible. For 
intellect is the recipient of the intelligible and of essence. But it 
energises possessing. Hence that which intellect appears to 


* Viz. That for the sake of which a thing is effected, is different frum the 
thing effected. 


VOL. XIX. Ch J. NO, ARANM. S 


94 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


possess as divine, belongs more eminently to the first intellect than 
to ours: and his contemplation is the most delightful, and the best. 
If therefore God always possesses that excellent condition of being 
which we sometimes possess, itis admirable ; but if he possesses it 
in a still higher degree, it is still more admirable. In this manner, 
however, he subsists. Life also is present with him: for the 
energy of intellect is life; and heis energy. But essential energy 
is his most excellent and eternal life. And we say that God is an 
animal eternal, and the most excellent: so that life and duration 
continued and eternal are present with God. For God is this.” 
I trust the reader who has perused the account given from Aristotle 
of causes, in the former part of this dissertation, need not be told 
that God in the above citation is most evidently celebrated as the 
fountain of final causes. The falsehood also is most obvious of 
the assertion, that Aristotle substitutcd nature for God ; for τῇ this 
quotation he expressly says, that heaven and NATURE are suspend~ 
ed from God. 

In the following citation we shall see that Lord Bacon con- 
founds Aristotle with the schoolmen. For in the 63d Aphorism of 
his Novum Organum, after ridiculously asserting that Aristotle 
corrupted natural philosophy by bis logic, since he fashioned the 
world from the categories, he adds, ‘that he also attributes the 
genus of the soul, which is a most noble substance, from words of 
the second intention.” ‘‘ Qui philosophiam naturalem dialectica 
sua corrupit; quum mundum ex categoriis effecerit; anime 
humane, nobilissime substantiw, gens ex vocibus secunda inten- 
tionis tribuerit.” In this passage he obviously ascribes to Aristotle’ 
one of the barbarous terms invented by the schoolmen; for there 
is no such expression in any of the works of Aristotle, or in any of 
his Greek commentators, as second intention. ΕΣ 

Having therefore shown from the most indubitable evidence that 
Lord Bacon was unacquainted with the writings of Aristotle, I 
shall in the next place demonstrate that this was also the case with’ 
the celebrated disciple of Des Cartes, Malebranche. For I shall 
confine ny remarks to the mvectives of the disciple rather than to 
those of the master, as the former 1s more virulent, and displays 
greater ignorance in his defamation than the latter. Malebranche 
therefore has employed the whole of the 5th chapter of the 6th 
book of his Search after Truth, in an attempt to confute the princi- 
ples of <Aristotle’s philosophy, in order that he may show the 
superiority of the philosophy of Des Cartes.’ : 

“{ Aristotle then,” says Malebranche,’ “ begins his treatise On 


' The Author of Reflections on Ancient and Modern Philosophy, says, 
“ that Des Cartes has raved the best of any of the moderns.” 
2 The edition that I quote is in folio, and was printed in the year 1700. 


relative to Aristotle. - 35 


the Heavens by proving that the world is perfect, in the following 
manner. All bodies have three dimensions and cannot have more, 
because the number three comprehends all according to the Pytha- 
goreans. But the world is the coacervation of all bodies, and there- 
fore the world is perfect. By this mdiculous proof, it may also be 
demonstrated that the world cannot be more imperfect than it is, 
since it cannot be composed of parts that have less than three 
dimensions.” As in the former part of this dissertation [ have 
given the whole of the first chapter of Aristotle’s treatise On the 
Ieavens, I refer the reader to it, and to an attentive perusal of it: 
with the accompanying notes, and he will be immediately convinced ° 
that Malebranche had read that chapter cursorily, and without at” 
all penetrating the depth of Aristotle’s meaning. With respect to 
what he adds, that by the same proof employed by Aristotle to 
show that the world 1s perfect, it might also be demonstrated that 
it cannot be more imperfect than it 18, it is sufficient to remark 
that this observation could only have been made by a man who 
thought in a superficial and rambling manner. For the intention 
of Aristotle in this chapter was to demonstrate that the world is 
perfect so far as it is corporeal, because it consists of parts which 
are perfect with respect to dimensions; since that which is triply 
extended is all-perfect so far as pertains to extension. For as 
Ptolemy has demonstrated in his treatise On Interval, if there were 
any other interval after the third dimension, it would be perfectly 
unmeasured and indefinite. If therefore the world is perfect be- 
cause it consists of. parts which have perfect dimensions, the asser- 
tion of Malebranche “that the world cannot be more imperfect 
than it is, since it cannot be composed of parts that have less than 
three dimensions,” is just as if 11 should be said, ‘the world can- 
not be more imperfect than it 1s, because it cannot be composed 
of parts that have not perfect dimensions,” which I presume 
approximates infinitely near to perfect nonsense. 

In the next place Malebranche says, “that Aristotle in the 
second chapter first supposes some Peripatetic truths, as that all 
natural bodies have of themselves the force of moying, which he 
proves neither here nor elsewhere; but on the contrary asserts, in’ 
the first chapter of his second book of Physics, that to endeavour 
to prove it is absurd, because it js evident of itself, and that none 
but those who cannot distinguish what 1s known of itself from what 
is not, insist upon proving plain by obscure things. But it has 
been shown elsewhere, that it is altogether false that natural bodies 
should have of themselves the force of moving, and it appears 
evident only to such as follow, with Aristotle, the impressions of 
their senses, and make no use of their reason.” In this citation, 


86 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


Malebranche, when he says that Aristotle first supposes some 
Peripatetic TRUTHS, doubtless intended to say some Peripatetic 
poeMAs; for if Aristotle supposes what is true, 1 should not 
_€onceive that any one would attempt to confute it; but this mis- 
take is natural enough in a man who thought and wrote in so 
yandom a manner as Malebranche appears to have done. Let us 
therefore see what the fulse Peripatetic truths are, which Anstotle 
supposes in the second chapter of his treatise On the Heavens. 
“ He supposes,” says Malebranche, “that all natural bodies have 
of themselves the force of moving.” Here Aristotle is made to say 
the very opposite to what he really does say; for his words are; 
mavra yap ta φυσικα copara καὶ μεγεθὴ καθ' αὐτὰ κινητα Asyopey 
εἰναι κατὰ τόπον THY Yap Φυσιν, κινήσεως ἀρχὴν φαμεν εἰναι αὐτοῖς. 1. 6, 
“ We say thgt all natural bodies and magnitudes are of themselves, 
or essentially moveable according to place: for we say that nature 
is the principle of motion to them.” Aristotle therefore does not . 
say that all bodies have of themselves a motive force, but that they . 
are naturally capable of being locally moved. And if Malebranche 
himself had known that this was the Peripatetic truth supposed by 
Aristotle, [ scarcely think that even he would have conceived it to 
be false. 

‘¢ In the second place,” says Malebranche, ‘he asserts that all 
jocal motion.is made in a line, either direct or circular, or composed 
of both ; but if he would not think upon what he so rashly proposes, 
he ought at least to have opened his eyes that he might see ap _ 
infinite number of different motions, which are not made of either , 
the right or the circular. Or rather, he ought to have thought that 
the motions composed of the direct may be infinitely varied, when 
the compounding motions increase or diminish their swiftness, in 
an Infinite number of different ways.” Here Malebranche rambles 
full as much asin the before-cited passage. For the words. of 
Aristotle alluded to by Malebranche, and which immediately follow 
those we have just quoted, are: waca δὲ χινησις, ὁσὴ κατὰ τόπον, yy 
καλουμεν copay, ἢ εὐθεια, ἣ κυκλῳ, ἢ εκ τούτων minty. ἀπλαι yap αὐται 
Sto proves. αἰτιον δ᾽, ors καὶ τα μεγεθα ταῦτα αἀπλα μόνον, τε evlera, καὶ 
ἢ περιφερῆς. i.e. “ But all such motion as is according to place, 
-and which we call lation, is either in a right line, or in a circle, or 
mixt from these; for those two motions alone are simple; and 
this is because a right line and a circumference are the only simple 
magnitudes.” By connecting this with the passage before quoted, 
_ itis evident that Aristotle is here speaking of those motions only 
. which are natural, and which actually exist in the universe, and not 
of ‘the. inotions which may be produced by art. Hence it is not 
-Aristolle that did mot open his eyes in asserting this; but it is 


relative to Aristotle. 37 


¥ather Malebranche who being blind himself, fancied that his own 
blindness was in Aristotle. τ 

Malebranche proceeds: ‘ 'Thereare,” says Aristotle, “ but two 
simple motions, the right and the circular, and therefore all the 
others are composed of them. But he mistakes, for the circular 
motion is not simple, since it cannot be conceived without thinking 
upon a point to which it relates, and whatever includes a relation. is 
relative, and not simple. This is so true that the circular motion 
may be conceived as produced from two motions in a right line, 
whose swiftness is unequal according to a certain proportion. But 
a motion composed of two others, made in a right line, and 
variously increasing or diminishing in swiftness, cannot be simple.” 
Here in the first place, Malebranche shows himself to have been 
profoundly ignorant of the obvious meaning of the term simple 
motion, viz. that it is an uxcompounded motion ; and that circular 
and rectilinear motions, when they are natural, are therefore simple, 
because neither of them is composed of things of a different nature. 
Aristotle therefore shows, that these alone are simple motious, from 
the hypothesis of lines; for all motion is produced on some lmear 
extension. Hence, if there are only two simple lines, there are also 
only two simple motions. For Aristotle does not suppose magm- 
tudes to be the producing causes of motions, but considers them as 
the material causes, or as having the relation of things without 
which motions would not exist. Malebranche falsely adds, “ that 
whatever includes a relation is relative, and not simple.” He is 
certainly right in saying, that whatever includes a relation is relative ; 
for relations are relatives ; but he is very much mistaken in assert- 
ing that whatever includes a relation is not simple. For it 1s 
obvious that there are simple us. well as compounded relations, 
or what would become of the doctrine of ratios? In what follows, 
Maletranche blunders from not attending to the kind of circular 
motion of which Aristotle is speaking ; for itis concerning natural 
and not artificial circular motion, the latter of which may indeéd 
be produced from two motions in a right line, whose swiftness 1s 
unequal according to a certain proportion. But the subject of 
circular motion we shall consider more fully, when we come o 
examine Newton’s theory of centripetal and centrifugal forces. 

As all the objections of Malebranche to the philosophy of 
Aristotle, are equally invalid with those already adduced, I shall 
only select one or two more, and then dismiss him, as it would be 
firesoine to the reader as well as to myself to nutice all his frivolities, 
and pursue him through all his rambling, inaccurate, and distorted 
conceptions. “ s\ristutle farther supposes,” says Malebranche, “ that 
bodies are either simple or composed, and calls simple bodies, 
those that have the force of moving themselves, as fire, earth, Sc. 


58 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


adding that the compounded receive their motion from the com- 
pounding. But in that sense there are no simple bodies, since 
none lave in themselves any principle of their motion. There are 
also none composed, since there are no simples of which they 
should be made; and so there would be no bodies atall. What 
fancy is it to define the simplicity .of bodies by a power of moving 
themselves? What distinct ideas can be fixed to the words of 
simple and composed bodies, if the simple are only defined in 
Telation to an imaginary moving force? But let us see what 
consequences he draws from these principles. The circular motion 
is simple. The heavens move circularly, and therefore their 
motion is simple. But simple motion can be ascribed only to a 
simple body, viz. to a body that moves of itself; and therefore the 
heavens are a simple body, distinguished from the four elements, 
that move in right lines. It is plain enough that such arguments 
‘contain nothing but false and absurd propositions.” ‘The whole 
of what is here objected by Malebranche, depends on his mistaking 
_ the meaning of Aristotle, when he asserts “ that simple bodies have 
ἃ principle of motion according to nature ;” for as we haye before 
observed, Aristotle himself says, that by a principle of motion in 
bodies according to nature, he means “ that bodies are essentially 
moveable, or capable of being moved, according to place.” And 
consequently all the objections of Malebranche are frivolous and 
sophistical. 

If any thing however could be singular in so eccentric aud 
rambling a writer as Malebranche, it would be this, that in the 
above extract he makes use of the expression distinct ideas, though 
in his illustration upon the Srd chapter of the first book, p. 107, 
_he says, that the word idea ts equivocal. His words are: “ I say 
here, that we have no idea of our mysteries, [i. 6. of the Christian 
mysteries,] as [ said-elsewhere we have no idea of our soul, be- 
cause the idea we have of the latter is no clearer than those we 
have of the former; therefore the word idea is equivocal. Some- 
times I have taken it for whatever represents to the mind any 
object, whether clearly, or confused and darkly ; sometimes more 
geuerally, for whatever is the immediate object of the mind ; some- 
times likewise for that which represents things so clearly to the 
mind, that we may with a bare perception discover whether such 
or such modifications do belong to them. For this reason, I have 
sometimes said we had an idea of the soul, and sometimes denied 
it; foritis difficult and often wearisome and ungrateful to observe 
a too rigorous exactness in one’s expressions.” From such a 
confession as this, it is plain that no distinct meaning can he 
affixed to any thing Malebranche has written, because all his con- 
ceptions were equivocal; and I have no doubt that the reader is hy 


relative to Aristotle. 90 


this time fully convinced that he spoke feelingly when in his con- 
cluding remark he says, “that it is difficult and often wearisome 
and ungrateful to observe a too rigorous exactness in one’s 
expressions.” 

Again, “ The second reason,” says Malebranche, “ of Aristotle 
to show that the heavens are a simple body distinguished from the 
four elements, supposes that there are two sorts of motions, one 
natural, and the other violent or against nature. But it is sufficiently 
plain to all those that judge of things by clear and distinct ideas, 
that bodies having not in themselves any such principle of their 
motion as Aristotle pretends, there can be no motion violent or 
against nature. It is indifferent to all bodies to be moved or not, 
either one way or another. But this philosopher, who judges of 
things by the impressions of the senses, imagines that those bodies, 
which by the laws of the communications of motions, always 
place themselves in such or such a situation in reference to others, 
do it of their own accord, and because it is-most convenient for 
them, and best agrees with their nature.” ‘Io the reader who has 
not abandoned common sense, and those common conceptions 
which are congenial to the human mind, it must appear very 
strange to find a man hardy enough to deny that there is sucha 
thing as natural motion. For do not earthly masses tend to the 
centre of the earth; and is not this their tendency natural to them? 
If it is, then a contrary tendency is unnatural to them. Hence 
the motion of a stone downward is natural to it, but its motion 
upward 15 violent. 

I trust the reader will deem the above extracts to be a-sufficient 
specimen of the futility of Malebranche’s objections against 
Aristotle, and of his profound ignorance of the real meaning of 
that philosopher. But in short, all wonder at any incongrulties 
and absurdities that may be found in Malebranche must cease, when 
we find him asking in p. 111, ‘* How can we be sure that those 
who go under the notion of mad men are really what they are 
taken for? May we not say they are reckoned crazed, because they 
have peculiar sentiments? For it is evident, that a man is not 
reckoned mad for having the sense of what is not, but only for 
having a sense of things quite contrary to that of others,. 
whether their sense be true or false, right or wrong.” And thus 
much for Malebranche, who, from his distorted conceptions of 
things, his rambling and inaccurate manner of writing, and his un- 
blushing effrontery, may be considered as the prototype and fore- 
runner of most modern reviewers. 

In the next place we shall find, that the prince of modem 
philosophers, Sir Isaac Newton, was no less unacquainted with 
the writings of Aristotle than the before-mentioned authors ; and 
that he also fabricated a new philosophy without being an adept 


40 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


in the old. In his Lectiones Optice therefore, p. 148, he attacks, 
as follows, Aristotle’s definition of color: ‘ Ait Aristuteles χρωμα 
de ἐστι τοῦ διαφανους sv owpats ορισμενῷ mepus. Que superficie 
colorate potius quam coloris descriptio est. Illa enim dict potest 
extremitas perspicua in corpore terminato. At color plerumque 
videtur, ubi nullus talis datur extremitas, ut in iride et prismate, in 
vitris vel liquoribus perspicuis et aliquo colore leviter tinctis. In 
aqua marina, que viridis plurimum apparet, qui tamen color non 
in extremitate aque, sed per totam ejus crassitiem, generatur ; 
in aere qui, licet maxime perspicuus et nullo corpore denso termi- 
natus, serena tamen ‘nocte ceruleus apparet; et in flamma, que 
non minus perspicua est, et luci pervia, quam ipse aer. Sic cum 
humores oculi colore aliquo tinguntur, omnia videntur eodem colore 
tincta, licet extremitas perspicui sit aliis coloribus predita. Et 
cum solem nudis oculis modo aspexeris, luminosa omnia deinceps 
videntur rubra, et nigra plerumque apparent caerulea, qui color 
erit miagis conspicuus, si clausis oculis tein locum aliquem tene 
brosissimum statim conferas. Imo premendo oculum colores 
in tenebris excitare liceat ; quis autem vocabit illos extremitatem ᾿ 
perspicui?” Here Newton objects to Aristotle’s definition of 
color, viz. that color is the boundary or extremity of the dia- 
phanous, ina definite body. For he says that this 1s rather the 
description of a colored superficies than of color; since a colored 
euperficies may be said to be a diaphanous extremity in a terminat- 
ed body. But he adds, color is for the most part seen where there 
is no such extremity, as in the rainbow and prism, in glass or 
liquors that are diapbanous, and lightly tinged with some color. In 
sea-water which appears to be very green, and yet this color 18 not 
in the extremity of the water, but is generated through the whole 
thickness of it. Thus also color is seen in air, which though 
eminently transparent and terminated by no dense body, yet in a 
serene night is seen to be of an azure color ; and likewise in flame, 
which is not less transparent and pervious to the light than air 
itself, &e. a 
In order to show most satisfactorily the futility of Newton's 
objections, and the very superficial manner in which he had perused 
the works of Aristotle, it is necessary to observe, that according te 
Aristotle the diaphanous is twofold, one kind being definite, but 
the other indefinite, and that the former is that to which Aristothe 
alludes in the definition of color cited by Newton from his treatise 
Qn Sense and Sensibles. Now the indefinite diaphanous is that.. 
which receives light internally through the whole of its substance, 
such as air and water, and all those bodies which are called trans- 
perent. But the definite diaphanous is that which receives hght 
in its superficies only, as ali mixed bodies which are not trane- 
parent, and which consist of the diaphanous and the opaque, but 


relative to Aristotle. al 


on account of their opacity are not transparent, and on account of 
the diaphanous which they participate, receive light in their super- 
ficies alone, such as wood, a wall, gold and his hke. Sucha 
diaphanous as this is assumed by Aristotle, in the above cited 
definition of color; but in the 2nd book On the Soul, he defines 
the indefinite diaphanous as follows: ἐστι δὴ τι διαφανες᾽ διαφανες δε 
Asyw, ο ἐστι μὲν oparoy, ov καθ᾿ auto de ὁρατον, ως amAws εἰπειν, αλλα 
δι᾿ ἀαλλοτριῖν χρωμα. τοιοῦτον δὲ ἐστιν anp, καὶ UdwE, και πολλὰ τῶν στε- 
peav' οὐ yap ἢ ὑδωρ, οὐδ᾽ ἢ αἡρ, διαφανες" αλλ᾽ οτί ἐστι Φυσις ενυπαρχουσα 
1 αὐτὴ εν τούτοις ἀμφότεροις, καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰδιῳ τῷ ἀγὼ σώματι. 1. 8. 
““Ἴμοτγο is therefore something which is diaphanous. But I call the 
diaphanous. that which is indeed visible, yet not in short of itself, but 
through color which is not its own. Air, water, and many solids 
are a thing of this kind. For neither water so far as water, nor air 
so far as air, is diaphanous, but they are so, because the same 
nature is inherent in both these, and in the perpetual body which 
is above.” He also expressty mentions the indefinite diaphanous 
in the 3d chapter of bis treatise On Sense and Sensibles, as follows : 
φαίνεται δὲ καὶ αὴρ καὶ vdmp χρωματιζομενα. GAA axes μὲν δια TO εν 
αοριστῳ οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν eyyuley καὶ προσιουσι, καὶ πορρωθεν ener poser, 
oud’ o anp, oul’ y θαλαττα. ev de τοις σωμασιν εαν μὴ τὸ περιέχον ποιῇ Te 
μεταβαλλειν, ὠρισταιὶ καὶ ἡ φαντασιὰ τῆς χροας. i.e. ““ΑΙΓ also and 
water appear to be coloured. But there indeed because it happens 
in the indefinite, neither the air nor the sea appears to have: the 
same color to those that approach near, and to those who are at a 
distance. in bodies however, [i. 6. in opaque bodies,] unless the 
‘circumambient produces a change, the appearance of color is also 
definite.” 7 
According to Aristotle therefore, when there is the indefinite 
diaphanous, as in air and water, color may be generated through 
the whole of such substances, but then it is not their own color, 
but the color of other things; but where there is the defistte 
diaphanous, as in opaque bodies, which bave a color of their own, 
there the color is in the superticies of the body. - It is needless to 
observe, that the objections of Newton arise from his not knowing 
this distinction which Aristotle makes between the definite and the 
sndefinite diaphanous. | 
lewton also in his treatise On the System of the World," when 
he ridicules the hypothesis of solid spheres introduced by Eudoxus, 


# Namque orbes solidi postea ah Eudoxo, Calippo, Aristotele introducti 
sunt; deciinante indies philosophia primitus introducta, et novis Grecorum 
commentis paulatim pravalentibus.—Eosdem (i. 6. cometas) postea 18 
regiones infra luuzm necessario detrusit ista orblum solidorum hypothesis ; 
et his iisdem vicissim per nupera astronomorum observationes in ceel 
lund superiores restitutis, confracti sunt illi orbes, et-ex sthere deturbatt: ' 

Newton, De Mundi Systemate, Ὁ. 186. 


40 On the Ἰρποῦρπδο of M- s 
in the old. In his Lectiones Optic , now to be broken as 
as follows, Aristotle’s definitior va ether, evidently con- 
δε sori τοῦ διαφανοῦς ἔν ov ἢ ΠΩ like glass. Hence 
colorate potius quam « zed) applauds him for baving 
extremitas pers ἢ ries in Which Aristotle had 
videtur, ubi nullus ¥ le likewise, in his Introduction 


vitris vel liquor’’ ee i ihat solid orbs and epicycles 

aqua marin,  ΘΌς...,, τὸ astronomers posterior to Pytha- 

in extremite er ie weet ince, till the universe had lost all 

in aere qui Set ay afcriptions, and seemed again reduced 

natus, se" er Celt “iqbors.” He adds, “ that Copernicus, 

nou mir Pruett sinam laid bie’bands on the cycles and 
umor 


Ἢ μῆς yy, and dashed them to pieces. And that 
tinctr san of Be phrenzy, be took the unwieldy earth, and 


cur orb g 0) tre of the system, to move round the sun 

Seri Me 

er ΡΣ @ suppose after all this, that neither Fudoxus, 

' ith id 200 ie, nor Ptolemy, had the smallest-conception of 
Laat = ‘Copernicus, Newton, and in short all the moderna, 


fo Ne them to have introduced into the heavens? And 
pore PP ig more certain than that the orbs which these ancients 
yet ote the purpose of solving the celestial phenomena, were 
adopt oan being hard and brittle substances, that they were sup- 
90H io be of an etherial nature, and to consist of pure immaterial 
posed light. To be convinced of this, the reader need only 
vivibe the extracts from Aristotle’s treatise On the Heavens, 
ich we have given in the former part of this dissertation. For 
jathem Aristotle expressly says, “it is impossible that the body 
ich is moved im a circle, or a celestial body, should have either 
vity or levity. That such a body likewise is ingenerable and 
Ecorruptible, without increase and unalterable, and suffers no 
- change in quality.” Hence, he adds, the first of bodies is perpetual, 
and has neither increase nor diminution, but is undecaying, un- 
changed in quality, and impassive.” He further adds, ‘‘ the name 
too by which we have called it, appears to have been delivered in 
succession from the ancients, who had the same opinion about it, 
as far as to the present time. For it is necessary to think that the 
same opinions have reached us, not once or twice only, but an 
infinite number of times. Hence in consequence of the first 
body being something different from earth and fire, air and water, 
they denominated the highest place ether, assigning it this appella- 
tion fiom always running for a perpetual ume.” This ethereal 
substance of which the heavens and the celestial spheres consist, 
was also called by the ancients fire, but a fire of a very different 
nature from that which exists in the sublunary region. Hence 


relative to Aristotle. 43 


Proclus : “ The celestial fire is not caustic but vivific, in the same 
wianner as the natural heat which is nus. He also adds, that 
mortal animals hve through a certain illumination from this light ; 
and that all heaven consists of a fire of this kind, but that the stars 
have for the most part this elenrent, and have likewise the summits 
of the other elements.” ov yap καυστικον το. oupavioy xup, αλλ᾽ ὡς ay 
tywye φαιὴν ζωοποιον, ws καὶ TO ev ἡμῖν ἐμφυτον θερμον. καὶ αὐτος ἐν τοῖς 
περι yeverews ζώων, ειναὶ φήσι τινα ελλαμψιν, Ng παρουσης Cyy τῶν θνητῶν 
EXATTOY. ὁ μεν οὖν OADS ουρᾶνος, EX TOU τοιουτου πύυρος ἐστι, τὰ δὲ ἀστραι, 
TAEIOTOY μὲν Eyes TOUTO τὸ στοχειον, exer Be χαὶ τῶν aAAwWY τας 
ἀκροτητας." 

This divine body, on account of its superiority to sublunary 
natures, was called by Aristotle a fifth body, and was said by 
Plato to consist for the most part of fire; the characteristic of 
tire according to Plato being visibility, and of earth tangibility. 
The celestial spheres therefore, being divine immaterial bodies, 
have nothing of the density or gravity of this our earth, but are 
able to permeate each other without division, and to occupy the 
same place together; just like the illumimations emiuted from 
several lamps, which pass through the whole of the same room at 
once, and pervade each other without confusion, divulsion, or 
any apparent distinction. Hence these spheres are similar to 
mathematical bodies, so far as they are immaterial, free from 
contrariety, and exempt from every passive quality ; but are different 
from them so far as they are full of motion and life. But they are 
concealed from our sight through the tenuity and subtility of their 
nature, while, on the contrary, the fire of the planets which are 
carried in them is visible through the solidity which it possesses: 
So that earth is more predominaut in the planets than in the spheres ; 
though each subsists for the most part according to the charactey- 
static of vivific fire. Very elegantly therefore is it observed by 
Proclus (in Tim. p. 278) “ that the celestial spheres [in which the 
planets are carried,] have a more attenuated and ‘diaphanous, . but 
the stars a more solid essence. That fire has every where dominion 
in the celestial regions, and that all heaven is characterised by its 
power. That the fire which is there is neither-caustic, since this is 
not even the case with the first of the sublunary elements, which 
Aristotle is accustomed to call fiery-formed, nor corruptive of any 
thing, nor contrary to earth, but shines throughout with vivific heat, 
with illuminative power, with purity and transparent splendor.” 
w de (lege dy) ravre ορθως λεγομέεν, εἰκότως αἱ μὲν Thasgas λεπτοτοραν 
mouciy καὶ διαφανεστεραν οὐσίαν, ta be αστρα στερεωτεραν. πανταχοῦ be 
»πιχράτει T2 κυρ, καὶ ὁ πας ουρανος κατα τὴν χαρακτηρίζεταιῖ Suvapaw. 


Vid, Joann. Grammat. contra Proc]. De Mundi Mternitate, . 


44 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


καὶ οὔτε καυστικον TO sxes πυρ, (σπου γε οὐδὲ TO ὑπὸ σεληνὴν TO πρῶωτιστον 
τῶν ἐνταυθα στοιχεῖων, ο καλειν εἰωῆεν Δριστοτελὴς πυροειδες,} οὔτε φθαρ- 
Τιχον τινὸς, OUTE εναντίον πρὸς Τὴν γὴν, ἀλλα θδρμοτητι ξωογονῳ, και 
δοναμει φωτιστίκῃ, καὶ καθαροτητι χαὶ διαυγειᾳ διαλαμπον. 

When Bonnycastle therefore 1epresents Copernicus as influenced 
by a woble phrenzy, when he dashed the crystal orbs of Ptolemy 
to pieces, he was certainly right in calling ita phrenzy ; for none 
but a madman would attempt to break that which cannot be 
broken; and a body consisting of immaterial light must certamly 
be an infrangible substance ; but it will not, [ trust, be readily 
admitted that such a phrenzy is noble, except in the same way as 
that of a plebeian lunatic, who fancies himself to be a king. 

The next modern [ shall adduce, who has presumed to defame 
Aristotle without being thoroughly acquainted with his writings is 
the Honorable Robert Boyle; a man who in other respects 
deserves no common portion of esteem and applause, for the purity 
of his manners, and the piety of his disposition. ‘In this latter 
particular indeed, he is an example worthy the imitation of every 
sincere lover of divinity. For it is recorded of him, that he never 
mentioned the name of God in conversation without a pause ; so 
reverential were his conceptions of the divine essence. And It 18 
deeply to be regretted that a mind with such a predisposition, had 
not, by a legitimate study of Plato and Aristotle, combined the 
light of science with the effusions of piety, and thus have had 
access to the adytum, instead of standing in the vestibules of deity. 
This otherwise excellent man, therefore, observes of Aristotle ag 
follows: ‘ And { must now make bold to say, that Aristotle was 
not only a heathen, but was far enough from being one of the best 
heathen philosophers about God and divine things, there bemg 
several of the ancient philosophers, as Plato and Pythagoras (to 
name no others), whose discourses about the deity and his attributes 
were much more sound, and less unsuitable to that infinitely 
perfect being, and his actions, than were those of Aristotle, of 
whom the excellent Grotius somewhere judiciously observes, that 
his. sentiments appeared much more favorable to religion, in his 
exoterical writings, where le was to keep fair with popular readers, 
than in bis acroamatical, where he delivers his sense as a philo- 
sopher.”* And again in another place: ‘ For as Aristotle, by 
mtroducing the opinion of the eternity of the world, did, at least in 
almost all men’s opinion, openly deny God the production of the 
world; so by ascribing the admirable works of God to what be 
calls nature, he tacitly denies him the government of the world.” * 

From these extracts it appears, that Boyle had never read the 
métaphysics of Aristotle; for if he had, he certainty would nat 


__ * See Boyle’s Works, 4to. vol. vi. p. 706.  * Ibid. vol. v. p. 163. 


relative to Aristotle. 45 


have said, that Aristotle ascribes the works of God to nature; 
since in the passage which we cited when we were speaking of 
Lord Bacon, the Stagirite expressly says, ‘that heaven and 
NATURE are suspended from the principle of things, who is the 
first mover, who moves as that which is beloved, and who is life 
and duration continued and eternal.” Had Boyle indeed properly 
studied the works of Aristotle, he would have made the same 
eulogium ou the whole, as he has represented Themistius, in a 
dialogue, making on a part of them. For this interlocutor there 
says: ‘That great favorite and interpreter of nature Aristotle, who 
was, as his Organum witnesses, the greatest master of logic that 
ever lived, disclaimed the course taken by other petty philosophers 
(ancient and modern) who, not attending to the coherence and conse- 
quence of their opinions, are more solicitous to make each particular 
opinion plausible independently upon the rest, than to frame them 
allso, as not only to be consistent together, but to support each other. 
For that great man, inhis vast and comprehensive intellect, so 
framed each of his notions, that being curiously adapted into one 
system, they need not each of them any other defence than that 
which their mutual coherence gives them; as it is in an arch, 
where each single stone, which if severed from the rest, would be 
perhaps defenceless, is sufficiently secured by the solidity and 
entireness of the whole fabric, of which it is a part. How justly 
this may be applied to the present case, [ could easily show you, if 
I were permitted to declare to you, how harmonious <ristotle’s 
doctrine of the elements is with his other principles of philosophy ; 
and how rationally he has deduced their number from that of the 
combinations of the four first qualities, from the kinds of simple 
motion belonging to simple bodies, and from 1 know not how 
many other principles and phenomena of nature, which so conspire 
with his doctrine of the elements, that they mutually strengthen and 
support each other.”?* And thus much for the illustrious but 
unfortunate Boyle ; for unfortunate he certainly must be deemed, 
who, with a mind so naturally well-disposed, mistouk the dark and 
descending labyrinths of matter, for the arduous but luminous 
heights of genuine philosophy. 

Let us in the next place direct our attention to that celebrated 
modern Locke, and we shall find him so far from being an adept in 
the writings of Aristotle, as not even to have understood his logic, 
though this ranks only as an introduction to the philosophy of the 
Stagirite. Any one is certainly justified in asserting this of Locke, 
when he finds him in bis Essay on Human Understandimg maintain- 
ing that syllogism is not the great instrument of reason. But 1 will 
extract what he says on this subject. 


' Boyle's Works, vol. t. p. 469. 


40 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


* If we will observe,” says he, “ the actings of our own minds, wé 
shall find that we reason best and clearest, when we only observe 
the connection of the proof, without reducing our thoughts to ang 
rule of ‘syllogism. And therefore we may take notice, that there 
are many men that reason exceeding clear and rightly, who know 
not how to make a syllogism. All who have so far considered 
syllogism, as to see the reason why in three propositions laid 
together in one form, the conclusion will be certainly mght, but in 
another, not certainly so; I grant are certain of the conclusion the 
draw from the premises in the allowed modes and figures. But 
they who have not so far looked into those forms, are not sure by. 
virtue of syllogism, that the conclusion certainly follows from the_ 
premises ; they only take it to be so by an implicit faith mn their 
teachers, and aconfidence in those forins of argumentation ; but. 
this is still but’ believing, not being certan.—But God has not’ 
been so sparing to men to make them barely two-legged creatures, 
and left it to Aristotle to make them rational. God has been more_ 
bountiful to mankind than so. He bas given them a mind that can 
reason, without being iustructed in methods of syllogising. I say 
not this any way to lessen Aristotle, whom | look on as one of the 
greatest men among the ancieuts ; whose large views, acuteness and 
penetration of thought, and strength of judgment, few have equalled τ΄ 
and who, in this very invention of ferms of argumentation, wherein: 
the conclusion may be shown to be rightly inferred, did great service 
against those who were not ashamed to deny any thing. And I 
readily own, that all right reasoning may be reduced to his forms_ 
of syllogism. But yet 1 think I may truly say, without any diminu- 
tion to him, that they are not the only nor the best way of reason- 
ing, for the leading of those into truth who are willing to find it, 
and desire to make the best use they may of their reason, for the 
attainment of knowledge.” ! | | 

This passage may surely be considered as one of the most 
remarkable for its absurdity that ever was written by a rationaf, 
being. Tor cau any thing be more obvious to one who is at all 
conversant with Jogic than this, that all reasoning is ἃ syllogistie’ 
process, which process 15 either latent or apparent? To say there- 
tore that God has given men a mind that can reason, without being 
instructed in methods of. syllogising, 15 just as absurd as if it should’ 
be said that God has made all men archers without being instructed. 
in the use of the bow. For as all men are capable of dischargin; 
an arrow from a bow, and may frequently though unskilled in 
archery hit the mark at which they aim, so all men can reason” 
though uninstructed in syllogism, and frequently though thug’ 

’ See his Essay, 4to. edit. p. 428, 424. | ᾿ 


relative to Aristotle. 47. 


ignorant, reason rightly, but the rectitude in both these instances 
is accidental ; since he who is unskilled in the use of the bow can- 
not be certain that he shall hit the mark, nor can he who is ua- 
instructed in syllogism, be certain that he reasons rightly. The 
absurdity indeed of Locke’s position is so great, that he contradicts 
himself in maintainmg it. For he says, “1 readily own that all 
right reasoning may be reduced to Aristotle’s forms of syllogism ;” 
and yet he immediately adds, “‘ But I think I may truly say, with-: 
out any diminution to him, that they are not the only nor the best 
way of reasoning, for the leading of those into truth who are willing 
to find it, apd desire to make the best use they may of their reason 
for the attainment of knowledge.” Now if all nght reasoning may 
be reduced to Aristotle’s forms of syllogism, the best way of. 
reasoning must be according to those forms. For the best way of 
reasoning is surely that which leads to right reasoning, and right 
reasoning is reducible to the syllogistic forms invented by 
Aristotle. 

Besides, there can be no demonstration unless that syllogism is 
employed, the properties of which Aristotle has so beautifully un- 
folded in his Posterior Analytics. For having enumerated the 
three conditions of true science; viz. Ist, that the cause of the. 
thing must be known, or, in other words, that the middle term of 
the demonstration must be the cause of the conclusion; 2d, that 
this cause must be compared with the effect, so that we may know 
it to be the cause of the conclusion ; and 84, that this conclusion. 
must have a necessary subsistence, he observes as follows: Es τοινυν 
ἔστι τὸ επιστασῆαι, οἷον εὔεμεν" avayxy xas τὴν αποδεικτικὴν επιστημὴν εξ 
αληθων τ᾽ εἰναι, καὶ πρωτῶν καὶ ἀμέσων, καὶ γνωριμωώτερων, KA προτερῶν, 
κοι αἰτιῶν TOU συμπερασματος. ουτῶς γὰρ ἐσονται XA Ai ἄρχαι OSM EX 
τοῦ δεικνυμένου. συλλογισμὸς μὲν γὰρ ETT UL καὶ ἄνευ TOUTWY αἀποδειξιὶς Oa 
οὐχ ἐσται" OU γὰρ ποιήσει ἐπιστημὴν. αληῆη μὲν οὖν CEs εἰναι, οτι οὐκ ἐστι 
TO μὴ ον επιστασθαι" οἷον oT! ἡ διαμετρος συμμετρος. εκ πρώτων δ᾽ ava- 
ποδεικτων, OTE οὐκ ἐπιστήσεται μὴ ἔχων ἀποδειξιν αὐτῶν. τὸ γὰρ επιστασ- 
θα! ων ἀποδειξις ἐστι, μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκος, τὸ ἐἔχεῖν ἀποδειξιν ἐστιν. αἰτία 
τε, καὶ γνωριμωτερα δεῖ εἰναι! καὶ προτεραι. ITIA μεν, OT) τότε ἐπιστάμεθα, 
OTAY ΤῊΡν αἰτίαν εἰδωμεν. Χαὶ προτέρα, εἰπὲρ AiTian. Χαὶ “(ογινωσχοίκενα 
OU μόνον τὸν ἐτέρον Tpomoy τῷ ξυνιέναι, ἀλλα καὶ τῷ εἰδέναι OTS εστί. 
xpotspa δ᾽ ἐστι xas γνωριμωτέρα δίχως. οὐ yap ταῦτον, πρότερον τῇ 
φυσει, καὶ πρὸς ἡμας προτερον. οὐδὲ γνωριμώτερον, καὶ ἡμῖν γνωριμώτερον, 
λέγω δὲ προς ἡμᾶς μὲν πρότερα καὶ γνωριμώτερα τὰ εγγντερον τῆς 
αἰσθησεως" ἀπλως δὲ πρότερα καὶ γνωριμώτερα Ta πορρώτερον. ἐστὶ δὲ 
πορρωτατὼ μεν, τα καθόλου μαλιστα. eyyuTarw os, ta καθεκαστα. καὶ - 
αντιχειται raur αλληλοις. ὅ.6. “41 then science js such as we 
have established it to be, it is also necessary that demonstrative 
science should consist from things true, first,. immediate, more 
known than, prior to, and the causes of the conclusion. for ἀκοαὶ 


48 On the Ignorance of Moderns 


they will be the proper principles of that which is demonstrated. 
For there may be a syllogism indeed without these conditions ; bat 
there will not be demoustration, since such a syllogism will not 
produce science. It is necessary, therefore, that the things from 
which demonstrative science consists should be ἐγ) μδ, because that 
which is not cannot be scientifically known ; as, for instance, that 
the diameter of a square is commensurable with its side. It is also’ 
necessary that they should be from things first and tndemonstrable, 
because they will not be scientifical/y known without demonstration. 
For to know scientifically things of which there 1s demonstration, 
and this not from accident, 1s to possess demonstration. It is 
likewise necessary that they should be ¢he causes of, more known 
than, and prior to the conclusion. Causes, indeed, because we 
then know scienufically, when we know the cause: and prior be- 
cause they are the causes. They are also previously known, not 
only from our understanding what they signify, but from our know- 
ing that they are true. But things prior and more known subsist 
in a twofold respect. For that which is prior to nature is not the 
same with that which is prior to us; nor is that which is more 
known to nature the same with that which 1s more known to us. 
~ By things prior and more known to us, I mean such as are nearer 
to sense ; but things simply prior and more known are such as are 
more remote from sense. And things more remote from sense 
are such as are especially universal; but such as are most near 
to it are particulars, and these are opposed to each other.” 

If therefore it is impossible for demonstrative science to subsist 
wHhout these conditions, and no scientific man will deny that it is 
impossible, how can any one be certain that his reasoning is de- 
monstrative, 1f he is unacquainted with the above-mentioned pro- 

erties of the demonstrative syllogism? For where the reasoning: 
15 not scientific, the conclusion may happen to be true, though the 
premises are false, as Aristotle has shown in many instances in his 
Prior Analytics ; but then such premises are not the causes of the 
conclusion, nor the proper principles of that which is apparently 
demenstrated. Thus he who syllogizes as follows: Every stone is | 
ap animal: every mau is a stone: ergo, every man is an animal, 
asserts indeed, in the conclusion, what is true; but then this syllo- 
gism does not produce science, because both the major and minor: 
propositions are false, and are not the proper principles of the 
conclusions. For they can only be admitted as principles by him 
who admits wliat is false to be true; since, as Aristotle justly ob- 
serves, that which is not cannot be scientifically known. A man; 
also may happen to reason scientifically without knowing the proper- 
ties of the demonstrative syllogism, but then he is not certain that 
his reasoning is scientific ; and to say with Locke, that syllogism is 
not the great instrument of reason, because many Men reason ex~ 


relative to Aristotle. 40 


ceeding clear and rightly, who know not how to make .a syllogism, 
is just as if it should be said that sight is not necessary in walking, 
because many blind men im travelling happen to arrive at the end 
of their journey in the right road. And from all tbis L think it is 
most indisputably evident that Locke had by no means studied 
the logic of Aristotle, but was profoundly ignorant of its true na- 
ture aud use. . 

. This want of knowledge in the moderns, of the writings of Ari- 
stotle, and consequent defamation of them, continues even to the 
present time. For Bonnycastle, in his Introduction to Astronomy, 
ΟΡ. 23., says, that “ Aristotle, who was the great oracle of anti- 
quity, gave the earth the form of ἃ timbrel ;” whereas Aristotle 
confutes those ancients who thought it had this form, and alsa de- 
monstrates that it is spherical. Of the truth of what I have as- 
serted, the followimg extracts are a proof. In the 13th chapter 
of the 2nd book of his treatise On the Heavens, he says, “ To 
some of the ancients the earth appeared to be broad, and to 
have the form of adrum. Of the truth of this opinion, they urge 
as an argument, that when the sun rises and sets, he appears 
to make a rectilinear, and not a circular ‘occultation, from the 
earth; though it would be requisite (say they) if the earth were 
spherical, that the abscission should be circular. ‘These do not at- 
tend to the distance of the sun from the earth, and the magnitude 
of the circumference, and do not consider that in apparent small 
circles, a circumference at a distance appears to be a right line.” 
Toss δὲ πλατεια, καὶ TO σχῆμα τυμπανοειδης" ποιουνται δὲ τεχμήριον, OT! 
δυνων καὶ ανατελλὼῶν 0 ἡλίιος, sudeiav, αλλ cu περιφερὴ τὴν αἀποκρυψιν 
PasveTas ποιουμένος ὑπὸ Τῆς yyE* ὡς δεὺν δ, 78ρ.ν σφαιροειδὴς, περιφερὴ γι- 
γεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἀποτομὴν, οὐ προσλογιζομένοι TO, τε ἀποστημα TOU ἡλίου 
προς τὴν γὴν, καὶ τὸ τῆς περιφειας μέγεθος, ὡς εν τοῖς φαινομένοις μιχροις 
xuxAoss εὐθεια φαίνεται πορρωθεν. But that the earth is spherical, 
Aristotle demonstrates in the 15th chapter of the above mentioned 
treatise, employing the whole of the chapter for this purpose, the 
beginning of which is as follows: cynua be evew σφαιροειδὲς avary- 
καῖον αὐτὴν ἕκαστον yap τῶν μόριων Bapos Exel μέχρι πρὸς TO μεσον" 
καὶ τὸ ἐλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ μειζονος ὠθουμενον οὐχ οἷον τε κυμᾶινειν, ἀλλὰ 
συμπιεζεσθαι μαλλον, καὶ συγχώρειν ἕτερον eTEQw, ews ἂν ελθῃ Ex τὸ 
μέσον. i.e. © The earth also has necessarily a spherical figure ; for 
each of its parts gravitates as far as to the middle; anda fess when 
impelled by a greater part cannot fluctuate, but is rather compress- 
ed, and the one yields to the other till they arrive at the middle.” * 


- ¥ In the course of this chapter also Aristotle makes use of the very same 
argument, to prove that the earth is spherical, which is employed for this 
purpose by the modems. For he says, “If the earth were not spherical, 


VOL.XIX. . ὦν. NO. XXXNAL » 


50 Stanless Nota quedam 


And thus [ have shown, and I trust satisfactorily, that the 
greatest of the moderns have defamed the philosophy of Aristotle 
without understanding it, have ascnbed to him tenets which he 
never maintained, have decided on the merit of the whole from a 
very superficial inspection of a part of his works, and, as the co- 
lophon of lawless innovation, have promulgated a new philosophy 
before they were adepts in the old. The moderns of less celebrity, 
who, actuated by the same lawless ambition and desire of novelt 
as those I have already noticed, have presumed to attack the Sta- 
girite, though they had not even a dreaming perception of his pro- 
fundity, I shall pass by in silence, and consign them to that oblivion 
to which they are rapidly tending. For the opposition which both 
the latter and the former of these men have made to the philoso hy 
of Aristotle, is just as idle as are the incursions of the sea against 
some lofty rock; which, swelling on high, breaks its billows, and 
exhibits no vestige of its rage, though for so many ages it has been 
lashed by its waves.” 

PHILALETHES. 


STANLEI! NOTH QUZDAM IN 
CALLIMACHUM. 


No. IV.—[Continued from No. xxxv1. p. 365.] 
In Hymn. IV. Eis 4ῆλον. ᾿ 
1, "2 θυμέ. Sic Oppian. Cyneg. 1. 
ἀτὰρ καταβῆθι, say φρὴν, 
Οἷμον ἐπὶ σκυλάκων. 
Σχηματισμῷ eximio orationem exornat, dum suum ipsius animune 
dlloquitur, et cohortatione quadam quasi stimulo admoto excitat 


Ceann rr aaa aaa eee, 


the eclipses of th€ moon would not have such segments as they now have. 
For now the moon, in her monthly configurations, receives all divisions ; 
viz. the right-lined, the curved on both sides, and the hollow. But in 
eclipses the bounding line is always convex. Hence since the moon ig 
eclipsed through the interposition of the earth, the periphery of the ‘earth, 
which is of a spherical figure, will be the cause of this.” ἡ Οὐτε yap αἱ tHe 
σέληνης ἐκλείψεις τοιαυτας ay TX OY τὰς ὠποτομῶς" Τὺ {μὴν γῶρ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μῆήγω σχηριαιο 
τίσμοις,) πασας λάμβαγει τὰς διαιρέσεις, καὶ yap ευθεια γιγεται, καὶ CLEADINUPTOL, καὶ κοίλη, 
wigs δὲ τὰς ἐκλεψεις, ae κυρτὴν ἔχ εἰ τὴν διοριφουσαν γγαμμην. wor’ ἐπείπερ ἐχλείπει δια 
τῷ τῆς γῆς ἐπι προσθησιγ, ἢ, τὴς γῆς αν εἰη πιριφίξεια τον σχηματος αἴτια σφαιροείδης ouceny 


tn Callimachum. 51 


atque impellit. Similiter Pindarus, Olymp. 2. ἔπεχε νῦν σκοπῷ 
τόξον ἄγε θυμέ, τινα βάλλομεν ; gic Archilochus seepe in suis versi- 
bus; et in Psalmis Davidicis mbil crebrius hoc ornamento. Vid. 
xl. cil. civ. &c. Propertius item, IT. viii. 

Surge, anima, ex humili jam carmine—_ B. 
(In not. ad oram libri additur, Omitte citationem Oppiani.) 

23. Κεῖμαι μὲν πύργοισι, κι τ. A.]| Hippocrates, in Ep. ad Ab- 
deritanum Senatum, in-eandem sententiam; Maxépioi γε δῆμοι 
ὁκόσοι ἴσασι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀνδρὰς ἕρματα αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ τοὺς πύργους, οὐδὲ 
τὰ τείχεα, ἀλλὰ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν σοφὰς γνώμας. Et Theognis, 227, 
de viro bono: : 

᾿Ακρόπολις καὶ πύργος ἐὼν κενεόφρονι δήμω. B. 

40. ᾿Αστερίη.) Schol. Apollon. *H πρὶν μὲν αἴλος ὕστερον δὲ 
*Acrepia. Sic item Solinus, et Stephanus. 

106. ’AymAsts ἦτορ] Vid. Drus. Proverb. Sa¢r., Smyrn. libr. 
ἵν. et xii. σιδήρεον ἥτορ. εἰ κῆρ, et Hom. 1]. B. χάλκεον ἦτορ. 

110. περιπλέξασθε γενείῳ.} Supplicantium culpiam mos erat apud 
veteres barbam ejus manu apprehendere, et ita orantia yerba pro- 
fan. Hom. Il. K. 454. 

"H, καὶ ὁ μὲν ply ἔμελλε γενείου χειρὶ παχείῃ 

᾿Ἁψάμενος λίσσεσθαι" ὁ δ᾽ αὐχέγα μέσσον ἔλασσε. 
Alia exempla in Hecuba et Andromeda Euripidis ; et mos idem 
Hebreorum indicatur Amase exemplo, 2 Sam. xx. Q., Eurip. 
Bacchid. 416. παρηΐδος ψαύων, supplicum more, et Hom. 1]. @. 
καὶ ἔλλαβε χειρὶ γενείου . 

Λισσομένη. 5. 


Euripidis Commentator, Οἱ παλαιοὶ ἱκετεύοντες ἐδράπτοντο τῆς γενειά- 
δος, καὶ τῆς χειρὸς, καὶ τοῦ γούνατος" τῆς μὲν γενειάδος, ὡς κατανεῦσαι 
ἢ εἰπεῖν τι πρὸς ἀλλὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεομένου, εἴγε δεήσει τοῦτο ποιεῖν" τῆς δὲ 
χειρὸς, ὡς ἐνεργῆσαι' τοῦ δὲ ποδὸς, ὡς βαδίσαι. Eustath. Τοῖς πα- 
λαιοῖς ἔθος ἦν ὁπηνίκα ἱκέτευον, κεφαλῆς τε λαμβάνεσβαι τῆς τοῦ ἱκετευο- 
μένου" κεφαλῆς μὲν, διὰ μέσης γενειάδος, κατὰ Εὐριπίδην, ἢ ἀνθερεῶνος 
καθ᾿ Ὅμηρον, διὰ τὰν ἡγεμονικόν. Nonnus 6. Dionys. 

λισσομένη δὲ 

4εξιτερὴ, ψαύεσκε βαθυσμήριγγος ὑπήνης.. 


Plin. 11. 45, Antiquis Gracis in supplicando mentum attingere ᾿ 
mos erat. B. 


52 Stanleii Note quedam 


112. ἀνέμοισιν ἐρίξεις..) Apud Q. Smyrn. viii. equi Achillis, 
Οὗς réxe? “Αρπυια Ζεφύρῳ πάρος εὐνηθεῖσα. 

Sic noster in Dian. 94. Θάσσονας αὐράων κυνοσουρίδας. 

Et Hom. ——+— θέειν ἀνέμοισιν ὅμοιοι. 

Et Virg. Qui candore nives anteirent, cursibus auras. Vid. 
Fulv. Urs, ad loc. 

Item Ocyor Euro. Hor. Od. If. xvi. 

122. "Avayxain μεγαλὴ beds.] Oppian. Hal. 11. 
ἀναγκαίη δ᾽ ἀτίνακτος. 

Thales dixit, ᾿Ισχυρότατον ᾿Ανάγκη, κράτει γὰρ πάντων. 
Et Sophocles in Antig., ’Avayxn οὐχὶ δυσμαχητέον. 
Apoll. Rhod. Argon. IIT. Οὐ γὰρ er’ ἄλλο 
‘Plysov ἀνθρώποισι κακῆς ἐπιβήσετ᾽ ἀνάγκης. 
Simonides (apud Suid.) ’Avayxy οὐδὲ θεοὶ μάχονται. Plura in ean-. 
dem sententiam,g¢x Tragicis plerumque, Frischlinusin loc. congessit. 

141. Alrvaiou dgeos.] Ignium Actne meminerunt Oppian. Cyneg. 
_ 1. 273., Pind. Pyth., A&sch. Prometh., -Lycurg. contra Leocrat., 
Orpheus Argonaut., Auctor libri de Mundo ad Alex., Cic. de 
Nat. Deor. 11., Lucret. Il. B. 

152. ᾿Αντ᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης] Latona beneficium a Peneo collatum 
sibi ἐλεημοσύνην dixit, non magis sane quam si οἰκτιομὸν dixisset ; non 
magis, inquam, quam cum Israel a J osepho filio petit ne in ‘Egypto 
sepeliatur ; additque, καὶ ποιήσεις ὑπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλεημοσύνην ἀληθείαν τὸ PA 
ϑάψαι με ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ. Gen. xlvii. 29. See Heins.in N. T. ps 94. 

173. Κελτὸν ἀναστήσαντες “Apya.| Sic Oppian. Halieut. v. 685. 

‘Og δ᾽ ὅτε δυσμενέεσσιν ἐπιστήσωνται “Acne. 
Homerus his verbis uti solet, ὀρίνειν, ὀτρύνειν, ὀροβύνειν "Ἄρην. Β. 

175. ἢ ἰσάριθμοι Τείρεσιν.) Sie Ovid. 
quot tn @athere sidera lucent. 

Et Catull. Idle pulvis Erythrii 
Siderumque micantium 
Subducat numerum. (Jul. et Manl. pith. lix. 
906. &c.) Vid. Genes. 
. 176. Bouxoagovras:] Lucret. 1, Sidera pascit Ather. 
Et Virg. in. V. Polus dum sidera pascet. 

178. Καὶ πεδία Κρισσαῖα. Cirrha, Delphorum navalis, olim Crissa 
dicta teste Pausania Phoc.; “Ὅμηρος μέντοι Κρίσσαν ἐν τῇ "᾿Ιλιοίδι 
ὁμοίως καὶ Ὕμνῳ εἰς ᾿Απόλλωνα ὀνόματι τῷ ἐξ ἀρχῆς καλεῖ τὴν πόλιν. 


᾿ἐῃ Callimachum. 58. 


Et inde ager subjectus Κρισσαῖον πεδίον, quod Κιῤῥαῖον ΒΟ Πιηὶ. 
Strab. ix. Προκεῖται δὲ τῆς Κίῤῥας τὸ Κρισσαῖον πεδίον εὔδαιμον. Hip- 
pocr. in Presb. Thess. 7 Hv γὰρ 6 χρόνος ὅτ᾽ ἦν Κρισσαῖον ἔθνος" ἐώκεον 
μὲν περὶ τὸ πυθικὸν ἱερὸν, γῆν δ᾽ εἶχον ἦγε γῦν τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι καθιερῶται. 
Καλεῖται δὲ τὸ μὲν Κρισσαῖον πεδίον, ᾧ Λοκροὶ παροικέουσι. Memine- 
runt quoque Heliod. 11. Herod. VIII. Vid. Meurs. Att. II. S. 

209. “ύσατο δὲ ζώνην. Pindar. Ol. vi. ait Latonam deposita 

Zona punicea peperisse Apollinem et Dianam. 

“A δὲ φοινικόκροκον 

Ζώναν καταβηκαμένη 

Καλπιδά τ᾽ ἀργύρεαν, 

Λόχμας ὑπὸ κυάνεας 

Τίκτε θεόφρονα κοῦρον. 
πε Hyperides apud Hermogenis interpretem, Λέγεται γὰρ τὴν Arr’ 
χύουσαν τοὺς Παῖδας ἐκ -Διὸς ἐλαύνεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς “Hpas κατὰ γῆν καὶ: 
κατὰ θάλασσαν" ἠδὲ δὲ αὐτὴν βαρυνόμένην. καὶ ἀποροῦσαν εἷς. τὴν γῆν 
ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέτεραν καὶ λύσαι τὴν ζώνην. ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, ὃς viv Ζωστὴρ xan 
λεῖται. Idem scribit Stephanus περὶ Πόλεων, in verbo ζωστήριον. 

258. διαπρυσίην ὀλολυγήν.)] Τὸ διαπρύσϊον adverbialiter positum 
apud Oppianum explicat Suidas per ista, διὰ παντὸς, διεξίον, μέγα, 
ἐξάκουστον, διαβόητον. Alias addit, διόλου καὶ ἀπὸ πέρατος εἰς πέρας, 
οἱονεὶ διαπεράσιον. Sic Oppian. Hal. v. S00. διαπρύσιον βοάωσι. 
Noster item N ymphis tribuit ὀλολυγὰς (Lav. Pall. 139.) et Oppian. 
ib. διαπρύσιον παιήονα dixit. Utitur eodem verbo Nazianz. Orat. sis 
τὰ Γενέθλια, ubi mentem hominis et fabricam sensuum ait esse oi- 
γῶντας ἐπαινετὰς τῆς μεγαλουργίας Θεοῦ καὶ διαπρυσίους κήρυκας. 

473. Καὶ ἔσσομαι οὐκ ἔτι πλαγκτή.} Aristid. ᾿Απόλλω τε γάρ ga- 
σιν of ποιηταὶ “ῆλον φερομένην πρότερον στῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ τελαγοῦς ἐρεί- 
σαντα, ἐπειδὴ πρῶτον ἐν αὐτῇ ἐγένετο. . 7 

Virgilius item Ain. ITT. 75. &c. (male redditus a Sandys.) . 

Quam pius Arciteriens, oras et littora circum 
* Errantem, Gyaro celsa Myconoque revinzit, 
.  Immotamque coli dedit, et contemnere ventos. 
Sic Apollinar. Sidon. 
Quas neque Deliacis peperit Latona sub antris, 
Fixura errantem Cyclada pignoribus. 
Et poeta vetus (Barthius Petronium esse autumat) 
Delos, jam stabili-revincta ferra,: 


\ 


δᾷ διαηϊεῖξ Note quedam in Callimachum. 


Olim purpureo mart natabat ; 
Et, moto levis hinc et inde vento, 
' Ibat fluctibus mquieta summis. 
Mox illam geminis Deus catenis 
Hace alta Gyaro ligavit, tliac . 
Constanti Mycona-dedit tenendum. 
286. ἀσνγήτοιο λέβητος.) Interpretantur aliqui ἀσυγήτοιο λέβητος * 
dici, quoniam subinde bullit et fervet; qua quam puerilis et ludicra 
sit interpretatio, quivis vel mediocriter eruditus perspicere potest. 
Ego refero ad proverbium Grecum, quod his verbis legitur apud 
Parem. Auctorem: Τὸ “ Δωδωναῖον χαλκεῖον" κεῖται παρὰ Mevay- 
ὅρῳ ἐν τῷ ᾿Αρήφῳ. Εἴρηται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν πολλὰ λαλούντων, καὶ μὴ διαλειπ-- 
ὄντων. Φασὶ γὰρ ἐν Δωδώνῃ χαλκεῖον [aliquid deesse videtur] ἐπὶ 
κίονος ἔσταναι τὸν παῖδα ἐξηρτημένον μάστιγα χαλκήν᾽ πνεύματος δὲ κινή» 
θέντος, τὴν. μάστιγα πολλάκις εἰς τὸν λέβητα Ex) χρόνον πολύν. h. 6. 
« οάοπαυηι Ahenum’ usurpatur a Menandro in Arepho. Dicitur 
autem in loquaces et a garrulitate non desistentes. Dicunt autem 
in Dodona ahenum in colunma in edito jacere ; im altera vero co 
lumna prope stare puerum adpensum flagellum habentem zreum, 
Spiritu autem moto magno flagellum sepe in lebetem incidere, 
unde tinnitus non parvus resultat. Hujus quoque meminit Auso- 
nius; Nec Dodongi cesset iinnitus aheni. . ΝΣ 
407 .----800. : χαίτην. 
τς παρθενικαῖς, x. τ. A] Capillum diis consecrabant, 
aut fluminibus. Pollux. ἔτρεφον δέ τινες κόμην ποταμοῖς ἢ θεοῖς. 
Petron. cuz Deo crinem vovisti? Deis Hereuli et Apollini; Her- 
culi vulgus Atheniensium, ut ex Hesych. eruditiss. Casaub. docuit, 
Apollini sortis majoris. Plutarch. Thes. Μεταβαίνοντες ix Woridwy, 
ἐλθόντες εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀπάρχεσθαι τῷ θεῷ τῆς χόμης. .Quod fluminibus 
Scholiastes Pindari, Τὰς μὲν γὰρ πρώτας κόμας τοῖς ποταμοῖς ἀπεκεῖ- 
povro, σύμβολον τοῦ ἐξ ὕδατος εἶναι πάντων τὴν ἄσκησιν. Hom. Il. ¥. 
ejusque Interpret. Volvebant autem sacrum crinem prima constitu- 
tione infantis super terram, aut cum nomina imponebantur. Lu- 
cian. de Dea Syria; τοῖσι δὲ νεοῖσι πλοκάμους ἱεροὺς ἐκ γενετῆς ἀπίασι. 
Tertull. de Anima xx. quem suadeo videas. Serv. ad Virg. En. 
ἵν,» Stat. Theb. vi. Quin addo in nuptialibus sacris comarum primi- 
tias Junoni et Diane obtulisse origines. Pollux, ‘iii.; καὶ τῆς 
κόμης καὶ τότε ἀπήρχοντο ταῖς θεαῖς αἱ κόραι. Nec virgines tantum, 


τς On the Orations ascribed to Cicero. 858 


ged juvenes quoque. Lucian. de Syra Dea; rijos παρθέναισε καὶ 
τοῖσι γνεοῖσι νόμον ἐποιήσαντο μὴ μὲν. ἄλλως γάμον Teves, πρὶν ᾿Ιππολύτῳ 
κόμας κειρᾶσθαι. Var. Ambracie primum capillum puerilem dem- - 
tum, item cirros ad Apollinem ponere solebant. Stat . 
: Accipe laudatos juvennm, Phabete, crines, 
Quos tibi Casareus donat puer, accipe latus. 8. 

804, ovaos ἐθείραις Εσπερος.) Varro de L. L. v. Exorte stelle 
‘tempus dictum a Grecis éoxepa, Latine vesper; ut ante solem 
exortum eadem stella vocabatur Jubar, quod jubata. 8B. 


F. R. 8. 


OBSERVATIONS ON SOME | 
ORATIONS ASCRIBED. TO CICERO 
No. VI.—[Continued from No. ΧΧΧΥῚ. p. 251.] 


ORATIO PRO M. MARCELLO. 


Macna semper fuit in admiratione summisque laudibus celebrata 
€st Ciceronis, que pro M. Marcello inscribitur, oratio: neque cuiquam 
superioribus seculis, quod sciamus, in mentem venit, dubitari posse, 
atrum recte ad hunc referatur auctorem. Hoc si mirifico quodam 
errore accidit, certe negari nullo modo potest, plerasque hujus operis 
partes ea virtute esse debere insignes et eo splendore claras, ut aciem 
acute cernentium preestrinxerint, ne vitia et alia νοθείας signa videre 
possent. Quod si bec bulla esse ostenderimus, huic orationi laus sua 
et in posterum constahbit. 

Hoc ut nobis agendum putemus, facit F. A. Wolfii auctoritas, cujts 
et doctrina et ingenium merito ab omnibus eximia laude celebratur. 
Is cum renovasset de quatuor Ciceronis orationibus controversiam a 
Marklando motam, quam aunquam‘ motam fuisse satius erat, in pree- 
fatione significavit, etiam aliam quandam. illius orationem fern, qute 
δἰ δὲ in otio scholz composita, non in senatu dicta, videatur. De hae 
nova quzstione ipse preterea nihil: rem enim aliis integram relinquere 
statuerat. Utunam hoc propositum ‘tenuisset! Fortasse nemo ausus 


_* Non difficilis sed plenus teedii labor esset, illas quatuor orationes Ciceroni 
vindicare. Quam futilia contra eas passim prolata sint, existimare licet δ 
apecimine disputationis de verbo pene §. 10. extr. 


56 On-the Orations ascribed to Cicero. 


esset erroris patefacti laudem illi preripere: ct ipse putaretur senteti- 
tiam mutasse. Nunc cum orationem illam animadversionibus adjec- 
tis demonstraverit, ut ipse quidem in pra-fatione dicit, ‘‘ esse inanem 
rerum; verbis, formulis, constructionibus sxpe vix Latinam, in tota 
compositione ineptam, stultam, ridiculam ; denique fatuo principe, 
Claudio, quam Cicerone digniorem :” scrupulum injecit multis, qui de 
majoribus rebus ipsi judicare non audent. Hos ego monitos volo, ne 
argutiis ejus moveantur. Nam profecto ita ille contra Ciceronem dis- 
putavit, ut ejus ratione imitanda non minus probabiliter doceri posse 
confidam, non esse I. A. Wolfii illam orationis pro M. Marcello 
editionem, sed ab inepto ejus imitatore suppositam. Licebit nobis 
cjus rei specimen dare, quoniam ipse in fine prefationis ambiguum 
fecit, utrum rem seriam agere an ludere voluerit. Elegantissime 
scripta est illa prefatio, et difficile est in ea reperire, quod non admi- 
reris, nedum ut quidquam serio reprehendas. Sed permissus erit hic 
Judus, quia docebit, non minus calumniari licere in utramque partem, 
quam disputare. Prima preefationis particula hee est : 

“ Quum in Prefatione ad quatuor orationes, quibus Ciceronianum 
nomen Marklandi et meis obelis detraxi, conjecturam afferrem de quinta 
quadam oratione ex ejusdem magni‘scriptoris operibus summovenda ; 
tametsi graviores plerasque causas sententiz mez tenebam consignatas, 
id tamen non agebam, ut eadem disputandi subtilitate ad uovam quees- 
tionem translata, consensum doctorum hominum singulis punctis collige- 
rem. Hoc si facere voluissem, nullus ei rei locus fuisset aptior, quam is 
ipse, ubi suspicionem jaciebam. Sed mihi videbar ista brevi significatione 
satis dixisse intelligentibus, qui verum, leviter et summisse admoniti, 
suo magis ingenio perquirere quam aliena opera doceri mallent: cete- 
rorum et imperite turba: rationem non maguopere ducendam putabam. 
Tu hoc enim genere δὲ quid recte conjectum est, talem vim novimus 
esse veritatis, ut, per longum tempus suppressa, tandem emergat, 
assertorem nacta suum; cum leves conjecture et opiniones, vel cal. 
lidissime ornate, insita quandoque concidant infirmitate. Denique ita 
nuper defessus eram castigandis vitiis umbratici magistri, ut requiem 
potius apud prestantiores scriptores, qaam novum laborem quererem 
ex simili causa, et ea, que mihi multo difficiliorem explicatum habere 
videretur. Jam vero quoniam poscunt quidam amicorum meorum, ut 
quam primum exspectationi suze satisfaciain, aliosque in viam reda- 
cam, quos in illis a me indicatis extremis Orationibus varie errare 
narrant; sumsi aliquot dies feriarum ad ea, que ante rudibus lineis 
᾿ inchoaveram, singulari libello disserenda.” - 

Heccine Wolfius scripserit? Imo tollamus ex inscriptione tanti vir 
nomen. Arrogavit sibi nescio quis impostor hoc nominis ornamen- 
tum: sed virtutes illius viri adsciscere homo misellus non potuit. 
Significaverat vir magnus, quamquam obscurius, unam e Philippicis, 
quas nunc habemus, a declamatore aliquo, non a Cicerone, compositam 
esse. Arripuit igitur egregius conjectorillam pro Marcello, admirabili 
scilicet genere eloquentiz, quod ipse non cepisset, infeliciter offensus. . 
Sed fipgamus, summum criticum de illa oratione significasse, tamen 


Wolfius de Quatuor Orationibus Ciceron. 57. 


homo stolidus quidvis potius auderé, quam talem questionem attingere 
‘debebat. ‘EX ὄνυχος τὸν λέοντα. ἴῃ tali judicio ut lectores te 
audiant, non sufficit argutandi quzdam sollertia, sed poscitur ea lin- 
guz Latine, maximeque dictionis Tulliane scientia, ut’ex oratione 
ipsa non malum hujus rei judicem agnoscant. Sed is est stilus Aris- 
tarchi nostri,.ut ex argente posteriorisque ztatis scriptoribus Latine 
scribere didicisse, de Cicerone autem vix fando audivisse, videatur. 
Sed jam ipsum audiamus Pseudo-Wolfium. Statim a secundo versu 
dicit, se Cicerontanum nomen Marklandi et suis obelis detrarisse. 
- Queres, quibus subsidiis hoc fecerit? Dixerat ipse, guatuor orationi- 
bus. Dices hanc esse ineptam calumniam. Concedo. Sed et tu 
concedas oportet, non multo aptiores occurrere in animadversionibus 
deineeps dijudicandis, sicut statim 8. 1. de verbis rerum omnium.— 
Ciceronianum nomen ferri potest, ut recentioribus maxime usitatum. 
Sed velim antiqui et probati scriptoris locum mihi demonstrari, ubi 
Ciceronianum nomen, Ciceroniani libri, Ciceroniana merita in remp. 
dicantur pro Ciceronis ipsius nomine, libris, meritis. Illius wtate sine 
dubio Tudlianum dicebant, quidquid profectum erat a Cicerone uut ad 
ipsum proprie pertinebat: et si quis adjectivum usurpare volebat ab 
hoc cognomine ductum, Ciceronium potius dicebat, sicut a C@sone dici- 
tur Cesonium, a Stilicone Stiliconium,a Marone Maroniumsive Maro- 
neum. Sed ex analogia Ciceronianum debebat esse id, quod minus 
arcto nexu cum Cicerone conjunctum est, ita ut Ciceronianus esset imi- 
tator Ciceronis; oratio Ciceroniana, oratio similis orationibus Cice- 
ronis. Ergo Ciceronianum nomen quatuor orationibus non detraxit 
Wolfius, sed pro ipsius consilio, et quantum in ipso fuit, asseruit, sicut 
et hic, nescio quis, orationi pro M., Marcello.—Sequitur causas tene- 
bam consignutas. Quam vim hic habet tenebim? Num est scrinits 
inclusas tuto asservabam? an manu gerebam, aut noram sive memine- 
ram? Deuique dicendum erat simpliciori verbo habebam. Sic enim 
boni scriptores cum Cicerone dicunt. In fine periodi an Latinum est 
consensum colligere? Mihi secus videtur. Gratiam et benevolentiam 
colligere apud Ciceronem szpius occurrit. Sed consensus diversam 
significationem babet. Etiam hoc est ingratum, quad non intelligimus, 
num verba singulis punctis pertineant ad consensum an ad colligerem. 
—Insequentis periodi ultima suut suspictonem jactebam. De his primo 
monendum, Latinos dicere suspicionem injicere, non simplici verbo 
jacere: deinde imperfectum tempus adhiberi de actione 1.) sxpius 
repetita, 2) diutius durante, aut per tantum certe spatium, ut aliud 
quid, quod adjungitur diserte, intra illud perfici aut accidere potuerit ; 
3) de re paullo post, quam scriptum fuit, facile mutanda. . Nihil 
horum isti loco convenit. Semel enim et paucis, in pref. p.:44 
Wolfius significavit de oratione aliqua sibi suspecta. Neque porro 
significat hic noster, interim, dum suspicionem injiceret, aliquid factum 
esse. Denique nec de re b. 6. de suspicione sua facile mutanda cogi- 
tandum est, quam etiam nunc sibi residere, toto libello declaravit.— 
Deinceps mirum errorem homo imputat Wolfio, cum dicit, se tsta 
brevi signifieatione sibi visum satis dixisse intelligentibus. Quid enim 


58 On the Orations ascribed to Cicero. 


dixerat Wolfius? nihil nisi hoc, majore forsan peritia artis musica, de 
qua dixerat, ercellere oportere eum, qui aliquando cognoscere velit, 
num in extremis Orationibus Ciceronis etiam alia quedam lateat, non 
in senatu dicta, sed in otio schola composita. Ceterum neque oratio 
que esset, neque vitium ullum, aut vitiorum genus aut ullum vo@elas sig- 
num clare indicavit. Si tam obscura vel potius nulla significatione res 
pateret, dudum explosa esset oratio pro Marcello.—Deinceps claudicant 
illa suo magis--+-+doceri, quia ut pugnantia ponuntur, neque tamen 
pugnant. Ut breviter dicam, quod res est, non videbat auctor, doceri 
absolute, sine casu positum, idem esse, quod tradi, exponi, et necessario 
addendum fuisse se. Sed sententia totius-periodi vide quantam injuriam 
faciat humanissimo Wolfio. Intelligentibus aliquid obscure significat, 
sed ita, ut ipsi verum inveniant: ceteros autem omiies errare Φ6 4110 animo 
patitur. Quis ergo illis non indoctis operam suam prestabit, si forte 
aliquid addiscere aut saltem clarius se edoceri cupiant, ubi et quo- 
modo verum inveniendum sit? et quis rationem habebit imperitee, sed 
discendi eupide turbe, si homines ad docendum nati et constituti hoc 
munus suscipere nolunt ?—Sequens periodus tot et tantis vitiis scatef, 
ut vel sola libellum falsi nominis inscriptione condemnet. Quid? ἐπ 
Roc tantum genere, in asserendis vel abjudicandis alicui scriptori libris, 
veritas recte conjiciendo emergit? cur non item in aliis rerum generi- 
bus, in quibus est simplicior indagatio veri? Deinde quis est ille, qui 
post dicitur assertor ? idemne qui conjecerat ? sed inde nascitur iouti- 
lis tautologia: analius quispiam, qui suo ingenio, ut ante dictum erat, 
verum perquirit? Sed quanti hoc est? Intelligitur per se, inquirendo 
verum inveniri. Querendo enim omnia inveniuntur. Quidquid in 
rerum natura exstat neque sponte se ostendit, perquirendo inveniri 
debet. Itaque nihil peculiare de vi veritatis hic dicitur, et verba talem 
v. n.e. veritatis monti parturienti sunt simillima. Sed hvec ipsa veritas 
cur per longum tempus suppressa tandem emergere dicitur? nonne et 
per exiguum tempus? Sed omnino quantulum hoc est laudis? Ea 
demum recte predieetur veritas, quee nunquam se supprimi patiatur. 
Ceterum perspicuitatis causa Wolfius dixisset guamvis per ἷ. ἔ. 8. tamen 
emergat aliquando. Leves conjecture dicuntur guandoque concidere. 
Hoc sive interpretamur interdum, sive post longum tempus, idem 
accidit rebus certis et exploratis, ut historia docet multis exemplis. 
Pro insita infirmitate Wolfius diceret sua. Nam leves conjeeturse 
naturali potius et innata labant infirmitate, quam insiéa: et infirmi- 
tatis notio est, quod dicunt, negativa, ut ex re sublatum aliquid intel- 
ligatur, quo fieret infirma, nihil autem insitum. Denique verborum 
fuco absterse quid sententiz remanet de tota periodo? nihil nisi hoe, 
obscurum quidem et futile: Veritas post longum tempus invenitur 
studio hominum: leves conjecture per se concidunt. Sed ne odiosius 
omnia persequar, de ultimis tantum -versibus aliquid addam. De 
extremis Orationibus dicitur. Quznam sunt ille? In principio dic- 
tum est de quatuor Orationibus, et de quintaquadam. Ommnmo tota 
sententia ipsum auctorem poscit interpretem. Sed malis scriptoribus hoc 
est commune vitium, ut, que sua cogitata ipsi sibi videntur intelligere, εά 


Wolfius de Quatuor Orationibus Ciceron, | 59 


ulcunque expressa omnibus clara esse credant.—Sumpsi pro sumsi 
nunquam, ut opinor, seribit Wolfius, cum p inter m et s aut f, ut in 

omtus, emtus, et aliis, e vitiosa pronuntiatione indoctornm et bar- 

arorum se ingesserit. Re ipsa idem significat Priscianus L. X., qui 
euphonie causam affert. Vid. Sanctii Minerva IV, 17. ubi et Perizo- 
nius statuit, Justiniani fere tempore vitiosam hanc scriptionem inva- 
luisse.—Bellam a pictura metaphoram auctor petierat in rudibus et 
lineis et inchoaverum ; sed turpiter horum oblitus in extremo disse- 
renda. Ne somnianti quidem hoc excidisset Wolfio, pro perficienda, 
polienda. 

Sed satis multa, imo nimis multa lusimus. Nemo enim credere 
debet, hzec serio a nobis vituperari. Jam ante dixi: sed iterum iterum- 
que dicere et confirmare malo, quam suspicionem relinquere, me 
severe reprehensioni simulate calumniationis nomen pretendere. 
Itaque nec in reliqua prezfatioue nec in animadversionibus quidquam 
attigi, preter res et sententias auctoritati et praestantiz hujus orationis 
oppositas: verba censoris ad censuram vocanda non putavi; in qui- 
bus passim non ipse, sed calamus et manus peccavit, ut ad §. 31. 
“*exemplum quo hic usus est Orator, nimirum ut membra paria faciat.” 
Nam defendi omnia posse scio et lubens concedo. Quin etiam insunt 
in his, quz quis admiretur et exempli loco proponere possit Latine 
scribere discentibus, ut scita periodorum forma et rerum dicendarum 
apta collocatio. Sed, ut ad causam Ciceronis redeam, si et ipse 
Wolfius sciens volensque orationem ejus excellentem calumniatus est, 
ejus factum vereor ut judices severi et integri probent. Nam cunt 
nimis feliciter et prorsus ad verum expresserit hominis pro sua 
sententia acerrime pugnantis contentionem, etiam intelligentioribus 
. injecit scrupulum, gui hane orationem publicis scholis explicant. 
Mihi quidem narravit amicus, cum ipsi allate essent Wolfii in 
eam animadversiones, se ancipiti distentum dubitatione, quid ageret, 
constituere non potuisse: neque enim silentio preteriri posse.talis viri 
dicta, presertim in ceetu adolescentium non indoctorum nec incurio- 
sorum ; Deque rursus ad severum et longum vocari examen, quod ea 
re bona pars temporis absumatur ad alia tractandga constituti: idque 
sibi eo molestius accidere, quo plura occurrant, in quibus non facilli- 
mum sit a viro tanti nominis dissentire. Hujusmodi querelis ut occur- 
rerem, et ut discipulis quondam meis aliisque, quibus et ipse hanc 
orationem, ut egregium eloquentie Tulliane monumentum, semper 
commendavi, copiosius judicii mei rationem redderem, Wolfil animad- 
versiones, sicut ipse appellat, per hunc commentarium dijudicandas 
suscepi. Nam ea re feliciter acta, plerisque hoc denique sufficere 
poterit, ut sciant, orationem pro Marcello jam ita esse defensam, ut de 
ejus auctoritate dubitari non debeat. Quamquam quid opus est tale 
Institutum aliqua excusatione premunire ? Cuique bonarum litterarum 
amanti tam debet esse optabile, ut auctoribus sua vindicentur, quam 
ne illis tribuantur aliena; multo magis autem hoc, ut vere eloquen- 
tie et Latinitatis, de qua Wolfius largam disserendi copiam dedit, 
explorentur note. Ac ne ipsi quidem molestum fore spero, se hac 
opera nostra, si ita contigerit, adjutum esse, ut verum ἃ VEN BNET, 


60 On the Orations ascribed to Cicero. 


qua est deceptus, facilius discerneret. Nam illud mihi non arrogo, ut 
secundum primam conditionem, quam ipse tulit, ad ipsum redarguen- 
dum aliquam Ciceronis orationem calumniando perstringam et simili 
ratione Ciceroni abjudicem. Nempe in fine prafationis hzec scripsit : 

“ Jam si quis forte erit in iis, quos ego de hac questione judicare 
posse putabam, cui perlectus commentarius videatur ipsum Ciceronent 
calumniari: pro opera mea hoc unum et leve premium postulo, ut is 
nobis quam primum Orationes pro Ligario et Deiotaro, vel aliam quam- 
cunque, eadem ratione calumnietur. Ea si displicuerit conditio, velim 
sibi persuadeant lectores, memet ipsum, exemplo Rossii, non rem seriam 
agere, sed rectiora edoctum viueta mea cedere, vel hoc totum genus 
criticarum suspicionum, ue in imperitorum manus veniret, cavillando 
eludere voluisse.” . 

Quis vero scit, se in eorum esse numero, quos ipse putarit de hac 
queestione judicare posse? Quod autem postulabat, ut quam primum 
alia Ciceronis oratio similibus calumniis exagitaretur, illud tempus vel 
ila dies, qua eam rem confectam volebat, fortasse jam preeteriit. 
Verum etiamsi res esset integra, et si ego essem in illorum numero, 
tamen altera conditione uti mallem, que ad omnes lectores pertinere 
videtur, nisi illud me pungeret et vere sollicitum haberet, quod ante 
narravi. Sed et hoc me male habet, quod tertiam conditionem nullam 
ponit, neque adeo, que prima esse debebat, lectores meliora doceri, 
concedit. Sed hanc conditionem sine arrogantia, quantum video, mihi 
ipse ponere possum. Et, ut opinor, viri egregii humanitas id non 
zegre feret, cum viderit, non contumeliis et maledictis pugnari. 

Jam de hac, quam defendendam suscepi, Ciceronis causa in univer- 
sum quedam monenda sunt. Notum est illud Horatii ( A.P. 352°). 
judicium : ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendar maculis 
etc. Hoc non solum de poémate, sed etiam de oratione, et de omni 
scripture genere valere oportere, nemo dubitabit. Quare si non plura, 
sed quam plurima in oratione pro M. Marcello scripta nitent, et in 
paucissimis verbis reperitur, quod jure reprehendas, multo minus eam, 
ut Cicerone indignam, damnare debebis. Quodsi porro vix unus et 
alter est locus, in quo vitium manifesto sit ipsius auctoris, quale §. 6. 
init. notavimus ; et si reliqua omnia profecta sunt ab interpolatore aut 
a librario, ac ne hec quidem admodum multa, integer judex vix defen- 
sione opus esse putet. Neque vero audiendus est, si quis opponat, 
cupide sic agi, et facilem esse suppositi scripti, dictionis maxime cha- 
ractere damnandi, defensionem, si eorum, que impostorem arguunt, 
alia tribuantur librariis, alia glossatoribus. Nam huic orationi nihil 
precipui juris postulo: idem tantummodo jus, quod aliis veterum 
scriptis, ei statuendum esse contendo. Atin ceteris Tullii orationibus 
critici pauca vituperant: in hac quam multa vitia notavit Wolfius ! 
Non minus multa, imo plura etiam im illis vituperare licet, ca quidem 
ratione, quam vir doctus in hac dijudicanda tenuit, et quam ipse ludo 
quodam ab initio hujus pré&fationis expressi: et justi speciminis loco 
esse potest Appendix de oratione, liget suspecta, pro Q. Ligario. 
Jtaque, ut illuc redeam, in ceteris antiquis scriptoribus, et in hoc ipsd 


Wolfius de Quatuor Orationibus Ciceron. 61 


Cicerone quomodo versatur criticorum gravitas? Nonne ubi plurima 
nitent et auctore, qui ab omnibus creditur, et qui ab anthquissimo tem- 
pore creditus est, digna videntur, paucas quasdam maculas aliunde 
adspersas putant? Atqui per hunc commentarium nos videmur docu- 
isse, quam plurima et prope omnia, qua censor in oratione pro M. 
Marcello notavit, Cicerone, qui semper habitus est auctor, reperiri 
digna. Sequitur ergo, ut maculis, si que etiam nunc restant, vel 
abstersis vel excusatis eam huic auctori suo vindicemus. 

Ceterum lectoribus, qui hee nostra cum illis ἃ Wolfio scriptis con- 
tendere volent, hanc fero conditionem, ut, si forte pleraque nostra 
probarint, de Viri Excellentissimi divino ingenio et exquisita doctrina 
non minus bene sentiant, quam adhuc senserunt. Quod ut ex animo 
possint, illud primo cogiteut, errores quosdam viris doctis, Wolfii 
similibus, quodammodo esse honorificos. Cum enim non in simplici 
litterarum genere versentur, et multa diversarum rerum cogitatione 
diversorumque scriptorum lectione occupentur, non mirum est, notis- 
simas interdum res, quippe sepositas aliquamdiu et ex animo dimissas, 
illis videri novas et insolentes, sicuti de forma res tue gest@ ὃ. 25., et 
de-aliis censori in memoriam suo tempore non rediit. Quid, quod 
Ernestium erroris habet socium ? quem scimus felicissimum fuisse 
Ciceronis et interpretem et imitatorem. At dicat quispiam, imbecil- 
litatis humane memor non debebat ille tanta confidentia elatus homi- 
num doctissimorum et elegantissimorum judicia pro nihilo ducere, 
neque hoc sibi sumere, ut rem illis exploratam erroris plane et eviden- 
ter convincendi nomine appellaret, et profiteretur, scriptorem sub 
Ciceronis nomine latentem a se uno ictw sic affligendum fuisse, ut 
posthac nulla spes restitutionis saperesset. Sed excusare potest illam, 
408 quibusdam videatur, arrogantiam ingeniorum excellentium mos et 
ratio. Ubi phantasia incaluit, res a se excogitatas interdum tam clara 
luce animo suo subjiciunt, ut eorum acies prestringatur, neque. veriora 
illa cernaut, propter quz inventa sua stare non possunt. Ego quidem 
illum apimi atque ingenii nervis carere puto, qui nulla de re non Archi- 
medeo radio explorata liquido et confidenter pronuntiare audeat, -ac 
be sua quidem inventa, nisi timide et dubitanter, commemoret. Et 
reliquit Wolfius non pauca, ut dubia, modeste significans, se de illis 
decernere non posse. Fortassis etiam Marklandi exemplum, in cujus 
verbis diligenter perpendendis et Latine vertendis paullo ante versatus 
erat, contagione quadam valuit, ut, licet modestior et sui judicii, plus- 
culum sibi videretur arrogare. Quodsi ille plane nihil verum et stabile 
de vitiis hujus orationis protulisset, tamen ὁ conatu per se jam lauda- 
bili hee illi maneret laus, quod viri docti excitabuntur, ut eo diligen- 
tius de κριτηρίοις ejus querant, et ut ejus prestantiam penitius cogs 
noscant rationibpsque justis declarare instituant. 6 

Sed ne a laude magis propria censoris doctissimi discedamus, inde- 
fessum ejus et multiplex litterarum studium ad festinationcm quandam 
eum videtur impulisse. Nam et ipse fatetur in praefatione, se tantum 
dies aliquot seriarum operi suo perficiendo impendisse, et res ipsa 
hoc docet planissime. Quis credat,eum iguorare, quid sit cupiditas in 


62 On the Orations ascribed to Cicero. 


judicando, de qua ὁ. 29. extr. aunt comparativum aliquando altiorem 
gradum obtiaere, quam superlativum, de quo §. 331 Ilud docetar in 
lexicis etiam minoribus, hoc in libellis grammaticis puerorum usui 
scriptis. Quod in his et talibus lapsus est, id partim excusatur supra 
dictis, partim, ut dicere institueram, ejus ad majora quedam et gravi- 
ora festinatione. Propter hanc etiam nennulla obscurius tantam sig- 
Dificavit, ut de editore aliquo ex iis, quos nunc schola habeant ἃ. 33. 
Num seorsim hec oratio nuper erat edita, an cum aliis conjunctim? 
Lubens ego hanc editionem mihi plane ignotam in consilium adhibuis- 
sem. 

Erunt etiam, qui ejus iniquitatem quandam accusent. Exardescit 
enim interdum velementius contra hominem, quem sibi pro Cicerone 
substitutum finxit, ut si oppositum haberet adversarium, non metuen- 
dum illum quidem, sed tanien ob stultam male mentis pertinaciam 
omni modo reprimendum et compescendum. Itaque ei aliena vitia 
obtrudi facile patitur, quasi ἐν Καρὶ κίνδυνον, ut dicenda pro ducenda, 
intuebitur pro tuebitur §.28. Eodem pertinet illa velut fastidientis 
stomachi calumoiatio, qua carpurtur multa apte translata et feliciter 
novata, nonnulla item commode et ad analogiam constructa, quibus 
interpretes in commentariis non attulerunt similem probati scriptoris 
locum, adeo ut, qui talis censoris notam velit effugere, is nihil, nigi 
centones, conficere possit. Rursus si quid horum exemplis ex ipso 
Cicerone defendi potest, en tibi illa, auctorem certasse cum Cicerone, 
uimis memorem fuisse loci Tulliani, et similia. Sed et hee iniquitatis 
species potest ante dictis purgari. Facile homines εὐφαντασίωτοε eum, 
quem reprebendere cceperunt, sibi fingunt reluctantem, ita ut non 
solum cum mortuo, sed etiam cum umbra pugnent, et ejus omnia 
insectentur odiosius. Accedit, quod quis tacite et hoc cogitare potest, 
non defuturos esse rerum castigatarum defensores. Hos quasi ante 
oculos sibi constituit, et cum his sibi rem fore videt non sine aliqua indig- 


᾿ matione. Id si accidit censori, habebunt equi judices, quo verba 


ejus, si qua duriora sibi excidere passus est, in meliorem partem 
interpretentur, Hoc: ut fieret, optavi, ex quo nonnulla ex ejus ani- 
madversionibus accuratius expendere cepi. Sed valde timui, ne quis 
asperius causam Ciceronis defenderet. Itaque optavi hoc amplius, ne 
quis illud munus primo quoque tempore susciperet, quod mihi pre- 
reptum doluissem, nisi idem adhibuisset zequitatem et humanitatem 
viro de bonis litteris optime merito debitam. 

Hee scripseram totumque commentarium confeceram, cum copia 
mihi facta est nove editionis orationis tractate. Inscribiturilla: ΠΗ͂, Τα 
Ciceronis orationem pro M. Marcello νοθείας suspicione, quam nuper 
injiciebat Frid. Aug. Wolfius v. c. liberare conatus est Olaus Wormiue, 
Prof. et Rector schola Hothersnes. Haunie, 1803. Elegantissimi 
judicii documenta dedit Wormius in disputationibus textui subjectis, 
mihique non pauca suppeditavit ad commentarium perpoliendum. 
Veruntamen prestitit tantum id, quod inscriptio habet, nec tamen 
omni ex parte: non paucas enim censoris castigationes intactas reli- 
quit; atque etiam de lis, quas refutavit, non plane satisfecit. Preeterea 


Wolfius de Quatuor Orationibus Ciceron. 63 


consultum maxime opera sua voluit esse popularibus et discipulis suis, 
quorum in usyum non modo in scholiis multa Danice vertit, sed etiam 
in fine adjecit totius orationis interpretationem Danicam. Ceterum 
ad laudem ejus accedit Latinitas studiosum Tullii lectorem arguens et 
vindice Tulliane orationis digna, et, quz virtus pluris est, humanitas in 
redarguendis viri docti erroribus. Eodem tempore, qua Wormiana 
subsidia mihi obtigerunt, legi in ephemeridibus litterartis Lipss. de 
Commentatione exhibente nonnulla ad Wolftanas orationis pro M. 
Marcello castigationes, auctore Ge. Chr. Im. Kalau, Phil. D. et Lycet 
Francof. Conr, 1804. Hance ut mihi mitteret Clariss. auctor, non 
frustra petivi. Ex ea, licet brevissima, sicut ex epistola ad calcem © 
adjecta, quedam excerpsi lectoribus, ut spero, valde probata. 

Horum propositum quod fuerit, et quatenus illud assecuti siut, par- 
tim dixi, partim per se apparet. Mea ratio latius patet. Cum orati- 
onis, quam vindicandam et illustrandam suscepi, reprehensio fere 
omnis nata sit vel e verbis male spectatis et intellectis, vel ex arte non 
animadversa, cumque superiores etram interpretes multa preterierint, 
quibus explicandis bene operam suam posuissent: non Wolfianas tan- 
tum castigationes sectatus sum, ut illis dumtaxat dijudicandis bonaruim 
litterarum studiosis prodessem, sed et alia quam plurima accuratius 
exploravi, ut fieret, quem inscriptio promittit, commentarius plenus. 
Quid autem sit in hoc genere plenum, paucis ostendam. Hanc pleni- 
tudinem non conficiunt omnia omnium interpretum commenta in 
unum corpus congesta. Partim enim falsa multa, partim futilia aut certe 
aliena, partim eadem diversis verbis repetita tali colligendi sedulitate 
exhibentur. Atque etiam sic mancus exsistere potest commentarius. Ergo 
cum pon pueris rudibus, sed adolescentibus Latine i. e. bene scribendo 
jam institutis et paullum exercitatis talia scribantur, ea copiose oportet 
exponi, quz ad sensum verborum per se non cuique perspicuum et ad 
omnem dictionis virtutem declarandam pertinent. Itaque interpretes 
superiorum seculorum nonnullos sic adhibui, ut ab illis tradita, quan- 
tum in me esset, ex animo dimitterem: atque etiam meliores, ut 
Manutium, Abramium, Greevium, ita sequendos vidi, ut non ab illis pen- 
derem, neque eorum uterer verbis. Aliud res suasit in animadversioni- 
bus Wolfii, quia hic non agit verum et justum interpretem, et quia, nisi 
verba ejus ipsa servata essent, multa malitiose in alienum sensum 
detorta viderentur. Denique selectio, que olim magna’ ferebatur 
Jaude, variarum notarum e. divergis interpretum commentariis nun- 
quam vero et integro judicio probari potest, quia in unum corpus coire 

Iversorum corporum membra nequeunt, meliusque multo est eandem 
sibique convenientem rationem et orationem per unum eundemque 
commentarium servari, Quam ob rem magis menti quam oculis sub- 
jectas in rem meam verti aliorum interpretum sententias. 

Textus ipse typis hic repeti commode non potuit. Fuisset enim 
commentario aut premittendus aut subjiciendus, quod ad usum parum 
opportunitatis habuisset. Sed tamen cum prima interpretis cura hec 
debeat esse, ut verba certa, que putet ab auctore scripta, tenent et ἢ 
eommendet, tantum monebo, mg recensionem Ernestii ante oculos 


. 64 On the Orations ascribed to Cicero. ° 


habuisse. Si quo igitur loco de verborum integritate nihil dixi, ibi 
textum ejus ut verum aut Ciceroni maxime convenientem probavi. 
Sed tota prope oratio particulatim pér commentarium exhibetur, ut 
vix locus relictus sit, in quo non appareat, quid genuinum aut proban- 
dum putaverim. 
᾿ Denique et in externa libri forma, quantum erat mez facultatis, 
curavi, ne qua oculi offenderentur, sed multo magis, ne impedirentur 
difficultate quzrendi. Hanc ob causam animadversiones censoris noa 
jisdem versuum spatiis iuclusi, sed ita collocavi, ut primo statim con- 
jectu oculorum a reliquis discernerentur. Hac ratione etiam effectum 
est, ul eas omittere, si quis vellet, commocius posset, atque etiam 
majori opportunitate comparare cum illis, que contra dicuntur, si quis 
causa totam diligentius coguoscere et dijudicare cuperet. . 
Hc quasi extra causam prefanda duxi. Cetera preeunte Wolfie 
sunt persequenda, e cujus przfatione ordine singula excerpsi, quae ad 
institutum pertinent. Nam in refutandis aliorum opinionibus minime 
probanda est eorum ratio, qui suum sibi ordinem constituunt, ut modo 
hinc modo illinc aliquid arripiant, in quo copiose se jactent. Facile 
illi vel casu et oblivione vel difficultatum dissimulatione nonnulla omit- 
tunt, in quibus est multum momenti. Ac, ne ab hac oratione disce- 
dam, si vel una sententia atque adeo unum verbum inesset Ciceroni 
auctori plane repugnans, neque id casu aut interpolatione potuisset 
immigrare, causa nostra esset desperata. 'Totum igitur libellum Wollfii 
percensens omnia ordine expendi, nihilque prztermisi, quod ad cav- 
sam videretur pertinere. Nascitur inde volumen majus, quam pre 
ilustranda tam brevi oratione. ‘Nam, ut Wormius queritur (p. 109), 
“est in hoc defensoris conditio, quam accusatoris, iniquior, ‘quod, 
cum hic digito monstrasse et verbo monuisse coutentus est, illi ad 
suspiciones injectas delendas et crimina sparsa diluenda longiore or- 
tione opus est.” Sed tamen brevitatem, quam res ferebat, servare 
studui. | 
Denique et hoc addam, quod mihi de hac ipsa brevitate cogitanti 
in mentem venit. Dixerit quispiam, cum duplex fuerit meum consi- 
lium, unum refutandi Wolfii, alterum explicande justo commentario 
orationis, non bene hec duo conjunctg.esse ; me debuisse alterutrum 
omittere, aut saltem graviora tantum Wolfiana paucis verbis expressa 
diluere, ut et commentario sua forma constaret, et justa usuique apta 
brevitas servaretur. Ad hae modo dictis prope satis responsum est. 
‘Tantum dicam, cum hanc mihi valde probatam rationem sequi vellem, 
me Vidisse, etiamsi litigiosz disputationis speciem, quantum fieri pos- 
set, vitarem, simplicemque commentarii formam tuerer, tamen duee illo 
viro docto utendum esse, quia nemo tain studiose, quam ille, omnes 
difficultates et vitia omnia vel ab auctore vel a librario profecta per- 
secutus est. Itaque si illam rationem, h. 6. externam simplicis com- 
mentarii speciem tenuissem, paullo breviorew, fateor, fecissem, sed 
ita, ut neque explicata satis neque defensa omni ex parte videretur 
oratio. Quam ob rem rogo lectores, quibus secus videtur, ne verbosx 
disputationis specie offendantur, aut, si vacat, primo Wolfii animad- 


Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant, &c. 65 


versiones legant, ac deinde periculum ipsi faciant aliter instituendi 
commentarii. Videbunt illi profecto, quam difficile sit, ila, quam 
demonstravi, ratione sibi satisfacere, nedum aliis, qui eadem ista con- 
tra hanc orationem prolata legerint, et quam suspecta fiat optima 
causa, nisi quis viri docti, qui ea protulit, ipsa vestigia sedulo premat, 
et eum quasi ducem et defendendz et explicande orationis sequatur, 


_ 


‘HYPOTHESES OF MR. BRYANT AND MR.. 
FABER RECONCILED. 


Tose who read only for information on the origin and antiquity 
of nations, are too frequently compelled to discontinue their re- 
searches in weariness or disgust. ‘The materials which they are 
bound to consult, if they would arrive at any satisfactory conclu- 
sion to their quiries, are so scattered, so various, and extensive ; 
and the authors who have attempted to guide them through the 
Jabyrinth, have embraced hypotheses so contradictory, that he who 
has no theory to support, 1s bewildered and embarrassed. Scrip- 
ture and history, tradition and etymology, the customs of nations 
_ and the fictions of romance, are all enlisted into the service of an 
hypothesis. ‘The Jearned writer is the astonishment of his contem- 
poraries and the admiration of posterity, till another strong man 
armed, overthrows his palace, to erect another hypothesis on the 
same extensive foundation of labor, knowledge, and research. 
Though successive theories are thus overthrown, materials have 
been collected, the ground cleared, and difficulties removed; though 
Bishop Warburton, in the opinion of Mr. Faber, has failed to prove 
that the mysteries’ criginated in Egypt; though Marsham and Spen- 
cer are both wrong in their opinions on the origin of the Jewish 
ceremonies, and the Pagan idolatry, they are entitled to our grati- 
tude with Bishop Cumberland, Perizonius, Witsius, and many 
others: all their researches have contributed to demonstrate that the 
account of Moses is true, and revelation the gift of God. 
" Among the proposers of theories Mr. Bryant and Mr. Faber are 
pre-eminent. Mr. Bryant’s fame is known to all; Mr. Faber is 
still our contemporary, and the character and reputation of an in- 
dividual can seldom be properly appreciated till his labors be com- 
leted. . But from all that we have heard and seen of Mr. Faber, 
VOL: XIX. Cl; Jl. NO. XXXVII. BE 


66 Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant 


we are justified in asserting, that for integrity of charatter, purity 
of intention, and extent of research; for learning, for piety, and 
industry, he has met with few superiors. The history of the future 
ages can alone decide whether his interpretation of the prophe- 
cies of the Apocalypse be correct. Some objections may be urged, 
as the opinions of the most excellent may vary, against several de- 
bateable points, both in his printed Sermons, in his Hore Mo- 
saice, and his late invaluable work on the Origin of Pagan Ido- 
latry ; but he has rendered most essential service to the common 
cause of learning and religion; and he is worthy of our admiration 
and gratitude. 
I bave thus expressed my sincere opinion of Mr. Faber, th 
it be contrary to the customs of the day to offer a tribute of this 
kind to a stranger. In making some few observations on a 
part of that great work, which every inquirer into the origin 
and antiquity of nations will add to his library; I trust Mr. Faber 
will believe that {am actuated by the same love of truth, which 
has guided him: I would not wish in the least degree to depre- 
ciate the value of his labors, while I freely express my opmion op 
any of the subjects of his research. | 
he question under discussion is briefly this. Were there two 
dispersions of mankind, or one? Mr. Bryant maintains the affir- 
mative: Mr. Faber the negative. I am inclined to the opinion of 
Mr. Bryant, for the reasons which I shall assign. I could add 
many arguments to the list, deduced from Heidegger, Witsius, 
and others, whom Mr. Faber does not appear to have consulted ¢ 
88 they are not once referred to, if I remember right, through the 
whole of his marginal references. | 
In maintaining the affirmative of the question, Mr. Bryant asserts 
that the sons of Noah retired peaceably to their respective. habite- 
tions; but that the sons of Cush, accompanied by a mixed multi- 
tude, violently dispassessed their brethren Asher and Elam of their 
territory ; and settling in Shinar, built the tower of Babel. _From 
this place they were miraculously dispersed, and being eminent in 
arts and arms, they conquered, and civilised the world, and are to 
be traced in all quarters of the earth under the names of Cathim, 
Scythe, Ammonians, &e. | | 
Mr. Faber for the negative argues, that the whole assembled 
sons of Adam apostatised at a very early period ; and went toge- 
ther to Shinar: from which spot they were miraculously dispersed. 
Both authors agree in supposing that the apostasy from the 
patriarchal worship, which originated the Pagan idolatry, was. the 
cause of the dispersion at Shinar. 


We shall more clearly comprehend the scope of the argument, 


and Mr. Faber reconciled. 64. 


-by examining the several objections which Mr. Faber pg'“yces 
against Bryant’s Theory, with the answers which may bones in 
reply. (Vide Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol. ii..b. 6. p. 359.) 
After which our best plan will be to consider, with the same impar- 
tality, the objections which may be urged against Mr. Faber. 

I shall not insert references to the several passages in Bryant’s 

Analysis, or. Faber’s Pagan Idolatry; the reader is suppdsed to 
have perused them, and to preserve a general recollection of the 
whole subject, and of the contents of the volumes. 
. 1, All mankind, Mr. Faber observes, must have been collected 
together because their apostasy was universal: the Pagan idolatry 
in every country in the known world is the self-same arbitrary sys- 
tem: the remote nations could not have borrowed from each other, 
neither could the creed of one great people have been imposed by 
conquest on their brethren: they must therefore have been united 
in one spot, and this the Scripture assures us was Shinar. 

Mr. Bryant, in reply, would have probably reasoned, that this 
Jatter assertion appears something like begging the question. Man- 
kind undoubtedly must have been collected together ; but they were 
united for many hundred years at Nachshevan, near the mountain, 
where the ark rested. At this place the corruption of the patri- 
archal religion commenced. In the original apostasy were two 

reat sects, known by the names of Brahmanism and Buddhism. 

ἡ. Faber proves most satisfactorily that Buddhism preceded 
Brahmanism. Might not the first gradual deviation in the form of 
Buddhism have commenced at Nachshevan; and will not this 
account for the universality of the same system, without supposing 
᾿ς that all mankind were at Shinar? Brahmanism might have com- 
menced at Shinar; and as it would differ at first very little from 
Buddhism, its progress would be easily enforced by that violence, 
which Mr. Bryant strenuously contends the Cuthites uniformly 
attempted, wherever they planted their settlements. 

Obj. 2. The plain words of Scripture, says Mr. Faber, assert 
that all mankind were at Shinar. The whole earth was of one 
Janguage. How then could the confusion of tongues take place 
unless all had been there united? 

According to Mr. Faber’s concession, the remains of one uni- 
versal language are plainly traceable over the whole earth. Mr. 
Bryant discovers it everywhere, in the radicals of all languages, 
This would have been equally the case whether mankind were dis- 
persed from Nachshevan or Shinar. The several nations in the time 
of Moses were divided by a variety of languages; but the best com, 
wpentators have supposed it possible that the dialects might have 
varied gradually. ‘The Rabbis asserted that seventy languages were 
given at the dispersion. Mr. Faber affirms, from Sir W. Jones, 


68 Tlypotheses of Mr. Bryant 


t knowu languages are traceable to three, and these three to 
oné, which may very possibly have become cunfused by dialects 
gradually superinduced. Certain it is that the best translators have 
differed with respect to the meaning of YON bs nse mr 559, 
Gen. 11.9. Nor can any argument be fairly built upon that 
expression. The Cuthites might have taken new dialects with 
them; or the languages might have been slowly altered from se- 
veral causes, as languages are changed at present. 

Obj. 3. A very plausible objection is next made by Mr. Faber. 
If, as Mr. Bryant supposes, the Cuthites at Shinar were miracu- 
Jously panic-stricken by God himself, and compelled to scatter 
themselves over the earth, how was it possible that they could con- 
quer their brethren wherever they went ? 

It may very justly be answered, in Mr. Faber's own words, that 
the institution of the military caste commenced with idolatry at 
Shinar. Though the apostates were-panic-stricken by God, yet it 
by no means follows that they were inferior to their brethren. ‘They 
were enterprising, united, and warlike ; and would naturally subdue 
the surrounding people. The conquests mentioned by Bryant, 
though commenced at an early period, were not completed till 
many centuries had elapsed. 

Obj. 4. If they even conquered, says Mr. Faber, how could 
they have imposed their religion? 

This has been already answered. Brahmanism was but little 
different at first from Buddhism ; there would be much plausi- 
bility, and perhaps the appearance of reformation of religion, 
among the enterprising Cuthites. Mr. Faber attempts to prove 
that Nimrod most probably represented himself as the expected 
deliverer, and is still celebrated among the Hindoos as one of their 
Avatars. If so, the power of the sword was but a secondary meang 
of spreading the innovation. He appealed to their hopes, and 
to their fears: he might have pretended to divine inspiration 
as Mahomet, and appealed to the sword as the last means of con~ 
firming his pretensions. | ον 

Obj. 6. Moses tells us (Gen. 10. 5.) that the nations were dis- 
persed “after theirlanguages;” therefore it has been said, these 
originated at Babel. | | 

4 It is replied; Moses wrote to his contemporaries, and described 
the dispersion with reference to the languages existing at that 
eriod. 

Obj. 6. The whole earth YAN 9D Gen. 11. 9. signifies all 
mankind. - 

It is_answered; in many instances it denotes only ἃ large 
number, as the Cuthites might bave been. ; 


and Mr. Faber reconciled. 69 


‘Such are some of the arguments which immediately occur to the 
mind in favor of Mr. Faber against the hypothesis of Mr. Bryant, 
and such are the replies which might be made: the difficulties 
attendant on Mr. Faber’s hypothesis that there was but one dis- 
persion of mankind are much more serious. 

1. Mr. Faber has himself raised the greatest objection to the 
truth of his hypothesis by adopting the chronology of the Sama- 
ritan Pentateuch. He has argued this point with his usual learning 
and ability, and at great length: and he concludes that the emi- | 
gration from Armenia in one great body under the influence of 
Nimrod and the Cuthim took place in the year after the deluge 
559; and their dispersion from thence made in the year 630. 

_ Now it is evident, that in proportion to the interval, which 
elapsed between the deluge and the emigration to Armenia, will 
be the numbers of mankind. If the interval be short, they will be 
fewer; if longer, they will be more numerous. Calculators have 
always found considerable difficulty in attempting to discover the 

oper data, by which to ascertain the probable numbers of man- 

ind. Father Petree’s are too extravagant, Bishop Cumberland 
makes their number in the 340th year after the flood amount to 
3,833 millions; a number almost equal to the estimate of the 

resent inhabitants of the whole world, which Dr. Wallace in 

is Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind, reckons at 4000 
_ millions. This calculation must be erroneous, even if the period 
assigned by Mr. Faber be correct. Leaving this out of the ques- 
tion, let us consider that of Mr. Heming lately published (vide an 
Inquiry into the Progressive Colonisation of the Earth, and the 
Origin of Nations, &c. &c. pp. 98, 99.) The result of one in- 
quiry. gives us 4,218,750 at the end of 256 years: the result of 
another, $8,030, 144—of another, 75,468,256: pursuing either of 
his calculations to the 559th year, we should still have many more 
tnillions than can be consistent with Mr. Faber’s hypothesis. We 
cannot lose time, if these results be rejected, in examining the 
calculations of Petavius, Mede, or Shuckford; each of whom 
considers the dispersion as taking place long before three hun- 
dred years had elapsed. Mr. Faber, I believe, is the only author 
who has fixed the emigration at so late a period. Mr. Whiston 
fixed it in the year 401, and his calculation has generally been 
rejected on this very account. Let us adopt another very easy 
mode of calculation, that the population of the early postdiluvian . 
world doubled itself every twenty years: I think this neither a 
rash, nor an extravagant supposition, particularly when we con- 
sider that the whole earth was before them, and the present dis- 
couragements to population had no existence; neither is it irra- 


70 Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant 


tional to suppose that, as they were commanded to be fruitful, and 
multiply, and replenish the earth, they would probably be ex- 
empted from the plagues, and famine, the influence of climate, and 
the variety of diseases which affect their unhappy and shortlived 
offspring. The population of America, without including the ad- 
dition of the emigrants who daily proceed thither, 1s said to double . 
itself in that time, in consequence of the quantity of land, and the 
room afforded to its cultivators. Taking other points, such as the 
rarity of decrease by deaths at the earlier part of this period, the 
longevity of the patriarchal heads of families, and the ready suste- 
mance to be procured, into consideration, this calculation is cer- 
tainly not overrated; nor can I anticipate an objection. 

From the deluge then to the emigration from Armenia, Mr. 
Faber computes 559 years. When the ark rested, the whole family 
of man consisted of eight persons: if according to the hypothesis 
these were doubled every twenty years till the period in question, 
the increase will be 1,073,741,824 persons. 
__ I am unwilling to suppose too much. Let us take only the 

half of this number, 536,370,912 for the amount of mankind at 
their emigration, and: we shall be so staggered with the difficulty, 
that I think it will be impossible to receive Mr. Faber’s bypo- 
thesis. . 

According to Mr. Faber, all the sons of Noah must have re- 
mained near the original settlement of their father, in the Gor 
divean Mountaing, till Nimrod became their chief, and led them to 

hinar, 

The first and chief objection to Mr. Faber’s hypothesis is, the 
apparent impossibility that upwards of five hundred millions of 
men could be united in one body before the establishment of an 
effective government. 

Supposing that they had not gradually begun to disperse before 
this period, 1s it probable that the several sons of the three patri- 
archs, who presided over the families of their own descendants, a 
king and priest, according to the patriarchal system, would sub- 
mit to the influence of their equal and kinsman, whatever were 
the plausibility of his pretensions, and travel with him to Shinar, 

If the whole body bad thus submitted, and begun their journey 
to the plains of Shinar; following, as Mr. Faber, Mr. Penn, 
Mr. Bryant, and others unanimously affirm, the course of the 
Euphrates ; how could they procure provisions and habitations on 
their journey? 

Setting aside even the hypothesis that their numbers would: 
amount to five hundred millions, and substituting one hundred 
milhons, the difficulty still remains. 


and Mr. Faber reconciled. V1 


- But if we embrace Mr. Bryant’s opinion, that the Cuthites only 
were engaged in the enterprise at Slinar: if their numbers 
amounted at first to five or ten millions of warlike, desperate adven- 
turers: if they remaimed, as Mr. Faber suggests, from the year 
P. 1). 559 to 630, till: their numbers were increased, and their 
power concentrated; if when thus enlarged and strengthened, 
they gradually usurped upon their peaceable brethren, and by 
their united violence, priestcraft, and stratagem, unavoidably suc- 
ceeded in conquering them, the whole difficulty with regard to 
number vanishes : and [ cannot but think the whole hypothesis of 
ithe dispersion made consistent with reason, scripture, and history. 

To the objection that when the Cuthites were dispersed they 
were panic-stricken, and therefore unable to conquer; an answer 
has already been made. "᾽ | 

I have replied also té the objection arising from the impro- 
hability that the Cuthites should impose a new religion oa the van- 
quished. ‘The idolatry of Nimrod would: not materially differ 
from the corruptions of the patriarchal religion. 

The calculation of the numbers of mankind at the dispersion, 
which is given above, is confirmed by the consideration of the 
numbers which have been supposed to live-in the age of Augustus. 
I have somewhere seen an estimate which made them at that time 
amount to four thousand millions. It is calculated that the united 
influence of disease, luxury, war, &c. &c. permits the doubling of 
the aggregate population of the world every four or five buadred 
years. At the period in question the lives of men were shortened, 
the effects of war had begun; and as the heads of families were 
ambitious, we may naturally suppose that other vices had crept in, 
and luxury and disease contributed to prevent their former rapidity 
of increase. . 

If at the time of the dispersion, therefore, in the year 559, they 
amounted to 500 millions, at the end of the fifteen hundred years 
following, that is, about the period of the Roman greatness, they 
would have amounted to four thousand millions. ‘These calcula 
tions cannot of course be accurate; but I think they are sufficient 
to show the real weight of that objection to Mr. Faber’s theory, 
which arises from the probable numbers of mankind. 

2. Mr. Bryant has satisfactorily proved, that wherever ,the dis- 
persed Cuthites wandered, they uniformly found inhabitants im the 
country. Whence came these Aborigines ?. 

3. It seems to have been the general belief of the Jews, that the 
dispersion was divinely appointed with reference to the children of 
Israel. This opinion is confirmed by Scripture, and learnedly 
defended by Mr. Faber. The heads of the three great families must 
have known their destination. Is it probable that the apostasy 
would have been so universal, that every patriarchal chieftain of the 


72 Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant 


three branches, should have submitted to the influence of their 
Cuthite brethren: resigning their own authority, as princes, priests, 
and prophets, and despising the command of their fathers, with 
whom they had lived near Ararat? 

4. Have we any reason to believe that God has ever ‘left the 
world without witnesses to his truth? has the visible church ever 
ceased to exist? According to Mr. Faber’s theory, mankind must 
have been entirely devoid of religion from the apostasy at Shimar 
ες till the call of Abraham. It seems, on the contrary, that idolatry, 
though extensive, was never universal. When the Israelites 
advanced to the holy land, the terror of them, says the Scripture, 
was upon all the nations. Mr. Faber, in bis Hore Mosaice, 
beautifully illustrates this passage: the surrounding idolaters, he 
proves, were aware that the land of Canaan was the inheritance 
appointed to the children of Israel from the very beginning. If they 
had not forgotten the commands of God, and the plans of his pro- 
vidence, they could not have forgotten the revelation He had made 
to their father Noah: and if so, the corruption could not have been 
universal. 

5. Wherever the Israelites proceeded, the bordering nations 
appear to have been in some measure acquainted with the true 

zod. Jethro was priest of Jehovah in Midian, before the 
Exodus ; Job was contemporary with Amram; Heber the Kenite is 
supposed to have been a proselyte; Abimelek king of Egypt 
venerated Jehovah ; Balaam, as Mr. Faber ingeniously proves m 
the Hore Mosaice, was the last prophet of God under the patri- 
archal dispensation. If at this comparatively late period so much 
knowledge of the true God was preserved, is it not unreasonable to 
believe. that idolatry was absolutely universal at the earlier period 
of the dispersion at Shinar? ~ 

It may be urged that the preaching of Abraham had informed 
these nations :—Abraham undoubtedly was well known to them; 
his journey from Ur of the Chaldees through the land of Shinar; 
end through Carchemish to Charan; from-Charan through the 
territory of Aram, and the north of Syna, through the whole 
extent of Canaan to Egypt; from thence to the country of Sodom 
and Gomorrah, supposing him everywhere preaching against 
idolatry, as tradition asserts he did; all this must have certainly 
produced a great effect upon the several nations ; and the effect of 
his instructions may very possibly have continued till the period of 
the Exodus. This very supposition, however, strengthens the argu- 
ment against Mr. Faber’s hypothesis: if the teaching, the mere 
teaching and example of one man could have produced a perma- 
nent effect among the idolatrous nations for nearly five hundred 
years ; surely the deliverance from the deluge, the teaching of Noah, 
the visible appearance of the Shechinah at the great sacrifice offered 


and Mr. Faber reconciled. 93 


upon their escape from the ark, and the perpetual influence of 
prophecy, remaining among, and ‘exerted by, the heads of the pa- 
‘triarchal tribes for more than three hundred years after the deluge, 
would have been sufficient to preserve some remembrance-of the 
true God among mankind till the era of the dispersion. The call 
‘of Abraham and his subsequent journey, were wonderful events ; 
but those which [ have enumerated were not less: wonderful : 
and were equally capable of compelling astonishment, and 
serving the fear of Jehovah among the early postdiluvians. tis 
not probable therefore that the apostasy was universal; and if 80, 
Mr. Faber’s hypothesis is no longer tenable. ᾿ 

_ 6. If we could ascertain who Melchizedek really was, ‘much 
light would be thrown on this question. Both Witsius and Heid- 
egger discuss the point, but neither of them satisfactorily. Mr. 
Faber believes him to be an incarnation of the Son of God; but I 
do not think he has proved the position. The general opinion is that 
he was either Shem, ora son of Peleg, or a patriarchal prince, 
and priest of the town of Salem. If the latter opinion be correct, 
the apostasy could not have been universal. 

7. Accumulative evidence is not decisive, unless additional argu- 
ments are adduced on the controverted questions by the successive 
authors ; or I could mention many who have supported the hypo- 
thesis of a double dispersion, before Mr. Bryant: Marsham, She- 
ringham, Sulpitius Severus, (Heid. Exerc. 21. § 1.) and others, 
into whose inquiries I have no time to examine. Plerique veteres, 
(says Heidegger, Exerc. 22. § 9.) opinati sunt, omnino Noe filiis 
_ suis orbem divisisse, antea quam in campum Senaar proficisce- 
rentur, &c. 

8. Many authors have asserted that neither Shem, (who died 
before the dispersion, according to Mr, Faber,) nor his family were 
engaged in the building of the tower. Among these are Euty- 
chius Alexandrinus, Glycas, quoted by Epiphanius, and Constan- 
tine Manasses. (Vide Heid. Exerc. 21.§ 5.) Hf these authorities 
have any weight, the apostasy was not universal. 

9. Mr. Faber contends with great justice that the institution of 
castes was once universal; and that the institution itself implies 
conquest. Does uot this opinion rather confirm Mr. Bryant's 
theory, that the Cuthites conquered their brethren and imposed 
the dominion of the military tribe which very possibly, as Mr. F. 
asserts, originated at Shinar? 

10. Buddhism seems to have differed.very little from Patriarch 
ism, when the innovations gradually commenced. The Jews in- 
terpret the expression DW iW) by, let us make an idol or set 
up a God. word does not merely signify token, tower, &e. 
&e. If they are right in this interpretation, and the image of the 


74 Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant 


great Father was erected at Babel for the first time, we may be 
certain that this was the origin of Brahmanism; and the idolators 
intruded alike on the worshippers of the true God, and the specu- 
lating Buddhists. But the apostasy could not in that case be uni 
versal. 

11. Can we suppose it possible that there were no chiefs of the 
Shemite or Japhetic families to resist the march to Shinar? If we 
adopt Mr. Bryant’s theory, and dispose of these to their respec 
tive settlements, no interruption would have been given to the 
Hamite apostates, and the difficulty vanishes. 

12. Though Mr. Faber has collected many arguments on the 
phrase in Gen. 11. δ. “‘ the children of men,” and attempts to prove 
that the inhabitants of the whole world are meant ; - I think aa the 
expression in other passages denotes the wicked, in opposition te 

_the good, so it 1s to be understood in this place. The first verse in 
that chapter is ἃ separate paragraph. The pronoun they, is to be 
referred to the suns of men in the 5th verse, as no other nominative 
is given; the children of men therefore are considered as distinct 
from the rest of the world, instead of including them. The words 
may be thus paraphrased. | 

V.1. One language was common to all the descendants of 
Noah, who had retired to their several settlements. τσὶ 

2. And it came to pass, as those who had openly abandoned the 
worship of Jehovah journeyed from the East; to which they had 
been directed by the command of God, but which they left to 
intrude upon their brethren ; that they came to the plain of Shinar, 
following the course of the Euphrates. (Vide Faber, and the crr 
ticism in the note on the origin of the name Euphrates.) 

Then follows the narrative of the confusion of tongues; and it 
is very possible that the several languages and dialects which com- 
menced at Shinar, would supersede the original language, in every 
part of the world; leaving only the radicals, which in all counfries 
are the same. If this interpretation of the expression, “the children 
of men,” be correct, Mr. Bryant’s hypothesis is more entitled to 
our favorable reception than Mr. Faber’s. . 

13. An objection is raised: to Mr. Bryant’s theory from the cir- 
cumstance of Abraham’s successful resistance to Chedorlaomer. 
Jt is argued that the Cuthites could not have been so powerful if 
Abraham with only 318 men could have conquered a victorious 
army. I should answer this difficulty by suggesting, that it is very 
possible Abraham was miraculously enabled to conquer the five 
kings; to prove the superiority of the power of Jehovah above the 
idols, so lately set up in Chaldea. 

.- 34, Tradition is not to be depended upon, unless it is supported 
by other authority. I shall not therefore insist on the tradition mene 


and Mr. Faber reconciled. 15 


tioned by Epiphanius, that the earth was divided by lot among the 
sons of Noah; βαλόντα τοὺς κλήρους ἐν ‘Psvoxogovposs: the existence 
of such a tradition proves that Mr. Faber’s opinion was not uni- 
versally that of antiquity: Mr. Bryant has some curious remarks 
on this passage. 

15. The last objection [ shall mention to Mr. Faber’s hypo 
thesis is derived from the similarity between the Patriarchal, the 
Levitical, and the Egyptian modes of worship. Mr. Faber has 
most satisfactorily proved that it was not probable one nation 
would borrrow its religion from another. Neither the Jews, as 
many have suggested, are likely to have borrowed from the 
Egyptians, nor the Egyptians from the Jews, whom they hated 
and despised. Witsius m his Egyptiaca has shown the singular 
resemblance which existed between the Egyptian and Jewish cere- 
monies. It seems probable from his account, that the Levitical dis- 
pensation was a revival only of the Patriarchal, but with new laws, 
suited to the object of their Tjivine Lawgiver, and the existing cir- 
cumstances of the chosen people. If the Egyptians therefore 
derived their religion from the common source of revelation, which 
appears likely from its similarity to Judaism, they must have 
derived it when it was in 8 atate of purity, and not when it was 
already corrupted: that is, the ancient Misraim, who were favor- 
able to the Jews, who treated with Abraham and Isaac, when 
Abimelek was their king, who received Jacob and his family 
with kindness, and submitted to the government of Joseph, pre- 
served the ancient Patriarchal religion for many ages in its purity, 
and had most probably, if Bryant’s theory be correct, occupied 
the territory originally assigned them. ‘This ‘happy state of things 
was altered by the Hucsos, the Palli, or Shepherd-kings, who 
introduced the idolatry from Shinar. We have no evidence that 
the worship of the Bull was introduced into Egypt in the days of 
Joseph; if the original religion of the Misraim had been altered, 
it must have merely been an incipient Buddhism : but at the time 
of the Exodus, the murrain, which affected the cattle, is ably 
represented by Mr. Bryant, in his treatise on the Plagues of 
Egypt, to be a severe punishment on the nation for their worship 
of the Bull. During the interval between the death of Joseph and 
the legation of Moses, a new king arese who knew not Joseph ; 
the Shepherd-kings had resumed their dominion, though they had 
been formerly expelled, and introduced Brahmanism, and most 
probably built the pyramids to confirm and perpetuate their domi- 
nion. : 

Such are some of the objections to Mr. Faber’s hypothesis : 
the. conclusions to which 1 have myself come, after a careful 
perusal of the works of the great authors in question, and many 


76 Hypotheses of Mr. Bryant, GC. 
of those quoted or referred to by Faber and Bryant, appear to 


me likely to reconcile their contending theories. 

Every, reasonable hypothesis, says Mr. Faber, quoting from 
Warburton, should be founded on a fact. No observation can be 
more just. But the fact must be well ascertained, and, if possible, 
mdisputable. Mr. Faber’s extensive and beautifully sttpported 
theory is founded on the assumption, that all mankind were united 
in one spot, the plain of Shinar. Mr. Bryant’s theory in reality 
is founded on the same fact, that all mankind were originally as- 
sembled in one place, but that place he supposes to have been 
᾿ Nachshevan. Both authors agree in believing the same circum- 
stance, differing only as to the place. If we adopt Mr. Bryant's 
theory, that mankind continued near the mountain where the ark 
rested, until their increasing numbers compelled emigration: and 
if on this foundation we build Mr. Faber’s hypothesis, that 
Buddhism preceded Brahmanism, that Buddhism was probably 
the first deviation from Patriarchism, that the institution of castes 
was coeval with the total apostasy at Shinar, originating among, 
and supported by the sword and influence οὗ, the thites; 
if we believe both as Mr. Faber and Mr. Bryant agree, that 
fierce and cruel wars took place at the time of the dispersion 
from Shinar, and that all the colonies of mankind, whether they 
proceeded from the one, or the other controverted central ste- 
tion, took with them memorials of the deluge, and emblems 
of the ark, which were perverted in after times to superstitious. 
11868, together with all the elements of their future idolatrous 
worship ; we shall then have a connected and intelligible hypo- 
thesis: Mr. Faber’s system will be deducible from Mr. Bryant's’ 
premises, both authors will be reconciled, and by far the greater 
part of the difficulties, which perplex the unbiassed pursuit of in- 
formation, immediately vanish. QT 


RM. Co ollege, Sandhurst. 


Commemoration, &c. 77 


ODES. 


| BY 
PROFESSORS HERMANN AND BOTTIGER, 


IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 
KING OF SAXONY’S JUBILEE, 
SEPTEMBER, 1818. - 


~—— iin 


Tue Jubilee of the King of Saxony, on which he completed 
the fiftieth year of his reign, was, last September, celebrated 
with extraordinary enthusiasm by all hig subjects, to whom the 
aged and revered monarch has become still more endeared . 
from the fortitude and resignation with which he bears his mis- 
fortunes. The festivities were particularly grand and impressive 
in the two cities of Dresden and Leipzig, where, among many 
other foreigners, at least a hundred Englishmen witnessed them. 
Upwards of two hundred poems, in various dialects, were composed 
on the occasion, and several in the Latin language. Of the latter, 
two attracted more than usual notice: one from the pen of the 
celebrated Professor Hermann, which was presented to the King 
by four deputies from the University of Leipzig ; and the other, 
‘¢omposed by that eminent antiquarian, Professor Bottiger of 
Dresden, Which, being written on the model of Horace’s Carmen 
Seculare, was set to music by Morlachi, first composer to the 
King, and performed in one of the churches of Dresden, by a 
numerous orchestra, and in the presence of the royal family, We 
have been induced both by the merit of the two poems, and the 
fame of their authors, to admit them into our publication. It will 
be observed, that Hermann, in some very spirited aud pointed 
passages, alludes to the cruel, unprincipled, and unjustifiable 
dismemberment of that once happy country, or rather the robbery 
of its better half from his sovereign. The coincijence of these 
masterly passages with the popular feeling, we are assured by a 
correspondent, produced so extraordinary a sensation among the 


78 Commemoration of the King 


Saxons, that most of the classical scholars, who in that country are 
by no means unfrequent, instantly caught, and impressed them on 
their memories ; and some considerable time must elapse, before 
they can be erased from them. The Orations delivered on the 
occasion will be inserted in the next No. | 


FRIDERICO AUGUSTO 
REGI IN SOLEMNIBUS REGNI SEMISZCULARIBUS 
D. XX. SEPT. A. CIolocccxvill. 
ACADEMIA LIPSIENSIS. 


Nownc insolentes carminibus modos, 
O magna passi, discite, Saxones, 
Aptare, mutatisque chordis 
Letificam celebrate lucem. 


Non ulla nobis candidior dies 
Emersit undis Tethyos, aut magis 
Beavit exoptata multis 
Cum precibus populum fidelem, 


Finire lustrum quem decimum favens 
Fortuna sivit non sine numine 
Ab optimi Reets cupitis 
Auspiciis initoque regno. 


Jam serta templis addere, iam decet 
Aras ad omnes et populum et patres 
Sincera gratantes dicare 
Vota, pii monimentum amoris. 


Tam fas puellarum ac iuvenum choros 
Versare gyris mobilibus pedem, 
Donec redux Aurora pellet 
Noctis equos nimium fugaces. 


Tuque, o Thyoneu, letitiz dator, 
Adsis, virenti tempora pampino 
Cinctus, resignatumque largis 
Funde cadis veterem liquorem. 


ος of ϑαχοην 5 Jubilee. 


Tu pectus imples igne sacro, pater : 
«Τὸ verba monstras promere libera : 
Tu das amicam oblivionem, 
Thyrsiger, uberius remiscens 


Crateras : est quum non meminiese quid. 


Conducit, et que facta semel retro 
Flecti negatum, corrigenda 
Linquere post alio sub astro. 


Adsis, precamur, dulceque porrigas 
Solamen, ut qua mente decet sacram 
Lucem colamus, quique in imis 

Vivit amor residens medulks, 


Grato rependat pectore.debitum 


Hvic, qui iuventam dum viridem dabat | 


fEtas, decoram quum senecta 
Canitiem tulit, usque constans, 


Verusque dicti, et propositi tenax, 
Tustusque, sanctusque, et reverens Dei, 
Et mitis, et clemens, et equus, 
Res populi patrieque rexit ; 


Quidquid secundis, quidquid et asperis 
Fortuna rebus perfida luderet,” 
Non degener magnorum avorum, 
Debiliorve animo repertus. 


Nil est, benighus quod populis Deus 
Donare maius rege bono queat, 
Cui mens paterni plena amoris 
Et sapiens, et amica rect, 


Quid prosit illis, quos sibi creditos 
Sceptro tuetur, pervigili videt 
Cura, neque amittit peritas 
Temporibus dubiis habenas. 


Non ille multo sanguine fortium 

Emptam laborat querere lauream, 
ec gaudet mdefessus urbes 
Arvaque finitimis adempta 


Tunxisse regno, seilicet omnium, 
Quascumque sacro lumine sol videt, 
Si regnet orarum, haud futuras 

Nobilior meliorve civis 


79 


Commemoration of the King 


Mlic, ubi omnes, summus et infimus, 
Vt cuique filum ruperit Atropos, 
JEquantur, et iudex severa 
‘ronte sedet taciturnus umbris, 


In purpuratos precipue gravis 
Vindex tyrannos, si quis inutilis’ 
Turpive ludo segn#s evum aut 
Sevitia metuendus egit. 


O Rex, Tuorum perpetuum decus 
Certumque sidus, ‘TE generosius 
Enisa virtus, Te perenni 
Segregat his pietas corona. 


Tv, que vetustis, queque recentibus 
Inflicta bellis vulnera sensimus, 
Sanare nec duram parasti, 
Nec dubiam sapiens medelam ; 


Tv pacis alme munenibus frui 
Permittis, et non imminuis gravi 
Censu, quod ab duro labore 

Reddit ager tenuis colono ; 


Per TE moratorum osor ab ultimis 
Mercator oris Hesperias vehens 
Commutat Eoasque merces 
Plurimus, emporiisque acervat. 


Vnde et, remotis obiicibus, lubens 
Intravit urbes Copia, libero 
Cornu refundens, quidquid orbis 
Gignit opum variatus horis. 


Idem eruditos erigis artium 
Cultus, et insignem ingenio virum 

Turba levi secernis, ipse 
Pieridum bene notus hortis. 


Quo fonte mentes feryidior rigat 

Septos cupido rumpere tramites, 

amezque cuncto dictus orbe, 
Indolis ingenuo lepore 


Saxo renidet gloria gentium | 
Germanicarum et precipuum decus, 
Ips relicto quem sequute 
Vmbrifero,Helicone Muse 


φῇ Savony’s Jubilee. 
Tunxere sedem perpetuam, δὲ sacro 
Nunc ore certant incolumem Tuam, 


O Rex, fidem, presensque longos Ὁ 
 Dicere presidium per annos, 


“« Salve,” -canentes, “ optime principum, 
Qui Iustus omni, qui Patria pater 
Vocandus evo, per minorum 
Nobilis historias ferere. 


TE, qui gubernat res homingm Deus ὁ 
Fidis, precamur, Saxonibus "{ uis 
Preesse det:seros in annos*. 
Nestorea validum senecta. 


Nestor quoque annis ac sapientia — 
Vicisse claret Graiugenum duces : 
Sed sortis haud expers inique, 

Antilocho doluit peremto. ,_ 


Quod si nitentes iam brevior Tua 
Per regna fluctus Albis agit pater, 
Vel terminos meeste refixos ᾿ 

Salaides gemuere nymphe ; ᾿ 


Tikhque multi, seva necessitas 
Quos séparavit civibus a Tuis, 
Quondam Tues, si lacrimantes 
Lene Tuum meminere regnum : 


At librat equa dissimiles Deus 
In lance sortes, buic cumulans.opes, 
Tilum volens virtute celaum -° 
Spernere res bominum caducas.. 


Non regna regem, nec faciunt apes: ; 


Rex est, sub alto pectore regia . 0. ᾿ 


Cui mens, secundis non abutens, 
Nec trepidis timefacta rebus, 


Qoe sint saluti civibus, unice ΄ 
Gestit paravisse : πῶς sua nobilem 
Miratur etas ; hunc superstes 

Gloria post obitum sequetur.” 


VOL. XIX. Cl.Ji | NO. XXXVIL 


δ᾽ 


84 Commemoration of the King 
- CARMEN SECULARE 


AD EXEMPLAR CARMINIS'HORATIANI COMPOSITUM, 
ADDITO PRO@MIO ET EPODO Ε Psatmis Davipicis, 


[ ea 
Ὁ PRO@EMIUM. 
HYMNUS E PSALMO CENTESIMO. 


Adite sancta Jymina.— 
Iile nostegfest ‘Deus, - 
Noster par€ns et conditor.— 
Ad fores ergo illius 
‘ Adite leti, gratias 
Agite’: festis laudibus 
Benignitatem pangite— 
Predicate ceteris 
Regis salutem gentibus!— — 
Nam benignitas Dej,. 
Qui Regium firmat thronum, 
Clausa nullo est termino.— . 
Et firma stat Dei fides 
Posterorum in posteris 
In sempiterna secula, - 


Il. CARMEN SECULARE, 
Alme Sol, curru nitido diem qui 7 
Promis et celas, aliusque et‘idem: 


Nasceris, possis nihil hoc :videre 
Pulchrius ort! - 


Quinquies denos remeans per annos, 

Pheebe, tu Augusti Friderici.amorem . 

Splendide effusum populi in salutem - 
.‘Cemis eundem. 


Saxonum rebus Superi fauentes, 

Cura si vobis pietatis ulla est, 

Saxonum Regi bona iam peractis 
ungite fata, ᾿ .: 

Iubila et voces populi precantis 

Audiat numen, pia vota scribat 

Parca non fallax adamante, laudent 

Postera secla, 


οὐ Saxony's Jabilee. 


Si Deus nostras videt zequus aras, -' 

Regiam stirpem, pietate fultam, — 

Sospitet seniper, bona det-renascens © 
secula Phoenix. 


Det probos mores docili iuvente, ' 

Det senectuti placid quietem, 

Regis exemplu et pietate mente 
Impleat omnes, 


Augeat prolem numero carentem 

Per vias urbis bona Pax beate, 

Leta ceu campis riguis per imbrem. 
Gramina surgunt. 


Sic Fides verax.et Honos Pudorque ” 
Omnibus letos aperire vultus Ο᾿ 
Audeat, ditetqne beata pleno 


opia cornu. - 


Rex, velut pupillam ocult‘teneHam, ' 

Te Deus seruet, fremitus minaces 

Hostium frangat, faciatque ab omni 
Parte beatum. ᾿ 


Serus in coelum redeas,; diuque - 

Saxonum rebus moderator adsis;,--. 

Hic ames dici Pater atque Princeps. 
Alterum in e2uum.i 


HI. EPODOS. ᾿ 
E PSALMO CXXIX. 


Ture dicat grex bonorum-: mille me molestiis 
Liberauit numen equum, mille me beans bonis,— 
Qui Sivnis non amico spectat arces lumine, 
Vota semper vana volvat, spes inanes nutriat !. 


E PSALM. CXLVIIF. 


Laudate Domioum ceelitum: © 
Chori beati, qui procul 
Contagio mortalium’ 

‘Fempla ztheris tuemini, - 


Laudate Dominum, quos 5101 ᾿ 
Adesse iussit angelos, 
Laudate Dominum exercitus 
Parere promti itssibus.— 


83 


Nota et Cura Sequentes 


Reges et orbis presides 
Et nationes hibere, 
Et qui sedetis iudices 
Laudate Dominum cantibus.— 


"9 Olt n 
-.¢ 


Et vos, iuventa florea, 
Leti puelli et virgines, 
Senesque vite in ultimo 
Jamiam exituri limine, 


Laudate Dominum ! nummi 


Sit eius uni gloria, 


Regumgue regem et principem 
Extollant nostra iubila. 


NOTE ET CURE SEQUENTES IN ARATI 
DIOSEMEA, 


a Tu. Forster, F.L.8. 


No. IV.—[Continued from No. XXXIV. p. 26.] 


Καὶ διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν ὅτ᾽ ἀστέρες ἀΐσσωσι 


bn el 


194. De prognosticis ventorum ex 
stellis discurrentibus agit.—Item 
quum crebro stelle ‘pracipites ruunt 
atram per ncctem, ἃ tergo vero tractus 
subalbescant; accipito per illas ven- 
tum eadem via venientem. Sin autem 
ali contrario ruunt ex aliis partibus 
in alias, tunc omaivarios ventus ex- 
pecta: qui maxime confusi (tractus) 
sunt, confusa item observando homi- 
nibus spirant. Prognosticum hoc ex 
Theophrasto sumtum est, ὅθεν ἂν 
ἀστέρες διάττωσι πολλοὶ ἄνεμον ἐντεῦθεν 
ἐὰν δὲ πανταχόθεν, ὁμοίως πολλὰ κνεύματα 
σημαίνουσι, [Theoph. Sign. vent.] 
Ptolemzus Tetrabib. ex paraph. Procl. 
ut Buhle memorat : of δὲ δρόμοι τῶν 
ἀστέρων, καὶ δὲ ἀκοντισμοὶ, εἰ μὲν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς 
dydvorro μέρους ἐξ ἀκείνου τοῦ μέρους κίνησιν 
ἀμήμον δηλοῦσιν" εἶ δὲ ἐξ ἀνιαντίων μερῶν 
. waprelous χειμῶνας ἔσεσθαι, προδηλοῦσιν καὶ 

μέχρι oy, καὶ ραπῶν, καὶ τῶν 
το ούτων, (Ptol. Tetrabibil. ex paraph. 
Procl. 11,14. Et Geopon. e Dionysio, 
Aorépes ρέπονται 


es ὅπον τ 


νἢ τὸ πργεῦμα προσδέχεσθαι. Cece. e 
Dionys. i. 11. citat Buble, edit. Arat. 
1793.) 

Quod Virgilius elegantissimis ver- 
sibus ornavit in Geor. libro primo, 

“ Sepe etiam stellas vento impen- 
ente videbis 
Precipites colo labi noctisque per 
umbram 
Flammarum longos a tergo albescere 
tractus.” . 
[Virg. Geor. i. $67.] 

Lucanus in Pharsaliaquum agit de 
commoto in mari vento non modo 
sidera cadere, sed etiam fixas polo 
stellas moveri incipiente flamine 
dicit, veterum more astronomica cum 
meteorologicis confundens. 

“Hac fatus solvensque ratem dat’ 
carbasa ventis, 

Ad quorum motus non solum lapss 
per altum . 

Αὔῖὰ dispersos traxere cadentia sulcos 


Sidera; sed summis etiam ques fits 
ἐκεῖ στ enn 6. ἢ 


4n Αγαΐξ Diosemea. 


Ταρφέα, tol δ᾽ ὄπιθεν ῥυμοὶ ὑπολέυκαίνωνται, 


δ. 


195 


Astra polis sunt visa quati: niger 
inficit horror 

Terga maris: longo per multa volu- 
mina tractu ; 

ALstuat unda minax; flatusque incerta 
futuri. 

Turbida testantur conceptos zquora 
ventos.” 

{Lucan, Phars. v. 560.] 

Apud Plinium ita scriptum est: 
‘¢ Si volitare plures stelle videbuntur, 
quo ferantur albescentes ventos ex his 
partibus nunciabuat.” [Plin. Hist. 
Nat. xviii. $5.] 

Et in secundo libro: 

“ Fleri.videntur et discursus stella- 
rum numquam temere ut non ex δᾶ 
parte truces venti oriantur. Existunt 
stelle in mari terraque.” [Plin. Hist. 
Nat. ii. $7.] 

Politianus teste Cerda scribit. 

“ Annotat et celi faciem; num stella 
sereno 
/Ethere lapsa cadat, rapidi prenuncia 
Cauri.” ον 
[Politian. in Rust. cit. Cerda, Virg. 
161 


p. 161. 
Seneca, in Hippolyto, 
“ Ocyor cursum rapiente amma 
Stella cum ventis agitata longos 
orrigit ignes.” 
[Senec. Hippol.} 

Que supra scripta sunt, ad prognos- 
tica_ e stellis cadentibus respiciunt; 
si plura loca de his meteoris conferre 
velis, vide qua sequuntur. Omni 
zvo ab hominibus notata invenies. 

Homerus in Iliade quarto Minerve 
e colo descensum sideris lapsui assi- 
mulat. 

Ὡς εἰπὸν ἄτρυνε wdges μεμαυῖαν Αθήνην, 
burrow κα 
Οἷον oe ἀστέρα ἧκε Κρόνου πάϊς ἂγκυλο- 


eo), 
H ναύτῃσι τέρας, He στρατῷ εὑρέϊ λαῶν 


Λαμπρόν' τοῦ δέ τε πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ow pes 
evras’ 
τῷ εἰκυῖ Hitev ἐπὶ χθόνα Πάλλας ᾿Αϑήνη, 


Κάξδδ' Yop ἐς μέσσον. Θάμβος δ' ἔχεν 
τρϑά: € εκοδάμου:, καὶ Werkgubas ᾿Αχαί- 
Νὴ (Homer. Il. A. 80.} 


Lucretius in secundo de Rerum 
Natura libro ambigua descriptione de 
his meteoris tractat: 

“ Sic igitur debent flamme quoque 
posse per auras τς 

Aeris expresse sursum succedere, 
quamquam : 

Pondera quantum in se est deorsum 
‘deducere pugnant; 

Nocturnasque faces ceeli sublime vo- 
lantes 

Nonne vides longos flammarum du- 
cere tractus 

In quascunque dedit parteis natura 
meatum ?” 
[Lucret. Rer. Nat. ii. 208.] 

Faces cceli majora meteora fortasse 
intelligende sunt; que rarius occur- 
runt. Nonnullihancinoterpretationem 
amplexiad minora, que stellz discur- 
rentes dicuntur, hunc subjunctum 
versum referunt. 

‘Non cadere in terram stellas et 
sidera cernis?”’ 
[Lucret. Rer. Nat. ii. 209.] 

Quem explicant e Virgilii Aneidos 


libro secun 
. 66 


Et jam nox humida ceelo 
Precipitat, suadentque cadentia si- 
dera somnos.” 


wir . EEneid. ii. 9] 

Sed ambo plane ad constellationum 
seu siderum vesperi oriuntium matur 
tinos occasus respiciunt. 

In libro Rer. Nat. quinto, faces 
celi cum flammis volantibus confert : 
“ Luna dies et nox, et noctis signa. 

severa 
Noctivageque faces celi, flamme- 
ue volantes 
Nubile, ros, imbres, nix, venti, fulmi- 
na, grando, 
Et rapidi fremitus, et murmura mag- 
na minarum.” 
[Luerct. Rer. Nat. v. 1193.] 

De hisce meteoris diversissime 
veteres opinati sunt. Artemidorus 
git: καταπίπτοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν of ἀστέρες, 
[Artemid. ii. 88 citat Cerda Virg. p. 
262.) Vetat Aristoteles quimeteorum 
hujus generis caussas declarat esse 
exhalationes 6 terta surgentes et alte 


Note et Cure Sequentes 


Audix bas κείνοις αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἐρχομένοιο 
Πνεύματος" εἶ δέ κεν ἄλλοι ἐγαντίον ἀΐσσωσιν, 
ἤάλλοις ἐξ ἄλλων μερέων, τότε δὴ πεφύλαξο 
Παντοίων ἀνέμων, οἴτ᾽ ἄκριτοί εἶσι μάλιστα, 


“Axpira δὲ πνείουσιν, ἐπ᾿ ἀγδράσι τεκμήρασθαι. 


Αὐτὰρ ὅτ᾽ ἐξ εὕροιο καὶ ἐκ νότου ἀστράπτῃσιν, 


a&there ignitas, πάντων δὲ τούτων αἴτιον 
ὡς μὲν ὕλη ἡ ἀναθυμίασις : [Arist.Meteor. 
i, 4.1 ea ἰηΐτα Lunam (nostra atmo- 
sphera) existere asserat. Πάντα δὲ κάτω 
σελήνης τοῦτα γίνηται, &c. [Ibid.} Pli- 
nius confusé ex stellis ipsis nimio 
alimento repletis effectum ducit. “Illa 
nimio alimento tracti humeris igneam 
vim abundantia reddunt, cum decidere 
redduntur, ut apud nos quoque id, 
luminibus accensis liquore olei nota- 
mus accidere.” (Plin. Hist. Nat. i. 8. 
Sed ex iis qui de ccelo scripserunt 
Aristoteles fastidiosissima ambage 
hc meteora circumgressus est, cf. 
Excurs. ad ἢ. 1. 

Ovidius inter metamorphosea, cum 
Phetonta e solis curru Jabentem ca- 
denti ste}Jz comparat; tum stellas re 
vera non cadere dicit; sed loca sua in 
celo rapido cursu transmutare, 

«Αἱ Phaethon rutilos -flamma popu- 
lante capillos 

Volvitur in preceps, longoque per 
aera tractu 

-Fertur; ut interdum de ceelo stella 
sereno 

Etsi non cecidit, potuit.cecidisse vi- 
deri.” 
[Ovid. Metamorph. ii. 322.] 

Diversis doctorum opinionibus ob- 
-servationem addam; ex his meteoris, 
quz frequentius occurrunt, tres spe- 
cies notavi. Una, et ea est frequen- 
tissima, stellz simillima est, rapido et 
rectilineo motu cadere videtur, nec 
ullum post se tractum facit; secunda 
majore luce nitet, sepe curvilineo 
cursu eat, et videtur frequentius in 
estate. Tertia species albescentem 
tractum in ccelo post se facit, hac post 
pluviam spe occurrit, et venticertis- 
simum signum est, est Excursum de 

is. 

201—205. At quum ex curo et ex 
austro fulgurat; tum etiam 6 zephyro 
et interdum a borea, omnis nauta in 


lago hinc certe timuerit, velim ne 
ipsum partim tenet pelagus, partim e 
Jove pluvia—Sensus est: cum ex 
diversis ceeli partibus fulgurat, tum 
densissimus imber cadere solet. Hoc 
ipse numquam observavi, neque, οἱ 
verum sit, caussa videatur nis: hxc; 
quod scilicet in tempestatibus cum 
ulgurat pluribus e partibus, ceelum 
plurimis nubibus falgurantibus neces- 
se circumsessum sit; que denuo in 
unum magnum nimbum congeste 
largos imbres effundunt; ut expressit 
Lucretius, qui Electricitatis.- inscius 
hanc nubium congestionem ventis 
adscribit, 
‘¢ Consimili ratione ex omnibus amni- 
bus humor 
Tollitur in nubes, quo cum bene semi- 
na aquarum ᾿ 
Multa modis multis convenere undi- 
que adaucta, 
Conferte. nubes vi venti mittere cer- 
tant 
Dupliciter; nam vis venti contendit, 
et ipsa 
Copia nimborum, turba majore coacta 
Urguens ex supero premit ac facit 
effluere imbreis.’ 
[Lucret. de Rer. Nat. vi. 511.] 
Sed, quecunque caussa sit, non 
sine auctoritate scribic. Theophrastus 
loquitur, ᾿Αστραπαὶ δὲ ἐάν γε πανταχόθεν 
γένωνται ὕδατος ἂν ἣ ἀἂνέμοιο σημέδεν. 
[Lheoph. Sign. Pluv.] Paullo infra 
fastidiose scribit, Kal ζέφυρος dorpe- 
πῶν πρὸς βορείου, ἣ χειμῶνα ἣ ὕδωρ σημαΐνει. 
[1υἱ4.1] Virgilius poéticis ingeniis 
sensum exornavit, 
“Αἱ Borez de parte trucis, quum ful- 
gurat et quum 
Eurique Zepbyrique tonat domus, 
omnia plenis 
Rura natant fossis, atque omnis na- 
vita ponto 
Humida vela legit.” 
[Virg. Geor. i. $73.] 


in Arati Diosemea. 


87 


ἤλλλοτε δ᾽ ἐκ ζεφύροιο, καὶ ἄλλοτε πὰρ βορέαό, 
Ay τότε τὶς πελάγει ἕνι δείδιε ναυτίλος ἀνὴρ, 


Μή μιν τῇ μὲν ἔχῃ πέλαγος, τῇ δ᾽ ἐκ Διὸς ὕδωρ" 


"Tears γὰρ τοσσαὶ δε περὶ στεροπαὶ φορέονται. 


406 


Πολλάκι δ᾽ ἐρχομένων ὑετῶν, νέφεα προπάροιθεν 


Quem anili, ut solet, narratione 
sequitur Plinius. “ Cum estate vehe- 
mentius tonuit quam fulsit, ventos ex 
ea parte denunciat, contra si minus 
tonuit, imbrem. Cum sereno ceelo 
fulget, pluviz eruntet tonitrua et hye- 
mabit. Atrocissime autem quum ex 
omnibus quatuor partibus coeli fulgu- 
ravit. Cum ab Aquilone tantum, in 


posterum diem aquam portendit. - 


Cum a Septemtrione ventum eum. 
Cum ab Austro vel Coro vel Favonio 
nocte serena fulguravit ventum et 
imbrem ex iisdem regionibus demon- 
strabit.” {Plin. Hist. Nat. xviii. $5.] 
De Arati prognostico observandum 
est, quod in describenda’‘fulguratione 
e quatuor ceeli partibus, solis cursum 
sequutusest; incipit scilicet ex orien- 
te, tunc per Austrum ad Zephyrum, 
et ultimo in Boream fulgura inducit. 
Sed mioime intelligendum est singu- 
las fulgurationes hoc ordine accidere, 
sed simpliciter ex his quatuor partibus 
vicissim fulgura et tonitrua venire. : 
.» 206-207. Prognosticum pluvie 
-ex nubium figuris—Szpe item: veni- 
entibus pluviis nubes prius ut pluri- 
mum velleribus similes adparent. 
Πόκος vox ἃ τὸ welxew-derivata proprie 
lanam comatam significat; vulgo red- 
ditur vellus; male tamen congruere 
censeas vellus e “ vellere.”- Nubes 
cum lane velleribus, seu πόκοις ἐρίων 
similes apparent,’ pluviam indicare 
at a etiam ig rastus, a ὅταν 
ν τόκοις ἐρίων ὅμοιαί εἰσιν, ὕδωρ on- 
μαίνει. [Theoph. Sign, -Pluv.} Et 
.Ptolenveus, “Er: δὲ καὶ τὰ νέφη ds ἐρίων 
‘wheos φαινόμενα χειμῶνας ἐνιότε δηλοῦσιν. 
[Eto Tetrabil. paraph. Procl. ii. 14. 
irgilius, ubi serenitatis indicia ducit 
ex absentia eorum quz pluviam pra- 
sagiunt, observat, | 
«.Tenuia nec lanz per ceelum vellera 
ferri.” i. “ΕΝ 
[Virg. Geor. 1. 507. 
Plinius, “ Si nubes ut vellera lane 


spargentur multe'‘ab oriente, aquam 
in triduum presagient.” [Plin. Hist. 
Nat. xviii. 35.] ΝΣ 
Lucretiys niubeculas hujus generis 
notat quasi humorem 6 mari colligen- 
tes. 
“Concipiunt etiam multum, quogus 
+ sepe marinum ΝΝ } 
Humorem veluti pendentia vellera 
lane. ᾿ pe 
Cum supera magnum venti mare nu- 
bila portant.”" ot 
εἰ [Lucret. Rer, Nat. vi. 504.] 


Prof. Heyne in nota ad Virgilii 
locum supra citatum scribit, ‘‘ Nu- 
beculas lanis similes nostris homi- 
nibus oviculas dictas, serenitatis nun- 
tias accipiebam, ut alii; male vero, 
nam ex poete sententia esse debet 
prognosticum instantis tempestatis 

luviose; quod nunc abesse ait.” 

ale vero ille, ut opinor, nubeculas 

a Germanis oviculas dictas confundit 

cum Virgilii velleribus lane. Ovicu- 

las eenseo esse cirrocumulos sepe 

serenitatis nuncias. Sed que ab 

Arato, πόκοι5 ἐοίκοτα, Virgilio vero lane 

velleribus persimiles vocate sunt, 

certe vel cirri vel cirrostrati accipiendz 

sunt. Decirrocumulis valgo oviculis 

in Germania dictis noster Bloomfield 

habet locum. τς oe 

“ Far yet above these wafted clouds 
areseeD,- ΄Ἂ ει 

In ἃ remoter sky still more serene, 

Others détacbed in ranges through 
the air, 

Spotless as snow and countless as 
they're fair; 

Scattered immensely wide from east 
to west, . 

The beauteous semblance of a flock at 


rest. | 
[Dicomfield Farm. Boy, Winter.] . 
He longe differunt See ant’ 
imper pluvias significant, 5 
ques semper pl δ Ἶ 


que nubes striate, ve 88 


88 


Note et Cure Sequentes 


Οἷα μάλιστα πόκοισιν ἐοικότα ἰνδάλλονται" 
Ἢ διδύμη Roce διὰ μέγαν οὐρανὸν ἧρις" 


interdum semperque leves, sed in 
-densiorem nubem et denuo in nim- 
bum imbres effundentem coiturz. 
208. Vel duplex iris celum cir- 
cumnectit.—Ipse Irida imbrium co- 
initem malueriin quam prognosticum 
vocare; qQuoniam numquam videri 
potest, nisi cadente pluvia. Neque 
duplex arcus magis tempestuosa quam 
simplex est. Sed prognosticum hoc 
ex Theophrasto haustum video: 
Ὅταν Ipis γίνηται, (ὕδωρ) ἐπισημαίνει" ἐάν 
σε πολλαὶ tpides γένωνται, σημαίνει ὕδωρ ἐπὶ 


πολύ. [Theoph. Sign, Pluv.] Geopon. - 


ex Arato habet, Ἶρις δὲ διπλῇ gdaveioa, 
ὄμβρον δηλοῖ. [Geop. ex Arat.] 
Virgilius notat :—ante pluviam, 
“4......--- εἰ bibit ingens © 
Arcus.” 
[Virg. Geor. i. 381.] 
Statius in Thebaid. scribit, 
“ At pater arcano residéns Ismenos 
in antro 
Unde aure nubesque bibunt, atque 
imbrifer arcus 


Pascitur, et Trios melior venit annus la 


in agros.” 
(Stat. Thebaid. ix. 405.] 
Et in Sylv. 
“* Queque cadit liquidas Junonia vir- 
gO per auras, 
Et picturato plivium ligat aéra gyro,” 
Stat. Sylv. V. 1. 108. 
Tibullus scribit, 
“ Quamvis pretexens picea ferrugine 
celum 
Venturam admittat imbrifer arcus 
vam.” 
[Tibul, Eleg. 1. iv. 44. 
Propertius se discere velle fatetur, 
* Qua venit exoriens, qua deficit, unde 
coactis 
Cornibus,in plenum menstrua Luna 
redit; 
Unde salo superant venti, quid flami- 
ne captet 
Eurus ; et in nubes unde perennis 
aqua; 
Sit ventura dies mundi que subruat 
arces; 
Purpureus pluvias cur bibit arcus 
aguas.” ; 


{Propert. Eleg. IIT. v. 32.] 

Seneca in CEdipu, ΝΕ 
“Τηγθτὶ δία qualis implicat varios sibi 
Iris colures, parte que magna poli 
Curvata pictu nunciat nimbos sinu.” 

[Senec. (Edip.v. $17.] ᾿ 

Quum Iris in adveniente nimbo 
visa est, certe aquam premonet, si 
contra in recedente pluviain finitam. 

Plautus iu Curcultone observat, 
‘Ecce autem bibit arcus; pluet 

Credo hercle hodie.” 

{Plautus Curcul. I. ii. 42.] 
Plinius ex veterum auctoritate scri- 
bit, “ Arquus cum sunt duplicesplu- 
vias nunciant et pluviis: serentatem 
non perinde certam.” [Plin. Hist. 
Nat. xviii. 85.] A pluviis serenitatem 
hac de causa, quod arcus minime in 
late circumfusa nube apparere possit; 
ergo quum apparet, nimbun claso 
aére circumsessum demonstrat, qui 
sepe post pluviam longam calum 
serenat; non tamen certam serenita- 
tem punciat, quia plurimi nimbi ve- 
ntes.consequenter ccelum transcur- 
runt, et eorum duratio incerta est. 
Ex Iride pluviam finiendam nenciante 
scriptum est in libro Geneseos, τὸ τάξον 
μοῦ τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται els σημεῖο 
ον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆ:. 
(Gen. ix. 18. secund. Sept.] 

Proverbium nostrum, e mane sur 
gente nimbo, memorat : 

“ A Rainbow in the morning 
Is the Shepherd’s warning.” 
Sed post pluviosam diem, 
“A Rainbow at night 
Is the Shepherd’s delight.” 
[Prov. citat. Pointer on Weather, 


p. 62. 

208. διδύμη, duplex arcus frequens 
est, triplex quam sarissime videtur ; 
conferendus est Aristoteles, διπλῇ δὲ 
καὶ ἀμαυροτέρα τοῖς χρώμασιν καὶ 2 
έχουσα καὶ τῇ θέσει τὰς χρόας ἐξ 
ἔχει μειμένας διὰ τὴν αὑτὸν αἰτίαν. Paullo 
infra, Τρεῖς δὲ οὐκέτι γίνονται οὐδὲ πλείους 


ἴριδες, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν δευτέραν γίγνορθαε' 
duavpor tpay, ὥστε καὶ τὴν τρίτην ἀσώκλασιν 
πάμπαν ἀσθενῆ γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἀδυνατεῖν 


f 


in Arats Diosemga. 


89 


Ἢ καί που τὶς ἅλωα μελαινομένην ἔχει ἀστήρ. 


Πολλάκι λιμναῖαι ἢ εἰνάλιαι ὄρνιθες 


410 


ἤλπληστον κλύζονται ἐνιέμεναι ὑδάτεσσιν" 


ἀφικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. 
Meteor. iii. 5.] 
Caussani Iridis reddit Lucretius, 
“ Hinc ubi Sol radiis tempestatem 
inter opacam 
Adversa fulsit nimborum edspergine 
contra 
Tum color in nigris existit nubibus 
arqui.” 
(Lucret. de Rer Nat. vi. 525.) 
Multi secuti sunt; inter Epigram- 
mata invenimus, . 
** Cum radiis imbres et aquarum pen- 
dulus humor 
Tangitur, existit, quam Grecia nomi- 
nat, Iris.” - 
[Epigram. Burman. edit. Anthol. Lat. 
Vol. ii. p. $11.] 


[Aristot. 


E 
“Clara ‘sub: atheriis fulget Thau- 


mantia proles 

Nubibus, ut radiis pluvium Sol adtigit 
imbrem ; 

Et picturato coslum velamine pingit.” 

Miltonus in Parad. Amis. ex libro 

Geneseos, de fine pluviarum, 

“ Then with uplifted hands, and eyes 
devout, 


Grateful to heaven, over his head 


beholds ες 
A dewy cloud, and in the cloud a bow 
Conspicuous with three listed colours 


gay, 

Betobening peace from God, and co- 
venant new.” 
[Milton Parad. Lost, xi. 867.] 

Sed plura de Iride cf. ia Excurs. de 
lucis refractione. 

209. Iterum pluviarum indicium 
ex halone sumit, de quo plurima 
supra—Vel etiammem stella aliqua 
halonem nigricantem habet—Aerdp 
non solum stella, proprie sic dicta, 
verum quodvis corpus celeste intelli- 
genda est. Sol, Luna, nobilioresque 
stelle aliquando circa se lucidum 
orbem habent. Sed numquam vidi 
halonem verum seu annulum circa 
stellas. Plinius eadem cum incau- 
tione scribit, “ Circuli novi circa sidera 
aliqua pluviam.” ([Plin. Hist, Nat. 


xviil. $5.) Alio loco scribit,“ Existunt 
ezdem corone circa Lunam et circa 
nobiliord astra coelo quoque inhwren- 
tia.” (Plinv. Hist. Nat. 11, 29.] De 
halonibus satis supra. Theophrastus 
in Sign. Pluv. Καὶ ἅλως μελαῖναι ὕδα- 
study καὶ μᾶλλον αἱ δείλης. [Theoph. 
Sign. Pluv.] In quibusdam Americe 
regionibus, ut audio, frequentiores 
sunt he corone halonesque quam 
nobiscum. Refer ad Excursum. 
210—211. Jam agit de pluvie pro- 
gnosticis et avibus—Szpe aves palus- 
tres aut marine msaturabiliter se 
inmergunt aquam  desiderantes. 
Geopon. ex Arato, “Er: δὲ καὶ ὀρνεῖν καὶ 
λιμναῖαι καὶ al θαλάττιαι, ἐπὶ ὕδατος συνε- 
χῶς λουόμενοι, χειμῶνα δηλοῦσιν. ’ [Ὁ60- 
pon. i. 8. cit. Buble. Arat. Vol. i. p. 
461.] Theophrastus idem scripsit, 
αἴθνιαι καὶ νῆτται πτερνγίζουσαι καὶ ἀγριᾳὶ 
τ τιθάσσαι μὲν σημαίνουσ. 


+ δνομένη. 


Theoph. Sign. Vent.] ut supr. cit.~ 


Sed alio loco ad terrestres aves pro= 
gnosticumtranstulit, Opolas δὲ καὶ κολιοὶ 
καὶ ἀλεκτρύονες ἐάν τε ἐπὶ λίμνῃ ἣ θαλάττῃ 
ἀποπτερυγίξωνται, ὡς νῆττα 
καὶ ἐρωδιὸς ὄρθριον ὄμενος ὕδωρ ἢ 
«νεῦμα σημαίνει. [Theoph. Sign. Pluv.] 
Vetat lianus, -qui terrestres a- 
quam petentes serenitatis indiclum 
accipit, Of δὲ χερσαῖοι es ἐς τὰ 
ψοτερὰ εὐδίας ἄγγελοί εἰσι ἐὰν μέντοι σίω. 
[Zlian. Hist. Anim. vii. 7.) Cum 
vero lavatione delectantur, Proceflas, 
᾿Απειλοῦσι ὃ “νεῦμα, λο τε 
ὄρνιθες καὶ ἀνέμων τινὰς ἀμβολὰς ὑπκοφαί- 
γουσι. [[Ὀ]14.] . ; 
Virgilius ex Arato de signis pluviz 
venture scribit: 
“ Jam varias pelagi volucres et 408 
Asiacirum = 
Dulcibus in stagnis rimantur prata 
Caystri ' 
Certatim largos humeris infundere 
pores, 
Nunc caput objectare fretis, nunc cure 
rere in undas 
Et studio incassum videas gestire 
lavandi.” ὃ. 
(Virg. Geor. 1. $87.] 


90 


OXFORD PRIZE ESSAY 
FOR 1818. 


BIOGRAPHY. 


ARGU MENT. 


The subjects of Biography considered. 3. The lives of eminent publk 
men. This department of Biography is closely connected with Histery- 
wut superior to it in moral usefulness. 4. Lives of men distinguished in 
Hiterature, art, and science—why peculiarly interesting. 3. Miscellazigou 
ives, , 

The manner of treating biographical subjects—must depend on variaus 
circumstances—as, distance of time.—Contemporary memoirs contrasted 

‘with Jearned compilations on ancient lives.—The most essential qualities of 

-Biography, Copiousness and Impartiality.—Difficulty of avoiding’ either 
unnecessary minuteness or insipid generality. Correspondence of friends 
considered as an illustration of character.—Impartiality not to be expects 
from writers-of their own lives.—Biographical works consisting of ‘mere 
panegyric.—Lives written by friends of persons deceased.—Conclusion. 


_ ESSAY, ἄς." 


Tue acts and characters of men whose virtues or talents, majsfor- 
tunes or successes, have influenced the course of public events, 
will naturally supply the earliest subjects of biographical narration. 
Illustrious names aud extraordinary achievements engage the attetr 
tion and awaken the zeal of writers in every age, and the desire of 
tracing an eminent man through a series of great actions 15 height- 
ened in most instances by. national or local partiality. And-as an 
acquaintance with general history becomes more widely diffused, 


. ᾿ ᾿ in 
Et Varro: . non immergunt pro bono signa -navw- 
“Tum liceat pelagi volucres tardeque gantibus antiquy accepte sunt; ut 
paludis citat Niphus, ed’: miliano: i 
Cernere inexpleto studio certare la- ‘“ Cycnus in auspiciis. semper : lastis- 
vandi.” * simus ales; op 
{Varro. Frag. in Catalect. Vet. Puet. Hunc optant naute quia non se met- 


Observavi certissimum pluviz signum git in undis.” . ne 
esse cygnos contra venti cursum vo- Niphus (ex mil.) Augur. Jib. i. 
lantes.] c. 10.) : 


e . . ul: «Be 
A certo hoc tempestatis ex avium Ex. eadem. re pro fasto omine δι» 
lavatione prognostico, aves que se muntur cycni a Virgilio. a 


Oxford Prize Essay: for 1818. 91 


men seek with increasing eagerness a minuter and more familiar 
knowledge of persons, who have distinguished themselves in that 
diversified scene ; they turn from the widerand more comprehensive 
survey of events with awakened but unsatisfied curiosity; like the 
inexperienced beholder of a vast and crowded picture, who instinc- 
tively draws nearer.to the canvas, but discovers, as he advances, 
that the colors have not grown brighter, nor the figures* more 
defined. : 

As literature and science begin to assume their just preeminence 
among human. pursuits, the province: of Biography is rapidly 
extended ; and men who have had no share in the public trangac- 
tions of their age, but have adorned it by their genius or their labors, 
are allowed to divide our attention with princes, warriors, and 
politicians. If mankind still.delight in those scenes of ambitious 
life, which abound in great and surprising occurrences, they begin 
also to value the more retined satisfaction of observing the growth 
and habits of superior mind ; what assistance it has borrowed, or 
what impediments encountered, from external events ; what studies 
have matured the scholar, what incident has aroused the poet, dr 
what lessons have formed the philosopher. | 

But in later times, when the more general cultivation of literature 
encourages an unbounded increase of writings on every subject, 
Biography takes a far wider range, and a place is found for indivi- 
duals of humbler merit and less extended celebrity. In a free and 
prosperous country more particularly, where society has formed 
itself into many great and distinct branches, and innumerable 
avenues lie open'to renown, it is esteemed no useless or unworthy 
office of the Biographer, to record those instances of superior virtue 
or talents, which, without commanding the attention of ntankind in 


general, have illuminated and embellished their own peculiar sphere 


of active or studious life. 

That species of Biography which commemorates persons dis- 
tinguished in public affairs, is dignified und recommended ‘by its | 
association with History; an alliance so intimate, that each occa- 
sionally deviates into the style and method of the other; the history 
of a nation becomes subordinate to that of an individual, and the 
narrative of a fg, expands into the chronicle of a state. We see 
the Biographer éipatiate in disquisitions on politics and manners, 
and the Historian lay open the hugan mind with its secret passions 
and infirmities. ‘Thus the profourel and elegant Roman annahist has 
traced a portrait of Tiberius, more expressive and. more truly 
biographical, than is presented in the deliberate exposition of his 
character by the minuter hand of Suetonius. _ 

A simple detail of campaigns and embassies, of martial exploits 
and political intrigues, comprised in the life of a warrior or states- 


92 Oxford Prize Essay 


man, may be valuable for its information, and still more for that 
lucid arrangement which reduces many facts to a connected series, 
and by combining, makes them illustrate and explain each other. 
Still, however, the Biographer should aim at higher excellences, 
He may indeed relate with fidelity the acts and speeches of a great 
man, may insist with energy on his wise counsels, or his virtuous 
example ; but it is only when the manners, the familiar habits, the 
daily conversation, the very look and gesture, are revived, and 
rendered present to our imagination, that we own the force and 
impressive truth of the finished picture.’ It is thus that Biography 
enlightens and animates the materials of History, and brings down 
the greatness of political events to a natural association with the 
ordinary occurrences of life. By this peculiar charm the spirited 
narratives of Plutarch continue, at the present day, to captivate 
even those who are as far removed by their course of life as by 
lapse of time from the scenes described : and thus have. the mest 
extravagant and romantic adventures of modern times been not 
only rendered credible to posterity, but invested with unquestion- 
able signs of nature and reality by the Biographer of Charles the 
Twelfth. | 

But whatever praise may belong to this species of writing. asa 
graceful appendage and supplement to History, it surpasses History 
itself in moral instruction. A short comparison will sufficiently 
point out the causes of a superivrity which might indeed be claimed 
on similar grounds for Biography in general, but belongs more 
plamly and indisputably to that particular department which is 
strictly historical. : . 

The lessons of the Biographer apply themselves immediately to 
the feelings and interests of every individual. It 1s the business of 
History to separate and distinguish men from the mass of society, 
and exhibit them in those situations to which the generality of 
mankind are persuaded they will never be summoned. Biography, 
on the other hand, reminds us at every page how much we have jn 
common with those whom fortune appears to have placed farthest 
from us; it dwells upon those incidents in which all lives must to 
ἃ certam degree resemble each other ; it draws our attention from 
events to persons, from external and accidental circumstances to 
the intrinsic and permanent qualities of mind; it accustoms us to 
consider accurately the relation which men’s public actions bear to 
their characters, education, and peculiar habits; and thus teaches 


1 Οὔτε γὰρ ἱστορίας , ἀλλὰ βίουτ' οὔτε ταῖς ἐπιφανεστάτ πάντως 
ἔνεστι ines ἀρετῆς Ν ρα αν rer βάγια βραχὺ πολλάα, καὶ Pas weal τοὶ 
πολιορκία πόλεων. Plutarch. Ἰὼ Alezande ΤΠ, . _ 


for 1818. 93 


us to discover useful lessons of private conduct in occurrences 
‘apparently foreign to our own interests and occupations. To 
govern provinces, to command armies, or to conduct embassies, are 
arts which few have occasion to learn ; yet vigilant integrity, active 
forethought, unwearied fidelity, are virtues to be cultivated in every 
station. Few men are called upon to resign greatness, and embrace . 
captivity and death for the sake of conscrence; yet the heroism of 
Sir Thomas More was only the conspicuous exercise of those 
dignified and graceful qualities which shone forth in his domestic 
life, and example fitted for the imitation of even the humblest 
individual ; the upright firmness, the candor and purity of mind, the 
cheerful evenness of temper, the sincere and constant piety; which 
diffused tranquillity through his own breast, and order, harmony, 
‘and gladness through his household." | 
The facts related by a skilful Biographer are rendered at once 
familiar and impressive by the detail of mmute and characteristic 
circumstances, which must generally be overlooked im the grand and 
comprehensive views of history. When the historian shows us a 
minister and favorite cast down abruptly from the summit of power, 
our judgment assents to bis reflections on the fallacy of all hunian 
splendor; but our feelings too confess the bitterness of the reverse, 
when Biography exhibits the disgraced and destitute Wolsey cum- 
manding his retinue to be marshalled before him, and bursting into 
tears in the fruitless effort to ‘address them.” | 
‘In works of Biography the moral is more certain, and more 
easily to be deduced, than in any portion of history. A life once 
closed is a work completed; the beginnmg, the middle, and the 
end are all subject to our observation. We can fearlessly compute 
the sum of good or evil, and pronounce with confidence how much 
was added to the amount of either by the several acts submitted to 
our review. But how feeble and uncertain is the most accurate 
human judgment upon the history of nations! We may indeed 
found arguments and establish systems on particular occurrences, 
and our reasonings on a limited train of facts may be sufficiently 


* More’s Life of Sir T. More. 

*+ Afterwards my Lord conimanded me to call all his gentlemenand yeo- 
men up into the great chamber, commanding all the gentlemen ta stand on 
the right hand, and the yeomen on the left side: at last my Lord came out .in 
his rochet upon a violet gowh, like a bishop, who went with his chaplains 
to the upper end of the chamber, where was a great window, beholding his 
goodly number of servants, who could not speak te them until the tears ran 
down his cheeks, which being perceived of his servants, caused fountains of 
tears to gush out of their sorrowful eyes, in such sort as would cause any 
heart to relent. At last my Lord eto them to this effect and purpose, 
saying,” &c. Cavendish’s Life of chap. xvii. 


94 Oxford Prize Essay 


correct; but the events of an age, or succession of ages, are only. 
part of a great and unfinished series, and whatever ingenuity may be 
exerted in reducing any portion of history to a complete and con- 
sistent scheme, there must yet remain many perplexities to be solved, 
and many imperfections to be supplied, out of the stores of suc- 
ceeding years. We cannot doubt that the same supreme wisdom 
which disposes the lives of individuals is also, in its own time, cone 
ducting the history of the world to its just and appropriate termina- 
tion; but while the philosopher affects to point out the ultimate 
purpose of particular dispensations, and the part which they con- 
tribute to the great and unknown plan, he resembles the traveller 
by that mysterious African river, of which we know the source, and 
have explored the earlier windings, but pursue with impotent con- 
jecture the vast and devious branches that descend into the ocean... 

The moral effect of History is not only rendered less perfect than 
that of Biography, by the causes already mentioned, but it is still. 
farther weakened and dissipated by the variety of incidents and per-. 
sons, and the perpetual intervention of occurrences apparently 
accidental. ‘The wisest projects are defeated, the most absurd and. 
profligate fortunately concluded ; the virtuous undertakings of good. 
men devolve upon unworthy successors, who distort and debage. 
them ; and political prosperity appears rather the reward οἵ talent. 
and acuteness, than of conscientious integrity. Our attention is only 
directed to the conduct of persons as it affects the general tenor of 
events ; and hence we are often led to bestow unmerited applause, 
to desire the success of enterprises inconsistent with strict morality, 
and to envy, not so much those who have acted uprightly, as those . 
who have been placed 1m great situations. 

To assert that the lives of individuals are exempt from unforeseen. 
vicissitude, or that the maxim cited by the Roman biographer, 
“ that every man’s character is the mould of his fortune,’* can he. 
received in its widest acceptation, would be vain and extravagant. 
But in the study of Biography, if we meet with a good man depress- 
ed, or a bad one exalted, by events beyond human control, .our - 
attention, instead of being diverted from the subject by some new 
incident or greater personage, is fixed more closely on the sequel, 
and as we diligently trace the progress of the same mind through all 
the succeeding scenes to the greatest and last, we learn to consider” 
the-vicissitudes of fortune only as different lights thrown upon the 
same figure, and not having power of themselves to improve its - 
excellences, or mitigate its deformity. 

It appears from this comparison, that the study of History tends ᾿ 


heen ee ee ΤΟΣ 
5 Sui cuique mores fingunt fortunam. Corn. Nep. Atticus, c. xi. 


for 1818. . 95. 


chiefly to inform the judgment and mature the intellectual virtues _ 
of foresight, penetration, political sagacity: Biography, while it , 
partakes in some measure of the same utility, ia most effectively. 
employed in strengthening those moral qualities which in their _ 
private exercise adorn and instruct, and in their public display, 
mvigorate and exalt the state. == | = 

hat the Biography of men of letters should excite an interest . 
more than proportioned to the importance of the events recorded, 
_may be attributed to this peculiar circumstance ; that the great 
actions by which other men distinguish themselves are performed . 
at a distance from us, and are known only by report, and by the 
imperfect pictures of cur own imagination ; but the works of the 
poet or philosopher are present alike in all ages and places, and 
the’ image ‘of their minds reflected from their works is neither, 
impaired nor obscured by lapse of time or distance of country. , 
This daily participation in their thoughts and feelings awakens: | 
natural curiosity to be acquaintéd with the incidents of their lives 
and tod compare their mannets and conduct as men, with the tom — 
and character of their writings. It is at once an interesting and :— 
profitable study, to observe the growth and developement of illus- 
trious talents, and the circumstances which have excited, directed, | 
or repressed their activity. ‘Ihe’ unpromising boyhood of South 
and Barrow ; the early maturity of genius in Pope, and its tardy . 
disclosure in Dryden; the robust powers of Johnson, growing up 
to perfection under the weight of indigence, obscurity, and unwor- 
thy labor; the hidden energies of Churchill bursting forth at once 
into a brief careet of brilliant exertion and conspicuous profligacy ;_ 
the reserved and unenterprising disposition which half veiled the 
learning and talents of Gray; and the public-spirited ambition 
which gave lustre to the same qualities in Sir William Jones; all 
these,‘and a multitude of examples not less remarkable, which | 
Biography preserves to us, are eminently fitted to improve the 
studious observer of human nature, and afford encouragement or 
suggest caution to the cultivator of letters. 

But, not to expatiate farther on those branches of Biography 
which derive importance from their subject, there is scarcely any 
class or description of human life, which, if honestly and skilfully 
portrayed, may not be rendered interesting and instructive. The 
shades of human disposition are so infinitely varied, and, in the 
narrow space assigned to human action, the paths are so many and 
so diversified, that an accurate observer of characteristic circum- 
stances may continually point out new facts in the moral history of 
man, or at least discover new illustrations of those already kiown. 
From this cause chiefly it arises, that in the later ages of literature, 
when other subjects have been exhausted, Biography, and the descrip- 


96 Oxford Prize Essay 


tion of remote countries, are most commonly resorted to as the yet 
unfailing sources of delight and information. And Biography 
under all its forms has this great and important utility, that the 
mind of man, too apt to be engrossed by the present hour, or by 
anxious anticipations of the hour immediately to follow, is induced 
by this study to reflect upon life as a whole ; to observe how insepa- 
rably, in the history of every person, each part is connected with 
the others, and to contemplate steadily that solemn though familiar 
truth, how short, how frail, and how precious is the gift of 
existence. 

“These considerations naturally lead us from the subjects of 
Biography to the manner in which they should be treated. 

The style and method of every biographical narration must be 
influenced by its own peculiar circumstances: by none pe 
more remarkably than the distance of time at which the work is 
undertaken, from the period of which it treats. The two kinds of 
biographical writing that most widely differ from each other, and 
afford exercise to the most dissimilar talents, are the Memoirs 
composed by persons who have shared the scenes, and in a manmer 
lived the life they describe, and the Compilations of learned and 
ingenious men, illustrating the history of individuals who lived many 
ages before them. The narratives usually called Memoirs, which, 
together with the life selected as their principal subject, describe 
the society in which it was passed, undoubtedly compose the most 
lively and fascinating department of Biography, uniting, as they do, 
the grace and brilliancy of fiction, with a portion of the weight and 
usefulness of history. ‘The more ancient memoirs are inestimable 
for that simplicity and circumstantial faithfulness with which they 
paint the manners of our remoter ancestors :* and in those of later 
times, we are gratified by exact yet animated pictures of individual. 
and social character,rendered still more attractive by felicity of exprea- 
sion and brilliancy of thought, by alternate playfulness of satire, and 
profoundness of reflection.* It must however be confessed, that 
under this elegant and engaging form, Biography has often appeared 
too negligent of that severe practical morality, which is its mast. 
honorable characteristic: and many of those works which desesy 
the highest admiration for the spirited graces of their style, are the 


* As Joinville’s Memoirs of St. Louis; Sully’s Memoirs of Henry IV; 
Cavendish’s Life of Wolsey. 
* This observation of course applies to the best species of memoirs. There 
are others, however, which have their value as repusitories of anecdote, 
though they indicate no higher qualifications in ‘the writer than atrong 
memory and acute observation. A still lower class of memoirs is-vnly re- 
ymarkable as the ordinary vehicle of frivolous and pernicious comniunicé : 


for 1818. ! 97 


Jeast qualitied to mstruct society, either by just priaciples: or virtu- 
ous examples.’ coy reo yee . ΕΣ ΕΣ - 

: The author. who.compiles a life from the traditions ‘and. written 
memorials of a former age, must exhibit very different qualifications 
from him who merely depicts the scenes ‘that’ have ‘passéd before 
his eyes. With a:less fanciful and less original mind; he must pos- 
sess a judgment far more solid, a practised discernmentian unwea- 
ried industry, atid an unshaken firmness in repelling the allurements 
of system.’ Removed, as he generally is, by a. long series: of years 
from the influence of ‘prejudice, availmg himself of every improve- 
ment which in later times has coritributed to extend knowledge and 
assist reason, and deliberately comparing the different illustrations 
which his subject has received. from ancient authority.or modern 
research; he enjoys in some respects a superiority over the con- 
temporary: Biographer ; ‘and ‘it frequently happens, that the life 
which has been composed after an interval of ages, is not only the’ 
most regular and polished history, but the most exenipt from 
errors. Nor is this kind of Biography so austere in its character, 
so necessarily-incapable of ‘ornament or animation, as‘ might be 
concluded ‘by a hasty observer... ‘Ine Lives of Plutarch, which at 
least have never been deemed frigid or uninteresting, were, with 
very few exceptions, collected from the memorials of distant gene- 
rations ; and although perhaps a greater reserve in crediting; and 
discretion. in reporting, would have been useful to the ancient, as 
they would be indispensable in any modern author, yet the solid 
and unquestioned excellencies of the Parallel Lives afford suffi- 
cient proof, that this species of Biography is ‘not of necessity con- 
fined to the general recital of a few barren facts, or to the aninviting 
though useful labor of antiquarian dissertations.” : 
+ The qualities most essential.to a biographical work are copious- 
ness aud impartiality. Activity and perseverance in the collection 
of facts are virtues of easy attainment; but to discern the frivolaus 
from the important, to resolve on adopting and on rejecting, to 
sclect materials with that unerring judgment which permits no dis- 
tinguishing part of the character to escape, yet rejects those indif- 
ferent circumstances which belong equally to all men, is a perfec- 
tion of art which few authors have approached. Of the two vices 
to which those writers are exposed, who fail of this exquisite 
medium, an officious prolixity is the most exposed to ndicule, an 


τ As the Mempirs of the Count de Grammont, by Hamilton; and the 
Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs of his own Life. 

? The Lives of Diogenes Laertius are collections of amusing and. valuable 
anecdote, not like those of Plutarch, complete and animated representations 
of character ‘and conduct. 


VOL, XIX, Cl. Jl. NO. XXXVI ὦ 


98 Oxford Prize Essay 


empty generality the most deserving of blame. For, on reviewing 
these Lerratives of ‘every kind to which the world has been most 
indebted for information and amusement, it will be found that we 
awe far more to those who have left little untold, than to those who 
have scrupled to relatetoo much. ΝΣ 

_ The practice of suppressing the minute and familiar circum- 
gtances of a life, end delivering only the general result of their 
testimony, according to those conclusions which the Biographer 
himself has drawn from it, may be considered favorable to the 
elegance, dignity, and uniformity.of a work, but must always 
detract from its beauty and utility as a biographical portrait. The 
writer who adopts this method, instead of permitting bis readers to 
become acquainted with the person whose life he traces, informs 
them only of the opinion which he himself entertains of a man 
whose conduct he had opportunities of observing. But the most 
elaborate and highly finished delineation of a character is infinitely 
weaker and less instructive than a few well chosen sketches from 
the open and easy intercourse of private life; and the powers of 
genius are often as justly estimated by the irregular brilliancy of 
conversation, as by the steadier and. mure concentrated lustre of 
published writings. 

To illustrate character by abundant extracts from correspond- 
ence, 18 a practice in Biography which has been sanctioned by 
several eminent examples ;' and it 18 not unreasonably supposed, 
that the comparison of a number of letters, from whatever hand, 
will assist materially in estimating the disposition as well as talents 
of the writer.* Yet should we avoid relying too implicitly on a 
criterion of this nature. Affectation and insincerity in the corre- 
spondent are obvious sources of deception: and the effusions even 
of the most candid and mgenuous writer, who accustoms himself to 
expatiate on his own feelings, are not to be considered an unquestion- 


Sa συ a AAS 


* Mason’s Life of Gray ; Lord Teignmouth’s Life of Sir William Jones. 
᾿ ἢ Biography has been much disgraced in late years, by the indiscriminate 
publication of all correspondence, without any consideration of general 
utility, and without sufficient regard for the reputation of the writers. The 
following passage from Bishop Sprat’s Life of Cowley might serve as ἃ 
reproof to some modern Biographers. “1 know you agree with me, that 
nothing of this nature should be published: and herein you have always 
consented to approve of the modest judgment of our countrymen above the 
practice of some of our neighbours, and chiefly of the French. I make no 
manuer of question but the English at this time are infinitely improved in 
this way, above the skill of former ages, nay of all countries round about us, 
that pretend tu greater eloquence. Yet they have been always judiciously 
sparing in printing such composures, while some other witty nations have 


tired all their presses and readers with them.” Li fired 
his Works. ed. 1669. | ™ ef Cowley, Pr ° 


720» 1818. 09 


able index of character." [ἃ the calm and placid moments of con- 
tidential communication, the mind, delighted with its task and with 
itself, is naturally open to every amiable and disinterested senti- 
ment : then faults and follies are ingenuously avowed; then schemes 
of purposed improvement, and hopes of future perfection, and 
aspirations after more than mortal excellence, begin to crowd upon 
the pen; the imagination warms with its own exertion; and the 
heart, unrestrained for the moment by any sordid passion or low 
solicitude, indulges in its natural and original bent, and feels itself 
earnestly and sincerely virtuous.” 

The writer of his own history, while he enjoys the advantage of 
a perfect and indisputable acquaintance with every fact essential 
to his work, has yet a difficult task to perform in maintaining the 
character of impartiality. A cold reserve only leaves curiosity 
unsatisfied,’ and few readers are conciliated by humble professions. 
The most becoming and manly course, perhaps, which he can 
adopt, and the most respectful to the judgment of mankind, is to 
abandon all such expedients, and without attempting that which 
exceeds human wisdom, to pass an equitable decision on his own 
merits, assume that chastened confidence which Tacitus has called, 
““ fiduciam potius morum, quam arrogantiam,” and at once, with 
truth and with simplicity, proceed to the events which he has pur- 
posed to relate. ‘The man who has voluntarily undertaken to lay 
his history before the world, must at least be persuaded that its 
general tenor is not dishonorable to him ;5 he would else be doubly 


_* But in illustrating and connecting facts, a series of correspondence (like 
that of Cicero or Erasmus) is often of the highest value. 
' 2 Tt is easy to awaken generous sentiments in privacy; to despise death 
when there is no danger; to glow with benevolence when there is nothing 
to be given. While such. ideas are formed they are felt, and self-love does 
met syspect:- the gleam of virtue to be the meteor of fancy.” Johnson’s Life of 
ope. 

Ι The narratives of their own lives, given by two of our greatest historians, 

present a striking contrast; that of Hume, composed with singular chaste- 
ness and simplicity, but with a dryness and brevity which disappoint the 
Inquisitive reader; and that of Gibbon, in which every event is the subject 
of a pompous, but often eloquent amplification. 
' *The warmth of religious feelings has sometimes led men to describe 
with great force and frankness their own infirmities, transgressions, and 
mental struggles:—the confessions of St. Augustine are-a well-known 
instance. . 

5 The learned and visionary Cardan, though he appears to have exter- 
tained no humble opinion of his own character, has pointed out its repulsive 
features with an unshrinking boldness which few would dare to imitate. 
Among the faults avowed are the following. “‘ Savitia, pertinacia conten- 
tiosa, asperitas, imprudentia, iracundia, ultionis desiderium etium dltra 


100 Ouford Prize Essay 


disgraced in such a memorial of his ignominy. And the exaggerated 
humility with which a writer speaks of himself, suggests a reason- 
able suspicion, that he will avail himself of that pretended frankness 
to assume a more unbounded licence of depreciating others: 
More honest, as well as more dignified, yet rather to be admired 
than imitated, was the pride of that romantic English nobleman,’ 
who, professing to write for the instruction and example of his 
descendants, has magnificently and circumstantially set forth the 
extraordinary incidents of his life, and declares, in one of his 
earliest pages, that from his first infancy until that hour he never 
willingly told any thing that was false. The writer, whatever may 
be his talents, who will candidly and diligently apply himself to the 
task of recording his own history, has these great and certain advan- 
tages ; that the vivid impression left upon his mind by the events 
he is to relate, will enable him to describe with that peculiar 
energy which only experience can inspire ;* and that if a man be 
capable of any just, great, wise, or pathetic reflection, the retro- 
spect of his own past years can scarcely fail to suggest it. ᾿ 

In considering impartiality as one of the duties required of the 
Biographer, it is impossible not to turn the attention for a moment 
.to some beautiful and justly admired examples in which the history 
of a life is conducted throughout in a strain of elevated panegyric. 
At the head of these appears that illustrious effusion of eloquence 
which immortalised Agricola. ‘The same uniform tone of praise, 
exalting its subject almost above the perfections of humanity, 
appears in the life of Atticus by Cornelius Nepos ; and (to take an 
instance from modern times) in the elegant sketches of the French 
academicians by Fontenelle. But works like these must rather be 
considered -as professed eulogies moulded in the form of Biography, 
than as the literal and circumstantial records of events occurring in 
human life. [ἰ was the object of those writers to raise monuments 
to the glory of the men whom they celebrated ; to applaud, not 
weigh illustrious characters; and to impress mankind with the 
admiration of virtue by displaying her in unobstructed splendor. 


vires.” ‘ Frividi stim cordis, timidus, et cerebricalidi.” “ I]lud inter vitia 
mea singulare et magnum agnosco, et sequor, ut libentius nihil dicam quan 
quod audientibus displiceat—Hvc autem in meis benefactoribus devito, 
atque potentibus.” «ὁ Sed alea etiam longe deterius cessit, filiis ad aleam 
ingteuctis, et dumo aleatoribus spe patefacta.” Cardunus De Vita sua, cap. 
13, &c. 

1 Lord Herbert of Cherbury. 

2 Thus Gibbon has related the incident of his writing the last lines of 
his history in the garden at Lausanne, with an eloquence which rises to 
wetry. Another.Biographer must have been content to express the facts 
in cold and general terms. 


for 1818. : 101 


These are examples rarely and cautiously to be imitated; the Bio- 
grapher ought to keep in mind the nature of his appointed task, 
lest he should desert the fidelity which so well becomes him, 
without arriving at the sublimity he would emulate; lest his 
anxiety to celebrate with unusual honor the excellencies which 


awaken his enthusiasm, should be likened to that senseless prodi- | | 


gality which sought to bestow new lustre on the perfect statue, by 
encrusting the marble with gold.’ 

It should also be remembered, that unvaried praise soon wearies 
the attention; that the works of this description which have 
obtained distinguished success, are short ; and that the mind which 
turns with satiety from the graceful eulogies of Fontenelle, feels 
itself braced and imvigorated by the manly truth and dignified 
austerity of the Biographer of our own poets. 

To present to his contemporaries the history of one who is nowno 
-more, is a task which most naturally devolves upon those who have 
enjoyed means of tracing in its growth, and observing in its matu- 
rity, the character to be described. Yet these are the persons to 
whom the duty of impartiality is most difficult and ungrateful. 
While the fondness so long cherished is yet florishing in their 
bosoms; while affection is raised to the highest pitch of enthusiasm 
by the loss of its object; when every sense of imperfection, every 
remembrance of past bitterness, and every topic of reproach, are 
almost obliterated from the mind, it is difficult for the writer even 
to form to himself, much more to communicate to the world, ‘an 
impartial and accurate idea of the infirmities and errors which 
mingled with the virtues of his friend and early associate. But 
whatever indulgence or even respect may be entertained for these 
natural and amiable feelings, we must remember that Biography, 
as partaking of the character of history, 1s subject to the same 
inflexible rules, and that deviations from truth even in favor of the 
warmest friendship are blemishes to be atoned for, not refinements 
to be applauded. " 

Had the melancholy history of Savage been traced with a palliat- 
iug hand, posterity might have thought him less culpable, but 
would have viewed his fate with more indifference. It is not only 
the eloquence of Johnson that moves us irresistibly to pity and — 
indignation, but we lend our sympathy to the Biographer, because 
we are convinced of his sincerity; and, satisfied with the tribute 
paid to justice, we permit ourselves to indulge in unreserved com- 
passion. : 

The great virtue of impartiality is not, however, to be con- 


* Some instances of this practice may be found in Pliny, Nat. Hist. b. 
xxxiv.c, 19, xxxvi.c. 4, and Grevius, Thes. Ant. Rom. vol. lil. ἢ. 88. 


12. Oxford Prize Essay for 1818. 


founded with that mistaken or pretended candor which 1s only thie 
instrument of detraction. The survivor of his friend may justly 
hesitate to reveal facts yet unknown, which, while they illustrated 
his character, would dishonor his memory. He who professes to 
inform mankind, is bound to inform them truly; but it is better to 
rencunce the office of Biography, when it offers only the alterna- 
tive of dishonest concealment or hateful disclosure, than to become 
the accuser of him who no longer exists, and to raise up from ob- 
scurity the imperishable evidence of his faults. Vainly would it be 
urged, that a duty to society requires the sacrifice of private feeling 
to the interests of moral and historical knowledge. No public 
claim can have power to violate the sanctity of that reserve which 
_ affection and good faith alike enjoin; and he whose weakness or 
depravity can avail itself of auch a pretext, will more probably 
corrupt men by his example, than improve them by his information. 
In whatever point of view we contemplate Biography, a multi- 
tude of interesting tupics press on our attention. From those which 
have been selected as illustrative of the objects and duties of the 
Biographer, we may sufficiently estimate the difficulties of his task, 
Its dignity and usefulness. To perpetuate the fame of heroes and 
sages, and to render those actions which have astonished whole 
states a familiar study and a salutary source of practical instruction ; 
to awaken emulation or repress confidence in aspiring genius, by 
conspicuous examples in letters, arts, or sciences; to record the 
excellencies of those honored individuals in every class of soctety, 
whose virtues are held most worthy of imitation, and whose 
_ memory is most affectionately cherished, are labors worthy of the 
most exalted ambition : but to seize upon that sound and manly 
style of narration which at once gratifies and sustains curiosity,’ 
and which neither wastes itself in frigid generality, nor dwindles 
Into frivolous minuteness; to discharge honestly that rigorous 
duty of impartial representation in which the moral character of 
the Biographer himself is so deeply interested; to dismiss preju- 
dice, to suppress fondness, to banish affectation even when his own 
history is the subject, are difficulties which the most accomplished. 
mind may glory in surmounting. The writer who has approached 
perfection in a species of historical composition more powerful than 
any other in awakening the sympathies, and disposing the heart to 
profound and useful reflection, may claim a place in the highest 
rank of literature ; and while we yield this distinction to the Bio- 
grapher, we may without exaggeration pronounce, that the success- 
ful cultivation and general encouragement of Biography affords an 
honorable testimony to the genius and character of a nation. 


JOHN LEYCESTER ADOLPHUS, B.A. 


Sr. JoHN’s COLLEGE. 


£03 


β OBSERVATIONS | 
On Professor Hermanr’s Review of the New Edition of 
Stephens’ Greek Thescurus. ΝΝ 


No. 11.—{Continued from No. XXXVI p. 3901. 


Tue Editors will now proceed to examine some of the critical 
remarks, contained in this valuable Review. 


1, 'Αβρὸς, ἀβρὸς, ἅβρα, ἄβρα. 

“In v. ἁβρὸς, de qua copiosissime est et doctissime explicatum, 
non vidimus citata, que Valek. scripsit ad Callim. Fregmm. 233. 
Ceterum insigni diligentia efficere studuerant Editores doctissimi 
in adnotatione tertia p. 43. dBga, non ἅβρα esse scribendum, siqui- 
tem librariis in hutusmodi re fides est, qui sepe in spiritibus 
ponendis negligentissimi sunt. Accedit, quod recentior pronun- 
ciatio, que etiamnum in usu est Greecis, non solet exprimere spiri- 
tum asperum.” 

From these words the reader might imagine that the Editors 
_ Tested their orthography of the word ἄβρα, Ancilla, solely on the 
authority of Librarians, who are admitted to be most careless in 
giving accents and breathings, and who no doubt frequently followed 
the practice of their own age, which might be the reverse of the rule 
adopted by those ancient writers, whose works they were employed 
to transcribe. In point of fact, however, the Editors have adopted 
the rejected orthography ἄβρα for ἅβρα, induced not merely by the 
readings of Mas., but by the authority of Eustath. and H. Steph., 
who. consider this word as derived from a foreign root, totally 
distinct from the Greek-word ἐβρός. The words of the Editors are: 

“Αἱ &8ea, Ancilla, formatum esse ex apis, Mollis, ut censent 
doctissimi illi viri, Dorv. Albert. Locella, Sturz. et Schneider., non 
est res satis certa. Imo vero etiam Eustath. pro voce peregrina 
accepisse, ut vidit noster Stephanus, qui illa de causa Thesauri 
Indici intet cetera γλωσσηματικὰ vocabula hoc inserendum esse 
putavit, certissimum est. Cur igitur ἄβρα in ἄβρα mutari debeat? 

resertim cum leni spiritu extet m duobus esych. locis, in 
havorino, in duobus Grammatici S. Germ. locis, in Etym, in 


Lex. H. Stephani veteri, in Lex. Ms. Bibl. Coisl. 602., ter in 


104 Observations on the Review 


Eustathii loco, item in tribus Luciani locis laudatis, cum porro bis 
sic scriptum in suo Pollucis Codice, nempe ad 4, 151. et 154. inve- 
nerit Jungerm., cum eadem scriptura reperiatur in Charitone 1, 4. 
cum denigqtie Schweigh. ad Athen. 349. e. ‘ tenuerit in Machonis 
versu scripturam.dfpas, leni spiritu, ut erat in Ed. Bas. et Cas. 1. 
nec aliud quid e Ms. A. annotatum.’” : 

With respect to the derivation of aBpis from ἥβω, the Editors 


are agreed with the learned Professor. 
2, “Ayay, ἡ ἄγαν δουλεία. 


' « Similia quedam notari posse videmus in ν. ὥγαν. Cuius quum 
duas signiff. posuisset Steph., Nimis et Vulde, et utramque invenire 
sibi visus esset in-illo versu Alphet, Τὸ μηδὲν yap ἄγαν, ἄγαν με 
τέρπει, hec adiecerunt Editores:—‘ At contra Aristoteles Rhet. 
2,21. Οὐκ ἀρέσκει δέ μοι τὸ λεγόμενον, Μηδὲν ἄγαν" δεῖ γὰρ τούς γε 
κακοὺς ἄγαν μισεῖν. Eurip. Hippol. 263. οὕτω τὸ λίαν πον ἐπαινῶ 
Τοῦ μηδὲν ἄγαν, Καὶ ξυμφήσουσι σοφοί μοι. Pindar. ap. Plut. 2, 116. 
et Hephest. de Metr. 91. Sogo) δὲ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἄγαν ἔπος αἴνησαν 
περισσῶς. Palladas 62. Μηδὲν ἄγαν τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ὁ σοφώτατος 
εἶπεν" Fatemur, quem ad finem hac dicta sint, nos non satis 
assequi. Nam videotur quidem hoc velle, non magis in Alphei 
versu utramque inveniri huius adverbii significationern, quam in 
his, quos afferunt, aliorum scriptorum locis. Quod etsi recte eos 
contendere putamus, tamen, si ἄγαν Nimis significat, μηδὲν ἄγαν 
‘autem Latine est Ne quid nimis, quid aliud responsurum censebi- 
mus Stephanum, quam hoc, in illis quoque exemplis μηδὲν ἄγαν. 

6 guid nimis siguificare, et ap. Aristot. quidem, eodem modo ut 
ap. Alpheum, utraque significatione positum esse ἄγαν! Ex quo 
apparet, alio modo refutandum fuisse Stephanum; et id ipsum 
facere debebant Editores. Nam falsum est,” etc. etc. 


The learned Reviewer has altogether misunderstood the meaning 
of the Editors. In using the words, At contra Aristot. Rhet. 2, 21. 
Οὐκ ἀρέσκει δέ μοι τὸ λεγόμενον, Μηδὲν ὥγάν' δεῖ γὰρ τούς γε κακοὺς 
ἄγαν μισεῖν, the Editors had no intention of opposing the remark of 
H. Stephens, but simply meant to oppose Aristotle’s disappro- 
bation of the proverb to Alpheus’s commendation of it. Nor have 
the Editors connected the words of Aristotle disapproving of it, 
with the words of Eurip. Pindar and Palladas approving of it. It 
is true that they immediately follow the passage from Aristotle, but 
there is no conjunction, which connects them with it. 


_ “ De eodem illo ἄγαν que contra Spohn. dicta sunt p. 70., et 
quz ibidem de consociatione eius cum superlativis, non ad v. 


of the Greek Thesaurus. 105° 


“Ὑπεραγανακτῶ, ubi nemo illa exspectaret, sed ad ipsum adv. ” Ayay 
afferenda erant.” “Ὁ 

The Editors admit that this matter ought to have been placed 
under ἤ4γαν, but the question is, whether, not having been inserted 
in its proper place, it was altogether to be omitted? The Editors 
thought not, though the Reviewer may think differently. Those 
students, who may in future times wish to examine the opinion of 
Spohn, and to see examples, in which ἄγαν is used with a superla- 
tive, will not be disposed to quarrel with the Editors for . putting 
the observations in a wrong place, but rather to thank them for not 
having totally omitted the discussion of points, about which they 
were interested. Referred to p.70., as they will be in the General 
Index, for the uses of ἄγαν with the article and with the superlative, 
they will find no inconvenience whatever resulting from. this acci- 
dental distribution of the matter under ‘Prepayavaxta. 

“ Locum Platonis Polit. 564. ita scriptum dederunt, ‘H yee ἄγαν 
ἐλευθερία ἔοικεν οὐκ ἐς ἄλλο τι ἢ εἰς [τὴν] ἄγαν δουλείαν μεταβάλλειν καὶ 
ὐδιώξῃ καὶ πόλει. Articulum, quem uncis incluserunt, nec libri 
habent, quod sciamus, nec Stephanus posuit, ut eum Editores pro- 
pterea, quia necessarium putabant, adiecisse videantur. At uti 
-addendus est articulus, ubi finitum est nomen, ita omittendus est, 
ubi est infinitum. Sic recte dicas, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἄγαν δουλεία, Hac est 
gravis servitus: quod ubi dixeris, αὕτη ἐστὶν 4 ἄγαν δουλεία, hoc 
significaveris, Hac est illa gravis servitus.” . | 

. The learned Professor seems to the Editors to have committed 
four mistakes in this paragraph ; but they are ready to examine 
carefully whatever may be said by him in vindication of himself. 

1. The Editors maintain the necessity of adding τὴν before ἄγαν 
δουλείαν, because ἄγαν δουλείαν without τὴν is not Greek. - “Ayay 
without the article cannot, consistently with the genius of the Greek 
language, be used for an adjective, and the Editors request from 
the Reviewer instances, where it has the sense of the adjective 
without the article? Pseudo-Longin, 42. Ὅταν els λίαν συνάγηται 
βραχύ. According to the opinion of Professor Hermann, this pas- 
sage is correct as it stands, but the Editors have no doubt, (see 
Nov. Thes. Gr. L. 999. d.) that the Author wrote εἷς τὸ λίαν--- 
᾿βραχύ. Dr. Butler, Mr. Elmsley, and Mr. Blomfield, would inter- 
pret Eschyl. Prom. 973. Σέβου, προσεύχου, θῶπτε τὴν κρατοῦντ᾽ ἀεὶ, 
Whoever happens to be in power. But 1. the sense does not require 


100 Observations on the Review 


this interpretation ; 2. the genius of the Greek language rejects it, 
because ἀεὶ never has, and never can have, this meaning, as Mr. 
Barker has shewn in his Classical Recreations and in the Class. 
Joum., except when it is placed, as in the mstances cited by Mr. 
Blomfield, between the article and the participle: τὸν ἀεὶ κρατοῦντα. 

2. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἄγαν δουλεία cannot, asthe Reviewer contends, be 
translated, Hac est gravis servitus, because ἄγαν without the 
article prefixed is an adverb, not an adjective. | 

3. Αὕτη ἐστὶν dyav δουλεία the Editors maintain not to be even 
Greek, but they will yield on this point, if the Professor can pro- 
duce any instances of a similar phrase from any Attic writer. 

4. If the phrase, Airy ἐστὶν ἡ ἄγαν δουλεία, necessarily signifies, as 
the Reviewer thinks, Hac est illa gravis servitus, the phrase ἡ ἄγαν 
δουλεία must necessarily imply Illa gravis servitus, whereas In truth 
it signifies merely gravis servitus. 

5. If Plato in the first part of the sentence wrote ἡ ὥγαν ἐλευθέρία, 
he must have written τὴν dyav δουλείαν, because the same principle 
of the language, which required the insertion of the article in the 
one place, would require it in the other: 'H γὰρ ἄγαν ἐλευθερία 
ἔοικεν οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο τι ἢ εἰς [τὴν] ἄγαιν δουλείαν μεταβάλλειν καὶ ἰδιώτῃ 
καὶ πόλει. πο 

Thuc. 7, 3.’Exaviye τὸ στράτευμα ἧς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν μᾶλλον. In the 
Bipont Edition this passage is thus translated : “ Copias in locum 
patentiorem reduxit.” “4 Μᾶλλον pro μείζω dicit Portus, quomodo 
Noster supra.” Wass. The word μᾶλλον may be here translated 
literally Magis, In locum patentem magis (quam altum,) “ Intoa 
place rather open than high,” 1. e. “ Into the open plain rather than 
upon the heights,” Non tam, quam. Cf. 7, 81. Οὐ προὐχώρει μᾶλλον 
4 ἐς μάχην ξυνετάσσετο. “ Ubi ἡ μᾶλλον εὐρυχωρία, ut μᾶλλον ἐξουσία 
7, 12. et.ita ἡ ἄγαν ἐξουσία, Plut. Mor. 283. c. ἡ ἐπιθυμία, μισοπο- 
γηρία, et ὁ ἄγαν φόβος 4524. a. ἡ ἄγαν προμήθεια Chrys. 4. Op. 8. 
D2. 4 τέκνοις ἄγαν χρημάτων συναγωγὴ Democr. in Stob. Tit. 10. 
p- 130. καὶ πολλάκις κρίσις Plut. Mor. 452. α. ἡ πάλιν ἀναχάρηφις 
Thuc. 5, 5. of Alay διδάσκαλοι Chrys. 6. Op. 68. B. et τὸ μᾶλλον, 
Nimium, Dio ap. Stob. Tit. 72. p. 44. τὸ μᾶλλον κοσμεῖσθαι φεύ- 
ξοται, queque similia notarunt alii.” Abresch. Diluc. Thuc. 663. 
This note reflects but little credit on its writer. 1. The meaning 


| of the Greek Thesaurus. 107 


of the words of Thue. 7, 8.. ἐς τὴν εὑρσχωρίαν μᾶλλον, ig misumdere 
stood. 9, The phrase, ἡ εὐρυχωρία μᾶλλον, is, contrary to the prin- 
ciples of the Greek language, considered: equivalent to the phrase, 
ἢ μᾶλλον εὐρυχωρία. 
3. Δέλογχε in Sapphus versu. ° 7 
“ Atque omnmo landanda quidem magnopere est sequitas illa, 
que in litteris non quis aliquid, sed quid quisque dixerit, spectan- 
dum putat: sed ob hanc ipsam famen cauasam vellemus aliquot 
locis non esse promiscue quorumcunque hominum verba allata. Sic 
p. 54. cur ad verba Sapphus, . 
᾿Εγὼ δὲ φίλημ᾽ ἀβροσόναιν, oN 
Καί μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν ἔρος ' 
. ᾿Δελίω καὶ τὸ καλὸν λέλογιχε; 
(ita enim hi versicali, οἱ sic scripsit Sappho, disponendi sunt,) verba 
adscribi opus erat Volgeri, non modo sensum explanantis, qui satis 
planus factus erat eo, quod integrum Clearchi, qui hac affert, locum 
Editores apposuerant, sed falso etiam contendentis, λέλογχε, (quod 


bis λέλογκε scriptum videmus, ut ap. Blomfield.) active dictum 
esse?” , Op } 


The learned Reviewer has duly appreciated the candor of the 
Editors, who have neither sought for opportunities of attacking the 
writings of those, who might be considered inimical, nor ungene- 
rously suppressed the mention of their names, when their works 
supplied pertinent matter. . | _ 

Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur. 

Nor indeed have the Editors scrupled to examine the opinions, 
und sometimes to pomt out the mistakes of their personal friends 
om points of criticism with that strict impartiality, which-becomes 
them as the conductors of a national work, and that perfect free- 
dom, which should reign in the Repablic of Letters. 

The very reason why the Editors quoted the words of Voiger 
was, because, contrary to the opinion of the Reviewer, he inter- 
prets λέλογχε in an active sense ; and the passage of Clearchus was 
quoted at full length to shew that Volger waa justified in giving that 
interpretation of it. If λόλογχε was not here to be considered as 
active, Clearchus would in all probability not have interpreted it 
by the active verb εἶχεν : Φανερὸν ποιοῦσα πᾶσιν, ὡς ἣ τοῦ ζῇν ἐπιθυμία 
τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν εἶχεν αὐτῇ. Nor do the Editors see how 


108 Observations on the Review 


the word can be interpreted in any other sense ; but they are ready 
to consider carefully any other interpretation, which. the learned 
Reviewer may propose. ‘They add, that the interpretation of 
λέλογχϑ in an active sense, is not peculiar to Volger and themselves. 
“ Constructio sic concipienda : Ὁ ἔρος ἀελίω λέλογχέ μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν 
καὶ τὸ καλόν. Schweigh. The version of Dalechamp can scarcely 
be admitted bythe Reviewer, because it is quite at variance with 
the interpretation of Clearchus. ‘‘ Ego delicias amo; fer: tamen 
hominis mihi sorte amor contigit, et honestus, et splendidus.” 
“ Huic Volgero, qui dissuadéntibus nobis edidit Fragmenta 
‘Sapphus, Editores Thesauri etiam in rebus metricis aliquid tri- 
buere videntur, ut ex eo colligimus, quod in adnotatione subiecta 
his verbis eius mentionem faciunt: ‘ Versus in ordinem redigendos 
aliis relinquimus, (v. Volger. p. 89.)’ at in re metrica quum omnino 
nulla est huius auctoritas, tum hoc in loco omissionis signo ante jos 
ponendo fecit id, quod quivis, ubi meliora desunt, facere potest.” 
With metrical questions the Editors do not meddle, because they 
are incompetent to the discussion of them. But for this very 
reason they think it to be their duty to refer the student to such 
writers, as have touched on them. They do not, however, conceive 
that in doing so they are responsible for the opinions of those writers, 
whether right or wrong, unless they commit themselves by direct 
approbation or censure of them. In the present instance 186 
Editors have not so committed themselves. a 
_“ Eiusdem Volgeri longam adnotationem, in qua inauditi quidam 
trimetri trochaici, et permepte quidem restituuntur, non dubitarunt 
-totam exhibere p. 301.” , τος wa! 
The Editors here also have not expressed’ any approbation: of 
the verses as restored by Volger. ‘They have merely, conformably 
to their plan of collecting materials for the use of future editors of 
classical works, recorded what Volger has said about the metre,:and 
‘also what he has said about the sense of the.corrupt passage in ques- 
‘tion. The very folly. and ignorance, and inaccuracy of some writers, 
have not unfrequently-conducted the Editors, while employed in. the 
detection of them, to the right reading or the right-interpretation of 
_passages, which neither the acuteness, nor the learning, nor the 
.acturacy of others cauld correct, or explain. 


of the Greek Thesaurus. 109 


4. Τελεσσιδώτειρα, 
μα Editors have no hesitation in expressing their -entire assent 
to all, which the learned Reviewer has written about this word. 


«5. ᾿Ηγάθεος, Θεῖος, δῖος. 


‘Phe Editors have equal pleasure in acknowledging the propricty 
of all, which the Reviewer has said about these words. 


6. Αἰγύπτης. 
“Quod obiter addunt doctissimi Editores, m Bekkeri Aneed. 
"3, 361. (Αἰγύπτης' συβότης, νομεὺς,) scribendum sibi videri Αἰγιβότης 
vel AiyoBérns, id nobis quidem parum verisimile videtur, quia addita 
iyterpretatio συβότης, νομεὺς, non satis quadrat. Periculosum est; 
huiusmodi verba tentare, ac prestat, ut nos quidem censemus, 
exspectare, dum aliunde certius quid proferatur.” 


Though the Editors may have failed in their conjecture; yet this 
very failure may incite some critics to more successful efforts, 
which, but for the Editors, might never have been made. So far 
therefore from discouraging all attempts at conjectural criticism in 
such difficulties, the Editors would strongly recommend them as 
likely to elicit sooner or later the true reading. The more conjec- 
tures the critic has before him, the greater will be his chance of 
hitting the mark. With respect to their substitution of Αἰγιβότης 
or AiyoBorns for Αἰγύπτης, they do not agree with the learned Profes- 
sor in thinking that the explanation subjoined to the gloss, (συβότης,᾿ 
γομεὺς,) does not sufficiently suit that conjecture. On the contrary, it 
seems to them to derive confirmation from that very circumstance. 
For, if συβότης could not have been used by the Grammaerian to 
explain αἰγοβότης, so neither could νομεὺς be conjoined with συβότης, 
as if it were synonymous with it, because γομεὺς is applied.to sheep, 
and cattle, and it may be, to goats, but not to pigs. In the absence 
of the passage, which the Grammarian had in his eye, it is Impos- 
sible for the learned Reviewer to decide whether αἰγοβότης could not 
have been the word, because the sense might not have been affected 
whether we understood a shepherd, or a goatherd, or a swineherd. 


7. Τήκων, ῥήσσων αἰθέρα. 
_ © P, 260. afferunt Fragmentum ex Orphicis, servatum a Macrob- 
1, 18. 


110 Observations on the Review 


Τήκων αἰϑέρα θεῖον, ἀκίνητόν περ ἐόντα. 
Jn adsotatione subjecta, quoaiam οἱ Damascius de βαρ ipsa re ditat 
ψεφέλης ῥαγείσης, et Suid. ν.᾿Ορφεὺς scribat, “Equoe δὲ ὅτι φῶς ῥῆξαν τὸν 
αἰθέρα ἐφώτισε τὴν γῆν, Coniciunt τήκων glossam esse, qua expulsa 
fuerit genuina scriptura ῥήσσων. Inea re nos nullo modo assen- 
tienteshabent. Primum enim τήκων αἰθέρα aperte poeticum est, nec 
mirum, qui prosa oratione utebantur, a poetica dictione abstinuisse. 
Deinde negamus etiam omnino, ῥήσσων scnbere potuisse, qui versus 
illos fecit, non propter verbum, 866 propter tempus verbi. Τήχων 
enim recte ille dicere potuit, quod id paullatim fit; ῥήσσων autem 
non potuit, quia rampi wtherem unius momenti est, sed debuiseet 
ῥήξας dicere, quemadmodum et Damascius et Suid. aoristo sunt usi.” 


The Editors allow that Orpheus could not, for the reason agsigned 
by the Reviewer, have said ῥήσσων. But, while they admit that 
τήκων 18 poetical, they must ever think that ῥήξας would have been 
more so: while they admit that there is nothing surprising that the 
prosaic word should differ from the poetic, they inust ever be sur- 
prised at the fact, that the prosaic word should be by far the 
strongest and the most appropriate expression. How can we 
reconcile to our notions of divine majesty and power that Horus 
should have been produced by the slow and gradual liquefaction of 
the ether, and not by the instantaneous bursting of unanimous 
clouds ? How can we account for the fact that the poet describes 
the birth of Horus by a term far below the dignity of the being 
produced and the majesty of the producing God, when the prose 
writers have employed an expression worthy of both? In. one 
way only can we reconcile the glaring contradiction by substituting 
for τήκων some word, which is analogous to the νεφέλης ῥαγείσης 
οὗ Suidas, and the Φῶς ῥήξαν τὸν αἰθέρα of Damascius. Whence 
could these writers, Suid. and Damasc., have drawn their phrase 
but from the Orphic theology? and if, as there is good reason to 
believe, both of them had in view these very verses preserved by 
Macrobius, can there henceforth be a doubt in the Reviewer's 
mind that Orpheus, whose doctrines they are delivering, used some 
word perfectly synonymous with the one employed by themselves? 
What this word was, whether the same word, ἱΡηξας δ᾽ αἰθέρα δῖον, 
ἀκίνητον πρὶν ἐόντα, or some other word, the Editors will not pretend 
to say, but are ready to receive the suggestions of the learned 
Reviewer himself; for he is well qualified to decide on such 
matters. 


of the Greek Thesaurus. 11} 


“ Quomque Homerus, qui auctos Epicis et dux fuit in plerisque 
tebus, feminino genere dicat αἰθέρα δῖαν, videnduin erat, ne ita scri- 
ptum ab Orphico illo existimare deberemus, Τήχων αἰθέρα δῖαν, ἀκινή- 
τὴν πρὶν ἐοῦσαιν.᾽ ΝΕ ae | a 

On the first perusal of this ‘passage the Editors were disposed to 
’ think, that by a blunder of the press, ἀκινήτην had been substituted 
for ἀκίνητον, but on referring to the Ms. of the Reviewer, they 
found that it so stands in his own hand-writing. ‘They are, how- 
ever, persuaded that the mistake is to be attributed to the pen, and 
not to the ‘head of the writer. — 


8. Ο Κισσεὺς ᾿Απόλλων, ὁ KaBaios,-6 μάντις, 


- © P, 261. ". Aeschyli Fragm. e Macrob. 1, 18. afferunt Editores 
doctissinsi, ‘O Κισσεὺς ᾿Απόλλων, ὁ Καβαῖος, ἡ μάντις. De eo ita 
scribunt :—‘ Ubi Barnes. ad Eurip. Bacch. 408. pro ὁ Καβαῖος 
reponit ὁ Σαβαῖος, sed Meurs. (probante Butlero ad Aesch, 8, 250. 
qui que fuerint ipsa verba Aeschyli, definire non audet,) legit ὁ καὶ 
Βάκχος, Idque omnino recte. Macrob. enim testatur, Aeschylum.in 
ilo versu ad eandem cum Euripide sententiam dixisse Apollinem 
Liberumque unum eundemque deum esse. At nisi cum Meursio 
legus, ὁ καὶ Βάκχος, nihil ibi est, e quo. Macrobii mens erui possit. 
Nemoenim dixerit, Macrob. hac una de causa versum attulisse, quod 
Aeschylus Apollinem Κισσέα appellarit, quo epitheto Bacchus alibi 
ornatur. Suid. Κισσεύς" ὁ Διόνυσος. Addunt deinde alia, que ad 
Bacchum Κισσέα pertineant. At primo vellemus, que Meursii et 
Butlen culpa est, non etiam in se admisissent Editores prwstan- 
tissimi. Nam illud, ὁ καὶ Βάκχος, Scholiasta, non Poeta dignum 
est, nec fieri ullo modo potuit, ut ita Aeschylus scmberet. Deinde 
vero, etsi SaBatios potius, quam Σαβαῖος dici solet Bacchus, tamen 
vix putamus dubitandum esse, quin probanda sit Barnes conje- 
ctura: ad quam refutandam quod afferunt Editores, confirmande 
inservit. Etenim si Σαβαῖος Bacchi, non Apollinis cognomen est, 
quis non videt, perinde esse, utrum tlle YaBaios, an Βάκχος dicatur ἢ 
ut minime necessarium sit, ipsum hic nomen Βάκχος legi.. Denique 
Ἧι €O quoque repugnare sibi videntur, quod nomen Κισσεὺς satis 
esse ad Bacchum significandum negant. Hoc enim si demon- 
strare volebant, etiam alias deos isto cognomine appellar! ostenden- 
dum erat: nunc vero, quum Bacchi csse eam appellationem 
doceant, quid aliud, quam id ipsuin, quod negabant, efficiunt, non 
posse alium, quam Bacchum, intelligi ?” : 

The Editors have not denied. that the appellation Κισσεὺς would 
be a sufficient designation of Bacchus, (for the examples, which they 


- have cited, prove the ‘contrary,) nor did they mean to.insinuate that 


112 Observations on the Retiew 


It might be taken for the name of some other god. But their 
meaning was this, that, if the verse of Aeschylus had contained no 
other proof of the identity of Bacehus and Apollo except the junc- 
tion of the words, ὁ Κισσεὺς ᾿Απόλλων, Macrobius would scarcely 
have inferred that identity without expressly adding that Κισσεὺς was 
a sirname of Bacchus, and could not for certain reasons be applied 
to Apollo, except on the notion of their being one and the same 
god. Under this impression they rejected the conjecture of 
Barnes ὁ Σαβαῖος, for the corrupt reading ὁ KaBaios, and adopted 
the reading of Meursius, ὁ ὃ καὶ Βάκχος, as if ὁ Σαβαῖος and ὁ Βάκχος 
were not, as they indisputably are, one and ‘the same god. Dr. 
Butler also approves of Meursius’s conjecture under the same notion 
that ὁ Σαβαῖος. πὰ ὁ Βάκχος are not the same. They must, how- 
ever, now declare that they agree with the learned Professor ἃ ia 
rejecting ὁ καὶ Βάκχος asa phrase more worthy of a Scholiast than a 
Poet, and in adopting the emendation of Barnes, ὁ Σαβαῖος. The 
Editors conceive that AEschylus is speaking not of Bacchus, but of 
Apollo. For, if he were speaking of Bacchus, he would scarcely 
have applied to him the appellation ὁ μάντις. Macrobius inferred 
from this verse the identity of Bacchus and Apollo, because the 
names 6 Κισσεὺς, ὁ Σαβαῖος, which were considered as peculiar to 
Bacchus, are there applied to Apollo. 

‘¢ Ubi Butleri mentionem faciunt Editores, non debebant iltud 
addere, ‘ Qui que fuerint ipsa ver ba Acschyli, definire now audet.’ 
Nam que quis sensu cassa scribit, cur queso repetantur f Ipsa verba 


Aeschyli sunt, que Macrobius posuit. Illud volebat Butleras 
dicere, veram se horum verborum scripturam definire non audere. 
Nor did the Editors suppose that Dr. Butler had any - other 
meaning. It is their general practice to employ, for fear of mistakes, 
or the suspicion of mistakes, the very words of the Authors, whom 
they quote, and in the present instance they wished to convey to 
their readers in Dr. Butler’s own language, the fact that he had not 
attempted any arrangement of the words, or any criticism respecting 
them, except by expressing his ‘approbation of Meursius’s readitig 
ὃ καὶ Βάκχος. "" 
9. ἽἭλιε παγγενέτορ, παναΐολε, χουσεοφεγγές. ΕΣ 
While the Editors now admit that Orpheus might have applied 
to Πὰν the epithets αἰόλος, aud χρυσεοφεγγὴς, they do not ‘think 


ἂ 


of the.Greek Thesaurus. 118 


that the readmg Πὰν αἰόλε is, as the leamed Reviewer ittimates, 
necessary to establish the truth of Macrobius’s remark. The words 
are these :— Solem esse omnia et. Orpheus testatur his versibus : 
Keéxauhs τηλεπόρου δίνης ἑλικαυγέα κύκλον 
Οὐρανίαις στροφάλιγξι περίδρομον αἰὲν ἑλίσσων, 
᾿Αγλαὲ Ζεῦ, Διόνυσε, πάτερ κόσμου, πάτερ αἴης, 
"Hye παγγενέτορ, Πὰν αἰόλε, “χρυσεοφεγγές.᾽ τος 
If Orpheus calls the Sun Jupiter, Bacchus, the Father of the 
_ World, the Father of the Earth, Macrobius might perhaps justly 
infer, “ Solem esse omnia” according to the Orphie theology. 
Though Pan be called in Hymn xi=x. κόσμοιο τὸ σύμπαν, yet the 
#ditors think that the Reviewer reasons too acutely in concluding 
1. that Orpheus wrote Πὰν αἰόλε in that sense, and 2. that Macrobins 
So understood these words. If Macrobius had so understood them, 
he need have cited only the last of the four lines to prove that in the 
Orphic theology the Sun is every thing,“HAse παγγενέτορ, Πὰν αἰόλε, 
χρυσεοφεγγὲς, and as the words Πὰν αἰόλε do not necessarily involve 
this idea, but might be taken by his readers in the common sense, 
he would no doubt have added some remark to prevent such mis- 
interpretation of them. | | | 
As to the thirteen verses attributed to Hermes in Stobeus, 
which Heeren considers as Orphic, the Editors are now disposed~ 
not to adopt his opinion; for, as the learned Reviewer observes, 
et argumentum paulo aliud videtur, nec dicendi genus plane cum 
ceteris convenit.” : ΝΣ 
“ Quod vero ad undecim illos, sive decem potius, versus attinet, 
ab eodem Stob. in Eclogis 1, 3. p. 68. servatos, eos etiam negamus 
Orphicos esse, si non aliis de caussis, certe propter dialectum [)or+ 
cam. Quare, quod aiunt, vindicasse Heerenium hos versus Orpheo, 
id vellemus argumentis demonstrassent. Namque ili Orphicorum 
conditores non alia dialecto usi sunt, aut uti potuerunt, quam ea, 
que ab omnibus Gracis antiquissimorum poetarum lingua habere- 
tur: unde iis a Dorica abstinendum fuit. Preterea vero nihil in 
istis versibus est, quod non eque a quovis alio, quam ab Orphicp 
scriptore, dici potuerit. Eoque minus, ut speramys, mirghyntur 
Editores doctissimi, quod neque quum Orphica ederemus, versus. 
illios commemorandos putavimus, neque nunc adducimur, ut eos 
Orphicis adnumerandos esse nobis persuadeamus.” . 
_ The Editors have stated the grounds, on which Heeren attributed 


VOL, XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XX XVII. Η 


114 Obss. on the Review of the Gr. Thes. 


these verses to Orpheus, viz. orationis. genus et epitheta Deargm. 
With respect to the first of these grounds, the learned Reviewer 
may be right in saying that the verses contain nothing, which might 
not have been said by any other, than an Orphic writer; but about 
the other argument, drawn from the epithets here applied to the 
Gods, he is silent. They do not, however, lay much stress on this 
point. The Reviewer contends that these verses could not have 
been written by Orpheus, because Orpheus did not write m the 
Doric dialect. But he has overlooked the passage, which they 
have produced from Metrodorus ap. Jambl. V. P. 34.to shew that 
Orpheus was supposed to have employed this dialect, Κοχρῆαϑαι τῇ 
Δαρικῇ διαλέκτῳ καὶ τὸν ᾿Ορφέα, πρεσβύτερον ὄντα τῶν ποιητῶν. Now, 
if, as there is some reason to suppose from this passage, there were 
certain compositions in the Doric dialect attributed to Orpheus; 
(whether wrongly or rightly, is another question,) neither Heeren, 
nor the Editors, who adopted his opinion, are chargeable with 
error for assigning to that poet the verses in question. 


10. "Ayavaxréw διά. 


“ Non rectius, ut nostra quidem opinio est, p. 65. Stephanum 
reprehenderunt, verbum ἀγανακτεῖν accusativo iungi dicentem, 
quam constructionem ipsi per ‘ellipsin particule διὰ explieant. 
Putabamus vero, lis, que de Ellipsi in Museo Studiorum Antiqui- 
. ‘tatis disputavimus, pridem effectum esse, ut istiusmodi_ elli 
nemini erudito amplius probarentur: neque in Germania quidem 
quisquam, preter quosdam, qui in vetustiore disciplina consenue- 
runt, de tali re cogitat.” 

+ ‘The Editors have neither leisure, nor room, properly to defend 
their opinion on this question. But they must observe, that they 
‘cannot bring themselves to assent to all the doctrines laid down by 
the learned Reviewer in the Dissertation, to which he has referred 
them. soe 

In concluding the Editors would remark, that all the criticisms in 
‘their work are to be considered as autoschediastic, because, as soon 
‘as they are fmished, they are despatched to the press, and that very 
little opportunity is afforded-to them of correcting those errors, and 
supplying those defects, which a leisurely and careful revision could 
not fail to discover. | : : 


4 


“ 


᾿ς 118 _ oy 


SUR SIMONIDES DE CEOS. 


Lia version latine de Platon, par Marsile Ficin, donne a Simo- 
nides l’épithéte de chium ; cette faute n’est pas dans le texte grec; 
mais dans V’édition purement latine de 1500. Elle est-répétée 
dans Pédition grecque et latine de Deux-Ponts, 1784, et cela est 
‘autant plus singulier, que le texte de cette méme édition écrit 
Κεῖον, qui ne convient qu’a Vile de Céos, aujourd’hui Zea, dans Ja 
mer Egée, ot étoit né Simonides, fils de Léoprépés, dont il est ici, 
question : sa patrie étoit la ville d’Ioulis. On place l’année de sa 
naissance vers la troisiéme année de la cinquante-cinquiéme olym- 
piade, l’an 558 avant notre ére; en sorte qu’il florissoit du temps 
de Darius, fils d’Hystaspis, dans le sixiéme et cinquiéme siécles 
avant notre ére. La poésie fut son -principal talent; il excella 
surtout dans l’élégie et fa poésie lyrique, ce qui le distingue d’un 
autre Simonides plus ancien, qu'on appeloit poéte iambique, parce. 
40} fatsoit des vers iambes. Celui-ci étoit né ἃ Minoa, ville de 
I'fle d’Amorgos; une des Sporades. ες 
Simonides de Céos étoit né pauvre. Voulant utiliser son talent 
our les vers, il parcourut, dans sa jeunesse, les grandes villes de 
’Asie, chantant, moyennant une récompense, les louanges de ceux 
qui avoient vaincu dans les jeux publics. Enrichi par ces courses 
lucratives, if voulut retourner par mer dans sa patrie ; il s’embar- 
qua sur un vaisseau, qu’une horrible tempéte brisa au milieu de la 
mer, d’autant plus facilement que ce navire étoit déja vieux. Les 
uns ramassent leur argent, les autres, ce qu ils ont de précieux, voulant 
s’assurer une ressource contre la misére. ““ Et toi, Simonides,” 
dit un des naufragés, plus curieux que les autres, “ n’emportes- 
tu rien de ce qui est ἃ toi?” —* Tout ce qui est ἃ moi,” répondit-il, 
‘‘est avec moi.” Cette réponse, qu’avoit faite long-temps aupara- 
vant le sage Bias, de Priéne, dans une occasion semMable, n’auroit 
pas été inventée par Simonides, qui prouva dans la suite qu’il 
n’aimoit pas a rien perdre ;'mais 1} Pappliqua fort ἃ propos. Ses 
compagnons de voyage, trop chargés pour la plupart, périrent dans 
les flots: peu se sauvérent a la nage. Surviennent des voleurs qui 
leur prennent ce qu’ils avoient emporté, et les laissent nus. Prés 
de-l4 se trouvoit Clazoménes, ville ancienne; Jes naufragés s’y 
retirent. Un citoyen de cette ville, anii des lettres, qur avoit lu 
souvent les vers de Simonides, étoit, sans.]’avoir.vu, un de ses 
plus grands admirateurs. Jl reconnoit notre poéte ἃ sa conversa- 
tion, il l’accueille avec un vif empressement, lui donne libéralement 
des habits, de |’argent, et des esclaves. ᾿ Pendant ce temps-la, les 
autres demandent l’auméne, portant, suivant Pusage, le tableau de 


116 Sur Simonides de Céos. 


leur naufrage. Simonides les ayant rencontrés per hasard: “ Je 
vous avois bien dit que tout ce qui est 4 moi étoitavec mol; vous, 
il ne vous est rien resté de tout ce que vous aviez emporté.” Ce 
fut ainsi qu'il prouva que I’homme qui sait orner son esprit de con- 
noissances utiles et agréables, le véritable savant, trouve toujours 
en lui-méme des richesses.* 
Une vie errante ne pouvojt convenir long-temps ἃ un peéte gu 
avoit mérité une si grande réputation. Hipparque ayant succ 
ὰ Pisistrate, suivit usage alors adopté par les souverains, d’appeler 
a leur cour ceux qui se distinguoient par leurs lumiéres ou par 
leurs talens. Simonides parvenu a l’Age de trente ans, étoit bien 
diguede fixer son attention; et la génerosité avec laquelle ce prince 
le traita, leur fait honneur ἃ tous deux. La fin malheureuse de ce 
protecteur lui fit quitter Athénes pour aller chercher en Italie, au- 
prés du roi Alevas, un asyle contre les cruautés d’Hippias. Ce 
fut la qu’il sembla que les dieux rivalisassent en quelque sorte-avec 
les hommes pour récompenser les talens de Simonides. . 
Ce .poéte étoit convenu d’une certaine somme pour Composer 
Véloge d’un athléte, nommé Scopas, vainqueur au pugilat. Simo- 
nides se retire pour laisser un libre cours ἃ son imagination : mais 
le sujet infertile et borné arrétant son essor, il use d’une liberté 
permise en: cette occasion, et fait entrer dans son poéme les deux 
astres, fils gémaux de Jupiter et de Léda, relevant par cet illustre 
exemple la gloire de son héros. 1] fit agréer Pouvrage ; mais il 
ne recut que le tiers de Ja somme qui lui avoit été promise. Lors- 
qu'il demanda le reste, |’athléte lu: répondit: ‘“ Vous le -recevrez 
de ceux pour lesquels vous avez fait deux parties de cet éloge. 
Mais pour que je n’aye pas 4 me reprocher de vous avoir renvoyé 
mécontent, je vous invité ἃ souper ce soir ; je rassemble aujourd’hui 
mes parens et mes amis, je vous mets de ce nombre.” Quoique 
trompé et sensible ἃ cette injure, Simonides, pour ne pas, détruire 
toute reconnoissance chez l’homme qui lui avoit fait un 81 ridicule 
compliment, donna sa parole; et |’heure dite, il arrive, il prend 
place. Les verres, amis dela gaité, brilloient sur la table. Toute Je 
_Taison, livrée a Ia joie, retentissoit du bruit des magnifiques appréts 
du festin. Soudain, deux jeunes hommes, couverts de sueur et de 
poussiére, d’une figure sur-humaine, commandent a un petit.esclaye 
de faire venir Simonides, ajoutant qu’il est de son intérét de.ne point 
tarder. Le valet tout troublé presse Simonides. A peine celui-ci 
avoit-il mis le pied hors de la salle, que le plancher tomba. ‘Tous 
Jes convives furent écrasés; on ne trouva pas de jeunes hommes ἃ 


* Phedre, livre 4, fable 20. Voyez Védition qu’en a donné M. Gail, avec 
des notes et une traduction francoise. 


Sur Simonides ἀὲ σέ. ΖΚ 


la porte. Lorsque ces détails furent τέραπάιιβ, ‘on en conclut-tras- 
naturellement que les dieux reconnoissans étoient venus sauver la 
vie ἃ leur poéte.* Cette histoire n’a pas paru indigne ἃ La 
Fontaine d’étre mise en vers francois,” long-temps aprés que la 
croyance religieuse qui en faisoit le mérite, n’existoit plus. La 
traduction mériteroit d’étre rapportée ici, si elle n’étoit pas si con- 
nue. Le fabuliste frangois explique comment le fait a pu arriver, 
par le secours des prétres, toujours d’intelligence avec les poetes, 
“ Jadis l’Olympe et le Parnasse,” dit-il, ““ étoient fréres et bons 
amis.” 
Quoi qu'il en soit,.on sent combien cette aventure dut faire 
honneur ἃ Simonides, qui, aprés la destruction de la tyrannie et la 
retraite d’Hippias, s’empressa de rentrer dans Athénes, οὐ il ne 
rougit pas de louer les meurtriers de ce méme Hipparque. qui 
Vavoit comblé de bienfaits. Thémistocles, son ami, qui n’étoit igé 
que dé 25 ans lors de la retraite des Pisistratides, fit oublier les 
honteux excés de débauche auxquels il s’étoit livré sous ces. tyrans, 
et se forma des principes analogues 4 la nouvelle situation de sa 
patrie. ἢ] parvint a larchontat l’an 493, &gé de 48 ans. Simonides, 
s’appuyant sur son étroite liaison avec lui, lui demanda up jour 
quelque chose d’injuste. ““ Vous ne seriez pas un bon poéte,” lui 
dit ‘Thémistocles, “ si vous manquiez aux régles de la poésie.; ni 
moi un bon magistrat, si j’accordois une grace contre les lois.” 


Il ne se contenta pas de ce refus un peu humiliant, et dit 4 notre ᾿ 


pocte en plaisantant, que c’étoit faire preuve de peu de sens, que 
médire des Coriuthiens qui habitoient une ville grande et puissante, 
et de se faire peindre, laid comme il étoit.* | 
Sa gloire fut encore obscurcie par la vénalité de sa plume. Sa 
muse chanta souvent pour de l’argent. Lorsqu’on lui parloit de 
son avarice, défaut que l’histoire lui a souvent reproché, il répon- 
doit, qu’il aimoit mieux laisser aprés lui du bien ἃ ses ennemis, que 
de recourir ἃ ses amis pour en emprunter. C’est ainsi que par un 
mot heureux, il savoit faire excuser jusqu’aux taches légéres qu'on 
vouloit imprimer sur.sa mémoire. ; . 
Pausanias, tuteur de Plistarque, roi de Lacédémone, étant venu 
a Athénes apres avoir gagné la.bataille de Platées, l’an 479, un 
jour, dans un repas, ce prince le pria de confirmer par quelque 
sage pensée, Ia haute opinion que Von avoit de sa philosophig. 


‘ ‘ 

' Phadre, liv. “4, fable 22. On peut consulter sur cet événement le 
Polyhistor de Solin, ch, 1, avec les notes de Saumaise ; Cicéron, de Oratore, 
liv. 2, ch. 86; Valere-Maxime, liv. 1, ch. 8, δ. 7; et Quintilien, de Enetitu- 
tione Oratoria, liv. 2, ch. 2. . | 

2 Liv.1, fable 1. - 

3 Plutarque, Vie de Taémistocles, —, 


118 Sur Simonides de Céos. 
Simonides, qui, en pénétrant les projets ambitieux de Pausanias, 
en avoit prévu le terme fatal, lui dit: ““ Souvenez-vous que veus 
Stes homme !” L’imprudent Spartiate ne vit dans cette réponse, 
ui’une maxime frivole ou commune ; mais dans les disgraces qu'il 
eprouva bientét, il y découvrit une vérité nouvelle, et la plus impor- 
tante de celles que les rois ignorent. Deux ans aprés, l’an 477 
avant notre ére, il fut mandé a Lacédémone et condamné a une 
mort cruelle. Lorsqu’il se trouva dans un asyle of 1] combattoit 
contre une faim insupportable, et dont il ne pouvoit sortir sans 
s’exposer au dernier supplice, malheur que son ambition lui avoit 
attiré, il se souvint des paroles du poete de Céos, et s’écria par 
trois fois : ““ O Simonides, qu’il y avoit un grand sens dans I’ex- 
hortation que tu me fis!” " 
᾿ς; Lvannée précédente, Simonides avoit atteint l’Age de 80 ans, εἰ 
il n’en avoit pas moins conservé tout son talent, puisque cette 
année méme il avoit concouru pour le prix des vers, et. triomphé, 
L’historien Diodore de Sicile* πὰ pas dédaigné d’insérer cette 
piéce dans son histoire: le poéte vainqueur y célébroit les soldats 
de Léonidas, qui s’étoient sacrifiés avec leur chef deux ans au 
vant pour le salut de la Gréce. ‘“ Qu’elle est noble,” s’écrie-t-il, 
“la fortune des guerriers morts aux Thermopyles ! Que leur destin 
est glorieux! Leur tombeau est un autel. Au lieu de gémissemens, 
ils obtiennent un long souvenir, et des éloges au lieu de pitié. Ces 
nobles sentimens de la tombe des braves, le temps qui détruit tout 
he les détruira pas. En ce monument est enfermée la gloire des 
habitans de la Gréce: témoin Léonidas, roi célébre de S 
qui laisse ici la renommée de son courage, semblable a un fleuve 
qui coule toujours.” | : 

Cette gloire, que chantoit encore si bien Simonides, ne pouvoit 
quétre partagée par Jui ; et malgré son Age avancé, Hiéron, par- 
‘venu au tréne de Syracuse l’an 478, l’appela a sa cour. Le’ poete 
s'y rendit en se faisant accompagner par Bacchilidés, son neveu, 
et Pindare, son éléve ; tous deux dignes d’un tel maitre. 

Ce prince qui, avant l’arrivée de ces trois illustres poétes, avoit 
été le tyran-de sa patrie, en devint le pére. La morale sévére de 
‘Simonides lui enimposa. “ La vertu,” dit ce philosophe, “ habite 
une roche escarpée ; lelieu sacré, séjour de la déesse, n’est pas 
visible ἃ tous les yeux. Le mortel que n’a point baigné une sueur 
généreuse, n’atteindra jamais la hauteur du courage.” C’est ce 
qu’avoit dit avant lui Hésiode. “ La vertu sera le prix des 
nobles sueurs; ainsi l’ont voulu les dieux immortels. Le-sentier 
LSS SSS aS 
" Elien, Histoires diverses, liv. 9, ch. 41. | 


* Liv. 2, ch. 2. Voyez la traduction de M. Boissonade, dans‘un excel 
lent article sur Simonides, (Journal des Débats, 6 fevrier 1818.) 


/ 


Sur Simonides de Céos. 119 


de la vertu est long, escarpé, et roide dés l’abord ; mais sur le som- 
met la route est .spacieuse et douce. τ τὶ 
- “ Les antiques héros,” dit ailleurs Simonides, “ fils des dieux. sou- 
' verains, et demi-dieux eux-mémes, ne sont arrivés ἃ la vieillesse 
que par une vie pleine de fatigues, de douleurs, et de dangers. 
“Tout s’engloutit au méme gouffre, les grandes vertus et les 
grandes richesses, . 
“Nos années sont courtes et misérables; le temps n’est long 
qu’aprés la mort. Lo 
- “Qn ne vit que peu d’instans; mais quand la terre nous couvre, 
c'est pour toujours." ὁ og τς 
Ces idées mélancoliques conduisoient ἃ celle d’un Etre Supréme, 
notre seul refuge contre les maux qui assiégent cette vie passagére. 
Hiéron voulut savoir ce que c’étoit que Dieu? Simonides de- 
manda un jour pour y réfléchir; le lendemam il en demanda 
deux ; et comme il doubloit chaque fois le nombre des jours, le 
rol, surpris de ces: délais, voulut en savoir la cause. ‘ Plus j’y. 
fais réflexion,” lui dit Simonides, “ plus la chose me paroit obscure.” 
Cicéron en conclut que. ce philosophe, qui n’étoit pas seulement 
un poete délicat, mais qui ne manquoit ni d’érudition ni de bon 
sens, aprés que son esprit se fut: promené d’opinions en opinions, 
les unes plus subtiles que les autres, perdit a la fin toute espérance 
de découvrir la vérité.* . ᾿ πα συ..." 
Xénophon a composé un dialogue entre Hiéron et Simonides, 
ot ce poete veut apprendre du.tyran quel motif: si puissant peut 
engager un particulier 4 usurper l’autorité souveraine, et a la retenir. 
apres l’avoir usurpée. Li objet de ce discours est d’anatomiser en 
quelque sorte le coeur d’un tyran, pour dégofiter de la tyrannie 
ceux qui pourroient étre tentés d’y aspirer, et cependant pour 
examiner comment la tyrannie peut devenir légitime et durable ; 
en sorte qu’il ne conseille nullement d’abdiquer. J’ai. parlé fort.au 
long de ce dialogue dans un autre ouvrage.2.. - ΕΣ 
La reine de Syracuse ne dédaignoit pas non plus de converser 
avec Simonides. Un jour elle lui demanda si le savoir étoit pré- 
ferable a la fortune? C’étoit. un piége pour Simonides, qu’on ne 
recherchoit que pour le premier de ces avantages,. et qui étoit 
accusé de ne rechercher que le second. Sensible au reproche 
renfermé dans cette question, il eut recours a Vironie, et donna la 
préférence aux richesses, sur ce que les philosophes assiégeoient ἃ 


Ἁ 


* Fragmens de Simonides, recueillis dans Stobée, 

2 Cicero, de Natura Deorum, liv. 1, ch. 22. . 

3 Vie de Xénophon, p. 358. La traduction de ce dialogue a été faite par 
M. Gail, avec celle de toutes les cuvres de Xénophon. 


120 Sur Simontdes de Céos. 


toute heure les maisons des gens riches.‘ Quelque temps apres, 
Aristippe, qui avoit sans doute mieux réfléchi sur cette question, 
résolut le probléme d’une maniére plus honorable pour la philoso- 
phie. Interrogé par Denis, successeur de Hiéron, pourquoi le 
sage, négligé par le riche, lui faisoit sa cour avec tant d’assiduité? 
« Lun,” dit-il, “ connoit ses besoins, et l'autre ne connoit pas les 
siens "ἢ 

L’heureuse réunion que la nature avoit faite dans Simonides, du 
talent pour la poésie et de la sagesse d’un philosophe, doubloit les 
moyens qu’il.avoit d’étre utile et de se rendre wimable. Son style 
plein de douceur, est simple, harmonieux, admirable pour le choix 
et l’arrangement des mots.? Les louanges des dieux, les victoires 
des Grecs sur les Perses, les triomphes des athletes, furent l'objet 
de ses chants. Il décrivit en vers les régnes de Cambyse et de 
Darius; il s‘exerca dans presque tous les genres de poésie, et 
réussit principalement dans les élégies et les chants plaintifs. Per- 
gonne v’a mieux connu lart sublime d’mtéresser et d’attendrir; 
personne n’a peint avec plus de vérité les situations et les imfor- 
tunes qui excitent la pitié : ce n’est pas lui qu’on entend,. ce sont 
des cris et des sanglots ; c’est une famille désolée qui pleure la 
mort d’un pére ou d’un fils ; c’est une mére tendre qui lutte avee 
son fils contre la fureur des.flots, qui voit mille gouffres ouverts a 
ses cétés, qui ressent mille morts dans son coeur ;. c’est Achille 
entin, qui sort du fond du tombeau, et qui annonce aux. Greécs, 
préts a quitter les rivages d’Ilion, les maux sans nombre.que le 
ciel et la mer leur préparent. . So 
: Ces tableaux que Simonides a remplis de passion et de mouve» 
ment, sont autant de bienfaits pour les hommes ; car c'est leup 
rendre un grand service que d’arracher de leurs yeux ces larmes 
précieuses qu’ils versent avec tant de plaisir, et de nourrir dane 
leur coeur ces sentimens de compassion destinés par la nature ἃ les 
rapprocher les uns des autres, et les seuls en effet qui puissent 
unir des malheureux. 

Comme les caractéres des hommes influent .sur leurs opinions, 
on doit s’attendre que la philosophie de Simonides étoit douce et 
sans hauteur. Son systéme, autant qu'on en peut juger d’aprés 
quelques-uns de ses écrits et plusieurs de ses maximes‘que j’ad 
déja rapportées, se réduit aux articles suivans : 
- “Ne sondons point immense profondeur de l Etre Supréme ; 


1 Aristote, Rhétorique, liv. 2, ch. 16. 
2 Diogénes-Laérce, liv: 2, §. 59. 
3 Denys d’Halicarnasse, de veter. Script. cens. ; et Quintilien, liv. 20, ch. 


1. Voyez le Voyage du jeune Anacharsis, qui consacre un chapitre entier ἃ 
Simonides. . 


Sur Simonides de Céos. «gat 


bornons-nous a savoir que tout s’exécute. par son ordre, et qu'il 
possede la vertu par excellence. Les hommes n’en ont qu’uve 
foible Emanation, et la tiennent de lui; quils ne se glorifient point 
d’une perfection a laquelle ils ne sauroient atteindre; la vertu a 
fixé son séjour parmi des rochers escarpés; si, ἃ force de travaux, 
ils s’élévent jusqu’a elle, bientét mille circonstances fatales les 
entrainent au précipice ; ainsi leur vie est un mélage de bien et 
de mal; et il est aussi difficile d’étre souvent vertueux, qu’im- 
possible de l’étre toujours. Louons avec plaisir les belles actions ; 
fermons les yeux sur celles qui ne Je sont pas, ou par devoir, 
lorsque le coupable nous est cher ἃ d’autres titres, ou par inr 
dulgence, lorsqu’il nous est indifférent. Loin de censurer les 
hommes avec tant de rigueur, souvenons-nous qu’ils ne sont que 
foiblesse, qu’ils sont destinés ἃ rester un moment sur la surface de 
_ la terre, et pour toujours dans son sein. . Le temps vole; mille 
siécles, par rapport ἃ l’Eternité, ne sont qu’un point, ou qu'une 
trés-petite partie d’un point imperceptible; employons des momens 
si fugitifs ἃ jouir des biens qui nous sont réservés, et dont les 
principaux sont la santé, la beauté, et les richesses acquises sans 
fraude; que de leur usage résulte cette aimable volupté, sans 
laquelle la vie, la grandeur, et limmortalité méme, ne sauroient 
flatter nos désirs.” " | 
. Ces principes, dangereux en ce qu’ils éteignent le courage dans 
les ceeurs vertueux, et les remords dans les Ames coupables, ne se 
seroient regardés que comme:une erreur de l’esprit, si; en se monr 
trant indulgent pour les autres, Simonides n’en avoit été que plus 
sévére envers lueméme. Mais il ne pouvoit guére: professer que 
des princfpes analogues ἃ ceux qu’il avoit puisés dans sa jeunesse 
auprés d’Hipparque, οἵ. qui avoient été repoussés par |’austerité 
républicaine de Thémistocles, On lui reproche d’ailleurs que les 
libéralités du tyran de Syracuse ne purent satisfaire son avarice; 
qui, suivant le caractére de cette passion, devenoit de jour en jour 
plus insatiable. Il avoit été le premier qui eut dégradé la poésie, 
en faisant un trafic honteux de la louange. ‘Il s’excusoit en disant 
que le plaisir d’entasser des trésors, étoit le seul dont son age fut: 
susceptible ; qu’aprés tout, personne n’étoit exempt de défauts, 
et que s'il trouvoit jamais un homme irrépréhensible, il le dénon- 
ceroit ἃ univers. Ces étranges raisons ne le justifiérent pas aux 
yeux du public, dont les décrets invariables ne pardonnent jamais 
les vices qui tiennent plus a la bassesse, qu’a la faiblesse du coeur. 


* On peut voir dans le Voyage du jeune Anacharsia les citations des pas- 
sages ov l’auteur a recueilli ce systéme. 


1290. Sur Simonides de Céos. 


Simonides mérita cependant les bienfaits de Hiéron, en le τέ- 
conciliant avec un autre souverain extrémement irrité contre hu, 
au moment ot ils étoient sous les armes préts ἃ décider leur 
querelle par un combat. Un tel succés couronna glorieusement 
Ja carriére du poétede Céos, qui mourut 4gé de 90 ans.* On ob- 
serve que des plerres tombées du ciel, ce que nous appelons. all 
jourd’hui des aerolithes, s’abimérent cette méme année dans le 
fleuve Aigos, comme si la nature efit voulu marquer cette Epoque 
par un événeiment extraordinaire. Les marbres de Paros, auxquels 
nous devons cette observation, fixent cet événement sous l’archontat 
de Théagenidas, qu’ils placent sous l’'an 469 avant notre ére, tandis 
que Diodore de Sicile,* et Denys d’ Halicarnasse,’ ne le mettent avec 
raison que sous |’an 468 : ce qui fait voir que les années ἀ Athénes 
ou archontiques dont s’est servi l’auteur de la chronique des marbres, 
€toient plus courtes que les années olympiadiques ; ce dont. nous 
avons plusieurs autres preuves non moins fortes ; telles que celle 
de l’époque de la prise de Troie, placée 21 ans trop t6t, commie je 
1’ai dit ailleurs.* . " 

On fait un mérite ἃ Simonides d’avoir augmenté dans l’ile de 
Céos l’éclat des fétes religeuses,’ ajouté une huitiéme corde ἃ ἃ 
lyre,° et trouvé l’art de la mémoire locale artificielle ;7 mais ce qui 
lui assure une gloire immortelle, c’est d’avoir mérité les éloges 
de Xénophon et de Platon ; d’avoir donné des legons utiles. aux 
Rois; c’est d’avoir fait le bonheur de la Sicile, .en retirant Hiéron 
de ses égaremens, et le forgant de vivre en paix avec ses voisins, 
ses sujets, et lui-méme: c’est enfin d’avoir perpétué son talent en le 
communiquant ἃ Bacchilides et ἃ Pindare. La famille de Si 
monides étoit comme ces familles od le sacerdoce des Mises étoit 
conservé. Son petit-fils, du méme nom que lui, écrivit sur Jes 
généalogigs et sur les découvertes qui font honneur ἃ V’ésprit hu- 
main.” 1] pouvoit étre né 66 ans aprés son aieul, et avoir consé- 
quemment 24 ans lorsqu’il le perdit. Cet aieul avoit donc pa 
s‘occuper de son éducation. . . | 

Simonides lui-méme n’avoit pas fait seulement des élégies, mais 


, Suidas, ἃ larticle Simonides ; et Lucien, dans ses Macrobies. 
Liv. 11, p.65. ᾿ 
4 Antiquites Romaines, liv. 9, §. 56. 
ες Mémoire sur les Murs Saturniens oun Cyclopéens, Ὁ. 47. 
Athénée, liv. 10, ch.12. 6 0 | 
Pline, liv. 7, ch. 56. 
͵ οἰκέτου, de Oratore, liv. 2, ch. 86; et de Fin. liv. 2, ch. 32.—Pline, liv. 
9 Φ e . - :" 
® Suidas, article Simonides. 


΄ 


Sur Simonides de Céos. 128 


encore des odes et des tragédies. II avoit composé des lamenta- 
tions, dans lesquelles il déploroit les. malheurs arrivés ἃ plusieurs 
personnes, et avoit décrit en vers les batailles de Marathon et de 
Salamine. Lucien lui attribue la découverte des lois qui gouver- . 
nent les lettres de l’alphabet, en fixant l’ordre suivant lequel elles 
doivent étre placées, en déterminant leurs effets et leur puissance.’ 
Pline dit* qu'il y inséra quatre nouvelles lettres, savoir : les deux 
consonnes doubles ξ et Ψ, et les deux voyelles longues ἡ et a. 
U'zetzés hésita 5᾽}} n’en faut pas faire honneur a l’ancien Simonides, 
né 4 Amorgos.’ ἔπ effet, c’est de ce dernier que Lucien parle 
ailleurs, lorsqu’il le cite comme un des poétes grecs qui ‘ont le 
mieux connu toutes les ressources de [τὶ de composer les vers 
jambiques.* Cette question est importante pour déterminer l’age 
des incriptions anciennes. On peut consulter ἃ ce sujet, parmi 
une foule d’auteurs, Montfaucon dans sa Paleographia Gréca, livre 
2. chap. 1. page 117 et suivantes; et Edmond Chishull, dans son 
Commentaire sur inscription de Sigée, ὃ. 12, 13 et 14, p. 19 et 
sulvantes. , 

. On peut consulter sur Simonides la Bibliothéque grecque de 
Fabricius, l'article Simonides dans le dictionnaire de Bayle, et le 
tome 13 des Mémoires de |’ Académie des Inscriptions, page 250. 
‘Louis-Michel Boissy a publié un petit volume in-12 sur la vie de 
- 68 poéete, imprimé d’abord en 1755, puis en 1788. Cette derniére 
édition est annoncée par |’auteur comme enti¢rement refondue et 
augmentée; ainsi c’est la seule qu'il faut consulter. Ce Boissy, 
fils de l’académicien, étoit petit de taille, d’un teimt fort pale, et 
d’un caractére difficile ἃ ce que l’on assure. En 1794, il vendit, 
par besoin, sa bibliothéque au libraire Née de La Rochelle, qui 
en fit ensuite une vente a l’amiable. Cette vente, forcée par le 
beso, chagrina beaucoup Boissy, qui tomba malade quelque 
temps apres; et, dans un acces de fiévre chaude, se jeta par la fenétre 
et se tua. Je rapporte cette anecdote parce qu'elle ne 86. trouve 
pas dans l’article Boissy de la Biographie Universelle. : 

Il ne nous reste du ‘poéte Simonides que des fragmens écrits 
dans le dialecte dorien, moins susceptible que les autres dialectes, 
de cette douceur qui le caractérisoit. Leo Allatius en a donné les 
titres dans sa dissertation De Simeonibus; ils furent imprimés 
‘pour la premiére fois en grec, dans une collection des gnomiques, 
que Mathieu Aurogallus envoya a Jéréme Froben, qui la publia 
en 1532, avec les hymnes de Callimaque et ses scolies. Joachim 


» Le Jugement des Voyelles, par Lucien. 
2 Histoire Naturelle, liv. 7, ch. 56. 

3 Tetzes, Chiliade 12, c. $98. 

4 Le mauvais Grammairien, par Lucien, 


0 


124 Sur Simonides de Céos. 


Φ 
8 


Camérarius augmenta cette collection, et la fit réimprimer ἃ Bale, 
chez Oporinus, en 1551 et 1555, zn-8°, en faisant usage des manus- 
crits. Jacques Hertélius, natif de Coire, fit aussi imprimer ἃ Bale, 
en 1561, une collection de sentences des anciens poétes, dans 
laquelle il fit quelques augmentations a celle de Camérarius, tirées 
principalement de Stobée. Simonides y est compris comme daus 
es précédentes. D’un autre cété, Michel Néander, rapporte 
aussi (les fraginens de ce poete, p. 395 de son Aristologia Pindarica 
Gracolatina, et Sententienovem Lyricorum, ex varius tum Patrum, 
tum Ethnicorum libris collecta, Bale, 1556, in-8°. Henri Etienne 
réimprima cette collection des lyriques avec une version latine, en 
petit format, en 1560 et 1566. Plantin réimprima cette dernieze 
collection ἃ Anvers, en 1567. Fulvius Ursinus recueillit les ou- 
vrages de Simonides avec des notes, Anvers, 1598, tn-8°, pages 
153-198 et 328-34, d’une collection de lyriques trés-supérieure ἡ 
celle de Henri Etienne. Paul Etienne réimprima cependant cette 
derniére en 1600 et 1612. | Ἰ 

Les fragmens de Simonides se retrouvent dans le second volume 
du Corpus Poetarum Gracorum, Genéve, 1614, in-folio, page 121 
de la seconde partie. Ils ont été réimprimés beaucoup plus cor- 
rectement dans les Analecta veterum Poetarum Grecorum, de 
Brunck, imprimés a Strasbourg, in-8°. C’est dans le premier. vo- 
lume, qui est'sans. date, mais dont la préface est datée de Strasbourg, 
le 18 décembre 1776, qu’on trouve a la page 120, cent douze frag- 
mens de Simonides de Céos et de quelques podtes du méme 
nom. On n’y trouve pas a beaucoup prés toutes. les pidces 
qui sont insérées dans le Corpus Poetarum ; mais on y en lit un 
grand nombre qui manquent dans cette volumineuse collection. 
Aprés la publication de la derniére, M. Heyne, publia ἃ Goet- 
tingue, en 1785, un traité sur le fragment de Simonides que Platon 
nous a conservé dans son Protagoras ; il y distingue chaque vers 
de ce fragment, ce que le disciple de Socrates avoit négligé de 
faire. C’est sur ce morceau ainsi disposé et commenté, que M. 
Boissonade a fait son élégante traduction. On peut donc affirmer 
qu’une collection complete des fragmens de Simonides de Céos. et 
des deux autres écrivains grecs du méme nom, est encore ἃ faire ; 
elle mériteroit d’occuper un helléniste, aujourd’hui que Pétude de 
la langue grecque semble avoir repris en France une nouvelle 
activité. | , 
ΟΜ. de F. dU. in Mittin’s Anaales Encyclopédigues. 

_*e" For a more complete collection of the Fragments of Simo- 
nides, we refer our Readers to Gaisford’s Poete Minores Greci, 
T. 1. and to E. Η, Barkeri Epist. Cr. ad Gaisf. in the Classical 
Journal for additional Fragments to, and for Observations on, those 
collected by Gaisford.—Ep. | 


195° ἊΝ 


DE CARMINIBUS ARISTOPHANIS 
COMMENTARIUS; 


AuctTo RE G. B. 


Pans VII.—[Vid. No. XXXVI. p. 8101 


Posr Virorum labores jn hac re exercitatorum, duo tantum 
Carmina Antistrophica in Acharnensibus reperiri possunt. Eosdem 
tamen Epodica satis: superque eluserunt. Inde nate sunt emen- 
-dationes prepostere. Verum istas exagitare mihi nunquam in 
animo fuit. Satius est operi, diu nimis deducto, finem imponere. 
In Acharnensibus igitur moneo esse 


v. 208 et sqq. ore. κἈ εἴ sic Hermann. de Metr. p. 195=203. 
223 et 846. avtiorp..§ ed. 2de. | 


v. 263 et sqq.: Ita lege 


᾿Φαλῆς ἑταῖρε Βακχίου V. 83: Vulgo deest ἐν. Id repo- 
σύγκωμε γυκτιπεριπλάνητ- sul, ne hiatus esset. V. 5. εἰς 
ε μοιχὲ παιδέραστ᾽ ἐν δῆμον. At non ad δῆμον Phales 
ἔκτῳ σ᾽ ἔτει πρόσειπον || advenit; verum 101 semper ad- 
ἔνδημον ἐλθὼν, ἀσμένως 5| fuit. Sed Δικαιόπολις ab urbe 
σπονδὰς ποιησάμενος ἐμαυτ- per sex fere annos aberat. Ibid. 
ᾧ πραγμάτων τε καὶ μαχῶν Vulgo ἄσμενος. Id cum prece- 
καὶ Λαμάχων ἀπαλλαγείς" dentibus conjungi solet. At 
πολλῷ γὰρ ἐσθ᾽ ἥδιον, ὦ, rusticus, Δικαιόπολις, non libenter 


-χύπτουσαν evpovd ὡρικῶς 10] ad urbem-venit: fuit tamen h- 
τὴν Στρυμοδώρου Oparray εἰς benter ἀπαλλαγεὶς μαχῶν. V. 10. 
τὰ Φελλέως ὑλήφορον Vulgo κλέπτουσαν. Intelligere 
μέσην λαβόντα, καταβαλόντ- id nequeo. Dedi κύπτουσαν prop- © 

at καταγιγαρτῆσαι, Φαλῆς. 14/ ter verba Sophronis apud Schol. 
ὁ δ᾽ αὖ Φαλῆς κατακυπτάζει. Mox ὠὡρικῶς habet Suid. in ipsa voce. 


V. 10. Cf. Pauli Silentiarii Epigr. xii, V. 12. Vulgo éx τοῦ 
Φελλέως. Reposui εἰς τὰ Φελλέως. Luditur hic sensu duplice. 
Etenim Φελλεὺς erat πετρώδης τόπος: quomodo dici potest res 
virilis. Mox ὑλήφορος audit res muliebris. V. 13. Delevi ἄραντα 
gi. pravam: que debuit esse ἀράμενον propter loca similia apud 
Dawes. p. 235. necnon Aéliani verba, Berglero  citata, ex 
Epist. ix. ἐμέλλησε δ᾽ ἂν τὴν--- Θηβαῖδα ἀράμενος μέσην εἶτα ῥίψας 
εἷς τὸ κλινίδιον ἐχέσθαι τῆς σπουδῆς : ubi propter verba Comici 


126 De Carminibus 


σπονδὰς ποιησάμενος pretulerim χεάσθαι τὰς σπονδάς. Ut in gratiam 
redeas cum puella viam esse facilem et felicem monet Ovidius: 
Sed lateri nec parce tuo; pax omnis in uno Concubtly; et rursus 
Oscula da fienti. Veneris da gaudia flenti. Pax erit. Hoc uno 
solvitur ira modo. Cf. et Eurip. Tro. 674. ul εὐφρονὴ Χαλᾷ τὸ 
δυσμενὲς γυναικὸς εἰς ἀνδρὸς λέχος. 


οὗτος αὐτός ἐστιν οὗτος. V.3. Vulgo παῖε παῖε. At παῖ hic 
βάλλε βάλλε βάλλε βάλλε" ( correptum est pro παῖε, sicut sai 
παῖε παῖ" τὸν μιαρὸν pro παῦε. Phot. Had. τὸ “παῦσαι 
οὐ βαλεῖς ; οὐ βαλεῖς; λέγουσι μονοσυλλαβῶς. Vid. Elms 
leium ad Herc. F. 1410. in Classical Journal, No. xv. p. 248. 
,. 285, 6. 


σὲ μὲν καταλεύσομεν 2 Vulgo σὲ μὲν οὖν καταλεύσομεν ὦ μιαρά : at 

σέ τοι μιαρὰ κεφαλή. ἢ σέ τοι sic geminantur. Vid. Blomfield. ad 
Heracl. 657. in Quarterly Rev. No. xviit. p. 360. et Elmo. ad 
Ajac. 1228. in Mus. Critic. Cantab. No. 1v.p. 485. 


287 et sqq. orp. Ita disposuit Hermann. de Metr. p. 191. οἱ. 
297 et 8βαη. ἀντιστρ. § Ima. Ipse lego in 301, 2. §—yo κατέτεμόν 
ποτ᾽ ἀστοῖσι καττύματα VICe ἐ--- γὼ τοῖσιν ἱππεῦσί wot ἐς καττύματα. 
At ἐς delevit Elmsl.: quem tamen latuit manifesto pravam esse 
scripturam xerarepa@. Etenim Equites erant commissi anno pra- 
eunti. Id minime nesciebat Interpolator; 6 cujus manu _venit 
᾿Ιππεῦσι. 


294, 5. - ΝΞ 
σοῦ γ᾽ ἀκούσομαι ; ἀπολεῖ" i Hic as crasin facitcum a. Cf. Lys. 
κατά σε χώσομεν λίθοις. § 116. Eq. 1175. et Ran. 512. Περίο- 
hou’ ἀπελθόντ᾽. , 
236. | : 
ἀπολεῖς ἡ Hermann. de Metr. p. 360. ed. 1. Reisig. Conject. 


͵ 


apa τόγδ : : : 

ἥλικα φιλ- ( Aristoph. Ρ. 210. Bentleius Elmsleiusque falluntu 

arb paxée 5 ὌΝ 
338 εἴ sqq. στρ. 345 εἰ sqq. - ἄντιστρ. 


ἀλλὰ νυνὶ λέγ᾽ ὅτι σοι δοκεῖ, ΧΟ. ἐκσέσεισται χαμᾷξ. AI. οὐχ ὁρᾷς 
τόν τε Λακεδαίμονιον αὐτὸν, ὅτι σειόμενον" XO. ἀλλὰ μή μοι wpe 
φασιν" ᾿ 


τῶν τρόπων σοὐστὶ φίλος" ὡς ἀλλὰ κατάθου τὸ βέλος. AI. 
τόδε τὸ ὡς ὅδε γε ' 
λαρκίδιον οὐ προδώσω ποτε. σειστὸς ἀμένης στροφῇ κτείνετο. 


Vulgo τῷ τρόπῳ---φίλον. . At syntaxis est. λέγε τα τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον 
τρόπον αὐτὸν, ὅτι φίλος σοί ἐστιν. Et sane φίλος legisse videtur 
Schol. καὶ εἰπὲ ὅτῳ τρόπῳ [lege ὅτι τῶν τρόπων] ὁ Λακεδαιμόνιός ἐστί 
σοι φίλος. Quis. sit ille modus Laconicus exponit Hesych. Aaxa- 


Aristophanis Commentarius. 127 


wixdy τρόπον περαίνειν, παιδεραστεῖν ἣ παρέχειν ἑαυτὸν τοῖς ξένοις. Hoc 
postremum fecerat Δικαιόπολις, quando illis τὰς σπονδὰς acceperat. 
n antistrophicis vulgo σειστὸς dua τῇ στροφῇ γίγνεται. MS. B. et 
Schol. στροφιγγί. Inde erui στροφῇ ’xreivero: et vice ἅμα τῇ o. dedi 
ἀμένης. Etymol ᾿Αμένης---παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν μένος. Suam impoten- 
tiam in prelio Veneris expertus est δικαιόπολις ; ut alio tempore 
demonstrabo. Facete igitur, dum ad penem digito intendit, senex 
rem suam esse tranquillam, diu licet commotam, commonstrat. 


342, 8. ΝΕ 
οὗτοιΐ σοι χαμᾶζε" καὶ Vulgo χάμαι. Sed ob sequens et 
σὺ κατάθου τὸ ξίφος πάλιν. § precedens χαμᾶζε, idem hic quoque 

postulatur. 

358 et 544. orp. 


385 et 544. ἀνεστρ.ἡ Ita Kust. e Schol. 


404, 5,6, 7. Sic lege versus, quos Bentleius pro senariis dimi- 
diatis habuit. 


Εὐριπίδιον ἄκουσον, εἴπερ Ta ποτε" . 
Δικαιόπολις καλεῖ κακόσχολά σ᾽" ET. O18 ἐγώ" 
AI.’ AAW ἐκκυχλήθητ᾽ ΕΥ̓͂. ᾽᾿Αλλ᾽ ἀδύνατον" 41]. ᾽ Αλλ᾽ ὅμως" 


ΕΥ̓͂. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐκκυκλήσομαι" AI. Κατάβαιν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν σχολῇ" 1: 


Vulgo Εὐριπίδιον ὑπάκουσον εἴπερ δήποτ᾽ ἀνθρώπων τινί. Suid. εἴπερ 
wor in Εἴπερ. at Rav. εἴπερ πώποτ᾽ 1.6. εἴπερ τῴ ποτε CujUs gl. est 
ἀνθρώπων τινι. Mox vulgo Δικαιόπολις καλεῖ σε Χολλίδης ἐγώ. At 
ineptum est istud Χολλίδης. Ipse erui καλεῖ κακόσχολα σά. Etenim- 
Euripides scripsit dramata, non minus quoad materiem quam ad 
artem, aliquatenus χαχόσχολα. Certe ad hunc locum respexit 
Schol. ad 397. τὸ δὲ ἀναβάδην, ἐπὶ ὑψηλοῦ τόπου καθημένος" xaxo- 
σχόλως δὲ εἶπε. Luditur igitur in lectione nostra Δικαιόπολις καλεῖ 
κακόσχολά σ᾽ : que sonat idem atque Δικαῖα ἧ πόλις καλεῖ τὰ σὰ 
καχόσχολα, Vel Δικαιόπολις κακόσχολα καλεῖ σε. Postremo ad ν. 4. 
retuli ἀλλ᾽ οὐ σχολὴ (que vulgo exstant post ἐγὼ) mutata in ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐν σχολῇ. Etenim Δικαιόπολις, dum Euripidem καταβάδην in 
scenam intrare jubet, ne quid detrimenti ille capiat, magnopere 
timet. 


489 et sqq. στρ. 
493 et sqq. ἀντιστρ. 
566 et sqq. Siclege  _ 

ἰὼ Λάμαχ᾽ ὦ βλέπων ἀττραπὰς ἢ 

βοήθησον ὦ φανεὶς γοργολόφας ᾿ 6 

ἰὼ Λάμαχ᾽ ὦ φίλων. φίλτατ', εἴ 2d, 

τις ἢ ταξίαρχος ἣ τειχόμαχος ἐξάντιστρ ° 

ἀνήρ ἐστί τις, βοηδησατω ἱπωδέε.. 

τι ἀνύσας" ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔχομαι μέσος. ᾿ em pees® 


t Ita Hermann. de Metr. p. 245. ed. 1. 


128 De Carminibus 


V. 3. Vulgo φίλ᾽ ὦ φυλέτα. Dedi φίλων φίλτατ : de phrasi_vitlé 
annotata ad Ipbh.-T. 827 in Classical Journal, No. Xv. p. 144. εἰ 
adde Suid. “Εσχατ᾽ ἐσχάτων κακὰ διαπέπρακται" ὁμοῖά ἔστι τῇ Δειέ, 
τερα δεινοτάτου καὶ Κύντερα κυντάτου. Idem in Πέρα babet ἀρρήτων 
ἀρρητότερα καὶ κακῶν πέρα. Unde alio tempore [βὺ shoelis - 
vexatissimum emendabo. Mox post ταξίαρχος delenda 4 orp 

voluit Elms]. cum Hotibio, et } legendum Τί pro τις; collate 
119. et sex 8118 locis. 


665 et sqq. org. 
692 et sqq, avriore. . Ita Kust. 


836—859. Quatuor systemata sex versuum. Ita Br. Vid. ad Rasy 
416. 814. 898. Thesm. 959. Eq, 973. et 1111. 


929 et sqq. or 
940 et sqq. aor 6. i Ita Elmel. 


971 et sq. στρ. Rita Hermann. de Metr. p. 364509. | 


988 et sqq. ἀντιστρ. 


1008 et 844. στρ. : 
1037 et 844. ἀντιστρ. 1 Kust. ¢ Schol. 


1150 et sqq. or . , 
1162 et aad. ἀντιστρ. ᾿ lta Kust. 
1190 et sqq.' Sic lege 
AA. ἀτταταὶ 

᾿ἀτταταὶ 

στυγερὰ ταδὶ 

χρυερὰ πάθη: 

τάλας ἔγὼ διόλλυμαι 7 _ 5 

δορὸς ὑ ὑπὸ πολεμίου τυπείς" 

ἐκεῖνο δ᾽, εἶμ αἰακτὸν, οὔτ᾽ 

ἄνεκτον ἂν γένοιτό pow 

Δικαιόπολις γὰρ, εἴ μ᾽ ἴδοι τετρωμένον, 

κάρτ᾽ ἐγχάνοι γε ταῖσδ ἐμαῖς ay ἐν τύχαις. it 
Al. ἀταταὶ .* 

" ἀταταὶ 

τῶν τιτθίων ὡς χλιαρὰ καὶ Κυδώνια" 

φιλήσατόν [ne μαλθακῶς, ὦ w χοιρίω, 

τὸ περιπεταστὸν καὶ τὸ μανδαλωτόν. K5 

τὸν γὰρ χοᾶ νῦν πρῶτος ἐχπέπωκα. 
AA. ἰὼ ἰώ: ᾿ τραυμάτων ἐπωδύνων--- 
Al. iy ἰὴ ἄμαχε παίδιον χύτρας---- 
AA. στύγν᾽, Ερις, λέγω--- 
AI. μἰγδ᾽, "Epos, λέγω--:- 40 
ΛΑ. τί μέ συ δάκνεις 5 ΝΞ 
AI. τί μέ συ κυνεῖς; 


Aristophanis Commentarius. 129 | 


AA. τάλας ἐγὼ τῆς ἐν μάχῃ γε ξυμβολῆς βαρείας" 
al. ἐν Χουσί γ᾽ ὧν τίς Fu ς ἐπράττετ᾽ [οὐ βαρείας 3} 
MA. ὦ ξυμφορὰ τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν κακῶν" Παιὼν ἰὼ Παιών. 
Al. [ἀσύμφορόν μ᾽,] ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τανῦν γ᾽, ὁφήμέραι παίοντ᾽ ἰῶ παίων. 
V.7. Vulgo δ᾽ οὖν αἰακτὸν dy οἰμωχτὸν ἄν. At prius dy MSS. 
omittunt. ‘-Mox dedi ἄνεκτον. Vid. Classical Journal, No. xxv. 
p. 372. Adde od Sayravy-in Lys. 529. et Οὐ trards οὐ φερτᾶς in 
Hec. 159. nernon ἀνάσχετα iv Brunck. Indice. Exstat ταῦτ᾽ ἄνεκτα 
δῆτ᾽ ἀκούεν in Thesm. 563. V. 10. Vulgo κατεγχάνοι--ἐμαῖσιν 
ἄν. At κατεγχάνο; est nihili verbum. V. 13. Vulgo σχληρά. Pa- 
pillz puellarum certe dici possunt σκληραί. At cum iis μαλθακῶς 
non convemit. Reposui χλιαρά. Vox exstat in Ach. 975. V. 14. 
Vice χρυσίῳ dedi χοιρίῳω. Etenim famine, quas secum Δικαιό- 
σολις 18 scenam attulit, sunt Megarenses olim sub vestitu suillo 
introducte; quarum altera fuit mater, altera filia, virum adhuc ex- 
perta; ideoque rectius dicte «λιαρὰ, quam σχληραὴ, rectius quoque 
χοιρίῳ quam χρυσίῳ. V.15. ita Elmsl, voluit pro κἀπιμανδαλωτόν.. 
V. 18. χαῖρε λαμαχίππιον. Rav. χαῖρε Μαμαχιπείδιον. Inde erui 
ἅμαχε παίδιον χύτρας. Dicitur ἄμαχε παίδιον ut κολλικόφαγε Bow- 
τίδιον. Intelligitur quoque χύτρα satis bene in tali loco. Etenim 
χύτραν esse φιλημάτων genus docet Pollux x. 10. ex Eunico AaBod 
συ τῶν ὦτων, φιλήσων τὴν χύτραν. In eundem censum referuntur τὸ. 
περιπεταστὸν et τὸ Μᾳνδαλωτόν : quibus adde Γιγγλυμὸς, Δρεπτὸν et 
᾿Ισχνίδες apud Hesych.: unde corrige Photum.v. Μανδαλωτός. 
V. 19. Vulgo στυγερὸς ἐγὼ μογερὸς ἐγώ. At hic, ni fallor, latet 
lusus Euripideus in “Egis et “Epws. Vide mea annotata ad. ‘Tro. 
853. Reposui igitur στύγν᾽, “Epic, λέγω et μέγδ᾽ "Epos λέγω. De 
permutatis ἀγὼ οἱ Agup.vide ad ‘Veep. 1438. in Classical Journal, 
No, xxxt. p. 59. V. 23. Vulgo μάχῃ νῦν: MSS. νῦν omittunt : 
rectius dedissent ye. V.24. Vulgo τοῖς Χουσὶ γὰρ τίς. ξυμβολὰς 
ἐπράττετο, At sententi# nexus correlative facit, ut hic articulus 
abesse, et preepositio adesse debeat: sic ὃν μάχῃ γε ξυμβολὰς op- 
ponitur τῷ ἐν Χουσί γε ξυμβολάς. Ad versus finem inserul οὐ Bar, 
ptias. Certe βαρείας sic positum excidere facile poterat. Redde 
βαρείας ξυμβολὰς, heavy reckonings. Simili metaphora dicitur 
κουφὴ δαπάνη in’ Eurip. Bacch. 891. At in Eq. 535. σμικρᾶς 
δαπάνης necnon Thucyd. 111. 11 et 64. Verum Hesiod. "Epy..721. 
δαπάνη τ᾽ ὀλιγίστη. V.25. Voces Ὦ συμφορὰ τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν - 
κακῶν vulgo exstant post ἐκπέπωχα. Eas huc retuli, ut inde pa- 
teret quomodo ἀσύμφορον omissum esset in v. 26. ubi παίοντ᾽ id 
erui € παιωνία. Lamachi verba παιωὼν ia. deridet Dicgopolis per 
sua παίοντ᾽ ia: ubi παίοντα est sensu nequiorl. Metuebat profecto 
Δικαιόπολις idem sibi eventurum esse atque Trygé&o ; qui scisci- 
tatur Mercurium in Pac. 711. "A δέσποτα, θερμῆς γῆν ὁπώρας xare- 
paces” Ag’ dv βλαβῆναι διὰ χρόνου τί σοι δοκῶ: Cui responsum est, 
VOL, XIX. Ci. J. NO. XXXVIL. 


—@ 


130 De Carminibus, ὅς. 


Οὐκ εἶ ye κυκεῶν ἐπυπίρις βχηχωνίαν: “Quod'ad listim. in “ταἰῶν. ἰοὶ εἰ 
παίων ἰῶ, cf. Pac. 435, Θ.. sic. legendos jai παιων 16. “Agere τὸ 
παίων BAN ke μάψον : ubi illud Ja jure. potetat.clanmmre aliquis 
verberatus. V.@6. Vulgo οὐχὶ νυνί. Rav. οὐχὶ wa γε, Dedi οὐ 
τανῦν ye. Cf. (ΕΑ. C. 387.616. La Plut..g93. pro οὐχχὶ γυνί γ᾽ 
Rav. οὐχὶ τοίνυν : voluit οὐ τανῦν ye. Mox vulgo τήμερον. Ray. 
σήμερον. Reposui ὁσημέραν quotidie. Facetissimum, est yotum hoc 
Diceopolidis qui, sicut iste homo apud Eustath.’O8. p. 1678. 
βαινόμενος βαίνων ποτὲ νύμφιος ἄλλρτε νὐμφὴ, Cupit sti. satisfies, 
quando aliis satisfacere nequit. ΠΙυά ὁσημέραι aliquatenus exponit 
Theognigg@536. Fite: σὺν. καλῷ παιδὶ πανημέριο. Sententan 


sic construe: παίων ὁσημέραι ἰῶ με παίοντα [sore] ἄσύμφῃρφιυ ἀλλ᾽ 05 
τανῦν γε. Ν Lee. 
1214,5. orp. α΄. .. 2418,9. exp. B’. 1222,3. στρ. γ᾿ 


1216,7. ἀχτιστρ. α΄. 1490,1. ἀντιστρ. β΄. = 192455. ἀντιστρ. . 
v. 1226 et Βᾳεᾳ. ‘Sic lege : 
ΛΑ. λόγχη τις ἐμπέκῃηγέ μοι δι’ ὀστέων ὀδυρτά' στρ. δ΄. 
AI. τήνελλα καλλίψικος. ΕΝ 
XO. τήνελλρι δῆτ᾽ beep καλεῖ σ᾽, “ch πρόσβυ καλλίνικος," ἀντιστρ. ἕ, 
. ἤηνελλ᾽ “ ἀγῶν᾽ ἰδύσω" 
᾿ς“, χαΐροις λαβὼν τόνδ᾽ ἀσκόν" " ὄ στρ. ke 
Al. ὁρᾶτε τουτονὶ κένον. ΞΕ 
καὶ πρός γ᾽ ἄκρατον ἐγχέας ἄμυστιν ἐξέλαψαι" 
eects viv ἄδοντες a | ἄντιστρ. ἐ. 
ΧΟ. ἀλλ᾽ ἡψόμασθ', ὅσῃ χαρᾷ ᾿ 7 
τήνελλα, καλλίνεκον ἄθοντες σὲ καὶ τὸν ἀσχόν. 10 


. eer 
Mirum m modu ‘Comici: verbg, que nemo intelligere potuit, 
disjecta exhibent editiones: nempe 6 v. 6. et ‘2. unusg efficitur, et 
v. 4. sic legitur: Τήνελλα νῦν ὦ ἀγένναδα (MSS. ὦ vyivveda) χώρι 
λαβὼν τὸν ἀσκὸν, et in ν. 8. additur τήνελλα καλλίνικος. Verum ipse 
nibil video, quid sibi velit ὁρᾶτε τουτονὶ κένρν post ὀδυρτά : neque 
gratias leves Editoribus egissem, si quis mibi sententie nexym 
eiplicuisset ; quem ipse nunc 8118 extricare possum. ‘Jristem 
‘amachi vocem éupra ridet Δικαιόπολις pet suum letitize epipho- 
nema Τήνελλα : quod pro secundo accipit omine chorus, et subdit 
Ῥήνελλα δῆτα" εἴπερ Τήνελλα (que hic, πρρσωποπαμῖται sicut Nixy im 
Lys. 317. Δέσποινα Νίκη, necnonin Av. 575. Nilay πέτεται) καλεῖ 
σ᾽ «ὦ πρέσβυ καλλίνικης ἀγῶν᾽ ἔδύσω' χαίροις λαβὼν; τόνδ᾽ goxdy.” 
ub! respicitur ad certamen supra memoratum in v. 100]. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν, 
ἐχπίῃ Πρώτιστος, ἀσκὸν Κτησιφῶντος λήψεται : ubi Schol. ἐτίθατο, δὲ͵ 
ἀσκὸς πεφυσημένος ἐν τῇ τῶν Χοῶν ἑορτῇ, ἐφ᾽ οὗ - ἔδει. τοὺς πίνοντας πρὸς. 
ἀγῶνα ἑστάναι καὶ τὸν πρῶτον πίνοντα, ὡς νικήσαντα λαμβάνειν ἀσχάν: 
unde patet me non male eruisse ἀγῶν ἐδύσω. εχ ὦ ἀγένναδαις (sic 
enim ΜΗ ., opinor, exhibent): prasertim cum phrasis ἀγῶνα 


Gambridge Triposes. 13} 
δύσασϑαι sit proba. et ehqsoties depeavate’;.sicut-in Orest. 838. ubi- 
legitur Ψυχῆς ἀγῶνα: ete. xpoxelpevey περὶ Δώσων, ἕν ᾧ ζῇν } θανεῖν 
ὑμᾶς χρεάν. Verum ibi Canter voluit Δύσων vero proxime : lege 
Δυσόμενος, of: quod probasset, opinor,: 3."Piersbr αὶ ile ‘enjm in 
. Notis ‘etree me 'volut ἀραμοὶν, propter lid δῤοιμυύμενος in 

_X. Π. 418. ἧς . ἀγῶνα---᾿ ρῳμούμονον' Hecnolt ὥγῶνο--- δρίάριοιμ᾽ in 
Alcest. 480. Mec ‘obiter. “Ad. Comicunt -redea, THD reposul 
- χαίροις νἱεο)χώρα. Kadem var. lect-.ia Eup: Tre.1905.- Hic 
vero dicitur χκούροις χαβῶν. ut καιρῶν συλλαβὼν “τὴν κμώρακραλη͵ Plot. 
1079 : -neque vakle ‘distant loca οὐ Nub. $10. it ᾿Ολχερίεαὶ 
Journal, No.xx¥t. p. 3979. V9. Valgo ἑψόμεσθα σὴν yap: Αἱ 
MSS., υἱ fallor, exhibent yubav.: nde erut ὅσῃ «χαρᾷ. ᾿ Certe 
in tali loco est opportunum ὅσος : εἰ Ran. 290. ὁ δῆμος .ἀἄνεβόα--- 
οὐράνιον ὅσον. Altus fortasse-phacebit' ὅσῃ χερί: ubi yelp ‘sicut manus 
apud Latinos. signifieat φιμἐ ἐόν. μι poterat Ἰσίδαν ὅσῃ χερὶ, 
ut ὅσος ὄχλος in Plut. 750, Nab. 750. et στράτευμ᾽ ὅσον ἴῃ Bion 
102. ᾿ οτος ΝΞ 

Dabem Etora, Kalend. Mart. 4.5. mpcecxvit. 


3. 


~~ 


CAMBRIDGE TRIPOSES, | mo 
As connected with the tighter History and with the Lite- 
“rature of that University, : . . a 
Berong the publication οὗ the Cambridge Calendar, a good 
collection of Triposes was a valuable thing, ΔΗ containing the only 
printed list of the hanors.af.the senaté-bouse. Sueh a-collection 
still retains ity -vdlae im the hands‘of the’ intelligent, as exhibiting | 
playful satires on the foifiés and tHe gtavitiés of tie day, or happy. 
specimens of élegant compositjon from Etonian and othex pens. 
Two such ‘Triposes. are ,presepted ἀρὰ tp owr.xeaders, The 
Jirst poem, on Scates and Scatingy aeeds.no preliminary comment ; 
and the author.may be discovered by a very easy calculus, being 
that senior optime iv the year 1787, to Whose rate is attached 
the significant mark of (A) in the calendar, Of the second 'Fripos 
here re-printed the author is to us uaknown ; while the subject of 
that day may be told in: a very few words: The White Bear 
tavern was intefdicted'; and the Fellow-Commoners of. Trinity, in- 
cluding the: Trae Blues, were put“on, short commons By the 
interdict. | ΝΞ Ξ ΝΕ 


- © 
- - . τὰ » ." . . . >, 
. - 


132 Cambridge Triposes. 


Ποσσὶ δ᾽ ὑπαὶ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα. 
Hom. Il. Β. 44. .. 


ΨΊΝΟΙΑ pedum e duro chalybis conflata metallo, 
Egregium artis opus, variasque ex ordine partes ᾿ 
Expediam, Arctoi circumdare qualia plantis = 
Festinant juvenes, quo tempore parcits urit Ὁ 
Phoebus humun, et gelidz gliscit violentia brumz, 

Cyclopum inprimis magna de gente petendus 
Insigni arte faber ; porro huc vestigia tendas, 
Alma suos inter quem Granta recenset alumnos, 

In vicum, ingentem recto qui tramite ducit 

Ad pontem Cami : hic oculis fars obvia surget 
Parva antiqua domus, sed qu4 vix notior ulla est 
Propter aquas Cami; quippe artis symbola multa 
Ante fores pendent fabriliaque instrumenta 
Désuper—adversus picto strepit arjete murus. 
Sat quoque notus herus, furvam modd conspice vestem, 
Et furvam barbe segetem, furvosque capillos. 
Sponde huic mercedem facilis; nec inutile pacto 
Forsan erit sacri superaddere pocula musti ; 
Quippe operi auditi non immemor acrior instat, 
Jamque domus reson4 tremefacta incude laborat. 

Massa tibi hic chalybis spatio portecta sat amplo 
Eligitur, mensura pedum justissima quantum 
Flagitat; ast alté compressi pollicis ictum 
Dimidia plus parte affectans ardua vincat: . 
Altits evectum incessus per lubrica ducit 
MoNior, et faciles componit Gratia motus. — 

At chalybis pars ima Deum jam passa domantem 
Nascentem induitur Lunam, angustumque decenter 
Desinit in rostrum, qualis curvata carina | 
Sulcat aquam, saltuque undis caput altius effert. 
- Haud procul a rostro summz vi dissita masse 
. Lamia se attollens flammis atque arte domatur 
In furcam, lignum aptatum que dente tenaci 
Mordeat ; a tergo patulus sese annulus offert, 
Toque illum e ligno demittitur acta superné 
Se cochlea insinuans sinuoso arctissima ferro : 
Hance super erigitur preacutus cuspide clavus 
, Ima potens avido calcis comprendere morsu, — 

Et prohibere pedem lapsu fluitante moveri, 
Jamque.opus exactum et visu mirabile surgit 
Machini—gquod restaf, quo juncta ligamine planta 
Hereat, exponam : transit terno ordine lignum 

Balteus, hic nexu digitorum extrema coércet, 


Cambridge Triposes. 133 


Hic medium, et qua-pes altissimus, ultimus alter 
Alligat, huic lorum adsuitur latissima ducens 
Cingula calce super—pedibus sic omnia firma, 
Omnia tuta manent; at vincula fibula parcé 
Contrahat, aut loro arctato violentits ustus 
(Edipodioniz flamntam experiere podagre. 
Sectile quin hgnum fagus procera ministret, 
Aut montana ulmus, vel torno rasile buxum 
Przbeat, ayt melior solido de robore quercus, 
Sitque chalybs planus ; sulcate forma carine 
Ducit inexpertum, at plane felicior orbis 
Expediet faciles (experto credite) cursus, 
Mercibus externis maleé creditur, usque manebis 
‘Tutius in patria, nostrisque instructior ibis, 
Quam Batave si.quéis utuntur Amazones armis 
Cinctus eas—lenté latos latissima portant 
Fulcra pedes, ea non curvatz conscia Lune, 
Qualis nostra ambit : stat pondus inutile ferri: 
Torta fronte minax fera propugnacula tollens, 
Implicitique horrent magnis super orbibus orbes: 
Jamque adeo armatus vitream in discrimen iturus 
Quere superficiem, vel qua tibi lubricus equor 
Leave, favente gelu, lacus offerat, aut ubi Camus 
Taudignatus aquas cymbe non amplius aptas . 
Nunc pedibus dorsum assuescit Pater—O ubi campi, 
Augusteque lavans muros undante canali 
Alveus! O quis mé gelido super equore sistet, 
Qua curvo fluvius mordens cana arva meatu 
Obliquat ripam, ét sinuoso gurgite tortus 
Volvit honoratas sine nomine nobilis undas ! 
Quam varia ante oculos hic rerum ludit imago, 
Scilicet unde artis precepta haurire licebit : 
Hic Hermes vitream per humum ruit, et pede in uno 
Radit iter liquidum recta digito indice ductus, 
Omnia Mercurio similis, motumque figuramque, 
Extensamque manum, et, pennati more ministri, 
Ferrea subnectens levibus talaria plantis. 
Alter adest molli alternans vestigia lapsu, 
Circuituve orbem ccelans, qualem ipsa Mathesis 
Invideat, quorum seriem trahit infinitam, 
Sulcat et intortis sinuosa volumina gyris. 
Δὲ neque preteream te fas est, qui pede ferreo 
Felix arte tua transverso marmora cursu 
Pervolitas, urgeaque pedem pede, calceque calcem. 
Quid memorem multes luctantes limine in ipso, 
Qui dura invita certamina Pallade tentant ? 


134 | Cambridge Friposes, 


Illis nulla quies—neultus quatit ddim cavuss:. 
Costarum_hos signant, aut livida valnera lumbi, " 


᾿ς 


Aut os dente, minus, fracteve injaria frontis. fv. 


Hic oculos hic flecte, forum φαὰ mobite laté 
Exponit venale Chaos, stat littora juxta . ᾿ ... 
-Insudans lucro miseri farrago popelli; ==. - 

En tibi poma, nuces, usti duo germina Patt, -. ὦ 
Quem tibi Virginie purissimus educat hertus, 
Et florem Seotre pattio ter sulphure tinctum. 


Adfertur panis, non ille nvemor brevis tevi,:: ar 


Theriacen redolens et Zinziber, adstat O porti 
Fervida vis, expers undarum, et epumeus-humor ‘ 
Musti et: Cervisiee, mentitaque flamma Genevam, ' 


At procul hin, quisquis geaerosi haud-indigas haustiis: ὦ 


Forté venis, talis mares et odoribus auras 
Juniperi complet gravis halitus atque ‘Fabacti. 


At nimis ah! vereor, coctum glomeratur in arm: -- 


Turba frequens, @avies-ne.mole-oneratus inqai = 
Volvat aquis, nuper quot corpota viderit-udum. 


Oppetiisse torum, ut glaciem: patefecit hivleus ς΄. 


Trenius, et undarum laxas effudit-liabenas: - 
Collapsi subiere omnes, diductaque apertum ᾿ 
Emisit glacies torterttem, at-corpora. aque vis 
Invasit prostrata, et funere mersit acerbo. 


. In Comitiis Postetioribus, Mar. 24, 1784." " 


—— Edisti satis, atque bibisti, _ ..-He 
DixERAT; accepit mandatum immite tyranii - 
Auribus invitts Granta, et orudeha jusss::. + 


Perque forum, per caaponas, teiéteeque-tabernas: ἡ’. 


Audiri questus atque Hiatabile avormer.. . -- -- 
At hmen (memiei tempes) qua swpe: bibebanr. 


(Da memorem lacrymam) jucunda obkivia oyre,: i: -- 
Nunc frpstra.meestas latebras solosque receseus . : +. 


Explicat, atque urs vocat in.convivm picté. 
Hen devota domus! Non te.transire solebam, 
Et nunc pretereo invites, sedesve relictas.. 
(Hoc datur) intoitu tristi.contemplor, nani 
Perfixus luctu desideriogue retentus. 
{nterea haud ultra domimus vaeat, ipsa fatigant — 
Otia, nec letus cesit pinguemque popinam - 


Desertam, vacuamque domum, tacitamque cubinam.- 


Heu meestam rerum faciem! vog dicite, vestes - 
Quéis ornat nitidas argentea fimbris, m agrie. " " 
Seu forte erratis,: pronove stupescitis amne,. 


ΓΝ 


Π '- -» 


Cambridge. Triposes. 66 Ὸδδι..85 
Discinotosve juvat.per gramina mane gradi, © 
Quam lento surgit quam lento limine. Phebus . 
Descendit ; .metu quan tardo temporg aguntur, 
Quam tardo Iucis gadm tardo tedia noetis. ... .. 
Nempe ista in miseros domas. est ¢rudelis alumnos . 
Ante alias, qua tres and complectitur edes =... “- 
Conjugio leto et felici foedere junctas; - . 
Non magis insignis forma, splendore, colunmis, 
(Atria qua nitidd stracturA et cespite pulchra Ὁ 
Panduntur,. vernas qua porticus accipit auras, . 
Qualis et Augustum Pbhebi ferventis ah watu 
Defendisse potest, et detinuisse sub umbr4) © 
. Quam sumptu, dapibus, fuxu, mensfque, epulisque. 
Cur non ut quondam -per calles mané videmus, 
Cim labor assuetus voddt e fimante culina - 
Passibus imparibus quem ‘highea tibia portat, 
Circuitus gratos perageytem ? Suavior illi 
. Fortuna arrisit,. melioraque tempora vidit!, 
Scilicet haud iterutn nunierabit preinia cure,. 
Aut cernet léto geminatos ore labores. | 
Nec rursum, arboreas cim Sol produxeérit anibras, 
Pompa culinatis procedet, splendidus ordo, 
‘Non siccis labris servi, madidis coquus alis ; 
 Pfenave sudabit nigti manus ossea lixe 
Elius, immunde cui tradita cura culiae. 

T nunc, infelix, vigilataque cattnina dele, ἢ | 
Nam nemo impranéus potuit cantare, tec unquam - 
‘Digna legi cecinit stomacho lattante poeta : 

' Meonides caluit vino οληὶ dixit Achillem © 
Ir4 vesanum, ante oculos patiis Hectora c&strh, 
 Atque irrumpentein metuentia Tartara lucerh. 
ἃ verd juvenis, studiis chim forte ναὶ, 

Desine qua steriles posuit natura paludeés 
— Coenoque incultos agros obduxit et undis ὁ 

‘Querere penhatam predam, detisisque teneri 
Fluctibus, ac limo vestigia tarda movere, 
Effusus labor est, et cufa moratur ihanis. 
Non tibi jueunde sociale geudie mense, - 
Non tibi, ventrieulo si latrent.viscera, fumant. 
Tostaurate epule, nec dulcia fundit Iacchue ᾿. : 
Pocuta; das: gtatit senier porcum leporemve | ΝΣ 
Greecari assuetus, ἰσεσχυθ abdothine fervet. — ᾿ 

Huc ided advehtum eft tandem—nos grata juventus 
Dum roseo sedet ore satus, scintillat oceflus, 

Dum fervet vigor et venis nova vita resulta}, 


180 Life. of Heyne. 


Tempus letitize est—sed tunc, cum tarda podagra ὦ “ 
Opprimet et proprio sub pondere membra vacillant, 
Tunc epule nigrique decent penetralia lustri. 

Ergo mané donec gravis atque severior xtas, 
Os donec multis reverenter amabile rugis 
Provocat ad veneris trepidum et certamina vini. 
Tunc ubi se volvet toto sanctissimus anno 
Phoebus, cdmque Dei terni mysteria sacra 
Commemorare decet ; plenz tibi gaudia mense 
Et pocla indulge demens licitumque furorem. 


In Comitiis Posterioribus, Mar. 30, 1786. 


LIFE OF HEYNE. | | 


Part I. 


[τ is pleasing to dwell on the virtues and merits of those to whom 
we are bound by the ties of gratitude; and in recording them, 
while we gratify those feelings, we may also have the satisfaction 
uf impressing others, in a certain degree, with the same respeet and 
admiration with which we are ourselves animated. I should falsely 
arrogate to myself what does not belong to me, if [ wished to be 
understood as deriving the information, which I shall communicate, 
exclusively from myself. This is so far from being the case, that 
a greater part of it I owe to a publication of the celebrated Pro- 
fessor Heeren,' of Gottingen, who, like myself, had been Heyne’s 
pupil ; and had lived with him in habits of the strictest friendship 
and intimacy for a long series of years, and was also connected 
with him by near relationship.” But, notwithstanding this advan- 
tage, which I concede to Mr. Heeren, it will not be too much for 
me to say, that the general features and substance of this bio 
phical article are in my own recollection and knowledge; though 
I could not have spoken of particulars with equal accuracy, wi 
out Mr. Heeren’s assistance. Residing at the same place with 
Heyne, in the midst of his relations and friends, having communica- 


* Tam proud to call this excellent and distinguished man my friend. He 
published soon after Heyne’s death a biographical account of Heyne, in’ 
German; and read his eulogium, in Latin, to the Royal Society of Sciences 
at Gottingen, on the 24th October, 1812. The title of the former is: Chrig- 
tian Gottlob Heyne, btographisch dorgextellt von 4. H. L. Heeren. Gottingen 
1818; and of the latter, Memoria Christiani Gottlob Heynii, commendata om 
consessu Reg. Societatis Scient. Ad d. xx1v Oct, MDCCCXII. 

2 He married one.of Heyne’s daughters. 


Life of Heyne. 187 


tion with those acquaintances and connexions, who, though living 
in different parts, yet could give, either from their correspondence, 
or former intercourse with the deceased, information upon several 
points, which the biographer had occasion to ascertain; having 
smoreover the use of all Heyne’s papers and letters, Mr. Heeren was 
better enabled than any other person, to furnish a correct’ account 
of his illustrious friend: and with him as my guide, I trust I shall 
acquit myself as a conscientious historian, in exhibiting the follow- 
ing sketch. | 

Heyne had left among his papers a fragment of his own biography ; 
which it is truly to be lamented that he did not finish. Nothing 
could have been more instructive, than the memoirs of such a man, 
written by himself, and with that candor and acuteness of observa- 
tion, which characterised his hind. But he only made a beginning 
of this undertaking, which does not go beyond the years of his 
youth. From this fragment, however, it may be seen what we 
have lost in not possessing the whole. It will not be a subject of 
wonder, that he did not complete this narrative, when it is consider- 
ed how many avocations were every moment diverting his attention. 
A man so otcupied in the service of others, and so over-burdened 
with various duties, as he was, had no time to think of himself. 
This was the last subject, on which he would be disposed to bestow 
his leisure, if he ever had any leisure, or hours of respite from 
positive and active engagements. What concerned himself would 
be procrastinated, and even the longest life does not suffice to 
retrieve the losses, which procrastination always entails. But let 
us now enter upon our subject. 


Curisti1an GottLos' HeyNne was born at Chemnitz, in 
Saxony,-on the 25th of September, 1729. The day of his birth 
is, indeed, not exactly ascertained; but that of bis baptism was 
recorded in the church register, as September the 26th of that 
year: and Heyne himself assumed the 25th as the day on which 
he entered this world. His birth-day, however, was usually cele-, 
brated on the 26th. Geurge HeyNE, his father, was by trade a 
linen-weaver, and in a poor and humble situation. He was twice 
married ; and our Heyne was by the second marriage, being the 
eldest of four sons. By his first marriage, George Heyne had 
only one daughter. ‘This good man passed his life in struggling 


_ * Gorrros means praise-god, and is frequently used as a Christian name, 
in that part of Germany where Heyne was born. Other names of a similar 
composition are likewise common there; which is not so much the case in 
the uther provinces, 


188 Life of Heyne. 


with poverty and want, antl those adversities, which an un propitiors 
fortune heaped upon bim. It is affecting to read the delineation 
of his circumstances in the words of his son: * No fortuhate 
incident;” says he, “ ever favored his plans, and his endeavours to 
improve his situation. A succession of reverses brought him evea 
delow the level of a middling condition. His old age was, thereforé, 
abandoned to indigence, and to its companions, hopelessness arid 
dejection of spirits. The manufactures were, at that timé,: in 
Saxony, in a declining state ; and the misery among the working 
classes, in those places, where linen cloth was made, was uncommonly 
great. The earnings were scarcely safficient to support the work- 
man himself; much less his family. ‘The most shocking sight, in 
My opinion, which a perverse state of society can present, is that, 
when honest, honorable, and ‘conscientious industry, by the utmoa 
exertion of labor, cannot gain the necessaries of life, or when the 
diligent workman cannot even find employment for his hands; and, 
with his arms crossed, must lament that mvoluntary idleness, whigh 
makes him suffer hunger, and compels him to behold those whom 
he loves deprived of the necessaries of life. οὐ 
«I was born and: brought up in the greatest indigence. ‘The 
earliest cothpanion of my childhood was want ; and the first impres- 
sions I received were the tears of my mother, who did not know 
where to obtam bread for her children. How often have I seen hei, 
on ἃ Saturday, with weeping eyes, when she returned home unable 
to find a purchaser for the work which the. utmost exertions of: her 
husband, and the labor of many a night, had produced! Some- 
times a new attempt to sell the articles was made by my sister, or 
by me; I was obliged to call again on the draper or dealer, to. see 
whether we could not find a purchaser for our goods. ‘There isa 
sort of persons in that part of the country, called dealers, who do 
nothing but buy up articles, especially in the linen'trade ; they 
purchase from the poor workmen the cloth for the lowest price 
possible, and sell it afterwards in other places at high prices. 1 
often saw one of these petty tyrants with the pride of an eastern 
despot reject the goods offered him, or deduct a trifle from the 
price asked, and from the wages of the labor. The poor workmen 
were forced to part with their hard earnings for less than was their 
due, and to make up by severe privations what they thus had lost. 
Sach sights were what kindled the first spark of ‘sensibility in my 
childish heart. Instead of being dazzled by the prosperity of these 
persons, who lived and throve upon the crumbs taken from 80 many 
hundreds of the starving workmen, and of being struck with awe by. 
their splendor, 1 wae: filled with indignation egainet. .: The 
first time I δεκτὰ of the death of a tyrant, the idea rose with me 
to become a Brutus against every oppressor of the poor; for to 


“Life of Heyne. 139 


- guch beings 1 conceived ttt thé misery of. nsy.starvitig family vas 
ΕΣ | have often. since had:occasion to reflect, that it is by the 
interposition of a kind providence, that the unhappy wretch, whe 
iseunkin misery, 1s. placed in such circumstances.as preserve hin 
from: being dsiven to:extremities, and plunging into crime; that his 
energy‘is restrained, and his feélings withheld from violence. 
+ “My good parents ded for me what they could, and sent me to-a 
common school in the seubutbs.. Thdre | was commended for .2 
: quick :¢pprebension: of what was taught, and fer.an eager disposia 
tion to eam: : My schoolmates bad two sons,.-who: weve. returoed 
from the University of Leipeiy.. They were corrapt ert’ wurprins | 
inled. young men, and took -gteat paige to misiead we. . ‘They 
mde my life.miserable, by terrifying anid ill-treating me, because. 
tefused to unite in their achpmes ef depravity. :-When I was bat 
ten years old, I had begun to msatruct the.child of one of our nedgh- 
bowrs in reading and writing, in order to earn the money, whith [ 
' edd to.pay to my. sehoelmaster. The conimon instruction that was 
given in the ach@el soon left me nothing to.leern; and if 1 wanted 
to:begin Latin, I hdd to take-private lessons. “This was to be at 
an extra expeiise of two-pénce a week, which my pareats could not 
efford. For n long. tune this was a source of grief to me: Thad ἃ 
gedfather who was a wealthy baker, and half-brother te my mether, 
One Saturday I was sent to him to fetch 4 hoaf. With weeping 
eyes I entered his hewse. Being asked by Inm the cause of my 
sorrow, I attenspted to answer ; but a flood of tears burst forth, and 
I could: with: difficirity 'explais the cause of: my: affliction. : My 
generous godfather offered to pay the weekly two-pence for we ; 
lapposing itas a conditien, teat I should come to bim every Sunday, 
and: say to him, by ‘heart, the lesson from the gospel.. ‘This. was 
eubsequently of advantage to me; I exercised my memory, and 
learnt ta deliver. myself without difflence, Intoxicated with joy, I 
ran: with my loaf, tossed: it repentedly in the air, and, barefooted as 
1 waa, leaped for pleasure. In the midst of these gesticulatierts, ny 
loaf fell into a kennel; an- accident which restored me to reasen. 
My mothes was pleased with the good tidings ; my fatber tess so. 
Thos a few years passed ; my master confirmet; what 1 had long 
known, that I could learn.nothing farther from him. The time 
wae arrived, when. | ‘was to leave school, and to adopt that mode of . 
life winch-my forefathers had followed. If the artificer‘were wot 
by oppressions of masy diferent kinds deprived of the fruits: of 
bis laborious industry, and of many advantages whieh belong te 8 
guod and ‘usefal citizen, I showld say even now—-Would I had con- 
twued m the condition of my. fathers! How muel misery should I 
have escaped! My father could: not but.wish. te have a som grown 
up, who might assist bin in his hard work; and perceived my dis. 


140 Life of Heyne. 


inclination with great displeasure. I, on the contrary, wished to-go 
to the public Latin school. For this, means were absolutels 
wanting. Whence was the money to be paid every quarter—about 
half acrown? whence were the books, and a blue gown, or cloak, 
which the school-boys were obliged to wear, to be taken? - How 
anxiously were my eyes often fixed upon the walls of the school, 
as I passed them! A certain clergyman, who wes minister- in the 
suburbs, was my second godfather. My schoolmaster, who at the 
same time was clerk of his parish, had mentioned me to him; ἢ 
was desired to wait upon him, and after.a short examination, 
received from him the assurance, that I should go to the.Town- 
school, and that he would bear the expense. Who can coneeive 
the happiness which I, at that moment, experienced? I was: seat 
to the master of the school, examined, and placed in the second 
form. Being naturally of a weak constitution, depressed by 
misery and sorrow, deprived of the cheerful enjoyments of cbuild- 
hood and early life, I had remained low and small of stature. My 
school-fellows judged me by appearance, and entertained a mean 
opinion of me. It was only by the proofs which I gave':of. my 
application and industry, and the praise I obtained, that they were 
induced to consider me as one of their number. But my applica 
tion and attention met with every discouragement. Of what my 
‘godfather, the clergyman, had promised, he kept so much, that he 
paid the quarterly money for schooling, provided me with a coarse 
gown, and gave me a few useless books, which he had in his collec- 
tion; but to purchase the school-books for me, he would not coa- 
sent.: I was, therefore, under the necessity to borrow them from 
my school-fellows, and every day to copy them before the lesson. 
But, in lieu of this, the good man was inclined to take a part in 
my instruction, and gave me, from time to time, a few lessons in — 
Latin. He had learnt in his youth to make Latin verses ; hence; 
as soon as we had done with Erasmus de civslitate morum, | was 
Initiated in Latin versification; all this was done, before I had 
read any author, or acquired any supply of words. ‘The gentle- 
man was violent and severe, and in every-respect formidable. 
Being possessed of a very moderate income, he was accused of 
avarice : he had all the unbending caprice of an old bachelor, and 
‘the vanity of pretending to be a good Latin scholar ;. and, what was 
more important, a good versifier, and consequently a learned 
clergyman. All these qualities of my protector contributed to 
destroy in the bud every enjoyment of happiness in my early youth. 
He himself had no susceptibility for any other gratification, than 
that of his avarice or his vanity : no indulgence, or forbearance, so 
kind and benevolent treatment, no praise and approbation, were 
ta be expected from him, even when I had scanned a verse correctly. 


Eife of Heyne. 141 


ifhe had but taken up'a classic! But lie had not such a book. 
Some wretched compilations of extracts, collections of epigrams, 
and some spiritual poets, from which he dictated verses to me, 
which I was to alter, paraphrase, and turn ‘into a different metre, 
was all his library afforded. By all this neither the taste nor the 
understanding could be benefited. But the case was aggravated, 
when in process of time he thought himself inspired by Apollo, and 
composéd. verses, from which I was to learn prosody, which to him 
was synonymous with poetry. These temptations of the demon 
of versification began on occasion of the birth-day of the head master 
of the Latin Town-school. It was customary for the first boys of 
the school, to offer their congratulation either in German or Latin 
verses, which were transcribed and collected im a clean and neat 
copy-book. Here it was that my godfather intended to shine, and 
Latin verses were made at my expense, which were to pass for 
my work. My vetation was increased by the general knowledge 
that the verses were not of my manufacture. These mortifications, 
however, stimulated me to use every exertion, in order to convince 
my godfather, that I could make verses myself; of this I gave him 
a proof, on his own birth-day; the first time that his proud and 
stern countenance relaxed to a smile. But by this specimen of my 
efforts I had laid the foundation for the most:troublesome demands 
that were to be made upon me; for congratulatory poems were 
now expected upon every occasion, even on the calendar-day of his 
name, which was Sebastian, and always considered by him as a day 
of great importance ; and not poems of ten or twenty lines, but of 
some hundreds, and in every variety of metre. Subjects of the 
most diversified nature, such as no man ever attempted to treat of 
in verse, were imposed upon me ; and thus 1 obtained the permis- 
sion to compose the congratulations to the masters of the school 
myself: they were, however, to be submitted to a strict revision 
and correction, under which operation they sometimes lost part of 
their fluency, and sometimes also. of their sense. ‘The instruction 
I received in school was not much better. It was carried on 
according to an old pedantic method, and consisted in saying 
Latin words from the vocabulary by heart, in construing, and doing 
exercises: all without enlightening the mind. As I had the facult 

of rather a quick apprehension, 1 was commended for learning well, 
and some of my masters entertained a favorable opinion of me. I 
should, however, by this road, have arrived at perfect stupidity, if q 
particular incident had not roused me from my lethargy. ‘There 
were, at certain periods, public examinations at school: at one of 
these the superior clergyman of the town, who was, at the same 
time, the first governor of the school, was present. This gentle- 
ynan, a reverend doctor, and in his days esteemed ἃ learned divine, 


142 Life of Heyne. 


interrupted the master, while he was teaching or exnmining the 
boys, and, at. once propased this question—Which of the: ackalen 
could turn the word Ausria into an apt atagram? ‘The idea wes 
suggested. by the circumstances of the times, a the first Silésion 
was between Austria and Prussia, in which Saxony taok ‘pert 
against Austria, hed just:then, broken out; aud in seme newspaper 
ἃ pretty anagram bad appeared, None of the bays knew: whet. ss 
anagram was: the master himeelf lqoked confused;. and,: when ne 
ane war “ made, he began te to detail whet wae meant. by an am 
grim. I sat down Imm to try at the proposed question, 

and it was not long before eT offer what 1 hed, found ent: 
Vastari. This was different from what had been put in the εν 
paper: but the greater was .the surprise of the reverend docton, 
especially, when he saw before bim a little boy from the lowes 
bench of the second form. He smiled ypon me with epprobatios, 
and loudly praised my ingenuity; but at the same time he set:al 
my school-fellows againat me, by reprovigg them severely for being 
outdone. by one of the lowest boys in-the second form. Jn — 
this pedantic adventure gave the first occasion ¢o the 

of my faculties. I began to have some confidence in . and 
not to be overwhelmed by the contempt and oppression, nade 
which [ languished. This first effort of my mind, whieh; indeed 
was still extremely feeble, was -by .some. considered a pride nad 
arrogance, aod drew upon me many. mortifications. Meanwhile-ms 
application was kept on the stretch, however ill di and 
prevented me fram associating. much with my. school-felbewa; 
among . whom,, as. they were mostly of low extraction,: and. bad 
education, rude, vulgar, aad improper manners were genexalls 
prevalent. This is. tha case with schoals of that description, wher 
youth. are merely taught as day-schelars, and are under no farther 
control and direction. ‘ What I gained at school, was: abmet 
entirely confined to words from the vocabulary, and to phrases, 
The Greek did not.speed better than. the Latin. The New Tests. 
ment, and Plutarch’s treatise op education, was all we knew of 
Greek books. Having no books, | was obliged to trangembe for 
my use my daily task ; and to borrow a grannnar, which was shat 
of Weller. I bad; besides, from my godfather, Pasor’s Lexicon in 
Neoum Testamentum, which happened to be in his colleetion.. { 
wevertheless made such progress in Greek, that I wrote Greek 
prose exercises, Greek verses, and was at last able to write down 
ἐξ tempore, in Greek prose, and successively even in Greek versa, 
what was dictated, and even the theme and subject of sermons in 
church, When 1 rose into the first. class, I became acquainted 
with some of the classic authors. -Qur head master, Mr. Hager, 
who had himself. published an edition,of Hamer, besides ihe school 


Life of Heyne. 143 


hours, gave some private lessons, in which he expounded some of 
the books of that poet. But that honest. man did not succeed 
much in his instruction: he was himself deficient in the elements. 
This wag of great disadvantage to me: for I imagined that 1 might 
look down upon him, paid no attenfion, acquired uo taste for 
Homer, read no one author through ; and when I wag to leave 
school, I was almost entirely 8. atranger to. what is properly called 
classical learomg. Of Livy I had only read a few chapters, and 
had no_cemplete notion of agy one aytbor, much less of classical 
literature in general. Of the other branches of knowledge, such 
as history, and geography, I was quite ignorant. In the Jaet year, 
however, before I left achool, I obtained some faint idea of .a better 
mode of study. Mr. Krebs, a pupil of Ernesti, came to Chem- 
nitz 88 assistant master to the school. His information and. know; 
ledge were of a very different description from that te which we 
had been used before. This gentleman took notice of me, and [ 
was 80 fortunate as to be admitted into a Greek private lespon, in 
which the Ajax of Sophocles was explaiged. I naw, at least, 
obtained some better notions of interpretation, and of what is 
properly called scholarship. Had I been m-more fortunate circum- 
stances, and could have farther profited. by his instruction, I should 
have obtained a better introduction to the: classics. But every- 
where I saw myself impeded and thwarted. ‘The perverse mede 
of treatment, which I experienced from the old clergyman, the 
dissatisfaction of my parents, especially of my father, who could 
not succeer in bis line.of business, and yet cherished: the theught 
that if I ‘had continued in his occupation | mjght sow prove a. 
support to him in gaining his livelihood; extreme indigence; end 
ἃ consciousness of ipferiority, did not suffer any comfortable ideg or 
satisfactory feeling to rige within me. A timid, shy, and. awkwand 
demeanour was calculated still more to dishgyre my outward appear~ 
ance. Bunt where was I to learn maaners and address, where to ac— 
quire a right way of thinking, and the necessary cultivation both of 
mind and heart? Yet | felt a desire of struggling with my fortune. 
A sense of honor, a wish for improvement, a solicitude to. raige my- 
self above my low fortune, incessantly attended me: but without a 
guide to direct them, those feelings only led.to scorn, misanthropy, 
and rudeweas. At last, a situation presented itself, in which I hed. 
a chance of being a little civilised. One of the aldermen of the. 
town had taken two children of a relation into bis house, for the. 
purpose of educating them, a boy and a girl, both nearly of my age.. 
A companion was wanted to read with the boy; and I was propos- 
ed. This attendance brought me in a florin a month, which served. 
to secure me, in some degreg, against the displeagure of my family. 
1 had hitherto often been obliged to qssist in their work, that 1, 


144 Life of EHeyne. 


might not hear the reproach that I wanted to eat their bredd for 
nothing. By means of some other lessons, which I gave, I was 
enabled to purchase oil for my lamp, and raiment for my body. I 
had it even in my power to give part of my earnings to my father; 
and thus my condition became somewhat more easy. But I ‘had 
now also the advantage of frequently seeing persons of a better 
education. I obtained the good-will of the family, and was _per- 
mitted to live with them, even when I was not engaged with my 
pupil. ‘This -conversation gave me some polish, evlarged my’ no- 
tions, and improved my exterior. 
. 1t was not-long before I conceived a passionate attachment for 
the sister of my pupil, which made me feel most acutely the pres- 
sure of my fate, that had placed me ima situation of poverty. But 
I was not weighed'down by despondency. Pleasing‘dreams of a 
possibility that I might, at some future time, still become possessed 
of the beloved object, diverted me from the contemplation of the 
present impossibility to make an impression on the young lady’s 
heart; and I succeeded in obtaining hers, and her mother’s friend- 
ship. 1 committed numberless follies, such as belong to a lover; 
one of which was, that I became a poet. But as 1 had no one to 
giiide and correct me, and as no good poet fell mto my hands, | 
cguld bécome nothing but a bad poet. How far we were at Chem- 
᾿ξ removed from any just notion of taste, [ will adduce some 
examples. It was the custom at our school, that every year some 
lays were acted. They were generally comedies of Christian 
Weisse, in German: but once'a Latin drama was represented, 
intitled Kunz von Kaufungen, or the capture of the Saxon Princes. 
‘The number of the dramatis persone was very small, and, in order 
to provitle several of my school-fellows with parts, I added, with’ 
the sanction of:the master, a sixth act, in which double the number 
were introduced, and among them many robbers, who were all: 
executed. ‘Ihis play was written in Lambics; but my addition was 
in prose. Another time I acted Fame, with a trumpet in my hand: 
behind the scenes was placed a trumpeter, who was to sound, while 
1 represented the goddess. ‘This man stopped once, and I very pro- 
perly took down my trumpet: but when he resumed his music, I’ 
forgot to put my instrument. to my lips, keeping it quietly in my 
hand. All this gave no offence. A steeple of the town had been 
struck by lightning, and burnt : arid when a new one was built, and 
adorned,.as is usual, with a ball upon its summit, Iwas, at the 
suggestion of my master, honored by the senate, or court of alder- 


- men, with the coniniand of writing a Latm inscription, which was 


to be deposited in the ball. - It began, Sta viator! dnd without 
any notice of the absurdity, the mscription was thus preserved in 


the ball, for the edification of posterity. 


Life: of Heyne. 145 


‘The time approached, when I was to go to the university ‘of 
Leipzig. But whence were the means to be derived? All my 
hopes rested upon the.old-clergyman. Promises were not wanting 
-on his part; but one day passed after another, the hour of departure 
arrived, and I obtained nothing. He committed me to the care ef 
his assistant, or curate, who was going to Leipzig ; and this was all. 
With great anguish 1 quitted my native place, and that house, in 
-which I bad received more kindness than a mere wretched existence. 
f was in hopes that I should know more of my patron’s intentions, 
when I had reached Leipzig. But how forsaken and desolate dad 
I feel myself, when my companion, upon leaving me, told me, that 
de had received nothing for me from the old clergyman. My whole 
stock of money consisted of about two florins. I was, in other 
respects, badly equipped; books [ had none. Worn out by previ- 
ous affliction, I fell sick; but nature overcame the disorder, 
though it left me in a state of melancholy dejection, I lived in the 
game apartment with the brother of my former master, Mr. Krebs. 
This gentleman, like bis brother, was a pupil-of Eresti, and by 
him 1 was introduced to the lectures of this celebrated professor ; 
_through his kindness, I also occasionally obtained a book. As to 
any plan in my studies, I had none; | did not know what lectures 
to frequent. For it. had not even been settled what line I was to 
follow. The old clergyman had destined me for the church; and 
as I still hoped for his support, I did not oppose that expectation. 
At last he sent me a few dollars; but what he sent was very 18- 
sufficient to pay for whet I awed, and was only obtained by 2 great 
deal of solicitation, If. I ventured to renew my application, 1 
received letters full of bitter. reproaches; and the unfeeling man 
ment so far in his harshness, as to put on the direction of the letter 
some disgraceful epithet to mortify me, One of those directions, 
for example, was written in this manner: ἃ M. Heyne, Etudiant 
pégligent, ἃ Leipzig.‘ In this manner I fell into. circumstances, 
in which [ became a prey to despair: being educated without 
fixed principles, with a character entirely unformed, without a 
friend, a guide, or adyiser, I cannot, at this moment, understand, 
how 1 could possibly endure so helpless a condition. What urged 
me on in. the world, was not ambition, or ἃ youthful imagination, 
or wisk, that I might-one day be ranked among the learned. I was 
incessantly haunted by the painful consciousness of my forlom 
situation, of the want of a good education and manners, and of my 
awkward behaviour in social intereourse. That which operated 
most strongly upon: me was 6 spirit of defiance against my 


τὰ This is added from ἃ note of Mr. Heeren. 7 
TOL, X1X. Cl. Jl. ΝΟ, XXXVII. Κ 


146 Life of Heyne. 


ill fortune. This gave me courage not to yield; but fo risk 
every thing in the struggle against adversity. I miet,-in thes 
difficulties, with one compassionate soul, the poor maid-servant, 
who waited upon the persons in the house. She laid out her 
money for the necessaries [ wanted, and paid for my daily bread, 
‘risking all she had in order to prevent me from starving. Oh! 
could [ find thee now, still in this world, thou kind and compa 
-sionate soul, that 1 might compensate thee for what thou didst for 
me! It was towards the end of the first year of my stay at Leipzg 
that I was introduced to Professor Christ. As his lectures were 
not much attended, it was easy to find admittance. This gentleman 
had some taste for elegance: my exterior was not calculated to 
‘recommend me ; but he nevertheless allowed me to call upon him. 
~ He would sometimes converse with me, and give me some lessons 
.on social subjects, at others supply me witha book, and permit 
‘me to sit in one of his apartments. I became sensible that | 
wanted plan and method : he encouraged me to foHow the example 
of Scaliger, and tu read the ancients in succession, so as to begin 
with the earliest authors, and thus to proceed downward. .Hero- 
dotus was the first that was takenin hand. How little such a plan 
of reading is suited to the course of studies which ought to be 
followed at a university is evident. I pursued it, however, fora 
considerable time, as far as I had an opportunity of borrowing the 
-books that were necessary; but so irrational was my zeal im 
reading, that for more than six months | allowed myself only two 
nights in the week to sleep, till at last I fell into a fever, from 
which I recovered with some difficulty. The lectures of Mr. 
Christ were a tissue of eccentricities of every kind, interspersed 
occasionally with excellent observations. I frequently needed only 
a few ideas that were thrown’ out in order to carry on the train. 
The case was widely different with Professor Ernesti, whose well- 
roportioned conciseness, accuracy, and niethod, observed: in his 
ectures, attracted me more and more. In the other lectures which 
I attended, no sort of plan was to be discerned. . 1 frequented the 
philosophical lectures of Winkler, though I had not money to pay 
-for them. The conduct prevalent there among ‘the young men was 
. SO nolsy and rude, and kept under so little restraint, that I was 
; disgusted, and staid away: but the beadle was sent to me some 
time after for the money, and I was compelled to find means of 
᾿ satisfying the demand. My distress in the mean time rose to the 
highest degree. I failed in every attempt to obtain some of those 
supports which are furnished.to.poor students ; I never succeeded 
im procuring .what is termed a free table, or an exhibition. The 
old clergyman left me for more than half a year without assistance ; 
he promised at last to come himself, but having come, he retuned 


Life of Heyne. 447 


without leaving me the smallest trifle. This expectation, which 
᾿ had been so long anxiously entertained, and was followed by dis- 
appointment, entirely overcame me: full of despair, [ sought for 
death. 1 φου]ᾷ seldom procure a meal, and frequently had not so 
much as a half-penny’s worth of bread for my dinner. In this 
situation, calculated to annihilate every remains of spirit and energy, 
I was one Sunday sent for by Professor Christ: he propased to 
. ame the place of a tutor io ihe family of a Mr. Haseler, in the 
. country of Magdeburg. This prospect, though it could not but 
appear very fortunate in some respects, embarrassed and depressed 
me in others. I had not been two years at Leipzig, and could hardly 
Consider my studies as begun, much less as ended. I saw that [ 
was ruined fur ever by so imperfect a state of my knowledge. An 
agitating conflict arose in my mind which kept me in. suspense fos 
several days; and to this moment I cannot comprehend whence ἃ 
took courage to decide, that I would refuse the offer, and pursue 
my career at Leipzig. Several weeks elapsed, and 1 was often 
assailed by regret, when Ernesti sent for me, aud offered me the 
Situation of a tutor in. the family of a French merchant at Leipzig.” 
Here ends the original narrative, and I shall now continue the 
history from other data. The French family alluded to was that 
of a M. Sechehaie. He accepted the proposal, but continued in 
that situation only a short time: his circumstances were not 
ameliorated, and Le frequently endured the greatest distress. His 
_ resources were some lessons, which he gave to different persons, 
but which were not sufficient to procure.for him a comfortable, or 
even a tolerable existence. After having passed his time hitherto 
in general studies, it was necessary to fix upon some profession by 
which he was to gain his future livelihood ; and he chose the law. 
‘Though he was by no means negligent in this pursuit, yet his mind 
was not exactly adapted to it; it was already too much imbued 
with a love for classical literature to acquiesce readily in the com- 
paratively barren and unjnteresting employment of .a.lawyer.. He 
ad, however, the good fortune of meeting with a very intelligent 
lestructor, one of the law-professors, Mr. Bach ; and from him he 
derived much useful knowledge of the ancient Roman law, which 
he found subsequently of great advantage in his studies of anuquity : 
but when the time arrived that he was to close. bis career as a 
student, and enter practically upon some mode of life, his.embar- 
Tassment was great. He had to make lis election between the 


τ᾿ Mr. Heeren remarks on this passage, that Heyne always retained a dis- 
like to the situation of a tutor, and scarcely ever advised any person to enger 
it, unless compelled by necessity. I kaow this also frogs my own inter- 
course with him. | ‘ 


148 Life of Heyne. 


Situation of an advocate or attorney, and a private lecturer in the 
university; the latter with a view to be at some future time ap- 
puinted to a professorship. But neither of these prospects was 
satisfactory. In-the mean while, distress and want continued to 
press upon him, and he seemed to be shut out from every hope, 
when a trifling occurrence threw a faint gleam upon Ins despos- 
dency. The clergyman of the French protestant church at Leip- 
zig, with whom Heyne had been acquainted, died, and Heyne wrote 
a Latin elegy, in which he expressed his grief at the loss of his 
friend, and the sentiments of regard which he entertained for him. 
This elegy was not intended for publication, but being read by 
many friends, it became more generally known, and the: members 
of the French church wishing to honour the memory of their mimis- 
ter, ordered it to be printed in a very handsome manner. Εἰ hap- 
ed that it fell under the eye of the powerful prime minister of 
axony, (Count Briihl,) who, being an admirer of whatever-was 
splendid, and at the same time a collector of books and literary 
productions, was attracted by the fine typography of the elegy, and 
condescended to enquire after the author; he even expressed a 
wish to know him, and to take him into his service. The fortune 
of the young man now seemed to be certain, since that powerfel 
minister, to whose influence every thing in the country was sub 
ject, had deigtied to take notice of him. There was not a friend of 
‘Heyne who did not advise him to remove from Leipzig to Dresden, 
and cultivate the patronage of that great man. He arrived im the 
latter town on the 14th of April, and had soon after the good for 
tune of being presented to Count Briihl, who received him civilly, 
but dismissed him with general and vague promises. ‘This was 
the first time he had had an opportunity of approaching what is 
called a great man, and it does not seem to have left a favourable 
impression on his mind. Nothing proceeded from the promises 
with which he had been flattered, and he was again entirely thrown 
wpon his own resources, Destitute of friends, money, or credit, 
in a atrange place, he was again assailed by distress and misety: 
for a little time he warded them off by a temporary appointesent 
es tutor to a young Saxon nobleman; but this connexion did not 
Jastlong. After having sold whatever he could spare, he actually 
suffered hunger, and was not unfrequently reduced to the: necessity 
of collecting pea-shells that had been thrown away in order to- boil 
them for a meal. He had no lodging ; and when a young man 
who had known him at Leipzig allowed him to share his-epartapent, 
-he .was obliged, for want οὔ ἃ bed, to sleep on the floor, having 
nothing but a few books for his pillow. Thus he dragged on his 
Fxisteroe ull towards the autumn of the year 1753, when, after 
uch solicitation, he at last succeeded in obtaining the apponst- 


Life of Heyne. 149 


ment of a clerk m Count Brihl’s library, with a salary of about 
18 or 19 pounds sterling (100 rixdollars) per annum. On this 
pittance it was impossible to subsist, apd every sort of expedient 
was necessarily resorted to to alleviate ti¢,pressing wants to which 
he was from time to time exposed. Ampng them was that of be- 
coming author. He sommenced with {ranslating, and his first 
essay was the version of a French novel ( Le Soldat parvenu) into 
‘German, for which he got about four pounds. 
_. Ip the same’ year (1753) he published a German translation of 
the Greek novel of Chariton, which had, not many years before, 
been edited by Dorville. His mind, recovering by such employ- 
ment its natural elasticity, soon fixed upon othér undertakings: in 
the field of classical literature. Necessity combined with incli- 
nation; and in the year 1755 appeared the first edition of his 
' Jibullus, dedicated to his supposed patron, Count Brihl.* The 
‘remuneration which he received from the. bookseller, for this work, 
scarcely amounted to twenty pounds. His taste for poetry had 
been chiefly formed by Emesti, and among the Latin poets there 
was none that charmed him more than Tibullus. ‘This predilection 
be retained even in his advanced life. In this edition he, gave the 
first specimen of that peculiarity which subsequently distinguished 
bim so much from other editors and commentators. He tuok an 
enlightened and intelligent view of his author, which showed that it 
was not the object of classical learning merely to grovel among 
words, phrases, and grammatical subtleties; but to understand the 
sense and meaning, and to enter into the spirit of the writer, and 
justly to comprehend his thoughts and sentiments, as well as to feel 
and appreciate his beauties, was that to which the attention of a 
rational scholar ought to be principally directed. ‘This was placing 
the classics, and especially the poets, in a very different light from 
that in which the pedantry of many of his predecessors had con- 
‘templated them. ‘That edition, however, did not, at least in Ger- 
many, attract much notice, though, as will be seen hereafter, it had 
made elsewhere a great impression. ‘The noble patron, to whom 
it was dedicated, did not deign to bestow upan it any _mark of . 
favor. Shortly after, he conceived the project of publishing an 
edition of Epictetus, which was suggested by a manuscript of that 
author, in the Electoral Library at Dresden: this manuscript he 
collated, and at the same time began eagerly to study the precepts 
of the Greek philosopher. Without adopting the stoic system, he 
derived from its lessons, and the salutary remarks scattered through 


- * The title of this edition is, “ Albii Tibulli, qua exstant, Carmina πυρὶ 
curis castigata, Ilustrissimo Comiti de Brihl inscripte. . Lipsiea, 17550” 


150 | Life of Ieyne. 


it, much excellent and useful instruction fur the practical pur- 
poses of life, which often proved beneficial in the hour of trial and 
difficulty. ‘The edition made its appearance in the year 1766. 
Though he devoted himself chiefly to classical studies, he did not 
overlook modern literaftite. He had some knowledge of the 
French and English latignages, and read such authors of these 
nations as he met with in the minister's library: among them were 
Montesquieu and Locke. | 

It was about this time (in the year 1756), that he became ac- 
quainted with a man, then obscure and unknown, but whose literary 
fame afterwards attained the highest degree of admiration. This 
person was the celebrated JoHN WINKELMANN, who, in no 
better circumstances than Heyne, was nevertheless, with an enter- 
prising mind, meditating a journey to Italy, in order to give seope 
to his ardent desire of searching the fields of antiquity. He fre- 
quently visited the library where Heyne was engaged, being then 
in a course of reading preparatory to his joumey. Heyne’s situ- 
ation, notwithstanding the exertions he had made, was not essen- 
tially ameliorated, his means remaining inadequate even to a scanty 
subsistence: but now a public calamity threatened entirely to 
overwhelm him: the war, afterwards known by the name of the 
Seven Years’ War, broke out, and Saxony was invaded by a hostile 
army. As all the public resources became a prey to the invader, 
those also, from which he derived his limited support, failed ; his 
little salary ceased to be paid. In these embarrassments he for- 
tunately met with an offer to instruct a young gentleman of a noble 
family, and under this protection he was enabled for some time to. 
live. It was here that he first saw a young female, who lived as 
companion with the lady of the house, and who afterwards became 
his wife. Of this period of his life, which to him was‘always most 
interesting, we have again Heyne’s own narrative, which I will not 
hesitate to communicate in a translation. It begins with an ac- 
count of the young person alluded to, whose name was - Miss 
Theresa Weiss: she was the daughter of a musician, belonging to 
the King of Poland’s, or Elector of Saxony’s, band, in Dresden. 
She had also experienced the vicissitudes of fortune, and at last 
found shelter with the noble lady of whom we have spoken. 
Heyne then proceéds thus : “| 

“ Already, in the year 1756, Saxony, and especially the edurt, 
were reduced to great extremities. I found myself, being poor, 
and disappointed in my hopes and expectations, exposed to the 


ee 
- Under this title: “ Epicteti Enchiridion ; ad fidem Cudd. MSS. εὐσεβὴς αὶ 
_ Che. G. Heyne. Lipsia,.1756.” f ων 


Life of. Ηεγπε.. 151 


most trying want, when the little salary, which I derived from my 
situation in Count Briihl’s library, was withheld. From a proud | 
and manly feeling, I attempted for a long time every expedient, : 
which chance or my industry suggested, to relieve the most urgent 
necessities. It happened, that an employment presented itself, : 
which, more than any other thing, served to steel my. spirit against : 
adversity ; I allude to the edition of Epictetus, which appeared - 
this year (1756): it removed the pressure of immediate distress, 88. 
Tibullus had done the year before, and soothed the hardship of my 
circumstances. Mr. Rabner (a well-known author in Germany). 
happened to know me; and being requested to recommend a 
person to a young gentleman, who had just left school, as tutor or. 
preceptor, proposed me: I acquiesced in the proposal, thougl:.it 
did not suit my inclination ; but the prospect of the times, under the 
probability of a continued war, was so discouraging, that 1 had not 
the resolution to decline the offer. It was on the 10th of October, 
1757, that I first entered the house of Schénberg. What a crowd 
of misfortunes was 1 yet destined to encounter! and at the same ; 
time, how wonderfully was the fate of my future life determined by . 
this step! How could I have supposed that at that moment Provi- 
dence had fixed the lot of my happiness! I was ushered into a 
room, where I found several ladies engaged in cheerful and friendly . 
conversation. Madame de Schénberg (the sister of my intended 
pupil) had not been long married, but her husband happened.to be 
absent, and she was on the point of setting out to join him at 
Prague, where he was detained by business. ‘Upon her countenance 
beamed the pure inuocence of youth ; in her eyes shone the soft. 
and serene aspect of gladsome spring; a smiling and lovely ex- 
pression marked every word she uttered; she appeared to be ons. 
of those pure and uncorrupted souls, which seem to have come into 
the world unchanged from the hand of a kind Creator: the. affection. 
which she bore to her brother, did not permit her to receive me, as 
a total stranger, with indifference. By her side stood another lady, 
tall and well made, with a countenance not marked. with regular 
features, but full of expression: her conversation, her looks, and 
every movement, inspired respect ; but respect of a different kind. 
from that which is felt for rank and birth. Good sense and good 
feelings were manifested in all she said, and you forgot that you. 
might have desired more beauty or more. of the softer graces ; you: 
felt yourself attracted by something noble, something pensive and. 
serious, and by something decided and resolute, which appeared in 
her looks and deportment, and claimed your regard and esteem.: 
Such was Theresa, who, at first sight, inspired me with more than. 
esteem. Her endeavours to relieve my embarrassment, occasioned 
by a sense of my lowliness, and to entertain me by her conversation,: 


158 Life of Heyne. 


in the midst of persons among whom I was ἃ total stranger, made 
a particular impression ‘upon me. Her own heart reminded her 
how much the unfortunate stand in need of encouragement, es- 
pecially when they approach those, from whom they would claim 
ion. This kindness of disposition, which represented her 
to me asa consoling angel among her fellow-creatures, filled me 
with regard and tenderness towards her: she even became my bene- 
factress; for twice I received money from an unknown hand, 
which greatly relieved my circumstances. 1 began my duty wih 
my pupil on the 14th of October, and did not see her again till the 
following spring, when she returned with her friend from Prague; 
but then also 1 only saw her once or twice, as she was going with 
Madame de Schénberg into the country, to a place in U 
Lusatia: my pupil and I were to follow in a few days.  antici- 
pated with youthful joy the pleasures of a country life, the charms 
of which had hitherto formed many a happy dream. [I still-re- 
member the day of our departure, the 6th of May. The society 
of two women of minds so well formed and cultivated, who deserved 
to be ranked among the best of their sex, and the desire to obtain 
their esteem, contributed not a little to improve my character. 
Nature and religion were subjects of my daily meditation : E-lad 
down rules and principles for the conduct of my life, of which I 
had never thought before, and topics of this kind furnished matter 
for our conversation. The beauty of nature, and the retirement, 
which I enjoyed, exalted those feelings to a degree of innecent 
and pious enthusiasm. I was not aware that Theresa’s friendshi 
for me had changed to the more ardent sentiments of love, tho 
she was herself conscious of it. This cast a gloom or melancho 
over her temper, which was naturally disposed to be grave and 
serious ; and the hours of conversation, which had been wont to be 
cheerful, frequently became thoughtful and solemn. I observed 
particularly that, when our conversation turned upon religion, her 
dejection encreased : I perceived that she was more assiduous in 
her devotion, and found her sometimes by herself weeping. and 
praying with an unusual fervor. In the month of November we 
returned to Dresden; but the dangers arising from the war oc- 
casioned a new separation; for she left Dresden together with her 
friend. My pupil was gone before to the university of Wittenberg, 
where his uncle, a colonel in the army, resided. I was thus for 
some time left to myself; it was then thought advisable that I yet 
should continue for a while with my pupil ; I therefore proceeded 
on the Ist of January to Wittenberg, where I passed a year, prose- 
cuting my studies, with greater advantage than I had done before. 
I particularly attended to Philosophy .and German history. Du- 
ring dus time, a correspondence was kept up with Theresa, which, - 


Esfe of Heyne. , 158 


on her part, was often strongly tinctured with enthusiasm and 
melancholy, as she had lately lost.ber mother. In the first months 
of the following year (1760) the troubles of the war.rendered our 
stay at Wittenberg unsafe. We fied several times into the country, 
and thus escaped with difficulty from the bombardment of Witten- 
berg, of which we were near spectators : that town being reduced 
toa heap of stones, my pupil could not return to it: he was sent 
to Erlengen, thence to Gottingen: I remained in Dresden. The- 
resa had retired with Madame de Schénberg into..Lasatia, in order 
to:avoid the approaching dangers of the war, and left her gouds in 
my care, which 1 had accordingly conveyed to my lodgings. In 
the mean time, the Prussians advanced, and on the 18th.of July 
Dresden began to be bombarded. I passed several nights with 
other persons in the cellar; im the day-time I staid in- my room, 
hearing the balls from the batteries whizzmg by my window, as 
they swept through the streets. An indiffesence about danger and 
about life had so entirely taken possession of me, that on the last 
day I laid myself down in my bed, and, overcame with weariness, 
slept undisturbed, under the most terrible nowe. of balls and shells, 
till noon on the next day. When I awoke, I hastily put on m 

_ Clothes, and ran down stairs, but found the whole house deserted. 
I retumed to my room, and considered what was to be done; 
whither to remove my effects, when a bomb fell with the most 
dreadful crash into the court-yard, destroying every thing around it, 
though it caused no conflagration. The thought, that where one 
bomb had found its way others might follow, gave me wings; I 
leapt-down the stairs, and finding the door of the house locked, 
to my great embarrassment, entered one of the lower rooms, whieh 
happened to be open, and jumped from the window into the street. 
The street, where 1 lived, was abandoned and desolate, but tiie 
great streets were crowded with people wlo were seeking theiy 
safety in flight. I ran along, while the balls were flying about me, 
through Castle-street, towards the bridge, then over the 
Elbe, te the New-town, from which the Prussians had been forced 
to retire. I was glad to rest myself in a house, upon the stones, 
and there paseed a part of the night : | then went to see the awful 
spectacle of the bombardment, and of the burning town. . At daye 
break, the Austrian guard at the gate opened the postern to allow 
the fugitives to quit the town; the insolent officer, who was on 
duty, called as Lutheran dogs, and with this salutation he gave every 
one who passed through the postern a slap or blow. I found my- 
self now in the open Feld; but whither to turn was the question. 
Having hurried away from my habitation, in the urgeacy of tersor, 
J bad taken nothing with me, not even a y of money. I had 
merely, as | was going, taken from the cellar where I was wont to 


154 Lsfe of Teyne. 


the night, and which belonged to an Italian, a fur cloak which 
saw: lying there; this 1 flung about me, and walked with it οἱ. 
one of the most sultry days across the heath on my way to A¢ns- 
_ dorf, the place where Madame de Schénberg was with Theresa.. 
I walked in the greatest heat nearly 20 miles through a barren and 
desolate country, and at last accomplished my journey, by the 
assistance of a returning postillion, who allowed me to ride for 
some distance on one of his horses: the whole day [ heard the 
firing, to which unhappy Dresden was exposed, re-echoing from: 
the mountains. Curiosity, on the part of the inhabitants of 
fEnsdorf, at first seemed to render my visit very acceptable ; ~but 
when 1 appeared in the character‘of a helpless fugitive, who re- 
quired support and assistance, | perceived that my presence was 
likely:to be considered as a burden, and I received no invitation to 
stay. After some days the opportunity of a conveyance, by means 
of a waggon, offered, and I took my leave, having been provided 
with some old linen. Poor Theresa suffered much at seeing me: 
thus treated; but her excellent friend, Madame de Schénberg, had it 
not in her power to act towards me according to her own disposition. 
I now felt how unfortunate I was; but I still bade defiance to my 
ill-fortune, and began my journey. I stopt for a short time with 
a Madame de Fletscher, at Neustadt, on my way, and then availed 
myself of the first opportunity to return to Dresden: there remained 
a possibility that my habitation might have been preserved. With 
a heavy heart, I saw Dresden; and hastening to the place where 
my dwelling had stood, found it burnt to the ground.’ I took 
shelter in the Briihl library, which was empty: a succession of 
misfortunes had befallen the. valuable collection which it formerly 
contamed. At the breaking out of the war, the best specimens of 
old prints and. the most valuable works.were secured m a subter- 
raneous vault; the remainder of the. books was sent to Hamburg 
in pledge for a sum of money that had. been borrowed.. Some 
chests: of books were lost on their passage down the Elbe, others 
were opened in the Prussian custom-houses and the contents scat- 
tered. Through the vault some pipes were conducted, belonging 
to the artificial water-works. When Dresden was bombarded, the 
building, which stood over the-vault, was a particular mark for the 


¥ 


1 Mr. Heeren remarks, that all his effects and papers, together with the 
property of Theresa, which had been entrusted to him, were destroyed ; 
all he had collécted for Epictetus and Tibullus was lost. This loss he 
seems to have very poignantly regretted. Among his papers, at his death; 
was found a memorandum written in pencil, on the 6th of August, :1760, 
under the pressure of calamity, in these words; .“ My idols are. broken 3 
they are destroyed: Now I care fornothing in this world!” __ 


Life of Heyne. 155 . 


enemy’s artillery; and thus it happened that some of the -water-' 
pipes were injured ; hence, when at the conclusion of the war, the 
books were to be brought out of the vault, it was found that they: 
were almost dissolved by the water, and rotten. Another portion 
of the library bad been deposited in a certain strong built stone 
house. The very first shell fell into this building, and the whole, 
with every thing in it, was consumed by the flames. In addition 
to all this, a personal mortification awaited me when I returned to: 
Dresden: my colleague at-the library had been reprimanded by: 
the minister for having quitted Dresden at the approach of danger.: 
This person did not know how to free himself from this embarrass- 
ment but by fixing the neglect of which he had been guilty, touching: 
the removal of the books, which were burnt, upon me ; and I was 
like to have been brought to a trial before a court of justice. 
The danger of war again approached Dresden in this year (1760): 
every body took to flight. In the winter, however, Theresa re- 
turned to Dresden: she bore the loss of her property with forti- 
tude ; but to me it was extremely painful, that i had not been able 
to preserve what was confided to my care. ‘The agitations and | 
sufferings, to which she had been exposed, at last overpowered her ; 
she fell into a serious illness, and the physicians gave her over ; 

she received the last sacraments, according to. the rites of the 
᾿ Roman church, and having fainted away, she was supposed to: 
be dead ; when, ona sudden, it was reported, that she had come to: 
life agam. . Her strong. constitution had resisted. Her recovery 
was attended by the resolution to renounce the religion of her 
fathers. All representations which were made to. divert her from 
her purpose were in vain ; no consideration could shake her reso- 
lution ; her hopes lay beyond the grave. She received instruction 
mm the tenets of the protestant religion, and made. her confession on 
the SOth of May, in one of the Lutheran churches. I was filled 
with respect and admiration at the tranquillity and firmuess with 
which she executed her purpose, and still more at the courage with 
which she bore the consequences of this step: she saw herself ex- 
cluded from her family, abandoned by her acquaintances, and de-. 
ptived of her property by the war. Her courage elevated my own 
soul; I felt myself animated by a sense of duty towards her. I 
had imprudently, in the first time of our. acquaintance, by my con- 
versations, excited religious scruples in her -mind : her passion for 
me had created in her a tendency to enthusiasm, and had at the 
same time contributed to her melancholy ; even the unacknowledged 
thought of being more closely united with me by the bond of the. 
same religion had unconsciously influenced her. Under these im- 
pressions, I formed:a determination, which could not fail-ta expose 
me to the censure‘of the world, that of uniting my fate with hess. 


156 Life of Heyne. 


Qur union took place at AZasdorf, on the 4th of June, 178]. 
The generous support of some kind friends, especially οὗ Dr. Jaks, 
and Madame de Schénberg, for some time made gur situation 
tolerable. Towards the end of August.we returned. to Dresden. 
Alas, how many a day of anxiety and solicitude bad we to Coins 
Our cares were increased by the birth of our first son, who | 
born somewhat before his time, and in consequence very 
required incredible attention, An acquaintance, which I formed 
with a very worthy family, de Lében, procured us some comfort n 
the ensuing summer, and even some happy days. Mi. de Ldbea, 
who was afterwards chamberlain to the king of Poland and elector 
of Saxony, invited us to his country house, called Mangeledorf, in 
Upper Lusation, near Reichenbach. We set off in. May, and er 
joyed the delights of spring with feelings the.more gratifying, 
because the pressure of immediate care was removed. But soos 
the troubles of the war in Lusatia, and occurrences likewase. of 8 
private nature, recalled us to the reflection that. here on earth 
piness must not be expected to be of long continuance. As 
scenes of war came aearer, the Lében family left the country. 
The plate and valuables were concealed in one of the rooms, and 
the care of the house and the household was entrusted to .us, by 
which means I acquired some notions of the management of do- 
mestic concerns. In this situation we were alarmed by a visit froai 
some Cossacks (or, as we afterwards learnt, some Prussians in dis- 
guise): after having entered the cellars, they became intoxicated, 
and were proceeding to plunder the house. ‘They pursued me, and 
I fled up stairs, and seeing.no room open but that where my wife 
was with her infant, I entered it. She placed herself, with the child 
in her arms, courageously in the door, and opposed the robbera: 
this presence of mind saved me, and the treasure that was hiddea 
in the apartment. In the middle of November we came back ta 
, without any prospect. | ΕΞ 
I had now passed some years, almost without any books by 
which I could have enlarged my knowledge or learning, or eves 
. have maintained it. Mr. Lippert charged me with the compesition 
of the Latin text to the third thousand of his copies, or models, of 
ancient gems. I gained by this employment a hundred mxdollex 
(about 17 pounds): but I had some trouble to regain a faeility of 
writing Latin. After my return to Dresden, I heard that enquiry 
had been made after me from Hanover: | did not know why. 
But in December, the question was proposed to me, whether I 
should be inclined to go.to Gottingen, and accept the situation of 
Professor of classical literature, which had been vacated by the 
death of Gesner. [honestly wrote, in my answer to the Prime 
Mumister of Hanover, Baron de Miinchhausen, that mv studies 


| 


Life af Ηεψπε.' (187 


had been extremely interrupted, but that I hoped I might soon re- 
cover what [ had lost ; and if he would be satisfied with this assu- 
rance on my part, I would come. On the 14th of February 1 re- 
ceived the official appointment from Hanover; and on the 14th of 
March my dismission from Count Brihl.” 

Thus that active and useful career was opened to Heyne, m 
which he rendered such eminent services, not only. to the country 
to which he was called, but to every part of Europe, where an- 
cient literature and classical knowledge were cultivated. For it is 
not to be doubted that his writings, which were produced at Gat- 
tingen, not less than the numerous pupils he trained up im his 
school, had a very extensive influence upon those studies. It is 
worth while to relate the circumstances which occasioned Heyne’s 
removal to Gottingen. The professorship of classical literature, 
and the office of first librarian, had been filled by the celebrated 
Matthias Gesner; and when he died (August 4, 1761), the go- 
_ vernoment was looking out for a scholar, who might be worthy to 
succeed him. For it is the practice at the German universities, 
where the instruction depends chiefly on the lectures, which are 
delivered, to select the must able men that can be found, for the 
several professorships ; and there is a competition between the dif- 
ferent governments to draw to their respective universities the most 
distinguished individuals, to fill those situations, ‘The celebrity of a 
university, and the prosperity, which it attains, from a great num- 
ber of studerits, sometimes is attributable to the fame of two or 
three eminent men. It is, therefore, an object of ambition as well 
as of policy to the governments, to excel others, by the possession 
of such persons: and to the learned it is an essential advantage, 88 
in this manner their value is duly appreciated, and their merits re- 
warded. ‘There 15. frequently a sort of bidding for such an indi- - 
vidual, and the government that offers the best remuneration, is, 
of course, likely to gain him. It is rarely, that_iterest or favor 

cures a professorship, where qualifications alone are looked to : 
dad by this means those places are occupied by efficient men, who 
fairly earn their salaries, and render useful services to the state. 
The Minister Mimchhausen, who felt an anxious interest for the 
university, of Which he had himself been the founder, and from 
his fostering care might be called the father, speculated upon ἃ 
man, who might prove an ornament to that institution. He con- 
sulted Emesti, who not knowing any person in Germany answer- 
iug, in his opmion, to the description that was wanted, recom- 
mended Rhunkentus at Leiden, or Saxe at Utrecht. The Minis- 
ter ordered the offer to be made to the former, but. Rhuokenius, 
though a native of Germany, finding himself satisfactorily esta- 
blished in Holland, was unwilling to leave his adopted country. 


158 Life of Heyne. 


. After declining the offer, he proceeded, in his answer, in this mas- 
ner: ‘ Why do you look out of your country, for what yoor 
country amply affords? Why do you not fix upon Christian Gott 
lob Heyne, as successor to Gesner; a man of superior talents, and 
brought up in the school of Ernesti, who has shown, by his edi- 
tion of Tibullus, his knowledge of Latin literature, and,. by that 
of Epictetus, his skill in the Greek. This is, in my opinion, aad 
im the opinion of our illustrious Hemsterhuis, the only man who 
can supply the loss, which you have sustained by Gesner’s death. 
And let it not be said, that: Heyne’s fame is as yet not sufficiently 
great and splendid. ‘There is in this man, believe me, such a fund 
of genius and knowledge, that in a short time the whole of civilized 
Europe will resound with his praises.”* Such were. the sent- 
ments of the great Rhunkenius concerning Heyne, even at that 
time, when he had scarcely begun to develope his powers. The 
minister trusted in this judgment, and requested Ernesti to make 

- proposals to Heyne. Ernesti was somewhat surprised at seeing 2 
obscure an individual selected; for he had not-estimated his merits 
with so true an eye as Rhunkenius: but he immediately. made in- 
quiry after him, and negotiations were set on foot. - The terms 
were adjusted ; and the appointment being approved by his pre- 
sent majesty, as sovereign of .Hanover, bis nomination was off- 
cially made known to the university, by a rescript from Hanover, 
dated March 24, 1763, of which a copy was transmitted to Heyne; 
and he arrived at Gottingen on the 29th of June, in the same year. 

‘ The title of the Professorship, which was conferred upon him, 
was that of eloquence and poetry (eluguentia et potseos) ; but was 
in fact what we should call that of classical literature, though it 
also impcsed upon him the functions of public orator to the univer- 

sity.. Besides the professorship, the office of first brarian was 
destined for him. This charge had, after Gesner’s death, been 


1 The letter of Rhunkenius, which was addressed toa Mr. Jung, of Han- 
over, whom Miinchhausen had appointed to manage this correspondence, 
is so remarkable, that I will transcribe the passage above in the original 
words. The whole letter was.written in Latin, at that time the most gene 
ral instrument of communication between the learned. “ 864 quid est quod 
extra patriam quzratis, cujus patria copiam prebet? Cur non Gesnero sue- 
cessorem datis Christianum Gottlob Heynium, Ernestine discipline alum- 
num, excellenti virum ingenio, qui quanta Latinarum literarum preeditgs 

᾿ 811 scientia, edito Tibullo, quanta Gracarum, edito Epicteto ostendit. Hic 

mea et Hemsterhusii τοῦ πάνυ sententia unus est, qui Jacturam, quam Ges- 
neri morte fecistis, resarcire poterit. Nec est quod quis dicat, Heynii fe- 
mam nondum satis illustrem et pervagatam esse. Tanta, mihi crede, ja 
‘hoc 'viro ingenii et doctrine ubertas est, ut brevi omnis cultior Europa ejus 
laudes: eelebratura sit.” Epistola Rhunkenii ad Jungium. Lugduni Batavor. 
d. XVII. Octuob. 1762. . ᾿ 


Life of Heyne. 159 


provisionally committed to Michaelis, and when Heyne first came 
to Gottingen, the former was not very, willing to divest himself of 
‘the authority entrusted to him, and thwarted and opposed Heyne’s 
views, so as tu impede the projected improvements in the manage- 
ment of that institution. ‘That contention, however, did not last 
long ; for, before the expiration of the year (December 12, 1763,) 
‘Michaelis, taking offence at some decision of the government, 
which was contrary to his wishes, gave up his appointment; and 
Heyne was, from that date, the sole director of that remarkable 
establishment. The minister soon learnt to value the uncommon 
abilities, with which Heyne was endowed for the situation of libra- 
sian, and gave him full scope to exercise them. He had the en- 
‘ tire and sole management, and the minister readily sanctioned and 
supported what he proposed. By placing confidence in such a 
man, that great statesman knew-he should best promote the object 
he had in view. I will observe, m this place, that those two 
distinguished men, Michaelis and Heyne, who have both attained 
great fame in the literary world, never were upon any terms of cor- 
diality and friendship, though they lived for many years at the same 
place. Michaelis was capricious and arrogant, Heyne of an inde- | 
pendent spirit, that would not submit to the dictation of another. 
‘From the first, a jealousy arose between them, or to be more just 
in My expression, it arose on the part of the former ; and it con- 
tinued as long as they came in contact. ‘his, however, did not 
Jessen the respect which they could not help reciprocally entertain- 
ing for the literary merits of one another. Of this, Heyne has given 
‘a proof by the eulogium he pronounced on Michaelis, upon his 
death, in the year 1792, in one of the sittings of the Royal Society 
of Sciences at Gottingen.’ Miinchhausen’s expectations of Heyne’s 
exertions were most fully answered, in every department, in which 
he was engaged ; but his application to the business of the library 
was so close, and intense, that the minister repeatedly cautioned 
him, as is seen in his letters to Heyne, to which Mr. Heeren re- 
fers, not to carry his exertions so far, as to injure his health. He 
made an accurate survey of the library, and projected new Cata- 
logues. Heyne’s other occupations consisted in giving courses of 
lectures, of which presently more will be said; in writing program- 
mata for the different solemnities of the university ; in discharging 
the functions of public grator; in attending the sittings of the So- 
ciety of Sciences, and-taking his share im the review of-new publi- 
cations, which was~edited. under the auspices of the Society of 
Sciences. He-had éngaged in the translation of an English work, 
The Universal History, by Guthrie and Gray ; and the first volume 


* It is to be found in Vol. x. Commentatt, Soc. Gotting. 


160 Life of Heyne. 


of the translation appeared in the year 1765. It made al 
when finished, 7 vols. in Syo., the last of which came out in 1772 
The learning, acuteness, and diligence of the translator are te 
markable, and his translation is, in fact, a new work, highly us 
ful, and valuable for the accurate historical disquisitions 19 whick 
it abounds. 
In the year 1767 he published the first volume of his Virgil, the 
second came out in 1771, and the two last in 1775. ‘Thais is the 
first edition of that excellent production in philology. How ποιὰ 
it differs from the common workmanship of commentatogg and 
critics, I presume my readers will be competent to judge. ‘- . 
To say a few words on his lectures, to which 1 have before ab 
luded, may perhaps not be unacceptable. I have attended thea 
myself, and am perfectly acquainted with the purport. and objec 
of all. They formed a kind of classical cycle, or encycloped®, 
so that those, who had diligently attended them, and thé 
matters treated of, their own, might be said to have laid a goal 
foundation of classical learning. They consisted partly in th 
reading and interpreting of classic authors, and partly i ¢ 
systematic or scientific survey of the leading subjects of ancient 
literature. ‘These subjects were Greek and Roman antiquitia, 
and Greek and Roman literature. The Antiquities were oak 
culated to give an insight into the customs, manners, and ἂν 
stitutions of the ancients, and the Literatures, as they were: 
called, afforded a view of the origin, rise, progress, and declim 
of letters among the Greeks and Romans, together with an ae 
count of their works, as we possess them, and the editions thet 
have been published of them, in modern times. It may be com 
ceived, how much useful information was communicated, im treat 
ing of these topics, by a man like Heyne, so intimately familie 
with them, and who viewed every thing with a comprehensiva, 
acute, and clear perception: how the mind of the young scholar 
was opened by such instruction, and how completely he might be 
initiated in the mysteries of ancient lore, if he possessed enongh of 
natural ability, and of diligence and application, to profit by whet 
was placed in his reach. ‘These lectures, on antiquity and litera 
ture, formed four courses, each course occupying the space of six 
months, or a semiestre, as they call it at Gottingen, at the rate of 
five bours a week, that is to say, one hour each day, in the week, 
with the exception of Saturday and Sunday. ‘lhe hour appointed 
for them, which never varied, duriug Heyne’s life, was from twe 
to three in the afternoon. One course was read evefy belf 3 
it therefore took twu years to complete the circle, I do not know. 
to which of these four courses to give the preference, they ware 
all equally interesting and instructive. ‘That on Roman Antiqui: 


Life of Heyne. | 161 


ties: was remarkable for the accurate knowledge of the ancient Ro» 
man law, which was displayed in it, and which made it.partiou- 
larly interesting to students in jurisprudence. [1 may be remem- 
bered, that Heyne, at one period of ‘his life, had fixed apon the 
law as his profession ; and the lectures on Roman antiquities re- 
tained a tincture of his legal studies, but so tempered with classi-. 
cal taste, as to. be no less palatable than useful to the general scho- 
ler. In the-Grecian antiquities he wes deeply versed, ahd pos-. 
sessed the most accurate information both of the ancient history, 
and the manners and institutions of that country. His reading had: 
constantly led him in that direction, and many of his learned re- 
searches lay in that department. His views of the different subjects 
cogaprehended under those heads were often new and striking, 
and very different from the usual mode of regarding them. The - 
observations and criticisms upon the literary productions .of those 
two ancient nations, m the two other courses of lectures, on 
Greek.and Roman literature, it may easily be imagined, were in 8 
lngh degree valuable, and comparatively not inferior in merit to. 
the former. Many a hint has been derived from those lectures, 
which subsequently has been productive of benefit to the cause of 
learning, through the medium of his scholars. I have said, that 
the hour from two to three in the afternoon was occupied with 
these lectures; I have only to add, that to the same hour was 88- 
signed the exposition of Horace, of which the Odes occupied half 
ayear, and the Satires another: so that the two o'clock lecture 
moved through a circle of three years. ‘The succession of the 
several courses varied. Another series of lectures was that at five 
in the. evening, which was set apart for a select number of auditors, 
and solely destined for the explanation of Greek authors. Homer, 
and Pindar, and a selection from other writers, alternately filled 
these Courses ; that is to say, one half year, at the rate of five hours 
a week,. was given up to Homer, another half year to Pindar, and 
80 to the rest. Of Homer, the Iliad was generally chosen : indeed, 
m my time, I do not recollect that the Odyssey was ever read, 
though I have heard from others, that it had formed the subject of 
that lecture. Two hours a week, in the morning from eleven to 
twelve, were generally devoted to the elucidation of some Latin 
works,. such as Cicero’s rhetorical writings, Extracts from Pliny’s 
Natural History, and others. But one course of lectures yet de- 
serves particular mention: it was denominated Archaojogy, and 
had for its object the illustration of the works of ancient art, espe- 
cially sculpture, because under this most of the remains: of antiqui- 
ty are comprehended. Heyne was naturally endowed with great 
taste both for poetry and the arts ; and he had become. acquainted 
VOL, XIX. Cl, Jl. NO. XXXVII. L. 


162 Esfe of Heyne. 


with the latter, first perhaps by having had an opportunity of see 
ing some of their productions at Dresden, but more 80 uifterwards, 
when he came to Gottingen, by his ‘attention to every thiitg ὑπ 
was written on the art of the ancients. ΑΔ a contemporery d 
John Winkelmann, it was impossible for him, possessed of euch s 
mind, to have passed by those objects with indifference. Bu 
that study fell in likewise with his general pursuits, and added nev 
charms to his classical o¢capations. After he had made bimef 
master of this subject, it was easy for him to give it such a forms 
to render it a source of instruction to others. ‘These lectures « 
the remains of ancient art, (or Archeology, as they were riot vey 
properly called,) opened to the young student a ttew field of know 
edge, by which his ideas were enlarged beyond the ordinary limit; 
and his taste awakened. ‘They were read only in summier, from 
eight to nine in the morning, six days In the week; and the 
library served for the lectuse-room, because it contained all te 
printed works that related to ancient art, and likewise sevnl | 
casts of antique statues. Many persons have visited ‘Italy wih 
greater advantage, having attended these lectures. They’ wet 
prepared for what they had to see, and had acquired notions,: whid 
might serve as the basis of a correct judgment. Having gi 
this sketch of Heyne’s different lectures, I must remark that sud 
they were in my time, in 1790, and the following years: such te 
were before and after that period. - But itis not to be supposed, 
that they attained that form immediately after Heyne came 
Gottingen ; they acquired it by degrees; but for'a long sutcesm 
of years they thus were the means of the inost valuable instructio 
There perhaps hardly ever was a teacher, whose léssons produced 
more benefit. : mo 
As an instructor of youth, we have still to consider ‘him ih & 
other situation. There is an institution at Gdttingen ‘called Sent 
narium Philologicum, which is under the pafticular ‘care and & 
section of the classical professor. It consists of niné young mes, 
recommended to government for nomination, by the ‘prefessor; 
who are to be particularly instructed by him in classical Tearsting: 
‘They have a kind of exhibition, or small salary, from-the gover 
ment, and are considered as the professor’s pupils, in the stricted 
sense. ‘There is no distinction made either as to country or rak; 
but whosoever among the students of the university presents hit 
self to the professor, as a votary of classical literature, has 9 chance 
of being admitted into that number, if there is:'a probability. that 
he will, from his abilities and acquirements, become 4 ‘creditable 
member. The time fixed for remaining in the seminary as ἃ regw 
lar member, is two years; but these two years are, generally, pre 
ceded by a year of trial, and no objection would be made to a per 


Life of Heyne. 164 


son’s continuing to attend beyond that period, though he would be 
no longer entitled to the salary: This, however, is so small, that 
it is no object to any one; and it is fair, that the time of belonging 
to the aeminary should be limited, in order to afford the opportu- 
nity of profiting by it to a greater number of individuals; As Mr. 
Heyne improved every institution at Gattingen, with which he 
had any concern, so did this, in particular, experience bis attention 
and fostering care; and it became, under his management, the 
school, from which the most distinguished scholars in Germany. 
issued. ‘Chere was no man, that better understood how to develop. 
‘the faculties of a young mind, to exercise its abilities, and to in- 
spire it witha laudable ambition. In these young men Heyne. 
took a. peculiar interest; he was to them a father, and never lost 
sight of their welfare and success in life. - As he knew them more 
Intimately than any others, he could judge for what situations’ 
they were calculated; and he never failed to exert his mfluence in: 
placing them, where they might be most useful, when an appor- 
tunity occurred of recommending them. For many a valuable 
member of society, Germany was indebted to his exertions. These. 
Seminarists, as they were called, attended all those lectures, which 
have been described ; but, besides, they had, from their appoint- 
ment, the benefit of his particular instruction. ‘They met twice a: 
week, under his auspices, and were practised by him in inter-. 
preting Greek and Latin authors, and in the discussion of classical 
subjects, which latter was denominated disputation. ‘The semi~ 
narists wrote, in succession, treatises in the Latin language, and 
these were submitted to argumentation. ‘The author chose one of 
his fdlow seminarists for his opponent, and the latter exercised his 
critical powers on the composition of the respondent, whose efforts 
were required in defending what he had written, against the attacks 
of his adversary. This controversy was carried on in Latin, ‘and 
had the advantage of affording the practice of speaking that lan- 
gaage, in which many of the young men arrived at great reatliness 
and perfection. Heyne himself spoke it with ἃ fluency and cor- 
yectness, which was not surpassed, if equalled, by that of his native 
tongue. Indeed so familiar and intimate was his acquaintance with 
the Latin language, that, in the opinion of many, he possessed 
more command over it, and .a greater facility of expressing his 
ideas, than he did. over the German. Speaking Latin, which 1s 
not ἃ comnron practice in England, is very usual among the learned 
in Germany, especially those who employ themselves in classical 
literature ; and in the days of Heyne, it was perhaps still more 
current, than now : though even at the present time many persons 
will be found in that country, who would be as willing to enter into 
a Latin discourse, as they would be to converse in German. With 


164 Life of Heyne. 


as little trouble Latin prose is written, and both Heyne and may 
of his pupils possessed t the ability of committing their thoughts to 
paper in that language, with the same case and expedition, with 
which they would havé rendered them in German. at these x 
uirements were very desirable for a classical scholar, is not-to ke 
denied. For if one of his objects were to arrive at a thorong : 
knowledge of the Latin tongue, the three roads, which lead to 
ect attainment of any language, reading, writing, and spelt 
ing, were fairly opened before him. In Greek the practice ws 
confined to reading alone, as it is almost every-where, thought 
_ would have been an invaluable addition to the system -of instre- 
tion, if the two other means of becoming familiar with a lenge 
_ or at least writing, had been equally attended to as in Latm. 
error of not applying to the learuing of the Greek language th 
three expedients, which are necessary for the complete mastery d | 
" apy language, has always prevailed, and is‘the cause, that fer 
sons pretend to the same intimacy with the Greek as with t& 
Patin language. Were I to advise, or to conduct, the instructia 
in the former, I should, as I would do with every language, isa 
not only on the practice of reading, or construing, but also a 
writing and speaking. For though the two last exercises dow 
aim at any direct use, that is to be made of them, im. our int 
course with others, yet they have that indirect and most imports 
effect, of ushering the student into the interior of the edifice, wl 
enabling him to understand accurately its form and structure. . He, 
merely reads a language, knows only the outside of the but 
gg; but if he were taught to construct something similar himed, 
he might be presumed to be perfectly acquainted with its wh 
fabric. If, therefore, a complete acquaintance with # language 
desired, those three modes of acquiring it must be employed ; af 
the knowledge of it will be more or less perfect in proportion # 
they are more or less practised. Ὁ 
ut to return to the topic from which I digressed, I have # 
observe, that it was not only the advantage of writing and 
Latin, which rendered the disputations of the seminarigts: bent 
cial to them, it was frequently also the subject of what they μοὶ 
written,.and the remarks from their preceptor, to which it 
nse, either expressly or incidentally, which proved usefal and ® 
structive. It frequently happened, that an opportunity theoce 
arose for encouraging his pupils, for giving an impulse to ther 
minds, and pointing out a way, on which they afterwards pro- 
ceeded with success. If any thing was wanting, it was. metr 
᾿ exercises both in Latin and Greek; a subject that is in. Gesmany 
too little regarded. But to neglect the exercise of poetical .com 
Position, is certainly a defect: For though it may be asserted, # 


Life of Heyne. 165 


it frequently is, that there is no use in writing Latin or Greek 
-verse, yet this will be admitted by the intelligent scholar under a 
‘very strict modification. He may allow that no immediate practi- 
-cal use results from it: but he will maiotaip that, as far as a com- 
prehensive knowledge of the language is desired, by which is signi- 
fied, that we should completely understand the authors we read, 
in every detail of their composition, and be capable of judging of 
-the manner in which they wrote, that prosody is not to be neglect- 
-ed: that we cannot read a poet as he ought to be read, nor be 
‘sensible of the art which he employs, if we are not conversant 
with quantity and metre. It is the difference between a person 
that possesses the theory of music, and him who 1s totally ignorant 
of it: the latter may be pleased and charmed with a tune, ora 
concert; but his enjoyment cannot be compared with that of 
. the former, who not only is gratified by the effect of the art, but 
knows also how to esteem it from the skill with which its mecha- 
nism is conducted. It is necessary to be familiar with that me- 
-chanism, if we would rightly perceive its operation, and be sensible 
οὗ the beauties which it is calculated to produce. To those, 
therefore, who profess to read poets as well as prose writers, an 
. acquaintance with all the first principles, that constitute poetry, is 
as needful as the grammatical rudiments are for the right under- 
standing of prosaic composition. It is surprising, however, that 
a truth so palpable should escape the regard, to which it is en- 
titled. For prosody and metre should, generally, form a part of 
the elementary instruction in every language, in which the readmg 
of its authors is a principal object: but we find it neglected in our 
native language, in which, if the young mind is prepared, by 
᾿ grammatical studies, for an introduction to its literature, the me- 
chanical details of poetical composition are hardly ever considered, 
much less practised. If this particular had been comprehended, 
together with the writing of Greek, in the system of Heyne’s in- 
. struction, it would have been perfect; but even with those blanks, 
its excellence has been acknowledged by every one who has been 
acquainted with it, and particularly felt by those, whose good for- 
tune it was to reap the full benefit of it. This fell to the lot of 
all who were Heyne’s scholars, and of those in particular, who 
were more strictly his pupils, that is, the members of the Philolo- 
ical Seminary. To have belonged to this number will always be 
- recollected by me with satisfaction, as I shall never cease to vene- 
rate the memory of Mr. Heyne, with the feelings of a grateful 
heart. When 1 have stated, that in Heyne’s institution some 
things were wanting, it is by no means my intention to impress the 
- reader with an idea, that it was, for those reasons, defective, and 
that I mean to censure.it. Heyne could not do all: he could only 


166 Life of Heyne. 


point out the way; and his pupils bad by their own industry a 
private application to supply themselves with that, which the ma 
ter had not the leisure or opportunity to afford. ‘That was the 
business, and that their own sense must have suggested. And its 
evident, that many did sv, from the proofs they have given of the 
‘merits in classical learning. _ 

The sketch, which has thus been furnished of Heyne’s lectures, 
‘and of -his superintendence of the Philological Seminary,’ will bar 
shown, what he was to the aniversity, 88 8 teacher. ἔ have co: 
centrated this view, instead of giving it by pieces, according to: 
strict chronological order, in the progressive history of his lf, 
which would require to state, in what year such or-such a lect 

_was first delivered; how this or that alteration took place. πε} 
I aim at, is to exhibit a delineation of Heyne’s life, and to shown 
what manner he rendered it useful to the world, rather than b 
follow the precision: of the Annalist. _I now, however, 

‘with the narrative. -‘Fhere was something peculiarly. fortunate a 
Heyne’s situation at Gottmgen, which afforded fall scope to th 
activity of his mind. He found himself countenanced, supported, 
encouraged, and approved by the minister of the country, wh 
not only was ardent and zealous in co-operating with him, bat εἰν 
intelligent, and judicious, and competent to set a proper estimate 

‘upon Heyne’s exertions. How anxiously and diligently that 

_ Statesman entered into every thing which concemed the ‘ 

of the university, appears from the numerous letterg of his, whic 

were found among Heyne’s papers. It is seen in them, how thor 
two men .went hand in hand im their labors; and there was seldom 

_ a difference of opinion between them. What may be objected to 
’ Miiuchhausen, as Mr. Heeren remarks, is perhaps his spirit of 

economy, which sometimes narrowed his views. is is ἃ failing, 

‘Into which a conscientious minister, who is sensible of the: maay 

“wants of the state, and soliciteus not to increase the burdens of the 

people, may be apt to fall; but cannot reasonably be made a 
round of censure, even if it should sometimes: be carried too far. 
y Heyne’s discretion things were so managed, that no injurious 

consequences arose, from that foible of the minister, to the interests 

‘of the university. The more Miinchhausen became acquainted 
“with Heyne; the ‘more he valued him, and from the year 1768, 

‘ during the three last years of the minister’s life, their communtica- 

‘ tions were very frequent; so that hardly a week passed, im which 

several letters were not exchanged. In the spring of 1770, a- new 
charge was laid upon Heyne, the -supreme direction of the school 
at Ilefeld, or Iifeld. At this place, which is situated at a distance 
of between 50 and 60 English miles from Gottingen, to the south- 
-east, there is a public school, with a foundation for ἃ cértein 


Life of Heyne. 167 


number of free scholars. kt might be calculated, from its situa- 
tion, and other circumstances, to be the principal establishment 
-in the Hanoverian,dominions, for the education of youth, previous 
. to their admission to.the university. But. it had:-been neglected, 
-and was sunk into discredit, so ag not. to render those services to 
the country, which ought to be expected from such: an institution. 
Miinchhausen, who was alive to every thing. that concerned the 
interests of the people or of the state, perceived with regret the 
deterioration and decay of that school; and looking round. for. the 
means of saving i¢ from ruin, he thought he could only. find them 
in the intelligence, zeal, and activity of Heyne. He, therefore, 
wished to devolve the whole management and direction upon him ; 
and the latter, wha never withdrew from any labor, by which he 
.conceived he might render himself useful,. readily and cheerfully 
undertook. the task. . The effect of his interference was soon felt : 
«ἃ complete reform was effected, and the school became, under his 
superintendence, what it was fit to be, an excellent place of edu- 
cation. He regulated the system. of instruction, and took’ care 
that proper. masters, were appointed, By the attention which he 
himself paid to the institution, he awakened and maintained that of 
others. Though at some distance from it,, his eye was unremit- 
tingly watchful over the proceedings that took place. He found | 
those in whom he could repose confidence, aud the establishment 
prospered and florished under his fostering and paternal care. He 
visited the schoo! once every year, to be an eye-witness of its pro- 
gress; and by his correspondence directed and guided it, as if he 
had been present. This charge he retained to the end of his days ; 
and the distinction, which Ilfeld acquired, is to be attributed to 
him. A man with such a fund of abilities, not merely for learning, 
but for business, like the possessor of great wealth, received appli- 
, cations for assistance upon every occasion. ; 
It became necessary, in the same year, to appoint an edi- 
tor of the Literary Review, that was published at Gottingen, 
“under the auspices of the Royal Society of Sciences, and Heyne 
was selected. He willingly acquiesced in the choice, and con- 
ducted this valuable journal, for a great length of years, with a 
degree of diligence and’ industry, that cannot be sufficiently 
admired. But besides editing it, he was the miost liberal contri- 
butor to its contents: ‘no man. has written in it so much. To 
say afew words of this highly esteemed publication, it is to be 
remarked, that it aims chiefly at the review of scientific, and 
other literary works, which are on a certain scale of merit. These 
are, for the most part, furnished to .the reviewers from the 
public library of the university, which, as has been mentioned, 
purchases every new production. .The professors are principally 


168 Emendationes Bentleii 


thé petsons who write in this journal, though the office is not ne- 
cessarily confined tothem. Articles are also received from. others, 
if they are approved by the editor. Novels, aud similar composi- 
tions of unsubstantial quality, are seldom noticed. The editor- 
ship of this journal was, in fact, connected with the duties of Secre- 
tary to the Royal Society of Sciences, to which situation Heyne 
was appointed this year. That institution, like all others with 
which Hleyne was concemed, soon felt the benefit of his abilities. 
‘He conducted its 2ffairs with a zeal, activity, and intelligence, 
which they had not before experienced. The Sqciety owed its 
origin to the great Haller, who, at its foundation, intended it for 
nothing more than a means of cultivating certain branches of sci- — 
‘ence, nominally anatomy and botany, which he thought were, in 
general, too much neglected. But to make it a nursery to science, 
in a more comprehensive sense, that did not enter into his contem- 
plation. -Heyne, on the contrary, conceived a more enlarged view, 
and considered this establishment as calculated to further and ex- 
pand science in all its various ramifications. The university was 
‘designed to diffuse and communicate the knowledge which existed ; 
‘the society of which we are speaking was, according to Heyne’s 
conception, to add to that knowledge, by new mvestigations and 
researches. . “" ᾿ 
Ν. 


EMENDATIONES 
BENTLEI IN OVIDIUM. 


He desumt# sunt e margine edit. vel Burmanni, vel Nicolai 
- Heinsu. Liber uterque servatur in Muszo Britamico. . 


.N.B. Per literam V. intellige textum vulgatum, non Burmanni, et 
per N. H. intelligitur Nicolaus Heinsius. : 


Heror. Epist. 1. | οτος 
ov. 9, ut] Leg. tu [ita Brinkius apud Van Lennep.] 

3. Danais inoisa puellis} Olim voluit denos obsessa per 
annos. collatis Amor. ii. 12.9. Pergama—bello supe- 
rata bilustri. ii. 6.27. Troja—lustris. obsessa duo- 
bus. Sed vulgatum tuetur e Sabino. Non me Tropa 

_ tenet, Grats odtosa puellis. 
6. tnsanis] incanis vel Zigais. 
13. violentos :] glomeratos. 
15. ab Hectore =| culnere. 


ἰ 


in Ovidium. ο | ΘΟ. 


16. timoris} .doloris (ut MS. Voss] ot | 
27. nympha] nu mpl fut N. Hi] at 9p onsé Cod. D. olim Du- 
ne mensty fat in Bho. Co oll. Trin. Cantab. 
28. victa—Troja fata] quisque—fortia facta. 
31. Atque] Cod. Ὁ Sa imgue et in 33. Tee i vice hic. 
40. dolo] metu. 
47. vestris—lacertis] Gratis: cf. Remed. Am. 66. manibus 
Danais Pergama victa caden | 
48. quod fuit] qua stetit: cf. Trist. 1.2.23. Ὁ 
Tnéola} Olim Integra: postea Accola [cum N. H.] 
65. vert} vestri: cf. Trist. πὶ. 3. 26. 
66. habitas—abes] habites—agas [cum MS. Scriverii.] 
82. immensas] invisas: cf. Heroid. Ep. xix. 210. 
91. dirum] dicam. 
95. actor] Sic Μ8. Ὁ. 100. invitis] ignaris. Ὁ 
105. armis] annis [ut Ve) _ 
10 
109° δ a «. i [cum Burm,] 
110. Tu citius venias] Tu citus advenias : vel Spe titius ve- 
| nias: cf, Fast. iv. 600. 
113. jam] tu. 
Collatis Sabini 53, 4. necnon Amor. iii. 9. 30. aliquid in hac. 
epistola deesse putat "Bentl. 
Abjudicari videntur 37, 8; 39, 40; 83,4; 99, 100; 111, 2, 


Epist. 11. 


v. 8. quater] semel [ut VJ 
6. Sithonis] Bistonis: cf..90. ΄. 
10. invita nunc et amanie nocent | invite nunc, et ut ante, no- 
cent. Cf. Her. xvii. 2. [in MS. Puteano, sicut et ante. ] 
25. et verba et vela) et vela et verba. 
27. nist} ss [cum N. H.] : 
31. Jura) Pacta [sie recte video. ] 
35. quod totum—undis| Bistontum—auris vel estu. 
37. fictus]| fulsus [ut MSS.) 
39, nimiumque] natique: vel Per Venerem et natum nimium 
facientia tela. 
62. Quacunque] Cuicunque [ut voluit Burmann.] 
74. capta] cdsa: cf.157. 75. turba] serie. 
90. lavabis aqua] levabts humo. 
121, httora| vrmina. 
122, @quora lata] littora nota [cum MSS.] 
129. minus et minus utilis adsto] minus est mihi mentis, ut 


adsunt 
144. clectumn] electu {ut V.] 


.170 Emendationes Bentlei 


148. necis] MS. D. xecis: cf. Her. Ep. vu. 196. causam 
mortis ef ensem. 
ibid. sla] tpsa [ut an 


Abjudicari videntur 17, 8 
Epist. 111. 


Vv. 


1. rapta] capta: εἴ. Remed. Am. 469. 

11. vultum] cudtus (ut MSS.] 12. noster] vester [ut N. H.] 

30. anda pre blanda—prece [ut V.] 

S6. 3 

39. SA us 5. Henaldi. et D. Non: lege Sic.cf. Her. E “Bora? of 

44. Nec venst inca ptis—aura | Nec veniet votis— f. 
Pont. iii. 8. Et veniet votis mollior hora meis.] 

48. tribus] quibus (ut Francius.] 

51. Cum ΝΜ Η. facit Bentl. . 

58. linea vela] lintea velle [cum Mycillo ;. MS. Harl. 2758. 
linthea vella.] 

60. animi] anime [ut N. H.] 

61. vtolente] tu lente. 

67. jam] tam{[ut Gruter.] 80. Et] Sed. ἡ 

95. secessit ab] secesserat [ut Burm.] ὁ 

96. negavit] negarat. 


᾿ 98. pro nullo—cadent] pollicito—carent. Cf. Her. Ep. vi. | 
110. | 


100. Sepius—dominum] Scilicet—domini. 


᾿ 112. facta] capta. 


115. Et st quis querat] Si quis nunc: [ut MS.. ‘Puteaa. cf. 
Horat. Si quis forte roget. 

116. vorque] Cf. Remed. Am. 754. 

124. tua] tibt [MS. Scriver.] 

132. Prasentisque] 1 peemengue [ut V a 


Abjudicari videntur 61, 1, 2. 


Episrt. tv. 
v. 3. quodcunque est} MS. Ὁ. qiicquid id est [et sie ; Har. 


2758. post rasuram.] 
8. destitit] restitit [ut Douza aliique. | ἢ 

15. fovet| vorat: cf. Ad Liviam. 184. Et vorut—flamma. 
16. Figit| Frangat: cf. Met. viii. 508. [Sic MSS.] ᾿ 
15,6. In Addendis lege movet et Fiectat. 
24, animo| vel humero vel collo. 
25. crimen] regimen. 6. que] εἰμὶ [αὶ Faber.) - 
43, Est mihi per] Estque mihs 4 an. 
48. queque| quasque. | 
5S. mus | pendamus. 


“kn Ovsdium. 4γἅ. 


50. p perfid us] tertins: cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 898. Quartus. 
is 


67. ] nobis [ut V.] 
78. Et—pulvis}] Ut—nevus: 
79. ferocis] fugacis [ut MSS. 2.] 


' 81. vastum] lentum [ut Υ ἢ 


86. materia digna perire tua] materies digna vigore tuo: cf. 
Her. Ep. vn. 33. 


101. jam primum] jam pridem. 


106. utrumque|.utrimque [ut Burm.] 

128. fugit] fugat. Lek 
137. licet—illa] virum—illo: cf: Fast. iv. 140. 
141. dabitur) duri [ut V.] 

147. Recte Burm. sperataqye non properataque. | 
149. precart| vocart. 

150. fastus} flatus[ut N.H.] 151, Et} At. 
155. Depudutt—relinquit] Depudui—reli iguit. 
160. tepidum movet] rapidum——cehét cf. Fast. i. 5.18. 
170. perdendas) pradandas [cum MS.]_ - 

176. Perlegis: at] Perlege: sed. [ut MS. Léocoln.] 


Abjudicari videntur 175, 6 6. 


Episrt. v. 


V. 


6. crimen] sidus: cf. Heroid. Ep. viii, 88. 
8. Qua] Cui: cf. Heroid. Ep. ii. 62. ex emendatione. . 
24. recta] In ovargine aliquid fuit scriptum hodie vitio biblio- 
pegi decisum. 
33. Illa dies fatum misera mihi dixit ; ab illa] Ille dies ater 
misere mihi luxit ; ab dlo. 
41. peracta} parata [ut Υ. ] 
45. vidiste| pressistt. | 
62. tla resistit] tlle residit. 
68. faemineas—genas] famineum—gregem. 
83. MS. Relandi Nec tamen. 
89. est tibi] est ; ἐδὶ. 110. volant MS. Rel. | 
121. Vox erat in cursu (ut N. A. 
125, insignis] prangnis fut MS.] 
126. patrios—deos] socios [ut MSS.] toros. | 
141. tamen ungue] prius ungue. V. tamen ante. 
152. a nore e nostro [ut Ciofanus. ] 


16. ὦ 5. ip Ista fut N. HJ 

. bsequium] Offictum rut MSS.} 
54 Venerat ; ει1 Venit, οἱ ut. 
29. mht] deos. 


72). Emendatsones Bentlett 


37. Devicto serpente] Restabat serpents : cf. Fast. v. 861. 
Met. i. 700. et u. 655. : 
38. fidem] vicem. 
859. cursuque] cursune. 
40. ingenio—facta tuo}—indicio nostra suo MS. D. ura: 
et MS. R. facta post rasuram. 
δῷ. castra] transtra: et sic in Virg. Ain. iv. 604. faces i in 
transtra, non castra. 
55. vidi tectogxt] vidua [ut N. H.] lectoque : ef. Heroid, 
Ep. ii. 57. 
54. vita] MS. Ὁ. ripa. 
63. fluentibus] cadentibus fue Vi] 
66. ventue—tenet] vento—tument [αἱ Francius. J 
68. prospictuntur [ut MSS.]_ - 
78. Addo netatur—ob do fut Cuipping. Adde.] 
76. Cor dover Dedolet: cf. Rem. Am. 294. 
ibid. miztus] aliquid olim in margine fuit, hodie decisum. 
77. perdo| rd 78. conetdat] concidet. 
82. expectata :] expectato: cf. Her. Ep. x xi, 182. 
83. carmine movil] carmina volvit.' 
87. flumina] fulmina (ut MSS.] | 
88. movet] trahit [αἱ MSS.] ΕΝ 
93. herbis] tstis. ΣΝ ΕΣ 
100. favet] volet MS. Ὁ. | 
104. revellit] reverit [ut Broukhusius : MS. refist.) 
108. patria] MS. pria: f. pro ripa. 
111. vir non} MS. R. cur‘non [ut N. H.} 
119. Nunc] Quin: cf. Her. Ep. xv. 151. 
125. legatos [ut V.] cf, Her. Ep. iii. 127. 
130. corpora] viscera. 
133. virgo] furto : cf. supr. 48,0 
. 140. tratis] infirmis. cf. Amor. i. 7. 66. : 
150. suts] tuos [ut MS. Lincol.] 
152. ipée} ille [ut Burm. ad Virgil. Hin. vii. 110.} | 


Epist. vit. 


v. 4. adverso} averso [ut N. Η] 
11. nova] mea. ΝΣ 
12. summa] Byrsa. | ΕΠ ΞΞΞΕΕ 
15. terram] tamen. oo 
17. Alter habendus amor] Altera habenda uror. ) 
37. tunataque] elataque. τ 
40. fluctibus] flatibus : cf. Her. xviii. 211. 
45. sum] sim.. 


. in Ovidiu. 173 
-5e. duritie {ut N. H.] 
53. Quid st nescieris] Quid, quasi nescires. 
54. quam] tam [ut V.] 
55. etiam] viam: cf. Met. xiii. 418. “Jamgque viam suadet 
: Boreas. 
56. tamen latus] etiam latus (Hoéufftius Pericul. Crit. p. 
277. tamen latus.] 
63. precor] procul. 
71. id est] ertt. 75. parcatur] tu cure [ut V.] 
8g. primaque) primace. 
86. ure] jure. 87. mea munera MS. D. 
89. Fluctibus) Syrtibus. 
97.. Sic lege [tetrastichon in Heimsii notis.]_ 
Exige, lzse pudor, poenas, violataque lectt 
Jura, nec ad cineres fama retenta meos ; 
Vosque mei manes animeque umbraque [vulgo cinis- 
. que) Sichei, 
Ad quas, me miseram, plena pudoris 60. 
ΜΒ. D. suppeditat lecté vulgo omissum [idem conjecit et 
Van Lennep.] . | 
105. culpa} fasse [Μ5. D.] - 
113. internas] Herceas [ut.N. H.] vel heu T: yrias. 
116. dutas] dubias (ut ed. Basil] 
"117. ignotis :Ἶ his oris {ut N. H.] 
119. lateque—fixi] lareque—ject. - 
122. portas urbis et arma) Popuios martis ad arma. 
127. possit] poscit. MS. R. [et V 
147. Ut moveas veloque tuas remoque carinas MS, D. [et sic 
fere MS. Scriverii ventoque tuas.] a 
150. advectas] avectas. 
152, sceptrague sacra] MS, D. sceptraque regna. 
160, Vd distngue Mars ferus ; et damnis—tuas : vel lege Hee- 
tenus; et: cf. Her. Ep. vi. 63. xv. 156. xvil. 265. ’ 
_ Amor. il. 1. 31, Fast. v. 661. Met. 1]. 610. 
168. sum—feret] sim—ferar : cf. Her. Ep, xii. 110. 
169. frangentia] plangentsa [ut N. H.] 
175. ἀρετῇ lacerataque [ita H. Bolsius Silv. Crit. 


p. 1 
179. mitescunt] MS, Ὁ. mitescant. 
180. edisco} MS. Ὁ. ediscam. 
19S. Nec] Et. 194. marmore] margine. 
196. usa] MS. D. icta. 
Abjudicari videntur 85, 6, Το 8. 97, 8 


174 Emendationes Bentleii 


Erist. VIII. 
5. renui] tenui ut MS: Coke: MS. D. faci et pro var. 


lect. tent. 
21. sedisset] flevisset : cf..86. At 20, 1. delent MSS, 
24. numeros| vires: cf. Met. vin. 7. 
81. vita] meritis. 
83. At] Ut. 
34, Plus μ 9 ἐπ τὰ ἔων ἐν Plus patre quo pole cf. 


39. permstien ‘concedet [ut MSS. D. et R.] 
44. facta] MS. D.acta. . 
48. melius] medios: cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 174. [et sic Nodell. 
Observ. Crit. p. 16 .] 
52. causa} ἢ 
59. objectet} o “objecit {ut A MS. D. Oreste :. et pro var. 
. lect. Oresé: 
65. Hoc—errat] ‘Num. [MS. Put. fam)—durat [ue N 
H.j Cf. Her. Ep. vii. 111. 
’. 78. rapta} MS. D. rapta : et pre var. lect. vecta. 
79. nunc] tum [ut MS. Farnes.} MS. ἢ. tunc. at R. tum. 
84. pater] MS. D. parens : et pro var. lect. pater. τ᾿ 
99. ἐϊδᾺῆ᾽ι MSS..D. et R. tua. 
104. Munus et] Muneris hoc fut N. H.] 
107. Nox—thalamis] Mox—thalami [Sed vocem prozimgm 
utpote intercisam legere nequeo. | 
EPIstT. ΙΧ. 
1. nostris] vestris ut MSS.] 


: 8.: jeagindas | MS. D. Betas cas. - aan 
4. Decolor} Discolor fut “ey 

10. tanti] satis [ut MSS.] ‘ 
12. humeli] humilis. 

15. tota]tuta [utN.H.] . ) 

- 19. misero] vestro. Cf. Her. Ep. xi: 79. nostram—pudoremn. 
20. macula stupri—notas} maculas turpi—nota [ita Bar 
mann. Secund. ad Propert. i: 2. 31.] 

.  2Q. veniant] veniunt [ut V.] 
35. votis| studiis [ut MS.} 7 
40. ommiaque] MS. D. ominaque. 
45. tra] astu [sirecte lego.| 
51. Theutrantia] Teuthrantia. - 
δῷ. tibt MS. Ὁ) latet : «εἴ pro var. lect. tibé est. 
53. prafertur] MS. Ὁ. narratur. " 
05. totes qui terris errat] tottes terris errator. 
56. lassas{ lapsas [ut V.] 


58. 
77. 
78. 


85. 


84. 
86. 
87. 
88. 
97. 
104. 
110. 
120. 
123. 
124, 
125. 


126. 


129. 
139. 
184. 
141. 
143. 
150. 


Ilo} Collo fut MS.) ; a 

deducts] deducens. | 

Aiquaque} Et data MS. D. vel: Grandia: cf. ‘Her. | 
Ep. x. 90. mox famose {ut MSS.]} 

Eximtas pompas preconia summa _triumpht.] ΜΒ. D. 
Eximiis pompis immaniu semtna laudum. lege Bsuviis. 
positis, immania semina laudum. 

narrabas| narrabis. 

cunis| nodis[utN.H.] | 

MS. Ὁ. cuperisifero :. lege cyparissife ero. 

MS. D. Incubutt, vasto pondere lesit humum. 

leoumque] dextrumque [ut MSS.}. 

ποία] bina[ut MSS.] 

tue] ἐμὰ ἐδ. 411. costas] costis. 

sensus mollis] visus omnis. . . 

captiva] carpenta 2 Cf. Fast: 1.619. Nam _ prius Auso- 

ventt] vehunt nies matres carpenta vehebant.. ΄ 

incultis] incomtis. 

vultus—tegendo suos] cultu—tegensve suam: MS. 10, 

suam. 

sublime sub} sublimis ut. 

wnsant| Inachi: cf. Met. ix. 112. 

Corpora] Fadera. 

letifero Eveno] lotifero. Eveno. 

scribenti} referent: MS, D. 

mihi} MSS. Ὁ. et R. mea. 


156. fuit] perit. " 
160. fatis| P festis MS. D. thoris: et pro var. eet. titulis 


EpistT. x. 


3. 


et thalamis:.idem insidiosa. ὁ. 
Abjudicari videntur 17, 8. 61, 2. 75, 6. 81, 2. 135, 6. 


Qua] Quam [ut MSS.] 


8. tecte fronde] tacte rore in Fast Iv. , 166. Sed of. Ast. 


Am.i. 58. Met. 1. 44. 


. vigilans a] vigil anne a: cf. Her. Ep. XX. 230. 

. pressuras] prensuras [ut V.] 

. rapta] rupta MS. D. rapta: . et pro var. ‘lect. Tupta. 

. clamanti] clamavi MSS..D.et RR. 

. inc] Ita MS. D. Hic MS. R. lege nunc: cf. Her. 


Ep, v. 68. 


. Δι" πα] Ut—te. 40. late} longe MS. D. 
. me mea] MS. R. te mea: MS. Ὁ. me mata: et pid var. 


lect. te. 


. desieram: MS. D. desterant. 
. tellus justo] MS. D. justo tellus. 


« 


170 


70. 
75. 
᾿ 86. 


96. 
104. 
106. 
110. 
111. 
115. 
116. 
120. 
126. 
141. 
14S. 


Epsst. xt. 


10. 
61. 


Emendationes Bentleis 


cara] bina. 7383. Tu] MSS. Tum vel Tune. 

vives] vivo vel vivit fut V.] 

sevas tigridas insula habet] seva tigride sylea vacet 

[partim cum N. 

raptdis| rabidts [ut MSS . 

recepta] relecta (ut Ν. Η.} 

tinxit] planzit [ut N. H.] 

silices] silicem [ut MSS.] 

quid) gui{ut MSS.] ᾿ ἘΣ 
extera—necavit] Dertraque [ut N. H.}—necasti. 

Et] Que. digi oy 

ui digitus] que digttis. 

ἀρ ὶο arce] turbac—ore fut N. H 1. 

quoniam—cessit adoro] quod jam—cesserit oro. 

nec—st] ne [ut MS.] sim. 

Abjudicari videntur'1, 2.45, 6. 85,6. 95, 5. 145; 6, 7, 8. 


tasset] spectaret [ut V.] 
ratri nam] german [MSS. germano. 1 


65. ἐϊδὴ} m 


77. 
80. 
89. 
106. 
111]. 


pal ential tabentia vel languentia. 

misero] misere [ut Francius.] 

imimicus| immitts. 

Admissi| Amissa [ut MSS.] 

raptdarum] rabidarum [ut MSS.] Abjaicantar 1, 2. 


EPpist. ΧΙΙ. 
6. Vite] vitam. 


. orague adunca] vel crmaagu unca ave armaque adunca. 
. sennisiet} jecisset [cum N 

. 7 Accipss. 

‘ ant tunc [ut V.] 

. erant] erat [ut V.].i 


. aversaque] adversaque “Tut. N.H 1- 
. altera habebit | alter habebat. 


69. fuerantque] fuerintque 75. ipsa] ssta. 
80. Et si_forte alios] Per quoscungue altos. 


92. 
93. 
101. 


110. 


118. 


Sic] Si 


et aripedes| oéripides {ut N. Η 
Pervigil ecce draco] Insopor ecce vigil [cum Ms. Pu- 


teano. 

Munus—¢ uolibet } Nomen, —quodlibet. Cf. Her. Ep. 
Vil. 168. uodlibet esse feram. Sed lege Unius aUrt- 
lio  quidlibe t esse tuli. 

tamque) jamque. | 


in Ovidium. 177 


125, Queque] Queve. 
137. fiymen cantatus] hymeneus clarus vel letus : cf. Lucret. 


189. socialiai enialia: sed cf. Her. ‘Ep. xai. 155. 
141. putabam] p atebat [ut N. H.] | 
149. Jussus stu dhoqu] casts studione fat N.H. ] 
151. abi} ades vel ads. 
152. = Ducit [ut MSS. ἐπα Nodell. Not, Crit. p.97-] 
108. Serpentes] Serpentemne : cf. 196. 
170. Cum Puteano facit MS. D. 
ignora cara MS. D. 
5. D. εἰ queras~—numeramus an. 
Bnet, XIN. 
18. arreptaque] abreptaque [ut MSS.} 
34. MS. D. gua: et pro var. lect. guo, 
39. MS. D. Pectam : et pro var. lect..pectar. 
48. Dux Pari] Dyspari [at ali ante N. H.] 
50. reduci} MS. Ὄ. reducis : cf. 144, 
55. se] si fut N. Hj - 
. a7. multo} lato: ae Her. Ep. ix, Mis) 
uotaquaque} quotacunque [ut 
Ἢ Fis go—Ledca} Et lis — 
65. cara) cura [ut Bora] : 
69. facito] tacitus ΓΝ, H, tacite.] 
71. fas] enw 
72. cadat] cadet [ut V.] | | 
74. Ut—quam] MS. D. Bi gund 
77. Causa tua est dispar.} M D. Dispar ci causa tua est. 
83. guum—amore] MS. Putean m-—amare, hoc est, 
quam pugnare, [ita Jortin, iscell. Obs, 11, 1. p: 23.] 
87. foribus] laribus: cf. Her. Ep. xviii. 56. 
104. dolor—venis] vel memor—venis, vel precor—veni. 
116. letitia] nequitia. 
121. verbal labra: mox MS. D. resistunt : ἐξ pro var. lect. 
resistent. 
122. retenta], refecta : cf. Fast. iv. 610. [et sic Francius.] 
185, Sed quid ego has-revoco: revocaminis omen [ut N. Η] 
Cum Jureto facit MS. Ὁ. .. 
. 187. quae 4 quamois. 
140. harbara ue] ardanague. 


162. Quod} u[MS. Ut.] 


VOL, XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XXXVII. Μ 


176 


THE ENGUISB LITURGY; 


Mbustrated by 1,5. Kersion: into the: Latin ind Greek 
Languages. 


1. Tue Latin Prayer Book, as printad:in the timeof, James 11. 
exhibits the following eerossous:wereion.of.; gn.insportant response 
in the Catechism on the word “ SACRAMENT.” 

« Extemmum et visibile: stg nus: intelligo,: mternz, ac apiritualis 
gratie, quod nobis Uatur,. ab ipso Christo: institptum, tayquain 
medium quo eam. TOPRIM οἱ, arrabonere ad. Rot da ἐδ Certos 
faciendos.” 

In the new and much altered edition by. Thames Rarsell; 3718, 
that response is correctly given, eid sereesbly ‘tgvthe \Gieek of 
Duport. Vid. Class. Fourn: xxx%, Ὁ TOR. , 

“ Externum volo et aspectabile. ᾿ϑ3, σῦν, interne. et spbibate 
gratia, collate nobis, ab i ippa: Chrisie Ipstitutymy Be Bey, 1 - 

2. Agreeably to the real meaning of the origiveal,,aid to the 
Greek version of Duport, both editions ' ‘of ithe. Letinvexbitit the 
following petition of. the Litgys: whic it is-not ‘so, difficult to 
understapd aright, ‘as as-it is to Pranepnies, distinctly in Englisty,: 

4. That it may pleases: Weenta gave te All thy. ASeple increase of 
grace to hear meekly Shy ward, and toe cohyesithy jt, pATR akestion, 
“and tosbsing-fecth the fraite, ofthe Spinit.” oo 

“Ut universo populo tuo incremeptum gratie, quo} verbusa: tuum 
hurmiliter’ difdtat; ἐξ pure corde ‘surplectatar, et fructas Spiritus 
proterstsdgmwresdigperie;’h 

ig. ‘Both tha latin editions; though. with considerable, dierence 
in the words employed, render the«measing-of ithatpassage in the 
Exhortation, (Claws. Journ. XXXV. Pp. 102)\sefiicienthy trong and 
perspicuous. 


Feb. 10. 1819. | ob _ SIDNEYENSIS. 


179 


NOTICE. 


Of a Second Memoir on Babylon, by Claudius James Rich, 


We. acknowledged on a former occasion (See the Class. Journ 
No.. XXIV,. December 1815, page 287.) our obligations for 
much interesting intelligence communicated in Mr. Rich’s first 
Memoir.on the-Ruyins. of Babylon; a subject hitherto unaccount- 
ably neglected by antiquarian travellers. Our readers will, with- 
opt, doubt, be gratified: to learn that a second part has lately 
appeared, corresponding in size and typographical executiou to 
the former, and illustrated with. three folding plates, very neatly 
engraved. Ip this Second Memoir the ingenious authdr inquires 
ow far the ancient descriptions of Babylon are confirmed or 
disproved by the remains still yisible on its site; for that the place 
at preseut called .Hilla, represents the great. city of Belas and 
Semiramis, most antiquaries. seem inclined to believe, and is the 
decided opinion of Mr. Rich. (p, 21.) That this inquiry was sug- 
gested by some remarks which Major Rennell offered on the 
‘Topography of ancient Babylon,” (in the Archzologia, 1§16,) 
is declared by our author himself, who says, (p. 2.) “ I have been 
more particularly induced to enter into a discussion on the cor- 
respondence: between ‘the accounts. of the ancient historians and 
the ryjns:I visited, by a paper written by Major Rennell, professed- 
ly to vindicate. the truth. and: consisteacy of ancient history, as well 
as his own account of Babylon in the geography of Herodotus ; 
as he conceiyes my former statements to be at. variance with 
commonly received opinions.”, .And entertaining every sentiment 
of deference due to an authority. of such weight as the distinguish- 
ed geographer, Mr. Rich cannct coincide with Major -Rennell, 
either in his interpretation of the ancient wniters, or in his deduc- 
tions from the actual appearance of the ruins. (p. 8.) . 
- From a. volume of barely sixty pages, it would be unreasonable 
to, extract many passages. Qur object here is to announce the 
Second Memoir, and.not to anticipate any of the pleasure, which 
our readers may derive :from .examining the author's arguments, 
founded on. personal research among the remdins at Hilla, against 
the. theory (seldom erroneous) of so eminent a geographer as 
Major Rennell., We shall, however, notice (from p. 29.) a re- 
markable circumstance of the Babylonian .ruins.—In the very 
heart of ἃ mound, called the Kassr, (or Palace,) and:also on the 


180 Notice of Mr. Rich’s 


bank of the Eupbrates, Mr. Rich saw earthen urns filled with 
ashes, and some small fragments of bones; and m the northern 
face of the Mujellibée (that immense heap of bricks, which some 
have supposed to be the Tower of Belus), he found a gallery of 
skeletons inclosed in wooden coffins. That the sepulchral urns 
ase of high antiquity, none can pussibly doubt. The mode of burial, 
and a curious brass ornament found in one of the coffins, will serve to 
prove that the skcletous must have been interred before the intro- 
duction of Islam, or the Mohammedan religion.—* These’ dis- 
coveries,” Mr. Rich observes, “ are of the most interesting 
nature ; and though it is certainly difficult to reconcile them with 
any theory of these ruins, yet in themselves they sufficiently: éste- 
blish their antiquity, The two separate modes of burial too are 
highly worthy of ‘attention. There is, I believe, no reason to 
suppose, that the Babylonians burned their dead; the old Persians, 
we know, never did. It is not impossible that the difference 
may indicate the several usages of the Babylonians and Greeks, 
and that the urns may contain the ashes of the soldiers of Alexa 
der and of his successors.” (p. 29.) st 
_ Inthe course of this inquiry Mr. Rich sets but little value 
on the accounts given by Diodurus Siculus and Ctesias ; while 
he regards Herodotus as the best authority respecting ancient 
Babylon. (p. 7.) The descriptions, however, left ‘by the Grecian 
writers, may be perfectly reconciled with the ruins in their present 
state, without doing violence to either, ag he remarks in p. 37. 
The Notes and Appendix illustrating this Memoir contain much 
Curious and interesting matter; and they please us, by énc 
ing a hope that the ingenious author means to treat of Niniveh in 
a future work, (p. 40.) He offers (in the Appendix) some 
remarks on Babylonian antiques, of which'a residence during 
ten years in the vicinity of Hina has enabled him to form an 
ample and most valuable collection. ‘This comprises numerous 
square bricks, and small pieces of baked clay, thicker in the ‘middle 
_ than at the ends ; stones of different sizes and kinds ; aud ‘cylinders, 
from oné inch to three inches long, some of stone, and‘-others 
seemingly uf paste or composition; all bearing inscriptions, and 
many of them very extraordinary figures, The inscnptions are in 
that character generally called arrow-headed, nail-headéed, of 
cuneiform. Such is found on the sculptured marblés at Persepolis. 
To explain this kind of writing, many learned Orientalists en- 
deavoured, but without success, until Mr. Grotefend of Frankfort 
lately ascertained, by an exertion of considerable ingenuity and 
petsévering diligence, that there are three varieties of these inscrip- 
fons; the’ first and simplest being in Zend, the Persians of 
Ecbatana ; and that the Babylonian forms are but different modes 


Second Memoir on Babylon. 181 


of inscribjng the same character. Mr. Rich is of opinion that this 
cuneiform, or arrow-headed letter, was common to the great nations 
of antiquity, the Median, Persian, and Assyrian (p. 50.); and he 
quotes. the celebrated Professor Heeren, who observes, ‘“‘ That it is 
in all likelihgod the Assyrian writing of Herodotus, and that 
which Darius Hystaspis engraved on the pillars which he set up 
ou the banks of the Bosphorus.” He adds, that the Persepolitan 
inscriptions deciphered by Dr. Grotefend are of the times of Cyrus, 
Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes; and this sacred or lapidary charac- 
ter probably fell into disuse on Alexander’s conquest, when neither 
the Persians nor Babylonians had any monuments to erect or 
events to record. Besides the inscribed stones and bricks, small 
figures of brass or copper are found at Babylon; but. Mr. Rich 
remarks that the ruins have not yet produced any coins. The 
three plates exhibit various extraordinary devices and inscriptions 
on cylindrical gems, bricks, and smaller pieces of baked ‘clay, 
sculptured stones, and brass figures, all monuments of Babylonian 
antiquity, forming part of our authors very valuable collection. 
We sincerely hope that, qualified as he is for the task, and advanta- 
geously situated for the execution of it by his residence near Hilla, 
and the influence which he derives from his public character, Mr. 
Rich may continue his researches among the Babylonian remains, 
aad favor us occasionally with the result of his labors. His commu- 
nications will be gledly received in Europe, to whatever bulk or 
number they may extend, A strong spirit of curiosity has been 
excited on the subject of Babylonian antiquities; and it isin Mr. 
Rich’s power to gratify that curiosity by the publication of ἃ work, 
which we will venture to recommend ; and the compilation of which 
would not interfere with his learned researches ;—we mean a series | 
of plates containing accurate (however slightly engraved) repre- 
sentations of all the Babylonian and Persepolitan antiques pre- 
served in his own collection, each article to be briefly described 
in letter-press. It is unnecessary to inform our accomplished 
author how useful and interesting such a descriptive account or 
catalogue raisonné would prove. Ee is undoubtedly well acquaint- 
ed with the Recueil d’Antiquités of Count Caylus, Raspe’s Cata- 
logue of Tassie’s engraved gems, the Galerie Mythologique of 
. Millin, and a variety of similar works, that are to be found in 
every archeological library. 
It is not merely for the pleasure and instruction afforded by his 
own two memoirs, that we are indebted to Mr. Rich. The first 
publication elicited a quarto volume, intitled “‘ Observations con- 
nected with Astronomy and Ancient History, Sacred and Profane, 
on the Ruins of Babylon,” in which the learned Maurice has dis- 
played his wonted ingenuity, eloquence, and profundity of research. 


182 _ Notice.of Antar,. - .- 


This volume was published in 1816, and a secoud part, or ap- ὁ 
pendix, has since issywed from the press (1818); both are illustrated: 
with engravings, and replete with erudition, such as might be-ex- 
pected from the author of “ Indian Antiquities.” But we must re- 
serve fora future number of this Journal-some remarks on Mr. 
Maurice’s Babylonian inquiries. : . 

' From the conclusion of a paper communicated to- the Society of 
Antiquaries by John Landseer, Esq. in 1817, (See Archwologia, 
Vol. XVIIE.) containing some very interesting. observations on 
ancient ‘cylinders, we had reason to hope that Captain Lockett’s 
promised work on the ruins of Babylon would have been published 
before this time. Capt. L. visited the ruins in company with Mr: 
Rich, and we announced his intended publication so long ago as 
the year 1813. ‘The attention of various able antiquaries and tra- 
vellers being thus directed to one point, the result, we may trust; 
will’ be copious and satisfactory information on a subject of which 
‘we have, until within a few years, been left in almost total ignorance: 


NOTICE OF a 
“Anran, a Bedoucen Romance,” translated from the 

Arabic, by Terrick Hamilton, Esq., Oriental Secretary 
. tothe British Embassy at Constantinople. ΕΣ 


ΑἸτήοσοι three months have scarcely elapsed since the publica- 
tioniof thisromance, there is reason to believe that it bas already found 
‘Bumerous admirers. Some perhaps among- them will be pleased 
to see a few observations concerning it ;, and those of: our -readers, 
under whose inspection it has not yet fallen, will pfobably thank 
us for reconimending the Bedouin story to their perusal ; for, com- 
prised within the small compass of an octavo volume, it delights: us 
with such a picture of the manners which characterised an inter- 
esting race of Asiatics thirteen hundred years ago, as we’ coald 
‘scarcely have obtained from any other source ‘than an’ original 
Arabic manuscript, faithfully translated. ‘That the work before‘is 
comes under this description, every page bears testimiony : indeed 
we ‘believe it to be not only faithfully translated, but as ‘Hiterally 
as the différent idioms of two languages can possibly admit. 

With the hero of this romance we have long been acquainted ; 
but he -has hitherto appeared only as the celebrated author of 
verses which merited the high honor of a place in the temple at 


a Bedouin Romunce. 1838 


‘Mecca. “ Have the | bards who preceded’. me.:left any ‘theme 
unsung? What therefore shail be my ‘subject ? Love. only aust 
stipply my lay.” Such is the commencement of his: admivable 
poem, well known to English readers through the version published 
dy our illustrious Jones, who, as it-appears, designed to have given, 
in a preliminary essay, some anecdotes of the Bedouin hero τ whe- 
ther he fulfilled this intention we. have. not asqertained, byt. Antar 
is noticed (chiefly.as a poet), by D’Herbelét, Reiske, Waillmet, 
De Sacy, Menil, and other learned’ men. The work before us 
presents him to onr view conspicuous through’a series“ of: ext¥adr- 
‘ditiaty adventures in love and war ; ddventures the tore -itterésting, 
since ‘we “know ftdm indisputable: authority, that however: ‘marvek. 
dous the narrative .of his life, it 4s faundedi on -fact ;.and: that. Antar 
is not merely:a creatute of the imagination. ΝΣ 
.. It is generally undeystood-that we: are indebted. for. the: phbhtahos 
of this. volume to the leamed author of “ Remarkgon several Parts of 
Turkey, Agyptiaca,” sc. brother af.the myenious translator. Jaca 
short introduction the Editor observes, that some traditienary- tales 
(curnent. 11 the eighth century) ptobably furnished matetiala for -this 
romance, to “Osmay, one-of the eminent scholars who adomed 
the courts of. Haroun-al-Raschid, and: of-his: two leatned succes 
sors, Al: Antyn and. Al-Mamoun; and it still continues: to- beltle prin- 
cipal: source whence: the ‘story-teHers: of: the’ doffée-diduses..ia 
‘Egypt, Syria, and Arabia, draw their most interesting itales;””........ 
What portion of the original work. is contained’ in: the: English 
translation, does not-appear ; but from our gleanings i the dibrary 
of an orientalist, we are enabled ἰὸν confirm, what: travellers «have 
mentioned, : that ‘the Arabic story is of: vonstderable:length; -extend- 
ing, if we may credit some. accouate,:to' sixty volurkes ¢ of which, it 
is said, thirty-five have been lately: purehased in the.Kast by thet 
celebrated German orientalist Mr. .Hammen, and deposited jn -the 
Imperial Academy at Viennz.: Those sixty: volumes (which: we may, | 
perhaps, venture .to-suppote only -sectione:.or: chapters): constitiite 
ν᾿" greet body of Arabian romahceintitled “ Seetet- 4 ea Fonares 
πίαν ibm Shedd :? sh ἃ, | sy Kis μὰ} φῦ άλλων, “ Thehistory 
the father (or chief) 3 hoeinen, ἐε μάν Θεά "ἢ exhi- 
biting the mamers'and customs of 4 period which ‘may δ6 ‘styled 
the golden age before Mohammed. Of this work GirWilliam Jones 
had seen the foartéenth volume (and that only); wher he:'2oniposed 
his excellent ‘comuientary on ‘Asiatic: poetry ; where: (cap. xvii.) 
he describes the book “ dé -Antare-et Able amortéues;” a8 abounding 


1 See “The Moallakst, or δέύδαι Arabian Poénis, which were ‘suspended 
ou the Temple at Mecca,” &c. Lofid: 7189. ἀίο, p. 60. . 


184 Notice of Antar. 


with all that is elegant, magnificent and sublime ; “ Nihilest elegans, 
mibil magnificum, quod -huic operi deesse putem.” “ Ita sané. 
excelsum est,” dc. It may be remarked, that he writes the name of 
our Bedouin chief Antara, while D’Herbelét and others express 
it by Antarah. In the original Arabic we often perceive the final 


h,; 3s; but the title above quoted (of the MS. history) agrees 
with Mr. Hamilton in giving the name simply Antar, χά. 
" Those who read the eventful story of Antar’s loves with the 


beautiful Ib/a, sac, or Abla, will probably not feel less interested 
in his favor, from the consideration that his mother was black and 
a captive :—his father, however, was a prince of the tribe of Abs, 


‘yse£3 and he raised himself, as the learned Editor observes, 
“4 by the heroic qualities which he displayed from his earliest youth, 
and by his extraordinary genius for poetry, from the state of sla- 
very in which he was born, to the confidence of his king, and.toa 
pre-eminence above all the chiefs of Arabia.” That he was bom 
some years before Mohammed, is the opinion of a distinguished 
orientalist, Reiske; and we know that the pseudo-prophet came into 
this world (in 571) as the scourge of nations, whilst Chosroes, sur- 
named Nushirvan, still occupied the Persian throne, which he had 
ascended in 531. At the court of this monarch, our romance (we 
mean this English version) leaves the Bedouin hero on the very 
threshhold of those sacred edifices, concerning which some antiquaries 
of the present day might expect satisfactory and curious mformation 
from a work composed, most probably in the eighth century, while 
many altars still glowed with Zoroaster’s holy flame.—“I wish, my 
lord,” said Aotar to the Vizier, “ that you would introduce me to 
the temples of fire.” Thus closes, with most provoking abrupt- 
ness, the volume before us; no farther continuation of Antar’s 
story having as yet been communicated to the Editor. 

It is natural to inquire the fate of illustrious warriors, to ask by 
what manner of death those perished, who in their time had caused 
hundreds to bite the dust. ‘That Antar fell by the hand, or at least 
the contrivance, of Wazr-ben-gzaber, who afterwards embraced the 
Mohammedan faith, we learn from some writers; but 4bu Obaida 
informs us that the mighty hero, having attained to a considerable 
age, died through the effects of cold. 

The learned Editor has well defined those characteristics that 
mark the real Arabs or Bedouins, and which this work exbibits in 
their native simplicity: ‘an eager’ desire for the property of their 
neighbour; an unconquerable fondness for strife and battle; a 
singular combination of profuse hospitality with narrow economy ; 
quick perception; deep cunning; great personal courage; a keen 
sense of honor; respect for their women ; and a warm admiratiou 
and ready use of the poetical beauties of their unrivalled lan- 


Adversaria Literaria. 185 


guage.”—[t is not improbable, he thinks, that Antar was well 
known to the early European writers of romantic ‘adventures, who 
followed the age of Charlemagne; but whether his singular story in-- 
spired them with a taste for chivalrous exploits, “ is a question to 
the solution of which we may look forward, when the whole of.it 
shall be before the public, It may be observed, however, that 
little more was wanting in order to compose the romances of the 
middle age, than to engraft on the war, love and courtesy of the 
Arabs, the splendid and soft luxuries of the other countries of 
the East, the witchcraft of Africa, the religious fervour of the 
south of Europe, and the gloomy superstitions of the north.”— 
Introd. p. vii. 

We know the difficulties of translation from Eastern languages, 
especially where poetry is so thickly interspersed as in the ro- 
mance of Antar; but those difficulties, it is evident, Mr. Hamilton 
has long since conquered. That he may continue and finish. his 
arduous undertaking, must be the wish of all who, like ourselves, 
have derived considerable pleasure from the commencement: and 
we advise him to persevere in the style which he has adopted, re- 
taining, wherever practicable, without actual barbarisms, the ori- 
ginal Arabic idioms. The energy and simplicity of Antar’s sen-_ 
timents are most happily expressed in oriental pbraseology. If we 
clothe the Bedouin herv too strictly in an. European dress, we ren- 
der him as ridiculous as those effeminate coxcombs contemptuously 
styled dandies ; and the utmost art of a Parisian milliner would but 
deprive the beautiful Ibla of her native loveliness. 


ADVERSARIA LITERARIA. 


No. xix. 


FRAGMENT of a Poem on the AcTiaN Wak, copied from a 
Manuscript taken fron HERCULANEUM ; supposed to be 
written by C. RaBiRivs. 


Cot. I 
XIM .... cc cece: EL..TIA: .......20sseveee 
.. CESAR.FA...AR..HAR..IAM..........-0.-: G....- 
. RT:.HISILLE: ....NA CVM........ EI.IA POR 


.NATO..CV oe. 
QVEM IVVENES; gRANdAeVOS:ERAT’pEr eVNcTA sequutus * 


‘ The letters in the smaller type were inserted by Crampyrrir; as those 
he considered appropriate for fifing up passages which could pot be de- 
ΟΡ ered. ἢ _ 


180 ‘Adversaria Literaria. 


BELLA‘FIDE: DEXTRAQVE POtENS:‘RERVMQuE:PER: νοι 
CALLIDVS: ADSIDVus traCTANDO: IN MVNERE martis 
JMMIN ET oPSESSIS - ITALuS ΔΜ’ TVRRIBVS alTIS: 
Adsiliens muriS - NEC - DEFVit IMPETVS - ILLIS. 


Cox. 11. 
funeraque adCEDVNT - PATRiis deforMIA « TerRIS , 
et foedA Illa mAGIS - QVAM ° Si NOS geSTA LATEReNT 
CVM cuPERet potIVS - PELVSIA mOENIA: CAESAR, 
wr ERAT - [MperlIS*: ANIMOs COHIberE SVorVM; 
QuID: cAPITIS Iam caPTA IACENt QVAE praemia belli? 
SVBRVITIS- fERro meA * MOENIA QVONdAM . ERat hoSTIS. 
HAEC: MIHI: CVM - dominA PLEBES QVOQVE nunc sibi VICTRIX 
VINDICAT hance faMVLAM ROMANA POTEntiataNDEM. ' 


Cot. III. 
fas et ALEXANDRO thAlaMOS iNtRaRE DEoRVM εὐ 
Dico ΕΤΊΑΜ΄ d(OLVISSE: DEAM vIDISSe triuMphoS oa 
AcTIACOS ΟΝΜ. cAVSa fORES Tu MaxIMA beLLI. ᾿Ν 
PARS- ΕΤΙΑΜ᾿ IMperll-, QVAE: FEMINA .TaoTA*? VirORuM 
QVAE: SERIEs ANTIQVA fVIT:? NIGLORIA: MENDAX «| 
MVLTA vetuStATIS - NIMIO* ConcEDAT : HONORI. ΝΣ 


Cot. IV. . 
eres >). ler re ι _ 
SAEPE: Epo QVAE- ViiGRIS CVrak- seRMOoNIBVs angor' 7, |: 
νον ΠΟΙ νι lux, erro: TameN ΝΥ͂ΝΟ - QVAErere caV8AS, os 
EXT SiG Vasque mORaS : VITAE: LIBET:. EST: ΜΙΗ͂Ι’ CONTUNK: - 
artHos 401 - POSSET phARIIS - SVBIVNGERE REGnalS: 
VI- SPreVIT- NOStraEQVE - MORI: PRO NOMINE - GENTIS: , 
‘Hit iGitur pARTIS aniMVm DIDVctuS IN oMalS ; 
qVID - VELIT : INCERTVM - EST:, TERriS qVIBVS:, AUT: 
. QVIBVS : NDIS 


Cor. V. 
delectV MQue foruM Quo noXIA TVRBA COIiRET, 
PRAEBERETQVE -SVAE: SPECTACVLA : TRisTIA > MORTIS. 
QVALIS: AD INSTANTIS:- AC IES” GVM. TELA’ PAraN TVR 
SIGNA-, TVBAE:, CLASSESQV SIMVL, TERRESTRibus ARMIS; 
EST - FACIES: EA: VISA: LOCI: CVM: SAEVA COIRENt 
INSTRVMENTA: NECIS: varIO ᾿ CONGESTA - PARATV:. 
VNDiQVE: SIC - ILLVC: caMPo DEFORME: COactVM 
OMNE >. VAGABATYVR: LEII: GENVS:, OMNE- TIMORIS:. 


, (οι. VI. 
hic cAdit absumtus ΓΕΒΕΟ', TumeT: IILE- VENeno, 
aVT: PEndenTe suIS°: CERVICIBVS: ASPIDE- MOLLEM ; 
LABITur iN SOMNVM : TRAHITVRQVE >: LIBIDINE : MORTIS:. 
PERCulit adFLATV - BReVIS: HVNC- SINE - MORSIBVS - ANguis. 
voLNERE: SEV’ TeNVI™'PARS* INLiITA: PARVA<‘VenENE . ὮΝ 
OCIus INTEREMiT~ LAQVEIS ῬΑ: COGIVR- ‘ARTIS: ΄.. 
INtERSAEPTAM - ANIMAM* PRESSIS « EFFVNDERE * VENTS-. 
ImMERSISQVE fretO: CLAVSERVNT : GVTTVRA - FAVCES: 
hA8 - INTeR: SIRAGES - SOLIO- DESCENDIT: eT ‘INTER . 


Con. VIL 


A dversaria . Literaria. 187 


HAEC: REGINA: GERIT:: PROCVL- HAnc OccultA - VIDEBAT- 
ATROPOS: INKIDeNs inteR - DIVERSA - vagenteM ᾿ 
CONSILIA - INTErITVs, QVAM: iAM sua fatA MANeRENT | 
TER: FVERAT- REVOCATA : diES: CVM* Parte ses ATVS: 

ET: PATRIAE:-cOMItANTE: SVAE: CVM: MILite CAESAR: 
GENTIS- ALEXANdrI - CupiENs AD: moEnia VENIT: 
SIGNAQVE CONSTITVIT. SIC: OMNis terROR: IN: ARTVM. 


. Con. VIII. ἘΝ 

obtereRE: adnisi PORtarVm clAVSTRa pEr ΝΕΒΕΝ', : " 
OPSIDIONE: TAMEN - NeC ? CORPORA ~ MOENTBVS : ArceNT., 
CASTRAQVE: PRO-MVRIS- ATQVE: ARMA’ PEDESTRIA* PON VNT-, 
HOS INTER COETVS:- ALISQVE*AD- BELLA: PARATVS: 
VTRAQVE: SOLLEMNIS : ITERVM - REVOCAVERAT . ORBES: 
CONSILIIS - NOX: APTA DVCVM - LVX: APTIOR- ARMIS. 


Remarks on two Passages of Sophocles, Ed. Br. 


Ἶ τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφὴ, (ΕΔ. ‘Tyr. -v. ¥.- Brunck 
translates νέα τροφὴ nova progenies ; Potter and-Franclin, “ youth- 
ful progeny.” Brunck’s translation of νέα may be defended, though 
I think hodierna would be more appropriate. Youthfud is evi- 
dently wrong. Cdipus saw before him an assemblage of persons, 
some of whom were children, νεοσσοὶ, nestlings scarcely fledged, οὐ- 
be πω μαχρὰν πτέσθαι σϑένοντες ; some. were weighed down with years, 
σὺν γήρᾳ Bapeis; and others, the flower of the Theban youth. The 
monarch, ’ addressing them collectively, certainly would not style 
them “ youthful progeny:” and should it be said that the king would 
naturally be more attracted by the young folks than by the senior part 
of the company, and consequently address himself to the former, 
I beg leave to observe that in this case the opposition, which I 
think every one must allow’ to exist between via and tod πάλαι, 
would be entirely lost sight of; νέα τροφὴ is ἣ τροφὴ νῦν οὖσα τοῦ Κάδμου 
πάλαι ὄντος, the now existing offspritig (whether young or old) of 
the formerly existing Cadmus—the modern (if 1 may.be.allowed the 
expression) offspring of the ancient Cadmus, or, in fewer words, 
the representatives of Cadmus,, as we call the living head of an 
ancient family the representative of the house of Ruseel, &c. 

Ai δὲ νυχίαν ἀπὸ ῥιπᾶν. Cd. Col. v. 1248. “aliz noctumis splen- 
dentibus astris,” Br. Musgrave understands the poet to allude to 
the Riphean mountains, and quotes a passage from Aristotle 
strongly in favor of this interpretation. However, cannot help 
differmg from both these able scholars, and still continue to give 
the passage that sense which on my first reading the play I thought 
the author intended to convey: viz. by νυχίαν ῥιπᾶν 1 understand 
the northern lights, 1 do not know bow the poet could have more | 


1.8 Adversaria Literaria. 


strikmgly designated the northern quarter of the heavens, than by an 
allusion to this beautiful phenomenon, nor how be could have used 
terms more descriptive of it. 


February \6th. C. G. H. 


>i pee 


PoLiTiaANt CARMEN. 


In usum et gratiam lectorum tuorum descripsi Odon Politiani 
purissimo Latinarum Musarum melle conditam, qua Christ. Lan- 
dino Horatii editionem gratulatus est. Pauci illam legerunt ; 
quippe que non fuit recepta a Politiani editoribus: at digna est 
quz a multis legatur, et hoc non semcl. Vale. T. T. Lut. Kal. 
Vebr. mpcccx1x. 


Vates, Threicio blandior Orpheo, 

Seu malis fidibus sistere lubricos 
Annes, seu tremulo ducere pollice 
_Ipsis cum latebris feras ; 


Vates, olii pectinis arbiter, 

Qui princeps Latiam sollicitas chelyn ; 
Non segnis titulos addere noxios 
Nigro carmine frontibus ; 


Quis te barbarica compede vindicat ? 
Quis frontis nebulam dispulit, et, situ 
Deterso, levibus restituit choris 

Curata juvenem cute ? 


O quam nuper eras nubibus et malo 
Obductus senio! quam nitidos ades 
Nunc vultus referens, docta fragrantibus 
Cinctus tempora floribus. 


Talem purpureis reddere solibus 
Letum pube nova post gelidas nives 
Serpentem positis exuviis solet 

Verni temperies poli. 

Talem te choreis reddidit et lyre 

‘Landmus Veterum laudibus zmulus, : 
Qualem tu solitus Tibur ad uvidum 
Blandam tendere barbiton. 

Nunc te deliciis, nunc decet et levi 

Lascivire joco, nunc puerilibus 
Insertum thyasis aut fide garrula 
Juter ludere virgines. 3 


en .-6}}»».0.5»........ 


Adversaria .Literaria. 189 


' M. 5. 
Viri multis nominjbus dilecti desideratique, 
Frank Savers, M.D. 


In quo ingenio acri judicium par accegserat. 
_Anerat m sermone ejus 
inngcuys fravitate condjtus lepos, 
teris deditus, 
- at insolenti asperjtqte prorsus abhorrebat, 
ut doctrme copiam morum liberalitate equaret, 
Vaxit moderatus, probus, pius, simplex ; 
‘MD pauperes pro facultate largus ; 
in amicos comis ; 
benevolus in omnes. 
Profectus ejus quales essent, . 
circa Archzologiam, Historiam, Philosophiam, Peesin, 
“que scripsit tegtautur ; ) 
Qualis ipse, superstitum lacryme. 
Obiit Vito die Aug. A. D. M.DCCC.XVII. 
oo /Etatis sug LIV. 


Anthologia ante Jacobsium inedita epigrammatg 
ΝΣ ΒΕ tia correcta, ὁ. ᾿ 
Ad Huschkii Analecta crit. jn Anthol. Gr. 
Pag. 202. 
| Aswvidqu Ταραντίνου. . 
Νύμφαι ἐφυδριάδες, δώροψ γένος, ἀρδεύοιτε 
τοῦτον Τιμοκλέους κᾶπον ἐπεσσόμεναι" 
καὶ γὰρ Τιμοκλέης ὕμμι, κόραι, αἰὲν ὁ καπεὺς 
wendy ix τούτων ὥρια δωροφορεῖ. ΝΕ ᾿ 
(Ὁ Mihi quidem versus 1. integer esse, nec medicina indigere vi- 
detur ; modo‘obseryetur, primam positionem δώρου non esse τὸ δῶρον, 
sed 6 Adpos, nomen propriutn.. Quis autem sit hic Dorus, non 
tam fiquet. Sj‘sit Dorus, Neptuni filius, qui in Doride regnayit, 
unde populi Dori appellati simt, Nymphz fontanz seu fluviatiles, 
Dori filie, ague erunt Dorice, i.e.-fons, fluvius, lacus, stagnum 
Doridis,. prope hortum Timoglis; quibng et convenit dialectys. 
Ged potest et alius Dorus fontem invenisse, puteum fodisse, aut 
ductum fecisse aquarum, euripum, piscinam cett., quibus auctoris no- 
men heserit; ut Genes. 26, 20, et 33. Iqann. 4, 6. Theocrit, {d. 7, G, 


100 Adversarta Literaria. 


Quin, si quis Dorus aquas loci illius animi causa frequentavit, hoc 
ipsum celebre a oe Brann illis nomen ejus dare potuit, ut Viteber- 
gee ευΐ Luther 


Η 


P. 208. 
εὐ On, 
Ei τὸν Ou 
Et nak Bad; ε δ᾽ poe, ὁ li Ἃ tal A  ἀαῤέλθηῤ, 
ἀλλὰ κατὰ στίχας ἴό a 6 
τὸν yap Πηρίδιν᾽ τιμώμενον ΓΝ oe 
ποιητὴν ἐπέων θεῖόν " pis ἔχω. 
V2. κατὰ στί ας leg. ara i ἄς, ‘Manes, genios sepulto- 
rum, inferos. Oi κάτω θεοὶ dikit’ ide orus Siculus } Ῥ: 105. et χάτω, 
apud inferos, ‘Aristophanes; Fachines Socrat. εἰς. 


ΟΡ, Ω7η.. 
‘Big λουτρ by ve 
Νύμφαι Νηϊάδες, βετανάστιοι, οὐχ ἅμα πάσας 
- ἥξειν αἰἰἱόμην χώμασιν ἡμετέροις" 
εἰ δὲ τόσην Τὸ λουτρὸν xn “χέριν, οὐδὲν ὀγήσει 
ὁ φθόνος, ef Νύμφαι πᾶν ἀκέλεννον ὕδωρ. 
“«Υ͂͵ ο, ἥξειν t. aw, céssuras esse.” ἜΝ 
“ P. 102. wird Philemonis Lexteon Technologicum Με. ange- | 
fiihrt, daraus auch Villoison zu Apollonii Lexicon Homericum mebr- 
mals ganze Artikel mitgetherit hat; -dre-aber fast alle wortlich schon 
in Varini Phavorini Dicsionario stehen ; doch so, dass der eine aus 
dem siden verbesaert-werden karin: So-wie hier dag;Ms: dailetzte 
Wort feblerhaft Περδικιόνης angiebt ; Varinus aber ν᾿ λαγωὸς, οὐ 
μόνον καὶ πτὠξ. —~—— richtig Hephaing a” ποι ὁ 


Solonis Fragmentum emendatum, 


documento quam caute inanja sensuque carentia teatis ejic iendas sint. 


In versibus iis, anes inter Solonis.. teliquias | primo loco posuit 
Brunckius Gnom. p; 7 * nalum. vitinm οἱ “insederat, posthac 
Meibonni, pgjore’ correctoue . obliteratum. Tad in nuperis editi- 
onibays; Gpomjcorum, etiam ‘ in,, Oxoniensi et ipsienti, Tegitar τ 
μεταπαίηφαν. λιγέως, ταδὶ, anfea Ἀρ.,, Diog. aert.. » ὦ. 18.) ubi 
fragmenti,sedes eat, sine Senet St metro ebatur ayo ἂς, τα 

iud, quod ex duobus ¢pdd. Diogenis δ᾽ ὑπὸ ὄγδαα, ἐς ταῦ 
yanum ‘Son mentum est, ductuip .eX..8€q. ὀγβιῃκονταίτη.͵ Latino. ie 


i Agitur de libro, tum inedito, 4 qui nuper demum Caroli Burneii cura ‘ ieus 
lentis typis. descriptns prodiit: SAbuans Asta Texvoneryixdy, Ex’ bibliothecs 
Panisiensi. ‘Londini, mai. MBCCOXII- 


Adversaria Literaria. 101] 


terpreti, qui vertit celeriter, haud dubie ταχέως in mentem venerat, 
particula h.1. imutilis. Rectius H. Stephanus, quum corruptum 
modeste servasset, aliud sub isto latens querehat, sed frustre.- .1ἀ 
vero vocabulum erat τάγυρι, rarius illud quidem, at vetustioris 
Atticismi auctoribus -usitatam. -Docemur hoc a Saida aliisque 
Lexicographis, qui ad τάγυρι i.e. ἐλάχιστον, Germanis quasi ein 
bischen (bisschen, bitsken): cf. Hesychii glogsas, σαγύριον et ταγύρια,͵ 
quod posterius tamen minus certum videtur:: ad τάγυρι igitur ili 
Eupolidis-auctoritatem adscripserunt.: Sed eorum im gratiam, 40] 
gravantur plures simul libros evolvere, quatuor illos versiculos affe- 
ramus, et nunc: postremum cum absurda lectione vulgata: 
: ᾿ - Hpts Μίμνερμον εἰπόγτα, 
“EEnxovratry Moipa κίχοι θανάτου." 
"AAN εἴ μοὶ κἂν viv ἔτι πείσεαι, ἔξελε τοῦτο 
μηδὸ μόγαιρ᾽, ὅτι σεῦ λώϊον ἐφρασάμην. ᾿ 
καὶ μεταποΐησον λιγέως ταδὶ, ὦδε δ᾽ ἄειδε" 
 ὈΓΦΔΩΚΟΝΤΜΕΤΗ MOIPA KIXOI @ANATOT. 

( Distichon, illis-ex Platarcho annexum, sejungendum est.) Jam 
na cum verbis, perexomooy τάγυρι τοδὶ, commodus hic et ele- 
gans. sensus reddit: Refinge, muta, leviculum hoc, pro serage- 
ΠΤ ponens: octopenariune. : ΝΙΝ 

Ingenioses. hujus-et-certe emendationis auctor primarius facile 
posset diutius: celari. Dicendum ergo, inventam illam jam dudum 
ease.a Sopingio, arguente notula ejus ad Hesych. T. H. p. 1339. 
tnbus:verbis perscripta. Qua occasione grate recolenda est saga- 
ClasuuL Frisii memoria, qui -quum obscuro loco ὠκχύμορος in sfadiis 
vixisset, in hoc mazime grammatico genere critices occupatus, 
cunctator autem et-ealumniator sui propemddum nibit ipse edidisset,, 
8. 1615. mextuus est, relictis maltis‘in Hesychium et alios veterum 
libros, correctionibus, que nundua omnes videntur, ipsius quidem 
nomine,- luceny vidisse. | Ψ . 


ΠΡ Scariger. de Accentibus. ΝΞ 

**- Accentus grayes, qui, .dictjonibys Latinis apponuntur, nostra: 
memoria introducti sunt et ἰ hbrosillati; qui cum nihil juvent-audi- 
torem, qui -nescit.utrum sit accipiendum quantum aut quantum, 
advesbialiter.vel ut nomen, nec etiam, prouuncijantem ; toto cpelo 
Latino ablegandi et fugandi, sunt, Virgule (,) et cola.(;).nostra. 
etiam .tempestete, ΣΟΙ a; Manutio, cum antiquis :prorsus.incog~: 
nita fuerint,” . 


In quendum. parvam et macilentum. 
Ne sis, terra, gravis : non fuit ille ΠΡ]. oo 
| —— ~<a 


is 


192 


NOTICE | | 


Of a VINDICATION of the MASTER of EXETER 
; ᾿ SCHOOL. 8vo, Exeter. 


“ Cxassyici nihil a.nobis alienum pufamus.”. The subject of the 
small Pamphlet before us is of extreme importance to all Masters 
of Foundation Schools. Few of our readers are unacquainted 
with the eminent character of Dr. Lempriere, as a scholar,.a 
teacher, and a writer. About nine years ago he was elected Master 
οὗ Exeter School. By his experience, his learning, his indefati- 
gable diligence, and his judicious system of education, he soon 
raised the School to a lofty eminence in reputation, and to unprece- 
dented numbers. But in the course of a few years an opposition 
was raised against him by some leading men in the Corporation, 
the Trustees of the School. Of the actions of men two motives 
usually exist, one real, and one ostensible. The real motive of 
his persecution he gives in his pamphlet. The ostensible motive 
was, that he had charged eight guineas instead of six, for tuition.’. 
Before he became a candidate for the School, he naturally inquired 
into the particulars of the terms; and was guswered by the organ 
of the Corporation, the Town Clerk, that the terms were unli- 
mited, and that the late master had raised them. He thought, 
with every calculating man, that the difference of the times autho- 
rised, and demanded, at Jeast such an increase. 

' By the Deed of Endowment it was stipulated, that the sons of 
freemen of the city shall be instructed in the Latin tongue without 
any expense to their parents. .These are admitted by an order 
from the Trustees ; and Dr. L. has always cheerfully received and 


* It was likewise indirectly objected to Dr. L. that he had not confined 
himgelf to the Latin Grammar used by his predecessors. This puts us in 
mind of the carping Momus, who, when ali the guds admired the beauty, 
the graces, and the perfection of the person of Venus, observed that der 
slippers were too noisy! Isa man of long experience in the art of teaching 
to he denied the privilege of selectin such books as he has found in practice 
best calculated to promote the speedy and solid improvement of his pupils? 
Are all our Latin Grammarians, from the great Busby to the acute Jones, 
to be neglected and discarded, to give exclusive way toone Grammar? We 
are far from blaming those, whose old associations induce them tu prefer 
Lily’s Grammar ; but we deprecate the bigotry of ascribing τὸ ‘that book, 
what is due to the supplementary instruction of excellent teachers. We 
strongly advise all scholars and teachers, befure they prono.nce a judgment 
on a Latin Grammar, to peruse attentively the best work on Latin Grammar 
ever published in England, Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries. 


Notice of a Vindication, $c. 193° 


educated gratis as many as they chose to send. From this -circum- 
stance a plain inference appears, thatthe charges made to other 
boys ought not to be subjected to the control of the Trustees, but 
left to the disposal of the Master, whese interest would always 
induce him to keep them within the bounds of moderation." On 
this subject it should not be forgotten, that his salary is only 40. 
a year, and that he is obliged to perform divime service twice on 
Sundays at the Chapel of the Hospital, for a most inadequate 
compensation, and thus deprived of the advantage of a more pro+ 
fitable clerical employment. | bo ts 
Of late, since the real cause of the opposition to Dr. L. ap- 
peared more usgent to its movers, the storm against him became 
so hoisterous,. that he found himself obliged to vindicate his con-. 
duct and his character by the publication, in December last, of 
the pamphlet under our notice. On that very day he was formally 
dismissed from the School by a majority of the Corporation. Be- 
heving, and. encouraged by his friends in the persuasion, that a 
superior tribunal would redress 89 summary and arbitrary an act, 
he came to the Metropolis, to consult some of the most eminent 
charaeters in the Courts of King’s Bench and of Chancery. By 
them he was informed that, however hard his case was, he could: 
obtain no redress, because the Corporation were both Trustees and. 
Visitors. | . 
‘Fo a common observer it will appear inconceivable, that the same 
mea should be both Trustees, and Visitors over themselves. Quis. 
custodiet tpsos custodes# We are indeed fold that the same case 
occurs in the. appeal from the Court of Chancery to the House of. 
Lords, in both of which the Lond Chancellor is supposed to de- 
cide. But we conceive the case to be widely different. The 
House of Lords will always, most properly, pay a great deference 
to the opinion of their illustrious president; but that opinion does 
not necessarily, or constantly, determine their decision. | 
. But, presumptuous as it may seem to differ from the great aw 
thorities, who were consulted, we humbly conceive that the word 
eisit, used in the Deed, does not confer on the Trustees the power. 
of Srzciat Visirors. “ The Maior and Comon Counsell” 
ate empowered “ from time to time, and att all times hereafter, to 
visite the said Schoole, and.to order, referm, and redresse all disor- 
ders and abuses in and touchinge the governmente and disposinge 


: ἃ The price of eight guineas rs reasonable to the writer of the account 
of Exeter School, in Carlisle's “ Sescription of Endowed Grammusar Schools,” 
Vol. i. p. 317; an account sent by a person evidently got partial to Dr. ζω. 


VOL. XIX. Clu NO. XXXVII. N 


104. Notice of a Vindication of 7 


of the same.” Now to us the word visit expressly signifies only to 
cramine, to inspect, and in ‘consequence “to order and reform, 
and redress.” And this surely might have been effected without 
the expulsion of the Master. If they possessed this authority, the 
path of candor and moderation was clear and simple. ‘They had 
only to “ order” that six guineas only should be paid to the Master, 
and with that ‘“‘ order” he would have complied. 

This is a subject of such vital importance to the cause of liberal 
education, that we trust it will be taken into public consideration; 
and that such obsolete and absurd charters, formed in times of 
comparative darkness and ignorance, will not be suffered to remain 
uncontrolled either by special visitors of rank and talents, or by 
the dispassionate and enlightened decision of those courts of law, 
the boast of our constitution, whose object and whose practice it is 
to secure “the rights of persons and of things,” and to vindicate 
* private and public wrongs.” Our sole view in noticing this sub- 
ject 15 the preservation, as far as our humble but sincere endea- 
vours will. permit, of the comfort and security of a body of mea, 
whose learnmg is, in general, deep, whose talents are extensive, 
whose assiduity is incessant, whose conduct is exemplary, whose 
exertions are meritorious, whose success is incontrovertible ; but 
whose influence on society is not duly considered, whose worth is 
not always properly appreciated, and whose services are seldom 
adequately rewarded. oo 

We shall finish this article by inserting a copy of a paper lately 
sent by Dr. L. to those, whom it may concern. 


Exeter Free Grammar School. 


I oveur to apologise for intruding the subject of Exeter School 
on the public attention; but it is momentous, not only to myself, 
but also to all masters of schools, and to the rising generation. . « - 

The able Chancery Lawyers, whom I have consulted, are all of 
opinion that ‘as the charter of St. John’s Hospital” (that charter, 
of the existence of which I was ignorant, till within these. few 
. months) “ allows the trustees: themselves to be visitors, and to con- 
trol the school ; the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over their 
act, however harshly or capriciously they may have exercised their 
authority, and whatever may be the merits of my case in a moral 
point of view.” . se 

It should be recollected, that the trustees of Exeter School ex- 
cuse themselves for signing my dismissal, because agreeably to the 
official letter of their town-clerk, written under the direction of 
their president, I asserted the right of unlimited charge for tuition.’ 
hough in my absence, and without my knowledge, they passed a 


the M aster of Exeter School. 195 


tlause to restrict the admission fee, their leading members, on my 
arrival in Exeter, when I separately expostulated with them, saw | 
the impropriety of a regulation which for 200 years had never been 
attempted either in the Latin or English schools, (into both of 
which they exercise the power to send as many sons of freemen 
as they please, to be educated gratis,) and they. promised that.it 
should be rescinded. Trusting to this promise, which I regarded as 
the honorable pledge of men desirous to evince the consistency of 
the conduct of their body, as well as the respectability of the master 
of the school, I left the parents of children, not freemen, to pay 
whatever they thought proper, sometimes six, sometimes eight 
guineas ; and the contribution was never regarded as immoderate 
by those who liberally considered, that the taxes of the house swal- 
lowed up the salary of 40/. together with the small pittance re- 
ceived from the pews of the chapel, where I was bound to preach 
two sermons every Sunday, and that I had no other emoluments 
from the Hospital from .which to pay the masters, of whom the 
classical assistant alone received double my own salary. 

__ Thus situated, and educating the sons of freemen gratuitously, I 
felt disappointed that the new members introduced into the Cham- 
- ber seemed to be actuated by selfish motives, and, concurring with 
the origimal party who opposed my election, persisted to enforce 
that clause, which would enable them, io violation of what was 
confessedly a proper and usual remuneration, to have their own 
children educated at a cheaper rate. So truly sensible, however, 
were the Trustees of the indelicacy of their interposition, that. in 
two subsequent meetings on the subject, they did not order or dt- 
rect, but merely expressed their opinion and their request, that.I 
would charge only six guineas. Considering their interference as 
improper, with respect to the sons of residents, not freemen, I 
charged eight guineas, but never ten, as has been maliciously: 
asserted ; and then, after being suffered for ten years to act as my 
predecessors had done, in raising the terms of tuition according to 
the circumstances of the times, and as I was authorised by the. 
official letter to believe 1 could do, they displaced me, without any 
previous conditional threat, or requiring any positive explanation, 
though I had simply before me the expression of their request and 
opinion, and the acknowledged assertion of some of their body that 
eight guineas were a fair charge.—They displaced me, without 
pausing, or expostulating with me on this questionable point, or 
on any point regarding the management of the school, as other 
men, actuated by common feelings of charity, would have done, 
before they inflicted so cruel a wound on the fair fame of an inno- 
cent individual: —ves! they displaced me aé the short notice of 


196 Notice of a Vindication, 6. 


twenty-six days, and after a consultation of scarcely minutes, 
on the plea that I had lost their confidence, and without alleging 
any charge whatever against my conduct or character. ‘The evi- 
dent cause of these violent and illiberal proceedings, therefore, was 
not incorrectness in the discharge of my duty; but that my sttuation 
was wanted for the son of one of these Trustees, who was almost 
- ¢mmedtately appointed after the farce uf an election, on the 27th 
of January. : 
' Against the capricious decision of these men, who, contrary to 
the pure administration of justice, have acted in the monstrous 
character of my accusers, jurors, and judges, it seems that I can- 
not even appeal for redress to a court of law or equity. Such is 
the law as it now stands! Be itso. [ submit, and only hope 
that I shall be the last sacrifice offered to these obsolete charters, 
vested too often in the hands of men who are guided by interested 
and arbitrary motives. The disgrace which they have attempted to 
throw on me recoils on themselves, and, lke Gehazi’s leprosy, 
will cleave to their body for ages to come. [ feel it no dishonor 
to be thus treated by men who pay so little respect to public or 
private feelings, and who so palpably neglect the calls of hu- 
manity. : 
After sinking above 500/. in improvements on the house and 
premises, and thus depriving my family of a little fortune, and 
after raising the school to a degree of celebrity which it had never 
before acquired, I retire from my situation, disappointed indeed 
m my expectations of redress, but not dishonored,—and insulted in 
the feelings of myself.and of my family, but not injured in reputa- 
tion. Thus obliged, at an age when the evening shades of life are 
drawing around me, to seek another home, and with nine children, 
to begin, as it were, the world afresh, 1 feel consoled by the re- 
flection that [ have conscientiously discharged my duty ; and I look 
with confidence to a more liberal and honorable support at the 
hands of an enlightened and unprejudiced public, than I have found 
from these Trustees. I retire from a situation which, with the 
galing chains that now encircle it, no man of independent mind 
would undertake. I would not, for all the wealth of India, ex- 
change my feelings with him who was marked, almost from his 
cradle, for my successor. No! I should read the “ by-paths and 
wadtrect crooked ways,’ and “the blood of Naboth,” written by 
δὰ. invisible finger agamst every wall. ; 


“ Victrix causa Duis placuit, sed victa Catoni.” 


; Joun Lemrryvere. 
"Exeter, Feb. 1, 1819. 


Literary ‘Intelligence. 197 


EXTRACT FROM MR. LEY’S LETTER. ©. 
: : Exeter, 1st December, 1808. 
*Sia,—In answer of your letter of the 24th November, to 
Mr. Collyns, I am desired to inform you, that the present number 
of boys m the Exeter School is 80; of whom 40 are boarders with 
the master at 30 guineas a year, and 40 are day-scholars at 6 gui- 
neas ἃ year. The salary is 20/. a year, as mentioned in the adver- 
tisement." [ don’t know that there are any other perquisites; but 
there may be some. The contribution for instruction is not limited ; 
tt has been increased by the present master. ‘There are two assist- 
ants in the school, paid by, and under the controul of, the master. 
There are some valuable exhibitions in the University.” 
‘“ Hen. Ley, Town-Clerk.” 


—«*Ltterary Bntelligence. 
PREPARING FOR THE PRESS. 
BIBLICAL. 
Tue Rev. F. Wrangham is engaged in editing Dr. Zouch’s va- 
rious Minor Works, published and unpublished, in 2 Vols. Oct. 
with a Memoir of his Life. _ | | 
Mr. T. Yeates, late of All Souls College, Oxford, and author 
of the * Collation of an Indian Copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch,” 
“the Indian Church History,” &c. &c., is now printing a Syriac 
and English Grammar, designed for the use of British students. 
The work was originally composed at the request, and under the 
inspection, of the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan. 


, CLASSIGAL. | 
No. VII. of Stephens’ Greek Thesaurus will soon appear, when 
the price will be again raised to 1/. 5s. small, and 2/. 12s. 6d. 
large. Present price 1/. 3s. and 2l, 10s. 
r. 


Meier is prepariug an edition of two Discourses of Iscus. . 


Aristeneti Epistolas Grece et Latine, ad Cod. recensuit, notis 
cum editis tum ineditis Merceri, Pauwii, Abreschii, Dorvillii, Sal- 
masii, Schurzfleischii, Lambecii, Bastii, atque suis illustravit J. 
Fr. Boissonade. 8vo. ΝΕ 

Revue Encyclopédique, ou Analyse Raisonnée des productions 
les plus remarquables dans la Littérature, les Sciences et les Arts. 
Par ane réunion de Membres de I’Institut, et d’autres hommes de 
ettres. 


NE 

‘. The original salary of 40/. had been reduced for some years to 20/. in 
order to defray the expense of building the School House. See Cartisle’s 
Endowed Schools, Vol. i. p. 270. 


108 Literary Intelligence. 


Professor Krehl, of Dresden, announces his intention of pubs 
lishing ἃ critical edition of all the works of Priscian. For the 
XVI Books “ De Partibus Orationis,” bis materials are complete; 
but he solicits those who possess valuable libraries, or preside over 
public institutions, to aid him in fitting for the press the smaller 
treatises of this ancient grammarian ; particularly by the communi- 
cation of MSS. The inspection of an impression by Elias Une- 
tus, and of an edition at Erfurt, of the book περὶ συντάξεως, by 
Ganimedes Lupambulus, ( Wolfgang Schenk) 1501, is earnestly 
requested by the learned Professor. His booksellers, the Weid- 
mans of Leipsic, undertake to receive and forward all communi 
cations. Jena A. L. Z. September, 1818. 


PHILOLOGICAL. 

Mr. Archdeacon Nares’s Dictionary of the middle age of the 
English Language. From a specimen of it, which we have seen, 
we can promise the public not only much curious struction, but 
much interest and amusement. 


PUBLISHED. 


| | CLASSICAL. 

Nos. I. and If. of The Delphin and Variorum Classics; price 
20s. each No. On the Ist of June the price will be raised to 215. 
each. Large paper double. 

‘HPQAIANO? ’ENIMEPIZMOI. E codd. Parisinis edidit Jo. 
Fr. Boissonade. Price 12s. boards. 


a os 


The present Edition is printed on the suggestion of several 
Schoolmasters, who have long objected to the old Gradus, as being 
greatly injurious to the progress of rising genius. 

Pensées de Platon sur la Religion, la Morale, la Politique, re- 
cueillies et traduites par M. Le Clerc, Prof.etc. Paris 1819. 8vo. 

Botanicon Libros iv. e carmine Gallico V. Cl. R. R. Castel in 
Latinos versus transtulit Cl. L. Rohard, Rhetorice Prof. in Schola 
Regia Flexiensi. Paris 1818. | 
᾿ Observations en réponse aux Considérations générales sur l’éva- 
luation des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines, etc. Paris 1818. 
4to. (par M. Garnier.) 

_Casp. Jac. Ch. Reuvens Oratio de laudibus Archeologiz, ha- 
bita A. D. 24 Oct. 1818, cum in Academia Lugduno-Batava 


Literary Intelligence. 199 


philosophiz theoretic et literaram humaniorum, in primis Arche- 
ologie extraordinariam professionem auspicaretur. Leid. 1819. 
4to. pp. 29. | ᾿ 

Disputatio de Zenobia ab A. G. Van Cappelle publice defensa, 
etc. Traj. ad Rhen. 1817. | | 
ς΄ Ὁ. 1. Lennepii Professoris in Athenzo Illustri Amsteladamensi. 
Disputatio pro Imperatore Gallieno. (in T’.1. Comment. Lat. Ter- 
tie Classis Instituti Regii Belgici.) 

Suite et Conclusion de la Pharsale, Poeme Latin de Ch. May, 
traduit en Frangais par P. L. Cormiliolle; suivi du tableau de Ja 
Guerre Civile, poéme de Pétrone. Paris 1819. 12mo. 

FEschyli Septem contra Thebas. edidit Conrad. Schwenk. Traj. 
ad Rhen. 1818. 8vo. pp. xi-+ 309. 

Observazioni sopra alcune Lezioni della Iliade di Omero, del Car. 
L. Lamberti. Milano 1813. 8vo. | 

Recherches sur les Bibliothéques anciennes et modernes, jus- 
qu’a la fondation de la Bibliothéque Mazarine, et sur les causes qui 
ont favorisé l’accroissement successif du nombre des livres ; par 
Petit-Radel, memb. de l'Institut, &c. &c. Paris 1819. Svo. pp. 
vu + 444. 

Lyrici Lusus Matheronis de Curnieu anno 1740 nati, 1807 
mortui. Paris 1818. 8vo. pp. 61. | 

Discours de S. Basile le Grand adressé aux jeunes gens, Xc. 
traduit en Frangais avec le texte en regard ; revu et corrigé sur les 
manuscrits &c. par C. A. F. Frémion, &c. Paris 1819. 8vo. 
pp. 176. . 

Nicete Eugeniani Narrationom Amatoriam et Constantini Ma- | 
nassis Fragmenta Greece et Latine cum notis J. Fr. Boissonade. 
2 Vol. 12mo. Paris 1819. Excudebat A. Bobée. 

Abhandlungen der KGniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in 
Berlin, aus den jahren 1814—1815. This volume contains in its’ 
philological part: A. Hirt iiber das Bildniss der Alten ; Savigny 
uber das Jus Italicum; &c. Boeckh iiber die Laurischen Silber- 
bergwerke in Attica; Ph. Buttmann iiber den mythos von den 
altesten Menschengeschlechtern; Derselbe iiber die Kronos oder 
Saturnus; L, Ideler iiber die Sternkunde der Chaldaer ; Derselbe 
uber den Cyclus des Meton, &c. 

De Constructione Antistrophica trium Carminum Melicorum 
Aristophanis Syntagma Criticum. Apud Weidmann. Lipsiz. 

L’Invariable Milieu, ouvrage moral de Tsed-ssé, en Chinois et 
en Mandchou, avec une version littérale Latine, une traduction 
Frangaise, et des notes; précédé d’une Notice sur les quatre Livres 
᾿ mMoraux communément attribués ἃ Confucius; par M. Abel Re- 

musat, Professeur de Chinois au Collége Royal. Paris, imprime- 
rie Royale. 1818. 4to.. | 


200 Neates to Correspondents. 


. BIBLICAL. : 

Remarks on Sceptspism, especially as it is connected with the 
Subjects of Organization and Life, being an Answer to the Views 
of Μ, Bichat, Sir T. C. Morgan, and Mr. Lawrence, upon those 
points. By the Rev. T. RENNELL, A.M. Vicar-of Kensington, 
and Christian Advocate im the University of Cambridge. Second 
Edition, pricg 5s. ᾿ 

Part 1. e Mr. Bellamy’s New Translation of the Bible. 4to. 
price 16s. .° | 


NOTES TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
Part VI. of The Sctence of the Egyptians and Chaldeans will 


appear in our next. - 
e shall hope to give a part of M. A. Mahul’s Dissertation on 
the Life and Writings of Macrobius in our next. 

The valuable and friendly remarks of C. H. have been received ; 
and the Editor earnestly requests their speedy continuance, as a 
new Edition is preparing for press. 

We have just received the review of Elmsley’s Medea, which 
shall appeat in our next. 

In our next will be published Etymological Disquisttions, tend- 
ing to illustrate the basis of philosopbical reasoning, &c. by Dr. 
Forster. 

Miscellanea Classica will also be continued. | 

We are anxious to record the Lord Chief Justice Abbott's Ox- 
ford Prize Essay, but we cannot trace a copy. We shail feel 
greatly obliged for the loan of a copy. | 

Muscologus’ article appeared in No. XXXIV. among the 
Adversaria Literaria. We hope to be favored by M. with longer 
articles. 

In compliance with the wishes of an anonymous letter-writer to 
receive an answer in the Classical Journal, the Editor of the Del- 
phin and Variorum Classics informs him, that he is obliged to 
print the whole of the text, but that he will adopt a more private 
and delicate manner of noticing the passages, to which he alludes, 
than the original Delphin Editors. The writer’s caution is well 
meant, but we cannot say decies repetita plucebit. 

‘The next part of the Cornish Dialect shall appear in our next. . 

We hope to insert in the next No. the article on the Island, on. 
which St. Paul was wrecked. 

Lacryma Elegiace as soon as possible. a 

We shall readily insert any observations on the Fragment in 
p. 185. that may be sent for our next No. : 


END OF NO. XXXVII. 


A 


παρα βοάν TIAVA ILOSVS | op 


πὠαὰὶ 


THE . | ον 
CLASSICAL JOURNAT. 
| NO» XXXVIII. 


JUNE, 1819. 


DISSERTATION ON ST. PAUL’S VOYAGE‘. 
| FROM CHESAREA TO PUTEOLT; 
ON THE. WIND EUROCLYDON; 


AND ON THE APOSTLE’S SHIPWRECK ON THE ISLAND 
MELITE. 


(With a Plate.) 


Sr. Paul having been accused before Festus, the Roman governor 
of Judza, by the Jews, of divers crimes, availed himself of his pri- 
vilege, as a Roman citizen, of appealing to the Emperor in per- 
son, or of claiming to have his cause heard and adjudged before 
the imperial tribunal at Rome. In consequence of this claim 
being admitted, it became necessary that he should be sent to that 
city ; and he was accordingly, together with several other prisoners, . « 
delivered in charge to J ulin a centurion of Augustus’s band, in 

order to be conveyed to Rome. | 


* Dr. Benson’s History of the Establishment of the Christian Religion, 
the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, the Bible hy Messrs: D'Oyley 
and Mant, and the second edition of Annotations on the Gospels, have each 
a map in which the course of St. Pau! is delineated; and they all agree in 
making Malta the scene of his shipwreck. This opinion, it is supposed, 
there ure strong reasons for rejecting as erroneous. The learned reader will 
recollect the voyage uf Josephus frum Palestine to Rome on a similar 
occasion. [ie also was wrecked in the Adriatic. 
᾿ The present article was originally designed to accompany a hew edition 
of some of the tracts-in the Geographi Minores. oR 


VOL. ΧΕ. - Οἱ,υἱ. NO. XXXVI. ..- Q.. 


9204 , Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage 


The centurion so entrusted put his prisoners, and accompanied 
them himself, on board a ship af Adramyttium,’ then lying at 
Cwsarea,* and, as we may infer, preparing to return homewards. 
It appears from the account, that they who conducted the ship 
meant to sail on their return by the coasteof Asia. Accordingly, 
the next day after they set sail, they touched at Sidon, a noted city 
on the coast of Ccelesyria, lying in 93° 35° N.L. and about 8 
degree to the North-of Cesarea, with some little deviation to the 
East. Here it seems they stayed some days; but how long, we 
are not informed. On their loosing from Sidou, they found that 
their intentions of continuing their voyage along the coast of Asia 
Minor would be frustrated by contrary winds, which obliged them 
" to pursue their voyage under® or on the Southern side of the island 
of Cyprus, instead of the Northern, as, according to their plan of 
sailing along the coast, they had at first proposed. 

The word referred to, literally translated, implies that they 
sailed under? Cyprus, the North point being accounted te be 
uppermost‘ in ancient as well as in modern geography. 

heir course, after doubling the Western point of the Isle of 
Cyprus, must have been 36° to the North of the West point, 
crossing both the Western part of the Aulon Cilicius and the sea 
which bqunds Pamphylia to the South. Following this course, 
they arrived at Myra, a sea-port on the coast of Lycia, situated in 
about 36° 18’ Ν. ἵν. and 47° 40’ E. L. from Ferro. How long 
they remained at Myra does not appear; probably not long, as 
they found an Alexandrian ship there, which was hound to Tealy, 
and, as it seems, to Puteoli; and as the season of the year was 
advanced, it may be presumed that they would not wait longer 
than was necessary. As Myra lies nearly under the same meridian 
with Alexandria,> it was, from the facility of reaching it, the usual 


* Adramyttium nearly retains its ancient name, being still called Adra- 
mytta. It is situate in a small gulph that bears the same appellation, 
opposite the island of Lesbos, in nearly 39° 30’ N. L. and 44° 40’ E. L. from 
Ferro. There is still a great trade in this neighbourhvod for the building 
large trading vessels and beats. Pococke’s Travels, vol. ii. part 2. page 16. 

* Mr. Bryant thinks that they set out from Ptolemais; but without 
foundation. The xxvith chapter of Acts ends with what was transacted at 
Cwsarea, and no account whatever is given of their journey to Ptolemais; 
and they might reach Sidon in one day from Cwsarea, as well as from 
Ptolemais. 

3 ὑπεπλεύσαμιν, Acts xxvii. 4. ; 
_* This mode of expression was probably derived from the visible elevas 
tion of the North pole of the heavens in Northern latitudes. See what is 
said on this subject in the following part of this Dissertation, of their saik 
ing under Crete, which undoubtedly means on the South side of thas 

island. 


5 Alexandria lies nearly in 48° E. L, from Ferro, 


from Caesarea to Puteoli, 203 


place for the Egyptian corn-ships to touch at in their way to Italy, 
as in the state of navigation at that time it could scarcely be sup-. 
posed that they would accomplish the voyage from Egypt to Puteoli, 
without some supplies on the way, both of necessaries, and also of 
. information respecting their course and situation. | 

Their course from Myra appears to have been at first nearly 
West, with a small deviation to the South, and probably coasting 
the Southern part, of the island of Rhodes, until they came over- 
against, or into the meridian of Cnidus, a maritime city of Caria, 
lying in 36° 42’ N. L. and 45° 12’ Long. East of Ferro. 

So far they had followed the coast as nearly as seems to have 
been convenient ; but here they met with a contrary wind, probably 
from a Northerly quarter, which drove them Southward towards 
Cape Samonium, or Salmone, the Eastern promontory of the Isle 
of Crete, and in latitude 35° N. L. and in longitude 44° 26’ East 
from Ferro. ‘This promontory they passed, or rather weathered, 
in sailing to the Southward, and perhaps not without some diffi- 
culty" or danger, and arrived at the Fair Havens,” situate on the 
Southern side of the same. island. ‘They here found that much 
_time had been already spent or wasted during the voyage, and that 
the proper season for sailing had elapsed, the fast.having been for 
some time passed, and navigation becoming dangerous, of which 
they were admonished by St. Paul. ‘The master of the ship, how- 
ever, though conscious that it was not prudent to proceed on his 
voyage at that season, was nevertheless desirous to gain a more 
commodious harbour to winter in, and undertook to carry the 
vessel as far as Phoenice, a port described by both Ptolemy and 
Strabo, lying on the Southern coast of the island of Crete, and 
opposite to the small island of Gaudos, or Clauda,? latitude 35° 12’, 


1 μόλι; σε παραλεγόμενοι adryy,—eam egre pretervecti. Schleusneri Lezicon. 

* Dr. Pococke says, that there is a small bay about two leagues East of 
Matala, which 1s now called by the Greeks Atpswves καλους, and not far from 
the site of the city of Lysia in the Peutingerian Tables, which must be the 
same with Lasea. 1)r. Pococke thinks, that Prasus and Lasea were the 
same place. Pococke’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 250. 

Rochette’s Map has a place called Sancti Limni, nearly in the same spot 
with that described by Dr. Pococke. ΄ . 

Wetstein observes, ‘Locus adhuc hodie in Creta nomen retinet Calos 
Limenas.” Note on Acts xxvii. 8. 

3 A place in Crete opposite to Gaudos is found in Rochette’s Map of 
Greece and the Archipelago called Finichia, which was undoubtedly the 
Phenice mentioned by St. Luke. It is not easy to determine the exact 
import of this passage. The words in the original are, Aspire βλέποντα κατὼ 
Aifa καὶ κατὰ Χῶρον, which implies, “ open to both those quarters of the hea- 
vens from Whence these winds proceed,” and of course unsheltered from the 
force of these winds, According to Pliny’s arrangement of the winds, this 
port was exposed to blasts from the S, W. by W.2 W. to N. W. by W. 2W. 


204 Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage 


longitude 41°40’ from Ferro, and about 52 nautical’ miles to the 
North-West of the Fair Havens. It might require some explana- 
tion, why those, who navigated the vessel in which St. Paul was 
a passenger, chose to pass round to the South of Cape Salmone, 
and that not without some difficulty and hazard, rather than to 
attempt to put in at some port on the Northern side of Crete. 
But this question is resolved by the account of Eustathius,* who on 
another occasion mentions that there were no good ports on the 
Northern side of that island. The propriety of the caution given 
by St. Paul was, however, verified in the attempt of those who 
navigated the ship to sail from the Fair Havens to Pheenice. For 
in this short passage, although the weather appeared to be favor- 
able at their setting out, they were soon assailed by a violent tempest 
from the South-East quarter. Αἵ what time of the year this hap- 
pened, and what was the nature and direction of the wind which 
occasioned it, will be the next subject of inquiry. 

1 just observed, that at their arrival at the Fair Havens they 
found much time had been spent, to which the slowness of ther 
passage from Myra to the meridian of Cnidus had no doubt con 
tributed, that the fast was already past, and sailing become édm- 
gerous. The word ἤδη, which we translate already, bears in this 
place, I think, a more extensive signification. It probably means 
that the fast had been over a considerable or at least an indefinite 
time, and that sailing had likewise been (as I infer from the repeti- 
tion of the word ἤδη for a considerable time dangerous. The 
fast alluded to was undoubtedly the Jewish fast of Expiation, which 
was observed on the tenth of the month Tisri, or the twenty-fifth 
of September, the day on which the autumnal equinox? was then 
-computed to fall. Stormy weather at sea was usual about this 
season ; but I am of opinion, that the time of this voyage, and 
of course of the shipwreck, was considerably later in the year than 
the fast, and probably took place towards the end of November, 
or the beginning of December. ΝΣ 

It appears from Josephus,* that navigation was accounted dan- 
gerous among the Jews from the time of the feast of Taberna 


eee a ey 


comprehending 80 degrees, ur more than seven points of the compass. If 
reckoned according to the arrangement of Vitruvius, it comprehends 105 
degrees from S.W. to N.N.W. ΣΝ. being nearly nine points of the compass. 
1 Δυσλιμένος ἡ Κρήτη πρὸς τὴν βόῤῥαν. Eustath. ad Odyss. τ΄. 
Unde Lucanus: 
— Boreaque urgente carinas Creta fugit. Lib. ix. ᾿ 


ἤδη 6 preterito significat rem paratam et peractam sine termino, Schleas 
nert Lexicon. 


3 Colum. lib. xi. cap. 2. 
4 See Wetstein’s note on this passage. 


2 


from Caesarea to Puteoli. 205 


cles, October the first, to that of the Dedication of the Temple, 
ecember the ninth; and in this interval both the voyage and 
shipwreck probably took place. Vegetius assigns the ihird' of the 
_ Ides, (November the eleventh,) for the day on which navigation 
Was interrupted ; and we are informed by the Calendar of Gemi- 
nus, and by Theophrastus, that stormy weather at sea may be | 
expected about that season. ‘Ihe day above specified had, I think, 
elapsed some time before they left the Fair Havens, which would 
nearly correspond with the cosmical” setting of Orion, (November 
the ninth,)'a time of year remarkable* for stormy weather in those 
seas, which the vessel which carried St. Paul was then traversing. 
-‘Some days more might pass between the time of the delivery of 
the caution given by St. Paul and their setting sail. Fourteen or 
fifteen days more were, we know, spent in the voyage; which 
brings the time, without any strain’on the narrative, to the end of 
November, or the beginning of the succeeding month. 

1 shall now speak a few words respecting the wind that caused 
this tempest. The Latin Vulgate translation, that of Castalio, 
and some others, render the word Kuroclydon by Euro-aquilo,* 
2 word‘found no where else, and inconsistent, as I think, in its 
construction with the principles on which the names of the inter- 
mediate or compound winds are framed. Euronotus is so called, 
as intervening immediately between Eurus and Notus, and as par- 
taking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. ‘The same holds 
true of Libonotus, as being interposed between Libs and Notus. 
Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of 
the circle with the winds of which they were composed, and no 
‘other wind intervenes. 

But Eurus and Aquilo are at 90 degrees distance from one 
another ; or, according to some writers, at 15 degrees more, ‘or at 
105 degrees ; the former lying in the South-East quarter, and the 
latter'in the North-East; and two winds, one of which is the East 
cardinal point, intervene, as Cecias and Subsolanus. The Carbas 
of Vitruvius occupies the middle point between Eurus and Aquilo 
in his scheme of the winds; but this never had, nor could have, the 
appellation of Euro-aquilo, as it lies in a different quarter, and the 

_ East point is interposed, which could scarcely have been over- 
looked in the framing. a compound appellation. The word 
Euroclydon is evidently composed of Eurus, or Εὖρος, the South- 


* Ex die igitur tertio Iduum Novembris, usque in diem sextum Iduum 
Martiarum, maria clauduntur. Veget. iv. c. 39. 

2 Plin. xviii. 81. * Virg. Hneid. vil.719. ; 

* See what Dr. Shaw has said concerning this wing. Travels, edit. 2. 
p. 331. : 


om? 


906  _ Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage 


East wind, and xAv8av, a wave, an addition highly expressive of the 
character and effects of this wind, but probably chiefly applied to 
it when it became typhonic’ or tempestuous. Indeed the general 
character under which Eurus is described, agrees perfectly with the 
description of the effects of the wind which caused the distress 
related in the account of this voyage. : . ͵ 
J. Eurus raises great waves. . 
Virgil, in his account of the storm which destroyed a part of the 
fleet of 7Eneas in the same seas,’enumerates Eurus among the 
winds, qui 
“ vastos volvunt ad littora fluctus.” Eneid. i. 86. 
Again: 
“ Aut, ubi navigiis violentior incidit Eurus, 
Nosse, quot Jonii veniant ad littora fluctus.” 
. Virg. Georg. ii. 107, 108. 
“4 Quam multi Libyco volvuntur marmore fluctus, 
Sevus ubi Orion hybernis conditur undis.”* — 
Horace mentions the effects of this wind in terms nearly similar. 
‘¢ Niger rudentes Eurus, inverso mari, 
Fractosque remos differat.” Horat. Epod. x. lib. 5. 
Particularly in the Sicilian and Italian seas, 
_____. Eurus 
Per Siculas equitavit undas.” Carm. iv. 4. 43. 
“ uodcunque minabittr Eurus 
Fluctibus Hesperiis.” Carm. i. 28. 25. 


IT. Eurus brings dark cloudy weather. 


It is called “ niger Eurus” by Horace, who also says, 


“Nec sidus atra nocte amicum appareat, 
Qua tristis Orion cadit.” Horat. Epod. x. 9. 


IE. A combination of Eurus with Notus seems to have been , 
‘ very destructive in the Mediterranean sea. 
“ Una Eurusque Notusque ruunt.” Virg. Zn. i. 85. 


“Ut horridis utrumque verberes latus 
Auster, memento fluctibus ; 
Niger rudentes Eurus, inverso mari, 
‘ractosque remos differat.” Horat. Epod. x. 8. 


“ Sepe per Ionium Libycumque natantibus ire 
Interjunctus equis omnesque assuetus in oras 
Czruleum deferre patrem stupuere relicta 
Nubila, certantes Euri Notique sequuntur.” 
Stati Thebaid. 1. vi. $07. 


ee a eS Sa SS 


* ‘Typhon is described by Pliny as “precipua navigantium pestis, non 
antennas mudo, verum ipsa navigia contorta frangens.” lin. il. c. 48. 

* Hneid, vii. 718,719. The Sword of Orion begins to set on the 22d of 
Scorpio (Nov.9.) Plin. xviii. 31. 


from Caesarea to. Puteoli. 207 


- [V. South or South-East winds prevalent in the Mediterranean 
at this season of the year: ‘“ Quinto Idus Novembris” (Nov. 9.) 
hyemis initium, Auster aut Eurus.” . ΙΝ 

[τ appears from Columella,”.that the stormy weather at this 
time of year came miostly from a Southern quarter. 


Nov. 6, South or West wind. Nov. 17, South wind. 
8, South-East wind. 18, Stormy. 
9, South-East wind. 20, South wind. . 


11, Seas dangerous to sailon. |} Dec. 7, South or South-East wind. 
16, South wind. . . 
V. Southerly winds particularly distressful to those who navi- 
gate the Adriatic Sea. 
_ Qua tristes hyadas3 nec rabiem Noti; 


Quo non arbiter Adriz ; 
"Major, tollere seu ponere vult freta.” Hor. Od. i. 3. 


** Me quoque devexi rapidus comes Orionis 
Illyricis Notus obruit undis.” Ibid. i. 28. 


‘‘___--—— neque Auster. 
Dux inquieti turbidus Adriz.” ᾿ Ibid. Od. iii. 8. 
In another place he dlludes to a person driven into the Adriatic 
Sea by the South wind: ἢ 


“Tile Notis actus ad Oricum, 
Post insana Caprz sidera.” Ibidem. 


The cosmical setting of Capra was, according to Columella, on 
the tenth of the Calends.of January, (December 23,) and indicated 
stormy weather.. ‘The Greek Calendar of Geminus* foretels storms | 
about the same time, and as it should seem from a Southerly 
quarter. 


Dec. 8, Stormy weather. Dec. 26, Stormy. 
5, South wind. $1, South wind. 
6, Storms of thunder, &c. Jan. 2, Storms at sea from South. 
11, Stormy. 4, Storms at sea from South. 
20, Stormy. — 6, South wind. 
21, Stormy. ᾿ 15, Stormy. 


A circumstance little noticed should be mentioned, which 15, 
that St. Luke’s words imply, that this tempestuous wind ἄγονα 
forcibly towards the island. I cannot agree with the remark of 
Schleusner® on this passage, who interprets the words κατ᾽ αὐτῆς 
to mean the ship, when it is evident that it means the island,. from 


: Colum. xi. 2. > Tbidem. ; 
3 The hyades set, according to Columella, Nov. 17 and 19; according to 
Geminus, Nov. 41. 
_ 4 Petav. Uranolog. . 
5. ἔΕβαλε κατ᾽ αὐτῆς ἄγεμος τυφωγεκὸς ὁ καλούμεγος Εὐροκλύδων. Acts xxvil. 14. 
Vox βάλλω, : 


208 Dissertation on St. Pauls Voyage 


the grammatical construction, and refers to τὴν Κρήτην in the pre- 
ceding line. Our translation pomts, though rather obscurely, to 
the same meaning,’ which is rather more clearly ex in the 
Rheims? translation; and the Vulgate? and Castal ’s* version 
agree in the same explanation. 

This acceptation of the signification of this passage contradicts 
the idea that the wind Euroclydon blew from a Northerly quarter, 
as it must in such case have driven the vessel from the island, and 
not towards it, as it appears to have done. The course of the 
wind from the South-East would impel the ship towards the 
Island of Crete, though not so directly but that they might wea- 
ther it, as they in fact did, and got clear, though it appears that 
they incurred some risk of being wrecked when runaing under, or 
to the South of the Island of Clauda or Gaudos, which lies oppo- 
site to the port of Phoznice, the place where they purposed to 
winter. 

A circumstance occurs in this part of the narrative, which creates 
some difficulty. ‘Those who navigated the ship were apprehensive 
of falling among the Syrtes, quicksands, which lay on the coast of 
Africa, nearly to the South-West of the Western point of Crete. 
But we should consider, that this danger lay only in the fears of 
the mariners, who knowing the Syrtes to be the great terror’ of 
those seas, and probably not being able to ascertain from what 
quarter the wind blew, neither sun nor stars having been visible 
for several days, and as these violent typhonic Levanters are apt 
to® change their direction, might entertain apprehensions that they 
might be cast on these dangerous quicksands. The event however 
proved, that the place of their danger was mistaken. : 

The storm still continuing, and probably from the same quarter, 
they lowered their sails, and were, it seems, according to the nauti- 
cal expression, reduced to scud under bare poles, and of course 
left nearly to the mercy and guidance of the elements. 

Both the Vulgate translation and Castalio render the words 
συναρκασθέντος τοῦ πλοιοῦ, by the word “ correptus;” a term of 
dubious signification, and not much explained either by our own, 


 “ There arose against it.” 
* “ A tempestuous wind called Euro-aquilo drove against it. Rheims 
Translation. _ τς 
3. « Misit se contra ipsam (Cretam scilicet) ventus typhonicus. Valgate. 
* “In eam procellosus ventus impegit.” Castellion. Vers. 
* Barbaras Syrtes ubi Maura semper 
Estuat unda. Horat. 
Inhospita Syrtes. Virgil. 
———— Semper naufraga Syrtis. Silius Italicus. 
6 Shaw’s Travels, p.331. 


- from Cesarean to Puteoh. 209 


or by the Rhemish version, both of which translate it by the word 
caught, by which it ‘is-rendered in most of the English versions. 
The Greek word is better explained in Schleusner, to mean “ ¢ir- 
cumacta et.agitate navi, procellarum vi, et ventorum impetu.”* — 

In this condition they seem to have been apprehensive, from the 
tossing of the vessel and her unmanageableness, that she might 
founder, or go to pieces: to prevent which, they bound her round 
under the keel or bottom with cables ; an expedient alluded to by 
Horace,* and practised in later times.’ 

For the same purpose of preservation they lightened the ship, 
and the dey following made a further sacrifice of part of her cargo. 
But the storm not abating, they gave up all-hopes of safety, as 
they were totally ignorant of their situation, and conscious only 
that they were at the mercy of the winds and waves. ‘They conti- 
nued fourteen days in this state of anxiety, but at length discovered 
that they were driven into the Adriatic Sea, perhaps from some 
abatement of the gloom, and some knowledge of the coast at its — 
entrance, where it was narrowest. : 

It may be necessary in this place to give some account of the 
boundaries or limits of the Adriatic Sea. 

These are to be inferred from writers of the best contemporary 
authority, not from casual or ambiguous expressions of later, or of 
inferior geographers. 

Strabo says expressly, that the Adriatic Sea is bounded by 
Panormus, the Port of Oricum, and by the Ceraunian Mountains, 
which lie in about 40° of North latitude, and upwards of four 
degrees to the north of Malta; and in another place, that the — 
Ceraunian Mountains, and the Promontorium Iapygium form the — 
boundary or mouth of the lonian Sea.‘ 

__ And Ptolemy, so far from accounting Malta to be an island of 

the Adriatic Sea, reckons it to be a part of Africa; and Pomponius 
Mela inclines to the same arrangement, ‘The latter writer speaks 
of Corcyra, which is in lat. 39° 30’ North, nearly, (half a degree to 
the South of the Ceraunian Mountains,) as being situated m the. 
neighbourhood,’ not in. the Adriatic Sea; so that. he probably 
meant to assign the same limits with Strabo. 


: Dr. Hammond's paraphrase approaches nearly to the interpretation of 
Schleusner : “ And the ship being carried by force along with it, (the wind 
Euroclydon) and being not able to resist or hold up against the wind, letting 
her luose, we were carried,” &c. 

2 ac sine funibus 

Vix durare carine 
Possint imperiosius 
FEquor ? Hor. Od. 1. 14. 
3 See Anson’s Voyage. 
4 Book vi. p. 405. Oxf. edit. -  § Vicina. 


410 —— Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage 


After much tossing ‘about in this sea, they apprehended at last 
that they were approaching the land, although the darkness of the 
night did not admit of the truth of their suspicions being ascertained. 
They therefore sounded repeatedly the depth of the sea; and from 
the decrease of the depth, they judged that their apprehensions 
were well founded. . 

Fearing, therefore, that they might fall on the rocks in the dark- 
ness of the night, when few or none could escape, they cast four 
anchors from the stern of the ship, and waited anxiously for the 
return of day-light. : 

This passage has given occasion to some jocular reflections on 
this narrative, as anchors are in the present age cast from the 
prow," not from the stern of the ship. But this is not the Oriental 
custom. Sir J. Chardin tells us, that the modern Oriental saiques, 
to which. he compares the ship of St. Paul, always carry their 
anchors at the stern, and never at the prow; and these are carried 
at some distance from the ship by means of the skiff, so as to have 
an anchor on each side. St. Paul’s ship had four anchors, two on 
each side. 

The mariners of the ship, in this distress, were desirous to secure 
themselves by gaining the shore in the boat, and accordingly length- 
ened or” loosened the rope at the stern, that towed the boat, under 
color of casting anchors from the prow ; and probably.it wag their 
_ attempting to do what was so unusual in the navigation of that age 
and country, which caused St. Paul to suspect that they meant to 
provide for their own safety at the expense of the lives of the other 
passengers. An observation of Sir J. Chardin should here be 
mentioned, which is, that the eastern people do not hoist their 
boats.or skiffs into the ship, but leave them in the water, fastened: 
to, and towed along by, the stern of the vessel. The taking up of. 
the boat then, and the difficulty of coming by it, mentioned above, 
does not imply that it was hoisted up into the ship, but that it was 
drawn towards the ship close to the stern; and the word which is 
in this place translated ‘letting down into the sea,’ must mean 
letting out a greater length of rope from the stern, from which the 
boat was tuwed ;* by which they meant to bring the boat round to 


‘ The anchor was cast from the prow by the Roman navigators. 
Anchora de prora jacitur, Virgil. 

2 Harmer's Obs. vul. ii. p. 496. 

3 Χαλασάντων τὴν σκάφην εἰς θάλασσαν. V.S0. 

The word x» signifies erpandy, as well as demitto. Schleusner. 

+ It is usual in the present age for the Egyptian vessels to tow shallops 
or large boat» afier them, in their passage down the Red Sea. Niebuhr 
says, that the vessel on board of which he embarked at Suez towed after 
her three large shallops and one small. | 


- from Caesarea to’ Puteoli. 211 


the prow of the vessel, which by being nearer to the land might 


facilitate their escape on shore. 

The soldiers, and possibly the centurion himself, warned by St. 
Paul of the intention of the marmers, which so nearly concerned 
the safety of those who were likely to be thus abandoned, obviated 
the purpose of the sailors, by cutting asunder the towing-line of: 
the boat, and setting her adrift. 

The numbers: of the people on board are next specified, and: 
amounted, we are.told, to 276 persons ; a large number, according 
to modern ideas, for a ‘trading ship of that age to carry. 

But Sir John Chardin clears up this difficulty, by supposing, 
very reasonably, that this Alexandrian ship was like a modern 
Egyptian saique, of 320 tons burden, and capable of carrying from 
24 to 30 guns; and this computation of its size.is not at all incredi-. 
ble. Niebuhr describes the vessel in which he took his. passage 


from Suez, as being much larger, and able to carry at least 40.- 


guns. 
But to comé nearer to the date of this transaction, Lucian 

describes an Alexandrian* corn vessel of 180 feet in length, more 

than 45 feet wide, and 48 and a half feet deep. The tonnage of 


such a ship, according to the usual mode of calculation, would be, 


1938.6 tons.” 

At this crisis of the voyage, those on board again lightened the 
ship, by casting out the lading of the wheat into the sea; which 
. part of the cargo appears to have been spared, when they threw 
some of the lading overboard before. 

When the day came fully on, it appears that they were still as 
ignorant as ever of the place on which they were likely to be 
stranded ; but fortunately discovering a small creek with a landing- 
place, they purposed to thrust the ship into it, to facilitate 
their escape on shore. In consequence of this intention, they. 
weighed their anchors, hoisted their main or largest sail, and made: 
towards the land. 

[τ is likewise mentioned, that they loosed, what we translate, 
the rudder-bands, an expression that requires some explanation. 
We are told, by Dr. Pococke,’ that “the Egyptian ships, instead 
of a handle to the rudder in the ship, have a pole fixed in it, 
inclining upwards beyond the ship, bemg about fifteen or twenty 
feet long: a beam is laid across the upper deck, which extends on 


‘ Navigium seu Vota. ΄ 

5 According to the English foot; but if measured according to the Roman 
foot, it amounts to 1751 tons. 

3 Travels, vol.i. p. 485. where a print of the Egyptian rudder and mode 
of steerage is given. 


. 


212 Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage 


each side about fifteen feet beyond the sides of the ship. To each 
end of this is tied a yard or a pole perpendicularly, so as that 
either end of it may be moved backwards and forwards towards 
the ship, as it is drawn. ‘Io the lower end of this comes a rope 
from the pole, which is fixed into the rudder. ‘To the upper eud 
a rope is fixed, which is carried to a block at the corner of the 
stern, and brought again to another block at the upper end of the 
yard, and thence crosses the ship over the great beam, and goes to 
the other yard, to which, and to the stern, it is carried in like 
manner as on the other side. When the ship is to be worked, the 
rope of communication, which goes across the ship, is drawn to a 
post nearer the stern, where there is a stay made for it, in which it 
is drawn one way or another, as the pilot directs, and moves the 
helm by the ropes fixed to the lower end of the aforesaid yards ; 
and when one 15 drawn nearer, and the top of the yard comes 
nearer to the ship, the bottom consequently flies out, and the other 
pole is Jeft perpendicular in its natural direction. When there 18 a 
storm, and they let the ship drive, they loose the rope off from that 
post, and let the helm play as it will. And this seems to explain 
what is mentioned m St. Paul’s voyage, ‘That when they had 
committed the ship unto the sea, they loosed the rudder-bands," and 
hoisted up the main-sail to the- wind.’ For these. ropes, which 
direct the helm, may be very properly called the rudder bands, by 
which it is either fixed or moved one way or the other.” 
- St. Luke next informs us, that, m the attempt to run the ship 
aground, they fell into a place where two seas met; by which we 
may understand an eddy or surf, which beat on the stern of the 
vessel while the head remained fast aground ; in which situation it 
was to be expected, and indeed it so happened, that the ship 
should soon fall to pieces: but the proximity to the shore, and 
the assistance afforded by the broken pieces of the wreck, provi- 
dentially brought them all safe to land. | 

When they had reached the shore in safety, they discovered that 
the island on which they were cast was named Melita. | 

It has been a subject of much difference of opinion among the 
commentators, whether the island here specified was the noted 
island of Malta, on the southern coast of Sicily, formerly called 
Melita; or an obscure island in the Adriatic Sea, which was for- 
merly called by the same name, and which is now known by the 
name of Meleda. 


* From the expression of St. Luke, φευκτηρίας τῶν πηδαλίων, it seems that the 
two yards, mentioned by Dr. Pocucke, to which the ropes were fastened, 
explain why the plural number, πηδαλίων, was-here used, and that the word 


means the clavi, or handles, by which the rudder is guided, not the rudder 
itself, 


from Casarea to Ῥιμδοϊ.. -  ὀἼῴἼΖ818 


I am.of opinion, that the island Meleda, last mentioned, is the 
one here alluded to. . 

‘My reasons are as follows : 

The island of Meleda lies confessedly im the Adriatic. Sea: 
which situation cannot, without much strain on the expression, be 
ascribed to the island of Malta, as I have before shewn. 

eleda lies nearer the mouth of the Adriatic than any other 
island of that sea, and would of course be more likely to receive 
the wreck of any ’ vessel that should be driven by tempests towards 
that quarter. 

Meleda lies nearly N. W. by N. of the South-west promontory 
of Crete, and of course nearly in the direction of a storm from the 
South-east quarter. 

The manner in which Melita is described by St. Luke agrees 
with the idea of an obscure place, but not with the celebrity of 
Malta at that time. Cicero speaks of Melita (Malta) as abounding 
in curiosities and riches, and possessing a remarkable manufacture 
of the finest linen. The temple of Juno there, which had been 
preserved inviolate by both the contending parties in the Punic 
wars, possessed great stores of ivory ornaments, particularly figures 
of Victory," “ antiquo opere et summa arte perfecte.” | 

*€ Malta,” says Diodorus Siculus,* “is furnished with many and 
very good harbours, and the inhabitants are very rich; for it is fall 
of all sorts of artificers, among whom there are excellent weavers 
‘of fine linen. Their houses are very stately and beautiful, adorned 
with graceful eaves, and pargeted with white plaister. The inba- 
bitants are a colony of Phoenicians, who, trading as merchants as 
far as the Western Ocean, resorted to this place on account of its 
commodious ports and convenient situation for a sea trade; and 
by the advantage of this place, the inhabitants presently became: 
famous both for their wealth and merchandise.” 

It is difficult to suppose, that a place of this description could 
be meant by such anexpression, as of ‘an island called Melite ;” 
nor could the inhabitants, with any propriety of speech, be under- 
stood by the epithet “barbarous.” 

But the Adriatic Melite perfectly corresponds with that descrip- 
tion. Though too obscure and insignificant to be particularly 
noticed by the ancient geographers, the opposite and neighbouring 
coast of Illyricum is represented by Strabo as perfectly correspond- 
ing with the expression of St. Paul. 

“The circumstance of the viper, or poisonous suake, that fas- 
tened on St. Paul’s hand, merits consideration. 
SP PS 

" Oratio in Verrem, lib. iv. 8. 18. et ᾷ. 46. 

* Diodor. lib. v.c.1. Bouth’s translation. _ 


214 Dissertation on St.-Pauts Voyage 


Rather Giorgi, an ecclesiastic of Melite Adriatica, who~ has 
written on this subject, suggests, very properly, that as there are 
now ΠΟ serpents in Malta, and us it should seem were none in the 
time of Pliny, there never were any there, the country being 
dry and rocky, and not affording shelter or proper nourishment for 
animals of that description.” But Meleda abounds with these 
reptiles, being woody and damp, and favourable to their way of 
life and propagation. 

The disease, with which the father of Publius was affected, 
(dysentery combined with fever,’ probably intermittent) affords a 

resumptive evidence of the nature of the island. Such a place as 
‘Melite Africana, (Malta) dry and rocky, and remarkably healthy, 
was not likely to produce such a disease, which is* almost pecu- 
liar to moist situations, and stagnant waters, but might well suit a 
country woody and damp, and, probably for want of draining, 
exposed to the putrid effluvia of confined moisture. 

After a stay here of full three months, they departed in a ship of 
Alexandria, which, perhaps from similar stress of weather, had 
wintered in the isle, and came from thence to Syracuse. | 

If we suppose that St. Paul with his company arrived at 
Meleda about the beginning of December, a stay of three months, 
and of perhaps something more, will bring their departure from 
this island to the beginning of March, the tenth day of which: 
month was, according to Vegetius, the time of the commencement 
of the navigation of merchant ships, and thence called Natalis 
_Navigationis This is about the time of the cosmical rise of 
Orion,* and the putting forth of the leaves of the fig-tree,° 
according to Theophrastus, at which time Hesiod® declares navi- 
gation tu be safe. ; 

The Natalis Navigationis in Egypt, called also Isidis Navi- 
gium,’ was on the third of the nones of March, or on the fifth day 
of that month ; Isis being the representative of the moon, and that 


1 Πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεγτερίῳ συγεχόμεγογ. 
5. See Pringle’s Diseases of the Army, passim. 

3 Veget. lib. iv. c. 29. , 

* Orion rises cosmically, March 16. lin. xviii. 26. 

> Fig-tree, ἐρινεὸς, leafs 14 Pisces, March 2. Theophr. . 

Fig-tree, συκὴ, leafs 29 Pisces, March 17. πρὸ ἰσημερίας δὲ μικρόν, Tbidem. 

N.B. The vernal equinox, or entrance of the Sun into Aries, is placed by 
Geminus at March 19.  Petavii Uranologion. . 

© οἰγέται ἄρτι θάλασσα ἰφοπλίφοιτε δὲ γήας 

᾿ΩὩρίων ἀκλύστων ἄγειν λιμέγωγ, Greek Epigram. 

” Calend. Constantini Magni, A. Ὁ. 825. Petavii Uranologion. p.:112. 

Calendar. duo vetusta, quorum in Grutero reperiunda exemiplaria. 


/ 


from Caesarea to Puteoli. * 915 


planet being supposed to have a great influence on the weather,’ 
was likely to be introduced as the protectress of navigation. 

Lucian and others speak of the moon as having the power to 
raise or to compose tempests” at her pleasure. A writer in the 
Theological Repository * has brought an argument in favor of the 
Opinion, that the island here in question was the island of Malta, 
“ἡ from,” as it is expressed, “Ἅ St. Paul’s calling at Syracuse, in 
his way to Rhegium ; which is,” he says, “ so far out-of the track, 
that no example can be produced in the history of navigation of 
any ship going so far out of her course, except it was driven by a 
violent tempest.” ‘This argument tends principally to show, that 
the author had a very incorrect ideq of the relative situation of the 
places to which he refers. The ship, which carried St. Paul from 
the Adriatic Sea to Rhegium, would not deviate from its course 
more than half a day’s sail by touching at Syracuse; and the delay 
so occasioned would probably be but a few hours more than it 
would have ,been, had they proceeded to Syracuse in. their way . 
to the Straits of Messina from Malta,.ag the map will show. 
Besides, the master of the ship might have, and probably had, | 
some business at Syracuse, which had originated at Alexandria, from 
which place it must have been originally intended the ship should 
commence her voyage to Puteoli; and in this course, the calling 
at Syracuse would have been the smallest deviation possible. The 
difference then, on which this writer places so much dependence, 
is too insignificant to merit farther notice. | 

Again, supposing the ship to have come from Malta, 1: must 
have been on account of some business, probably commercial, - 
- that they touched at Syracuse in their way to Puteoli, as Malta is 

scarcely more than one day and night’s sail from Syracuse :* whereas 
there might be some reasons respecting the voyage, had the ship 
come from Meleda, which is more than five times that distance,> — 
and probably a more uncertain navigation. ι, 

After three days’ stay at Syracuse, they sailed for the Straits of 
Messina, and after, as it should seem, one day’s stay at Rhegium, the 
South wind blew, and brought them on the ensuing day to Puteoll. 


ns ae 


1 See Long’s Astronomy onthe Metonic Cycle, vol. ii. §. 1338. 

2 Jablonski Pantheon Agyptiacum, lib. iii. cap. 1. 8, 6. 

3 Theological Repusitory, vol. iv. 

+ Malta is eighty-five nautical miles, or ninety-nine and a half English 
miles, from Syracuse. 

5 Meleda ts distant from Syracuse 372 nautical miles, or.440 English, in 
a straight line; and if we consider that the course from Meleda requires a 
large circuit, and that from Malta very little, it will make the difference of 


alstance more than 400 English miles, or more than five times the distance 
of Malta. 


a 


416 ’ Oxford Prize Poem. 


This must be understood as a voyage of two days’ sail, as the dis- 
tance is near 1000 stadia, or more than the extent of three degrees 
of latitude, which with a fair wind, as it seems they had, might be 
performed in two days and a night. ΝΕ 

Thucydides,’ speaking of the usual computation of sailing, says, 
that a ship will pass from Naples to Sicily in two days and a night. 
Now Naples is close upon Puteoli, and Rhegium lies on the strait 
that divides Sicily from Italy. A fair wind, as in the present 
instance, might accelerate the voyage a little above the usual calcu- 
Jation. 

A note of Wetstein’s on this passage bas shown, that Puteoli was 
the port at which the corn ships from Egypt (Alexandria?) usually 
souched, and landed their cargoes. " 

F. 


VIS MAGNETICA. 


εἰραιπ,...».-..----.... 


Arcanas rerum causas, quo corpora pacto © 
Inter se coéant diversa, et foedera jungant ; 
His etiam inventis, que, quantaque commoda vite 
Orta, cano :—juvat hec nature vincla sequaci 
Inscrutari animo, et cecam prepandere normam. 
Scilicet angustis conclusa in finibus olim 
Errabat gens dura virim, fructusque legebat 
Indigenos ; nondum socii commercia pont, 
Nondum alias spectarat opes, nec littora nérat 
Altera longinquis pelagi devolvier undis. 
Ergo etiam fragilem trepidanti pectore lintrem . 
Vix dabat oceano, et timide, ducentibus astris, 
Vela trahens, tardos radebat navita cursus. 


* Thucydid. lib. vii. c. 50. 

* There was a considerable trade between Alexandria and Puteoli ‘for 
other articles besides curn. 

Forte Puteolanum sinum pretervehenti, vectores nauteque de navi 
Alexandrina, que tantum quod adpulerat, candidati, coronatique, et thura 
hbantes, fausta omina et eximias laudes congesserant: per illum se-vivere : 
per illum navigare: libertate atque fortunis per illum frui. Qua re admo- 
dum exhilaratus, quadragenos aureos comitibus divisit: jusque jurandum, 
et cautionemn exegit a singulis, non alio datam summam, quam in emtio- 
nem Alexandrinarum mercium, absumturos. Sueton. Cesar Octavius 
Augustus, ! ' ° 


Osford Prize Poem. 217 


At neque perpetuis urger? protenus umbris . 
Fas visum est:—tandem nova lux orientis ab oris 
Pandere se subito, et tenebras dispergere inerteis ; 
Visaque nimborum media sub nocte fidela 
Indicio monstrare polos ; coeloque latentem 
Obscuro Magnetis apex advertier Arcton. | 

. Hinc tibi Nauta viz faciles; maris inde reclusum 
Imperium ; hinc alas equitans sublimior undis - 
Dat secura rates éxternis carbasa ventis, - 

Et patefacta jacent vasti spatia alta profundi. | 

Quare age, et bec animo miracula volvere rerum 
Ne pigeat ; causasque, aut quo sub foedere fant 
Nature, et cecas penitus conquirere leges. 

Principio, hunc omnem Terrai habitabilis orbem, 
Expansosque maris tractus, immania ceeli, 
Materies sensim tenuis circumambit, et: intus. 
Diditur ignea vis, et fusilis irrigat Aether : 

Quz quoniam ferri per operta foramina sese 
Insinuat, venas penetrans Magnetis epacas, 
Idcirco huc cece vires tacitumque reverti' 
Imperium, et nulla connitens lege potestas. 
At vero subtilem alu retulere fluorem 
Perpetuo manare polis, certisque revolvi 
Cursibus : huic sianilis lapidem pervadit, et acri 
Impulsu ferrum inde trahit, compage coercens 
Funditus, et liquida cohibet vortigine raptum. 
Forsitan' haud alia ratione Electrica Virtus 
Pollet, et in medicos secreta accingitur usus, 
Ipsa sui impatiens, alien conscta tactus ; 
Quod simul ac liquidus parteis penetraverit ardor 
Corporis appositi, calor irruit intus, et omnem 
Pervolat ignifero tremefactam volnere molem. - 
Contemplator. item,” cum jam dira ethere in alto 
Lugubre sulphureas jaculantur fulgura flammas, 
Mortiferamque rotant hyemem, quanto impete ferrum 
Sepe facultates miras, viresque trahendi 
Accipiat proprias, furtivamque induat artem. 
Presertim,® clara siquando accenderit Arcto 
Noctivagas Aurora faces, rubraque coruscum 
Luce jubar, rutilumque polo monstraverit arcum, 
Tum fixum mutare locum, statione relicta 


* Connexion between Electricuy and Magnetism, 
2 Magnetism communiceted by Lightning to Iron. 
3 Needle affected by the Aurora Borealis. 


VOL. XIX. . Cl. JU. NO. XXXVUL. x 


_- 


218 Oxford Prize Poem. 


Continuo, mque magis varianti volvier zstu 
Magneta aspicies; donec fluor iste recedens 
Fervidus antiquum dederit servare tenorem. 

Fors et multa quidem tacito moderaminis actu 
Circumagitur, magni permanans meenia mundi 
Vis, nostris invisa ἊΝ ΜΝ Ergo, Improbe, Numen 
Esse Dei dubitabis adhuc, cum tanta patescant 
Divine mopumenta manus, demensne putabis , 
Sponte sua has moles fixos sibi ponere motus ? 
Nec me animt fallit, quod’ vis eterna coactos 
(Quidquid erit) propria contorquet lege Planetas. 
Scilicet hi certo vastum per Inane rotatu 
Coelestes iterare choros, et mutua plecti 
Foedera, dum medio Sol indefessus Olympo 
Jussa regit spate et subjectos allicit urbes. 

Atqui causa Jatet, neque enim concessa potestas 
Abdita nature scrutari, obductaque crea 

Nocte ministeria, aut rationem exquirere mundi. 
Nec tibi, magne Parena, (quamvis tibi dia reclusit 
Flumina, sacratosque indulsit largior haustus,) 
Nec tantum Doctrina dedit ; neque lumina mentis 
Clara tue densam poterant dispellere nubem. 

Sit satis orta istinc cognoscere commoda, et axis 
Virtutem, certosque maris preedicere tractus. 

Et jam tempus erat, quando arctos incola fines 
Linquere, et audacem pelago committere puppim 
Inciperet, majora movens; ciet emulus ardor 
Ignotam tentare plagam, terraque relicta 
‘L‘utius, in medias descendere navibus undas. 

Quis tamen insanos fluctus, quis rumpere primus 
/Equora, vasta situ, vexantibus horrida nimbis 
Audeat, aut sevis ponti occursare procellis?  - 
En! Columbus adest ! felix tu parvula talem 

Terra tulisse virum, et primis fovisse tropzis ! 

[ili firma fides, totoque in pectore flagrans . 
‘Ambitio, irrequieta, agitans ; Illi inscia flecti 

Virtus, indign stimulis accensa repulse. 

Preterea, occidue jam tum telluris imago 

Multa inerat, multusque adeo cotvisere terras ; 
Urget honos facti, et magnz vis vivida mentis. 

Nunc etiam tanti non unquam oblita laboris =. 
Usque novo recolens studio, venerabile nomen. 


LS a SS Sg Ss  ΒΒΝΟΝΝΟΝ 


* Ithas been supposed that Gravity is nothing more than Magnetism 
acting on a larger scale. DO . ΝΞ 


t \ 


Oxford Prize Poem. GY 


' Musa referre juvat, meritamque edicere laudem. 
Ut, fida tum fretus acu, et terrestria spernens 
Claustra, intentati per Formidanda Profundi 
Flexerit impavidum Jonginqua ad Jittora cursum. 
Ut— Dux sola vie nigra cum nocte negarat 
Indicium, terre cum jam spes irrita nautis 
Despondere animos dederat, pelagique frementis 
Horror, et irati. manifesta numinis ire ;-— 
Tile, Auctor, coeptique tenax, interritus ausis 
Perstiterit ;—“ ‘Tu terrificos, Columbe, tifnores 
Mittere tum potuisti, et tutos tangere portus, 
Speratumque aperire viris felicior orbem. 
Tu Pater indigeno concussos fulmine montes, 
Et juga spectasti rigidis concreta pruinis, 
Nimborumque atra sub majestate recondi 
Piniferum caput, et ruptis latera horrida saxis. 
Tu quoque precipiti torquentes vortice fluctus | 
Niagaram, Platamque, et que magis omnibus auctam 
Volvit Amazon aquam, et vasto se proluit alveo.”’ 
Major abhinc rerum facies, et splendidus ordo. 
Exoritur, simul assiduis freta versa carinis 
Fervere, dum claros accendit fama nepotes 
Fata sequi paria, et similes deposcere lauros. 
Quid tibi Gallorum classem, aut jactantis [beri 
Commemorem? vel quas toties prepandere cursus 
Insolitos, longe liquidi super invia regni, 
Inclyta fluctifragis Lisboa immiserit oris? 
Tu vero ante alias, hinc tu Brittannia ponti 
Arbitra subjectas late dominaris in undas, 
Invictosque adeo pelagi sortiris alumnos. 
Hinc'et Ralivium jactas, animamque capacem 
Ultoris Draci, mnumerasque ex -ordine palmas. . 
6 quoque, te studio sequitur pia musa fideli, 
Infelix Ductor! quem seve injuria gentis 
_ Ante diem, misera laniatum morte peremit ! 
Heu! quoties totum patefecit puppibus orbem! 
Quot maris iguotos tractus, quot littora visit ! 
Sepius Angliacam conferto in littore pompam νυ 
Pennigeri obstiipuere duces, sulcataque rostris 
/quora, et insolita tarde se mole moventem 
Turritam ignivomo cum fulmine majestatem. 
Ille etiam, ’ Angligenis semper metuenda, sub Arcto 


* Sir Hugh Willoughby and his Crew perished in Arzina, when sent by 
Queen Elizabeth to discover the North-ast Passage. 


490 Oxford Prize Poem. 


Cincta gelu informt, e¢ vastis rigida arva pruinis 
Cerneret ; Ille etiam Australem spatiatus ad axem 
Suavia conspiceret Taite rura, virentemque 
Arvorum faciem, et pingues sine vomere glebas. 
Hac nobis Magnete fatens animata potestas 
Attulit, et socio conjunxit foedere mundun. 
Respice devictos celebres, Carthago, triumphos ! 
Hannonisque bumiles ausus ; tu Grecia parvum 
Respice remigium, et timidos prope littora cursus ! 
Quz seros diversa manet fortuna nepotes ! 
Quippe illo ductore viz, tandem ultima late 
Regna interfuso junguntur dissita fluctu. 
Ubere dehinc alns gremio Peruvia largas 
Fundit opes ; aliis aurato pondere dives 
Mexica, et argenteas aperit Potosia venas. 
Nec sola Hesperie flaventes integit agros 
Aurea luxuries camporum, et lucidus ether, 
Purpureisve rubent juga roscida cincta racemis. 
Hinc qua, Augusta, tuas Thamesis prelabitur arces 
Fervida sollicito circumstrepit ora tumultu. 
Quin, tibi thuriferas Oriens expandit arenas, 
Ambrosiisque ultro desudat balsama guttis. 
Dat proprias tibi Niger opes, dat aromata Ganges 
Ditia, te patrio Byzanti e littore portans 
Munera, submissis veneratur Turca tiaris. 
Inde etiam excultz, fulgent felicius artes, 
Queque prius vites ventis abjecit inanes 
Herba, novum membris prestabit pressa vigorem ; 
Atque iterum, evicto ferali funere, priscos 
Leta salus roseo renovabit lumine risus. 
Auspice non allo, positis nova regna colonis 
Surgere, nascentis prima incunabula fame 
Visa procul, fructusque agri proferre nitentes 
Saxa per horrifera, et vastos nigra abjete saltus. 
Scilicet haud alio, adveniet volventibus annis 
Laetior ille dies, cum tu rediviva tyranpi 
Servitio, priscas agnosces Africa lauros. 
Olim et tempus ent, quando. incula Chamskadale 
Horrentes patriz uimbos, glacialiaque arva 
Vincet, et insuetas miravitur undique messes; ὃ. 
Ignotumve secans patriis in classibus gequor, 
Te duce, fida maris domitrix, majora secutus, 
Subjectam extremo spectubit cardine ΓΒ θη. 
Ipse etiam, mnocue recolens pia gaidia vite, 
Lurida sacriferis ululatihus orgia ponet 


On the Ancient Language of Cornwall. 221 


' Barbarus, et turpes calcabit mollior aras. | 
Tu vero, eternge quoniam hinc Brittannia fame 

Duxisti auguria, et tantos leto ubere fructus, 
Ergo fove proprii victricia Regna Profundi. 
Exoriare aliquis, qui Numine fretus amico, 
Exploret tractus alios, cultuque ferocem 
Molliat, et socie prepandat lumina vite. 
Sic, dum szcla novas referunt volventia lauros, 
Largaque securos in plent commercia portus, 
Sic etiam, priscum imperium, antiquosque triumphos — 
Anglia, nite coles; sceptroque insignis avito, 
Jura dabis, liquidoque potens dominaberis orbi. 


.J. E. RATHBONE. Coll. Novo. Soc. 1798. 


LETTERS ON THE ANCIENT BRITISH 
LANGUAGE OF CORNWALL. 


No. I1].—[Continued from No. XXXVII. p. 112.] 
| LETTER VI. 


ENGLISH, FRENCH, &c. 


I crosep my last letter with a long list of Comish words, and 
endeavoured to prove that that language is, in great part, sprung 
from the same origin as the Latin; and I was the more convinced 
of it, because the terms which designate common and simple 
-objects, for which the natives must have had names long before 
the arrival of the Romans, are the most disguised, and that too 
with such a rude and unclassical corruption, that they leave no 
doubt of their Celtic antiquity. 1 have also shown that the second 
class of words is the next in point of number, consisting of terms 
which were probably introduced by the Romans; but which, from 
their pure Latinity, caunot be ascribed to a later period; while 
very few indeed seem to belong to those ages, when that language 
had been materially corrupted. From all these circumstances, it 
follows again, that all the elements of the Cornish must have 
already existed, when the Romans evacuated Britain, and that the 
epoch, when Arthur: is said to have florished, may be regarded 
as that in which the Cornish tongue had acquired its highest 
degree of purity. ᾿ 


499 On the Ancient British 


The Cornish differs from the languages of mere Romau descent, 
so that it cannot be supposed that the Latin, with which it 
abounds, was acquired from the conquerors of Britain. It is too 
rude and too anomalous in its disguises to admit of such a 
supposition, while on the contrary it retains deeply imprinted the 
marks of its Celtic origin, which the Latin has lost during its 

rogress towards improvement, How different is the Latin found 
in Cornish, from what it is in Italian and Spanish! ‘These latter 
tongues are in fact nothing but the Latin which was spoken mn 
those countries, which, after having been corrupted, has since been 
smoothed into a grammatical form. If the Cornish was a Latin 
descendant, why should it not also have Preserved something of a 
classical appearante, like the other modern languages? but since 
it has not, and yet so many of its primitives have the saine mean- 
ing as the like in Latin, it is obvious, that it is not derived from it; 
but from some origin, which has been common to both,—and this 
is the Celtic. 

As to the Saxon, French, and words of other languages, which 
occasionally occur m if, many of them were not borrowed till 
many centuries after, and seem to have increased as the purity of — 
the Cornish tongue decayed; though in some cases it is doubtful, 
whether those nations did not rather take them from a Celtic 
dialect, than the latter from them. | 

It is also possible that some of the Cornish words found in the 
modern languages, were originally Celtic, and continued im use, 
notwithstanding the ascendancy of Latin on the Continent; but 
were never naturalised in that language. ‘The continental provinces 
necessarily retained something of the tongue of their ancestors, 
which was nearly allied to, if not the same as, that of Britain. 
This is therefore another reason, why so many French and English 
words seem to be related to the Cornish. ‘To begin with Italian, 
Spanish, and Portuguese. It cannot be imagined that much 
connexion has ever existed between the Cornish dialect and the 
languages now spoken in those countries. I have however dis- 
covered a few words, which may be referred to each, though 1 
confess that the resemblance may in some cases have been 
entirely accidental. Some of these also are originally Latin, and 
have vo other claim to our attention, than that, disguised as they 
now are, they bear a nearer resemblance to words in those three 
languages, than they do to their common original. They are the 
following : . 


Cornish. Italian. 
Cabydul, A chapter. Capitolo. A chapter. 
Dyrog. Before. ' Dritto. Straitly. 

Foge. ‘A blowing house Foga - Violence. ι 


for melting tin. 


Language of Cornwail. 223 
Cornish ‘Italian. 
Gueya, To move. Vieggiare. To travel. 
Guilter A -masitiff. Veltro. A greyhound. 
Korolli. To dance. Carolu. A dance. 
Magon A house, Magione. A house. 
Bfirez To look. Mirar. To look. 
Prest. Soon, quickly. Presto Soon, quickly 
Buttein A lewd woman. Puttanu A lewd woman. 
Scarz. Short. Scarso. Scarce. 
Spanish 
Bras. Cruel. Bravo. Savage. 
Cams. A surplice. Cama, camisd. A bed, a shirt. 
Guidk. A vein. - Veta, A metallic vein. 
Len. Full. Lleno. Full. 
Muy. More. Muy. Much. 
rtuguese 

Bar. A top. er, A Bar, or sand- 

bank. 
Cadair. A chair. Cadeira, A chair. 
‘Maur. Great. Mor. ᾿ Greater. 
Moz. A maid. Moga. A maid. 


It is singular that some Cornish words take a as a prefix, as in 
agris, I believe; agowsys, | say; asgarn, a bone, &c.; and that 
the same thing should also be observable in Portuguese. ‘Thus 
it isin afear, to make ugly; afosturse, to dare; afugentar, to 
put to flight; almofoda, a cushion ; alambre, amber, &c: It is 
the Arabic article a/, which has not only been retained before the 
derivatives from that language, but also prefixed to words, which 
have been adopted from the Latin. 

When we consider the long duration of the sway of the Saxons 
aod tbe Normans in Britain, it is natural to inquire, whether any 
traces of their speech can be discovered in the aboriginal language. 
On examining the Cornish vocabulary, it is evident that it contains 
several French and English words; I understand by this, such 
terms as are now common to them and the Cornish, I will not 
, Anquire how many of these may be of a Saxon, Teutonic, or 
Latin origiu, as it is more than probable, that they have been 
borrowed from these, and not from the .Cornish ; which, since the 
formation of the languages of its powerful neighbours, adopted 
from them several terms for which it had no names. All such 
words therefore became a constituent part of the Cornish, though 
of a foreign origin, and were gradually introduced into it in the 
course of ages, and subsequently to the Saxon and Norman con- 
quests. , ' 

It is well known that none of the ancient conquerors of Britain 
adopted any of its languages, which they were accustomed to con- 
sider as dissonant, unpolished and barbarous. ‘The conquered 
nation must be possessed of an interesting, if not superior literature, 
as the Greeks were, before it can attract the conquerors Wo Ws 


994, τς Ὁ the Ancient British 


study. On the contrary, it was the policy of the Romans to 
diffuse civilisation and their literature, to the disuse of the lan- 
guages, customs and prejudices of the natives. And they succeeded 
in itso cowpletely, that though their empire has been extinguished 
nearly fourteen centuries in the West, yet their laws still govern, 
and corruptions of Latin still form the basis of several of the 
modern languages of the Continent. During the Roman sove- 
reignty, the British tongues became confined within more narrow 
limits; and it was during that period, that those Latin words 
were incurporated with the Cornish, and which I have given in 
my second list. It was thus that the Roman power had'a tendency 
to corrupt the aboriginal speech of the conquered countries. 

The Saxons also had as little inclination to cultivate the native 
dialects, as the Romans. A mutual animosity long subsisted 
between them and the Britons ; and when afterwards the former had 
yielded to civilisation, and the mild genius of Christianity, and the 
horrors of war had ceased, they had already a language of their 
own; or else their learned men preferred to cultivate theology ἴα 
Latin, to the investigation of the dialect and the fables of a rude 
and illiterate people. it was thus that little or no Cornish wa 
borrowed by the Saxons, | 

The same cause also operated with the Normans. They endes- 
voured to effect a total subversion of all English establishments : 
having seized on the government, and usurped a great part of the 
property of the kingdom, they introduced their own institutions, 
and by the encouragement given to the French language, it seemed 
as if they wished to forbid the vanquished to think and express in 
the words of their ancestors, that though they were then subjugat- 
ed, yet that like them they had once been free. In such conquerors 
as these, it was not to be expected that the extent of the Cornish 
should be increased. 

But the Cornish people, insulated on a narrow peninsula, were 
necessarily obliged to mix with their conquerors; and as it is not to 
be supposed that they would feel any particular anxiety for the 
preservation of their language, they adopted from convenience and 
choice, some of those words, which I have selected from the 
vocabulary. 

Some of the following are Saxon derivatives, as Angus, anguish ; 
Grontys, a grant; Gurch, a wreck; and yet, a gate; others are 
remotely Latin, but too much disguised to be admitted as 
immediate derivatives, such as, Chastys, to chastize ; Falsney, false- 
hood; Spong, aspunge; Tshappal, a chapel ; Tshofar, a chafing- 
dish, &c. few real Cornish words have also become English, 
as Aval, an apple; Aban, above; and Lode, a metallic vein. On 
the other hand some seem to have been very lately adopted from 


Language of Cornwall. (225 


the English, and when the Cornish tongue was already verging to 
‘its extinction. Such are the terms Pokkys mintz, the smali-pox ; 
and Tybacco, tobacco. | 
There are much fewer French than English words in Cornish ; 
a striking circomstance, as it confirms what historians have recorded 
concerning the failure of the Normans in substituting their lan- 
guage for that of Britain. These may also be divided into classes, 
like. those which are of English derivation. ‘Thus we have first, 
Dawns, une danse; Clof, clopiner; Parleth, un parloir; and 
secondly, Dilvar, deliver; Feur, une foire; Fya, fuir: Jugye, 
juger; Parhemmin, parchemin ; and lastly we have, Gravior, un 
graveur ; and Panez, un panais. 
For the sake of perspicyity, [ add lists of most of the English 
and French words which have occurred to me in Cornish ; observ- 
_ing, however, that in my examination of the latter with so many 
languages, many primitives through their disguise may have 
escaped me, whilst I have purposely omitted a few, whose deriva- 


un appeared doubtful, or too remote to establish any thing like 
a@ common origin. D 


Ρ. 5. The-following words, whi 


language, are also found in Cornish. 


ch are now used in the English 


Angus. Anguish. Grontye. To grant. 
Aval.' - An epple. Guayn. ain. 
Banniel. A banner. Gurek. A wreck, 
Bargidnya. To bargain. Hali. Holy. 
Barliz. Barley. Hueg. Sweet. 
Befer. A beaver. Hull. An owl, 
Benans. Penance. Karatsh. A cabbage 
Benk A bench. ' Kandarn. A caldron 
Brauan. Brawn. Kerdy. Cords. 
Broche. A buckle. Klut. A clout. 
Byddin. A band. Kober. Copper. 
Chasty. Lo chastise. Kopher. A coffer. 
Chein. The chine Kuilan. A quill. 
Distryppas. To strip. Launter. A lantern, 
Dispresyas. To dispraise Mowys. Mouths. 
Dzerken. A jerkin. Parc. A field. 
Emmet. An emmet . Planhan. A plank. 
Emperur. An emperor Pea. To pay. 
Falsney. Falsehood Plymon. A plum. 
Faut. A fault. Pokkys miniz. The small-pox. 
Gene. 4 chin Pour. Power. 
Glane. Clean Pyteth. Pity. 
Goaz. A goose. Rakkan. A rake. 
Govaytis. Covetousness Redic A radish. 
Ghambla. 1» climb. Redyn. To read. 
' Rostia 


To roast. 


* The p and ν are convertible, as ὕπερ, super, aver, and in Italian sovra 
] 


and sopra. [Avelis also German. Ed. 


A Letter on 


Rud. Red. Stoc. The stock of a tree. 
8. 10 scourge. Strevy 10 strive. 
Sira. A sire. Tach. A tack (a nail). | 
Sparria. To spare. Teed. A tide. 
Skearkeas A shark. Throppys. Α 
Skent. Scanty. Tretury. Treachery. 
ΡΝ Sinews. Trud. 4 eae 
ia. ἐὺ slip. shappal. apel. 
Specy Special Tshimbla. A chimney. 
Speitia. ὁ spite. Tshofar. A chafing-dish. 
Spekhiar. To speckle. Turnupan. A turnip. 
ys. Τὸ spend. Tybacco Lobacco. 
Spong. A spun ¢. . Wan (weak ). 
Spykes. Spikes (nails). Yet. A gate. 
The following are the French words which are also found ia 
Cornish. 
Berges. Un bourgeois. A citizen. 
Cowz. Causer. Ἔ ' To speak. 
Cloch. Une cloche. A bell. 
Dawns Une dense. A dance. 
Denater Dénaturé. Unnatural. 
Dreyson. Trahison. reason. 
Encois. Encens. Tucense 
Feur. Une foire. A fair. 
Flair. lairer. To smell. 
Ful. Fol, Foolish (mad). 
Fyas. Fuir. To Ay. 
Gajah. Un gazon. A dairy (turf). 
Gangye, Changer. To change. 
Gannel Un canal, A channel. 
Gheon Un géant. A giant. 
Gravior Un graveur. AD engraver. 
Gueret. Un guéret. A furrow. 
Juntis. Les jointes. The joints. 
Jugye. er. To judge. 
Kloppeck Clopiner. To halt. 
Panez. Un panais. A parsnip. 
Parhemmin. Du parchemin. Parchment. 
Paun. Un paon. A peacock. 
Pouis. Un poids. A weight. 
Sols. Un sol. A penny. , 
Sowmens. Des saumons. Salmons. 
Stanc. Un étang. Δὲ pool. 
δ}. ° Du suif. Tallow.. 


ON THE PORTLAND VASE: 


HAVING been lately engaged in a literary contest on the Portland 
Vase, which, I may be allowed to say, occasioned a deep sensation, 
because the circumstance remains recorded in contemporary publica- 
tions, it is neither for the sake of needlessly renewing the contest, nor 
of gathering up the opima spolia of victory which rewarin to me as 


The Portland Vase. 407 


master of the field, that I am now on the poiat of troubling you; 
but with a view of collecting into one focus the scattered facts.and 
antiquarian combinations which were diffused over the surface of a 
two months’ discussion. 

In order to render the present letter ἃ summary of the leading ideas 
‘then elicited, I shall be as brief as possible : omitting to give a histery 
of the Vase, because that has been done by Darwin ; and avoiding a 
detail of its beauties, because it is open to general inspection at. the 
British Museum. My chief stress: will lie on such novel points ef 
illustration as have escaped the research of Darwin-and suceeeding 
antiquarians. | 

My leading position is; that-the secret mysteries of the great God- 
dess [by whom I understand all those deities resolvable into the Isis 
of Egypt, whether called Cybele, Vesta, Ashtarte, Bhavani, Ceres, 
Magna or Bona Dea, or any other appellation conferred on: the 
agency of nature] were depicted on the funereal vases of Greece, 
Rome, and Etruria, to which latter country they were carried by-De- 
maratus the potter of Corinth. In Egypt the same custom prevailed, 
with this distinction, that the portraiture was traced on the mummy 
chest, which like the European urn enshrined the relics of the 
departed. 

Now, the Portland urn is on all hands conceded to be one-of these 
funereal vases. Standing, therefore, on the threshold of the subject, 
the presumable inference is, that the figures represented on it 
compose some scene in the mysterious dramas. From presumption 
let us descend to proef. 

The confirmatory evidence on this point is stronger with regard to 
the Portland Vase than any other. It lies in the nutshell of this fact: 
that most of the figures employed, are well authenticated and undenia- 
ble symbols appertaining to the mysteries; handed down. to us by such 
a mass of harmonising testimony as it would be folly to break through, 
and bad faith to evade. I speak of what is familiar to the scholar 
and antiquarian, the. concurring evidence of Christian and Pagan 
authori 

These symbols I shall briefly recapitulate. 

Ist. The masks. These were certainly used in the mysteries, and 
thence descended to the Greek Drama; which as evidently sprung 
from religious mysteries as the modern. Milton’s Paradise Lost was 
originally intended for a MYSTERY. The allegorical MASQUES of 
poetry have the same origin: and the Romish Church, pursuing its 


9298 4 Letter on 


usual policy, seems to have adopted both the name and scope of the 
Pagan Mysterious Drama. 

Mystery, in fine, traced to its source, means a thing masked or con- 
cealed : being derived from mistur, ἃ hidden thing. 

Qnd. ‘The erect and reverted torch in the opposite compartments. 
These, as is proved by authentic testimony as well as monuments 
extant, were undoubted appendages of the Mythraic, Isiac, and Eleu- 
sinian rites. Vesta, Cybele, Ceres, Isis, Hecate, ull images of nature, 
‘are designated by the torch they carry. The vibration of torches in 
their rites is equally notorious. But in reality the upright and reverted 
torch are extant to this day among the symbols of a Mythratic car. 
[See the Plates of Hyde.] In this instance they evidently imply 
Sunset and Death as opposed to Sunrise and Birth, and poetry has 
adopted the metaphor. A second presumable inference from these 
facts is, that in the first compartment of the vase, life extinguished 
‘was shadowed, and in the second, life restored. 

3rd. The unearthly trees. 

4th. The unquestioned figure of a Priest of Cybele, in the costume 
of his order ; having the Phrygian cap and feminine dress of Atys as 
exhibited on extant busts; and indicating by his gesture ‘‘ Mystery” 
as plainly as if it were alphabetically written. The gesture itself, 
‘moreover, is an admitted portion of the mystic rites. 

5th. The torch-bearer or Daduchus, another authentic actor in the 
mysterious drama. He represented the first-begotten and demiurgic 
Jove, who created the universe, producing light from darkness, to 
whom Aristophanes sublimely and beautifully refers. 

6th. The scattered ruins; the fallen capital and upright shaft. The 
‘mysteries of masonry derived from magianism retain these symbot 
still. ‘The ancient deities were pillars. A Mythratic Sculpture repre- 
‘sents divine love winged and ‘seated on a rainbow between two co- 
lumns. 

7th. The passage through a gate, another well-nuthenticated rite. 

8th. A figure leaving at the gate his mortal garment; ἃ change’ ‘mae 
taphorically acted in the rites of Eleusis. 

9th. The hooded Serpent ; a universal symbol of regenerated life ; 
‘esteemed so by the Hindoos to this day, and employed, as sculpture 
‘and authority attest, in the mysteries of Mithra, Seeva, and Hecate. 
It is another corroborative proof of the meaning of the compartment 
‘where it appears, and harmonises with the upright torch, while it 
‘forms a sculptural ANTITHESIS to the inverted. ἮΝ 


the Portland Vase. 329 


~ The inference from this compact and coucentrating proof appears 
to me irresistible; viz. that the FUNEREAL mysteries (fer-so they 
were) were depicted on this FUNEREAL Vase. And I am inclined to. 
think that even were these symbols incoherently scattered over the: 
Urn’s surface, few antiquarians would disagree with me in considering 
them-decisive of the question. - 

But their juxtaposition adds the loveliness of harmony to the dry 
detail of evidence, while .it accumulates praof of. itself sufficiently: 
strong on proof already complete. : 

. According to my view this juxtaposition not only corroborates the 
above positions, but embraces three points: The Deity to whom the’ 
mysteries were devoted, the mother temple whence they were derived, 
and the scope and moral of the religious meeque. 

. And here it will be secessary, as a: preliminary step to this inquiry, | 
succinctly to state, that the first mysterious dramas bore a funereal 
character; and that they consisted of choral lamentations for the 
dead. Ina more advanced stage, they pourtrayed in pantomime (us 
far as unassisted theology could reach) the immortality from which 
man fell, the cause, his miserable passage through fleshly cares, bis 
escape through the gate of death, and restoration to primitive felicity. 
‘Fo bring together all the proof of this short summary would over- 
whelm me beneath the load of my arms. That which should shield, 
though gorgeous and glittering in appearance, would crush me by its 
weight, like Tarpeia beneath the Sabine shields. Let it suthce, that 
the substance of this beautiful creed has come downto us in the sub+ 
stance of ancient stories, beautifully, but variously and capriciously 
told. It was Persephoneh, the lost fruit, which human nature sought 
in vain and found in death. It was the secret of primitive perfection 
which ‘Theseus and Pirithous strove to ravish from the initiatory rites, 
but perished in the attempt. It was the less of light which Isis wept — 
over Horus, it was the decree of Death which Venus wept over Adonis. 
It was the promise of his revival which shook with triumph the valley 
- of Egypt, and echoed in gratulation from the hills of Libanus. Some- 
times it was the initiate Orpheus searching his lost love, stung by a 
serpent m the realms of night. Sometimes it was Psyche the fallen 
soul, deserted by heavenly love, descending into Hell, and opening the 
repository of evil. Lastiy, it was the self-immolated Hercules, the 
“magnum Jovis incrementum” dragging up Hell in tri.uiph, trame 
pling an the dragon's head, and graspiny the immort : fruit. 

I envy not the obtuseness of thut intellect which resolves not to 
find in these traditions, familiar to every school-bhoy, the exyrens mage 


230 A Letter on 


of a universal Pagan hope, encumbered in 
taphor, but traceable to the earliest famil: 
now is to apply the creed they conceal 
mutual bearings of the sculptured Dra 
Ist. First, then, do we wish to know 
was devoted? We learn, as plainly : - 
much priest at the bottom, To the G 
called Cybele, but in Egypt, Isis. 
grip of masonry, implies ‘ brother 
towards the profane. It is the la 
“ Speak not of the mysteries wit' 
2nd. Do we enquire, where w: - 
rites? The masks, the “ round 
the reeds surmounting all, rep 
explain. Byblus, the reed 
and whence the corrapted n 
3rd. Do we seek to: kno 
which the Urn embraced “ ΝΞ Ξ ΞΕ 
the fig-tree above the fig ΄, em - 
ancient deity who was - αν 
vived—Adonis, Thamn 
to Cybele, Atys Nyet , 
was at once an embl- a" ."" 
rites were founded, , «ἢ .ΝΝ 
and Than in ἤεῦ » -“ -_—> 
I come now to: ,.7 -° 
It has been re os! ; ab -- 
scriptural autho » 4 
figuresandthos #» -. et “« MN 
to beg this co “7 ~ see ὅνθα. 
sented the fir: ee. 
Rabbins hay =" 
talismanic. 
parents, π᾿ 
Penia of | 
Brahmins 
race, “ἴ “ 
implied - 
ing, me 
from ἰ" 
above : 
comp: 


rr 


>" 
««Ὁ»΄ 
a> 
__ 


232 A Letter on the Portland Vase. 


fic vision,” to the presence of the king of the Mysteries, and the ruler 
of the happy fields. This character is the Anchises of Virgil, the 
Rhadamanthus of Homer, the benevolent Demon περὶ of the Egvp- 
tians, and the Demiurgus of Eleusis. 

On the Vase he stands guarding the way between two trees: the 
first perhaps a box sacred to Cybele, or a myrtle worn by the elect at 
Eleusis, and both emblems of immortality ; the 2nd, perhaps,a fig ora 
vine: both emblems of man’s shame and fall: and the vine being 
still considered as the fatal tree of knowledge, in the East. His atti- 
tude is that of a judge, having power to admit or exclude. 

In all probability he represented the ‘‘ Midnight Sun” of the Myste- 
ries, which was the final object of those ancient rites: whether he be 
called Jupiter, or Helios, or Osiris Inferus, Bacchus, or Adonis, or 
Atys Nyctilicus, whether he be Muth, or Pluto, or Serapis. The 
character was the same, though different nations pronounced his name: 
with a different modulation. 

Those, however, who require some application of dramatis persone 
more specific, are at liberty to consider the figure as Uranus, the 
father of Cybele Uranus, to whom indeed the title of Demiurge, King, 
and Beatific Vision, accurately applies. 

And, indeed, the inference is obvious, that as the vase ‘and ‘the 
mystic shows represented on it are evidently connected with the 
worship of this Goddess, the mythological story of Cybele most pro- 
bably formed the groundwork of the drama. 

As this story perfectly barmonises with the premises I have laid 
down, I am enabled, by compressing it, to offer a point of union 
between myself and the most rigid lover of simplicity, leaving the 
application to the reader. 

Cybele, says the fable, was the daughter of an ancient ‘King aed 
Queen of PHRYGIA: some say of Uranus and Rhea. She fell in love 
with a beautiful Phrygian named Atys, whom her parents dishked, 
and finding her resolute, caused to be slain, and his body thrown to 
wild beasts. Cybele searched the body, collected the parts, wept 
over them, went mad, and died. Buta plague ravaging the country, 
it was commanded by the oracle that Atys should be buried with 
great pomp, and Cybele worshipped as a deity. Other versions say 
that he first deified her and became her priest. However that be, the 
priests extravagantly lamented, fora stated time, over his etligy, at the: 
end of which light was brought in, and they declared with owtcries of 
joy that “the dead was revived.” Come | 


. 233 Dos Le 


A SECOND REPLY 
to the Further Remarks in the Quarterly Review, No. 
Xxxvit. on the New Translation of the Bible. 


Ir was not my intention to lose any more time in polemical ‘con- 
troversy ; but at the request of several of my learned friends, [ 
have been induced to make the following remarks in reply to a 
second article m the Quarterly Review, on my Translation of the 
bible from the original Hebrew. 

The remarks made on my Translation of the Book of Genesis, 
by the Quarterly Reviewer, are allowed by many of the readers of 
that work to be malicious and unjust ; and, by real critics, to be 
written in the most consummate ignorance of the original. 

He begins his Review of my Reply by saying, “When WE 
lately. undertook to examine Mr. Bellamy’s New Translation of 
the Bible, WE found not only that proofs of his utter incompe- 
tence to the task crowded upon US at every step, but that his 
bold pretensions of making new discoveries, as to the meaning of 
the plainest passages of the Bible, tended to shake the confidence 
of the public in the certainty of received scriptural interpretations. 
In consequence, WE felt OURSELVES called upon to explain, 
without disguise, the grounds of the opinion which WE were led 
to form respecting this writer and his work.” This critic has here 
explained, more fully certainly than he intended, “tle grounds” 
of his virulent abuse of my undertaking : it “tended to shake the 
contidence ‘of the public in the certainty of received scriptural in- 
terpretations !” But if these received interpretations rest upon 
false translations, should the version remain without improvement ? 
Should not the Scriptures be truly translated, that both the teachers 
and the hearers may have an opportunity of ascertaining whether their 
confidence in the certainty of -any of these received interpretations 
be founded on truth? Can any suffer loss by a vindication of the 
truth-and purity of the Divine'record? Yes, some men may, and 
some men will; and “in consequence they feel THEMSELVES 
called upon” to defend the “interpretations” which it would be 


VOL..XIX.' ChJl © NO. AXXVEL ΄᾽ 


234 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


for their interest, as they imagine, should never be called in ques- 
tion. But is this Reviewer, .with all his dignified WE’s, US's, 
OUR’s, and OURSELVES’, one of these interested persons '— 
He has not denied it. 

« WE felt OURSELVES called upon to explain, without dis- 
guise, the grounds of the opinion which WE WERE led to form 
respecting this writer (Bellamy) and his work. At the same time, 
WE had no wish unnecessarily to wound his feelings, and WERE 
therefore desirous of abstaining from the exposure of bis blunders” 
(how tender!) ‘‘to a greater extent than appeared to be required 
by a just regard to truth and to OUR public duty.” How amiable 
and conscientious are the feelings of this critic ! how admirable his 
composition! I stop not to ask whether he mean the same thing 
by “this writer,” and by “his work,” coupled together in the 
same clause. If he separate the two, I ask, what had. he to do 
with ‘this writer?” ‘ His work” surely was all that he could 
bring to the bar of his self-constituted tribunal. I was willing, it 
_ is true, to meet him face to face, that I might benefit a little by his 
deep knowledge in “‘ the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of 
construction” of the ‘Hebrew ; but with all his wishes ‘to ab- 
stain from the exposure of his (Bellamy’s) blunders,” and with all 
his professed “ regard to truth,” Bellamy, it appears, may blunder 
on for him, let what will become of “ truth;” for he bas not com- 
plied, and, for certain reasons, will not, I fear, comply. with my 
r t. 

e proceeds: ‘“‘ Whatever may have been the effect of these 
strictures on OUR readers, (and WE are much mistaken if this be 
at all doubtful,) their influence on the author has not been that 
which WE intended.” Indeed ! is not this very strange, consider- 
ing the cool, temperate, disinterested, and friendly manner in which 
his strictures were offered? If 1 may judge of the effect of his 
strictures on his readers by the result to myself, he is much mis- 
taken. It is true that some individuals did, in compliance’ with 
his very liberal and generous advice, withdraw their names : it ig 
equally true that some of these, on reading my Reply, seat notice 
to have their names again put on my list, accompanied with re- 
marks on the conduct of the Quarterly Reviewer, which he would 
not like to hear. And, however distressing it may be to the 
feelings of this defender of received erroneous interpretations, it is 
equally true, and to the honor of the British character be it 
known, that his attempt to injure, bas, on the contrary, pro- 
duced me many friends. Were I insensible to the distinguished 
support which has been afforded to shield me from the effects 
of this Reviewer’s malignity, I should be the most unfeeling 
and most ungrateful of mortals. It would be highly indeco- 


_ ow Mr. Bellamy’s Translation df the Bible. 885 


toug-in- me to state the particulars in_this place; but the act 
will live among the deeds of the truly great, when the strictures of 
the “ Advocate” for received errors shall have ceased to have an 
existence. The Reviewer, with all his assumed self-complacency, 
had some knowledge of. this fact before his Review of my Reply 
was written. 

But of tbis enough for the present. I now proceed to show 
that this “incompetent” Reviewer bas again attempted to impose 
upon bis readers. 

In page 450, he charges me with an error in translating the 
preposition ἸΏ min, in the sense of for: he says—“ To his render, 
ing the preposition 12 min, in the sense of for (the man,) meaning, 
‘for the use, the help of man,’ we answered, p. 266, that he had 
no authority whatever for giving such a sense. On this he is totally 
silent.” If I omitted saying any thing on 90 unimportant a subject, 
it was not because J bad not the opportunity of silencing this ‘un- 
guarded writer. However, as he exposes his want of information 
a second time, I will show him that the preposition } min, has 
the sense of for, or because of. See Dan. v. 19, Yo) and ror tha 
_ majesty—Zach. vii. 10, because of. What now are we to say 
concerning the Hebrew learning of the Reviewer ? | 

This writer still pretends to believe that Eve was made of one 
of the ribs of Adam, and thus he involves himself in a labyrinth of 
uncertainties, which the enemies of Revelation never fail to bring 
~ forward to invalidate the sacred testimony. I refer the reader to. 
p- 19. of my first Answer, where I have given the questions of the 
systematic enemies of the Christian Religion. ‘‘ Were it possible 
(French deists and infidels have satd) that he had taken out the rib 
without any pain to Adam, what do we gain by this? or what 
virtue could have been given to the simple bone, by being first: 
made a part in the body of the man‘: or was may made with an 
extra rib? Did nat God know that in such case he should have 
a part of his work to unmake? Could not infinite Wisdom have 
made the woman of the same materials as he made the man ?” 

I bave said, that the word ΨῸΝΣ tseelang, rendered in the com- 
mon version to mean a rid, is ouly so. translated in this pussage in 
all the Scriptures ; to which the critic says, ‘it may be true; but 
then it should be remensbered that all Hebraists, ancient and: 
modern, agree that here it does signify a rib.” To this I have: 
said, it is not true that all the ancient Hebraists and translators: 

ree that:the word yx tseelung, signifies a rib. Origen, Philo,. 

bius, Austin, dc. say, that these things are to be understood. 
allegorically. | have said nothing concerning the translations of 
these fathers ; it is sufficient for the end of truth to show, thut 
their belief of this subject, stands opposed to the general belief at 


236 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


the present day. And _ therefore whoever translates this word 
agreably to its radical meaning, 85 it is always translated even in 
the‘commun version, in every place where it occurs: which, ac- 
cording to these authorities, was’ the sense in which the ancient 
Hebrews understood it, must translate it right. In conclusion, 
I again say, if all the Hebraists, ancient and modern, were of one 
opitiion, that God made Eve out of one of the ribs of Adam, and 
had not a single scripture to support such an opinion :᾿ with one 
proof that this word had a different meaning, and never meanta 
rib, [ would rather be alone with that scriptural proof, than swim 
down the stream of popular opinion without it. ΝΣ 
But this Reviewer charges me, p. 449, with having erred in in- 
troducing the pronoun relative “ whose,” into this text :᾿ and ab- 
serves, “To all this, the whole of what we find in reply is a simple 
observation, viz. The translators have frequently rendered the ἡ vau, 
by the pronouns relative, who, which, whose, whom.” ‘The critic 
continues, “ We will not affirm positively that they have not done 
so, because we cannot be certain of the fact without a laborious 
search through every page of the Old Testament.” ; 
But as this pretender finds fault with my translation of the 4 vay, 
by the pronoun relative, it was certainly his duty, however labo- 
rious the search might have been, even “through every: page of 
the Old Testament,” to show that it is never translated by the pro- 
nouns relative. Jor the satisfaction of the reader, 1 will save the 
Reviewer the trouble of this “laborious search.” See Judges ‘ii: 
31, J) wuicn slew; Prov. xi. 22, JO) wHicn is without dis- 
cretion; Jer. xxxvi. 32, IDM wo wrote; 1 Kings 11.5, DOM 
wHom he slew; Gen. xvii. 13, SIP) wHicn am old. Now, 
Reader, what must you think of this critic, who will not: affirm 
positively that the translators have not frequently rendered the 
ἡ vau by the pronoun relative.’ But he complains thus: ‘*:The 
whole of what we find in reply is a simple observation ” that the 
translators lave so rendered it. ‘ Simple observation !” - What: 
else would he have, about a simple fact, so notorious, that-every tyro: 
in Hebrew knows it, and which he might have known without any 
“ laborious search,” had he only known how to inspect a Hebrew: 
- Lexicon? Here I must fix the Reviewer on the horns of a dilemma. 
(p. 451.) Either he knows how to ascertain, without “ a laborious 
search through every page of the Old ‘Testament,”. whether my 
‘simple observation” was correct, or he does not. - If he do not, 
he has no right to give an opinion on any point of Hebrew riti-: 
cism. If he do, he stands convicted of unfairness. ‘‘ Optet sibi.” 
The Reviewer proceeds: “ But this we scruple not to affirm 
most distinctly, that if they have done so in any particular. instance, 
no authority 1s thereby afforded for thus rendering the word when- 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 237 


-ever it occurs.” Ifhe were -always to reason from such evident 
propositions, he would be unanswerable. But [I have not rendered 


the word thus “wherever it occurs,” for in such case every }vau, - 


would be rendered by a pronoun relative, which in numberless 
Anstances would produce absurdity. | 

“Tbe Hebrew copulative } vau, corresponds to the Latin copu- 

lative et” continues.this Reviewer ; ‘‘ but who in his senses would 
therefore contend that ef signifies who, which, whose, and may be 
rendered by the pronoun relative wherever the translator pleases?” 
‘“ ‘The Hebrew ) cau, corresponds to above thirty conjunctions both 
in the Latin and in the English language: as alias, antequam, apud, 
atque, aut, certe, contra, cum, etiam, ideo, inquam, nempe, Kc. &c.; 
and yea, even, for, but, then, when, likewise, moreover, therefore, 
yet, with, that, i so, or, also, &c. Kc. But the rule by which the 
ἡ 0gu 18 80 translated, is not known to this writer. : 
. The reader will see by turning to my translation of Gen. ii. 25, 
that Adam and Eve were not left in Eden, naked, and that I have 
deanslated the word OVW gnaaroumim, by prudent,—they were 
prudent. ‘The Reviewer contends that they were in a state of nu- 
aity, and says, ““ 6 observed, in opposition to his positive denial, 
that OVW ever signifies naked, that instances occur in which the 
substitution of the word prudent would make complete nonsense.” 
An answer to this I have also shown that instances occur in which 
the substitution of the word naked would make “ complete non- 
sense.” ‘ But Mr. Bellamy,” says the Reviewer, “ contends, 
that when this word is written with 4, or, in its absence, with 
the vowel holem, pronounced gnaarom, it uniformly signifies 
nuked; but when the root of this word is applied by the sacred 
writers to mean prudent, subtil, crafty, it is not written with the 
holem, or the 0, but with the shunk, or long u, pronounced 
gnaaruum.” Truly I do so contend, and because I have far better 
proof to sanction it than all the proof this gentleman brings with 
Simonis, Calasio, Buxtorf, &c. My proof T shall bring, not from 
the opinions of men, but from Scripture, where the same word can 
have no other meaning: nor is there a single. passage in all the 
Scriptures where. this word, so written, ever signifies nudity. 

The critic introduces this passage to show that 1 have erred in 
translating DON graaroumim, to mean prudent ; and all the 
proof that he brings to shuw how grossly I have erred, 1s by citiag 
Job xxii. 6, where this word is rendered naked. 

He very liberally applies the word ‘incompetence,’ to the trans- 
lator. But it was the duty of a critic so well acquainted with “ the 
peculiarities of idiom and niceties of construction” in Hebrew, as 
this Reviewer, to have shown my incompetence by unexceptionable 
proof; but in this, and in all the passages which he has mentioned, he 


- 


288 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


has utterly failed. It will however be my business to add another 
proof from the passage he has quoted, of his incompetence to form 
a true judgment of my translation, that when he takes the received 
version, he is not capable of making sense of any tncongruots pas- 
sage; and that his pretended understanding of the Hebrew rests 
entirely on the English version.” ; ; 
ft may be convenient fur this critic to seize upon a mistranslation 
to shield his ignorance; but it cannot be creditable to his ander- 
standing to quote one that exhibits “nonsense.” I must, in order 
to refute such groundless assertions as he has brought before the 
ublic, refer to the Hebrew only. This will show that the word 
YW gnaaroumim, which I have translated prudent, in Gen. ii. 
25, but to which he objects, always has the signification I have 
given it. What would be the opinion of the reader if I were thus 
to translate Job v. 12, where this word both consonants and vowels 
occurs ?— He disappointeth the devices of the NAKED-~And ch. xv. 
5, And thou choosest the tongue of the NAKED. 

But lest he should again presume to tell those who may not um 
derstand Hebrew, that in those two passages, thougl the ἢ van is 
written with the shursk, or long u, yet the 2 mem has no dagesh; 
which is not the case in the word under consideration, Job xxii. 6. 
The Hebrew scholar will pardon me if I digress a little to inform 
this writer, that the dagesh only varies the sound, but never alters 
the sense of the word, and therefore cannot change the meanimg of 
the word DOTY gnaaroumim from prudent to naked. The letter 
which has a dagesh is only considered as written twice, that is, 
graaroummim, instead of gnaaruumim: Thus Ip pakad, ke 
visited, with dagesh in the Pihel conjugation, reads ΒΒ pikkeed, 
he visited often—O'OD mimmayim, out of the waters—-instead of 
Ὁ ἸΏ min mayim, out of the waters. So that the reader will see 
that the dazesk. never alters the sense of a noun or a verb. Itis 
necessary neither for sense or grammar, but merely for pronun- 
ciation. 

I now proceed to examine the passage which the Reviewer has 
adduced to prove how grossly I have erred in translating the word 
DM gnacroumim, prudent, instead of naked: which is in Job 
xxil. 6, And stripped the naked of their clothing. This.is perbaps 
ane of the passages which he deems “ elegant, simple, and digti- 
fied.” It is “simple” enough surely ; and such simple 
abounding in the common version, have in all ages excited the 
wonder of intelligent men.“ Stripped the naked of their clothing” 
In the name of common sense, if they were naked, how could they 


on ‘Mr.'Bellamy’s Transtation of the Bible. 239 


be siripped? Such improper expressions have been often noticed 
by accurate writers: . ΕΣ - 
᾿ A painted vest Prince Ὑογῖρον had οη,᾿ 
Which from a naked Pict‘his grandsire won. ἡ ' 
Martinus Scriblerus. 
The persons who are here signified ‘by the word DOW gnaatou- 
mim, rendered ‘in the common version naked, were thosé who in 
the preceding clause are called TIN acheka, thy brother. The ac- 
cusation brought against Job is, that he was an oppressor of the 
upright, the prudent : Thou hast not given water to the weary to 
drink, and thou hast with-holden bread from the hungry. ‘Thou 
᾿ hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have 
been broken. Thou hast taken a pledge of thy brother for naught 
—that is, from men better than himself, from the prudent 
men, his brethren. And therefore the persons signified by the 
word DDN W gnaarowmim, were understood to be prudent though 
poor. The clause truly reads, without any absurdity, thus: And 
stripped the prudent of their clothing. But this critic turns:to his 
English Bible for his Hebrew erudition. Hence it is evident, that 
by quoting the mis-translation, he has altogether mistaken the 
obvious meaning of the sacred writer, who throughout the narra- 
tive, shows that Eliphaz was accusing Job of having oppressed the 
prudent among the people. ᾿ς 
This critic says, We remarked (p. 275.) that by rendering the 
words 12 YR “WN with tts seed in it, atv. 11, 12, he entirely 
omits the pronoun relative “WR esher. The Hebrew TWN esher 
has no more the sense of ¢ with,’ than the Latin qui.” This gen- 
tleman means, according to the common translation. But ac- 
cording to’ the history, and to the obvious fact, consequently ac- 
cording to the true meaning of the word, “WN esher, embraces the 
meaning of with. The subject here mentioned is the frutt ; now 
the question is, does not the fruit come forth with its seed in tt? if 
80, then the word “WN esker, embraces the meaning of with. Tine 
is going to the root in nature, which is the rdot of the Hebrew 
language. : ΕΠ ΞΕ ΠΕ 
Now let us hear the tratslation which this critic lays before ‘his 
readers— He translates the clause thus: ““ which its seed in it; ἃ 
well known Hebrew phrase for, whose seed init.” But the ‘phrase’ 
which he has given, is not the ‘ Hebrew phase’ of 12 Tt ΟΝ 
ésher zarno bo: there is no neuter pronoun in the language, and 
therefore if le mean to give the * Hebrew phrase, he should have 
translated it thus ; with his seed in him: thete, then, is no necessity. 
for the introduction, which he has proposed, of the verb substantive. 
On Gen. vi. 6. I have shown that God did not repent that he 
had made man on the earth, avd that he did not grieve himself ab 
his heart. But on the contrary, that he was sATUS¥LEd that he 


440. A Sécond Reply to the Quarterly 'Revtéw 


had made man on the earth, although he (the man) idolized him- 
self at his heart. And in confirmation of this, | have shown that the 
verb DAI" rayinaachim, does not mean to repent in any part of Scrip- 
ture, but to be satisfied, consoled, comfurted. 1 have shown that 
SATISFACTION is not a passion, that it signifies a state which ad- 
mits of no ADDITION, of no DIMINUTION ; that itis a state of 
PERFRCT TRANQUILLITY, and ETERNAL PEACE; and, therefore, 
is, with the utmost propriety ‘and truth, applied to God by the 
sacred writer; thus illustrating that luminous article of the church 
of England, which declares God to be without Passions. I lave 
also shown that repentance and grief are passions, and therefore 
that they cannot be applied to God, and that the Reviewer, tho 
he may pretend to talk loudly in praise of the doctrines of -the 
Church of England, by applying the passions of repentance and 
grief to God, evidently contradicts the first article of the Church, 
which declares most truly that Gop is WITHOUT PASSIONS. 
What is his answer to this charge? It is not his intention ever to 
acknowledge that he has committed an error; he passes over this 
charge unnoticed. With the same dispatch he dismisses the follow- 
ing subject ; for after noticing my assertion, that OM) naachem, 
never means repentance in the Scripture, and that where the trans-. 
Jators have thus rendered it they have grossly erred; (for even in 
the common version this word is translated by comfort, consolation, 
or satisfaction, in upwards of seventy places, ) he says, “ In a case 
of this nature, it is impossible to bring the matter to positive 
proof ; we therefore leave the decision to the reader, without any 
fears of the result.” ‘To say that it is “impossible to bring to; 
positive proof,” whether OF) naachem, means to repent, or to be. 
satisfied, or comforted, 1s as much as to say, that the Word of Ged 
has a doubtful meaning, and that therefore we caunot understand 
the sacred record. 
By this trifling way of getting rid of the difficulty, which is highly 
condemnable on so serious a subject, the Reviewer, in fact, 
acknowledges the truth of my translation: viz) Yet JEHOVAH 
WAS SATISFIED THAT HE HAD MADE THE MAN ON THE 
EARTH; NOTWITHSTANDING HE IDOLIZED HIMSELF AT HIS 
HEART. ' ' 
‘This incorrigible writer returns to the charge. On the word. 
ΤΡ yithgnatsee’ which is in the common version rendéred, ἐξ 
grteved him, he says, “ He (Bellamy) makes great parade of an. 
answer to this, pp. 30. 32, the substance of which is merely that, 
IXY gnatseeb does sometimes signify an idol, and that the same 
word may be used in different senses: No doubt of it; but what: 
is to be thought of a man who renders a word in a sense’ contra- 
dicted (as here) by every known authority, and adopts in one passage: 


on Mr. -Bellamy’s Translation Οἱ the Bible. 241 


Ὁ meaning which he rejects as perfectly inadmissible in anothes ?” 
It is not true that I have contradicted: every known authority ; for 
I have referred to some of the most eminently learned. meu, sach as 
Bochart, Buxtorf, Calmet, Lightfoot, &c. and among the string of 
authorities referred to by this intemperate writer, I reject the most 
ancient of them, -even the LX X, when opposed to the Hebrew ; 
and this gentleman also acknowledges that it is imperfect. In this, 
I have the sauction of Origen, Jerome, Usher, Wall,: and. othe 
-learned men, who have critically examined it. ὌΝ 
 .As to adopting in one passage, a meaning, whieh 1 reject as 
‘inadmissible in another,” I answer, this is ποῖ ἃ correct statement: 
I have never translated the same verb-with the same. orthography 
and construction, to have a different meaning in one passage. from 
that which I give it in another. The word which [ translate in the 
sense of grieve, is Gen. xxxiv. 7, The-sons of Jacob came from:the 
JSield—and the men grieved themselves. Inthe first. place, it is not 
the same word; and though words derived from the same root 
mast always partake of the meaning of the root, yet it does not 
follow. that the. same radical form ofthe word-should always-have 
the same mode of expression ; as in 2-Sam. xvi. 19, TAYN egnebod, 
should I serve—is properly rendered, Jer. 11.20, I will, trans- 
gress, i.e. go beyond: - Ps. Ixvili. 25, YIP kidmou, went before, 
4s in Isa. xxi. 14, they prevented: Exod. xiii. 15, ‘WPI hikshah, 
would hardly let us go, is in 1 Kings xii. 4, grievous. If the 
word ΧΟ yithgnatseeb, Gen. vi. 6, were to be rendered grieved, 
it should-not be translated it grieved him, but being -in .the 
Hithpahel . conjugation, he grieved himself. But the word in Ch. 
Xxxiv. 7, were grieved, differs in its application according to idiom 
and construction, and consequently varies the mode of expression, 
although there is no authority for the verb were ; it reads, they grieved 
themselves. Ihave also shown on this verse in the first part of my 
translation, that the primary meaning of the word is to ido(#ze; and as 
idolatry always brought trouble and grief to the worshippers,:so in 
a secondary sense it is used by the sacred writers to. mean grief. 
‘This, [ have said, is the reason why 1 reject the authorities which 
this gentleman mentions, when they differ from the Hebrew ; and 
when they attribute to Ged those passions, repentance and grief, 
which are applicable to man.alone. They represent the Fountam 
of Infinite Wisdom, who, as the great name TW JEHOVAH, 
declares, comprehends the past, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE ; 
as doing at one-time, what he repents of at another; and thus 
grieving at his heart ; by which he is brought-to a level :with: man, 
who knows not to-day what he shall do to-morrow. ἊΣ 
It was natural to conclude, that after the specimen this writer 
had given of my punctuation, and after I had detected him in the 


242 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


inaccurate statement in his first article, he would not have again 
ventured to write on that subject. Let the reader, who has not 
seen what I have said on this head, determine whether I have been 
correct in my reproof. . 

Gen. i. 1, ‘ In the beginning God created, the substance of the 
heaven.’ At the word heaven, I put a comma, according to the 
Hebrew ; but this writer, to show that I have erred in my punc- 
tuation, puts a period. . . 

Ver. 10, ‘And God called, the dry land earth.’ I have puta 
semi-colon at earth; but this critic, to show a specimen of my 
skill, puts a period at earth. 1 have adhered to the Hebrew punc- 
tuation, because the Hebrew punctuation marks out the minor 
and major propositions in each verse, without which the true sense 
of the original cannot be known; but with this branch of Hebrew 
learning the critic appears unacquainted. By the Hebrew punc 
tuation, all writers would poimt in the same manner, but if he 
were to write a single page without copying the former pointing of 
the same, he would err in punctuation; a proof that the punctur 
tion in the common version is barbarous, because pointed without 
attention to the propositions. | 

There are a few verbal errors of little or no importance, which 
this critic has attempted to swell into unpardonable blunders; but 
had he waited for the errata, he would have seen them rectified, 

' He again introduces the subject concerning the temptation of 
Abraham, in which, he fay. “the Almighty commands him to 
take bis son Isaac, and offer him up for a burnt-offerng. Amo 

our objections to this rendering of Mbym (OW) VFM ve hagee 
leehow (shaam) legnolah. ‘ And cause him 10 ascend there concern- 
tng the burnt-offering.’ We stated, that to translate the preposi- 
tion > (lamed) ‘ concerning,’ is to adopt an unusual meaning of the 
word.”—I have in my last remarks, shown tbat this is not ‘an un- 
usual meaning of this preposition, by referring him to Gen. iii. 4], 
where this prefix is so translated in the common version, And 
therefore to make this objection, again when I had afforded him the 
means of determining that it has the signification | have given it, 
i a specimen of perseverance in error, noteasily equalled. _, 
᾿ He proceeds: ‘In our remarks, (p. 272.) on the glaring αὖ» 
surdity with which Mr. Bellamy’s new translation of this passage 
invests the whole narrative of Abraham’s temptation, we apprehend 
that he has fallen upon some newer discoveries in the interval be- 
tween the publication of his translation and his reply. His pre- 
sent ideas are, that when God proved Abraham, it is meant that he 
showed, evinced to Abraham, the necessity of taking Isaac to the 
mount Moriah, for him to be instructed concerning the burnt- 
offering, as representative of the Messiah—He now gives it as his 


* 


on. Mr Bellamy’s Traislatian of the Bible. 243 


dpinton, that Abraham conceived his son [saac to be the promisetl 
Messiah.” It is evident that our critic has not read the note on 
this subject. Let nie only refer him to the paragraph in the note 
on my translation, which will convince him that [ have not “ fallen 
upon some newer discoveries, between the publication of my trans- 
lation, and my Reply.” In p. 96, col. 2, line 31, from the bottom, 
} have said, Abraham conceived that his son Isaac was to be the 
Messiah. The words run thus: “ Therefore it appears that the 
patriarch Abraham believed, by Isaac as high-priest, at thé renewal’ 
of the dispensation given to him, that the ancient promise was to 
be accomplished in his person; THAT HE WAS TO BE THE 
Mess1au, the divine person, when sacrificed and raised again, in 
whom all the nations were to be blessed.” What then are the 
readers of the Review to think of a man who thus plainly declares 
that he had never read the passage which he attempts, not to ree 
view, but to vilify? I have said in the note on my translation, 
that the patriarch concluded that Isaac was to be the Messiah. 
The plain question ‘is—Did God command Abraham to offer up 
his son for a burnt-offering ? In what then consisted the faith of 
Abraham? He obeyed indeed, but surely such obedience cannot. 
be faith. ‘The Apostle says, His faith wus accounted to him for 
righteousness ; his faith then must arise from some other ground, 
than that of a command to offer up his son as a burnt-offering: 
His faith was accounted, says the Apostle; evidently meaning 
that ‘his faith was not a faith that was required by God, because 
human sacrifices were prohibited agreeably to the divine law. But 
yet as he did it in the uprightness of his heart, having been told in 
the divine communication, ch. xxi. 12, In Isaac shall thy seed be 
called—and that, all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in 
him, xviii. 18; thus concluding that Isaac was to be the Messiah: 
This was the faith of Abraham ; his betief in the Messiah, which 
ebus accounted to him for righteousness. 7 
- So it was with Paul when he persecuted the church, he thought, 
. actording to the opinion of the Hebrews, that he was domg God 
service. Jonah, when he wished Nineveh to be destroyed, thought 
he was doing God service ; he was zealous for the true worship of 
God, and thought that the idolatrous Ninevites would reject his 
mission, and continue in their idolatry. But even this was accounts 
ed to him for righteousness. Moses acted from his own spirit 
when he smote the rock; and Paul and the Apostles spake many 
things for which they bud no command. ' 

I shall refer to what I have said on the following words of thy 
critic. ‘“ Now let us consider with what palpable inconsistencies 
this new interpretation invests the whole narration. It is first 
stated that God tempted, or proved Abraham, which manifestly 


244 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Reciéw - 


implies that some signal trial of his obedience was to follow. Then 
according to the New Translation, there merely ensues a com- 
mand of the plainest kind, and one which involves no trial, viz. to 
go with his son, and offer sacrifice on a particular mountain.” | 

. I know it is said in the common version, that God tempted 
Abraham, but I have not said that God tempted Abraham ; nei- 
ther does the Hebrew say so. [ have shown that this translation 
cannot be admitted, without involving the scriptures in palpable 
contradiction: had the translators attended to the Hebrew, and 
bad they noticed what the Apostle says, they must have given the 
word {103 nasah, which they have rendered did-tempt, its radical 
meaning. The Apostle says, Neither tempteth he any man. Jam. 
1. 18. 

“« Or proved Abraham,” says this objector. I have also said, 
it would save much time, and preveut much controversy, if writers 
would endeavour to convey to their readers, the radical meaning of 
words, which are often mis-understood, and in consequence, oftea 
mis-applied. ‘Those who have objected to my translation of this 
passage, have not understuod the difference between tempt and 
proce. To tempt, according to our best grammarians, and ac- 
cording to its acknowledged sense, means to solicit to #//—to ex 
tice by presenting some pleasure, or gratification to the mind. 
But to prove, means to evince, to show by argument, or testimony 
—to experience. (Johnson.) ‘Thus God proved, showed, evinced 
to Abraham, the necessity of taking Isaac to the mount Moriah, 
to be instructed concerning the burnt-offering as representative of 
the Messiah, and to be acknowledged by the great congregation 
at Salem, as the presumptive representative, or type of the Mes 
siah ; at Salem, where Melchezedek was at this period the king 
and the priest; that is, the supreme head of the church, to be 
succeeded by Isaac. Therefore the words, “" proved Abraham,” 
do not imply that some signal trial of his obedience was to fol- 
low, except his obedience to the command to go to prepare Isaac, 
to consecrate him to succeed as the head of the church, and to 
offer the offering before the congregation at Salem. I know as 
well as this objector can. tell me, that if the common translation 
could be admitted, and other scriptures expunged from the sacred 
volume, then it might be said, that God tempted Abraham ; but 
a8 IT 18, THE POSITIVE DECLARATION OF SCRIPTURE, that 
Gop DOTH NOT TEMPT ANY MAN; nothing could come from 
God as a command by way of temptation, for Abraham to offer 
up ‘his son for a burnt-offering. oo, 

But I have another objection to the received sense of this veree, 
which will, in addition to the true meaning of the word 71D) nasa, 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation. of the Bible. 245 


convince all reviewers, that God gave no command to Abraham to 
offer Isaac for a burnt-offering. = mo ee 

It is evident, that when Abraham received the divme communi- 
cation to go to the mount Monah with Isaac,’ he had ‘received 
no direction whatever‘ to take him, and to-offer him-up fora 
burnt-offering. On the third day after he had received the com- 
mand to go to the mount Moriah with Isaac, when he had arrived 
_ at the bottom of the mountain; it is said in the 5th verse, And 
Abraham said unto his young men, Abide you here with the ass ; 
and 1 and the lad will'go yonder and worship, AND COME 
AGAIN TO you. This is conclusive evidence that no such com- 
mand was given to Abraham; nor did he at this period suppose 
any thing of the kind. The word MAWN cenaashubah, 18 the first 
person plural future of the verb to return, viz. AND WE WILL 
RETURN To you. But had the patriarch understood that he was 
going to offer up Isuac for a burnt-offering, he could not have 
8814, AND WE WILL RETUEN TO YoU, without uttering a de- 
liberate falsehood; which this reviewer must believe he did accord- 
mg to the common version. Let the reader reflect for a moment— 
The patriarch was preparing to perform one of the most solemn 
duties of his: sacred office, the celebration of the ancient sacrifice 
commanded from the fall; viz. the offering of the SLarn Lams, 
as a type of the Messiah. And therefore, if the patriarch had; 
according to the whole tenor of the common version, affirmed 
what be knew conld not happen, how could he have approached 
before the God of truth ? | 

But the great question is, How then came Abraham to under- 
stand that Isaac was to be offered up for a burnt-offering ? If the 
reader will consult the history it will appear that it was the constant 
and universal belief of the church to the time of the patriarch 
Abraham, that agreably to the ancient promise, a person was to 
appear, who was to restore man to the state of happiness and peace 
which was enjoyed in the paradisaical state ; that 18, a state in 
which sacrifices were unnecessary ; who was to show man a new. 
and living way, an inward sacrifice of the heart, by the silence of 
all flesh; Zach. ii. 13, 1. 6. of all the evil propensities which in a 
state of nature oppose the divine commands. On the coming of this 
person, ἴῃ whom ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH WERE TO 
BE BLESSED, Abraham had been preaching for more than half a 
century’: he believed, that this person was to be offered up as a 
sacrifice ; and he had been told by the divine communication, that 
Isaac was the person in whom ALL THE NATIONS OF THE 
EARTH WERE TO BE BLESSED. ' 

Hence then was the error of: Abraham; an error which was a 
proof of the strongest faith, and reliance on the promise of God 


246 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review .. 


in the coming of the Messiah, When he found no sacrifice ready 
in the sacrificial grove—the promise of the coming of the Messiah 
in whom ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH WERE TO BE 
BLKS8SED—and of the covenapnt to be established in Isaac, iy 
whom ALL THE NATIONS WERE TO BE BLESSED, naturally 
led the patriarch to conclude, that Isaac was the person who wag 
to be offered, and thus that he was to be the Messiah. 

But the critic says, “ Not so thought Paul, when he said,” 
Heb. xi. 17, “ By faith, Abraham, when he was tried offered up 
Isaac.” And I say, and so will every unbiassed reader; “ sq 
thought Paul when he said,” in the same chapter, ver.!19, Account- 
ing that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead. Thus 
according to the Apostle, Abraham believed, that after the offer- 
ing up of Isaac, God was able to raise him up even from the dead ; 
that is, to life in this world ; otherwise all the nations of the earth 
could not have been blessed in him. 

Thus it is obvious, that the charge which objectors bring against 
the moral character of God, by supposing that he commanded 
Abraham to offer up his son for a burnt-offering, is only founded 
on the erroneous translation. But that agreably to the ExPRESS 
LETTER, and GRAMMAR OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW, it 
evidently appears that no such command was given by God ta 
Abraham. ‘It would have been,” as we are told, ““ a kind of 
trifling experiment, inconsistent with the dignity of the Omni- 
SCIENT, who says, Gen. xvili. 19, For 1 know him that he. will 
command his children and his household after him, and they shall 
keep the way of the Lord.” This puts the necessity of any temp- 
tation, or of any trial of the faith of Abraham, entirely out of the 
question. 

I shall notice a few mis-representations made by this writer. He 
says, p. 457, that I translate %Y "DD mipri gueets, ‘ some fruit of 
the tree.’ And that in my note on the passage, I say, in opposi- 
tion to the received translation, ‘ that 79 mem, prefixed to "5 peri, 
fruit, cannot be rendered by of.’ Certainly not without contra- 
dicting the original ; even in the common version of this verse it 
appears by the answer of the woman, that they were to eat but of 
some of the fruit of the garden: and therefore the ~ mem, is pro- 
perly rendered some, as in other parts of scripture. 

But this writer, with a levity which ill becomes his subject, 
says; ‘ Whatever may be thought of the value of this edict, let us 
observe in what degree he [ Bellamy] acts consistently with it. Only 
four verses after, the very same word Di) mipri, occurs again; 
and how does he translate it? not ‘ some fruit,’ which he declared 
to be the mght translation; (v. 2.) but agreably to the received 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Τυαποίαηὴν, of the Bible. 247 
version, ‘of the fruit,’ the very rendering which he before ΡΟ, 


nounced ‘ inadmissible !’ | 

I have shown that my first translation of this word (v. 2.) is con- 
sistent with the history, and with the meaning of the Hebrew in 
other parts of scripture; and this writer says, “only four verses after; : 
the very same word DD mipri, occurs.” This is not true; it is 
not the very same word, but )" DD spiro, with the ἢ vau post- 
fixed. Thus does this writer continue to make false quotations of 
my translation; or else he is so ignorant of the rules of the sacred 
language, .as to suppose, whenever a conjunction is translated by 
ἃ certain word in our language, that it necessarily must be aa 
translated in every other place where it occurs. I would ask this 
gentleman, Why then have the translators rendered this particle 2 
mem, by thirty-seven different conjunctions in the common versian? 
because the ru/e, the idiom, and the construction, required it; a 
circumstance with which this critic is altogether unacquainted. Are 
not these mis-representations . altogether opposed to what this 
writer says, p. 453.: “‘ Our main purpose is, to afford the public 
a just view of Mr. Bellamy’s competence ta bis assumed office of 
a biblical critic and translator ; we have thought it best to show in 
detail how completely he bas failed in confuting the strictures 
passed on particular texts, casually selected as specimens of the . 
whole.” Failed! only in the estimation of this interested Reviewer, 
but not in the estimation of able Hebrew critics in this country, 
both Jews and Christians. No; his main purpose 18, not “ to 
afford the public a just view,” but a false, garbled, and mutilated 
view of a few passages of my translation. 

It has surprised not a few, that this learned writer, who makes 
a parade of supporting received opinions, should not have noticed 
some of those many passages which in the common version are con- 
tradictory, but which in the Hebrew, and in the New Translation, 
are consistent with reason and truth. But this kind of liberality 
would not answer the sinister design of this gentleman; whose in- 
tention is not to elucidate scripture, but to court notice. . 

I therefore am driven to the necessity of referring the reader to 
a few passages in addition to those I have given in my reply, in. 
order further to show the purity of the Hebrew, which is so abso- 
Jutely necessary to be critically understood by those who write on 
the scriptures, but which is so neglected by the Reviewer. 

This contender for the retention of errors has said, “that there. 
is such an accommodation to the native idiom, as to make the 
language easy and intelligible, and jet no essential departure from, 
the original,” ‘I‘hat there ia “a dignity, simplicity, and propriety . 
in the language in which the sense is conveyed.” I shall refer to. 
a few passages which will enable the reader to determine whether 


248 <A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


the common version do not hold forth the most essential departure 
from the original. | | 2 

Lev. xi. 20. All fowls that creep. . 
. Amos. .iii..6. God is made-to be'the author of all the evil that 
is done in the city. 

Jer. iv..10. God is represented as having deceived the people. 

Ch. χχ. 7. That he deceived the prophet. 

Exod. xxxiii. 23. God is made to show his back-parts to Moses. 

Ch. xii. 12. God is represented as going forth at midnight and 
destroying -all the first-born sons of Egypt. See my translation 
and note, p. 219. of Part II. 

In the following: passages is there any dignity, simplicity, or 
propriety in the language in which the sense of the original is said 
to be conveyed ? And I shall be glad if the Reviewer, or any other 
eminent scholar, will translate the following passages as they stand 
in the Hebrew, which will then approach to something like com- 
mon sense in some, and in others to exhibit no contradiction. 

Lev. xi. 21. That have legs above their feet to leap withal. 

Ch. xx. 18. And all the people saw the thunderings,—and the 
noise of the trumpet. : ΕΣ 

Ch. xxxiv. 10. Such as have not been done in all the earth, vor 
0 any nation. 

_ Numb. i. 49. _Thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither 
take the sum of them. - 

_ Ch. xix. 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man 
that is dead. So. 

Ver. 16. Whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or 
a dead body. - 

Deut. xxviii. 68. And there ye SHALL BE SOLD unto your ene- 
mies for bond-men and bond-women, and NO MAN SHALL BUY 
You. . : ' 
᾿ Ezek. xiv: 9. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken 
a thug, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. | 

Ch, xx. 25, 96. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were 
not good, and Judgments whereby they should not live; And I 
polluted them ἐπ their gifts. | 

2 Sam. xiv. 5. I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband 
is dead. ἮΝ | : 

ὦ Chron. xvi. 1. In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of 
Asa, Baasha King of Israel came up azainst Judah. 

But in 1 Kings xvi. 6, 8. Baasha died in the twenty-sixth year 
of Asa Kiug of Judah. oo" 

1 Kings iv. 26. Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for 
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. : 

. But in the corresponding passage (2 Chron. ix. 23.) Solomon: 


om Με. Bellamy’s Translation of the. Bible. 249 
_ had four thousand stalls fer horses and chariots, and twelve thou- 


sand horsemen. . 

Psal. xliv. 12. Thou sellest thy people for nought, and dost 
not increase thy wealth by their price. 

The sense given in the following passages, is nat to be fqund in, 
the original Hebrew, but fur obvious reasons not specified. Gen. 
xix. 55, 84, 36—ch. xxxv.. 22—xxxviii. 9—Lev. xv. 16, 18, 24, 
33—Deut. xxiii. \—Isa. iii. 17—xxx. 22.—Ezek. xxiii. 3, 8, 11, 
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, &c. &c. Ke. oe 


Gen. xix. SQ. . 
Oo. T. N. T. . 
‘Thus were both the daughters = Thus both the daughters of 
of Lot with child by their Lot conceived, unknown to their 
father. father. , : 


They conceived, being married to the idolators of Zoar. See. 
note subjomed to the translation. This is the true meaning of the 
verse in the Hebrew; but surely none will contend for the re- 
tention of this immoral passage in the common version, and thus _ 
retain the foul blot which has been hitherto fixed on the character 
of the holy man of God. | ᾿ 

There is a satisfaction in having it in my power ἴο᾽ 6411} on this 
writer to be as good as his word. He says, ‘ Let hiny prove to 
us that the received sense of scripture is erroneous, and his new 
discoveries true; and we will engage to recommend his translation 
4s warmly as we now oppose it.” It is of very little consequence 
whether he will recommend my translation or not, but it certainly 
will be of consequence to the character of the Review, for the re- 
spectable editor of that work to be faithful to his solemn proniise 
to his readers and the public, should I fairly and unequivocally 
show “that the sense of some parts of the translation of scrip- 
ture is erroneous.” ΝΙΝ 

The promise of this critic divides itself into two ραΐίβ: the 
first js, “let him prove to us, that the received sense of scripture 
is erroneous.” By this expression, “ the received sense of scripture,” 
the public are not to be told that the whole of the scripture is 
meant; but that this incautious writer means, certain parts of the 
translation of the scriptures. ‘The second is, “ and his new dis- 
coveries true :” evidently meaning that the received sense of such 
certain scriptures is erroneous, and that my ‘“‘ new discoveries are 
true,” as he is pleased sarcastically to call them. ‘Fhis then 
being the obvious meaning of this writer, I shall proceed to lay 
before the public such passages as will necessarily prove “ that 
the received sense of such scriptures is érroneous :” and perhaps 


VOL. XIX... Cl Ji. ΝΟ, XXXVI. OR, 


350 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review » 


the readers will so far expect, that the Reviewer “ will recommend 
such translations, as warmly as he now opposes them.” 


N. T. 

Surely Jehovah will be with 
me, and keep me in the way that 
I go; yea he will give to me 
bread to eat, and raiment to 
wear; and [ shall return in 
peace to the house of my father: 
therefore Jehovah shall be be- 
fore me for a God. 


O. T. 

Gen. xxviii. 20. If God will 
be with me, and will keep me 
in this way that I go, and will 
give me bread to eat, and raiment 
to put on; so that [ come again 
to my father’s house in peace, 
then shall the Lord be my 
God. 


This, as it stands in the common version, has been called by 
objectors, ““ Jacob’s selfish bargain.” Let the Reviewer read the 
new translation; and if he has any wish to be instrumental in 
establishing the credit of the Bible, he will acknowledge the 
beauty and correctness of the Hebrew, which I have given 
verbatim ; as well as the disinterested reliance of the patriarch oa 
the providence of God. 


O. T. 
Ch. xlvui. 28. Thy servant our 
father is in good health, he is yet 
alive. 


Peace to thy servantour father, 
he yet lives. 


2 Kings viii. 10. And Elisha 
said unto him, Go, say unto him, 
Thou mayest certainly recover: 
howbeit, the Lord? hath showed 
me, that he shall surely die. 


And Elisha said to him, Go, 
say not to him, Thou shalt cer- 
tainly recover: for Jehovah hath 
showed me that he shall surely 
die. 


In the common translation of this verse we have a falsehood put 


into the mouth of the prophet: I have shown that the translators 
have not translated the negative 85 Jo, which has occasioned this 
Improper reading, to the no small disparagement of the scripture. 
A similar error 1s committed in the following passage : | 


O.T. 


1 Kingsii.9. But his hoar- 
head bring thou down to the 
grave with blood. 


Exod. iv. 24. The Lord met 
him, and sought to kill him. 


| N. T. 
Neither bring thou down his 
hoar-head to the grave with 
blood. 


Where Jehovah met hin, 
whom he sought crying to him. 


_My limits will not allow me to swell the pages, which I could do 
with hundreds of such passages ; I have therefore, in these, acceded 
to the proposal of the Reviewer, by proving that the received sense 


on’ Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 251 


of such scripturesis erroneous, I will now refer this gentleman to 
others, and I will tell him, if I may judge from the specimens he 
has given of his knowledge in the sacred language, that he does not 
appear to be capable of giving to a passage the true translation, 
which will remove the objections made by the systematic enemies 


of the Bible. 
O. T. 


Gen. .i1i, 22. And the Lord. 


God said, Behold, the man is 
become as one of us, to know 
good and evil. And now lest 
he put forth his hand, and take 
also of the tree of life, and eat, 
and live for ever : 


N. T. 

Moreover, Jehovah God said, 
Behold, the man was as one of 
us, with knowledge of good and 
evil: therefore now surely he 
shall put forth his hand, and take 


_also of the tree of life; yea he 


shall eat and live for ever. ° 


The Reviewer will recollect, that the objectors have brought this 
verse forward as it stands in the. common version, to prove the 
᾿ non-existence of a future state; viz. lest he put forth his hand, 
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. But 
in the new translation of this verse, which in every word is consist- 
ent with the original Hebrew, [have shown that the reverse of 
what is declared in the common version is the sacred truth; and 
that it is declared in the most direct terms in the venerated Holy 
Record, by the lip of Eternal Truth himself; THAT MAN SHALL 
LIVE FOR EVER, : ΝΕ 

Will he contend that the common translation of this important 
passage is true, which induced the sanguine enemies of Chris- 
tianity to declare, in order to appease their consciences, when they 
dipped their hands in the blood of the innocent, that “ death is an 
eternal sleep ?” : | 

The critic says, “ We have mentioned at Gen. ii. 25. he reads 
BYOVY, prudent instead of naked, deriving it from a root which 
bears the sense of guile, craft, &c. Now at ch. iii. 7. occurs the 
cognate word OVY in the plural, which he, consistently with his 
former translations, renders subtle, instead ‘of the received sense, 
naked. But the word recurs at v. 10, (iii. 10) and 11, and how 
does he there translate it? Will it be believed that he renders it 
tmprudent, diametrically opposite to his sense of prudent, at ch. 11: 
25?” By the word “ cognate,” the reader will understand that the 
word D'FY gneerom, which in the common version, 11. 10, is rendered 
naked, means the same as DOM) gnaaroumim, which im the 
common version is also rendered naked, ch. 11. 25; for this gentle- 
man concludes, that though they are very different words, they 
have the self-same meaning and application. But | would ask him 
then, why does not the “ cognate word” OO Y gnearamim, which 
in Jer. 1. 26. is rendered by the word heaps, and “the cognate . 


ἃ 


252 A Sécond Reply to the Quarterly Review 


word ” ONY grarmonim, Ezek. xxxi. 8, rendered chesnut-trees, 
both being under the root O° gnaarom, signify naked, as well as 
Dy gnaarom? This should necessarily be the case by his method 
of reasoning. 

He says, “ Now at ch. iii. 7. occurs ‘the cognate word’ DVy 
(gneerom) in the plural, which he [Bellamy] consistently with bis 
former translations, renders subile. But the word occurs at v. 10 
(iii. 10.) and 1]. Will it be believed that he renders it, tmpru- 
dent?” The-reader will see that I have rendered it tmprudent 
And when the reader is informed how this writer has given a false 
quotation, he will conclude that he has been sabtle and imprudent, 
like Adam when he disobeyed the divme command. 

Now, reader, attend. “The word recurs,” says this writer, “at 
v. 10. (ili, 10) and 11.” This ts not accurate; the word which 
occurs at ch. iii. 10, 11, is a very different word from that which 
is tound in ver. 7. The word which is found at ver. 7. 1s Ὁ 
gneerummim, written with the short « and the dagesh, and which 
applies to the mind, where [ have rendered it subéle ; but the 
word which is found at v. 10, (iii. 10) 11, is DVYY gneeron, 
which 1 have rendered imprudent: and which I shall show has 
that signification in other parts of scripture. What now are the 
readers of the Quarterly Review to think of the Hebrew learning 
of one who is so ignoraut, that wherever he finds a word under the 
same root, however differently written, ie supposes it to have no 
verbal, no ideal variation, but that it always must have the same 
meaning, the same mode of expression, and the same application? 
Any tyro, who can conjugate a verb in Hebrew, can inform him 
that the words "YON amar, and “37 dabar, have a great number of 
variations, gr modes of expression; as the radix takes different 

Insertions, suitable to the ideal meaning, and as such words vary in 
their orthography, which always gives a variation in the applic 
tion. Thus it is in all words in the language. Were I to say that 
the word “OT according to this gentleman’s method of reading 
Hebrew without the proper vowels, means both a word, anda 
pestilence; no doubt he would say, as he has safd respecting the 
word emprudent, and subtle: “ After such a specimen, we coir 
ceive that Mr. Bellamy can find no difficulty in proving the same 
word to mean black and white.” But let him tura to Gen. xv. 
1, 4.—Exod. ix. 20, 21, &c. &c. and to Hab. iii. 5, and he will 
find that the very same radical word is necessarily translated both 
by word, and pestilence. But the rule, which is always regular, 
appears to have been altogether unknown to this gentleman. 

The reader will remember that the word in ch. ii. 25, which I 
have rendered prudent, is DOW gnaaroumim ; but the word which 
I have rendered imprudent is Ὁ) gneerom, a very different. word 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the. Bible. 253 


from DOM graaroumim. I will refer the reader to other scrip- . 
tures where this word occurs, with the same consonants and vowels, 
although it is rendered by the word aaked in the common version, 
where it will appear evident that it can have no such meaning. 
Ezek. xvi. 39. strip thee of thy clothes, and leave thee naked and 
bare. Surely such language as this is not worthy of being called, 
as in the first verse, the word of the Lord. Could the divine speaker 
use such an incongruous expression, strip thee of thy clothes, and 
leave thee naked and bare? If they were stripped of their clothes, 
they were naked, and if naked, we need not be told they were 
dare. | . 

The prophet was, here, not telling them that they should be left 
naked, after he had told them that they should be stripped of their 
clothes: he was commanded to inform them that as they had 
built high places for idolatrous worship, they had been OVY 
gneerom, imprudent, indiscreet, negligent. ‘This is the obvious 
sense of the word gneerom, which I have rendered emprudent, and 
which is also confirmed by the narrative. οι 

The word MW) vegneryah, is rendered, and bare ; but the 
prophet could not be commanded to inform them that they should 
be bare, after he had told them that they should be stripped of their 
clothes, and be left naked; undoubtedly when stripped of their 
clothes, they would be naked, and if left naked, we cannot hesitate, 1 
observe, in saying they would be bare. This word iP) vegneryah, 
rendered and bare, has various.modes of expression: according to 
idiom and orthography, as words have in all languages. ‘The word 
set is varied by above twenty different words; as put, fir, regulate, 
plant, establish, appoint, exhibit, &c. The word see also means to 
perceive, observe, discover, discern, &c. But this writer supposes 
that where a Hebrew word is translated by a certain word, 1t must 
always be translated by the same word; without attending to the 
orthography and construction which always vary the mode of 
expression, and which, as I have shown, would often exhibit “ non- 
sense.” The radical meaning of this word is destitute. Psa. cxh. 8, 
leave not my soul DESTITUTE—Psa. cli. 17—This clause in 
Ezek. xvi. 39, reads, imprudent and destitute; and.not naked and 
bare, as in the common version. From this it is obvious that 
the word Ὁ gneerom, which 1 have rendered imprudent in Gen. 
iii. 10, being a different word from DNY graaroumim, which 1 
have translated prudent, ch. ii. 25, should be so translated, as is 
confirmed by the history. 

word from this root occurs in Isaiah iii. 17, to which the 
translators have given an indelicate sense, which the original does 
not any way embrace. In this place only in all the scripture, 1s 
the word TW pathen, translated secret parts, viz. 1 will discover 


954 A Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


their secret parts. Nor does any variation of the word ever convey 
such a meaning ; neither is it applied to the women, as it is in the 
common tranelation, Will the Reviewer favor his readers with 
the true translation and application of this passage, so as to obviate 
the objectionable reading ; or will he contend that modesty 15 still 
to be put to the blush by such passages, the sense of which, in 
the common version, is not contained in the original Hebrew? 

This critic talks about the Talmud, and says that I “‘ refer to it 
when it suits my purpose.” 1 do not know that ἔ have any other 
“ purpose,” except truth; but why did not this gentleman, who 
pretends to be conversant with things which (as will be seen) he 
does not understand, refer to the ‘Targum for the ancient meaning 
of the sacred writer on this subject? He has indeed copied the 
Latin translation of the Chaldee of Onkelos in the Targum, and 
this he passes off for an accurate translation and knowledge of the 
Chaldee ; and here ends his Jargum learning. In exposing the 
presumption and ignorance of this Reviewer, I have also another 
object in view ; which is to show, that the following passage, Gen. 
11.21. is in the new translation rendered agreably to the Flebrev, 
and to the Chaldee translation of Onkelos in the Targum. Conse- 
quently all the translations, which stand opposed to these up- 
deniable authorities, are literally copied from the translation of 
the Latin version as it stands in the Targum, by the improper 
application to “the flesh” of the man; and which has induced 
this critic to lay it before his readers as the true translation of the 
Chaldee of Onkelos. I ‘shall now proceed to show that he, who 
has quoted the Latin version for the literal translation of the 
Chaldee, is’ ignorant of the grammar of the Hebrew and the 
Chaldee. - 

The following is the translation of the Hebrew into the Chaldee, 
48 1ἴ stands in the text of Onkelos in the Targum, 


Noo ὙΠ ΡΟ Nin aon pod) ΟἽΝ ΟΝ New ode Ὁ NOT 
WWW) Nw 
Vurma Yeyah Elotyim shania gral Adam oulmoke : oinsib chada 


meegnilgnohi ; vumlee bisra techotah : which is thus translated into 
Latin in the Targum : Et injecit Dominus Deus soporem in Adam 
et dormivit : et tulit unam de costis ejus, et replevit carne locum 
ejus ; and thus translated in the common version: And the Lord 
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam ; and he slept: and he 
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 

The first word | shall notice in the text of Onkelos, is ὩΣ 
shanta, which he substitutes for the interpretation of the Hebrew 
word iT TW tardeemah, rendered in the common version @ deep 
sleep. But the Chaldee word NOW shanta, embraces no suc 
meaning as a deep sleep; whether it be taken from the Chaldes 


x 


\ 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 255 


word NW shana, under which root it is found, or from the Hebrew 
ΓῺ shanah, it has the same signification, to alter, to change. See 
Dan. vii. 19, dtverse—ch. vi. 7, changed—ch. ii. 21,—vi. 11, alter 
—Jer. ii. 36.—ch. lii, 35.—1 Kings xiv. 2.—Psa. 34. title. So 
that the Chaldee translation of the word ΠΣ ΤΠ tardeemah, by 
ΝΠ shanta, to change, perfectly agrees with my translation of 
the word ΠΌΤ tardemah, which 1 have rendered an inactive 
state; a state different from that state of perfection in. which 
Adam was created.. A change had taken place in him; he be- 
came inactive, or disconsolate ; he began to lose his dependence on 
Ins Maker, because he saw, when all the creatures passed before 
him, that they were male and female, and therefore it is said, 
But for Adam, there was not found a help meet for him. 

-The next word in the text of Onkelos is 3°D3) vunseeb ; it is the 
literal translation into Chaldee, of the. Hebrew Mp" vayitkkach, 
rendered in the common version, and he took ; which, agreably to 
idiom, means also the reciprocal action he brought, as I have 
shown, where the same word, both consonants and vowels, 18 so 
translated in the common version, Numb. xxiii. 28. See also 
Targum of Onkelos, on Gen. xviii. 5, where the paraphrast is 
regular in rendering the Hebrew verb Mp kechah, to bring ; pre- 
serving ‘the reciprocal action agreably to idiom,’ NOM7T NAD ION 
Eseb pitaa delachmaa, and I will bring a piece of bread. See also 
the Targum of Jonathan on 1 Kings xvii. 10, Ὁ Ὁ 1D 30 
sabi kegnan li zeegneer mayaa, BRING now for me a little water. 

The Chaldee word which is chosen by Onkelos for the interpre- 
tation of the Hebrew word YY?RD mitsalgnothao, rendered in 
the common version, his ribs, is Ὁ meegnilgnohi, which 
comes from the radix 32 long, to swallow, for support. See 
Prov. xx: 25, devoureth—Obad. 16. swallow. So that the interpre- 
tation, which Onkelos gives to the word ‘M282 mitsalgnothao, 
is helps, atds, supports ; and not ribs, as in the common version. 

is is in perfect agreement with Y7¥ iseelung, in its root, which 
means to lean, to halt, to rest, Gen. xxxii. 31, 82—Mich. iv. 6, 7— 
Zeph. iii. 19; and so it is applied to mean side, as the eastern 
people when they halt, or rest, generally lie on the side, to renew 
their strength, and thus acquire support. So that agreably to the © 
interpretation of Onkelos, this word means all the variety of aids, 
or supports, which man was to derive from woman in ἃ marned 
state. It then is in agreement with the 18th verse, where it 18 
expressly said, I will make a help meet for him. To give lim 
those helps or supports, the want of which help had necessarily 
brought him into a state contrary to that in which he was created, 
and for this reason it is said, Jt is not good that the man should be. 
alone. 


256 Α Second Reply to the Quarterly Review 


The last clause of this verse in the Targum is, NWO NOD) 
WWI vamiee bisra techotah ; which is the literal translation of 
the Hebrew MINMN Wl WO" vayisgor buasaar tachéenah, 
rendered in the common version, and closed up the flesh instead 
thereof. — . 

The Chaldee word ΝΟΥ cumlee, means to fll, to replenish: 
And the word MNVW techotah, which is the Chaldee translation 
of the Hebrew TUWWN tachtenah, rendered in the common ver- 
sion instead thereof, refers to the subject under consideration, 
the woman. It is a reference to the substantive WY gneezer, a 
help, the woman, in the 18th verse ; viz. I will make a help, i.e. 
ἃ woman; and to ΠΝ achath, one, viz. and he brought ONE, i.e. 
the woman, in the same proposition in this 2ist verse. ‘The 19h 
and 20th verses are to be read parenthetically, as the subject of 
the creation of the woman is suspended, and resumed in this 4 οἱ 
verse. The word TVW techotah, therefore, having a feminine 
termination im immediate connexion with NWA bisra, flesh, 
shows that Onkelos applied this word to the generation of the 
human race, and not to the flesh of the man, as ia the application 
of the word ejus, which has been followed in the English, and in 
other translations. ‘This last clause of the Chaldee of Onkelos 
reads—Thus he replenished flesh under her, or subject to her, as, 
the mother of all living. The passage plainly signifies what the 
fact proves; God had ended all his work, his creation ceased on 
the sixth day, and he planted life in the first created mother, to be 
communicated for the birth of all flesh. . 

Some there are indeed, who, contrary to the grammar of ‘the 
Janguage, will say, that the feminine sy /ia, is once used as a mascu 
lme pronoun. But this is inconsistent with the rationale of the 
grammar of the language. 

Thas agreably to the feminine termination of the word 7IYWI 
tachtenah, also with the Chaldee traaslation of Onkelos, the . 
greatest of all authorities except Scripture, so admitted by all 
the Rabbies since his time ; itis evident that he applied the word 
MAX techotuh, i. 6. under her, to the woman, and not to the 
closing up of the flesh of the man. This being the true trenslation, 
it cannot, consistently with the Hebrew, or with the Chaldee, mean 
that a rib was taken from the body of Adam to make Eve, or that 
God closed up the flesh of the man, because, as observed, the word 
MW techotah, has no masculine termination to authorise the 
translation: but that the clause which Onkelos traaslates, -thus 
he replenished flesh under her, evidently refers, as the Hebrew 
does, to that order which God established for the creation of the 

aman race. 


on Mr. Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible. 257 


Here 1 shall close my remarks on the assertions of this 
writer ; assertions which, the learned reader will see, are made in 
ignorance both of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages. But I 
cannot quit this subject without observing, that as the English 
language seems to have arrived at its ultimate degree of perfection, 
and as the Hebrew language is now far better understood than it 
ever was at any other period βίος the dispersion of the Hebrews ; 
if the incorrect readings in the common version are observed, 
every man who wishes to see the English Bible speak agreably to 
the original, will be convinced that there is an absolute necessity 
for a speedy revision. And what confirms this the more, is the 
opinion of the most learned Hebrew scholars that ever this country 
produced, who have left their testimony on the necessity of a revi- 
sion, Their names I have given in the preface. All parties now 
appear to be sensible that this most important work ought to be 
done, and that the people ought to have the word of God pure. 
The necessity of this cannot be more obvious than: it is at this very 
moment, when deistical publications, containing numerous selec- 
- Bons of contradictions from the cummon version, are circulating 
throughout the kingdom. If the circulation of these pernicious 
publications be stopped by the interference of government, this wall 
not satisfy the great majority. of the people ; it will only make them 
the more earnest to know whether these things be so, and if not, 
. to know what is the truth. That the objections brought forward | 
in this formidable manner, are false and groundless, I aver, with- 
out the fear of a contradiction; aud it is only by a literal transla- 
tion from the original Hebrew, that such objections as are (I am 
sorry to say) made on the ground of the present translation, cau 
be finally done away. 

If there be any among the clergy, or among the ministers of 
dissenting congregations, or among the people, who will presume 
to affect a kind of indifference or contempt for so desirable an 
object as thatof a national revision of the Word of God, such men 
can be friends neither to the government, to religion, to the Bible, 
to good order among the people, nor to posterity. Nay those, who 
declare themselves averse from a literal translation of the Scripture, 
when it is shown, as in these pages, that the present translation 
stands opposed in so many instances to the original Hebrew, 
may tremble at the pplication of that passage: Mark vi. 15, 
Making the word of God of none effect, through your tradition 
which ye have delivered; and many such leke thangs doye. =. 

The necessity of a new revision cannot be better stated than it 1s 
by one of the learned Clergy, who observes, in a pamphlet ad- 
dressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Pamphleteer of 


958 Emendationes Βοηίϊοϊξ 


February last—“ It cannot have escaped your Lordship, that the 
Roman Catholics, the Dissenters, and the Unitarians, are at this 
time separately employed in producing new translations of the 
Scriptures, and that they do not pursue their labors without attack- 
ing the integrity of our authorised copy, and challenging our 
church to produce men sufficiently acquainted with oriental learn- 
ing, either to defend our own version, or to compile a correct one.” 
Therefore, as there is no want of ability to produce a more cor- 
rect translation, it is devoutly hoped that those, who have the ma- 
nagement of truths of such vast importance, will not suffer them- 
selves to be charged with torpid selfishness in withholding the pu- 
rity of the original Hebrew, the pure stream of Siloa, ‘* which 
flows fast by the oracle of God.” . . 

Notwithstanding the unmerited abuse, which this writer has 
heaped on me, as “‘ vanity, arrogance, and presumption ;” I disclaim 
having said in any part of my writings, that I only am capable of 
giving a perfect translation. I have been laboring at this work 
during twenty-one years, with a design to adduce such facts, as 
may induce the Clergy to come forward, and to second the laudable 
efforts of those learned men whom 1 have quoted, who have left their 
testimony concerning the necessity of a new revision. For how- 
ever accurately any person might translate, it is the congregated body 
of the Clergy only, that can give energy to the reception of a NA- 
TIONAL REVISION OF SCRIPTUBE.' 


EMENDATIONES 
BENTLEIT IN OVIDIUM. 


I1.—[Vid. No. XXXVI. p. 177.] 
Heroin. Episr. xiv. 
4. piam| pia [ut N. Η.] 
14. es—piam] est MS. D.—pia. 
18. ossa] MSS. orsa recte. ἘΣ 
22. MSS. D. et R. pars lucis primaque noctis. recte: cf. 77. 


23. templa—tyranni| tecta—Pelasgi [ut V.] 
86. audibam} audieram fut V.] δεῖ 


"ΝΘ shall readily insert any temperate observations, either on the pre- 
ceding article, or on criticisms on Mr. Bellamy’s work.—En. ᾿ 


in Ovidium. 959 


. dederant| MS. D. dederam. 


. Utrum At rursus monitis jussuque coacta parentis an 


Admovi jugulo sine me tibt vera fateri exhibeat MS. 
D. parum liquet e Bentl. Notis. 


. pedibus| laribus: at Μ5. Ὁ. manibus. 


. umbra] MS. 1). unda. 
. MS. D. dura et pro var. lect. uda. 
. portus] portas. 109. senectus| vetustas. 


. Scriptaque| MSS. Ὁ. εἰ R. Sculptaque. 


Abjudicari videntur 109, 110. 


Episr. xv. 


211 
212 


Epist. 
1 


15. 


22 


. ventret| movetur. . 8. ulla}-illa. 


. celebrat] celebras. 

. candida Cydno] crede Gyrino. 

. nonjnec{ut Burm.] _ = 32. rependo] repende. 
. sum] sim: cf. Heroid. Ep. xvii. 13. 


. consumpta] confusa. 


. At} Aut ut Gronovius Epist. 76. : 
. Arsit inops—captus| Carpsit opes—winctus [at MS. Wit- 


tianus vinctus: V. victus. | 


. Quasque—nunc} Quamque—tam. 


. crinibus] cruribus [ut N. H.] 


. levibus cor] levibusque cor [ut Burm. e MS.] 
. artesque magistre| artisque magistra [scil. Thalia; et sic 


. conspicias—conspicts| conspiciat—conspicit. 

. vidit) videt. 

. te—libet—mihi] te—licet—tibi. cf. Her. Ep. xix. 57. 
. vttreoque—amni] vitrogue—omni [ut N. H.] 
.unajuda{utN.H.] . 178. Hac] Et. 

. mittis| mattit. 191. At] Ah. 

. citharas turba—meas| cithare verba—mee. 


parantur| paramus fut V.] 
aceras| crucias [ut MS.] 
Abjudicari videntur 219, 220. 


XVI. 


Ledea| Ledai fut N. H.] 
sit] sint [ut MS.] immo rata sit: 1. e. spes. MS. D. sit. 
MS. D. Feraclea. , 


33. veluti) lentus [MS. D. tanquam.] 


39. 


oporteat| Apollinis cf. Cupidinis arcu. 


Ibid. Idem defectus in MSS. Ὁ. et R. qui in aliis est. 
45. tngentem] in partu: cf. Her. Ep. xvu. 287. : 


460 


50. 
53 4Φ 


69. 
. verebar] querebar (ut N. H.] 


. vincere posse] posse tenere [ut Francius.] 
. nec te] me [at voluit, ni fallor, mea. | 

. probata] probatis. 91]. per] post 
. curaque amorque| cura dolorque ve 


Emendationes Bentlew 


Post h. v. desunt plura. τ 

media nemorosis vallibus| madidis nemorose collibus cf. 
Amor. i. 14. 11. Clivose madidis in vallibus Idee, et 
Heroid. Ep. xvii. vallibus Ide [ubi Bentl. coldibes.] 

forma] nudis cf. Her. Ep. xvii. 116. vel sumtus cf, Met. 
iii. $32, 


laborque: cf. Horat. 
laborantes inuno Penelopen vitreamque Circen. 


. oculis, animo]| oculis animi. 

. victa] vincta [ut Franc. ] 

. facies] faceres [ut N. H.] 102. hinc] tam. 
. vehor| vehar. 

. sui] tut [ut Nauger.] 117. Et] At. ᾿ 

. obstupui] Ut stupui [ut Francius.] 

. intumuisse] incalnisse. ; fi 

. palma futura fuit| palma abitura foret. 

. σαν μα τ sed (ut D. H.] 


. promiserit] promiserat. 


MS. Dun. cruenta et pro var. lect. recisa. 


. videbor] {πίοῦον [αἰ MSS.] 
. sceptra] na. 

. quamvis| Ms. Ὁ. et R. quevis [ut V.] 
. ttbt clara] Titana. 

. Lumina—trepidos—equos] Numing— iver 


dis equts vel 


cum trepidos a dape vertit equos MS. D, veréet. 


. tamen] non [ut MSS. 4.} 
- juvenum—amores}| MS. D. aliquem—amorem. [ut V.] 


et pro var, lect. yuvenum—amores. 


. tuamque| tuamve [ut Francius. | 
- nutum] nictum: cf. Her. Ep, xvii. 82. sed cf. Met. iii. 
60 


400. 
. MS. Ὁ. Hippodamia sinus. MS.R. et alterum quoque 


habet quod est in not. N. H 


. fortior isset] fortiter [wt V.] vel protinus iret. 

. MS. Do hie ἥ 

. repeto| recolo [ut N. Η.}. 

. corrigat.| MSS. Ὁ. et R. corriget. 

. tut] sui. 

. Ivit] Rist. MS. 1). Esset: et pro war. lect. Ivit. 
. nendo| MS. D. cum jam. 

. agas] MS. D. habe. 308. ea] alle. ' 


904. 
907. 
500. 
328. 
320. 
336. 
336. 
340. 
341. 
353. 
371. 


in Ovidium. | 961 
tui] suis 805. speres.] MS. Ὁ. eredas. 


summa] magna. 

te nec mea} mec me tua. 

MS. D. enumerabor. 

sacra—tuis] tua—meis [ut V.] vel stata. 

dabunt] dabit MSS. Ὁ. R. 

MS. R. Trojaque tota. Cf. Her. Ep. i. 4. 
magna| mota [ut Burm. MS. tota, 

dic que| ecque. | 

vestre| Graia: cf. Her. Ep.1. 47. 
indigner—ferrum] indignum est—bellum [ut MS.] 


EpistT. xvii. 


1. 
7. 
5 
16. 


Przfigitur distichon e Heins. Not. 
e gente] MS. D. de gente. | 


. ficto) MS. D. acto. 


durts torva] torvis dura: cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 287. MS. Ὁ. 
sedeo torots dura: et pro var.lect. videor. Lege sedet 
tn torvis cura. 


. οἰτῇ] lust [ut V. et] MS. Ὁ. in quo pro var. lect. vizi. 
- cepti] cepto [ut V.] MS. D. cepti. 


MS. D. antulit. 


. digna] posse: cf. Her. Ep. xxi. 104. 

. contentu fuisset] contentus abrsses. 

. tui. MS. Ὁ. tabi. 

. trascetur MS. D. pro interpretatione: id MS. Scriver. 


in textu habet. 


. quo] quod fut V.] 

. dicuntur| 
. matronaque| formosague : cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 288. 

. MS. Ὁ. Quis [ut ΜῈ 

. MS. D. Tyndaridaque. 58. MS. D. Priamo. 
. Sanguine MSS. Ὁ. et R. 

. Troja] terre: cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 175 et 353. 

. possint] possent. 68. MS. D. Tu melior. 

. semper] quondam [ut MS.] 

. MS. Ὁ. Cum spectas [ut N. H.] 

. nobis} nostris. . 

. Et) Ut [sic N.H.} 85. longo] nullo [ut MS.} 
» quoque] ego [ut MS.] ΝΣ 

. 1 sed Ms [ 

. optare MS. Ὦ. 

. magis—inest| minus MS. R. adest MSS. Ὁ. et R. MS. 


S. D. creduntur. 
5.} 47. MS. D. possum. 


S. D. et R. 


. Nec magis: et pro var. lect, Sed magis. 


969 Emendationes Bentleii 


107. gaudia praceptaque| precerptaque predia: cf. Her. Ep. 
xx. 143. MS. D. praceptaque. . 
109. optarem tibi Troica] optarim tua, Troice. A MS. R. 
abest hoc distichon: in MS. D. post sequens ponitur. 
113. MS. D. natura: et pro var. lect. fortuna. 
115. vallibus] collibus: cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 153. 
122. MS. Ὁ. dicor 123. MS. D. mihi. 
127. infirmo] inficior [ut MS.] MS. Ὁ. infirmor : et offendor 
pro var. lect. 
128. Lege Nam cur vor, animus quod cupit esse, neget. 
187. MS. Ὁ. recuso. 
140. MS. D. negat. 157. visum—cum] visa—dum 
167. Fuma] Forma. | 
168. Laudamur vestro| Laudatur vulgi. 
. 170. foret] fuit [ut V.] MS. Ὁ. foret. 
185. Quam male—possis] Quod bene [ut MS.]—posses. 
186. Sic] MS. Ὁ. Tunc. | 
188. ipsa MS. D. esse MS. R. mox forem uterque. 
190. resedit] residit [ut N. H.]_ 
194. lusa] lesa: cf. 227. MS. D. pacta. 
196. MS. D. deseruisse MS. R. destituisse. 
211. sentiet] sentiat MSS. Ὁ. et R. 
226. ista] ipsa. 
227. succurret MSS. D. et R. 
228. fratris] fratres [ut MSS.] vel fratrum aut. 
232. Ipsea MSS. D.et R. 232. —que}—ve..° 
249. tra. MS. Ὁ. 251. MS. Ὁ). ipsa tuts. 
253. sint] sunt (cf. Her. Ep. xiii. 83.) ut MS. Ὁ. 
256. digna tui] danda tuis {ut MS.] 
259. faciam] saptam. 261. plura| MS. Ὁ, ésta. . 
265. furtive] captive: cf. Am, i. 2. 30. | . 
Abjudicari videntur 127, 8. 


EpistT. xvii. 
Inseritur distichon e notis N. H, 


2. Sesta] Sesti [ut MS.] 
5. morentur] morantur [ut MSS.] 
6. patiantur] patiuntur. 7. domine) etiam [ut V.] 

42. negas| neges(utV.] 48. rapturo] capturo. 

48. parte] nave(si recte video. ] 

50. adest| abest. 53. cuncta] vera. . 
94, tempora] gaudia: cf. 107. | oS 
56. Soribus] laribus [ut N. H.]cf. Her. Ep. xiv, 87. et Rem. 
m. 237, 


i Ovidium. ὁ ὁ 963 


63. Sinit MS. Ὁ. at MS. R. sinat. 

70. vide MSS. D.et R. 

76. necte] sponte [ut Francius.} 

79. vox nostras nullum] vor usquam nostras. 

84. Fortiter|] Nitor et. MS. D. Forttor. 

87. MS. Ὁ. E¢: pro var. lect. Ut. . 

98. dabas] dabam: cf. Amor. ii. 2. 58. [ut Nodell. Observat. 
Crit. ii. p. 18.] 

103. Deque] Eque (ut N. H.] 

105. nox et nos] nos et nor MSS. Ὁ. et R. 

115. cunctatus MSS. D. et R. 

119. vero est—huc] videor—ad te. 

121. st] ma [ut Francius.] 

125. animo} animis: MSS. Ὁ. et R. 

133. Solitarum] Solidarum. 

185. tterare] iter ante [ut MS.] MSS. Ὁ. et R. iterare. | 

142. MSS. D. et R. nomine crimen. 

144. vellere] tergore [ut Franc.] 

147. Arte egeo| Parte querar. MS. D. Parte moror. 

152. Queque] Quave. 

153. quod—et] quam—aut postea voluit guas—et cum N. Η. 

156. erit in] errat [ut MS.] 

160. Miraque—subito| Morsaque (cf. Met. xin. 943.) subitum 
[ut N. H.] MS. Ὁ. subitum: et pro var. lect. subito 
[Jortin. Miscell. Observ. ii. i. p. 195. Morsaque.] 

171. et] at. 

171. MS. R. Hine est quod raro. 

174. hoc] hac: cf. Her. Ep. xix. 142. 

177. propius] proptor [ut MSs.] 


186. In] MS. D. 186. mea] mihi. 

187. quid cum miki] Ms. D. quid erit cum. 

190. MS. D. non cautum. 197. MS. Ὁ. exiollar. 

203. et ut MSS. Ὁ. et R. ut hanc: mox finiat : lege desinat 
[ut MS.] 


211. fluctibus] flatebus: cf. Her. Ep. vii. 40. 

213. pariterque] vestrique. MS. D. tenerique MS. R. pari- 
lerque. 
Abjudicari videntur 1, ὦ. 


EPIST. x1x. 


11. dona] mane. 18. reddi] credi [ut V.] | 

21. mare] freta [ut MSS.] 

29. Utque] MS. R. Utve: MS. Ὁ. Usque: et pro var, lect. 
Utve. 

32. MS. R. Hellespontiacas—aquas. 


964 Emendationes Bentleii 


85. turre] turri: MS. R. summo—tecto 
36. MS. D. assidua signa notata vie. 
41. exisse]) MS. D. cessisse. 

42. omnes humines MS. D. 

49. MS. D. tuctts—terra. 

62. nostra] MS. D. vestra. 

70. natator] morator [ut MS.] 

71. nondum] nor nunc. 


77. jactuts) pacati. 
81. tonantes| sonantes [ut V.] 
82. esse] stare. 89. quoque] quove. 


94. tutus] cautus. . . 

100. MS. R. toro. MS. D. viro: et pro var. lect. toro. 
105. MS. Ὁ. quam vulnere mordeor: cf. 114. 

116, certa] certe. 117. si quam) si qua. 
118. peccas] pecca [ut Van-Lennep.} ὁ 

133. MS. D. Ceyceque ef Antonoe. 
151. et] en. 158. MS. D. faustos dum stéllat. 
154. MS. D. Cras erimus. . 155. evicta] MS. D. evecia. 
161. tumidas) medias [ut V.] , . 

169. quisque] uterque.. 171. amare] amori. 
180. fit puppibus] sit passibus. 

183. vincuntur] merguntur [ut MSS.] 
207. fractis] stratis: cf. Her. Ep. vii. 49. - 

Abjudicari videntur 29, 30, 65, 6. 147, 8. 


Epist. xx. 
In disticho in Not. Heins. MS. D. nomen: et pro var. 
lect. carmen. 
4. dolor] tui [ut Scal.] MSS. Ὁ. et R. dolere dolor. 
13. idem] MSS. D.et R. et id: mox timeo: lege cupio. 
15. MS. D. ‘nunc [ut N.H.] MS. R. nec. ΝΣ 
16. MS. D. hic mihi. | 
20. MS. R. tulisse. MS. D. notasse. 
23, quo] ute [ut V.] MSS. Ὁ. et R. quod. 
44. me] te: cf. Her. Ep. vi. 24. | 
24. MS. D. potest. 27. arte MSS. D.et R.: 
39. rogantia] MS. D. precantia. | 
36. MS. D. tu: et pro var. lect. te mox ipse peti. 
38. caute| astute. " 
41. MS. ἢ. zmo. 46. credis] credas [ut N. Ἡ.1. 
48. tui cupido} meo cupidi [ut N. H.] MSS. Ὁ. et R. mei 
cupiado. ᾿ ᾿ 
67. patiar} patior. | 
70. victa] MS. Ὁ. nempe [ut V.]—virum MS. R. suse, 
74. parva\ facta. 77. MS. Ὦ. famule. 


‘ 


79. 
87. 
93. 


94. 
100. 
101. 


113. 
120. 
121. 
134. 
148. 
144. 
155. 
159. 
161. 
192. 
172. 
176.. 
183. 


184. 
188. 


180. 
103. 


νυ in Ovidium. | _ 965 


ad tua MSS. D. et R. 

volet| voles [ut N. H.] 

Hoc quoque quod jus est} MS. D. Hoc guod amor jussit 
[ut V.]: cf. 230. et Her. Ep. iv. 10.: et pro var. lect. 
pus sit; mox scriptum est. - ; 

Ms. D. solo. 

MS. Ὁ. novit: et pro var. lect. nolt, | 
Calydonis aper; nam scimus ut illo] Calydon; nempe 
nescimus an ill: paullo ante MS. D. Testis adest. 

existere| hanc fallere [ut MSS.] 

subest —latus| MS. D. subit—l(enis. 

est) MSS. D. et ἢ. et si. 

tnsideoque| adsideoque [ut MS.] 


_pracerpere| MS. D. abscidere : et pro var. lect. decerpere 


sepem] spes MS. D. [ut V.] spem MS. R. 

humani] thalami [ut Francius.] 

adjuravit] MS. D. se juravit. 6. 

timet had MSS. D.et R. hac et [ut V.] 

Num dubites| An dubitas MS. D. 

quid] te [ut edit. princ.] MS. D. 4d te. 

tla] MSS. D. et R. ile. | 

alie—patiantur] alii—patiuntur MS. Ὁ. patientur MS. 
R. patiuntur. 

tristem| MS. Ὁ. medicam. | 

Exciderint—lecta] Exciderant—pacta. MSS. Ὁ. et R. 
Exciderant—tecta. V. nostra. 

cassibus] casibus [ut V.] 

et—que sint} MSS. Ὁ. et R. hac—que sunt. 


204. facis| facit [ut Burm.] Sic et Cuperus Epist. 417. 


212, 
219. 


998, 


tuam] reor {ut MSS.] Cydippe hee loquitur. 
Sic farmer quantusque] Tu tamen—qualisque [N. H. 
6. 


ualisqu 
probaris| MS. D. probabis. MS. R. probatis. 


226. jungit] MSS. Ὁ. et R. jungat. 


228, 
235. 


242, 


erat] eram, 230. vigtlans] vigilem [ut MS.] 

data—sonabunt] rata : cf. Her. Ep. xvi. 90. mox salutis 
[si recte video] :.cf. Her. Ep. xxi. 

Clausaque] Clausula. 


EPIsT. xxt. 


16. 
23. 
26. 
28. 
38. 
49. 


(VOL. 


Pallida—putas] Tabida: cf. 60.—puta. | 

Jamque] Cumque τὰ Gronov.] 25. eram| erant. 
trepido) tepido [ut N. H.] 

sit| sis (ut V.] 29, Qué] Quo [ut N. H.] 
Proditis] Perditis: cf. 58. . 44.. inest] adest. . 
et] at. ὅδ. Dicam] Die mthi. 

XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XRARVA δ 


266 Emendationes Bentleii in Ovid. 


67. equore] tempore vel sidere. 
89. crinibus] cruribus [ut N. H.] 

91. sacra) grata [ut MSS.] 

113. veluti] vel humo {ut N. A.) 

127. donis] proci. 

135. conjuravimus] nos juravimus, 144. eras} eral. 
165. Suas deducta] sua deductas: cf. Am. 1. 6. 67. Ita 
| Cuperus Epist. 421. 

167. consurgere] consistere [ut Burm.] 168. rubor] color. 
180. Atque}] Aque vel Ave. 186. fit] sit [ut V.] 

198. versor] vertor [ut I*rancius.] : 

199. tecto] clauso vel demto. 

905. Si—lingua] At—si qua. 

213. sane] anne [ut N. H.] 

227. -adspiceres—prout] adspictas—quod et, 

298. Et discas] Adspicias. 

299. cum sit] nisi δ]. 

234, testis] vocis: cf. Fast. iv. 58. . 

238. et vates hoc et mea] hoc vates hac edita. 

239. numen] partes [ut Ν, H.] 

240. in tuavota] vel in tua jura: cf. Am.i. 2. 20. vel utalitate. 


Abjudicari videntur 247, 8. 


IN SABINI EPISTOLAS. 


Eptst. I, 


5. mallem] malles. . 

6, tb1—dicere—feram] te—discere—fero. 
11. cure est] curas [ut V.] 
31. unus| unum [ut N. H.] 
37. Colchiacis—herbis] Lolciacas—herbas. 


44, mea] mei. 49. semper] nempe. 

52. et] ut. 56. toties] quoties. 

86. tpsa reperta] visa repente. [Burm. usa repente. } 
102. tra] dla. (106. pro quo] sub quo. 
116. mala] nece. 118. Hi 


erculeam) Tyndaream. 
Epist. 11. oe ) 
19. occurrere| succurrere [ut N. H.] 
41. ἐἰδῖι] tuis [ut N. H.] 
. 22. Queque| Curre [ut N. H.] 
47. Ignosce et—es] Ignoscet—est [ut N. H.] 
49. dixti] dictt. , 50. cari) care [ut Burm.) - 


? 


Notice of Mr. Elmsley's Medea. — 267 


62. freta] juga. 71. ella) ipsa. 
73. mihi] tibt fut N. H.] | 
83. revocaret—noctis] revocarent—noctes {ut N. H.] 
87. cujusque)| cujusquam [ut N. H.] 88. ste] zpse. 
. 94. quoque currit] mihi credit [ed. princ. credit.] 
101. mthz] jam [ut N.H.} . | 
103. Excuset patrem fatisin parte relicta Gnosis} Olim voluit 
Accusat patrem, satis est, si fama relicta Gnosside : 
Postea nil mutat preter in parte, legendo non sponte. 


Epist. 111. 


2. rescribam] rescribat {ut N. H.] 

6. cales] cades (ut N. Η.] 
15. Reginam—nisi] Regine--non [ut N. H.] 
18. Lesa es] Lederis [ut N. H.] 
65. mavors—ultroque| mavult—superosque. 
78. metuenda| retinenda [ut N. H.] 


ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂ MH4EIA. EURIPIDIS MEDEA. 
In usum studiose gucentutis recensutt et illustravit 


PETRUS ELMSLEY, A. M. Oxonii, 1818. 8vo. 


rd 


P. Exms.ezivs, vir ingenii doctrineque laude florentissimus, 
quum iam a. 1815 adnotationes in Medeam edidisset, nunc_etiam 
textum exhibuit, adiuncto comnientario, qui preter illas adnotatio- 
nes hic illic auctas mutatasque etiam alias novas contineret. Pro- 
positum erat ei, ut, quum duplex editoris officium sit, alterum 
emendandi scriptoris, alterum interpretandi, interpretationem potis- 
simum, quam Porsonus fere totam neglexisset, adnotationibus suis 
consectaretur: in qua re quum Valckenarii Marklandique exem- 
plum sibi imitandum sumpsisset, concessum sibi existimavit, quod 
et illi et alii fecissent, ut occasione data vel locos alios, quam de 
quibus ageretur, corrigeret atque explanaret, vel quidquid noni 
nimis ab instituto alienum videretur, adiiceret. - Prasidia ad emen- 
dationem poetz habuit nonnulla, quibus aut caruit,. aut non usus 
est Porsonus, codices quinque Vaticanos, totidem Parisinos, alios- 


268 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


que libros, quorum accurata descriptio subiecta est prafationi, 
Adnotatione fere omni iam typis descripta, scholia ad eum perlata 
sunt, que A. Matthie edidit: ex quibus quum intellexisset, partem 
tele sibi retexendam esse, aliis negotiis prepeditus, id se alio 
fortassis tempore facturum ait. De hac igitur editione sententiam 
nostram dicere sic decrevimus, ut quum universe, quid nobis de 
P. Elmsleii opera videretur, exponeremus, tum iudicium nostrum 
exemplis, quantum quidem in hac, que nobis concessa esset, spatii 
brevitate fieri posset, confirmaremus. 

Ac laudamus diligentiam, qua Editor diversitatem scripture 
etiam in minutissimis rebus indicavit; qui ut molestissimus labor 
sit ei, qui eum in se recepit, at utilissimus sepe est utentibus 60. 
Laudamus etiam curam in explicatione verborum et rerum gram- 
maticarum adhibitam, gratique accipimus emendationes aliorum 
quam Medez locorum copiosissimas. Non diffitemur tamen, uni- 
versam hanc rationem adnotationum, licet illustrisstmorum virorum 
exemplis monstratam, non ex omni parte nobis probart, ut quibus 
interpres ea tantum videatur afferre debere, que ad id ipsum, ut 
intelligatur scriptor, aliquid conferant. Ea sunt autem, primd 
verborum significationes et constructionum rationes, deinde mens 
et sententia scriptoris, ad quam, in poeta potissimum, etiam illud 
pertinet, bt qué apte, venuste, graviter dicta sint, vel etiam quz 
incommode, ostendantur; tum historiarum omnisque rei antiquarie 
explanatio ; denique iudicium de toto opere, eiusque compositione, 
ac virtutibus vitiisve. Non requirimus, ut quis hec simul omnia 
complectatur : immo bene scimus, alias alio fine institu scriptorum 
editiones: sed yuemcumque quis sibi finem proposuerit, ad eum que 
non pertinent, omittenda potius, etiam si utilissima sint, censemus: 
Nihil enim nisi morantur lectorem, quem consentaneum est intelli- 
gendi scriptoris caussa commentarios lJegere. Nunc si de rebus 
alienis in commentariis scriptum est, non tam hi scriptoris cauasa 
facti esse, quam scriptor, ut commentarius scribi potuerit, editus 
videtur. Quamobrem nostra quidem sententia huiusmodi res 
aliene aut iis locis, in quibus apte afferuntur, reservandae, aut 
peculiart aliquo variarum observationum libello comprehendende 
sunt. Locis enim non suis posite onerant commentarios, et pro 
elegantia, qua aliter' placituri essent, molestos eos ad legendum 
reddunt. Vellemus Elmsleius hac in re Porsonum imitatus esset, 


of the Medea of Euripides. - 209 


qui quum plurima dare posset, tamen ea tantum, que ad rem per- 
tunerent, afferenda iudicavit: unde quis est, qui eius adnotationes. 
hon maxima cum voluptate legat? Numeramus autem in his, que 
nobis aliena videntur, etiam aliquot obiter allatas emendationes, 
qu partim quod brevissime indicate sunt, lectori rationes requi-. 
renti molestiam creant, partim ex tempore fuse videntur, ut p. 86. 
ubi Aéschyli locum in Choephoris parum pensitata coniectura tenta- 
tum videmus. Preter illa vero, quz aliena sunt et nihil ad rem 
faciunt, haud pauca sunt in Elmsleiti commentario, que propterea 
mallemus omissa esse, quia pervulgata s sunt, et nemini ignota: qualia 
multis exemplis communiri quid opus est? ° 

Contra sunt etiam, que omissa egre feramus. Nam quum totus 
fere commentarius in rebus grammaticis versetur, quas quidem 
opmamur propterea afferri, ut mens scriptoris intelligatur, id 
ipsum Editor doctissimus aliquanto, quam debebat, minus curasse 
nobis videtur. Neque enim dubitamus, si id potius egisset, ut 
sententiam scriptoris in quoque loco diligenter explanaret, non- 
nulla eum additurum fuisse, que non dixit, aut aliter quam dixit, 
propositurum. Hec autem sententiarum in quoque loco diligens 
consideratio, quam szpius ab eo neglectam videmus, monet, ut de 
eo dicamus, in quo omnium maxime a viro prestantissimo dissen- 
timus. Quamquam enim maximopere laudandam putamus sagaci- 
tatem illam ac diligentiam, qua ad res grammaticas, que alicul 
dubitationi possint obnoxiz esse, attendere solet : tamen rationem 
illam, qua in inveniendis et constituendis regulis grammaticis uti 
consuevit, nullo pacto probamus, immo, ut libere profiteamur, 
tanto censemus damnosiorem et perniciosiorem esse, quod iam esse 
quosdam videmus, qui quod non ita pridem in Porsono faciebant, 
ut, quidquid is dixisset, ipsa veritate verius haberent, id nunc idem 
in Elmsleio facere incipiant. Leges habere Grecam linguam quis 
negabit? At non minus certum est, nullam esse linguam, que 
liberior sit et maiorem in formandis vel ipsis verbis vel eorum con- 
structionibus varietatem admittat. Quo maior iis, qui hanc tam 
infinitam copiam explicare student, cautio adhibenda est, we regulas 
confingant, quas mox appareat non satis certo fundamento niti. 
Sed, ut ingenue fateamur, videtur nobis vir doctissimus prorsus 
vestigia sequi Atticistarum, quos constat exiguo numero exemplo- 
rum adductos regulas condidisse, quas postea diligentior pervesti- 


470 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edttson 


gatio ant plane faleas, aut certis tantum conditiombus veras esse 
intellexit : ut dubitemus, an non satis exploratum habeat, quid sit 
illed, quod regulam dicimus : que non est fortuita aliquot exem- 
plorum consensio, sed necessaria parilitas. Atqui necessarium 
nihil est, nisi quod βαβαῖ certam rationem, quare sic sit, ut est, 
neque aliter. Hec ratio ia rebus grammaticis pro diversa carum 
natera diversa est. Est autem triplex: prima, que solo usy con- 
tinetur: eaque in his tantum rebus locum habet, in quibus, cur 
quid ita sit, nulla omnino preter experientiam causse inventri potest, 
ut cur ναὶ non significet ob; secunda, quum quale quid sit, ex eo 
cognoscendum est, quod alia lingue lex, unde illud pendet, verum 
aut falseam esse docet: cuiusmodi est ἀμπλακεῖν εἰ ἀμπλάχημα 
dixisse Greecos, ubi prima syllaba longa est. Nam quod Elmsleio 
Ρ. 100. una cum ‘aliis placet, etiam producta prima syllaba ἀπλα- 
xew et ἀπλάχημα dictum esse, id nulla auctoritas vincet, ne barbarum, 
et non minus barbarum esse contendamus, quam si.quis nobis ἀβλὺν 
et ἀβροφσίαν vellet obtrudere. ‘Tertia denique ratio, que in signifi- 
cationibus maxime vocabulorum et varia constructionam potestate 
cernitur, ea est, que fontem habet iustum quum ipsorum vocabe- 
lorum interpretationem, tum accuratam locorum, in quibus inveni- 
untur, contemplationem, unde apparere necesse est, cur quid aut 
nequeat dici, aut posse dici censendum sit. Hoc enim nisi quis 
doceat, ne centena quidem exempla unum, quod dlis repugnet, con- 
vellere poterunt. Ad hac igitur quum Elmsleius non satis attendisse 
videatur, non est mirum, multas ab eo regulas afferri, quas certo 
scimus ipsum aliquando improbaturum esse. 

| Sed convertamus nos ad singula, ut, que diximus, exemplis 
comprobemus. Afferemus autem talia potissimum, in quibus 
dissentimus ab Faditore clarissimo, non quo reprehendere velimus 
virum, quem maximi facimus, sed quia censuram, qu nibil aliud 
quam liber ipse, cuius ea censura est, contineat, inutilem esse 
existimamus. Sed ne hinc illinc decerpendo cupide queesivisse 
dissentiendi materiam videamur, consistemus in adnotationibus ad 
argumentum fabule eiusque prologum. 

Incipit liber doctis observationibus ad argumentum Medes a 
scholiastis scriptum. In his illud mirati sumus, quod vir doctissimys 
p- 67. ubi, quod in scholiis ad v. 20. de Medea scriptum est, affert, 
ὅτι δὲ ἐβασίλ see Κορίνδου, ἱστοροῦσιν Εὔμηλος καὶ Σιμωνίδης, λόγων 


af the Medea of Euripides. | 271 


οὕτως" οὐδὲ κατ᾽ εἰς Κόρινθον, οὐ Μαγνησίαν vaiev, ἀλόχου δὲ Κολχίδος. 
συνάστεος Θράνου Λοχαίου τ᾽ ἄνασσε, non modo non adnotavit; que 
Eumelus narraverat, ex eo scriptore relata esse a Pausania 11. 3, 8. 
quin partem ipsoram Eumeli de hac re versuum exstare apud schol. 
Pind. Ol. x11. 75. Tzetzen ad Lycophr. 174. qui eos etiam ad 
v. 1024. respicit, et in Catal. Bibl. Matnit. .p. 263. tractatosque esse 
ab Rubnkenio Ep. crit. 11. p. 221. 5. sed etiatn quod Simanidis 
verba sic scribenda esse coniecit, Κόρινθον δὲ vaiev, οὐδ᾽ ἴκοτ᾽ ἐς Μαγ-- 
νησίαν' ἀλόχου δὲ Κολχίδος συνόστιος, Θράνου Aeyalou τ' ἄνασσε. 
Ingeniosam esse hanc coniecturam quis neget? Sed quis non 
etiam fateatur audaciorem esse, quam ut ita scripsisse Simonidem 
credibile sit? Nos quidem etsi scimus quam periculosum sit, tana 
brevia fragmenta, si gravius corrupta sint, emendare, tamen ita 
potius scripsisse Simonidem coniicimus: ὁ δὲ χαρεὶς Κάρινθον, οὐ 
“Μαγνησίαν, γαῖεν, ἀλόχου δὲ Κολχίδος συννάστιος, Θράνου Λεχαίου 1 
ἄνασσε. Thrani nomen ignotum geographis. 

Que mox p. 68. dicit Elmsleius, scribendum esse in argumento 
Medee, τὸ δρᾶμα δοκεῖ ὑποβαλέσθαι παρὰ Νεόφρονος διασκευάσας, in 
hoc, ut in omnibus iis, que accurate de hac re disseruit, neminem 
fore putamus, qui ab eo dissentiat. 

P. 69. Observat ad verba scholiaste wap’ οὐδετέρῳ κεῖται ἣ 
μυϑοποιΐα, Scaligerum scribere παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ, ut in argumento Orestis 
Jegitur. Dein, “ nostro loco,” inquit, ““ exspectasses, παρὰ Ned- 
φρονι κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιΐα : similiaque affert ex argumento Baccha- 
sum et Philoctete. Non inutile fuisset admunere, illud παρ᾽ οὐδετέρῳ 
de Aischylo ec Sophocle intelligeadum esse. Nam qui ἰδία argu- 
menta scripsit, Thomas M. sive. alius supparis evi grammati- 
cus, eos tantum, qui adhuc superstites sunt, tres tragicos norat. 
De horum duobus ergo illud παρ᾽ οὐδετέρῳ intelligendum : ac vereor 
ne idem etiam in Orestis argumento reponendum sit. 

Que sequitur pagina, ea quum alia recte exposuit vir doctissi- 
gus, tum illud, has quattuor Euripidis fabulas, Medeam, Hippo- 
lytum, Alcestidem, Heraclidas, ceteris antiquiores videri, quod 
numeros haberent severiores et puriores, quam relique, quarum 
ali alias negligentia superent, ut Orestes Hecubam. In subiecta 
adnotatione, “ melius,” inquit, “de ea re iudicare possemus, si 
pauciores esseat Euripidis tragcedie, quarum tas nobis prorsus 
ignota esset.” . Nobis quidem minime dubia videtur hye ratio 


272 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


tempora tragcediarum ex scribendi incuria constituendi. Nam nos, 
qui hoc primi observavimus, quum ante hos x11. annos, caussam 
tante tragoediarum dissimilitudinis cognoscere cupientes, omnes, 
quee hodie exstant, Gracorum tragoedias intra paucos dies im id 
unum intenti perlegeremus, ad singulas, que melior, que peior 
videretur, adnotavimus: que iudicia quum deinde conferremus 
cum historicis, que quidem in promptu essent, argumentis, nullam 
vidimus negligenter scriptam fabulam priorem esse Olympiade 
LXxXX1X.nullam autem accurate scriptam ea Olymptade posterio- 
rem, sed quo queque recentior esset illo tempore, eo plura et 
maiora continere incuriz documenta. Unde iure nobis videmur 
collegisse, etiam de illarum tragoediarum temporibus ludicari posee, 
quz quando edite essent aliunde non constaret. Neque ad hunc 
usque diem quidquam se nobis obtulit, quo non confirmari eam 
Opinionem animadverterimus. Et illas quidem quattuor, quas 
Elmsleius nominavit fabulas, in nostris quoque Adversariis vt 
antique et pure notate sunt. Nec minus de Hecuba et Orest 
cum eo consentimus. Meminerint vero lectores, caute in hoc 
genere procedendum esse in tis fabulis, que czteroquin pure, bic 
illic tantum negligenter scripte videntur, ut Alcestis, quam pute 
mus bis editam esse, et iterum quidem eo tempore, quo iam irrep- 
serat ista incuria. 

Ingeniose deinde disputat Elmsleius de eo, quod in argumentis 
adnotari solet, οὐ σώζεται, deque numero fabularum Euripidis. 
Sed redeunt hec ad conjecturas, in quibus multa non possunt noa 
incerta manere. Unum notabinius, in quo, licet non omniuo sua 
culpa, erravit vir doctissimus. Nam quod in vita Eschyli scriptum 
est, fecisse Aischylum δράματα σατυρικὰ ἀμφὶ τὰ πέντε, sic putat 
intelligendum esse, non amplius quinque servatas fuisse satyricas 
fabulas. At de tam exiguo numero non ita dubitanter loquutus 
esset scriptor iste. Vexavit et fefellit hic locus etiam Boeckhium 


in libro, quem scripsit de tragicis Grecis, p. 27. Longe aliud 


quid, sed illud aperte verum duo codices, quos ipsi inspeximus, 


— prebent: καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις σατυρικὰ ἀμφίβολα πέντε. 


Ad titulum Medex docte disseruit Elmsleius de versibus qui- 
busdam, qui ex Medea Euripidis citantur, quum.tamen non exstent 
in ea fabula; affertque quum alia utilia, tum illud, et veteribus 
spe accidisse, et recentioribus, ut alios ac volebant auctores 


' of the Medea of Euripides. 273° 
librosve nominarent. Et ita lusit casus, ut. ipsi id in ea adnotatione 
accideret, p. 74. Aristophanem pro Euripide dicent). 

Veniamus vero ad ipsum Euripidis textum. Εἰ statim ad v. 2. 
ubi Supranyddes cum Brunckio edidit, de illo ξὺν ubicumque metrum 
ferat reponendo pauca affert, adiecta longa enumeratione locorum 
Medew, in quibus Aldus et Lascaris vel ξὺν vel civ exhibuerint. 
Vellemus nos quidem magnopere, desinerent critici talia contra 
‘libros mutare. Tragicos sibi in hac re non constitisse, nec regulam 
aliquam, sed quod iu quoque loco auribus magis blandiretur, vel 
usitatius esset, sequutos esse, ut metrum, ita rei ipsius natura docet. 
Similia in Virgilio adnotavit A. Gellius, Omnino autem cogitare 
debemus, multo facilius huiusmodi constantiam in Thucydidem, 
quam in tragicos cadere, siquidem hic uno utitur dicendi genere, | 
quod illo tempore in usu erat, tragici autem dictionem usurpant ex 
patrii sermonis certo ‘temperamento atque epicorum et lyricorum | 
usu cOmpositam, in qua multa sunt, que eo ipso, quod non sunt 
Attica, poetica habentur. Quis hodie a poetis exigat, ut huiusmodi 
in rebus sibi constent? Et tamen antiquos illos, ut morosi ludi- 
magistri pueros, castigamus, quod que nos scilicet eos observasse 
volumus non observarint. Simile pretceptum est de prepositione 
és et εἰς, de qua dixit Elmsleius ad v. 55. quo in genere utilius fuerat, 
quzrere, quibus in formulis altera forma magis usitata fuisset, 
quam constantiam poete obtrudere nimis profecto dubiam. Velle- 
mus vir doctissimus in his tam recto et prudenti iudicio usus esset, 
ut ad v. 88. ubi egregie de usu formarum communium et poeticarum 
disseruit. | 

Ad v. 4, 5. hee scripta legimus : “ Mallem μήτ᾽ ἐρετμῶσαι, inquit 
Brunckius. Male. Μήτε post μὴ vel μηδὲ soleecum est. Negant 
hoc, sed frustra negant, mea quidem sententia, Hermannus ad 
Sophoclis Ai. 423. (428.) Reisigius in Aristoph. 1. p. 189. Citat 
Matthise Gramm. Gr. 8. 602. Thucydidem 111. 48. καὶ μηδὲ οἴκτῷ 
PAtoy νείμαντες, μήτε ἐπιεικείᾳ. Ubi μήτε οἴκτῳ habent omnes fere 
codices scripti, et prime quatuor editioues. Sed huiusmodi errores 
etiam contra librorum consensum tollendi sunt: Vide ad v. 1213. 
1323.” In Thucydidis loco μήτε scribendum esse, non est dubium. 
In censuris Edinburgensibus, quarum auctoritatem Elmsleius ad 
Aiacis locum affert, quid aut a quo scriptum sit, nescimus: sed 
idem est, proferre falsam regulam, et prolatam sequi. Putamua 


274 Notéce of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition , 


autem luculentissime in hoc exemplo ostendi posse, quid sit iliud, 
quod supra in P. Elmsleii regulis grammaticis reprebendimus. 
Soleecum est, inquit, ovre post οὐ, μήτε post μή. Nihil contmet 
hec regula, quod non pridem notum fuerit omnibus, qui Greca 
bene didicerant. Satis habeo Im. Bekkerum commemorare, qui 
multa huius generis vitia in Theognide sustulit. Nee profecto 
Elmsleium quisquam vituperabit, si idem fecit. At quod id propter 
 regulam facit, quse falsa est, id vero non possumus non improbare. 
Dupliciter autem falsa est ista regula. Nam primo, si post od et 
μὴ non potest ova et μήτε αἰεὶ, potest autem οὐδὲ et μηδὲ, luce clarius 
est caussam huius rei non esse in pregresso isto οὐ vel μὴ, sed ἴῃ 
diversa significatione particularum οὔτε et οὐδὲ, μήτε εἱ μηδέ. Deinde 
etiam δὶ non preecessit οὐ vel μὴ, non οὔτε et μήτε, sed οὐδὲ et ριηδὲ 
Gicitur: ix δέ μοι ἔγχος" ἠΐχθη παλάμηφιν ἐτώσιον, οὐδ᾽ ὄβαλόν pus’ 
θάρσει, Δαρδανίδη Πρίαμε, φρεσὶ, μηδέ τι τάρβει. [δὲ mirandum sit, a 
F. A. Wolfio in Odyss. β. 84. servatam esse vulgatam scripturam, 
que aperte falsa est: ἔνθ᾽ ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀκὴν ἔσαν, οὔτε τις SvAy 
Τηλέμαχον μύθοισιν ἀμείψασθαι χαλεποῖσιν : compara Iliad. 8. 28. 
420. 9.459. Itaque nullo modo propter pregestum οὐ vel μὴ, sed 
propter stam ipsarum naturam particule οὔτε et μήτε certis in locis 
poni nequeunt. Hoc ergo ostendendum erat, que esset illa haram | 
particularum natura, que eas non ubique poni pateretur ; non autem 
ratio afferenda, que neque esset ulla, nec posset esse. Falsa vere 
regulz ratio hoc duplex damnum affert, quod neque intelligi. potest 
regula, et transfertur ad ea, ad que adhiberi non potest.. Quod si 
ov et μὴ non sunt in caussa, quare οὔτε et μήτε sequi nequeat, 
quomodo vincet vir doctissimus, nusquam eas particulas iungi 
posse ὁ ? Sed ne hanc questionem ita in suspenso relinquamus, “ss 
ipsi paucis hunc locum grammatices explicemus. 

Apertum est autem, rem omnem a vi particularum τὲ et δὲ repe- 
tendam esse. Καὶ particula est coniunctiva; τὲ adiunctiva; δὲ 
disiunctiva. ᾿Εγὼ καὶ σὺ πορευόμεθα est, ego ét tu imus: quo indwe 
eatuy coniunctos ire duos, et instar unius habendos esse, 1. 6. unuay 
par. Ita dicitur Castor et Pollur, i.e. Dioscuri. ᾿Εγὼ σό τε πορευό- 
paba eat. ego tugue imus; quod qui dicit, se ire significat, altero 
comitante quidem, sed ita, ut, etiam si non comitaretur, ipse 
nihilominus iturus esset. Sic dicitur Senatus Populusgue Roma- 

wus: ROD enim coniuneti.in unam communitatem’ intelliguatur, 


͵ 


of the Medea of Euripides. 275 


sed senatum censuisse, idque populum deinde approbavisse.. 
Nemo vero dicet ἐγώ. σὺ δὲ πορευόμεδαι, quia disiunctiva particula 
repugnat, ubi. quid a coniunctis fieri dicendum est. Contra recte 
dictum est, a. πολλὰ μὲν τάλαινα, πολλὰ δ᾽ αὖ σοφὴ γόναι : nam quum 
commune sit boc, quod multum est, disiungitur id in diversas sibi- 
que oppositas partes, miseriam et scientiam. Apparet autem 
‘ Inepte dicturum, qui si.miseriam et sapientiam copiunctas dicere 
vellet, ita diceret, πολλὰ τάλαινα, πολλά τε σοφή : NON enim sapien- 
tiam adiungeret miseriz, sed copie notionem eidem notioni adnec- 
teret, quod absurdutn est. _ Quare semper in huiusmodi repetitione 
eiusdem notionis, aliad, quo in diversas partes disiungatur, additum. 
habentis, δὲ uaurpari videmus, quum quidem illa notio pro com- 
munj partium nota est. Aliter minime.. Sic quod apud Homeram: 
est, πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄναντα, κάταντα, πάραντά τε; δόχμιά τ᾽ ἦλθον, 81 Commu 
nem voles notionem esse multitudinis, dicendum erit, πολλὰ ἄναντα, 
πολλὰ δὲ κάταντα, πολλὰ δὲ κάραντα, πολλὰ δὲ δόχμεα ; SiN Minus, neces~ 
sario dices, πολλὰ ἄναντα, κάταντά τε πολλὰ, πάρανταί τε πολλὰ, δόχμια. 
τε πολλά. Redeamus nunc ad οὔτε εἰ μήτε. Atque apparebit iam, 
opinor, non eas particulas omnino, sed certa tantum conditione non 
posse post pu et μὴ poni. Erenim ubi eoniuncta jn anum cogitan 
volumus, quorum communis sit negatio, diversa autem ea, que ne- 
-gantur, ibi necessario οὐδὲ et μηδὲ dicendum est. Absurdum foret 
enim, negationem cum negatione,i. e. idem secum ipgo in unum con- 
lungi. Dividi vero in partes, quod unum est, recte potest : cul rei 
inservit disiunctive particula δέ. Fac enim vel maxime natura sua 
coniuncta esse, quae sic enuociantur, e. c. hoc Theognidis v. 425. 
πάντων μὲν μὴ φῦναι ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἃ ἄριστον, μηδ ἐσιδεῖν αὐγὰς ὀξέος ἠφλέου". 

aut illud elusdem v. 1414, ἀργαλέη δ᾽ οὐκ ἔπι. δουλοσύνη, οὐδ᾽ ἡμᾶς 
mepvacs’ tamen ineptum quid et absurdum habebis ubi μήτε et 
οὔτε posueris, idque tanto magis, quo illa sunt magis similia. Hoc 
enim dices : optimum est, natum non esse, pretereaque lucem non 
videre: non adest servitus, pretereaque non vendunt nos. Clare 
intelligetur discrimen, ubi copulam ab negatione removeris. Recte 
enim jam dices, μὴ φῦναι, μὴ ἐσιδεῖν τε αὐγὰς ἡλίου" οὐκ ἔπι δουλοσύνη, 
au περνᾶφί τα ἡμᾶς. Ut hic ineptum foret δὲ, quia hec adiuncta sibi, 
non disiuncta sunt, ita ineptum est οὔτε et μήτε, quia adiungit idem 
eidem. Nam illud est, aio non servire et non vendi ; hoc autem, 
nego servitutem et nego venditionem, quod est discreta seoreim 


470 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


negantis, non coniuncta negantia simul. Similis ratio est, ubp 
nulla negatio precessit. Nam quum negativa sententia natura sua 
opposita sit sententiz affirmative, non potest conlung cum. ea, 
sed disiungenda est. Remove pasticulam τε a negatione, quo facto 
habebis duas affirmativas sententias, et recte ea utere: ut in ills 
Homericis, que supra attulimus: ἐκ δέ μοι ἔγχος. ἠΐίχθη παλάμηφια 
ἐτώσιον, οὐκ ἔβαλόν τέ piv θάρσει, μὴ τάρβει τε. Utrumque recte 
dices etiam sic, καὶ οὐκ ἔβαλόν wav’ καὶ μὴ τάρβει. ‘Tantumdem est 
enim atque ἥμαρτόν τε, εὔθυμος ἴσθι. Sed-pone δὲ in sententia affir- 
mativa, et senties repugnare: ἔγχος ἠΐχθη ἐτώσιον, ἥμαρτον δέ" 
βάρσει, μὴ τάρβει δέ. Eadem vero ratione, qua negativa sententia 
affirmative opposita δὲ requirit, etiam affirmativa, si negative oppo- 
nitur, hanc sibi particulam vindicat : οὐκ ἔτυχον, ἥμαρτον δέ᾽ μὴ Tap~ 
Bes, θάρσει δέ. 

Hactenus que. attulimus, iis hoc nos putamus effecisse, ut regu- 
Jam istam.non ita exprimi debuisse appareat, οὔτε et μήτε non post 
οὐ et μὴ pont. Iam vero ostendamus, etiam eo falsam. esse eam 
regulam, quod negat fieri, que est ubi recte fiant. Nolo taha com- 
memorare, quale hoc Theognidis est v. 535. οὔ wore δουλείη κεφαλὴ 
ἰθεῖα πέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ σκολίη, καὐχόνα λοξὸν dyes οὔτε γὰρ ἐκ σκόλλης 
ῥόδα φύεται, οὐδ᾽ ὑάκινθος, οὔτε πατ' ἐχ δούλης τέκνον ἐλευθέριον : αυδιη- 
quam bec quoque regule isti repugnant. Sed υἱᾶγ alus. Est 
autem hec duplex ratio. Ac primo recte ponitur οὔτε et μήτε post 
οὐ et μὴ, ubi οὐ et μὴ pro οὔτε et μήτε dictum est. In huiusmodi 
enim locis non additur negatio negationi, sed una negatio distinguitur 
in partes. Ovre ἀνὴρ, οὔτε γυνὴ nemo negabit recte dici. Οὐχ ἀνὴῤ, 
οὔτε γυνὴ, si hee coniuncta cogitari volumus, perperam dici, ex iis, 
que supra disputavimus, sequitur. At idem ubi sic dicitur, ut 
- od pro οὔτο sit, quod quum fit, aliter pronunciari hec verba debent, 
quam quum dicitur οὐκ ἀνὴρ, οὐδὲ γυνὴ, recte iuoguotur iste parti- 
cule. Quis nescit illud : ἐπεὶ οὐ tev ἐστὶ svepelav οὐ δέμας, οὐδὲ 
φυὴν, οὔτ᾽ dp φρένας, οὔτε τι ἔργα ὃ Illa, οὐδὲ φυὴν, ad οὐ δέμας, adiects 
sunt Cum oppositione quadam : hac vero, οὐ δέμας, οὔτε φρόνας, οὔτε 
᾿ &pya;distinguunturut partes, quarum communis est negatio. Hschy- 
lus Pers. 586. τοὶ δ᾽ ἀνὰ γᾶν ᾿Ασίαν δὴν οὐκ ἔτι περσονομοῦνταρ, οὐκ ἔτι 
δασμοξοροῦσιν δεσποσύνοισιν ἀνάγκαις, οὔτ᾽ ἐς γᾶν προπιτνοῦντες ἔρξονται" 
Heathius (iam hic enim regulam istam norat) scribi volebat οὐδ᾽ ἐς 


γῆν, quod in nullo libro est. Homerus Od. 8. 566. οὐ νιφετὸς, οὔτ᾽ 


of the Μέάεα of Euripides. 977 


ἂρ χειμὼν πολὺς, οὔτε πότ᾽ ὄμβρος : quod losephus de B. 1. 11. 8. 
p. 165. apte citatus a Windeto, cutus notitiam debemus doctissimo 
Barkero in Recreationibus Classicis p. 348. ex illo ipso Homeri 
loco ita expressit: χῶρον οὔτε ὄμβραις, οὔτε νιφεγοῖς, οὔτε καύμασι 
βαρυνόμενον. Odyss. ι. 136. ἐν δὲ λιμὴν εὔορμος, ἵν᾽ οὐ χρεὼ πείσματός 
ἐστιν, οὔτ᾽ εὐνὰς βαλέειν, οὔτε πρυμνήσι' ἀνάψαι. Ac ponitur etiam 
οὔτε εἰ μήτε omisso οὐ vel μὴ, quod quidem pro οὔτε et μήτε sit. 
ZEschylus Choeph. 292. δέχεσθαι δ᾽ οὔτε συλλύειν τινά. [8:08 ἀ6 Phi- 
loctemonis hered. p. 182. ed. Reisk. παραδοῦναι οὔτε λαβεῖν ἠθέλησαν. 
Et p. 147. ἐκεῖ μὲν yap ἐστι, vole μήτε νόθῃ εἶναι ἀγχΐστειαν μήθ᾽ ἱερῶν 
μήθ᾽ ὁσίων. Sic scribendum videtur pro μηδὲ vob). Admodum libere 
enim particulas huiusmodi tractat lingua Grecorum. In his quidem 
particulis rariora sunt hec, alterum οὔτε plane omissum apud 
fEschylum Eumen. 502. vel ὡς δ᾽ αὔτως pro eo positum apud 
Theagnidem v. 1159. 1270. At δὲ quidem sepius infertur, ut 
Iliad. 4. 33. Intelliget iam, ut opinor, vir doctissimus, cur in 
Atacis loco, quem im adnotatione sua attigit, servandum esse οὔτε 
contenderimus. Non minus pire servandum videtur in Sophoclis 
Cd. Col. 495. λείπομαι γὰρ ἐν τῷ μὴ δύνασϑαι μήθ᾽ ὁρᾶν, δυοῖν κακοῖν. 
Ubi οἱ μὴ pro μήτε dictum accipimus, recte se habet, quod sequitur, 
μήτε. Apertum est autem, tum esse coniunctim pronunciandum 
μὴ δύνασϑοωι μήθ᾽ ὁρᾶν; sin μηδὲ scribimus, divisim, μὴ δύνασθαι, 
μηδ᾽ ὁρᾶν. Huiusmodi autem multi loci sunt. Hesiodus O. et D. 
188. οὐδέ τις εὐόρκου χάρις ἔσσεται, οὔτε δικαίου, οὔτ᾽ ἀγαθοῦ. Potuit 
sic, potuit vero etiam, ut apud Stobeum legitur, οὐδὲ δικαίου, οὐδ᾽ 
ἀγαθοῦ, si divisim ut diversa, non ut copulata et partes uniys pro- 
ferrt voluit. Theognis v. 1. οὔποτε σεῖο λήσομαι ἀρχόμενος, οὐδ᾽ 
ἀναπαυόμενος. Potuit οὔτε scribere, si vel οὔποτε pro οὔτε ποτὲ dixit; 
vel οὔτε ante ἀρχόμενος intelligi voluit. Pariterque v. 125. οὐ γὰρ 
dy εἰδείης ἀνδρὸς νόον οὔτε γυναικός : ubi Bekkerus οὐδὲ dedit, ut est 
apud Aristotelem Eth. Eudem. vii. 2. In Sophoclis Cid. R. 817. 
ᾧ μὴ ξένων ἔξεστι, μηδ᾽ ἀστῶν τινὰ δόμοις δέχεσθαι, μηδὲ προσφωνεῖν 
τινὰ, ali habent μήτ᾽ ἀστῶν τινὰ, recte, si μὴ ξένων pro μήτε ξένων 
dictum. Eodemque modo defendi potest hoc ν. 844. καί mos 
φυγόντι py στι τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἰδεῖν, μήτ᾽ ἐμβατεύειν πατρίδος. In Cd. 
Col. 751. ὃν μήτ᾽ ὀκνεῖτε, μήτ᾽ ἀφῆτ᾽ ἔπος κακὸν, nonnull. libri, ὃν 
μήποτ᾽. Quod si quis ὃν μήποτ᾽ ὀχνεῖν scribendum putabit, recte 
habebit oratio, dum illud pro μήτε ποτὲ accipiatur. 


978 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


Sed dicatur iam de altera ratione. Ac videndum erat his, qui 
οὔτε post οὐ poni posse negant ne cogitari posset eiusmodi confor- 
matio sententiarum, qua etiam necessaria redderetur istarum parti- 
cularum coniunetio. Notum esse putamus iis, qui accuratiorem 
habent Greece linguz scientiam, id quod supra dicebamus, par- 
ticulam +s usurpari, ubi quid adnectitur, quod ad rem, de qua 
sermo est, non pertiet, neque cum ea coheret. Pleni exemplo- 
rum sunt preter Homerum historici. Thucydides 1. 25. ἐλθόντες 
δὲ οἱ ᾿Επιδάμνιοι ἐς τὴν Κόρινθον, κατὰ τὸ μαντεῖον παρέδοσαν τὴν ἀποικίαν, 
τόν τε οἰκιστὴν ἀποδεικνύντες σφῶν ἐκ Κορίνθου ὄντα, καὶ τὸ “χρηστήριον 
δηλοῦντες" ἐδέοντό τε μὴ σφᾶς περιορᾶν διαφθειρομένους : 1. ε. pratereaque 
orabant. Nullo modo poterat ἐδέοντο δὲ dicere : quod si fecisset, 
aut hoc, auxilum,petere legatos, ut- rem primariam commemoras- 
set: orabant autem; aut utrumque, quod fecisse legatos dicit, ἴῃ 
unum coniunxisset, divisissetque in duas partes sibi ipsis adver- 
santes: ταρέδοσαν (μὲν) τὴν ἀποικίαν, ἐδέοντο δέ: quod propter rem 
ipsam hic facere non licebat: Fac iam, utramque sententiam 
negativam esse: quomodo iungi eas voles? utrumne per δὲ, quo 
vidimus lungi non posse, an per τὲ, qua particula ijungi necessario 
debent? Hoc vero, opmor. Itaque si negasset Thucydides, que 
nunc affirmat, sic scribere debuisset: ἐλθόντες δὲ of ᾿Επιδάμνιοι ὃς 
τὴν Κόρινθον, οὐ παρέδοσαν τὴν ἀποικίαν οὔτε ἐδέοντο μὴ σφᾶς wepsopay 
διαφθειρομένους. Et profecto ita loquuti sunt. Afferamus primo 
dubia quedam exempla. Hesiodus O. et D. 184. μέμψονται 3 
ἄρα τοὺς. χαλεποῖς βάζοντες ἔπεσσιν, σχέτλιοι, οὐδὲ θεῶν ὅπιν εἰδότες" οὔτε 
μὲν οἵγε γηράντεσσι τοκεῦσιν ἀπὸ θρεπτήρια δοῖεν. Sic aliquot codd. 
in lisque Vitehergensis. Alii οὐδὲ μέν. Homerus Iliad. χ. 265. ὡς 
οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ φιλήμεναι' οὔτε τι νῶϊν ὅρκια ὄσσονται. Hoc ser- 
vavit Wolbus etiam in novissima editione. Aliquot libri οὔδέ. 
Certiora sunt bec: Odyes. 1. 146. ἔνθ᾽ οὔτις τὴν νῆσον ἐσέδρακεν 
ὀφθαλμοῖσιν" οὔτ᾽ οὖν κύματα μακρὰ κυλινδόμενα πρότὶ χέρσον εἰσίδομεν. 
Et ibidem ν. 119. οὐ μὲν γὰρ πάτος ἀνδρώπων ἀπερύκει" οὐδέ pay εἶσ- 
οἰχνεῦσι κυνηγέται, οἵτε καθ' ὕλην ἄλγεα πάσχουσιν, κορυφὰς ὀρέων 
ἐφέκοντες" οὔτ᾽ ἄρα ποίμνῃσιν καταΐσχεται, οὔτ᾽ ἀρότοισιν. Ihad. x. 
199. ὡς δ᾽ ἐν ὀνείρῳ οὐ δύναται φεύγοντα διώκειν, οὔτ᾽ ap ὃ τὸν δύγαται 
ὑποφεύγειν, οὔθ᾽ ὃ διώχειν. Atque in huidsmodi locis, in quibus ovre 
—oure est, erunt fortasse, qui sententiam explicationis caussa sine 
copula adiectam putabunt : sed his accurata observatio sermonis 


of the Medea of Euripides. 279 


Homerici meliorem viam monstrare poterit. Ceterum illud otrse— 
οὔτε seepe etiam affirmative: sententie adiicitur, ut Iliad, «. 490. 
β. 408. g. 357. Hesiod. O. et D. 663. Sed redeamus ad οὔτε post 
οὐ positum, Et quedam quidem ex illis qu attulimus exemplis 
certa sunt, minimeque dubia. Sed considerabimus pauca ex illis, 
que Werferus attulit in Actis Monacens, T.1. p. 261.. Miram 
est hoc Herodoti 1. 2. et 8. de Grecis Medeam regi Co!lchorum 
reddere nolentibus: τοὺς δὲ ὑποκρίνασθαι, ws οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοι ᾿Ιοῦς τῆς 
"Apyslys ἔδοσάν σφι δίκας τῆς ἁρπαγῆς, οὐδὲ ὧν αὐτοὶ δώσειν ἐκείνοισι. 
δευτέρῃ δὲ λέγουσι γενεῇ μετὰ ταῦτα ᾿Αλέξανδρον τὸν Πριάμου, ἀκηκοότα 
ταῦτα, ἐθελῆσαί οἱ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ελλάδος δι᾿ ἑρπαγῆς γενέσθαι yuvaixna, inte 
στάμενον πάντως ὅτι οὐ δώσει δίκας" οὔτε γὰρ ἐκείνους διδόναι. Quis non 
pro οὔτε hic οὐδὲ, pro geminato isto οὐδὲ autem οὔτε exspectet? Sed 
hoc quidem recte dictum est, etsi potuerat etiam per οὔτε. At 
etiam alterum, licet et Werferus οὐδὲ scribi voluerit, et Scheferus 
‘id in textu. posuerit, videtur defendi posse ; defendendumque erit 
tanto magis, quo minus veri simile est, librarios insolens illud οὔτε, 
presertim pregresso paucis ante versibus οὐδὲ in eadem formula, 
tam constanter hic exhibituros fuisse, αἱ οὐδὲ ex uno, tantum codice 
adnotatum habeamus. Nobis quidem hic οὔτε egregie convenire 
videtur stilo Herodoti. Paullo ante bis dixerat οὐδὲ, ut. relationem 
comparationemque duorum inter ipsa indicaret : ne tllos quidem satts- 
fecisse; itaque ne se quidem satisfacturos. Hinc iam, οὔτε dicens, 
abstinet_ a comparatione : quumque dicere velit, Medex exemplo 
edoctum Alexandrum certo credidisse non repetitum iri Helenam, 
non opus habet afferre rationem (iam attulerat enim) sed satis 
ducit allutam repetere. Que si non fuisset ante commemorata, 
dicere debebat, οὐδὲ γὰρ Ἐκείνους, διδόναι : nam etiam illos non 
reddere. Nunc vero mentiouem eius tantummodo faciens, recte, 
quasi in parenthesi addit, namgue idlos non reddere, οὔτε γὰρ 
ἐκείνους διδόναι. Non minus recte se babet alius Herodoti locus 
113. 155. verba Zopyri continens, qui. Babylonis capiende caussa 
se ipse diris cruciatibus affecerat: οὐκ ἔστι οὗτος ὦ "vip ὅτι μὴ σὺ, τῷ 
ἔστι δύναμις τοσαύτη ἐμὰ δὴ ὧδε διαθεῖναι" οὔτε τις ἀλλοτρίων, ὦ βασιλεῦ, 
τάδε ἔργασται, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἐμεωυτόν. Si οὐδὲ dixisset, sensus 
foret, ut paucis comprehendam, lic: nemo hoc nist tu-fectsts ; non 
vero per aljum, sed per me ipsum. Nunc quum οὔτε dixerit, hoc 
ait: tu hoc fecisti, idque non per alium, sed per me ipsum. Finem 


280 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


faciamus in loco Isocratis, quem Werferus attulit, in Panegyr. 
¢.29. Purgat ibi orator cives suos propter supplicium Meliorum 
et Scionzorum, cuius crudelitas ipsis vitio vertebatur. Ea. in re 
his utitur verbis: ἔπειτα, εἰ μὲν ἄλλοι τινὲς τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων 
πρᾳότερον ἐπεμελέθησαν, εἰκότως ὧν ἡμῖν ἐπιτιμῴεν᾽ εἰ δὲ μήποτε τοῦτο 
γέγονε, μήθ᾽ οἷόν τέ ἐστι τοσούτων πόλεων τὸ πλῆθος κρατεῖν, ἣν μή τις 
κολάζῃ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, πῶς οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν, οἵτινες 
ἐλαχίστους χαλεπήναντες, πλεῖστον χρόνον τὴν ἀρχὴν κατασχεῖν ἠδυνή- 
nev; Poterat quidem hic quoque μηδὲ. dici: sed quis mutari 
librorum scripturam volet, qua nihil hic aptius fingi potest? Plane 
enim quo debet officio fungitur particula τὲ, ut adnectat, quod ad 
rem ipsam non pertinet : argumentum enim oratoris hoc est: si 
alii mitiores fuissent, iure nos reprehendent: sed si numquam se 
tales.preebuerunt, laudare nos debebunt. Quidquid ex illo μήτε 
_pendet, fortuitum est et casu accedit, ut minime ad illos, qui repre- 
hendunt, pertinens, sed ad eolos spectans Athenienses: sed δὲ num- 
quam se tales prebuerunt, pretereaque tanta civitatum multit¢udo 
coerceri sine penis nequit, laudare nos debebunt. Sed satis dictum 
videtur, ut ostenderemus, cecam esse regulam, que numero, non 
vi exemplorum niteretur. 

Ad ν. 5. nonnulla attulit Elmsleius de formula χεῖρας ἐρετμῶσαι. 
‘Hic non debebat negligi, quod Ruhnkenius ad Orph, Arg. 360. 
{356) et nos ad Orphica p. $15. adnotavimus, Nonnum hac ex Euré 
pide sumpta formula delectari. Omminoque non est Nonni imitatio 
negligenda interpreti Euripidis : quod si reputasset Monkius ad 
Alcest. 460. non repudiasset verissimam emendationem Scaligeri. 
Ad eumdem Medex versum observat Elmsleius, Wakefieldium, 
Porsonum, Scheferum ἀνδρῶν ἀριστέων scribendum censere, et, 
quum nonnuila de voce ἀριστεὺς adiecisset, “ nihil,” inquit, “ lenius 
hac coniectura, cui tamen obiici potest, quod zque bene dicitur ἀν- 
δρῶν ἀρίστων. ᾿Λριστεὺς quidem non usurpatur eo sensu, quo dicitur 
Med. 923. ἀνδρός τ᾽ ἀρίστου σοῦ τυχοῦσ᾽ suasvérov. Sed optimates 
non minus bene ἄριστοι quam ἀριστῆς appellantur.” Mirum vero, 
virum doctissimum,. qui ab exemplis, etiam ubi nihil exemplis 
efficitur, presidium petere soleat, hic, ubi quam maxime opus erat 
exemplis, nulla attulisse. Recte illi, qui ἀριστέων scribendum 
contendunt. Nam hoc solum huic loco aptum est, quia de sola 
hic nobilitate sermo esse potest. Etenim ἄριστοι ubi optimates 


; of the Medea of Buripides. ἢ 283 
intelliguntur, moh proprie sunt optimates, sed, ut nécddse ent, 
preatantissni, Quo autem in genere quisque sit preestantissueus, 
wtrum natalibus, an eorporis robord, an ingenio, ‘an sapientia, levi 
cuiusque conditio ostendere debet: Quod si optimates.hic intel 
ligt volebat Elmsleius, demonstrandum ei erat, étiam ubi εἰμ 
‘ additum essety unde cognosceretur, qua re aliquis optimus esset, 

optimatem ite dici. Ad id autém exemplis opus erat; 4165 Ron 
putamus ‘inveniri posse, isi corrupta. 

: Vila. Quum vulgo legeretur, ἀνδάγουσα μὲν φυγὴ #oRTaY ὧν 
ἀφίκετο χθόνα, Porsonus ex Brunekio coniectara πολίταις edidtf, 
Vulgatam πὶ constructione laborare putat Elmsleius, wt ad quer 
defendendam huinsmodi exempla proferri debeant, ut si Virgiies 
dixisset, vestra est urbém quam statua. Itaque quod eos omnes, 
qui bune locum: tentarunt, fugisse ait, φογὴ scribeadim esse, id 
ipse in textu posuit, ut hee verba omnia in appdsitione essint ed 
illa, que de Medea dicuntur, κατῴκει τήνδε γῆν Κορινθίαν. Cutuee 
modi appositionem etsi exemplis quibusdam commuhire studet, 
tamen non persimilis iis est hic locus: Possemus hoc explicatius 
‘demosstrare: sed ne longi simus, durissimam hic monemus talem 
appositionem fore, quum proptet alia, tum quie statim seqmtur 
αὐτή το, non ad φυγὴ, sed ad Medeam spectans. Nobis, si quid 
quam, sincera videtur vulgata. Ipse Elmsleius quam simillimum 
attulerit exemplum ex Heracl. 67. ἐγὼ δὲ τούσδε, κἂν od μὴ ϑόλῃξ, 
ἄξω κομίξων, οὗπέρ sic’ Ἑῤρυσϑέως, i. ὁ. Εὀρυσθεῖ, οὗπέρ εἶσι, vel, οὗπέρ 
εἰσ. Εὐρυσθέως, τούτῳ" si Medex locum paullo accuratius conside+ 
raseet, vidisset, non πολιτῶν pro πολίταις, sed χϑόνα pro fev} dictum 
ease: πολιτῶν ὧν ἀφίκετο χθόνα, ταύτῃ ἀγδάνουσα. 

V. 13. “ Stobeeus,” inquit, “ αὐτὴ δὲ, quod recte admisit Bevkins, 
neglexit Personus. Opponuntur ἀνδάνουσα μὲν φυγὴ, et αὐτὴ δέ.) 
Ieiuria reprehendit Porsonum, qui nobis multo accuratius videtur 
mentenr potte perspectam habuisse. Recte enim libri Euripidis 
αὐτή ve. Nam verbis ἀνδάνουτα μὲν aperte respondent hec vi 
16. νῦν δ᾽ ἐχϑρὰ πάντα. 

V. 14. Iterum notat Porsonumh, ἧκου, quod apud Pseudogrego- 
rium legitur, non male se habere affirmantem, quod ipse hic udur- 
pari won posse contendit, i vera sint, que ad v. 1876. dicturus st. 
At et que illo loco, et item ad v. 678. de particulis ἥπου affert, 
nitmime vera sunt, sed, quum ad veram earum vim non attendissel, 

VOL. XIX. Cl. Ji. NO. XXXVIII. T 


282 Notice of Mr. :Ebnsley’s Edition 


sitque illud 1 suppose, quemadmodum eas vertendas putat, ubique 
Jocum habere existimaret, fieri non potuit, quin de aliquot locis 
aliter ac debebat iudicaret. Hoc quoque lucalentum exemplum 
est, quantum referat, recte an male regulam constituas. Nam non 
ἧπου significat I suppose, sed ea tantum posterioris particule vis est, 
et ne huius quidem sic, ut ubique ita verti possit; 4 autem, quod 
ei preemittitur, plerisque in locis ὄντως significat, recteque sic mter- 
pretatus est glossator in Medez v. 14. quem reprehendit Elmslews 
ad v. 1275. Plene utramqne particulam explicat Hesychius: 
ἥπου, ὄντως που. Conferat Sophoclis Ai. 624.. Trach. 846. 847. 
Philoct. 1230. Alibi illud 7 particula . est interrogativa, ut in 
FEschyli Prom. 520. ἧπου τὶ σεμνόν ὁ ἐστιν, ὃ ξυναμπέχεις ; 

V. 80. De verbis ἣν μήποτε στρόψασα πάλλευκον δόρην. αὐτὴ πρὸς 
αὑτὴν πατέρ᾽ ἀποιμώξῃ φίλον, “ in vulgata,” inquit, “ ἣν μήποτε acci- 
piendum pro πλὴν ὅτ᾽ ἄν, constructione minus usitata.. Quo sensu 
nescio an prestet ἐπριμώζῃ.᾽ Sensum recte indicavit: nec mira- 
mur, quod hanc constructionem minus usitatam dicit. Quin plane — 
falsa est. .Sed quid est, quod vir doctissimus non, quod quivis 
faciat, qui locum accuratius inspiciat, divisim scripsit μὴ sore? Sic 
nihil nec perperam, neque. insolenter dictum. . Non: esse’ autem 
idem μήποτε et μή ποτε per se planum est. De ἀποιμώζῃ. reponendo 
non dubitamus accedere. Dolemus vero, quod iis in rebus, que 
non exemplis, sed ratione reddenda opus habent, nimis brevis, 
simulque anceps animi esse solet. Si aoristus id, quod vel semel 
fit, vel celeriter peragitur, praesens autem vel rem stepius repetitam, 
wel diuturniorem significat, facile iudicari, quid quoque loco’ pra- 
ferendum sit, potest. Et hoc. argumento uti debebat etiam. ut 
“ρπάζητε in Sophoclis Antig. 311. reponi vellet, potius quam ‘illo, 
Doricum esse .dpragyre, quod ne satis quidem.verum est.. Quod 
addit de. Euripidis loco, “ nec male. se habet ἀποιμώξοι, modo 
legatur εἰ μήποτε, valde dubitari potest, an εἰ hic non recte se 
habiturum esset, querique ea de re diligentius non sine fructu 
poterat. 

- V.34. Observat nominis συμφορὰ singularem et pluralem sxepe 
a librariis permutatos esse. . Sed quod ait de Hippolyti v. 1255. 
αἷ αἷ, xéxpavras συμφοραὶ νέων κακῶν, “ ita olim solcece legebatur,” 

veremur, ne hic quoque cautius loqui debuerit. Nam primo 
dubitatur adhuc, an χέκρανται etiam pluralis esse possit. Deinde 


. of the Medea of: Euripides. 283 


verbum singulare, przepositum illud nomini plurali, certa conditiove . 
nec soleecum, nec schema Pindarium, sed usitatum etiam Attieis 
est. Non fugit hoc Buttmannum in gramm. Gr. δ. 116, not. 2, 6. 

V. 41. Bene disputat Elmsleius ad hunc locum de scriptura 
τυράννων εἰ τύραννον, ostenditque, non hic de Creonte, sed de filia 
eius. debere sermoriem esse. Itaque quum glossa cod. A. habeat 
θηλυχῶς, τὴν Γλαύχην, et glossa cod. B. τὴν atque fro: τὴν Γλαύχην, 
ita ‘statuit,, τύραννον hic Anglice reddendum the princess, affertque 
verba γήμας τύραννον v. 847. De interpretatione loci neminem 
non habebit assentientem. . Vellemus tamen accuratius hic et 
subtilius disputasset vir doctissimus. Nos quidem certe magno- 
pere veremur, ne solcecismum reliquerit. Verba poete sunt, } 
καὶ τύραννον τόν τε γήμαντα xtavy. Concedimus, ex additis τόν re 
γήμαντα facile intelligi posse, τύραννον de femina dictum esse. 
Verum id nihil ad rationem grammaticam. Τύραννος enim adiec- 
tivum est, quod de viro dictum in substantivum vertit. De muliere 
substantivi loco usurpatum esse, neque exemplo ullo nobis constat, 
nec veri simile putamus propter ambiguitatem. Videmus autem, 
ubicumque de muuliere dicitur, aperte adiectivum esse, ut νύμφη 
τύραννος in Medea v. 1034. et alibi, ideoque, ubi substantivum non 
additur, articulum adiici. Nec probare.poterit Elmsleius illo loca, 
quem affert, v. 837. per se substantivi vicem sustinere hoc nomen: 
Nam quod ibi dicitur, non minus quam reliqui loci omnes, adiec- 
tivam requirit, quia idem est ac 81 dixisset γήμας γυναῖκα τύραννον 
οὖσαν. Quod si v. 41. sensus mulierem dici postulat, grammatica 
autem id fieri vetat, videndum erat, ne τυράννην potius vel τύραννιν 
scripsisset Euripides.. ['yrannas et tyrannides dixit Tyebellius 
Pollio de mulieribus, ad quem v. Salmas, p. $22. Et in glossis 
quidem, quas ille affert, et inhibro Esther 1. 18. (Stephanus nominat 
caput 2.) scribitur. τυραννίδες. Verunr etsi canon grammaticus 
τυραννίς, τυραννίδα dici postulat, tamen suspicari licet, significationis 
diversitatem fecisse, ut ad aliam analogiam, de qua Eustathius 
p- 381, 6. 1403, 63. τύραννις, τύραννιν de regina diceretur. Sed ne 
voces minus'usitatas obtrudere Euripidi velle videamur, (quamquam 
non pauca in ghossis illis et scriptoribus sacris perantiqua vocabula 
Jatent) quid est, cur Elmsleims, quum scholio ad ἢ. |. prefixum 
legeretur τυράννοις, id in τύραννον mutare, quod etiam Matthiz fecit, ' 
quam verioris scripture vestigium agnoscere, et τυράννους non modo 


Φ 


Ν 


284 Notice of Mr. Elmsley’s Edition 


in scholio, sed etiam in ipso textu Euripidis reponere maluerit ? 
Ita Creon et Glauce comprehendentur hoc nomine, nec quidquam 
erit, quod aut ad sensum, aut ad grammaticam desideretur. . 

" -'V. 53. Hie commemoratur scripture varietas ia verbo xsrvewv 
in Medea. “ Unice,” inquit, ‘‘ verum est sitvoyra, de qua forme 
dixi ad Heracl. 77.” Laudamus, quod movit hanc questionem : 
sed quod rem nondum maturam pro iudicata habuit, idque ne 
probabilibus quidem rationibus usus, id vero parum coneaiderate 
factum contendimus. Videamus quid dicat ad Heraelidas. “ Zines 
verbum circumflexum esse statuerunt grammatici, culus aorietys 
esset éxitvov. Hinc passim apud Euripidem reperias πιτρῶ, πετυιᾶς, 
TITVE, πιτνοῦσι, KITVEW, πιτνῶν, πιτνῶν, πιτνοῦσα, πιτγοῦντος, MT VENTED, 
et similia; nunquam πίτνω, τπίτνεις, πίτνει, πίτνουσι, πίτνων, πίτνουαα, 
πίτνοντες. Diverse sunt eiusdem verbi forme πίστω et πίγνω, 8 
μένω et μίμνω. Veram scripturam ab Heathio propositam, celate 
Heathii nomine -adoptavit Brunckius apud Soph. Cid. C. 1754 
"2 τέκνον Αἰγέως, προσίτνομέν σοι. Quod paullo ante in eaden 
fabula v. 1732. legitur, ἔπιτγε, preeteritum imperfectum est. Aped 
nostrum Supplic. 691. πιτνόντων participium esse presentis tem 
‘poris ostendunt alia duo participia in eadem sententia, ἐχκυβιατών» 
τῶν et λειπόντων." Videntur hec movisse nonnullos, ut plane 
assentirentur. Nobis non satisfaciuot. Primo grammaticos vel- 
lemus citasset, qui de hoc verbo preciperent. Magnum de eo 
verbo apud plerosque ‘silentium est: nec mirum, quum non modo 
poeticum sit, sed ne Ipsorum quidem poetarum alii, quam lyrici . 
et tragici eo utantur. Habet Hesychius πιτνεῖ, Moschopulus περὶ 
σχεδῶν p- 86. πιτνῶς Eustathius autem p..1178, 52. memorat 
ἔχω, ἴσχω" ὀρέγω, ὀρυγνῶ"" μένω, μίμνω" γένω, γίγνω" πέτω, πίτωω καὶ 
πίπτω" pera, δίπτω. Favorinus in v. πίπτω: πιτνῶ, τὸ. πίπτα' 
Εὐριπίδης, αὐτὸς δὲ βωμῷ πρὸς ϑεοδμήτῳ πιτνεῖ. Scholiastes MS. 
fEschyli ad Sept. c. Th. 765. ἐκ τοῦ πίπτω γίνεται ἄχρηστον ὄνομα δ 
πιπτὸν, ἀφαιρέσει δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου π, καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ν, κιτνὸν, Bro 
προσπῖπτον, καὶ διαῤῥηγνύμενον. Qui nisi vehementer corruptus est, 
πιτγὸν pro adiectivo habuerit necesse. est. Sed ex his omnibus 
nihil lucri. Deinde que dicit vir doctissimus, ‘pro auctositate 
magis dicta sunt, quam argumentis fulta. Esto, quemadmodam 
μίμνω. ad μένω, sic πίτνω se haberead πέτω. Hoc enim, non share, 
commemorandum erat. Quid inde sequitur? Nihil aliud, quam 


of the Medea of Euripides. 486 


tion repugnare analogiam. Itaque certe hoc afferendum erat, quum 
plurima ad hanc analogiam formata sint verba, paucissima exstare; 
que formam contractam habeant, ut ῥιπτῶ, ἱκνοῦμαι. Ita saltem 
dubitationem de isto πιτνῶ auxisset. Porro quod affert, προσπίτνο- 
μέν ab Heathio et. Brunckio apud Sophoclem repositum, id nilil 
probat. Controversum est enim, an debuerit reponi. Plane vero 
pro arbitrio dicit, in eadem Sophoclis fabula v. 1732. ἔπιτνε imper- 
fectum esse. Nam requiritur ibi aoristus. Eodem aoristo usus 
est Pindarus, cul nuper eum in novissima editione Heyniana 
restituimus, Ol, 11. 42. ubi miramur, Boeckhium imperfectum 
ἀκίτνει posuisse, quod alienum ab eo loco est. Quod porro ait 
Elmsleius, in Supplicibus Euripidis v. 691. πτιτνόντων presentis 
participium esse, ex 60 cognosci, quod alia duo in ea sententia sint 
participia presentis, hoc argumentum nec per se ullam vim habet, 
quia non quod cetera verba tempus habeant, sed singula quod 
habere debeant, spectandum est: quis enim contendat, πίπτων καὶ 
κείμενος, AC BOR πεσῶν καὶ κείμενος dicendum esse? multo minus . 
autem.ia isto loco illa presentis perticipia quidquam probaut. 
Verba hac sunt : 


τί πρῶτον εἴπω ; πότερα THY εἰς οὐρανὸν 
χόγιν προσαντέλλουσαν ὡς πολλὴ παρῆν, 
ἢ τοὺς ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω φορούμενος 
ἱμᾶσιν, αἵματός τε φοινίου ῥοὰς, 
"τῶν μὲν τιτνόντων, τῶν δὲ, θρανσθέντων δίφρων, 
εἰς κρᾶτα πρὸς γὴν ἐκκυβιστώντων βίᾳ, 
πρὸς ἁρμάτων τ᾽ ἀγαῖσι λειπόντων βίον. 


ἜΗΝ πιτνόντων de aurigis. At ita vix differunt, qui ἐκκυβιο- 
τῶντες βίᾳ dicuntur. Hi vero non videntur illi esse posse, quorum 
currus frangebantur : nam eversis: potius curribus proni in caput 
volvuntur aurige, quam confractis. Omninoque illud πιτνόντων de 
aurigis dictum nimis nudum est et languidum. Ex his intelligitut, 
Ita esse interpungendum, τῶν μὲν, τετνόντωγ, τῶν δὲ, θραυσθέντων 
δίφρων. Sic omnia recte apteque dicta sunt: quumm alii eversis 
curribus, alit confractis, sili proni tn caput ruerent, hi curruum 
ruina laniarentur, \taque hic locus aperte aoristum, non preesens 
tuetur. Apparere ex his putamus, alio modo demonstrari debuisse, 
quod volebat, unice verum esse xivve: misamurque profecto tant 


486 Notice of Mr. ἘΕϊηιεῖουν"ς Edition 


imbecillis argumentis permotum esse virum prestantissimum, ut 
formam contractam ubique expellere conaretur, Periniqua vero 
fortuna accidit, ut plerique ‘omnes loci mihil, quo dinmi.res: possit, 

prebeant. Afferamus potiores ex his. Apud Aischylum in 
Persis v. 461. ed. Rob. τοξικῆς τ᾽ ἀπὸ θώμιγγος iol προσπίτνοντες ὧλ- 
λυσαν. Hoc loco uti Elmsleium conveniebat. Necessarium enim 
hic presentis participium est, nec recte nos ad Herc. fur. 1871. 
aoristum tueri conati sumus. At nihil tamen hoc exemplo effici- 
tur. Ceteri enim libri veteres προσπίπτοντες. Robortelli autem 
editio, que Triclinii recensionem exhibere videtur, quid aliud, quam 
ut Triclinii illam esse correctionem credamus, factet? Jtaque nisi 
aliunde confirmabitur hec forma, potius προσπιτνοῦντες scribendum 
censebimus. In eadem fabula v. 590. οὔτ᾽ ἐς γᾶν. προπίτνοντες 
ἄρξονται nonnulli ediderunt. Libri veteres προσπίτνοντες, προσπίε- 
τόντες, Vitebergensis προσπιτνῶντες. Est hic quoque presentis par- 
ticipio opus: sed nihilo certiores nos reddunt libri. Dairimeret 
litem Sophocles Cid. Col. 1754. ὦ τέκνον Αἰγέως, προδπίτνομέν oot, 
81 14 libri haberent, et quidem aut multi, aut boni.: At omnes 
προσπίπτομέν σοι, ut in perpetua horum verborum commutatione 
eodem iure, quo illud posuit Brunckius, etiam προπιτνοῦμέν σοι 
scribere possimus. Etiam A®schylus rem conficeret Sept. ad 
Theb. 764. κακῶν δ᾽ ὥσπερ θάλασσα κῦμ’ ἄγει: τὸ μὲν πιτνὸν, ἄλλο 
δ᾽ ἀείρει τρίχαλον, nisi hic, prouti interpungas et verba interpreteris, 
et presentis participio et aoristi locus esset ; prasentis, 81 ἄγει, 
commate apposito, cum participio -coniungitur ; aoristi, si, ut 
vulgo, colo distinguitur post aye, ut sensus sit, ἄλλου τιτνόντος ἄλλο 
ἀείρεται, simili orationis forma, ut apud Sophoclem (ἃ. Col. 

1454. ἐπεὶ μὲν ἕτερα, τὰ δὲ παρ᾿ ἦμαρ αὖθις αὔξων ἄνω. Libri quidem 
constanter πιτνόν ᾿ ἴῃ scholiis MSS. et hoc, et quod Brunckius 
dedit πίτνον legitur, Plane denique ad liquidum perducta res esset,. 
sicerta esset scriptura in Eurip. Heracl. 619. ἀλλὰ σὺ μὴ προσπίγγει 
τὰ θεῶν ὕπερ. Verum hoc edd, recentiores ab H. Stephano viden- 
tur accepisse,- qui in Adnotatt. ad Soph. et Eurip. p. 168. ita mn 
veteribus codd. scriptum.ait. Aldina vero et aliz antique-edd, 
xposzityav habent. Elmsleius audaci coniectura edidit, ἀλλὰ σὺ μὴ 

wpoxirvay τὰ θεῶν Φέρε, erecto corpore atque animo interpretatus. 
Non facile repertum iri’ putamus, quibus id persuadeat. Nec 
profecto opus erat, novam: atque insolentem verbi. sigmficatiobem 


of the Medea of Euripides. 287 


comminisci. Scribendum: ἀλλὰ σὺ μὴ, xgoxitva, τὰ θεῶν ὕπο, μηδ 
ὑπεράλγει φροντίδα λύτᾳ: al ἐμ, oro, πὲ aut deorun decretis, aut 
cura.tua nimis dole. Respondent enim sibi μὴ «τὰ θεῶν dro, et μηδὲ 
φροντίδα. Utrumque indicaverat lolaus v. 605. 8644. dolere se et 
propter oraculum, quod virginem immolari iussisset, et quod. 
Macaria se immolandam offerret. Quod si preter ἔπιτνον apud 
Pindarum et Sophoclem, et πιτνὸν apud Aschylum (nam quod in 
Persis v. 506. ex coniectura quidam pro πῖπτον posuerunt gisvoy, 
factum est imperitissime) non exstant exempla alteram utram hujus 
verbi formam aperte tuentia, solum reliquum erat participium, 
culus exempla Elmsleius afferre debebat omnia, ac videre an 
ubique presenti locus esset. Atque quum aliquot loci sint, qui 
non dubie presens habeant, plures autem, in quibus utrovis tempore 
uti licebat, tamen sunt etiam, qui flagitare aoristum videantur, ut 
Pindari Nem. v. 42. (16) Isthm. 11. 26. (39) Aéschyli Choeph. 84. 
Sophoclis El. 453. Euripidis Η ες. 474. Alcest. 181. Iphig. T. 48. 
Here. fur. 858. Hi igitur loci oon pretereundi, sed vindicanda 
8 presentis significatio erat, si vincere vellet vir doctissimus. 
Preterea vero etiam illud ostendere debebat, unde huic verbo 
perpetua illa fluctuatio inter πιτνοῦντα, πιτνῶντα, πιτνόντα, πίτνοντα 
venisset, quum nibil simile librariis in μίμνω et ceteris huiusmodi 
verbis acciderit. Que si omnia reputasset, non dixisset, opinamur, 
unice verum esse πίτνω. Sponte enim cadunt iste dubitationes 
omnes, si πιξνῶν presentis, πιτναὶν aoristi participium esse statul- 
mus. Et hoc quidem ut credamus, alteram aoristi, alteram presen- 
tis formam propriam esse, ἔπιτνον illud vincit, quod ubi invenitur, 
apertissime aoristi significationem habet, Ex hoc ipso autem 
aoristo, qui quidem sane, ut multi aoristi secundi, origine nihil est 
nisi imperfectum verbi culuspian: aut obsoleti, aut numquam usur- 
pati, recte colligitur, presens esse πιτνῶ, πίτνω autem in verbis 
ἀνθυποτάχτοις numerandum esse. Nec profecto magis hoc verbum 
πιτνῶ in dubitationem vocare debebimus, quam ἱκνοῦμαι, quod 
ipsum ad eamdem comparationem formatum, neque aoristum nec 
futurum habet. 

V. 67. Hic.quoque in iis, que de ‘superlativo et ; comparativo 
dicit vir doctissimys, observantiorem eum regula, quam studiosio- 
rem iuste sententiarum interpretationis deprehendimus, qui et 
spud Homerum Od. 4. 481, et-apud Furipem Androm. 6,.com- 


438 Notice of Mr. Elmsley's Edition 


perativum reponendum censeat. Neque enim animadvertisse 
videtur, Grecos ibi superlativum pro comparativo dicere, ubi hve 

duo simul indicare volunt, et maius quid esse alio, et omnino 

maximum. Eschylus Eum. 80. καὶ viv τυχεῖν με τῶν πρὶν εἰσόδων 
μακρῷ ἄριστα δοῖεν. Herodotus ε11. 119. ὃς καὶ ἀλλοτριώτατός τοι 
τῶν σαΐδων, καὶ ἧσσον κεχαρισμένος τοῦ ἀνδρός iors. Εἰ 11..- 108. ἐς 
τούτους δέ μοι δοχόε! καὶ οὐ προσώτατα ἀφικέσθαι ὁ στρατός. Ubi non 
debebant editores quidam οὐ cum perpaucis codicibus elere. 

Conficit rem alius loeus eiusdem scriptoris 11. 35. ἔρχομοι! δὸ περὶ 
Αἰγύπτου μηκύναν τὸν λόγον, ὅτι πλεῖστα θωυμάσια tyes} ἄλλη πᾶσα 
“χώρη. 

v. 78. Acute observat Elmsleius, πρὶν δεδενπγηκέναι a coenante, τρὴν 
δειπνῆσαι a. coenaturo dici; ab utroque autem diversum esse πρὶν δεν» 
“νεῖν, quod non esse priusquam c@savero, sed priusquam canatum 
eo. Accuratius tamen dixisset, ut nobis videtur, perfecto statum indie 
cari, qui factum sequitur; aoristo perfectionem rei; presente 
initium : itaque πρὶν δεδειπνηκέναι esse priusquam a cana surrerero; 
api δειπνῆσαι, priusquam cenavero ; πρὶν δειπνεῖν, priusquame canem. 
Sic πρὶν ἐμπεπρῆσθαι, priusquam quid ardeat ; πρὶν ἐμπρηθῆνοιι, prius- 
quam exarserit ; πρὶν ἐμπίμπρασϑαι, priusquam tncendatur.. 

ν, 80. Non erat, quare dubitaret, an Seidlerus non recte ‘indi- 
casset scripturam ed. Lasc. Ipsi illud exemplum. inepeximus, 
testamurque verum dixisse Seidlerum. 

V. 85. Hic quoque prodidit Editor clafissimus studium saum 
veteres servili cuidam regularum obsequio adstringendi. δι 
quun? spe dicant οἱ πλησίον, Herodoti locum 111. 142. et Thucy- 
didis 1. 32. qui singulari numero usi sunt, corruptos esse suspicatuy. 
Addit autem bis legi τὸν πλησίον apud Theognidem v. 221. et 611. 
nescimus, utrum hc quoque exempla corrigenda putans, an ut 
suspicionem suam de Herodoti et Thucydidis locis ipse labefaciat. 
Multo rarius est ἄνθρωπος pro plurali: et tamen quis propteres 
suspectum habeat illud Thucydidis 1. 140. τὰς διανοίας τοῦ ἀνθρώπουϊ 
Talia emendare nihil profecto est aliud, quam doeere velle 08). 
quibus discere ipsi debemus. 

V. 87. Valde miramur offensum esse virum doetissimum his 
verbis, εἰ τούσδε. γ᾽ εὐνῆς obvex’ οὐ στέργει πατήρ. Solecum enim 
putat εἰ sequente oJ. Itaque audacter καὶ pro εἰ posuit, quo non 
dubitamus dicere eum et verba pokte et sententiam corrupisee. 


of the Medea of Euripides. 480 


Quid? num putavit, si hic tantus esset soloecismus, non id Porso- 
mum visurum fuisse? quem nos quidem szpe, etiam ubi tacet, 
aliquid dicere animadvertimus. Magna enim ars est, σιγᾶν θ᾽ ὅπου 
δεῖ, καὶ λέγειν τὰ καίρια. Recte οὐ post εἰ poni, ubi negatio cum 
verbo coniuncta notionem negativam preberet, cuiusmodi hic.est 
οὐ στέργει pro μισεῖ dictum, pridem adnotatum ab nobis erat ad 
Vigerum not. 309. p. 833. ‘Thucydides 1. 121. ἣ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, εἰ οἱ 
μὲν ἐκείνων ξύμμαχοι ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ τῇ αὐτῶν ddpovres οὐκ ἀπεροῦσιν, 
ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ τιμωρούμενοι τοὺς ἐχθροὺς χαὶ αὐτοὶ ἅμα σώζεσθαι οὐκ 
ἄρα δαπανήφομεν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων αὐτὰ ἀφαιρεθέντες αὐτοῖς 
τούτοις κακῶς πάσχειν. 1. 6. εἰ καρτερήσουσιν et εἰ φεισόμοθα. Hine 
intelliget vir prestantissimus, etiam tragici loco apud Aristotelem 
Rhet. 11. 23. non medelam, : sed vitium -a se allatum esse, quum 
eixep in ἐπεὶ mutari voluit. Obiter adiicimus, etiam ubi εἰ an 
significat, recte sequi οὐ, ut apud Platonem Protag. p. 341. B, 
(574. Heind.) si nulla est negationis ad affirmationem oppositio : 
aliter enim μὴ dicendum, ut in ipso illo, cuius modo mentio facts 
est, Aristotelis loco : δεῖ γὰρ σκοπεῖν, εἰ τῷ ἐναντίω τὸ ἐναντίον tad p- 
XE ἀγαιροῦντα μὲν, εἰ μὴ ὑπάρχει" κατασκευάζοντα δὲ, εἰ ὑπάρχει. 

Hee quidem potissima sunt eorum, que ad prologum nobis 
adnotanda videbantur. Excessimus vel sic modum paginarum, qui 
nobis prefinitus erat: sed etiam hec sufficere poterunt ad confir- 
mandum nostrum de P, Elmsleii opera iudicium : quem virum 60 
esse Ingenio videmus, ut, si se illo regularum servitio liberaverit, . 
ante multos alios Grecis litteris profuturum confidamus. Sit 
autem existimamus, et sua hoc quemque experientia docere potest, 
quo quis plus in litteris profecerit, eo eum paucionbus indigere 
regulis, que nil] sunt nisi adminicula titubantium. Prestat ratio- 
nes regularum intelligere, quas qui perspexerunt, simul etiam, quos 
terminos regulz habeant, sciunt. 

G. 1. 


240 


NOTICE OF 


ACADEMIC ERRORS ; or Recollections of Youth. 
By a Member of the University of Cambridge. London: 
Law & Co., &c. 12mo. pp. 213. 68. 6d. bds. | 


‘Tis little volume is calculated, under an unassuming title, to 
awaken serious thoughts in the breasts of parents and guardians, 
on a very important subject: nor is it less adapted for - the 
instruction of governors and preceptors ; if they will condescend to 
be instructed ; or can be brought to acknowledge that with the 
mental, as with the bodily constitution, the same diet is not suitable — 
to all alike. The subjects principally discussed by the author are 
the received methods of teaching Latin grammar; the composition 
of Latin verses; the routine of studies at classical schools ; and 
the mode of punishment, which, amid all the refinements of modem 
manners, is still kept up in our most celebrated seminaries, with 
pertinacious adherence to the very letter of their ancient statutes. 
‘The remarks are introduced, and connected together by means of 
an easy ‘narrative which commences with the author's first leaving 
“« Dulce Domum,” at the age of ten years. We do not agree with 
him that the earlier years of our childhood are generally uninterest- 
ing to every body but ourselves. Every man experiences a certain 
degree of pleasure in recognising the feelings of his own infancy, 
through the description of another ; and every father looks forward, 
with mixed emotions, to his son’s experiencing the same joys and 
sorrows, hopes and fears, expectations and disappointments, which 
have checquered bis own outset in life. ‘The recollection of the 
past is, or ought to be, always beneficial to us. We cannot look 
back upon a single stage of our journey, without seeing perils or 
mismanagement, from which we ought to derive correction for 
ourselves, and consideration for others. The precepts of age 
come with most effect from the lips of those who have not forgot- 
ten the feelings of their youth. - 
The first part of this work will be found sufficiently interesting 
to almost all ranks of life; for almost all parents begin the educa- 
tion of their children by sending them to a minor school, though 
they may not all end it by sending them to the University. It is 
not merely the present happiness of children which is affected by 
the manners‘and disposition of the person to whose care they may’ 


be* consigned—their moral welfare is no less intimately connected 


Notice of Academic Errors. 291 


with them. Our author gives a striking example of this, in the. 
characters of the two gentlemen to whom le was at different 
periods entrusted, during the absence of a tender and judicious 
parent ;—the first is a Mr. P., the master of a grammar school in the 
country, a pedantic and narrow-minded pedagogue, who uniformly 
guages the intellects of his pupils by their progress in the Acci- 
dence ; and whose deportment, at once tyrannical and contemptible, 
rouses in his ‘pupils seatiments exactly opposite to the slavish 
reverence they are compelled to counterfeit. The portrait of this 
important personage, as well as of his helpmate, who kindly assists: 
his memory, when it accidentally slips an offence, and quickens his 
sagacity, when conjecture is slow to light upon an offender, how- 
ever strongly colored, is, we fear, nut overcharged. ‘Too many of 
those to whom the care of youth in its tenderest stages is confided, 
are remembered by their pupils with no other feelings than those of 
ridicule or dislike. Power is at all times a dangerous possession, and 
he who rules over children is apt to forget, in the absolute exercise 
of his authority, and the self-importance with which it invests him, 
that he may make impressions on the ductile minds around him which 
subsequent years cannot efface, and wound feelings which are just 
beginning to blow, and may be nipped in the bud by the first 
breath of unkindness. ‘“ Months and years,” says our author, 
“ have not effaced from my recollection the disgust which Mr. P. 
took pains, as it were, to inspire. In the same manner, had I the 
elixir vite, and could extend my existence into ages to come, I | 
should never think of a subsequent preceptor without sentiments 
of gratitude, love, and admiration. When my master put his 
favorité ‘ Accidence’ into my hands, he did it with such an air of 
importance, as would have made me regard the book as a sacred 
talisman, had any body but himself been the person who gave it to 
me. He penciled out half a page at the begining, which he bade 
me learn by heart, but as he took no paius to explain the meaning 
of that which 1 had to commit to.memory, it gave me no little 
difficulty to perfect myself in the lesson. How could it be other- 
wise! words and sounds which appear almost unintelligible are 
not easily remembered, and if they be, ten to one but the order of 
them is confused and misplaced, and they are repeated without any 
association of the corresponding sense! Noun, pronoun, verb, 
participle, which are declined, adverb, conjunction, &c. &c. which 
are undeclined! What can be more difficult than for a young 
leamer to comprehend the meaning of such sentences? I could 
scarcely engrave them on my memory, for want of understanding 
them. But had my tutor informed me that the term ‘ declined” 
signifies the change which occurs at the end of a word, as muva, 
muse, and amo} ainas, while words that are undeclined remaiy 


202 Notice of 


unchangeably the same ; had these, and similar explanations, heen 
“ vouchsafed, then I should have found that I was adding to my fund 
of information, by studying the rudiments of grammar.” p.15. | 
. Several very judicious remarks follow, on the best method of 
teaching grammar, arithmetic, &c. which might easily be reduced 
to practice, as is shown when our author is removed by the inter- 
ference of an uncle, to the care of Mr. H.a clergyman, whose 
method of at once enlightening the minds, and engaging the affec- 
tions of his pupils, is represented as carried to'a degree of perfec- 
tion which others less fortunate in their plans, or the effects arising 
from them, may be inclined to consider as Utopian—for private 
education it is certainly most admirably adapted, the only inconve- 
nience pertaining to it, is that it requires the master himself to set 
. the example to his pupils, of all that he may wish them to attain. 
Under this gentleman’s care, our author recovers the graces and 
vigor of youth, which had been exchanged, through the ignorance and 
ill-timed severity of Mr. P. for sullen passiveness, and mechanical 
plodding. _He acquires a competent knowledge of the Greek and 
tin languages ; of arithmetic, and general reading—and sets off, 
after some little argument between his parents as to the mode of 
education best calculated to advance his interests, to a celebrated 
classical school. Eager for eminence, and confident of success, 
he acquits himself, in his first examination, highly to the satisfac- 
tion of his master, until he is desired to make a copy of Lata 
verses, His declaration of inability is attributed to modesty, and an 
hour 1s allowed him for the invocation of the muse. “ Mr. H.” 
says he, “ had several times endeavoured to give me the knack af 
versifying, but when he discovered that I had no taste whatever for 
‘ the art, he gave up the attempt altogether, and instead of suffering 
me to waste my time in an unprofitable employment, he gave me 
Opportunities of exerting my talents upon subjects from which 
I was more likely to derive advantage. In vain therefore. did [ 
distract my brains, rub my head, and bite my pen to pieces; not 
a tolerable verse could I put together; even those half sentences, 
and detached phrases from Ovid and Virgil, which I might other- 
wise have recollected, eluded the efforts of memory; and whea 
my examiner returned he found nothing on my paper, but lines 
scratched out, single words, large blots, unconnected adjectives, 
verbs without nominative eases, and nominative cases without 
verbs.” p. 148. This specimen of our author’s poetical talent 
speedily demolishes the proud fabric of visionary honors to which 
he had aspired; he is reduced to a mere cypher in the school, and 
ον @hough he denies himself even his play hours, in order that-he pay 
become a poet, he finds himself unable to get beyond a few lines 
of verse more incorrect and inharmonioys than was furnished by 


. 


Academie Errors. 293 


the most illiterate lad in the school, whe could yet famiiurise hiny 
self with the. “ Gradas ad Parnassum.” A disappointment so 
severe naturally leads to aa enquiry ito the real value of the art 
which the masters of these chassical schools seeth to consider 
“ὁ although no science, fairly worth the seven.” That out readers 
may be enabled to jadge, he shall state the arguments on whieh his 
opinion is founded. ‘“ When I was at ¥##*#*,” says he, “the business 
of a class, composed of boys from eleven to fourteen years of age, 
consisted entirely of the same subjeets, week after week, without any 
variation, None but ancient authors were read ; nothing but Greek 
mmar, or Latin lines were committed to memory, no exercises 
Imposed, but those which initiated them in a dead language, and 
out of these, which were six ia namber during the week, four were 
to be verses. Hence the study of their native tongue, an acquamtance 
with the history of their own country, religious instruction, and the 
science of arithmetic, were esteemed too insignificant to be takes 
into consideration, and while a boy was flogged for his bad metre, 
or wrong concord, he was not even questioned as to his profielency 
in numbers, or knowledge of modern events.—Ilt was a matter of 
so much consequence to know that Romulus was the founder of 
Rome, that disgrace would follow an incorrect answer if the query 
related to the year of his death ;, but nobody was required to know 
even the name of England’s king, or the form of its government, 
The youngest boy in the class must not be ignorant of the mytho- 
Jogy of the golden age, while the oldest need give himself no 
trouble to learn what were the clouds of darkness, which the sun 
of nghteousness came on earth to dispel.” p. 157. a 
It is this sameness of plan, applied alike to all degrees of iutel- 
fect, all varieties of taste, that renders so large a portion of what is 
called Public Education positively useless, as far as any application — 
can be made of it in after life. The real utility of compelling 
young persons to compose Latin verses and themes has been often 
questioned, and Milton and Locke, or Cicero and Quintilian, have 
been brought in as authorities accordingly as their respective 
Opinions might strengthen arguments for or against its being 
persisted in. Milton condemns it, as “ forcing the empty wits 
of children” to undertakings far beyond their power to do well, and 
not of any value if they are done ill—but perhaps his reverence for 
learning here carries him too far; as if it were profaning it té 
suffer the semblance of it to be sported with. Locke equally con- 
demns it; but for different and less worthy reasons. “Ἅ By all 
means,” says he, “ obtain, if you can, that your son be not employed 
m making Latin themes and declamations, and least of all verses 
of any kind.” But the reason he gives for this injunction, viz. that 
ἃ poetic. vein is more-likely to cause poverty and idleness, than to 


204 _ Notice of — 


promote the fortunes of him who indulges it, is what~ one would 
expect from such a writer as Anthony Wood, -rather than the 
philosopher by whose name it is sanctioned. That composition 
is highly favorable to the strengthening of the reasoning faculties, 
none can be inclined to doubt—for it teaches a clear and method- 
ical arrangement of the ideas, as well as to connect, adorn, -and 
illustrate them. In the composition of verse, another advantageis 
gained besides enabling.the ear to distinguish all the niceties and 
beauties of rhythm. It peculiarly inculcates conciseness and 
perspicuity,a choice of words, and a propriety of epithets which must 
have a salutary effect upon every other species of writing ia which 
the young student may hereafter engage : but all these advantages 
may be purchased too dearly; in fact, by many they could never be 
purchased at all, and surely the labor of years, and those years the 
most valuable of human life, as being those which are the freest 
from human cares, Is too great a price to pay for an abortive 
attempt. It is in making Latin verses and other compositions the 
principal feature in their plan of education, and insisting upon it 
that all shall make them alike, whether their skulls possess the 
poetic faculty or not, that the principal public schools in this 
country appear to us to be in fault. 

But there is still another subject of complaint, much more 
serious in its nature and fatal in its consequences, and which -would 
not have so lung existed had it not been for that blind veneration 
of classical authors that will not admit of a line being blotted , from 
their page, however impious or detestable the sentiment it may 
contain. Our author speaks on this topic ina tone of virtuous 
indignation, which will surely make its appeal to all who have the 
care of youth, particularly when they recollect that he acknow- 
ledges himself to speak experimentally, to have bought his know- 
ledge with the loss of innocence, and that he dates many of his 
subsequent sorrows to the errors of conduct he fell into, and the 
opinions he imbibed at *****, where the study of vice was 
sanctioned, and its practice rendered familiar; where punishments 
were merely applied pro forma, and were in themselves οὗ. ἃ 
nature calculated to efface all remains of decent shame, aad 
generous feeling. . | 

After speaking of the neglect of instruction in the doctrines of 
Christianity, or even the ordinations of the church, though a con- 
_stant obedience to its outward forms is required in these public 
schools, the masters of which are almost uniformly clergymen, 
our author thus proceeds: “ [ speak on this subject with regret, 
and can only. lament over the mischief which results from.so 
erroneous a system ; but | can scarcely keep my temper within.anv 
bounds, when 1 recall the melancholy and shocking depravity 


πν, Academic Errors... . ; 205 


which is nourished at **#** and elsewhere, by the free admission 
- of licentious books into the school I mean classical: books. 
‘There are publications in English, which, though infinitely less 
destructive to the morals of boys, than the Roman and Greek 
autbors to which [ am alluding, would very properly call down 
the heaviest punishment upon him in whose hands they were found. 
But why are not pernicious works in one language to: be put to 
the ban, :as well as those in another? ‘The most abominable pas- 
sages that have ever been printed in English cannot be compared 
to the infamous sentiments and details which we find in Greek 
and Latin.: The productions of Anacreon, Aristophanes, Horace, 
and Juvenal, contain matter which it is shameful for an adult to 
allow himself to read, and yet those are the books which are not 
galy. tolerated but encouraged amongst us. I declare I blush at 
the recollection of passages which 1 have heard my school-fellows 
reading to one another, while they chuckled at the licence which was 
grented. them to peruse as much = grossness as they pleased, 
provided that the author wrote in the languages of Greece or 

8. Luscious and warm descriptions, and voluptuous images, 
although they are unfit for the eyes of boyhood, are yet pardonable, 
comparatively speaking, provided that they keep within the bounds 
of nature aud delicacy. But the execrable sensualists whose 
infamous pages are open.to boys “ in statu pupillari,’ kept within no 
limits. Nothing was too filthy or too accursed for them to dilate 
upon; no mysteries were too sacred for them to investigate ; 
nothing was unforbidden which they did not transgress ; nothing in 
short was unveiled or untold, which ought to have been kept out 
of sight, and out of mention for ever.. ‘They gave names to what 
ought to have been nameless; they gave existence to worse than 
bestial abominations, and excused or recommended the vilest 
practices to which man can surrender himself. And yet these are 
the authors, with all their hideous and detestable defilements, which 
are permitted to pollute the minds ‘of those who are sent at a 
tender age for the acquirement of knowledge.” p. 202. Surely no 
comment is requisite on such a passage as this—is there any one 
that can be so blind as to shut his eyes against the magmtude of 
the evil of which it complains? What adds to it is that these authors, 
_ who have thus profaned the sacred gifts of genius and imagination 
by this foul misapplication of their powers, are held up as exam- 
ples of estimable qualities, as men, as well as poets. Horace 1s 
represented as the favorite of emperors; Anacreon, the graceful 
Anacréon, binding his silver locks with roses, is set forth‘as an’ 
example of how much old age may retain of enjoyments under the 
influence of a convivial spirit ; and all the virtues-of social life are, 


406 On the Science of the Egyptians, §c. 


by a strange perversion of principle, shown as linked witl an adme 
ration and practice publicly avowed of the grossest vices, a 
The author next descaats upon the method of enforcing the 
acquirement of this species of knowledge. Bowmg, es the masters. 
of public schools do, to classical authorities, in almost every other 
instance, it is somewhat surprising that in thie they persiet m acting 
decidedly against the advice of one who was familmr with the 
business of tuition, and has conveyed his sentinrents on the 
subject to posterity in a style of purity and eloquence well caleu- 
lated to set off the soundaess of his arguments :~we mean Quam 
hen, who uniformly speaks πὶ terms of reprehension against tke 
use of the rod, as indiscriminately apphed. Our author's state- 
ments on the subject are sufficiently strong and convincing, : διὰ 
. 1¢ will net validate their force when we say that the only reasew 
why we do not lay some of them Lefore our readers, is that. the 
theme iteelf is scarcely fit for public discussion.— Altogether nyamy 
valuable hmts may be taken from this small volume, and ww 
asthor will, we doubt not, feel a conscious satisfaction in having 
rendered some service to society even by the acknowledgmemt of 


his own errors. 
_ ----------- “------ -- -- --- - - -- 


ON THE SCIENCE 
OF THE EGYPTIANS AND CHALDEANS. . 


No. VI. 


Havine shown that the great Hebrew Lawgiver was as-pro- 
foundly skilled in chemistry and metallurgy, as Philo Judzus aad 
Clemens Alexandrinus assert him to have been in mathematies, 
arithmetic, and astronomy ; and having assumed, what I suppose 
No one will deny, that Moses was indebted for his human learning to 
the Egyptians ;. I shall proceed to speak.of some scientific discove; 
ries which have been attributed to the sages of Egypt. [ have 
no intention of vouching for the reality of all of these discoveries. 
My readers -will judge for themselves of the credibility which is 
due to the different statements, which I shall have to make on the 


! Egyptians and Chaldeans. 297 
autfiority of various writers. Upon the whole, however,’ [ think 
that. the examination of the subjects, which | propose to consider; 
may tend ¢o throw w ght upon the early history of science. 


OF THE TRANSMUTATION OF METALS. 


T begin with the transmutation of metals; because of all the arts 
unknown to the moderns, and attributed to the Egyptians, the 
existence of this is the most doubtful and the most disputed. 
For my own part I am not inclined. to put much faith ia the 
assertions of alchemists; but since the really great Boerhaave has 
said, that the transmutation of the baser metals into gold ought not 
to be pronounced impossible, let us at least listen to the arguments 
of those who contend that the Egyptians possessed this art. 

It is argued, that we have no just reason for concluding that this 
art never did, and never could exist, because it has never been 
practised in modern times. ‘bere were many persons, who on 
similar grounds questioned the effects of the burning glass, the 
invention of which was attributed to Archimedes. by the Greeks, 
until M: de Buffon removed the doubt by constructing the instru- 
ment. The moderns laughed at the Greeks for saying that the 
Egyptians, by placing eggs in an oven, produced chickens from 
them ; but at length M. Reaumur performed the same apparent 
miracle by the same simple means, and then it was acknowledged 
that there was no very good reason for laughing at a fact, which 
did honor to the ingenious industry of an ancient people. The 
chemists of our days have’ made some discoveries, but perhaps 
fewer than some of them think. Nature has many secrets. He 
must be a bold man who says he knows them all, and he can 
scarcely be a modest one, who fancies that of all the arts known 
to the ancients he is ignoraut of none. 

1. The Egyptians, it is contended, could not have possessed 
much gold, by any of the ordinary means by which that metal 3 18 
obtained. The statggnents made by Diodorus Siculus are disputed. 
ἔκ is denied that much gold dust is brought dowa by the Nile, or 
that gold is found deposited in the slime, . Neither is it true that 
Egypt was ever rich in mines of gold. The assertion of Ammian 18 
absurd, when he says, gurum eliciebant Egyptii .ex -omnibus 

VOL. XIX. Ci. Jl. NO. XXXVIII. U 


208 On the Sctence of the 


fere materiis, potissimum vero’ ex saxis omnis generis, et ex fnmo 
Nilotico. It was the policy of the kings of Egypt, say the writers 
whose arguments I am stating, to make it be believed that the 
country abounded in mines of gold, in order to divert attention 
from the mighty mystery of the Hermetic art. 

2. The Egyptians could not have collected much gold by war 
or by commerce. The history of Sesostris is a fable. All the 
countries bordering on Egypt were poor. A people who had no 
fleets of their own, who rarely quitted their native soil, and who 
avoided strangers, were not likely to enrich themselves either by 
commerce or by conquest. 

3. Whence then, itis asked, came the amazing wealth of Egypt? 
See in Herodotus and Diodorus what is said of the building of the 
great pyramid: 360,000 men were employed during 30 years in 
raising that stupendous fabric. The expense of the work must 
have been enormous ; and one very singular ztem is mentioned by 
the Greek historians. ‘The charge for garlick and onions for the 
workmen amounted to 1600 silver talents, about 600,000 pounds 
sterlmg. What prodigious sums must have been expended on: the 
temples, on the labyrinth, on the lake Moeris? The golden cirele 
which surrounded the spacious tomb of Osymandias, and which 
was one cubit in breadth and 365 in circumference, argues a pro- 
fusion of wealth of which we cannot form any adequate idea. 
Such indeed was the abundance of gold and silver, that the hunter 
formed his weapons, and the laborer his tools of these metals. 
But the question still remains unanswered—whence came this 
abundance of gold and silver? It is in vain: that the Greek histo- 
rians talk of mines. Where did they exist? How does it happen 
that neither curiosity nor cupidity can discover any traces of them 
in the Egyptian territory ? 4 

4. It appears that the Persian kings carried away all the gold 
which they could find in Egypt. When Herodotus. was in that 
country during the reign of Artaxerxes, there seems to have been 
very little gold in the possession of the inhabitants. But the 
second Ptolemy had not been long upon the throne before the 
wealth of Egypt “became again the wonder of the world. The 
treasures amassed by that Prince exceed all calculation, and he 
exhibited such riches on the day of his pomp, as Rome in all her 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. - 299 


glory never beheld collected’ together. Athenzus. has given us a 
very long and detailed account of -this pomp. - The golden plate, 
-which was used for the feast; without counting any of the objeets 
to be mentioned presently, amounted in weight to’ 10,000 talents, 
(about.1,130,000 Lib.) and was besides adorned with all ‘sorts of 
precious stones. When the procession went forth through the 
streets of Alexandria, the attention of the spectators was attracted 

from sun-rise to sun-set, by a continued blaze of gold and jewels. 
It would be much too lung to enumerate the goblets, bowls, 
basons, vases, censers, thyrsi, trophies, images, statues, columns, 
and altars of gold, which succeeded each other‘in rapid and 
dazzling succession. We may however remark two golden eagles . 
15 cubits in beight, 64 suits of armour, 20 shields, 100 beds, 200 
tripods, all of gald; besides 3200 golden crowns, 80 of which 
were adorned. with the most costly gems. ‘Then came the most 
extraordinary object of this extraordinary pomp. If this object, 125 
cubits in length, and six in thickness, were all cased in gold, as 
Athenzus indicates to have been the fact, it would be vain to 
calculate the value. The procession was closed by Ptolemy and 
his Queen, drawn in golden cars. Let us next hear what Josephus 
says of the price, which this same Ptolemy paid for the Greek 
translation of. the Pentateuch. Besides the rewards bestowed on 
the High Priest and the 72 interpreters, the king of Egypt made 
such presents to the Jews for the service and decoration of their 
temple, as exceed all other examples of princely munificence. 
Among these presents may be remarked 100 golden talents (about 
64,8001.,) for offering a sacrifice—20 golden basons adorned with 
jewels—a golden table for the show-bread. This table was two 
cubits in length, one in ‘breadth, and one and a half in height, nor 
would it be easy to estimate the v-lue, so beautiful were the 
ornaments, and so rich the materials. Here fruits and flowers 
-were imitated hy gems of every hue. A vine interwoven among 
the sculptured work hung round in festoons; and the tendrils of 
this vine, drawn out of the golden branches into curling wires, 
were so light and so fine that they trembled in the breeze. A 
golden crown was worked on the borders of the table; rods set 
with precious stones ran along the edges ; -and a zone of stars, that 
sent forth the rays of the ruby, the diamond, and the emerald, 


900 On the Science of the 


encircled the whole. Josephus msihuates in vain, that Ptolemy 
_ was guided by piety alone in this singular transaction. No motive 
of religion, or even of policy, appears to have influenced his conduct- 
He wished to display his magnificence to Judea, to Egypt, and to 
the world. He gave as much for one book as would have parchased 
a million. | 

How, say the writers to whom I refer, did Ptolemy Philadelphus 
acquire these riches ? The mines of Peru, of Mexico, and of India, 
would have searcely supplied, within a period of less than fifty years, 
the treasures in gold and precious stones, which were amassed by the 
two first Ptolemies. There is no other way of accounting for this 
sudden accumulation of wealth, add the same authors, than by suppos- 
ing, that the priests of Egypt had preserved by tradition the great 
secret of the Hermetic art, and had imparted it to the Greek 
monarchs, who relieved them from the Persian yoke. 

5. It is well known, continue these authors, that the Egypt 
Priests concealed their knowledge from the vulgar, and that for this 
purpose they not only employed hieroglyphical writing and a sacred 
language, but communicated their scientific discoveries to the 
initiated through the medium of enigmas, fables, and allegories. 
With respect to the art of making gold, if such an art really existed, 
the wisdom of concealing it cannot be questioned ; and it must be 
confessed that the singular care with which the Egyptians of the 
higher orders veiled their knowledge from the public, can hardly 
be accounted for, if it were only their object to hide their specu- 
lative opinions from the people. The Greeks and Romans, whio 
rarely understood the mysterious mythology of the Egyptians, 
altered and embellished it after their own manner. Still however 
some of them saw through the cloud,.and explained in a rational 
and philosupbic manner those enigmatical fables, which the 
vulgar took in the literal sense, and considered as the recorded 
truths of sacred history. But most of these fables were nothing 
else than allegories, relating to various subjects, both physical 
and metaphysical—to astronomy, to agriculture, to chemistry, 
and to the nature of the gods. The absurd system of Euhe- 
_-merus was invented to please the successors of the pretended 
son of Ammon; and it was probably adopted by later Pagans, 
who desired to flatter those Emperors of -the Romans, whe 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. ἈἜΒΟῚ 


i] 

aspired to the honors of the apotheosis. The Egyptian priests 
were possibly not sorry to explain, according to this system, 
the origin of profane theology; but the doctrine of Euhemerus is 
now as generally as it is justly exploded. The mythology of 
Egypt was nothing else than an allegorical or emblematical 
account of the system of science and of nature. In this account, 
it is contended, the chemical discoveries of the: Egyptians ought to 
have had their place. Every person, who knows any thing about 
ancient mythology, is of course acquainted with the writings of 
Sallust the philosopher. We ought then to examine, if among 
the fables, which Sallust would have. called mized, there be any, 
which relate to our subject. The writers whose arguments I 
continue to state, are of opinion that the story of Jason and the 
Golden Fleece is precisely in point. This is‘a otixed fable, which 
is astronomical in one sense, and chemical in another; but this 
fable is of Egyptian, not of Greek invention. The position of the 
ship Argo in the heavens would render this assertion evident, were 
we even without the authority of Plutarch for saying, that this 
constellation is of Egyptian origin. Canopus, the great star at the 
helm, is not visible beyond 35°. N. L. Now the,chemical sense 
of the fable, say the alchemists, is so clear, that some ancient Greek 
author, of whom Suidas, according to his custom, probably bor- 
rowed the language, thus expresses himself—ypucdparroy dégas— 
τοῦτο δὲ οὐχ ὡς ποιητικῶς φέρεται, AAR βιβλίον ἣν ἐν δέρμασι yeypap- 
μένον, περιέχον ὅπως δεῖ γίνεσθαι διὰ χημείας χρυσόν---ασΘοἰάεη Fleece— 
this ts not what it is peetically said to be, but ἐξ was a book written 
on skins, containing the mode of making gold by the atd of chemis- 
ry. The alchemists have explained what was meant by the 
dragon, and the oxen with brazen feet, which guarded the golden 
fleece ; nor is their explanation without some show of plausibility : 
but I wonder that they have neglected to cite a passage in Hesiod 
about Medea, and another passage in Apollonius Rhodius, in which 
it 1s said that the ram which carried Phrixus was converted into 
gold by Mercury. ᾿ 

6. But ἐξ is positively asserted, that the art of making gold was 
‘taught in Egypt; and that this art, which was known at Rome in 
the time of Augustus, was practised there in the reign of Caligula. 
It true that the process, as carried on at Rome, enpears to base 


802 On the Science of the . 


been imperfect ; but still the fact remains, that gold was made. 
This assertion is founded on the respectuble.testimony.of Phny.— 
aurum. faciendi est etiam una ratio ex auri-pigmento ; invitave- 
ralque spes Caium, Principem avidissimum auri; quamobrem 
jussit ercogui magnum pondus ; ut plane fecit aurum excellens ; sed 
ila parvi ponderis, ut detrimentum sentiret, illud propter avari- 
tiam expertus; quamquam auri-pigmenti libre XIV permutaren- 
tur. (1.. 34.4.) Suidas appears to have copied .the following 
article from some older Greek author—yypyela—f τοῦ ἀργύρου καὶ 
χρυσοῦ κατασκευὴ, ἧς τὰ βιβλία διερευνησάμενος ὁ Διοκλητιανὸς, ἔκαυσε, 
διὰ τὰ νεωτερισθέντα, Αἰγυπτίοις, --- Αιοκλητιανῷ--- τούτοις ἀνημέρως καὶ 
φοινιχῶς ἐχρήσατο" ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ χημείας χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου τοῖς 
παλαιοῖς γεγραμμένα βιβλία διερευνησάμενος, ἔ ἔκαυσε, πρὸς τὸ μηκέτι σλοῦ- 
τον Αἰγυπτίοις ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης προσγίνεσθαι τέχνης, μηδὲ χρημάτων αὐτοὺς 
θαῤῥοῦντας περιουσίᾳ τοῦ λοιποῦ Ρωμαίοις ἀνταίρειν. Chemistry (or 
more properly, what we generally mean by alchemy ;)—?the confe- 
tion of siloer and gold, of which Diocletian having sought out. the 
hooks, caused them to be burnt, on account of the tnnovatzons that 
might be attempted against him by the Egyptians, whom he had 
roughly and cruelly treated ; .and having therefore sought out the 
books written by the ancients concerning the chemical confection 
of gold and silver, he caused them to be burnt, in order that the 
Egyptians might neither procure wealth by this art, nor growing 
bold from their opulence, afterwards revolt from the. Romans. 

7. It is well known that much of the learning of .the school. of 
Alexandria was transmitted to the Arabians; and it would seem 
that the Arabians had preserved some traditions concerning .the 
existence of an art, by which the baser metals were converted into 
gold. ‘Without appealing to the emerald table of Hermes, or to 
the treatises on alchemy ascribed to Avicenna and Geber, which 
_ are probably all forgeries, we cannot doubt that the first alche- 
mists, who appeared in Europe, took not only their nomenclature, 
but their absurd metaphors and. allegories from the Arabians. 
Thus Raymond Lully employs ‘the curious corruptions recfage, 
adalphar, &c.; and talks of drowning the dragon of the Arabian 
desart, in the red sea, or the dead sea, I forget which. It may’ 
have possibly happened with this art, as with some others, . that: it 
once existed, and has been.lost. Roger Bacon believed in the -pos- 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 303: 


sible: transinutation of the baser metals into gold ; and his reason- 
ing amounted to this—Since carriages have been moved without: 
the aid uf animals—sinee boats have been impelled through the 
water without oars or sails—since men have been transported . 
through the air—since very distant and very minute objects may- 
be made perfectly clear to vision by means of glasses—and since 
the effects of thunder have been produced by a few grains of pow- 
der—how can it be contended that the transmutation of metals is 
linpossible ? In every one of these instances Bacon spoke of what 
had no existence in his own time. He had therefore received the- 
knowledge which he possessed of various arts from tradition, when 
those arts themselves had ceased for ages to be cultivated. Time 
has indeed renewed the existence of all of them, with the exception 
of that by which the baser metals were converted into gold. ‘The 
contemporaries of Roger Bacon were greatly mistaken-when they 
argued, that what was not done in their days could never have been 
done, unless, as some of them thought, by the aid of magic. We 
have now steam-boats, balloons, telescopes, and microscopes; and 
we smile at the ignorance of our ancestors, who believed that 
Bacon's assertions could only be verified by the assistance of the 
devil. But are we sure that we are much wiser ourselves, when 
we pronounce the art of making gold to be utterly fallacious, and 
the practice of it impossible, merely because we have not discovered 
it? 

8. It has been asserted, thatthe art of making gold was never 
heard of until after the time of Constantine, and that in fact it was 
never any thing better than the dream of some idle spirits in the 
dark ages. But the passage, which has been quoted from Pliny, 
contradicts this assertion ; and the following passage in Manilius 
(who florished in the time of Augustus) evidently refers to the 
Hermetic art. - 


—scrutari caca metalla, 
Depositas et opes, terreque erurere venas, 
Materiemque manu certa duplicarier arte. 


9. The ancient Egyptians cultivated the sciences for more than 
fifteencenturies. Themoderns have not been employed quite so long 
in the same pursuits, It seems strange then that they should fancy 


804 On the Science of the . 


that they have advanced much further. You say, you can do αἱ 

that the ancients could do in chemistry and a great deal more. 

Perhaps not so much as you think. Can you compose a cemeat, 

which shall be as hard and as durable as the stones it unites? You 

cannot ; but you contemn so vulgar and mechanical a secret. Can 

you render glass malleable? You cannot; and therefore you say 

that the thing is impossible. But Dio Cassius affirms that this 

was achieved in the time of Tiberius, who cruelly ordered the 

fabricator to be put to death. Pliny, it is true, expresses a doubt 
about the fact, but he admits that the report about it was very general. 
The Arabians certainly believed that the Egyptians possessed the 
art of making glass flexible ; and [dn “δα Alhokm mentions glass 
that would bend and not break, among the articles enclosed by 
Saurid in the western pyramid. It is well known that glass at ared 
heat is perfectly ductile ; and that when the process of refrigeration 

is carried on slowly, the glass is less fragile than when the same 

process is conducted too rapidly. In order to render the vitreoss 
matter yet less brittle when cooled, the workmen mix the oxyd of 
lead with it, while it is yet in a state of fusion. How then can we 
be positive, that some other combination might not render glass as 
malleable as gold? Pliny mentions another fact, about which he 
expresses no doubt at all. The Egyptians dipped a piece of white 
linen or catton, prepared for the purpose, in a boiler, and drew it 
out again dyed with various colors, according to the pattern designed 
by the artist. You cannot do this. Will you therefore deny the 
fact? Prosper Alpin says, that on opening an ancient Egyptian 
tomb, he found a sprig of rosemary as well preserved as the day it 
was pulled. Perhaps you will say that Prosper Alpin did not tell 

truth ; and that no chemical preparation can preserve the vegetable | 
life of the branch cut off from the parent stock. This will certainly 

be the easiest way of disposing of his testimony, which might 

otherwise embarrass you. But what have you to say about the 

mummies? Will you engage to embalm a dead body, that shall not 

moulder into dust during the lapse of twenty centaries? 

Having thus arranged, and set off, with what advantage I could, 
the arguments of those who think that the ancient Egyptians were 
possessed of the art of converting the baser nfetals into gold, I shall 
leave my readers to decide the question for themeclxes. - For -my 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 905 


own part, though I do not believe that the art of making gold has 


_ ever been known in modern times, yet I will not say that_it never 


- 


could exist. I leave this sentence tv be pronounced by those, who 
have either more knowledge, or less modesty than Boerhaave. 


» OF THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES. 


In a former number of the Classical Journal I stated it as my 
apinion, that Homer took the idea of the shield of Achilles from a 
model which he had seen in Egypt. M. Goguet thought that this 
model existed in Asia; and he expresses his belief that Homer had. 
never been in Egypt. But this opinion is contrary to that both of 


. Diodorus Siculus and of Plutarch. We may observe that the con-. 


stellations of the Wain and of Orion were depicted on the shield 
with the Sun and Moon. ‘This seems to refer to Egyptian mytho- 
logy. The Sun was the symbol of Osiris, and the Moon of Isis. 


_ Orion was the constellation of Horus, and the Wain of Typhon. 


But it is of little importance to my general argument, whether 
the model, from which Homer took his idea of the shield of 
Achilles, was seen by the poet at ‘Thebes or at Tsidon. 1 am 


. Satisfied in agreeing with.M. Goguet, that the model could not. 


have been found among the Greeks. It is however very surprising, 
that such a model should have existed at all, at a period when, 
according to our modern philosophers, the arts and sciences were 
in their infancy. Without speaking of the sculpture, we may. 
remark that the combination, the soldering, and the coloring of the 
metals could not have been effected without a great knowledge of 
metallurgy. ‘There were four metals employed—brass, (or rather, 
bronze,) tin, silver, and gold, The figures of men, animals, &c. 
must have been first carved,. or cast, and then soldered upon the. 
plane of the shield, or else inlaid. Some of the objects must have 
been soldered upon others: as the silver balustrade round the vine-. 
yard—the grapes on the:vines, &c. But the most extraordinary 
part of the whole is the coloring of the metals. Besides white, 
and yellow, and shades of brown, which the metals might them- 
selves have produced without the aid of art, other colors are 
distinctly marked and mentioned. First the color of blood, which 
Homer denotes by a word, which the translators choose. to render 


\ 


306, On the Science of .the ‘ 


black. But Homer, though blind in his old age, had had the use. 
of his eyes in his youth, and therefore he could never have 
fancied that blood is black. The word μέλας signifies dark- 
coloured, In the Odyssey, Homer, in speaking of a fountain, uses 
the words μέλαν ὕδωρ. Are we therefore to conclude, that this 
Water was as black as ink? Surely not. The epithet simply 
implies that the color was dark ; and when it is applied to blood, 
it indicates that the color of the blood was dark-red, or . purple. 
The mantle of Fate was red, the grapes were purple, and 
the oxen were dun. Now how were these colors to be pro-. 
duced by the four metals mentioned above? It is well known that 
oxygen is necessary to the developement of caloric ; and perbaps 
it is not less so to the developement of the lucid principle. Cer- 
tain it is at least, that metals are colored by oxydation ; that is to 
say, they are colored as they absorb oxygen, either in consequence 
of the application of heat, or of the application of an acid. -Bu 
here two difficulties occur—how could the colors required be 
given to the metals in question by oxydating them ?—and how could 
those colors be rendered fixed? The dun color of the oxen might 
be rendered by the bronze having a more than usual proportion of 
copper mixed with the tin. For the red mantle, the tin might, by 
very great heat, be brought to assume the appearance of a ruby- 
colored vitrification. ‘The same metal being placed in a dissolu- 
tion of gold, will take from the precipitate of the gold a purple 
color; but this color requires to be fixed. M.Goguet says the 
grapes might have been of steel; but Homer has enumerated 
the metals employed ; and if we quit his authority, we may say 
auy thing we please. I admire the pretty colored engraving, which 
M. Quatremére.has lately published of the shield of Achilles; 
but I think it rather too gaudy. The description of the shield. 
seems certainly to indicate, that chemistry and metallurgy must 
have been farther advanced before the days of Homer, than the 
moderns are generally disposed to allow. Even Goguet, who. 
thought that the Pheenicians had not sufficient nautical skill to have 
vailed from Spain to Britain, yet testifies his admiration of the art, 
which could have produced such a work as the shield of Achilles, . _ 


~ tf @ 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 907. 


THE MARINER’S COMPASS. 


The invention of the Mariner’s compass is generally attributed 
to Flavio Gioja of Amalfi, who lived in the 14th century. That 
this:Gioja improved the compass may be easily admitted; but I 
think it impossible to acknowledge him for its inventor. One 
Brunet, in his old French, gives the following curious description 
of a magnet which had been shown to him im the 13th century 
by Roger Bacon—La magnete pierre laide et noire ou ele fers 
volontiers se joint, l’on touche ob une aiguillet, et en festue Von 
Jischie. - Puis Von mette en Caigue, et se tient dessus, et la pointe se 
torne contre [estvile, quand la nuit fut tembrous, et Con ne voit 
estorle ne lune, poet li mariner tenir droite voie. This old French 
is at least intelligible ; and I wished to give it in the original ortho- 
graphy. But the mariner’s compass was known before the time of 
Roger Bacon. Take the following verses, which were written in 
the 12th century, as a proof: 


Un art font, qui mentir ne peut 
Par la vertu de la mariniere, 
Une pierre laide et bruniere 

Ou li fers volontiers se joint, 
Ont, st esgardent lc droit point ; 
Puisqu’ une aguille ont touchee, 
Et én festus Pon couchée 

En eve le mettent sans plus, 
Et le festus la tiennent dessus. 

« Puis se tourne la pointe toute 
Contre Pestoile, si sans doute, 
Que ja nul hom n’en doutera, 
Ne ja por rien ne faussera ; 
Quand la mer est obscure et brune 
Quand ne voit ne estoile ne lune, 
Dont font a Paguille allumer, 
Puis n’ont ils garde desgarer, 
Contre l’estoile va la pointe. 


But it seems difficult to imagine that the properties of the 
magnetic needle were first discovered in the 12th century—in aa’ 


308 _ On the Science of the "— 


age of intellectual darkness. Is it uot more probable, that the use 
and knowledge of the magnet were brought from the East? Some 
writers have fancied that the Greeks and Romans were no strangers 
to all the properties of the magnet. Albertus Magnus has indeed 
appealed to a passage in the treatise de lapidibus attributed to 
- Aristotle, which would leave no doubt on the subject, were 
that treatise genuine. 1 shall have to spéak afterwards of the 
testimony of Albertus ; but in the mean time | must observe, that 
though the Greeks and Romans knew that the magnet. attracts 
iron, yet beyond this their knowledge does notappear to have gone. 
We are therefore under the necessity ‘of admitting, either that the 
polarity of the magnetic needle was happily and wonderfully 
discovered by the: Europeans, at a period when they were plunged 
in the grossest ignorance, or that the knowledge of this important 
fact was communicated to them by the Orientalists. But had the 
discovery been made by the Europeans, it is strange that the name 
of the inventor should remain unknown. The Cardinal de ὙΠ, 
who wrote about the year 1200, seems to indicate that the western 
nations were indebted to the Indians ‘for the knowledge of this 
curious secret of nature. He uttributes the properties of the load- 
stone to the diamond; and this mistake only serves to show, that 
the Europeans had heard of the virtues of the magnet, before they 
well knew what the magnet was. Adamas in India reperitur, 
. says the Cardinal; ferrum occulta quadam ngtura ad se trahit. 
Acus ferrea postquam adamantem contigerit, ad stellam septen- 
trionalem, que velut axis firmamenti. aliis vergentibus non movetur, 
semper couvertitur, unde valde -necessaria est navigantibus. 
That the poles of the magnetic needle, when it can turn freely, 
are always nearly directed to the poles of the earth, is a fact with 
which the Bramins assert that their ancestors were acquainted from 
remote antiquity. ‘The Chinese make a similar pretension. The 
author of the Spectacle de la Nature says, that the Indians and 
Chinese knew nothing of the magnetic needle, until they were. 
informed of its properties by Marco Paolo. It is then singular 
enough that this traveller should be generally supposed to have 
known nothing on the subject himself, until he had visited the 
East. I may be told, that the Orientalists:obtained their know- 

dedge from the Europeans, aud then forged histories to prove that 


a 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 309 


they were indebted for this knowledge to their ancestors alone. 
This mode of reasoning , I believe, not uncommon ; but I can- 
not think it either just or candid. In the case before us we have 
evidence which deserves attention. In the Chmese Chronicle, 
which was compiled by the late Emperor Kien-Long, it is stated 
that the Emperor Hoang-t?, who lived more than 2000 years 
before our wra, caused a car to be constructed, upon which a 
figure was placed, and this figure always pointed to the south, 
whatever might be the direction in which the car was driven. It is 
likewise recorded m the Chinese annals, that a swmilar car was 
constructed in the time of Hien-toung, about 1000 years ago. It 
seems pretty evident, that the figure must have been. fixed upon a 
magnetic rod of iron, which could turn freely round, like the 
needle in the mariner’s compass. This rod would always point, 
when it rested, north and south ; and it would depend on the 
artist to make the figure point either to the one pole, or to the 
other, as he chose. Now this fact is not related as if it were 
intended to prove to the Europeans, that the Chinese had been 
acquainted with, the magnetic needle from remote antiquity. A 
story forged for this purpose would most probably have repre-~ 
sented the figure as always pointing to the north; and some 
allusion at least would have been made to the magnet. But there 
is nothing of this. The circumstance is simply mentioned ; and it 
is left to the reader to account for it as he can. 

If the ‘properties of the magnetic needle were known from re- 
mote antiquity to the Indians and the Chinese, we can hardly 
suppose that the Egyptians and the Phoenicians were ignorant of 
them. M. Goguet indeed tells us, that the Pheenicians were so 
little skilled in navigation that they never ventured to sail from the 
coast of Spain, whither they had certainly penetrated, ta the 
British islands. The learned author finds tin for the Greeks and 
Phoenicians, in Asia and Africa; and the Casseterides may be any 
where but on the coast of Cornwall. This opinion evidently pro- 
ceeded from the contempt in which M. Goguet held the attain- 
ments of the Egyptians and Pheenicians in nautical affairs. But 
we have too many proofs that the Phoenicians must have had a 
direct communication both with South-Britain and with Ireland, ἴα. 
be swayed by the sentiments of this learned but prejudiced waiter, 


~ 


510 . On the Science of the 


There can however be .no question at all, that the Phoenicians 
sailed beyond the pillars of Hercules. I shall say nothmg here of 
the Atlantis of Plato, or of the.American tribes, whose dialects, 
according to Mr. Adams, contain many words that -are- pure 
Pheenician, and whose religion bears so much resemblance to that 
of the eastern idolaters. It is sufficient to remark, that the Phe- 
nicians made voyages which were so long, and which must. have been 
so perilous, that it is difficult to imagine that they were really 
unskilful navigators.. We are.told by modern authors, however, 
that these navigators had no. other guides than their knowledge of 
the coasts, and the observation of the stars in the constellations. of 
the Wain and of Ursa. Minor. But when the Phoenicians con- 
ducted the fleets of Solomon to Ophir—when they navigated:.the 
Indian Ocean, it was surely not by observing the northern con- 
stellations that they reached the shores.of Taprobana. In the 
time of Pharaoh Nechos a fleet. sailed from the Red Sea,: and 
returned to Egypt.by the Mediterranean. ‘The navigators of this 
fleet must have doubled the Cape of Good Hope, where only. one 
of the seven stars of the Wain can be seen, and where Ursa Minor 
is never visible at all. 

With respect to the opinion of Goguet, who thought that the 
Pheenicians had never reached the shores of Britain, merely because 
he likewise thought that. their nautical skill was insufficient. to 
carry them thither, I so entirely differ from it, that I believe. that 
they extended their voyages to the North far beyond the British 
isles, even to the neighbourhood of the Arctic circle. Pytheas of 
Marseille, who florished before the time of Alexander, pretended 
that he had sailed so far to the North that at the summer salstice 
the sun did not set at all.. Strabo treats this account as an.idle 
tale: and indeed it is little probable that the Greeks, or any of their 
colonists, fitted outa fleet, or even a ship, for the purpose of 
exploring the northern ocean. The Greek historians would not 
have passed over such an undertaking in silence. But.there can be 
little doubt, I think, that the voyage which Pytheas described, 
must have been made. A navigator who had never quitted the Medi- 
terranean, could scarcely have fancied that the sun-does not set — 
at the summer solstice in the Arctic regions.. Besides, the account 


| _ Of the Jand discovered seems to indicate that the navigators must 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 811 


have approached the coast of Iceland. But who .were these 

navigators? Not the Greeks, because their historians say 

of such an expedition. I conclude therefore, that the Phcenicians,. ᾿ 

' the ablest mariners of the ancient world, were those to whom the 
honor of the enterprise should be attributed. 

Is it too much for the jealous pride of modern science to admit, 
that the Egyptians and Pheenicians might have possessed an instru- 
ment resembling the marimer’s compass? Albertus Magnus, who 
florished in the 13th century, has cited a passage from a treatise attri- 
buted to Aristotle. This passage probably did not come from the 
pen of the Stagirite, but was translated from the Arabic by Albertus. 
Certain it is that such a treatise, purporting to be a version of Ariss 
totle, sull exists in the Arabic language. The words, as Albertus 
gives them, run thus—anxgulus magnetis cujusdam est, cujus virtus 
epprekendendi ferrum est ad zoron, hoc est septentrionalem, et hoc _ 
utuntur naute; angulus vero aus magnetts tli oppositus trahit ad 
aphron, td est polum meridionalem, et st approximes ferrum versus 
gngulum zoron converttt se ferrum ad zoron, et si ad oppositum an- 
gulum approximes, convertit se directe ad aphron. I conceive that 
this sentence conveys the sense of some ancient Oriental tradition con- 
ceroing the magnet and the magnetic needle. ‘The words zoron and 
aphron have generally been considered as barbarous terms, which 
catinot be traced to any politelanguage. The celebrated Andres, inhis 
history of literature, holds a different opinion, He says that these ᾿ 

are corruptions from the Arabic words giarun,a hot wind, and avrun, 
the north, Itisnot always easy to tell what wordsare meant, when qu- 
thors employ European characters for the expression of Oriental 
sounds; but I cannot think the guess of Signor Andres a very happy 
ene. Mr. Hager says, quantunque ts non abbia finora trovato che 
giarun si usi per il meriggio; avr, o colla nunnazione, aorun, é 
parola Araba, la quale, secondo i due pid celebri lessicograft 
Arabi, ouol dire settentrione; ὁ zohr, o zuhr, é altresi un termine 
Arabo, che significa meriggio, siccome zohar lo vuol dire in 
Ebraico. That the two poles were named zoron and aphron in 
Arabic is confirmed by the testimony of Vincent de Beauvais, who 
lived in the 1Sth century, and who is cited by Mr. Hager; but f 
think this last writer would have hardly ventured on the explanatidu 
which he offers of these words, had he seen the passage Wada L 


3519 . On the Sctence of the 


have quoted from Albertus Magnus, who says that zoron signifies 
the north, and aphron the south. There can be no doubt that . ΜΙ 


signifies the north, and that if we add the tenwan, ' we May pro- 


nounce al-avron. Again, if the word ,¢b-be read “ὦ, we may 
pronounce ¢saran, though an Arabian would probably pronounce 
dhsaran. This word signifies the middle of the day. But Mr. 
Hager’s explanation directly contradicts the assertion of ἴδε. 
Arabian author from whose treatise Albertus quotes. ‘Though it 
be true, that al-aor, or al-avron, signifies the north, it also signi- 
fies heat; and a hot wind 1s called » in Arabic. But this was 


also the ancient name of the sun in the same language, and 
accordingly it bears that signification in the book of Job. I 
would however rather consider 51 as the radical letters in Aphror 


or perhaps only’ γ8. It is true that we shall find no word either τ 


in Arabic or Hebrew, which gives us a name for the south under 
this form; but let us observe that phrah, or pharah, signifies to 
be fruitful; the country of the south, to which the fleets of 
Solomon sailed, was called YDIN Ophir; the name of Aphrica, 
or Africa, was chosen for the hottest portion of the globe; and an 
inhabitant of that country was called Afer. The Egyptian words 
equivalent to ὁ ἥλιος and to ὁ νότος were phre and phres. With 
respect to the word zoron, I believe it to have been really an 
ancient Arabic word. “Wi is clearly a formative from 4} or “Wt; and 
-at Job xxxvii. 9. we have the following words—i1DD NIN WHT IO 
Mp OM) — out of the south cometh the whirlwind, and 
cold out of thenorth. Upon the whole then I am inclined to think, 
that aphron and zoron ought not to be considered as words coined 
- by Albertus, and adopted by Vincent, in the 1Sth century. They 
seem to be really of Oriental origin. 

Mr. Hager observes, that Renaudot and Azuni are mistaken 
when they state that the Orientalists call the mariner’s compass by - 
a name resembling the Italian word bussola. a bussola, says he, 
chiamasi ora kible name (xal3 a5) ὁ chibre name (2415 yas) 
ora kutub nume (us abs) tn quelle tre lingue (Arabic, Turkish, 
and Persian): siccome in Cinese si dice ora kepuon, ora ohne 


- 


Egyptians and Chaldeans. 313 
0 sci-nan, per nulla dite di altri popoli Orientali, 1 cannot con- 
firm Mr. Hager’s statement from my own knowledge, but he refers 
to Meninski. Certainly, however, obit al-kutud is the name of the 


polar star’in Arabic; and kutub name appears to signify that 


which tells or indicates the polar star. I have not been able to find’ 


the Chinese words, which Mr. Hager has adduced, in the dic- 
tionary of De Guignes ; but this may be my fault. It can scarcely 
however be doubted, that the Chinese were acquainted with the 
polarity of the magnetic needle from remote antiquity. (Martini 
Histor. Sinic. L. 4. Maila Hist. Gén. de la Chine. See also Bar- 
row’s Travels, Val. 3.) 

From the observations which I have already made, I think it must 
be admitted that the ancient Orientalists were acquainted with the 
use of the mariner’s compass, or with an instrument which was similar 
to it. Shall we say that the Chinese were the imventors of this 
instrument? Their claims are more ancient than those of the 
Arabians ; but yet I cannot bring myself to believe that China 
was the cradle of the sciences. It is made quite clear by Gaubil, 
that the Chinese had observed an eclipse of the Sun 2155 years 
before Christ ; and that their astronomical charts of very ancient date 
contained many stars, which are invisible without the help of the 


telescope. But though they could calculate eclipses, and seem to. 


have known the periods in which some of the planets revolve round 
the Sun; yet their knowledge seems always to have been mixed 


with so much ignorance, that I am led to think that it was chiefly . 


obtained from foreign sources, and that they never were dis- 
tinguished for their progress in the sciences. 

In the annals of the Egyptians we meet with little to authorise 
us to suppose that they were acquainted with the polarity of the 
needle, if we can believé that so scientific a people could have been 
Ignorant of a fact, which was not unknown to other Oriental 
nations, There are however some circumstances, which indicate 


that the Egyptians were really no strangers to this fact; but, like . 


other secrets of their science, it must be looked at through the veil 
of allegory. Dr. Greaves found a magnet, formed in the shape 
of a beetle, on the breast of a mummy. Now we know that the 
beetle was a solar type; and the use of this magnet had been 
VOL. XIX.  Ξ Cl, Jl. NO. XXXKVUL. >< 


/ 


-? 


414 On the Science of the Egyptians, &:c. 


undoubtedly to point north and south, and thus served to indicate 
to its possessor, when the Sun came to the meridian. We learn from 
Plutarch, that the north was the region of Typhon, and the south 
that of Horus—that the Great Bear was the constellation of the 
former, and Orion that of. the latter. But Plutarch tells us, that 
the loadstone was called the bone of Horus, and the iron the bone of 
Typhon. It is further remarkable, that the poets almost always put 
Orion and the Great Bear in opposition, though the relative positions 
of these two constellations do not strictly correspond with this sup- 
posed hostility. Hear Euripides, fon, 1152:. 


Πλειὰς μὲν yes μεσοπόρου δι᾽ αἰθέρος, 

"Ors ξιφήρης ᾿Ωρίων, ὕπερθε δὲ 

ἤλρκτος. στρέφουσ᾽ οὐραῖα χρυσήρει πόλωι, 

Why is Orion called ξιφήρης ἡ Why is lie represented with a 

sword which he points to the north? Why does the Latin. poet 
term him ferroque minar? Is it meant that Orion, or Hors, 
having wrested the iron from Typhon, always points it against him? 
Homer, after remarking that the Bear turns round the pole, adds 
καὶ τὸν ᾿Ωρίωνα δοκεύει. The scholrast says that the Bear alway 
contemplates Orion as the leader of the Dog, βλέπει “γὰρ, com 
tinues he, ἣ μεγάλη ἄρκτος πρὸς τὸ τοῦ ᾿Ωρίωνος ἄστρον. The. 
Egyptian fable of the enmity between Horus and Typhon was an 
allegory, which was probably made applicable to various subjects. 
In short it was a mixed fable. The loadstone was the bone of 
Horus ; the iron was the bone of Typhon. The constellation of 
Typhon, om one side of the zodiac, is represented.as. always pointing 
to, and regarding the constellation of Horus on the other, as the 
Iron turns towards the magnet. Horus, or Orion, the lord of the 
south, points his sword towards Typhon, the lord. of the: north, as 
the needle points to the pole. These allusions. may seem strained 
and remote ; but we must be often contented with such, in endea- 
‘vouring to explain the mystical and symbolical types, by which the 
Egyptians darkly expressed their knowledge. When we are told 
that l'yphon ruled the region to the right hand (thenorth); that Horus 
ruled the region to the left hand (the south); and that the load- 
stone was the bone (the strength) of Horus, and the iron the bone 
(the strength) of Typhon ; how can we doubt that some indication, 


De Carminibus, 8:6. 81 


though it be obscurely expressed, is given of the polarity of the 
magnetic needle? I have not acopy of Hor-Apollo at hand; but, 
if I do not forget, he mentions the needle as an Egyptian hiero- 
glyphic. The author of the book entitled Hlor-Apollo was a Greek, 
named Philip, who lived in the fourth century; and his explana- 
tions of the ancient hieroglyphics are often very unsatisfactory. If 
a needle existed among the curiologic characters, it probably 
indicated the magnetic needle. What else could a needle signify 
in the hieroglyphical writings of the sages of Egypt? 


| W. DRUMMOND. 
Florence, Dec. 1818. ! 


DE CARMINIBUS ARISTOPHANIS 
COMMENTARIUS; 


Avcrore G. B. 


Pars VIII.—[Vid. No. XXXVIL. p. 1311 


In Equitibus ne unum quidem exstat carmen Antistrophicum ; 
quod ipse primus reperi; neque plus quam duo ad Epodorum 
formam redigenda sunt, Horum prius sic lege. v. 284. et sqq. 
KA. ἀποβανεῖσθον αὐτίκα μάλα, 
καταβοήσομαι σοβῶν σέ" 
AA, τριπλάσιον κεκράξομαι, σὸν 
κατὰ κάρανον ἐξακρίξζων" 
ΚΑ. διαβαλῶ σέ γ᾽ ὧν στρατηγός". 
AA, περιελῶ σ᾽ ἀλαζονείαις. 
KA. ὑποτέμοιμ᾽ ἂν τὰς ὁδοὺς σοῦ" 
AA, κυνοκοπήσω σοῦ τὸ νῶτον' 
ΚΑ. διαφορήσω σ᾽, εἴ τι γρύξει" 
AA. κοπροφορήσω σ᾽, εἰ λαλήσεις. 10 
ΚΑ. βλέψον eis μ᾽ ἀσκαρδάμυκτος" 
AA. ἐν ἀγορᾷ κἀγὼ τέθραμμαι" 
KA. ὁμολογῶ κλέπτειν" σὺ δ᾽ οὐχί" 
ΑΛ. κἀπιορχῶ γε βλεπόντων," 


we 


ὃ 


-aliter dispositas. 


t 


316 De Carminibus Aristophanis 


vy τὸν 'Ερμῆν τὸν ᾿Αγοραῖον. 15 

ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερα τοίνυν σοφίζου. ες 
ΚΑ. καί σε φήσω γ᾽ ἀδεκατεύτους 

κοιλίας πὦλεϊν ἔχοντα. 


Inter hec et versuum sedem et voces ipsas mutavi. Vulgo α΄, γί, 
β΄. Atineptum esset τριπλάσιον κεχράξομαι, ab altero dictum, cum 
nondum ab alterius ore venisset καταβοήσομαι. Etenim illo τριπλά- 
σιον indicatur loquendi climax. Quod ad voces, Comicum igno- 
rare debeat is, qui credat in tali loco scriptum esse χεχράξομαι, 
καταβοήσομαι et xataxexeakouai—necnon βοῶν et xpalwy: quasi 
vocibus istis inesset pondus aliquid, neque dialogi ratio aliud quid 
postularet. Ipse quidem nullus hesitavi eruere κατὰ κάραν 
ἐξακρίζων e κατακεχράξομαί σε κράζων, memor Homerici κατ᾽ avdpan 
κράατα βαίνει : qui gestus est hominis fastu elati; quem aque bene 
depingunt verba κατὰ xagavoy ἐξακχρίζων : etenim éaxpifesy, quod 
usurpat Euripides in Orest, 275, necnon dxpitev, in (Εἶπε frag- 
mento, una cum ἀκροβάζειν et ἀκροβηματίξζειν, omma idem signifi- 
cant atque τοῖς κοσὶν ἄκροις βαίνειν. vel illud Suphocleum in Aj. 
1917. ‘IAA ἐκόμπεις κἀπ᾽ ἄκρων ὠδοιπόρεις : ubt Lobeckius citat, 
post Musgravium, ex Libanio ἐπ᾿ ἄκρων πορεύονται εἴ σοβῶν # 
καὶ ἄνω βαίνων : unde se tuetur quoque meum σοβῶν in Aristo 
phane : qui verbum id et composita sepe usurpat. Kusteri Inda 
dat YoBew bis, ᾿Αποσοβεῖν quater, et Περισοβεῖν semel. ΕΣ quibus 
opportune perquam allegatur Eq. 60. ἀποσοβεῖ τοὺς ῥήτορας scil. 
Cleon: quod idem hic facere minatur. V.5. Vulgo σ᾽ ἐὰν στρα- 
τηγῇς. At nondum dixerat Allantapola se στρατηγεῖν futurum. 


- Contra vero Cleon ipse fuerat olim στρατηγὸς in profectione ad 


Pylum : fuit quoque etiam nunc inter τοὺς στρατηγούς : quorum 
mentio facta est apud Schol. ad Eq. 922. V. 6. Vulgo ἀλαζονείας. 
Sed mecum facit Eq. 903. Ἢ γὰρ θεός μ’ ἐκόλευσε νικῇσαϊ σ᾽ 
ἀλαζονείᾳ : et 887. Οἷοις πιθηχισμοῖς με περιελαύνεις. V. 7. Vulgo 
ὑποτεμοῦμαι. At nihil hic habet vox media. Certe ἐχτεμῶ exstat 
in Eq. 374. Τὸν πρηγορῶνα σοῦ ᾽χτεμῷ : et Ran. 583. τὸν λάρυγγ᾽ 
dv ἐκτέμοιμί σου : et ἀποτεμῶ apud Cratinum in Lex. Bekker. p. 
28. ᾿Αποτεμεῖν μηχάνας. Κρατῖνος. Τούτου 8 ἁπάσας ἀποτεμῶ τὰς 
μηχάνας. V. 9, 10,11, 12. Vulgo γ΄, δ΄, α΄, β΄. Sed futura illa 
tempora plane indicant sedem suam.. V.9. Ita Elmsl. ad Ach. 
278. at ypuges Suid. in Κόκρια. V. 16, ἀλλότρια τοίνυν σοφίζου. 
At bec minime ad Cleonem pertinent, verum ad ’AAAayr—qui 
monet adversarium nova debere meditari, ne victus ab arena 
discedere videatur, V. 17. Vulgo φαίνω τοῖς. Πρυτάνεσιν ἀδεκ----τ. 
θ. ἐχ. κοι. At bene sit Atheneo 111. p. 94. Ὁ. scribenti ᾿άριστο- 
φανὴς ἐν ᾿Ἱππεῦσι' καὶ σὲ φήσω ἀδεκατεύτους χοιλίας κωλεῖν, Unde 
patet, metro confirmatum, gl. esse τοῖς Πρυτάνεσιν, et voces olint 


Ν 


Commentarius. : 317 


303 et 544. orp. α΄. 

$22 et 844. στρ. β΄. Ita Hermann, de Metr. p. 189=208. 
382 et 544. ἀντιστρ. α΄, ed. 2. et Bentl. 

801 et sqq. ἀντιστρ. β', 


367 et sqq. Hi versus habentur pro στρ. γ΄. et $43 et sqq. pro 
ἀντιστρ. γ΄. Verum ii inter se concihari non possunt, nisi sex versus 
antistrophum preeuntes in limine emendentur: quod hie faciam. 
In 435 et sqq. quid editiones exhibeant, mox videbimus. Seripsit 
quidem Aristophanes sic : ot, 
KA. οὔτοι μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα καταπροίξει τάλαντα πολλὰ 

κλέψας ᾿Αθηνῶν" 
XO. τούς γε τέρθρους τοῦ ποδὸς παρίει. 

ὡς οὗτος ἢ τὰ Καικίας ἣ συκοφαντίας πνεῖ. 
ΑΛ. σὲ δ᾽ ἐκ Ποτιδαίας ἔχοντ᾽ εὖ olf ἕκατον τάλαντα' 
KA. τί δῆτα, βούλει τῶν ταλάντων ἕν λαβὼν σιωπᾶν" 
ΧΟ. ἀνὴρ ὧν, ὅδ᾽ ἡδέως λάβοι Sex’ ἄθρει" τὸ πνεῦμ᾽ ἔλαττον. 

᾿ ἀντιστρ. γ. στρ. γ΄. 

KA, φεύξει δ᾽ ἀγραφίου τέτταρας. ΚΑ. οἷον σὲ δήσω ᾽ν τῷ ξύλῳ. 367 
AA, σὺ δ᾽ ἀστρατείας εἴκοσιν, 441 ΑΛ. διοίξομεν σὲ κοιλίας. 


κλοτῆς δὲ πλεῖν ἢ χιλίας. ΚΑ. ἡ βύρσα σοῦ θρανεύσεται. 
ΚΑ. ἐκ τῶν ἀλιτηρίων σέ φη--- ΑΛ. σαρῶ σὲ θύλακον κλοπῆς. 
μι γεγονέναι τῶν ποσθίων. KA, διαπατταλευθήσει χάμαι.57] 


ΑΛ. τὸν πάππον εἶναι φημὶ σὸν445 AA. περικόμματ᾽ ἐκ σοῦ σκευάσω. 
τῶν δρυοβαφῶν. KA. ποίων, ΚΛ. τὰς βλεφαρίδας σοῦ περιτιλῶ. 


φράσον. 
AA. τῶν βυρσοίνης τῆς ᾿Ιππίου' AA. τὸν πρηγορῶνα σοῦ ᾽κτεμῶ" 
KA. κόβαλος εἶ, ΑΛ. πανοῦργος εἶ. ΧΟ. καὶ, νὴ AP ἐμβαλόντες αὐτ- 
ΧΟ. ral ἀνδρικῶς. KA. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ ᾧ πάτταλον μαγειρικῶς 
τὐπτουσί μ᾽ οἱ ξυνωμόται" 450 εἰς τὸ στόμ᾽, εἶτ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἔγδοθεν 
ΧΟ. wav αὐτὸν ἀνδρικώτατ᾽ εὖ" τὴν γλῶτταν ἐξείραντες, αὐ- 
γάστριζε καὶ τοῖς ἐντέροις τοῦ σκεψόμεσθ᾽ εὖ κἀνδρικῶς 
καὶ τοῖς κόλοις, " χεχηνότος 980 
ὅπως κολᾷ τὸν ἄνδρα. τὸν πρωκτὸν, εἰ χαλαζᾷ. 


Inter Octonarios vulgantur lectiones ha: 


Κλέψας ᾿Αθηναίων ἄθρει καὶ τοῦ ποδὸς παρίει. et mox 
-------.-.-- λάβοι τοὺς δὲ θρίους παρίει. dein : 
τὸ πνεῦμ᾽ ἔλαττον γίνεται. inde erul 
κλέψας ᾿Αθηνῶν" τούς γε τέρθρους τοῦ ποδὸς maples. et 
---.--.--- τ λάβοι [δέκ᾽] ἄϑρει" τὸ πνεῦμ’ ἔλαττον. 
Etenim, ut ordiar a rebus minimi ponderis, pro δὲ MS. unus, τε: 
duo alii τοὺς τεθρίους. at Rav. rods τερθρίους. At Hesych. Τέρθροι, of 
εἰς τὸ κέρας τοῦ ἱστίου ἑκατέρωθεν δεδεμένοι, ἐν οἷς τὸ ἅρμενον ἕλκουσι. 
Feci igitur τούς γε τέρθρους : que sunt e sede sua dejecta, cum 
librarit oculos isretivisset ἄθρει, in eo laco, ubi ἃ me ponitur. 


918 , De Carminibus Aristophanis 


Restitutis igitur τούς γε τέρθρους et resecto ἄθρει, versus miensura 
postulat ᾿Αθηνῶν, Athenarum. Mox deleto γίγνεται, quod hic 
sicut in Vesp. 1226. adberet, syntaxin fulciendi causa, evadit 
versus ᾿Ανὴρ ἄν ὅδ᾽ ἡδέως λάβοι. ἄθρει τὸ πνεῦμ᾽ ἔλαττον : ubi hiatum 
implere poterat Heathianum γ᾽ : at ipse huc retuli δέκ᾽ e ν. 438. 


εὖ olde δέκα τάλαντα : ibi enim legi debet εὖ οἶδ᾽ ἕκατον τάλαντα 6 V.. 


451. Φεύξει γράφας ἕκατον ταλάντους τεττάρας : verum 10] illa anti- 
climax in ἕκατον ταλάντους et εἴκοσι prohibet lectionem vulgatam. 
Suo igitur loco restitutis et éxaroy τάλαντα et δέκα, restat ut expo- 
nam Comici mentem. Facete quidem Cleoni vitio vertitur, quod, 
cum ille Allantopolam corrumpere conatus fuit uno tantum talento, 
ipse non nisi decem talenta sibi dari voluit, τοῦ σιωπᾷν ἕνεκα, 
Inserui igitur ὅδ᾽ omissum ante ἡδέως, ut ea voce dicta, Chorus 
digito intendat ad Cleonem. Similiter in Vesp. 684. οὗτος ῥαδίως 
Dawesii conjecturam firmat Menandreum in ᾿Δσπίδι, Οὗτοι ῥᾳδίως. 
V. 440. Deleto ἕκατον ταλάντους, versus deficit: et defecisset 
sensus, illo verbo non deleto. Sententize nexus postulat aliquid, 
quod conveniat cum genitivo ἀστρατείας. Reposul ’Aypagin. 
Suide gl. est: "Aypagiou δίκην. Τῶν ἐκ καταδίκης ὠφληκότων τῷ 
δημοσίῳ γράφουσι τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν σανίσιν οἱ κατὰ καιρὸν περὶ τούτωι 


διοικοῦντες, προστιθέντες ἀνὰ πόσον ἐστὶ τὸ ὄφλημα ὅταν δὲ ἀποδιδῷ 


ἕκαστος, ἐξαλείφεται τῆς σανίδος τὸ ἐπίγραμμα. ἐὰν οὖν τις ἀναγραάβῃ 
μὲν ὠφληχέναι, δόξῃ δὲ μὴ ἀποδεδωκέναι, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐξηλειμμένον 
ἢ ἐκ τῆς σανίδος, συγκεχώρηται τῷ βουλομένῳ τῶν ἀστῶν εἰσάγειν κατ' 
αὐτοῦ δίκην ἀγραφίουι Allantopola igitur et Cleon minantur, alter 
alteri, actiones non leves, ut patete Demosthen. Κατὰ Θεοχρίνου 
p. 1838. Reisk, v. 444. Vulgo, φημὶ γεγονέναι τῶν τῆς θεοῦ. Αἱ 
quis sit illa dea plane nescio. Erui τῶν ποσϑίων. Ridet Comicus 
1188 dictiones εὐθυῤῥήμονας apud Homerum ἰῆς ἐκ νηδύος Theognid. 
904. ἐκ γαστρὸς---μιᾶς γεγόνη. Aschylum Fragm. Incert. 85. Ha- 
τρός τε ταὐτοῦ νηδυὸς μιᾶς τ᾽ ἄπο: quod respexit fortasse Noster in 
Ach. 790. ‘Qs ξυγγενὴς 6 κύσθος αὐτῆς θἀτέρᾳ. ‘Opoparpla γάρ 
ἐστι κἠκ ταὐτοῦ πατρός : ubi preestat ᾿ομογαστρία. melius enim 
γαστὴρ quam μήτηρ voci κύσϑος respondet. Suid. Πόσθιον, τὸ αἰδοῖον, 
collatis ‘Thesm. 521 et 46]. V. 446. Vulgo, δορυφόρων. Reposui- 
δρυοβάφων. Etenim ApvoBagy sunt, teste Hesychic, ἱμάτια τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
κελύφους τοῦ δρυὸς βεβαμμένα. Hodie etiam cortex quercis in 
eundem usum comparatur a corilariis: inter quos fuit Cleon, 
dictus Βυρσοδέψης, et, a Nostro fortasse, Βυρσόπαππος, non Βυρσό- 
χαππος ut exhibetur in Hesychio. Hic vero aliis placere poterit 
δρυοφόρων : 1. ὁ. βαλάνων. Ea etenim vox et glandem, quam gerit 
quercus (1. e. δρυο----Φορον) significat, et penem hominis: vid. Schol. 
ad Pac. 1137. τὸ αἰδοῖον βούλεται λέγειν: ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτό τινες βάλανον 
καλοῦσιν. ita οἱ Suid. Βάλανος, τὸ αἰδοῖον : qua voce, aliud tamen 
significante, ludit Noster in Lys. 411. Quod ad Pacis locum 
attinet, is ita legi debet : ᾿Αλλὰ πρὸς πῦρ διέλκων tiv ἀνδρῶν ϑταῖραν 


! 


Commentarius. | 319. 


φίλων, εὖ κέας τῶν ξύλων, ἅττ᾽ ἂν ἡ δανότατα τοῦ θέρους, ἐκπεπισσωμένα 
τε, κἀποθριάζων τὰ φηγοῦ τὸν ἐρέβινθόν τ᾽ ἐμπυρεύων χ᾽ ἅμα τῇ Θραττῃ 
καμῶν,. τῆς γυναικὸς λουμένης, Hac sunt omnia sensu duplici. 
Quz sint homimis τὰ ξύλα et τὰ φηγοῦ 1. 6. βαλάνους, vel mulieris τὸν 
ἐρέβινθον (vid. Schol. ad Ran. 553.) non est cur exponam: neque 
ἐχπεπισσώωμένα non exponet Vesp. 1365. Ti δὲ τὸ μέλαν τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν 
αὐτῆς tow μέσω ; Ἢ πίττα δήπου καομένης ἐξέρχεται : neque Eupol. 
apud Schol. Soph. Aj. 105. Παρὰ τοῖσι So μάταισι XATAMITT 
μένην: neque Plut. 1004. ἱκανὸν γὰρ οὕτως ὄῤῥον ἀπεπίττων 
χρόνῳ: sic enim legi debet. Mox ἀποθριάζων exponit Acharn. 
158. Τίς τῶν ὁδομάντων τὸ πέος ἀποτεθρίακε: necnon Eccl. 703. 
'γμεῖς δὲ τέως θρῖα λαβόντες Διφόρου συκῆς ᾿Εν τοῖς προθύροισι δέφεσθαι.. 
Denique χκαμῶν est hic perquam facete dictum. Cf. Petron. 
Et non plane jam molestum erat munus. -Utcunque igitur 
inter anhelitus sudoresque—quod voluerat, accepit. Vulgo ἑτέρων 
-Οἰχποπιεσμένα κἀνθρακίξων τοῦ ἐρεβίνθου τὴν τε φηγὸν---κινῶν. Inter 
que ἐκπεπιεσμένα. et κινῶν sunt metro, et ἑτέρων---ἀνθρακίξζων τοῦ 
ἐρεβίνθου τήν τε φηγὸν ἐμπυρεύων sententie oppugnantia. V. 453. 
Ita Elmsleius in Edinburgh Reo. No. xxxvit. p. 90. In Stro- 
phicis vero pauca sunt emendanda. V. 367. Ita Emsl. ad Ach. 
343. collato Eq. 713. V. 368. Vulgo, διώξομεν σὲ δειλίας. At 
nulla bic ignavie mentio esse debet. Ea est dialogi ratio, ut uter- 
que interlocutor metaphoras hauriat ex arte, quam exercet. Dedi 
Iigitur διοίξομεν σὲ xosAlag:- Aperiam tia viscera, Eas κοιλίας 
commemorat Cleon in v. 300. Καὶ σὲ φήσω γ᾽ adexarevrous κοιλίας 
πωλεῖν ἔχοντα. Quod ad sententie lusum, cf. Eq. 368. ᾿Εγὼ δὲ 
κινήσω γε σοῦ τὸν πρωκτὸν ἀντὶ φυσκῆς : et 706. "Amovuyid σοῦ τὰν 
Πρυτανείῳ σίτια : εἰ Lysistr. 867. Βρύκουσα σοῦ τοὺς πνεύμονας καὶ 
τἄντερ᾽ ἐξαμήσω. V.370. Δερῶ θύλακον nequeo intelligere. Adde 
quod Cleon, non Allantopola, debuit dicere δερῶ. Hujus enim 
persone melius convenit capa. Quod ad sententiam, cf. Eq. 
1148. Κλέπτοντας ἔπειτ᾽ ἀναγκάξω πάλιν ἐξεμεῖν, ἅττ᾽ dv κεκλόφωσί 
pou κημὸν καταμηλῶν : neque valde distat ‘Thesm. 570. Τὸν σησα- 
μοῦνθ᾽ ὃν κατέφαγες τόνδε oe χεσεῖν ποιήσω. V.377. Pro εἶτά γ᾽ 
dedi εἶτ᾽ an’: lta ἀπ᾽ ἔνδοθεν est ut ἀπ᾽ ἔμεθεν in Tro. 262. et ax’ 
οὐρανόθεν in IA. Θ. 19. 


551 et sqq. στρ. 616 et sqq. στρ. 756 et sqq. στρ. 
581 et 546. avricre. 683 et sqq. dvrictp. 836 et sqq. ἀντιστρ. 


939—942. Ad finem dimetrorum hoc tetrastichon sic lege: 


βουλόμενος, ἐσϑί- Hac ratione stat Dawesi canon. 
ὧν ἀποπνιγείης. Porson, in Miscell. Crit. p. 251. 
XO. νὴ tiv Δία καὶ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω δ ἀρ᾽ ἀποπνιγείης. sAliter Reisig. in 
καὶ τὴν Δήμητρ᾽, εὖ γ᾽ εἴη. Conject. Aristoph. p. 110. Mox 
erul | ᾿ 
εὖ γ᾽ εἴη οχ εὖ γε. Cf. Agam, . 


320 De Carminibus Aristophanis, &c. 


225. εὖ γὰρ εἴη : et Rhes. 504, εὖ δ᾽ εἴη τυχεῖν. 
973—Q96. Sex systemata tetracola. In 989. restitue dy. Male 
Brunckius. 


1111-1150. Quatuor systemata decacola. 


1264 et sqq. στρ. si Kuster. e Schol. 


1290 et sqq. ἄντιστρι 
GEORGIUS BURGES. 
Etone dabam Kalend. Mart. A. S. MDCCCXVII. 


P.S. Dum Commentarii hujusce paginas diligenter relego, 
nonnulla video curis secundis esse retractanda; nonoulla etiam 
pro additamento habenda, Velim igitur hodie legatur in _ 


C. J. No. xxv. p. 34. v. 19,20. 41. ἀλλ’ ἐξόλοισθ' αὐτοί. ΧΟ. 
κοάξ, | AI, οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἢ---ΧΟ. κοάξ. 
v.46. Ad vulgatum ἐφθεγξάμεσθα propius 
accedit εἰλίξαμεν. 
Ρ. 36. ν. ul, 12. Lege ’Apiayros ἱερᾶς ὑπὸ τιμάς" 


p. 98.9. 11, 12. Lege—as ὁδὲ χωρεῖ μέγ- | ας 
πρὸς ἔγγον ἤδη. 
p- 40. ν. Ἑρμᾶ πρόγον᾽, οὗ τίομεν γένος. 
Ρ. 45. lin. 4. Tage libris deest. 
v. 1, 9, 8, 4. Lege “Ava τὸ δωδεκα- | pr 


χανόχορδον oi ὄργ- | avoy Κυρήνης | τὸ μέλι wiser 


No. xxvill. p. 225. lin. 21, 2. Lege“ Opa δὲ πᾶς" μιμησό- 
pee | ὧδε τοὺς ἐξ ἄστεος | ἥκοντας. Cf. Eccl. 
279. τὸν τρόπον μιμούμεναι Tov τῶν ἀγοροί- 
χων : et 569. Μιμουμένη σε. 

p. 226. lin. 3. Lege παίειν ἅμα τ᾽ dprov—Ete- 
nim παίειν est edere et subigere. Hinc 
lusus. Vir quisque secum fert unum panem 
(i. 6. penem,) duo male olentes herbas, et 
tres oleum prabentes. 

p. 227. lin. 29. Lege ὃν οὔτις dy στέργειν ἂν ἐβέ- 
| Aos μᾶλλεν ἢ ᾿γὼ ἂν | φίλον ξονεῆν. ΝΕ. 
᾿Αγαθάνιόν σε δεῖ ἐγ: et In Antistrophicis 
σὲ δ᾽ | ὲ περιπεφλεξ- | αἱ χἀχτέτριψαι | 


βανάτω j ἄδειν μάταια ταυταγί. 
versain suppleverim, alio tempore doce- 
bitur. 

Pp. 233. lin. 26. Lege rai? εὔγματ᾽ ἄν γειέσβαι 


Babylon. S21 
Bentl. ad Pac. 709. et Elmsl. ad Prom. 
668 


Ρ. 238, v. 41,2, 8,4. λαιμότμητ᾽ ἄχη δαιμονᾷ 
με μελαν- | ὄνεχυν ὡς ἐπὶ πόρειαν' οὐ γὰρ ὅτι 
 γουνάσομοι τὸν βάρβαρον | οὐδ᾽ ἐπ᾿’ ἐμαυτῷ" 
κλαύσομαι. 


His omnibus, 408 superstites ad Aristophanis fabulas spectant, . 
compositis, restant quedam e Fragmentis quoque his similia eru-- 
enda. Verum ea omnia tam Comici quam Tragici, necnow 
auctoris Rhesi, et Cyclopis, alio tempore proferentur.  Iuterum 
unum illud moneo, quod Hermannus fortasse desciscere de sententia: 
sua paratus erit, et mirari desinet in mentem cuiquam venire - 
potuisse Poétarum consuetudinem, qua bini semper fere equales 
versus In Epodis conjungi solerent. Certe nisi talis esset ratio 
Ccarminis reperta apud. Aischylum, Euripidem, et Aristophanem, de 
ea ipse ne per somaia quidem cogitassem. At legem semel 
repertam ποι! penitus reticere. Res quidem ea non magni fuit 
momenti; nec tamen pro levi habenda. Veritas enim vel in his, 
sicut etin gravioribus studiis, quzrenda est unice. Magistri sen- 
tentiam, in Element. Doctrin. Metric. ed. 2. p. 751. proditam, 
deserturus est, nisi fallor vehementissime, Reisigius, Hic enimin 
p- 13. libelli perexigui (cujus titulus est De Constructione Aunti- 
strophica Trium Carminum Melicorum Aristophanis Syntagma 
Criticum) instituit mensuram cantis ultimi in Aristophanis 
Lysistraté rationi mew non valde dissimilem, ideoque a vera = 
non omnino alienam. Nec dubito ullus, quin in partes meas sit 
omnis accessurus, cum primum rei novitas aliquantisper deferbu- 
erit. Omnes etenim probe scio, quibus aut antiqua detegere aut 
nova reperire conceditur, huic infortunio esse maxime obnoxios, ut, 
quo magis insperata fuerint inventa, eo minus probata esse ab 
zqualibus soleant, a posteris landem fortasse nop exiguam accep- 
tura. 


[4 


BABYLON. 


To all sincere admirers of Antiquity it must afford considerable 
gratification, that public attention, within the last three or four 
years, has been: so frequently directed, by a variety of publications, 
ta the remains of a city, i compgrison with which even many 


322 Babylon. 


ruins venerated as ancient, may be pronounced modern. We 
allude to Babylon, the city of Nimrod, Belus, Semiramis, or 
Ninus; and to the works concerning it, published by Claudius 
James Rich, Esq. the LEast-India Company’s Resident at 
Baghdad. This gentleman’s first Memoir on Babylon was 
noticed in the Classical Journal, No. xxiv, and his second 
in the last, No. xxxvit. Captain Edward Frederick has given 
us, in the “ Bombay Literary ‘Transactions (Vol. 1. art. 9.) ‘¢ An 
account of the present compared with the ancient state of 
Babylon ;” the vestiges of which he inspected with minute atten- 
tion in the year 181). Major Rennell (in the Archzologia, 
1816.) has offered some remarks on the “ Topography of Ancient 
Babylon:” The Rev. Thomas Maurice has published: in two 
parts (1816, 1818.) his “ Observations on many branches of 
Ancient Literature and Science, . connected with the ruins of 
Babylon.” John Landseer, Esq. a Fellow of the Antiquarian 
Society, has given us some interesting remarks on fragments of 
antiquity discovered among those ruins, in the Archeologia, (Vol. 
XVtiI, 1817.); and the Appendix to Sir William Ouseley’s Tra- 
vels, lately published, contains many observations on extraordinary 
cylindrical gems, inscribed bricks, and other antiques, found on the 
spot where Babylon once stood. 

Having thus indicated to our readers the printed works that 
have appeared within a few years, we shall notice the intended 
Account of Babylon, by Mr. Buckingham, a very ingenious and 
intelligent traveller ; and we can affirm, on the authority of a letter 
written at Calcutta, in November 1818, that Captain Lockett 
was then deeply engaged in the composition of his great work 
respecting Babylon; a work which we announced ‘to the public so 
Jong ago as the year 1813. Captain Lockett explored the ruins in 
1811; and the letter to which we above alluded, mentions a variety 
of discoveries made by him, equally interesting to the Historian 
and the Antiquary, the Geographer and the Etymologist. From 
his own actual survey he has constructed a map of considerable 
size; and his researches confirm in a most satisfactory manner the 
statement of Herodotus concerning the vast extent of Babylon. 
He has ascertained some circumstances of the Northern Wall, the 
Burs of Nimrod (as it is called); the Agger Κι, and various 
other particulars, which have hitherto been subjects of doubt and 
perplexity to antiquarian visitors, and those who at home have 
endeavoured to reconcile the present with the ancient state, and 
the Classical accounts of Babylon, with the Oriental traditions, © 
and the reports of travellers. | 

The plates, which are designed to illustrate Captain Lockett’s - 
_ work, have been long ready for publication, beautifully engraved 5: 


Notice of the Gidipus Romanus. 823 


and we are justified in hoping that our curiosity to possess the 
account of his Babylonian Researches will be gratified before the 
expiration of another year. . 


P, 


NOTICE OF THE 


(CEDIPUS ROMANUS, 


Or an attempt to prove, from the principles of reasoning 
adopted by the Right Hon. Sir W. Drummond, in his 
Chdipus Judaicus, that the twelve Cesars are the twelve 
signs of the Zodiac. Addressed to the higher and lite- 
rary Classes of society. By the Rev. G. TOWNSEND, 

| AM. of Trin. Coll.. Cam. : 


8vo. bds.7s. 6d. 


Our readers may remember, that Sir William Drummond has 
printed, for private distribution, some observations of a peculiar 
nature on the 49th chapter of Genesis, and on the books of Joshua 
and Judges, under the title of (dipus Judaicus. Mr. Doyley 
and others attacked Sir Wilham very warmly on certain expres- 
sions, arguments, and allusions in that work; to which Sir Wil- 
liam Drummond, and three or four of his friends, replied. We 
shall not enter into the discussion, or expla the nature of the 
mistakes, and misapprehensions of the controversialists on both 
sides, The discussion had been discontinued, and in some measure 
forgotten, till Mr. ‘Townsend again directed the public attention to 
the subject by his present work. 

The CEdipus Romanus is addressed to the higher and literary 
classes of suciety, “as the proper tribunal to which Sir William 
Drummond appealed.” It was written in consequence of the large 
sum, (seven, and we have heard twelve guineas,) which had been 
given for a copy of the Cédipus Judaicus. BY a singular series of 
coincidences between the language of the Patriarch Jacob, as 
related in the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis, and the signs of the 
Zodiac, as they were divided and represented by the antients, Sir 
William Drummond deduced the inferences, which have given 
rise to so much dispute. Mr. Townsend inagined that similar 
coincidences might be found between the same emblematical 
representations of the twelve signs, and the events of History; on 


924 Notice of the Gédipus Romanus. 


these coincidences his system is founded: and whatever be the 
opinions of our learned readers on the question, it will be acknow- 
ledged that the strange parallel between the Roman Emperors 
and the twelve signs is supported by the most singular and sur- 
prising resemblances. We will give some account of the plan, 
and select the provufs which identify the sign of the Ram with 
Julius Cesar, as a speciinen of the management of the reasoning. 

The work may be divided into three parts. The first, which 15 
introductory, contains an ironical congratulation to Sir Wilham 
Drummond, on the merit, the ingenuity, the learning, and the 
talent, discovered m the Cdipus Judaicus. Because our country- 
men are cautious in receiving novelties in politics and religion, he 
condoles with Sir William on the slow progress which his discoveries 
will probably make, particularly in the two Universities. He con- 
siders the difficulties he may meet, in attempting to prove the 
twelve Caesars to be the twelve signs of the Zodiac, as exactly 
similar to those which the author of the C&dipus Judaicus has 
already overcome; and he is therefore encouraged to persevere In 
an attempt, which at first sight appeared hopeless. Several curious 
and original rules of etymology are laid down, which we recom- 
mend to all those ingenious theorists, who are inclined to build an 
hypothesis on that foundation. : 

The second division of the work proceeds to identify the twelve 
Czsars with the twelve signs of the Zodiac. As a specimen of 
the reasoning of the author, we shall extract the proofs, by which 
the epithet, “ Caius Julius Czsar, son of Lucius and Aurelia,” 
is shown to mean the sign Aries. : 

“ Lucius is derived from Lux; which is derived from “ύχος, or 
EL, UC, one of the names of the Sun, according to Bryant; and 
Aurelia from Aur, VS light, and EL the Sun. The word Aurelia 
signifies a butterfly, which is well known to be the emblem, not 
only of the soul leaving the body, but of the sun breaking from 
the drearmess of winter, and renewing the life and: beauty of 
nature in the spring. ‘The offspring of thé Sun, (or Lucius,) and 
of Aurelia, or the commencement of the spring, can only be the 
sign Aries, or Cesar. | 

“The name Caius, Julius, Cesar, furnishes more than theoretical 
proof. Caius is derived from sas, Caia, Caias, or Caius, the 
original term in the primeval language for a house, or mansion, or 
temple: thus we read of the mansions of the Moon; and Aischy- 
lys calls the sky the temple, or Caias of the Sun. | 

“Julius is a corruption of ἥλιος, which is derived from AL or 
EL, the Sun. | OO 

“ Cesar is properly written Kaicag, that is Cai,a mansion, and. 
Sar, eminent, splendid, honorable ; the word from which Sarin, . 
Sarah, Sarabetha, &c. are derived. 


Miscellanea Classica. 325 


‘The whole name, Caius Julius Cesar, then, may be thus 
interpreted: The house, of the Sun, the first house: which is 
evidently a plain and simple description of the situation of the sign 

Aries.” : 

The most ingenious proof of Mr. Townsend’s position that 
Cesar is Aries is deduced from the expression of Cesar to Brutus 
in the Senate-house, as related by Suetonius, καὶ σὺ ef ἐκείνων, καὶ 
σὺ rexvov. ‘This expression, says Mr. Townsend, though so long 
considered as a simple Greek sentence, is pure Hebrew, and 
contains an indirect allusion to the change of the Sun’s place from 
Aries to Pisces at the commencement of the year. It may be thus 
read, 

TN JOT WIND IN PID TW ANS 

which is translated : “ Must I, the conqueror of the constellations, 
‘be made equal (to other signs) in the Zodiacal system ? must Salas 
be made equal in the regulation?” Or, in other words, the expression 
of Cesar to Brutus. does not mean: Thou too, Brutus, art thou 
among the assassins of Cesar? The meaning is: Must I, the sign 
of the Ram, must I, alas, be made equal to the fishes ? 

Augustus is identified with Taurus, by some very amusing coin- 
cidences ; and the whole number of the Cesars are changed into 
the zodiacal signs by some cyrious arguments, of which we have 
no room to give an abstract to the reader. . 

The third part (after the observations on Domitian) is grave 
and severe. ‘The language is animated, and precise; and gives 
good promise of future excellence. The character of Sir William 
Drummond is well drawn, and is highly complimentary, though it 
is made the cover of an additional philippic. Some adinirable’ 
observations on the importance and necessity of a Revelation 
follow; and the book concludes with remarks on the consequences, 
if its overthrow could be effected by the arguments of its adver- 
saries. 


΄ - - Β “ 


MISCELLANEA CLASSICA. 


i - a — 
No. VI. ι 


LVIII. Virgil in the eleventh Eneid (1. 539, seqq.) relates the flight 
of Camilla, under the protection of her father, the king of Privernum, 
from their native city, and their manner of living in exile, without 
saying a word which might imply their return or restoration. Yet, in 
the same book, describing the exploits of Camilla against the Trojans, 
he represents her as attended with an army of Volactans . : 


890 Miscellanea Classica. 


Convertere animos acres, oculosque tulere 
Cuncti ad reginam Volsci. Κη. x1. 800. 
Prima fugit, domina amissa, levis ala Camillz. L. 868. 


le what manner are these passages to be reconciled? Perbaps the 
apparent discrepancy is to be accounted as one of those oversights 
“4 quos humana parum cavit natura;” or it is to be ascribed to the 
unfinished state of the Eneid. 

LIX. Iu the British Review (Vol. v1. p. 314. art. Blomfield’s Pro- 
metheus) the following passage from Walter Scott was quoted as 
illustrative of Eschylus’s ἀνήριθμον γέλασμα : 

‘With fluttering sound like laughter hoarse, 
The cords and canvas strain : 
The waves, divided by her force, 
In rippling eddies chased her course, 
As tf they laugh'd again. Lord of the Isles, Cante Iv. 
It was the exclamation of a child on a similar occasion, “ How the 
water laughs!” . 

LX. In a council of the Achzan confederacy, where the difficulty 
of forming an opinion on the question in debate produces a general 
disinclination to speak, the president of the assembly thus delivers 
his sentiments (Liv. ΧΧΧΙΙ. 20.): “ Ubi,” inquit, “ illa certamina ani- 
morum, Achzi, sunt, quibus in conviviis et circulis, quum de Philippo 
et Romanis mentio incidit vix manibus temperabatis? Nunc in con- 
cilio ad eam rem unam indicto,” (sc. ut decernerent, cum Philippone, 
an cum Romanis societatem inirent,) ‘‘ quum legatorum utrimque 
verba audieritis, quum referant magistratus, quum preco ad sua- 
dendum vocet, obmutuistis.” It is obvious that the orator had in. bis 
mind the expostulation of Agamemnon in the 8th Iliad : 

. Αἰδὼς, ᾿Αργεῖοι, κάκ᾽ ἐλέγχεα, εἶδος ἀγητοί" 

πῆ ἔβαν εὐχωλαὶ, ὅτε δὴ φαμὲν εἶναι ἄριστοι" ᾿ 
ἃς ὅποτ᾽ ἐν Λήμνῳ κενεανχέες ἠγοράασθε, 
ἔσθοντες κρέα πολλὰ βοῶν ὀρθοκραιράων, 

“ πίνοντες κρητῆρας ἐπιστεφέας οἴνοιο, 
Τρώων ἀνθ᾽ ἑκατόν τε διηκοσίων τε ἕκαστοϑ 
στήσεσθ᾽ ἐν πολέμῳ; νῦν δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς ἄξιοί εἰμεν 
“Exropos, ὃς τάχα νῆας ἐνιπρήσει πυρὶ κηλέῳ. Il. VIII. 228. 

LXI. In an enumeration of years remarkable for their coldness, in 
No. LIX. of the Edinburgh Review, just published, we read: “" In 
1468 the winter was so severe in Flanders, that the wine distributed 
to the soldiers was cut in pieces with hatchets. In 1544 the same 
thing happened again, the wine being frozen into solid lumps.” Art. 1. 
on the Polar Ice, p. 25. This reminds us of Virgil’s description of a 
Scythian winter—“ czeduntque securibus humida vina.” Georg. III. 
364. , 

LXII. In Liv. xxx11. 12. “ Δάνογβιϑ victos, mitissimum quemque, 
animum maximum habere,” Crevier wishes to read “ mitissimum 
quemque maximum haberi,” the word animum having been added by 


΄ 


Miscellanea Classica. 327 


editors. Another way of altering the passage, retaining animum, 
.would be ‘* maximum quemque mitissimum animum habere.” 

In No. 1. of the Miscellanea Classiea (Classical Journal, Vol. xv. 
p. 296, for Patitites read Pantites; p. 297, for Tricenum read Tri- 
cranum. The account of the ship wrecked on the Japanese coast 
in p. 296, is from the Quarterly Review, Vol. v1. p. 382.—The varia- 
tion in the quantity of Syphacem (Miscellanea Classica, No. 11. 
Classical Journal, Vol. xvi. p. 352, art. xxxtI.) has been noticed 
by Dr. Carey in his Latin Prosody; in which work he has 
also collected authorities in favor of the dissolution of cui (art. 
XXXII. of the present paper) into two syllables.—The remark on 
εὑρώεντα, art. VIII. p. 350, has also been made in a late Monthly 
Magazine. In art. 1x. (p. 350.) Cowper's fable of the Nightingale and 
Grasshopper was compared with the Greek epigram on the Swallow 
-and Butterfly: Wordsworth’s poem of the Robin and Butterfly ap- 
proaches nearer to the sentiment of the Greek. ‘To the conjectures 
in art. x1. (p. ut supr.) on the orthography of Lampedosa, may be 
added that of Lapidosa, sc. insula, corrupted into the present name, as 
Capitolium into Campidoglio. The Secular Festival, mentioned in 
art. XIII. (p. 351.) was revived, or pretended to be continued after a 
brief intermission, by Boniface VIH. in 1300, under the title of the 
Holy Year, being a jubilee or centenary concourse of persons from 
various Catholic countries to Rome for the: purpose of worship and 
offerings, under the promise of a plenary absolution. See Gibbon, 
Vol. xir. p. 310—313., who states the pertod of the Secular Games at 
100 years. The term was shortened, by the desire of the Roman 
people, to 50 years; afterwards to 33 (the supposed age of Christ) 
and 25 years: the cause assigned for these latter alterations is the 
impatience of the Popes—the same motive which induced the Empe- 
rors frequently to forestall the usual epoch of the Secular Games. 
Some further abbreviate the term to 20 years; perhaps confounding 
the jubilee with the periodical ceusus. The last was held in 1800, 
and is said to have been the most splendid known for some cen- 
turies. To art. xvi. on the precipitation of. the star into a well, 
add the following passage from Vol. x1. of the Quarterly Review, 
p- 281, art. Brande’s Popular Antiquities, an article containing an 
extraordinary mass of heterogeneous erudition. ‘ The star, as the 
legend tells, fell into a well in the holy land after it had performed its 
office, where it could be occasionally seen. The optical effects pro- 
duced by deep wells. may have laid the foundation for this fable. 
Under favorable circumstances, a star of the first magnitude may be 
seen reflected in the day-time from the surface of the waters.”—-To 
the metrical lines quoted in various articles add Liv. ΧΧΧΊΙ. 15. Si 
primi vim Romanam non sustinuissent—. xxx111. 4. Insessas fauces 
Epiri non tenuissent—. 10. Ut specularetur, que in leva parte 
suorumn—. 7 

On the imitation of Herodotus by Procopius, cited in a paper in 
No. XXX. of the Class. Journ. p. 208, it may be remarked, that 


328 Miscellanea Classica. 


Procopius is, as it would seem from Gibbon, partly an imitator of He- 
rodotus. This is less remarkable than the circumstanee of Asinius 
Quadratus, a Roman writer, having composed a history of Rome in 
the Ionic dialect (Maittaire Dial.).—To the metrical lines from classi- 
cal prose authors quoted in former Numbers, add the following : 
ἐλθόντα δῶρα, φιλοφρόνως ἐδέξατο. Herod. 111.'31. 
Opposuit quibus baud magno certamine fusis. Liv. ΧΧΧ. 18. 
Isse legatos eadem jubentes -10. 
In ancipitia tela, belluis darent. 33. 
Of those quoted from Thucydides in No. xx1x. of the Class. Journ. 
Ῥ. 181. the two last are doubtful, on account of the uncertain quantity 
of the second syllable in Τισσαφέρνης and Φαρνάβαξος. It appears 
that lambic verses occur much more frequently in the Greek orators 
than in the historians. 
_ XLII. The indulgence of the reader is solicited to the following 
attempts in Latin verse. 


I. Ap JusTir1amM. 


A. D. ΜΌΟΟΘΟΧΙΙ. 
Diva, quam prisci feritas Neronis 
Vindicem sensit, Macedoque Perses, 
Quisquis et leges populosque iniquis 
Contudit armis: 
Quam boni virtus coluit Catonis, 
Quam piis fulgens Thrasybulus armis, 
Fortis audaci resides tumultu in- 
cendere Cives : 
Seu velis Astrea parens vocan, 
. Seu Themis ceelo et veneranda terris, 
Impium bellorum opus, et labuntem 
Respice mundum. 
Il. IDEM. 
Ultra telluris fines, ultraque recessus 
Etherios, densis late cingentibus umbris 
Textam exstat secretum, ipsis venerabile Divis, 
Parcarum sedes, celsique palatia fati. 
Huc illuc aptis stellata per atria pennis 
Eventus volitant. Solio Fortuna micanti 
In mediis sedet, atque vage dat jura caterve. 
Inde, ubi preceptos explerint seecula cursus, 
Turba fugit levis: ztheria comitatur ab arce 
Omnipotens Nemesis, totumque emittit in orbem, 
Ut renovent casus, meritis ut premia reddant 
Digna viris, moveantque alta de sede tyrammos. 
Imperia hec varia mutat vice, fataque ponit 
Urbibus, et fracti reparat fundamina regui: 
Hec acies ciet: bac dubium volat aupice telum. 
Atque eadem immites scelerisque dolique ministras 


Eton2z, 1812. 


Miseellanea..Classica. 


Eumenidas premit imperio, vastasque procellas 


Dirigit, aériamque ciet per nubila pestem, 
Diversasque lues ; seu frigore torqueat arva, 
Sive intempesto Sol spargat in zthere flammas. 

Te, Dea, te reges, bellatorumque tremiscunt 
Corda ducum: te Sylla ferox, te perfidus olim 
Cesar, et in mediis Alaricus inhorruit armis. 
Presentem te Brutus atrox, te Cherea sensit ' 
Impavidus: tu Massyli in penetralia templi 
Duxisti Asdrubalis genus,' invictumque dedistj 
Pectus, et Ausonias jussisti expendere pcenas. 
Atque eadem Libycas, conyerso numine, turmas 
Cinyphii tandem spargens in pulvere campi, 
Romuleam firmasti aciem, vanique sagittam 
Fregisti Numide, et rapuisti instantibus arma. 

Magna, veni: vocat innumeris jam vocibus orbis, 
Regnaque diverso resonant mortalia luctu: 

Ausonis hinc tellus, hinc dedignata tyrannos 
Hesperia, auratam Tagus hine acclinis in urnam 
Testatur ceelum, atque ultricia fulmina poscit. 

Inter se ruptis concurrunt legibus urbes : 

Eratz pugnant classes, et sanguine largo oo 
AEquoraque scopulique rubent: segetes per apertas 
Gallica flamma furit, raptique ad bella coloni 

Diram exsecrantur vitam, Superosque lacessunt. 
Exspectata veni, conjurateque cohorti 

Annue, et insueto gladios, Dea, robore firma: 
Exhausto donec terreque marisque tumultu 

Arma cadant, sifeantque tubz, et ferro undique septus 
Det peenas victor: longi infortunia 5850} 

Claude manu, et vindex tantorum ultrixque laborum 
Solve senescentem nimiis jam cladibus orbem. 


Hf. Exon. xiv. 26—28. xv. 1. 
Ἐνταῦθα Μώδῃ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπέστειλεν Θεός 
"Αγ᾽, ὦ προφῆτα, σὴν ἐπέντεινον χέρα 

ἐς πόντον εὑρὺν, ws παλισσύτῳ δρόμῳ 
ὕδωρ κατέλθῃ, καὶ στράτευμ᾽ Αἰγύπτιον, 
ἱππεῖς τε κρύψῃ, καὶ τροχηλάτους ὄχους, --- 
εὐθὺς δὲ ycipa ποντίων ὑπὲρ βύθων 

ἔτεινε Μώσης" ἣ᾽ δ᾽ ἀνικήτῳ σθένει, 

ἔπει κατῆλθε λευκόπωλος ἡμέρα, 

θάλασσ᾽ ἐπήει" πᾶς δ᾽ ἐθάμβησε στρατός. 
ἐνταῦθα δίναις ἐν μέσαις Aiyurrious 

Θεὸς κατέστρεψ᾽" 6 δὲ παλίσσντος κλυδὼν 
ἱπποὺς ἔκρυψε, καὶ πεδοστιβεὶς ὄχους, 


ι Liberius hoc dictum: δγὰϊ δ πλ΄ οἱ fratris filius. 


VOL. ΧΙΧ.. CLJA ΝΟ. XXXVUI. 


Y 


329 


9350 ᾿ Miscellanea Classica. 


ἄνδραε θ᾽, ὅσοιτερ ἐκ χθονὸς Νειλώτιδοε 
ἐννεξεχώρουν, θαράωνος ἐντολαῖς 
Séivres θάλασσαν᾽ οὐδὲ τοιούτου στρατοῦ 
εἷς ἦν ἄκρνπτοε ποντίοισε χάσμασι. 
Μώση: δὲ, κλεινοὶ τ᾽ Ἶσραηλὸς ἔκγονα, 
Θεῷ τατρώῳ τυῖον ὄμνησαν μέλοε. 
CANTABRIGIA, 1817. 
LXIV. The foltowing are a continuation of the parallel passages, 
1. Nam pater altitonans, stellanti nixus Olympo, 
Ipse suos quondam tumulos ac templa petivit, 
Et Capitolinis injecit sedibus ignes—— 
: Οἷς. Frag. de suo Cons. ap. Lib. 13. de Divin. 
-Qualiter expressum ventis per nubila fulmen—— 
In sua templa furit—————_—_— Lucan. |. 
2, --ι-οθυι ἀμφὶ δὲ χαλκὸς ἐλάμπετο εἴκελος αὐγῇ 
i} πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο, ἣ ἠελίον ἀνιόντος. Hom. Il. ΧΧΙΙ. 134. 
ὡς ὅπλοισε χρυσέοισιν ἐκπρεπὴς, γέρον, 
ἑῴοις φλεγέθων ὅμοια 
bonciow ἀελίον. Eurip. Phen. 170, ed. Porson. 
a ———_—_——-et intus 
Palleat infelix _——_——~— —Pers. Sat. 11¥. 42. 
And sorrow hath made my very heart pale. " 
King of the Crocodiles, Southey’s Mmor Poens. 
Lyrnessius Acmon, , 
Nec Clytio genitore minor, nec fratre Menestheo. | 
ἊΝ Virg. An. x. 198, 


3 


4. ——— 


Jamque aderit lato promissus Honorius zvo, 
ec forti genitore minor, nec fratre corusco. 
Claud. Rufin. 11. 374. 
5. ἀλλὰ τὰν Διὸς κόραν 
κλήσωμεν Αρτεμιν, Θεῶν dvaccay——Eur. Iph, Taur. 1521}. 
So in Virgil: 
Summe deum, sancti custos Soraetis Αρο]]ο------ Ἐπ. x1. 785. 
6. ξυνὸς ᾿Ενυάλιος, καί re xravéovra κατέκτα. Hom. ἢ. xViir. 309. 
—In pugna et in acie, ubi Mars communis et victum sepe erigeret, 
«εἰ affligeret victorem Liv. XXVIII. 19. 
7. Casimir, addressing the dews, calls them “ Stellulze noctis de- 
cedentis.” Silviludium 11. St. ry. 1. 
——__-—— an host 
Innumerable as the stars of night, 
Or stars of morning, dew-drops, which the sun 
Impearls on ev'ry leaf and ev'ry flower. 
. Milton, Paradise Lost, v. 744. 
8. Τρέσο' ᾿Αἴδης δ᾽ ἐνέροισι καταφθιμένοισιμ ἀνάσσων, | 
Τιτῆνες 8 ὑποταρτάριοι, Κρόνον ἀμφὶς ἐόντες, 
ἀσβέστον κελάδοιο καὶ αἰνῆς δηιστῆτος. Hesiod. Theog. 850. 


— 


Miscellanea Classica. _ 5881 


He is describing the war of Typhon with the Gods, Silius,-describ- 
ing Jupiter thundering in defence of Rome, uses the’ seme image. 
—_—_—__———Intonat ipse, 
Quo tremat et Rhodope, Taurusque, et Pindus, et Atlas. 
Audivere lacus ΕΥ̓ δὲ, mersusque profundis 
Agnuovit tenebris ceelestia bella Typhoéys. Pyn. x11. 659. 


| Q. τομῦτῃ gov, Ayreis yan, ὥστε τοξότης, 
᾿ἀφῆκα θυμῷ καρδίας τοξεύματα. Soph. Antig. 1084, ed. Brunck. 


Tis Britain barbs the arrows that I speak, 
And makes thy heart its mark. Milman’s Samor, x: 30. 


-—_—_—-—_———-florentes xre catervas. 
WVirg. En. vil. 804, ΧΙ. 433. 
——-————-~—bloom’d all the field with brass. 
Milman’s Samor, X1. 321. 
11. Τὴν δὲ πολὺ πρῶτος ἴδε Τηλέμαχος θεοειδής" 
ἧστο γὰρ ἐν μνηστῆρσι φίλον τετιημένοε ἥἧτορ, 
ὀσσομένος πατέρ᾽ ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ φρεσὶν --- ——Hom. Od. 1. 115.. 
Hamlet. Methinks I see my father. | 
Horatio. Where, my Lord? : 
Hamlet. In my mind’s eye, Horatio. Shakespeare, Hamlet. 
(The above was communicated by a friend.) 
12. λαμπρὰ μὲν ἀκτὶς, ἡλίον κανὼν σαφὴς, 
ἔβαλλε γαῖα» ------------- ——_—-—Eurip. Suppl. 
--------.-0ὕὌᾧὌἷὦ(-  “ some gentle taper, 
Though a rush candle from the wicker hole 
Of some clay habitation, visit us 
With thy long-levell’d rule of streaming light. 
Milton’s Comas, 328. 
13. Ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε ris 7° ἐλέφαντα γυνὴ φοίνικι μιήνῃ 
Myovis, ἠὲ ΚΚάειρα, παρήϊον ἔμμεναι ἵππων" 


10. 


totol τοι, Μενέλαε, μιάνθην αἵματι μηροὶ 
εὐφυέες, κνῆμαί τ’, ἠδὲ σφυρὰ Kd ὑπένερθε. Hom. Il. τν. 141. 
niveos infecit purpura vultus, 
Per liqnidas succensa genas: casteque pudoris 
Illuxere faces ; non sic decus ardet eburnum, . 
Lydia Sidonio quod foemina tinxerit ostro. Claud. Pros. 1. 271. 
14. ————————-valle reducta——-—Virg. En. V1. 708. 
——long withdrawing vales—-——Thomson’s Spring. 
tenent Danai, qua deficit ignis. Virg. Au. 11. 505. 
. Quique caret flamma, scelerum est locus. ‘Sil. Ital. 
(The writer is describing the destruction of Saguntum.) 
16. τόφρ᾽ ἀναχωρείτω, τὸν δ' ἄλλον λαὸν ἀνώχθω - 
, μάρναφθαι δηΐοισι κατὰ κρατερὴν ὑσμίνην. fl, x1. 189. 


“15. 


989 Miscellanea Classica. 


He fled full soon 
On the first of June— 
But he bade the rest keep fighting. 
Elegy on Jean Bon St. André, in the Antijacobin. 
(fhis whimsical coincidence was pointed Wut by a friend.) 


17. In the fifteenth Odyssey, where Telemachus requests permission 
for himself and his companion to depart, Menelaus yields to his re- 
quest with the saying— 

Χρὴ ξεῖνον παρεύντα φιλεῖν, ἐθέλοντα δὲ πέμπειν. Od. xv. 74. 
In the late novel of Rob Roy, where Baillie Nicol Jarvie has been inti- 
inating to the Highland leader the necessity of himself and his com- 
panion taking their leave, the latter replies in a similar manner— 
— “ Aweel, kinsman, ye ken our fashion—foster the guest that 
comes—furtber him that maun gang.” Rob Roy, 111. Ρ. 227. ᾿ 
, 18. ——-——-——-si neque fervidis ᾿ 
Pars inclusa caloribus 
Mundi, nec Bore finitimum latus, 
Durateque solo nives 
Mercatorem abigunt.———Hor..Lib. 111. Od. xxiv. 86. 
——where busy Commerce waits 
To pour his golden tide through all her gates ; 
Whom fiery suns, that scorch the russet spice 
Of eastern groves, and oceans floor’d with ice, 
Forbid in vain to push his danng way 
To darker climes, or climes of brighter day— 
. Cowper, Expostulation. 
Horace appears to have been a favorite author with Cowper. 
19. Qualis ubi ad terras, abrupto sidere, nimbus 
It mare per medium 
᾿ς Antevolant, sonitumque ferunt ad littora venti. 
| Virg. En. XII. 451—455. 
Casimir has made a beautiful application of this expression ἢ 
et qui jam morientibus 
Instabat, urgentisque leti 
Frigidus antevolabat horror. 
Casim. Epod. (ad 8. Stanislauth Kostkam.) 
20. When we are idle, we tempt the devil to tempt us, as careless 
persons make thieves. Baxter’s Saints’ Rest, chap. xi. § 6. 
And thus, in wrath and envy and despair, 
She tempted Hell to tempt her Southey’s Kehama, xr. 
21, Nequicquam Deus abscidit | 
Prudens Oceano dissociabili 
Terras: si tamen impie 
Non tangenda rates transiliunt vada. 
| Hor. Lib. 1. Od, 111.°21. 


Miscellanea Classica. | 323 


Oh! why has Jehovah, in forming the world, 
Divided the deep from the land, 

His ramparts of rocks round the continent hurl'd, 
And cradled the deep in his hand ; 

If man may transgress his eternal command, 
And pass o’er the bounds of his birth, 
To ravage the uttermost earth ? : 


Montgomery, Ode on the Ocean. 


22. As a servant earnestly desireth the shadow, and as an hireling 
looketh for the reward of his work: so am 1 made to possess months 
of vanity, and wearisome nights are appointed to me. Job vii. 2) 3. 


Ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἀνὴρ δόρποιο λιλαίεται, ᾧτε πανῆμαρ 

νειὸν ἀνέλκητον βόε οἴνοπε πηκτὸν ἄροτρον, 

ἀσπασίως δ᾽ ἄρα τῷ κατέδυ φάος ἠελίοιο, 

δόρπον ἐποίχεσθαι, βλάβεται δέ τε γούνατ᾽ ἰόντι" 

ds Ὀδυσῆ᾽ ἀσπαστὸν ἔδν φάος ἠελίοιο. Hom. Odyss. x111. 31. 


23. Ὥς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄστρα φαεινὴν ἀμφὶ σελήνην 
φαί»ετ᾽ ἀριπρεπέα, x. τ. λ. 
τόσσα μεσηγὺ νεῶν, ἠδὲ Ξάνθοιο ῥοάων, 

Τρώων καιόντων πυρὰ φαίνετο Ἰλιόθι xpd. Hom. 1]. Υ111. 551. 
Nox erat, et late stellarum more videbam 
Barbaricos ardere focos. ——Claud. vi. Cons. Hon. 453. 


soon a score of fires, I ween, 
From height, and hill, and cliff were seen; 
Each with warlike tidings fraught, 
Fach from each the signal caught ; 
' Each after each they glanced to sight, 
As stars arise upon the night. . 
Scott’s Lay of the Last Minstrel, 111. st. 29. 
24. Ὥς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἀναΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος, Sor’ ἐπὶ πολλὴν 
γαῖαν ἐληλονθὼς, φρεσὶ πευκαλέμῃσι νοήσῃ, 
ἔνθ᾽ εἴην, ἣ ἔνθα, μενοινήσειέ τε πολλά" ἢ 
ὥς κραιπνῶς pepavia διέπτατο πότνια Ἥρη. Hom. Il. xv. 80. 
So Claudian of the horses of Pluto: 


torrentius amne | 

Hyberno, tortaque ruunt pernicius hasta : 

Quantum non jaculus Parthi, non impetus Austri, 

Non leve sollicitee mentis discurrit acumen. Claud. Pros. 11. 198. 


------ τὸν δὲ στερεὸν καὶ ἄνονσον 
ὠκύτερον ποίησε νοήματος αἱψηροῖο ; 
ἴσος ἐπουρανίοις ἸΠοδαλείριος.---------- Quint. Smyrn, 1x. 461. 


25. Que contra vetitum discordia ? 


Virg. En, x. 9. 
Rather, how hast thou yielded to transgress ὌΝ 
The strict forbiddance 1—-—Milton, Par. Lost, 1X. 90 . 


334 Miscellanea Classica. 


26. Septemque qui falcit Triones 


27. 


ἐῶ 
io +) 


29. 


Carpathus- -—— ———-Casim. Od. Lib. 111. 
—Hills that prop the polar star—Campbell, Ode to Winter. 


The murmuring surge, 
That on th’ unnumber’d idle pebbles chafes, 
Cannot be heard so high.—Shakespeare’s King Lear, Act tv. Sc. 5. 


Ther way was on the margin of the land, 
O’er the green summit of the rocks, whose base 
Beats back the roaring surge, scarce heard so high. 
Cowper’s Task, vr. 


. Novistine locum potiorem rure beato? etc. etc, 


Nempe inter varias nutritur sylva columnas, 
Laudaturque domus, longos que prospicit agros. 
Naturam expellas furca licet, usque recurret, 

Et mala perrumpet furtim fastidia victrix. 


Tis born with all, the love of Nature’s works— 
Ev’n in the stifling bosom of the Town ᾿ 
A garden, in which nothing thrives, has charnis, 
That sooth the rich possessof——— “Ὅ-ὐνσνς 
“-——— —--——«are they not all proofs 
That man, immured in cities, still retains 
His inward inextinguishable thirst 
Of rural scenes ? Cowper’s Task, 1V. 731. 753. 
——________——-Non segnius ardens 
Incurrit Tydeus, quam flammiger alés olori 


Imminet, et magna trepidum, circumligat umbra. 
Stat. Theb. vir. 


nue ἀπαπαιαῪ 


There is a simile in Walter Scott somewhat resembling this in idea : 


30. 


Such glance the mountain eagle threw, 

As, from the cliffs of Benvenue, 

She spread her-dark sails on the wird, 

And, high in middle heaven reclin’d, 

With her bread shadow on the lake, 

Silenced the warblers of the brake. Lady of the Lake, 11. st. 
ET. εἰς χέρας λεύσσεις ἐμάς ; 


ΠΟΛ. εἰσορῶ" δειλὸν δ᾽ ὃ πλοῦτος, καὶ φιλόψυχόν κακόν. 
- Eutip. Phan. 605, Porson. 


There is a similar taunt ascribed to Polynices i in Statius : 


* * To the passages adduced in No. τι. of the Miscellanea Classica, 


nec parcit cedenti, atque increpat hosti: 

“* Quo retrahis, germane, gradus ἢ O languida somno, 
Et regnis effoeta quies! longaque sub umbra 

Imperia ! exilio rebusque exercita egenis 


Membra vides: disce arma pati, nec fidere letis.” 
Theb. x1. 547. 


΄ 


Hor. Lib. 1. Ep. x. Ἱ. 14. 


/ ͵ 


Miscellanea Classica. | — 9388 


(Class. Journ. No. xxx11l. p. 33. art. 2.) as parallel to that of Ho. 
race, “ Nam, que nivali pascitur Algido,” &c. add the following 
from Tibullus : ° 
Est nobis voluisse satis: nec munera parva 
Respueris ; etiam Phebo gratissima dona 
Cres tulit— —————. 
Parvaque ceelestes pacavit mica, nec illis 


Semper indurato taurus cadit hostia cornu. Lib. 1v.1.7,14.. ° 


To the passage quoted from Horace in the same number (p. 35, 
‘ art. 12.) as parallel to that in Sophocles, τὸ yap Φανθὲν ris ἀν δύναιτ᾽ 
ἀγέννητον ποιεῖν ; add the following from Milton, which resembles 
. the lines of Horace more than those of Sophocles : 


But past who can recall, or done undo ? 
Not God omnipotent, nor fate—-—— Paradise Lost, 1x. 926. 


Horace imitated Pindar, Ol. 11. 29. 


-τῶν δὲ πεπραγμένων 
ἐν δίκᾳ τε καὶ παρὰ δέκαν 
ἀποίητον οὐδ᾽ ἂν 

, χρόνος, ὁ πάντων πατὴρ,. 
δύναιτο θέμεν ἔργων τέλος. 


In the same number (p. 36, art. 22, printed by mistake 20.) an in- 
stance of coincidence between AEschines and the poet Cowper was 
noticed. The writer has since met with the same passages in a note 
on an article in the Quarterly Review, vol. 1v. p. 208, art. Gifford’s 
Political Life of Pitt. In No. 111. of the Misc. Class, (Class. Journ. 
No. ΧΧΧΙΙ. p. 38. art. 10.) was quoted from Herbert (with a similar 
passage from ‘Young,) 
_ Thus we prevent the last great day, 
And judge ourselves. 
The following (from a sermon of Robert Hall’s) contains a noble 
developement of a similar idea. “Αἱ the day of judgment, the atten- 
tion excited by the surrounding scene, the strange aspect of nature, 
the dissolution of the elements, and the last trump, will have no other 
effect than to cause the reflections of the sinner to return with a more 
overwhelming tide on his own character, his sentence, his unchanging 
destiny; and, amid the innumerable millions who surround him, he 
will mourn apart. 11 is thus the Christian minister should endeavour 
to prepare the tribunal of conscience, and turn the eyes of every one 
of his hearers on himself.” Sermon on the Discouragements and Sup- 
ports of the Christian Minister, pp. 23, 24.—The lines, “In vain their 
ones unburied lie,” quoted in No. 1. of the Misc. Class. (Class. Journ. 
vol. xv. p. 303. art. 21.) of which the reference was accideutally 
omitted, are from Lord Byron’s poem on the Death of Admiral Parker, 
printed among the miscellaneous poems at the end of Childe Harold, 
Cantos 1. and 11. The sentiment bas often been repeated since Thu- 
cydides. CHECILIUS METELLUS. 


\ 


336 


AN ESSAY ON MOODS. 


PART I. 


Tuer is no part of grammar which is, in general, less satisfac- 
torily explained than the theory and use of moods. Altnost all 
the writers on this subject appear to content themselves with 
following the method that others have followed before them—or 
perhaps they add a few observations of their own, which are forced 
to coincide with the origimal system. Hence arises a degree of 
confusion in the use of terms, and an obscurity of expression, 
which it would be most desirable to avoid: 

To attempt any practical improvement, in this respect, would 
probably be considered as a mere fanciful innovation, Age seems 
to have consecrated a particular arrangement, and particular names, 
which it would be little less than impiety towards the mighty dead 
to violate. But if we dare not change what has been long esta- 
blished, it is, at least, our business to form as clear conceptions.on 
this important subject as possible ; and, while we use the same 
terms that others have done, not to bind ourselves to adopt their 
opinions. That it is a subject of very considerable difficulty, every 
, person will acknowledge ; and that this difficulty was felt, even by 
the classic writers of Greece and Rome, is evident from the’ variety 
in their manner of expression, and the different. uses which they 
make of the same forms of the verb. Hence it may be impossible 
to lay down unexceptionable rules with regard to the origin and use 
of moods; but, although we cannot accomplish all that we desire, 
we should not be discouraged from making an humble attempt to 
come near it. 


Est quodam prodire tenus, si non datur ultra.— Hor. 


In order to form a clear conception, therefore, of moods, we 
must consider the subject in two points of view. First, as to the 
vrigin, which, of course, will be entirely speculative; and, secondly, 
"as to the use, which cap be deduced only from observations on 
languages as they are spoken, or wnitten. 


I. ORIGIN OF MOODS. 


' The nature of the human frame is such that it continually 
requires food, cloathing, aud refreshment by repose after exertion. 
Almost all our actions are influenced, more or less, by sensations 
such as these. Without some object exciting our desires, we 


An Essay on Moods. 337 


‘should smk into a state of listlessness, apathy, aud total inactivity, 
It would be wandering too:far from my present purpose to enquire 
m what manner, and to what degree, the social affection of benevo- 
lence is imterwoven with the selfish desire of action; or how much 
our own happiness is increased by the happiness that we communi- 
cate to others. It is sufficient to observe, that, as soon as we are 


capable of forming au idea of the wants of others, we are, in’ 


general, disposed to relieve them, and that this becomes an object 


of desire with us, as well as to supply our own immediate neces- . 


sities. 

[ have mentioned ouly food, cloathing, and rest, as the primary 
wants of nature, being all that an infant desires. But, as age 
advances, conveniences, comforts, luxuries, superfluities are also 
desired. The passions exercise their influence on the mind, and 
‘desire to be gratified. The intellectual faculties expand, and 
desire to be supplied with knowledge ; and that knowledge, when 
acquired, the mind desires to communicate to others, either in 
compliance with their wishes, or for self interest, or self gratifica- 
tion. The same observation will apply to all our pursuits. Still 
the one great principle, the desire of some good seems to pervade 
our nature, and influence all our conduct. 

Now, if man could exist as a solitary individual, his time might 
be spent in a silent pursuit of the objects that he wished to obtain— 
in a silent gratification of his desire. But this is not the case. 
From the first period of human existence men were social ; and 
the most transient glance of one human being on the actions . of 
another would couvince him that their united efforts might accom- 
plish what he could not do, or do so effectually, by himself—that 
another had it in his power to give him something, which he could 
not otherwise obtain; or to perform. some action for him, that was 
not withm the scope of his own exertions. | 

He would no longer then confine himself to that silent pursuit, 
which we have considered, but make use of the most easy and 
effectual means of making his desire known to bis brother. And 
the natural faculty of forming articulate sounds would soon suggest 
the use of speech as the most expeditious method of accomplishing 
his object. When his eye fixed upon any thing that he wished the 
other to assist him in obtaining, his tongue would give a name to 
that object—perhaps accompanied with some significant look, or 
gesture. The name, thus given, would have the energy of a 
request, or command, and might be styled a verb in the 


Imperative Mood. 


- Ieis probable, also, that this desire would be expressed in the 
shortest and simplest manner, possible ; and that the imperative 


338 An Essay on Moods. 


form would be either a single articulation of the voice, that 18 ἃ 
monosyllable ; or, at most, a very short dissyllable. . 

That this theory is not unreasonable will appear from what any 
person may observe in children, before they can understand the 
meaning of artificial language. However ludicrous the idea: may 
appear, we may consider the faintest cry that expresses pain, or 
hunger, that is the desire for food or rest, as an Imperative verb. 
Or, descending still lower, we may conceive that the infertor 
animals have this power of expressing their desires, In common 
with the human species. But their powers of intellect and of 
expression are equally limited. Having no minds to cultivate, or 
souls to store with knowledge, they possess all that is necessary for 
the use of the body in the faculty of thus communicating their 
feelings, As the child gradually ascends above the mere instinct 
of the brute, he begins to use the human power of speech, and 
invents, before he is capable of learning, names for those things 
that he wishes to obtain: and the manner in which these names are 
given expresses the desire of the child. that utters them. 


Indicative. 


We have thus endeavoured to ascertain, from theory, and the 
observation of nature, the origin and purpose of the primary, or 
imperative mood. Let us proceed, in the same manner, to con- 
sider the effect produced upon another, by the expression of this 

esire. 

As soon as the application is made, the person to whom it is 
directed will consider his own power and inclination to do or not 
to do the thing that is desired. And, if he do not immediately and 
silently perform, or resolve not to perform it, he will intimate his 
intention to comply, or the contrary. The latter including an 
additional idea, viz. that of negation, along with the original one 
suggested by the imperative verb, will require an additional sound 
to express it, or another word besides one corresponding to that 
which was already used. Accordingly negative particles. have 
been employed for this purpose, I believe, in all languages.. But 
as these are always separate from the verb, or easily separable from 
it, I shall take no farther notice of them in the following observa- 
tions ; confining myself entirely to the affirmative, or simple, form 
of the verb. 

We shall suppose, then, that the person addressed is disposed to 
comply with his brother’s desire, and that he intimates his imtention 
of domg so. The simplest, and most effectual method that he can 
employ will be to repeat the very name of the desired object, with 
a corresponding gesture, or an additional sound, identifying 
himself, as it were, with that object, and thus expressing his willmg- 


C4 


An Essay on Moods. 339 


ness to do what is desired. Here we have the origin of the 
indicative mood, formed from the imperative, by the addition of ' 
some sound representing the speaker, or actor. ‘And, in the 
structure of language, it will be found, in general, that the termina- 
tions of the indicative are fragments of the several personal pro- 
nouns ; expressing, it: the concisest manner, the identity of the 
person and the thing. : 

When the word is once invented, it will do for every similar 
occasion, and may be used as indicative of an intention to act, even 
when no request has been made, or imperative previously used. 
Thus the indicative becomes, by degrees, not a mere’ respondént 
to an antecedent imperative expressed, but to one understood—and, 
proceeding still farther, in the same manner, it expresses the inten- 
tion to do a thing, when no immediate reference to the will of 
another is conceived, but the design appears to originate with tht 
speaker himeelf. 

Thus far we have considered, chiefly, that class of verbs which 
express desires excited by external objects. But it is evident that 
the primary feelings of want, to which I slightly alluded, are 
experienced, before we have an idea what would gratify or relieve 
us. And, in the same manner, the internal emotions give rise to 
many of our expressions, when we have no external object imme- 
diately in view. Hence the inarticulate cry gradually. changes into 
a word, expressive of that emotion, and its corresponding desire ; 
but without implying a direct request, or command, to any inditvi- 
dual, to assist in obtaining the relief, or gratification, that is 
required: as when I say, 1 hunger, or I thirst. Verbs of this 
kind may be considered as having a mixed signification, both tnd:- 
cative, and imperative—or as conveying an indefinite request, but 
incapable of having a distinct and separate imperative. 


Subjunctive, or Potential. 


lt may happen, however, that the person, to whom we suppose 
the request to be made, may not have it in his power immediately 
to comply with it. Has doing so, at all, may perhaps depend upon 
other circumstances, over which he has no control. Some change 
in the form of his answer will then become: necessary. He must 
include an allusion to this uncertainty, or these circumstances, along 
with the expression of his own identity with the object desired. 
But this combination of ideas will be most easily expressed by 
distinct and separate words, As we have observed, this is always 
the case, with regard to simple negatives. And, in the same man- 
ner, the subjunctive, or potential mood, will be found, in general, to 
be formed by the combination of two or more verbs, with con- 
ditional particles and circumstances expressed or understood. It is 


840 An Essay on Moods. 


- 


only in a language of the most artificial construction that a change - 


in terminations alone indicates the uncertainty, or conditional 
‘nature of the assertion. 


Optative. 


A still greater refinement, ora more ingenious contrivance 1s to 
combine, in one word, an expression of the thing desired, the 
person who acts, the uncertainty of accomplishment, and the inten- 
tion to do it, if it be fit or possible. Yet all this is very fully, and 
clearly, expressed in the Greek optative mood. 


We have thus traced the origin of the moods from nature itself, 
commencing with the imperative, as the simple expression of desire; 
to which the indicative corresponds. And it is evident that these 
two alone are sufficient for all the purposes of speech, when 
accompanied by words expressive of condition, uncertainty, or 
vohition, 


Infinitive. 


The infinitive can hardly be classed among the moods of a verb. 
It is simply the name of the action, or existence; and is, not 
improperly, styled by some writers, a verbal noun. When it refers 
to any visible, or sensible object the same word will answer as a 
name for that object ; and even when an action only 1s expressed, a 
similar identity in the word which expresses the doing of the action, 
and its accomplishment, will produce no obscurity in-language. 


Connexion of Moods and Tenses. 


It is evident that, according to the view which we are taking of 
this subject, the only two primitive moods have a reference to 
something that 15 to take place after the word ‘is uttered. Whether 
cue person desires to obtain an object, or another promises to give 
it, both the one and the other look forward to it, as a future event. 
In order, therefore, to have a clear conception of the nature of 
n00ds, it 1s indispensibly necessary to allude also to tenses ; or, as’ 
an Ingenious writer on grammar" has called them, “ the moods of 
time.” Indeed it is impossible to think deliberately on the one 
Without the other. We cannot conceive any dese, any action, 
or any state, without conceiving also some time in which it was, or 
is, or will be in existence. What Cicero says of decorum, as 
connected with the virtues in general, may, very well, be applied 
to this subject. “ Pertinet quidem ad omnem honestatem hoc, 
quod dico, decorum; et ita pertinet ut non recondita quadam 

ec ee en ααποδρτ 


7 Ward, 


An Essay on Moods, 441. 


ratione ‘cernatur, sed ‘sit in promtu. Est enim quiddam, .idque. 
intelligitur in omni virtute, quod deceat, quod cogitatione magis a 
virtute potest quam re separari. Ut venustas et pulchritudo cor- 
poris secerni non potest a valetudine, sic hoc, de quo loquimur, 
decorum, totum illud quidem est cum virtute confusum, sed mente 
et cogitatione distinguitur.” Off. 1. 


Future. 


As, in the origin of language, therefore, there were only two 
moods, so, both these moods having a reference to something not 
yet performed, there could be only one tense, the future ; and the 
desire of the speaker was equally well expressed, whether he used 
that mood which is technically called the imperative, or that mood 
which is called the future tense. The meaning is the same when 
I say, Do this, or, thou shalt do this: do not bear false witness, or, 
thou shalt not bear false witness. ‘The imperative force in these 
future expressions consists not in the auxiliary shall, for the future 
has the same meaning, in languages that require no auxiliaries. 


Past. 


But we have observed that some verbs express desire arising 
from internal emotions, and without an immediate reference to any 
external object. Although these also may be called future, in as 
much as the desire of gratification is implied, yet the principal 
consideration must be with regard to the past, or the time since 
that particular emotion arose. Hence we have another distinction 
of time ; viz. the preterite, or past. And it will be found that 
these two moods of time are sufficient for almost all the purposes 
of speech. The present is like a mathematical point ;.it has no 
parts, and no magnitude.' It is merely the limit, or mark, where 
the line of time past ends, and that of time future commences. 
But the past and the future occupy the whole line, without leaving 
any space to be filled by the present. It is true-that we may 
conceive that point in any part of the past, or future; or we may 
conceive it moving along, extending the one division, and shortening 
the other, and thus forming the last mood of time, or the 


e é; 


Participle. 


The participle, then, may be considered as a frequent. repetition 
of the indicative mood, announcing not merely the intention of 
doing a thing, or declaring the state, in a space of time too short 


eee 


’ Harris, in his Hermes, makes some ingenious observations on this 
subject. 


342 An Essay on Moods. 


for imagination to couceive, but the continuance of that state, or 
‘action for some length of ume. And, accordingly as we fix 
that. action in time past, or future, or eonceive the present as 
included in its continuance, we form the indicative mood into a 
past, present, or future participle. | 

We may also conceive an action to be so frequently repeated as 
to become habitual, and thus form a consuetudinal mood, or tense, 
out of the indicative. Or, finally, considering that habit comes to 
have a permanent influence on our nature, we may suppose a 
person to be so much in the habit of doing a certain thing that the 
tendency to the action becomes an inherent quality in him ; and 
thus, what was originally expressive of a single purpose of doing is 
gradually changed into an epithet, or participial adjective. 
. This theory of teuses and participles, or moods of time, anewer- 
ing the same purpose with those which are generally called moods 
of action or existence, appears to be the only satisfactory way of 
accounting for the seemingly promiscuous use of what are artsfi- 
cially distinguished by the names of moods and tenses, in grammar. 

And that the present tense is one of comparatively little use in 
language will appear, if we consider how very few of our expres- 
sions are limited to this time. When we cast out all narrative of 
the past, and anticipation of the future, we leave, at most, only one 
third of the subjects of speech to be expressed by the present. 
Let us again subtract from this third part the expression of ell such 
things as are equally certain, or uncertain, at all times—whieh do 
not depend, for their truth, upon the circumstances of the presert 
moment, but may be asserted, with the same precision as-to their 
Bature, as things that have been, or that will be—and we reduce 
our use of the present, strictly as such, to very narrow limits indeed. 
This observation is particularly necessary to be kept in mind, in 
accounting for the apparently promiscuous use of tenses, in sume 
languages. : 


Having thus endeavoured to account for the origin of moods on 
the principles of nature, let us proceed, in the | 

Second place, to illustrate this theory by a few observations on 
the use of moods, including tenses, in some written languages. ΄ 


1. Hebrew. 


ον The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient language of whieh 
we have any correct and general knowledge. Not only are the 
early records of the world composed in it, but it possesses those 
characters of primitive simplicity, in the formation of ite verbs, 
which we have considered as accompanying their natural origin. 

In Hebrew, there are only two moods, the imperative, and indi- 
cative. For the infinitive, which is, in regular verbs, the same 


An Essay on Moods. 343 


with the imperative, cannet be considered as a distinet form of the. 
verb. Now, although the custom of Hebrew grammarians, from 
time immemorial, haa been to consider the third person singular 
of the preterite as the root, yet it is hardly possible to cunceive any 
thing more improbable than that the first use of language would 
be to tell what another person had done, at another time: The 
formation of the. various parts of the verb would be equally easy 
from the imperative, which, 10 general, consists of the same letters 
with the third person preterite; and, in some verbs, of still fewer 
letters. Aud, as we supposed the first expression of desire to be 
in a very short and simple form, so all the Hebrew imperatives 
are words of two or three letters; as, IPD visit, AW sit. The 
simple respondent to these is in the first person ‘singular fatute, 
by prefixing &, the first letter of the pronoun ὮΝ J, to the impera- 
tive; thus identifymg the speaker with. the desired action or 
object; as, SPAN Iwill visit, WN I will sit. From the same 
root the other persons, of both numbers, of the preter and future 
tenses, may, with equal ease, be formed; as also the participles 
Benoni, or present, and paoul, or past. It is particularly worthy 
of observation also that the different shades of potential, optative, 
and subjunctive may be expressed by the indicative, with the assist- 
ance of proper particles; and that the imperative mood, and the 
future tense are both used in the same signification. As in that 
sublime expression, God said, let there be light, it is, NN Ὁ light 
‘shall be. In the commandments, and other prohibitory expres- 
sions, our translators have rendered the Hebrew literally—thou 
shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal. 
And as the future tense is thus equivalent to the imperative 
mood, so it is used with a reference not merely to such events as 
certainly will come to pass, but to such as are customary, pos- 
sible, lawful, desirable, reasonable ; thus connecting the significa- 
tion of the potential and subjunctive moods with the form of the 
indicative. And as the preterite is also used to express a thing as 
generally true, as well as to denote what happened in past time, 
the preterite and future appear to be often used indifferently. [t 
was this sameness of signification that, probably, gave rise to the 
use of both these tenses in the same expression, and referring to the 
same time; when it is usually said that }imserted between them 
converts the following verb, from the signification of the tense in 
which it is written, into that of the preceding verb; as, TON YW 
ΝΒ verbatim, I cried unto thee and thou wilt heal me, but 
rendered, I cried unto thee and thou hast healed me. It 1s true 
that this will aot enable us to say why ) should be conversive in 
certain circumstances, and not so in others; or why it was custom- 
ary to make this remarkable use of the tenses, in the Hebrew 


344 An Essay. on Moods. 


language ; but I conceive that we have sufficient reason to believe 
what is here stated to be the principle of the language, - and, ai 
such, to be a testimony to the justness of the theory which I pro- 
pose. That the future and the preterite are sufficient, as was 
before mentioned, for the purposes of language in ‘general, 18 
evident from the Elebrew having no distinct form for the present. 
Things that were, and are, and will be true, are expressed as we 
have seen ; and, when the duration of an event includes the present 
time, it is, very conveniently, expressed by the participle, with the 
vetb of existence expressed, or understood. 


2. Arabic. 


Like its venerable mother tongue, the Arabic has only the 
imperative, and indicative moods, the future and preterite tenses, 
and the two participles. In this language also the imperative is 
the simplest form of the verb, consisting in general of three, and 


O93 G Cw 
never of more than four letters; as, i assist, 4 turn, 


from which the other parts of the verb are easily formed. In the 
use of its tenses, also, we observe that.the Arabic future corres- 
ponds more frequently to our present, than any other tense; which 
strengthens the idea that the present form has, originally, and- 
really, a future signification: while the imperative, and future, 
are used in commanding, or prohibiting, precisely as they are in the 
Hebrew language. ‘The same observation may be made, with 
regard to the use of the participles. 
8. Persian. ᾿ 

Like the Arabic, from which the Persian language i 18. principally 
formed, the structure of their common ‘parent, the tlebrew, 18 
manifest in this dialect also, And, in imitation of the Hebrew 
grammarians, writers on Persian grammar take the third person of 
_the preterite as the root, from which the other parts of the verb are 
formed. But they go ‘still farther, in supposing this to be formed 
from the verbal noun, or infinitive, by cutting off a final syllable ; 
and they then use other syllables, to form the different inflections. 
But this circuitous method might, with great ease, be avoided ia 
this language also, by taking the imperative for the root; as it is 
shorter, and simpler in form, than the infinitive ; thus instéad of 
saying that o35 he spoke, is formed from aay 0 speak, by drop- 


ping the final _ it would be much simpler to form both this, and 
the other pzrts of the verb from ΄ Py speak thou. 


4. Celtic. 
If we turn from the Hebrew and its deacendants in the ‘east,- to 


An Essay on Moods. | 845 


the kindred tongue that spread over the north-western division of 
the ancient world—the Celtic—we shall find the same principles, 
that have been alreatly considered, prevail, ih a very remarkable 
degrée. ‘There is a most striking resemblance between the 
Hebrew. and Celtic, in many particulars, but in nothing more than 
in the formation and inflection of verbs. 


5. Trish. 


The Insh may, perhaps, be considered as the best preserved 
dialect of the ancient Celtic. Its manuscripts are evidently of 
great antiquity; its character appears to be the original one which 
is said to have borne so great a resemblance to the ancient Greek ; 
and, what is most remarkable, the Irish alphabet, to this day, 
admits no other letters.than those which Cadmus, as we are told, 
introduced into Greece ; together with the primitive digamma, 
corresponding exactly in form, power, and order, with the AXolic 
character of that name. ' 

lu Irish, as in Hebrew, the imperafive mood is the root, from 
which all the other parts of the verb are formed. Thus from 
buail, strike, comes buailim, J strike, and buailfid, I will strike. 
And, in general, the imperative 1s a monosyllable. Yet, .in com- 
pliauce with a very preposterous custom, some Irish grammarians 
adopt the infinitive as the root; and others, with equal impro- 
priety, imitate the practice of writers on Greek and Latin, by con- 
sidering the first person, present tense, as that from which the 
other parts of the verb are formed. I may observe that it was’ in 
the course of my reflections on the Celtic, while employed in 
writing a grammar of the Irish language, that the idea first occurred 
to me that the imperative was the radical part of the verb. 

The Irish isas simple as the Hebrew, in its moods and tenses— 
at least, it appears to have been originally so. But, after the propa- 

ators of Christianity introduced a knowledge of the Greek and 
tin languages, several of the artificial inventions, in these 
tongues, were applied to the inflection of Irish verbs." 

Like the Hebrew, the Irish language uses separate particles, and 
auxiliary verbs, to express condition, circumstance, and volition. 
But it is singular in having a distinct form of the verb to denote a 
thing as customary, or consuetudinal. Thus taim, contracted for 
ta me, signifies 7 am now, but bim, for bi me, means I am 
usualiy. 


* See Valpy’s Greek Grammar, p. 44.—Ep. 


VOL. XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XX XVIII. Ζ 


ι 846 


DISSERTATIO LITERARIA DE OSTRACISM 
. ATHENIENSIUM, . 


Quam annuente summo numine, Praside JOANNE LUZAC, 
J.U. D. et tn Academia Batava Lingua Grace. et Hist. 
Patria Professore Ordinario, in Auditorio Literario publice 
defendet JOANNES ANTONIUS PARADYS, Amstelo- 
daumo-Batavus, Auctor. Die 14 Dee. 1793. 


PARS I. 
CAPUT PRIMUM. 


Introductio. 8. 1. Definitio OsTRAcIsMI. §. 2. Varia nomina 
OsTRACISMI. 8. 3. De materié testularum. ὃ. 4. De PETALISMO 
epud SYRACUSANOS. § 5. OsTRACISMUS apud alias GRECIE 
Civitates. 8. 6. De OsTRacisMI Auctore. | 


‘Iva fere comparate sunt res humane, ut sepius opinionem sequa- 
mur, quam exploratam sententiam. Id presertim accidit, in dijudi- 
candis gentium ac populorum institutis, de quibus plerumque ic 
pronunciari solet, ut, dicta a prioribus pro certissimis et non dubiis 
accipientes, illa pro bonis habeamus, quz, si accuratius inspiciantar, 
minus laudanda; contra autem tanquam prava vituperemus, qn, 
melius cognita, non omnino improbanda videantur. Infinita nume- 
ro, ut a Preceptoribus accepimus, talia sunt in Antiquitate Greet 
et Romani, que, ad zquius judicium revocata, diversum a recepts 
. Opinione jam caleulum ferrent. Idcirco, quum a studiis humanioram 
literarum ad severiorem Jurisprudentie disciplinam discedere res 
mez ferant et ztas, profectuum meorum in priori gerere periculum 
facturo Ostracismus placuit, institutum istud Attic Reip. celebratis- 
simum, in quo nibil nisi injustitiam Populi Atheniensis, ingratum erga 
bene meritos viros animum, tyrannidem denique popularem . passim 
quzri et inveniri videas ; que condemnatio an ex boni viri arbitratu 
pronuncianda sit, postquam singula rerum momenta allata fuerint et 
in lance posita, equi discernent judices. Interea, cum ingenui sit 
laudare per quos profeceris, silentio mihi premere nefas est nomen 
Joannis Jacobi Battierii, J.-U. Doctoris et sub finem seculi preteriti 
Eloquentiz Professoris apud Basileenses. Hujus eteuim exstat Dis- 
sertatio de Ostracismo Athentensium, die 15 Augusti anni 1699. 
defensore Theodoro Burcardo, Basile publice proposita. Quam 
_ brevem illam quidem, sed elegantem et cum cura scriptam, si vidisset 
Abbas Geinoz, supersedere potuisset opere, vel a non uno saltem 
sibi cavere errore gravissimo, in Dissertatione Gallica de Ostracismo 
quz legitur in Monumentis Academia elegantiorum Literarum Pari- 
sine (Mémoires de l Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 
Tom. xii. p. 135.)—Jam ipsam opellam nostram agerediamur. 

5.1. De Ostractsmo igitur dicturi, primum videamus, quis fuerit, 
sive quid isto nomine significetur. 


De Ostracismo Atheniensium. 542 


Athenienses, et ad eorum exemplutmh .plurime alize:Civilates Gre- 
εἶ, que form4 imperii populari utebantur, cives, qui vel numero 
amicorum, vel opibus, vel gloria rerum gestarum ceteris multum 
eminebant, et ἃ -quibus, (maxime si accederet alterius poteutioris 
zemulatio et inde orta civilis contentio,) libertati, seu forme imperii 
oppulari, sine qua existimabant libertatem consistere haud 
periculum metuebant, per definitum annorum spatium patria jubebant 
exulare, sine ullo tamen vel fame, vel rei familiaris, vel juriam civilium 
detrimento. \ 
Qualis e civitate per definitum tempus ejectio, quum apud Athe- 
nienses ope testularum irrogari soleret, car’ ἐξοχὴν Ostracismus dictus 
est. Definitionis auctorem habemus Aristotelem de Rep. Lib. iii. 
pag. 354. edit. du Val. - Τίθενται τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν at dnpoxparovperac 
πόλεις" ---αὐταὶ yap τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὑπερέχειν δυνάμει διὰ πλοῦτον, ἣ 
πολυφιλίαν, ἤ τινα ἀλλὴν πολιτικὴν ἰσχὺν, ὠστράκιξον, καὶ μεθίστασαν 
ἐκ τῆς πόλεως χρόνονς ὡρισμένους. 
_ , ἢ]. Dicebatur Ostracismus Ὀστρακισμὸς, ἀποστρακισμὸς, ἐξοστρα- 
κισμὸς, aut et simpliciter ὄστρακον, ut Plutarcho tn Pericle pag. 161. 
A. Els ἀγῶνα περὶ τοῦ ὀστράκου καταστῆναι, id est, de. Ostracismo 
contendisse.* Per jocum etiam vocabatur ὀστρακὶς, ut ab Aristo- 
phane in Equit. Act. 2. Scen. 4. versu 20. Ut autem exilium ipsum 
ὀστρακισμὸε vocabatur, sic actus exilium decernendi appellabatur 
ὀστραωκοφόρια, teste Polluce L. viii. 8. 20. πᾶς ὁ δῆμος ὀστράκοις ἐψη- 
. φίϑετο, καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐκαλεῖτο. ὀστρακοφορία, καὶ τὸ πάθος ὀστρακισμός. 

§. III. Que exscripsimus modo, Pollucis verba originem vocis 
ὁστρακισμὸς satis demonstrant. “Oarpeor, darpecov, ὄστρακον, ejusdem 
originis, ejusdemque propemodum significationis voces, nativa sua po- 
testate, rem notant, que ossis velut duritiem habeat, materiam ossis 
instar induratam, speciatim vero concham marinam, testam, testulam. 
Inde nata, que inter VV. DD. agitatur, disputatio, utrum hz testule 
fuerint vera ostrea seu conche marine, av quedam frusta terre cocte, 
testulz figulinz, in formam concharum efficte. Ut posterior tamet 
sententia, nisi vera, probabilior saltem videatur, facit periphrasis 
κεραμεικὴ vel κεραμικὴ μάστιξ, qua aliquando Ostracismus a Veteribus 
fuit designatus. Appellationis rationem exponit Hesychius in voce 
his verbis: Κεραμεικὴ μάστιξ τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν λέγουσι, μάστιγα μὲν 
διὰ τὸ βασανίϑειν τοὺς ὀστρακιθομένονς καὶ κολάΦειν, κεραμικὴν δὲ διὰ 
τὸ ἐκ κεράμου τὰ ὄστρακα εἶναι. * 

Quin et hanc sibi imaginem Latini etiam scriptores τῶν ὀστράκων 
formasse videntur, cum ὄστρακον reddidere Latina voce testule vel 
teste, ut Nepos in Themistocle Cap. viii. ὃ. 2. testarum suffragtis ὁ 
civitate ejectus; in Cimone Cap. iii. §. 1. nam testarum suffragiis, 


quod illi Ostracismum vocant, decem annorum exilio mulctatus est ; 


tn Aristide Cap. i. ὃ. ἃ. tamen a Themistocle collabefactus testuld 
lla, exilio decem annorum mulctatus est. | 


1 Conf. Piut. in Aristide pag. 319. BR. 
2 Conf, Surin. voce κεραμικὴ μάστιξ. 


posse, . 


- 


348 " Dissertatio Literaria 


§. IV. At vero ὄστρακα conche fuerint vere, an testule figulotum 
opera fabrefacte, parum refert: dummodo ferrentur suffragta, nihil 
intererat, an inscriberentur materiz duriori an molliori, papyro videlicet, 
quin et ipsis arborum foliis: arborum dicimus folia: nam, quod apud 
Athenienses per ὄστρακα seu testas, id in eddem causA apud Syra- 
cusanos per πέταλα seu folia fieri solebat, unde Petalismus apud hos 
idem erat, qui apud illos Ostracismus. Quare Hesychius Πεταλισμὸν 
exponit τὸν διὰ φύλλων ὀστρακισμὸν γενόμενον. Neque foliorum usus 
in re simili Athenis incognitus, ipsi quandoquidem Athenienses foliis 
suffragia ferebant, quando ex. gr. aliquis gravi de causd senatu Quin- 
gentorum esset movendus, ut docet Etym. mag, vove ἐκφυλλοφορῆσαι. 
Etroré τις τῶν πολιτῶν ἀδικεῖν ἐδόκει, καὶ ἀνάξιος εἶναι τοῦ συνεδρίον 
τῶν πεντακοσίων, ἐσκόπει περὶ αὐτοῦ ἡ βουλὴ, εἰ χρὴ αὐτὸν μηκέτι 
βονλεύειν, ἄλλ᾽ ἐλασθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ συνεδρίον, ἀντὶ δὲ τῆς ψήφσν φύλλοις 
ἐχρῶντο, ἐν οἷς ἐπεσήμαινε τὴν αὑτοῦ γνώμην ἕκαστος, ὥσπερ ὀστρᾶκῳ 
ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀστρακισμοῦ, καὶ ἐλέγετο ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἐκφυλλοφύρῆσαι. Id est, si 
quando civium aliquis videretur noxam commisisse, et confesses 500 
indignus esse, cognoscebat de eo senatus, deberetne amplius concilio 
adesse, an vere senatu moveri? Utebantur autem tunc foltis, quibuas 
suam guisque sententiam inscribebat, uti testulis in causa Ostracismi, 
et propterea ἐκφνλλοφορῆσαι dicebatur. 

δ. V. Neque Syracusana tantum, sed alice etiam insuper Greciz 
civitates, simile Athenitensium Ostracismo institutum habuerunt. De 
Argivis testatur Aristoteles Poktécorum Lib. v. Cap. 3. pag. 389. et 
de iisdem ac de Megarensibus et Milesiis Schol. Aristophanis ἐπ 
Equit. Act. 2. Scené 4. vers. 851. Preterea Aristoteles Polit. Lib. 
ili. Cap. 13. pag. 355. seribit, Atheniensés Ostracismum introduxisse 
in civitates, quas sibi socialis foederis nomine subjecerant, apud 
Samios, Chios et Lesbios, unde verosimile fit Hermodorum Philo- 
sophum urbe Epheso pulsum esse Ostracismo, de-quo Strabo Lib. 
xiv. pag. 950. ed. Atmelov. refert in exiliam fuisse missum ἃ civibus 
suis hoc addito dicterio: Ἡμέων μηδεὶς ὀνήϊστος ἔστω" εἰ δέ τις τοιοῦ- 
τος, ἄλλῃ τε καί μετ᾽ ἄλλων" quod sic vertit Cicero Tusc. Quest. Lib. 
v. Cap. 36. Nemo de nobis unus ercellat: δὲ quis exstiterit, alio in 
loco et apud alios sit; quod Ephesiorum factum, narrante eodem 
Strabone, tam zegre tulit Heraclitus, ut indignabundus dixerit, &Zcoy 
Ἐφεσίοις ἡβηδὸν ἀπάγξασθαι, οἵ τινες Ἑρμόδωρον ἄνδρα ἑαυτῶν ὀνήϊστον 
ἐξέβαλον. ; 

§. VI. Sed, ut redeamus ad Athenienses, de quibus precipue 
instituimus agere, videamus paucis, quis apud eos Ostracismi fuerit 
Auctor, adeoque quo Reipublice tempore hec sive Lex, sive consne- 
tudo, vel institutum coeperit: Qua tamen in disquisitione ultra id, 
quod probabile est, nos progredi haud posse, fatemur lubentes. 

Inter varias variorum opiniones, ab omni veri specie alienas," pra- 
cipuz sunt tres, quarum prior Ostracismi originem refert ad ipsum 
Thesea, altera ad Hippiam Pisistrati filium, tertia ad Clisthenem 


-Alemeonis filium. | 
1 Vid. Scaric. ad Evs, Chron. ad unnum 186. 


6 


de Ostracismo Athentensium. 849 


Prima opinio traditur ab Eusebio ad annum 786 et a Scholiaste ad 
Aristophanem in Pluto vers. 627. pag. 32..qui scribunt, Theseum, 
postquam cives suos antea sparsim, et per vicos Attice habitantes, 
‘in upam omnes, congregasset civitatem, ejectum fuisse Ostracismi 
Lege, quaw ipse tulerat. Θησεὺς ᾿Αθηναίους κατὰ χώραν ἐσπαρμένους 
εἰς ἐν συναγαγὼν, ἦτοι εἰς μίαν πόλιν, πρῶτος ἐξωστρακίσθη, αὐτὸς πρῶ- 
τος θεὶς τὸν νόμον. Sed, notante Scaligero ad Euseb. loc. cit. nus- 
quam alibi, preterquam in his locis, Theseus memoratur Ostracismi 
auctor. Plutarchus quoque in Thesei vita, ubi illius exilium enarrat, 
nullam Ostracismi mentionem facit. Denique nullum exstare videtur 
Ostracismi exemplum ante tempora Pisistratidarum ; adeoque existi- 
mamus istud Thesei exilium, sive voluntarium sive coactum, simplicem 
φυγὴν vel ἀπενιαυτισμὸν, non Ostracismum fuisse. 

Hippiam tyrannum legis auctorem commemorat Heraclides περὶ 
πολιτειῶν, tradens, τοῦτον τὸν περὶ ὀστρακισμοῦ νόμον εἰσηγήσασθαι, ὃς 
ἐτέθη διὰ τοὺς τυραννιῶντας. Quod si certiori fide niteretur, quam. 
unico deperditi scriptoris, ejusque qui post antiquatum jam Ostra- 
cismum vixerit, fragmento, mirum primo intuitu videri possit, ipsum 
tyrannum Legem tyrannidi tam contrariam tulisse: sed imirari quis 
desinet, si attendat ad naturam istius tyrannidis, que externam tamen 
Reipublice formam intactam relinquere videbatur; qua de re latius 
agemus, cum de Pisistratidis erit dicendum. 

Nobis quidem maxime probatur sententia eorum, qui statuunt 
Clisthenem, Alcmzonis filium, Ostracismi vel auctorem, vel certe 
instauratorem fuisse. Ita Elianus Vartarum Histor. Lib. xiii. Cap. 
94. Κλεισθένης δὲ ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος τὸ δεῖν ἐξοστρακίδεσθαι πρῶτος εἰσηγη" 
σάμενος, αὐτὸς ἔτυχε τῆς καταδίκης. πρῶτος. Diod. Siculus Lid. xi. pag. 
445. τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν νομοτεθῆναι ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις μετὰ τὴν κατάλυσιν 
τῶν τυμάννων, τῶν περὶ Πεισίστρατον. Harpocration voce ἵππαρχος 
scribit Legem de QOstracismo introductam διὰ τὴν ὑποψίαν τῶν περὶ 
Πεισίστρατον. 

Duo posteriores, non memorato Legis auctore, Legem ipsam latam 
scribunt post Pisistratidas ejectos: Prior, cum quo convenit Plu- 
larchus tn Nicia, pag. 531. A. Clisthenem, principem tunc in Re- 
publica virum, et sua deinde ipsius lege damnatum, disertis verbis 
memorat. Et revera nullus istde etate vivebat, ἃ. quo hujus Legis 
promulgatio magis exspectanda, et nullum magis commodum tempus 
introducende tali legi inveniri posse videtur ; sed quz plenius cognos- 
centur ex illis, quz postea de illo viro, et de illa temporum opportu- 
nitate, dicemus. 


CAPUT SECUNDUM. 


De modo, quo OsTRAciSMUs irropabatur, et ejus exilii sive relega- 
tionis naturé ac causis. 


8. 1. OSTRACISMI LEX sive PRivILEGIUM, in quibus casibus pro- 
positum. ἢ. ἃ. De SENATU QUADRINGENTORUM tel QUINGEN- 
TORUM, ejusqgue potestate. §. 3. IPOBOYAEYMA sive Senatus 
Auctoritas de irrogando OsTRACISMO; et prior ad Populum 


Ppropositarogatio, 8. 4. Concionis Attica varia nomrnc et apecher. 


350 _ Dassertatio Leteraria 


ἢ. 5. De distribuendis in secunda regatione testulis, et colligendis 
carum ope suffragiis. §. 6. Numerus testularum seu suffragiorum 
ad trrogandum OSTRACISMUM necessarius ; et nonnullorum ea de 
re error. §. 7. lrrogatio OsTRACISM!, hujusque @ vero ezilio 
differentia. ὃ. 8. Definitum OstRAcIsM! tempus. §. 9. Locus 
honorifict hujus exilit. An ARGOS οἱ ἐξοστρακισθέντες fuerint 
relegati? ἃ. 10. Bona servabant sua oi ἐξοστρακισθέντες, nec guid- 
quam pene patiebantur. 


_ Quo autem universa. judicii hujus prorsus singularis ratio accurate 
intelligatur, proponemus ordine singulatim, primum ea, que secun- 
dum Leges pracedere debebant ipsum ὀστρακοφορίας actum ; deinde 
hujus ὀστρακοφορίας ritus; denique Ostracismi naturam, et ab omni alio 
exilil genere discrimen. . 

~ 8.1 Quum primum itaque, tacitis plerorumque civium judiciis, civium 
aliquis potentia civili (δ ἰσχὺν πολιτικὴν, utiloquitur Aristoteles de Rep. 
Lib. iii. pag. 354.) adeo censebatur excellere, et τῇ πολιτείᾳ βαρύτερος 
esse, ut prudentiores necesse judicarent confugere ad invidiosum hoc 
status publici conservandi auxilium ; Ostracismo locus erat, maxime 
autem, si, preter nimiam unius potentiam aut gratiam, accederet 
alterius, aut paris aut supparis, cum priore civilis contentio, ita ut 
metus esset, ne hec zmulatio inter duos pluresve opibus et favore 
populari insignes viros tandem in discurdiam apertam erumperet, at- 
que sic Respublica in factionum partes scinderetur. Neque tamen 
de irrogando hoc privilegio apud populum “Εἰ poterat, nisi przeces- 
sisset Senatus Quingentorum Consultum, sive Πρυβούλευμα τῶν πεντα- 
κοσίων. . 

Nimirum Solon, quamvis, sese ad ingenium Atheniensium accom- 
modans, formam Reip. popularem maxime constituisset, et imperii 
majestatem apud ipsum populum collocasset, quasdam tamen adhi- 
buit cautiones, ne populus omnia posset, aut per se saltem posset 
solus, quo libertas in licentiam abiret: eo igitur consilio, preterquam 
quod Senatus Areopagitici decus et auctoritatem amplificaverit, ὃν 
ἐπίσκοπον πάντων, καὶ φύλακα τῶν νόμων ἐκάθιϑεν, alterum instituit 
Senatum Quadringentorum, lectis ex 51}60}}8 quatuor Tribubus, que 
tunc erant, centenis viris, ots προβουλεύειν ἔταξε τοῦ δήμον, καὶ μηδὲν 
ἐὰν ἀπροβούλευτον εἰς ἐκκλησίαν εἰσφέρεσθαι." 

_ Ab αἰϊεγὰ tamen parte, ne quidquam summo τοῦ Δήμον imperio 
decederet, aut preter concionem Atticam aliqua esset Athenis legum 
ferundarum auctoritas, ille Quadringentorum Senatus nulla decreta 
condere poterat, vim Legis habitura, nisi deinceps populo proposita, 
atque ab eo probata et sancita: etenim sanctio demum Tribuum in 
foro congregatarum, quod ante erat Senatus-consultum, perpetuo ab 
omnibus servandum jubebat legitime. Sin autem Senatus decreta a 
populo non probarentur, illorum auctoritas non ultra durabat quam 
ipsum, quod illa condidisset, concilium, id est, donec alius lectus esset 


‘ * Prur. in vit. Solon. pag. 8. Ὁ. 


de Ostracismo Atheniensium. 351 


Senatus, qui quotannis novus constituebatur, ‘ita ut hec Προβουλεύ- 
para non dissimilia fuerint Senatus-consultis apud Romanos. 

8, If. Illum porro Senatum Quadringentorum, aucto Φυλῶν seu 
Tribuum numero, cerntum Senatoribus itidem auctum fuisse, ita ut ex 
decem Tribubus Quiagenti, ex singulis quinquaginta legerentur, res 
est notissima. Neque nobis animus est, aut ea que de hac τῶν πεντα- 
κοσίων BovAn vulgata sunt, repetere, aut quee post Corsinum aliosque 
de ill4 disputari vel magis perspicue exponi εἰ. ad liquidum deduci 
possent, leviter perstringere : id tantum nobis agendum est, quod ad 
' propositum faciat, nempe ut ex ipsd bujus Senatus Quingentorum 
constitutione atque auctoritate colligamus, Ostracismam solo levis 
populi jussu von fuisse irrogatum : quippe uti of πεντακόσιοι, auctori- 
tatem suam populo prestantes, aliqua saltem parte τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας 
vim habebant atque efficaciam, ut ardorem civium vel reprimere possent 
vel temperare, sic iterum τοὺς revraxooiovs moderabantur singule sud 
Vice πρυτανεῖαι, seu uniuscujusque Tribus numerus Senatorum quip- 
quagenarius, per legitimum, quo reliquis Tribubus preibant, 35 vel 
36. dierum spatium : πρυτάνεις ipsos porro consiliis et exemplo rege- 
bant decem ex eorum uumero, per anam hebdomada, primum et inter 
πρυτάνεις et in ipso Senatu locum occupantes, πρόεδροι" hos denique 
προέδρους per unum diem ex denis sorte lectus ἐπιστάτης seu Civitatis 
Prefectus. Que omnia, ex Harpocratione’ aliisque satis cognita, 
brevissime recensemus, ut inde efficiamus, fuisse Athenis, tum etiam 
quando Areopagus, auctore Pericle, jam eviluerat, in forma Reip. 
maxime populari aliquod tamen pondus, quod precipitem populi 
voluntatem, nisi omnino retraheret, frenaret saltem et aliquantisper 
reprimeret: hujusque observationis majus in re nostra est momentum, 
si meminerimus, in amplissimum hunc Quingentorum Senatum nemi- 
nem legi potuisse, nisi qui 30. annis esset major® et vitam, sine 
probro vel crimine actam, solenni δοκιμασίᾳ probaret ;* neminem 
Senatorio munere potuisse fungi, nisi prestito jurejurando, si quod 
unquam, sacerrimo, cujus ὄρκον βονλευτικοῦ precipuum caput erat 
κατὰ νόμους Bovdedoecy.* ᾿ 

8. ‘HI. Tale igitur cum esset τῶν πεντακοσίων concilium, in hoc 
gravissimo atque amplissimo Quingertorum consessu, antequam 
rogatio ad populum ferretur, agitanda erat quzstio, non de privilegio 
huic vel illi irrogando, sed universe, isne esset Reip. status, ut aliqui, 
(nemo autem nomine appellabatur) ad eam conservandam, cives, 
unus an alter, Ostracismi Lege ejiciendi viderentur. Si illa Reip. 
conditio videretur, atque Ostracismo jam utendum plura suffragia 
vincerent, tum demum fiebat Προβούλενμα, seu, interprete Harpocra- 
tione, ro ὑπὸ τῆς βονλῆς ψηφισθὲν πρὶν eis τὸν δῆμον εἰσενεχθῆναι. Ita- 


1 Vocibus πρύτανις, πρόιδρος, ἐπιστάτης. 

2 Xenoph. Mem. Socr. Lib.i. ραᾳ. 111. . 

3 Lysias Orat.c. Phil. pag. 487. Ed. Tuyl. 

* Vid. Petitum ad LL, Att. pag. 192. Auctoresque ibi laudetos. 


95 Dissertatio Literarta 


que, scripto in eam sententiam Senatus-consulto, quo τῆς βουλῆς auc- 


- , toritas Populo prestabatur, hic ad concionem vocabatur, ferebaturque 


rogatio, an Populus. (ὁ δῆμος: τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων) in eadem, qua Senatus, 
versaretur sententia, tempora scilicet Reip. ita esse comparata, ut 
Ostracismi.priviegio aliquis civium, nomine tamen haud appellandus, 
publicz salutis ergo, et ad servandam presentem Reip. formam, ex 
Civitate esset ejiciendus, nec ne ? 

Ὁ δῆμος judicium suum sublatis manibus significabat, unde bic 
actus dicebatur zpoyeporovia, quem προχειροτονίας actum, si idem 
Popvlo ac Senatui visum esset, sequebatur indictio concionis in 
certum diem, κατάκλησις dicte, que ipsi ὀστρακοφορίᾳ jam erat 
destinata. 

8. IV. Κατάκλησις vel κατακλησία autem quz fuerit, quia et illud 
cognovisse in hac causa nostr4 interest, paucis videamus. 

Classicus Ammonii Grammatici locus est de Diff. Verb. in υ. 
ἐκκλησία, pag. 47. ubi, discrimen tradens inter ἐκκλησίαν et κατάκλησιν, 
doeet ἐκκλησίαν ab Atheniensibus dictam fuisse τὴν σύνοδον τῶν κατὰ 
πόλιν, conventum civium qui in ipsa urbe habitabant; κατάκλησιν 
~ vero, quando et illi convocabantur, qui rure degebant, ὁπότε καὶ τοὺς 
ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν σννεκάλουν, nimirum ut res tanto majori cam cura ab 
universo populo perpenderetur: quo ex loco efficimus, ἐκκλησίαν 
fuisse concionem τοῦ δήμον certo tempore ἃ civibus urbanis habitam, 
karakAnow vel κατακλησίαν conventum universorum Atheniensium, 
ad quem non soli aives urbani sed et rustici congregabantur.' Tertia 
fuit species, σύγκλητος ἐκκλησία, quam non tantum a concione 
ordinaria, sed et a κατακλήσει, diversam fuisse probabile est. Ἐκκλησία 
nimirum, uti modo dicebamus, videtur fuisse concio populi urbani, 
que statis diebus tam frequenter coibat, ut cives Attici, rure degentes, 
ad illam neque adesse, neque convocari, commode possent: verum 
ad illa comitia, haud tam multa, in quibus de rebus majoris 
momenti agebatur, vel sponte sud vel vocati conveniebant ruricole 
omuesque, qui in oppidis pagisve Attices fortunarum suarum habe- 
bant sedem. Hec erat κατάκλησις. Quando autem repentina aliqua 
causa incideret, ob quam ὁ δῆμος ad sentehtiam: ferendam esset in- 
vitandus, ex. gr. magna aliqua clades bellica, motus hostium, aut 
casus improvisys, tum subito et ipso quasi momento extra ordinem 
vocata concio dicebatur σύγκλητος ἐκκλησία : * Quippe ad comitia, 
quz ‘stato tempore celebrabantur, populus sponte sud coibat; ad 
concionem extra ordinem habendam vocabatur a preconibus vel 
ministris, qui urbem circumibant: quod cum in magnis periculis 
plerumque fieret, multum fuisse in illis turbarum et terroris constat.3 


™ De hoc discrimine egregia habet Magnus Valckenzrius Animado. ad 
Amm. de Diff. Verborum Lib. i. Cap. 17. pag. 72. 

* Ulpian. ad Demosth. de Coroné §. 126. pag.-147.de Faled Leg. §. 224. 
pag. 226. 5 Eschines de Falsd Leg. pag. 37. - - 


de Ostracismo Atheniensium. . 358 


Jam vero κατάκλησιν fuisse, sive istam concionis Attic speciem, 
ubi et urbani et rastici aderant cives, que de Ostracismo ptar 
nunqgabat, luculentissime patet ex Plutarcho in υἱέά Aristidis pag. 
322. quando ἰδὲ Athenienses narrantur, σννελθόντες els ἄστυ παντάχο- 
θεν, Aristidem Ostracismo dignum judicasse: confirmatur preterea 
Notissimo illo dicto cujusdam ἀγραμμάτον καὶ παντελῶς ἀγροίκον, 
qui cm inscribere testule ipse non posset nomen Aristidis, quem 
nullam aliam ob causam damnandum censebat, nisi ob justitie 
famam, officium hoc ab ipso Aristide petiit.’ 

δ, V. Quo autem in hac κατακλήσει vel κατακλησίᾳ omnia ex lege 
et sine fraude gererentur, ac commode fideliterque suffragiorum. 
numerus iniri posset, forum aliusve locus spatiosus* in quo 
concio erat habenda, cancellis sepiebatur; et septum, intra quod 
laturi erant suffragia, ita ducebatur, ut in ambitu formam circuli 
habente decem” relinquerentur introitus, εἴσοδοι sive porte, pro 
totidem tribubus,? per quas portas intra septum: intrarent. Ad 
has verd portas accedebatur per pontes, in quibus ad ipsas portas e 
cistis sive cadis ibi positis Prytanes testulas suis quique tribulibus 
distribuebant. Accepta testul4 et nomine damnandi inscripta, 
singule tribus ordine introibant per portam pegmatis sibi propriam, 
injiciebantque singuli tribules testulam suam in καδίσκον vel sitellam, 
quales decem pro numero tribuum intra septum erant posite. Eun 
in modum collecta suffragia ab Archontibus numerabantur, uti diserte 
tradit Plutarchus in Aristide pag. 222. B, e cujus testimonio et 
Scholiis ad Aristophanem in Equit. vers. 851. colligere licet, supre- 
mam hujus concionis moderande curam Archontibus et Quin- 
gentorum Senatui, haud minus quam aliorum comitiorum, commissam 
uisse. 

δ. VI. Quod si testularum numerus sex millibus minor reperiretur, 
adeoque constaret, non eum civium numerum ad ferenda suffragia 
convenisse, qui de rebus majoris momenti statuere debebat, actum 
nihil erat et irritus ὀστρακοφορίας actus: quippe non tantum ad 
Psephismata de causis gravioribus condenda, Legesque novas veteri- 
bus subrogandas, requirebatur numerus civium sex mille in concione 
congregatorum, uti non uno loco Demosthenes, testis est; sed e& 
Lege, que in hac nostrd Disputatione maxime spectanda est, et de 
qua idcirco in postrema hujus opellz parte nonnulla dicentur, cau- 
tum erat, μηδὲ ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ νόμον ἐξεῖναι θεῖναι, ἐὰν μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ 
πᾶσιν ᾿Αθηναίοις" ἐὰν μὴ ἑξακισχιλίοις δόξῃ, κρύβδην ψηφιϑομένοις, Ἰά . 
est, ne uni civi privilegium irrogator, nisi pariter idem omnibus 
Atheniensibus, tumque nisi sex millia civium occulta e4 de rogatione 
tulerint suffragia:* quemadmodum, ab alterd parte, si quis jure 


? Vid. Sigonium de . Athen, Lib. 11. Cap. 4. Itin. Anach. Volum. 11. 
δ 


ag. 40. 
P ἔ τόπον τῆς ἀγορᾶς περιπιφραγμένον ly κύκλων δρυφάκτοις, Plut. ἐπ Aristide pag. 32%, Σ. 
3 Vid. Schol. ad Aristoph. Equites vers. 851. 
+ Andocides de Mystertis pag. 12. I. 


354 Dussertatio Literaria 


civitatis douandus esset, necesse erat, ut concioni, in qua sammus 

hic honos decernebatur, plures quam sex mille cives preesentes ades- 
sent.‘ Si vero, subducto calculorum numero, sex mille cives adesse 
concioni constaret, mox singula nomina seorsim ponebantur, quibus 
testulse inecripte reperiebantur, et cui plurima obtigissent, is pro 
eo habebatur, a quo plurimi cives Reip. metuerent, quique adeo ut 
statui populari periculosus civitate per decem annos movendus pleris- 
que videretur. Diserte Plutarchus /. σα. in Aristide pag. 322. E. 
F. οἵ δὲ ἄρχοντες πρῶτον μὸν διηρίθμουν τὸ σύμπαν τῶν ὀστράκων πλῆθοε" 
εἰ γὰρ ἑξακισχιλίων ἐλάττονες οἱ γράψαντες εἶεν, ἀτελὴς ἦν ὁ ἐξοστρα- 
κισμός ἔπειτα τῶν ὀνομάτων ἕκαστον ἰδίᾳ θέντες, τὸν ὑπὸ τῶν πλείστων 
γεγραμμένον ἐξεκήρυττον εἰς ἔτη δέκα, καρπούμενον τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. Con- 
sentit cum Plutarcho Diod. Siculus Lib. x. pag. 445. ed. Wess. 
scribens hunc fuisse Ostracismi modum; ἕκαστος τῶν πολίτων eis 
ὄστρακον ἔγραφε τοὔνομα τοῦ δοκοῦντος μάλιστα δύνασθαι καταλῦσαι 
τὴν δημοκρατίαν ᾧ δὲ ἂν ὄστρακα πλείω γένηται, φεύγειν ἐκ τῆς 
πατρίδος. Dubia quodammodo censeantur, quamvis ex Platarchi 
et Diodori sententia commode possint accipi, verba Scholiastze ad 
Aristophan. Equit. vers. 851. ᾿Αριθμηθέντων δὲ ὧν πλεῖστα γένοιτο, 
καὶ μὴ ἐλάττω ἑξακισχιλίων, τοῦτον ἔδει ἐν δέκα ἡμέραις μεταστῆναε τῆς 
πόλεως: ubi videtur ambiguum, an existimaverit ille Scholiastes 
damnari non potuisse nisi eum, quisex mille ὄστρακα nomine suo notata 
adeptus esset, an vero istum numerum significare voluerit talem 
fuisse, sine quo, ad suffragia congregato, nemini Ostracismus potuerit 
irrogari. Quod dubium in Scholiaste loco, id manifestum in Pollu- 
cis Onom. Lib. viii. segm. xix. pag. 862. ὅτῳ ἑξακισχίλια γένοιτο ra 
ὄστρακα, τοῦτον φεύγειν ἔχρη: De quo loco pauca sunt dicenda. Vix 
enim opere pretium de T’zetze, futili auctore, mentionem hic fecisse, 
qui Chiliad. xii. pag. 443. scripsit, mille tantummodo suffragia 
ad damnationem necessaria fuisse ; atque is tamen ipse locus, si pro 
καὶ χιλίων legamus 8 χιλίων, integritati sue restitutus videatur, notante 
dudum Joanne Meursio Att. Lect. Lib. v. Cop.1&. At vero, ut ad 
Pollucem redeamus, illius Grammatici, quem, licet eruditissimum, it 
rebus tamen Atheniensium antiquis et alias lapsum esse constat,— 
illius igitur Grammatici: non tanta est auctoritas, ut testimonium 

Plutarchi labefaciat, refragante presertim re ips4, quandoquidem 

haud tam magnus in Rep. AtticAd civium erat numerus, ut uni potue- 
rint contingere sex mille testule, nisi forte idem omnibus esset sensus, 

quod exspectandum certe haud erat in ed rerum conditione, qu4, 

8088 jam in partes civitate, ad extremum hoc salutis publice re- 

medium erat confugiendum. Ac bello quidem Peloponnesiaco, prop- 

ter varias clades et expeditiones maritimas atque longinquas, vix 

unquam ultra quinque millia civium convenisse, ex Thucydide* col- 

ligitur. Idcirco ne veri quidem speciem habet, quod docet Pollux; 


t Auctor Orat. contra: Ne@ram inter Opp. Demosth. pag. 7389. §. 140. 
* Jib. ΝΠ]. Cap. 13. - 


de Ostracismo Athenienkum. 355 


atque adeo mirum videatur, erranti huic duci comitem se prebuisse ᾿ 
Abbatem Geinozium,* cum is nisi a Battierio,* cujus forte Disserta- 
tionem non viderat, meliora saltem discere potuisset ab Hadriano 
Junio Animadv. Lib. v. Cap. 18. et a Petito ad LL. Att. Ltd, iv. 
Tit. 9. pag. 458. qui Pollucem merito reprehendit, a Kuhnio in 
otis non satis excusatum. ~“Neque etiam singulare valde est, quod e 
Polluce notatu dignum censet Geinozius, neminem huic ὀστρακοφορίᾳ 
civem adfuisse, nisi volentem et sponte sud: περισχοινέσαντες ri τῆς 
ἀγορᾶς μέρος, ἔδει φέρειν els τὸν περιορισθέντα τόπον ᾿Αθηναίων τὸν 
βονλόμενον ὄστρακον ἐγγεγραμμένον τοὔνομα τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξοστρακίξε- 
σθαι: quamquam enim constat, istoc Reip. tempore, quo Cleonis 
aliorumque Demagogorum furor et insanientis populi clamores in 
concione dominabantur, optimos cives maluisse se domi continere 
quam popularibus fluctibus se committere, ita ut segniores a Ministris, 
qui Σκύθαι vel Σπευσίνιοι dicebantur, fune rubro in forum fuerint 
ducendi vel impellendi, hec tamen comitiorum Atticorum turbulenta 
conditio tum maxime initium habuit, quum- jam Ostracismus in , 
desuetudinem abierat: ac preterea legem aliquam vetuisse, ne ad 
concionem, ὀστρακοφορίας causa convocatam, quisquam invitus adige- 
retur, aliunde non est cognitum, neque tuto conficitur ex sola voce 
ὁ BovdAdpevos, qua Pollux usus est. Magis quoque sine teste loquitur 
Vir judicii multi inque scribendo alias semper accuratissimus Ubbo? 
Emmius, et hunc, uti fit, secutus Vir doctus Temple Stanyan, ‘ 
nullos in κατακλήσει de Ostracismo suffragii ferendi jus habuisse 
preter sexagenario majores, errore fortasse inde nato, quod, ante- 
quam mos Remp. Oratoribus in concione regundam permisisset, 
Proédri per preconem excitare solerent quinquagenario majores, non 
tantum ut primi suffragia ferrent; sed et ut sententiam suam de re 
ad deliberandum proposita rationibus firmarent. ὅ 

ἢ, VIT. Qui ex sex suffragiorum millibus, vel majori etiam numero, 
plura nactus erat, publica preconis renunciatione exulare jubebatur 
annos decem, ἐξεκηρύσσετο és ἔτη δέκα, ut ait Plutarchus in Aristide U. 
laud. et quidem intra decem dies in exilium proficisci, secundum 
Schol. Aristoph. ad Equit. vers. 851. Idem Aristoph. Schol. tum 
in hoc ipso loco, tum ad Vesp. vers. 941. discrimen inter Ostra- 
cismum et exilium seu φυγὴν accuratissime omnium tradidit; nempe 
Ostracismum speciem esse; species autem generibus subjici; ideo 
Ostracismum recte pro exilio haberi, non tamen omne exilium Ostra- 
cismum esse ; nam ἐξοστρακισθεῖσι constitui et locum et tempus exilii, 
neutrum exilio damnatis; et horum quidem bona publicari, non 


‘ 


™ Diss. laud. Mém. de l’Aead. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, Tomo XII. 
pag. 147. 

2 Diss. de Ostracismo, Cap. 4. 

3 Vet. Gracie Tomo 111. pag. 38. 

* Histoire de la Grece Lib. 11. pag. 8. Ed. Gail. 

5. Eschines c. Timarchum pag. 4. c. Ctesiphontem pag. 58. Demosth. de 


Coroné pag. 168. Plutarch. Tomo 11. peg. 184. Petit.ad LL. At. Lab. Wi, 
Tit, 1.6 6. 


956  - Dissertatio Literaria 


illorum, quibus licebat etiam absentibus καρποῦσθαι ra ξαντῶν. 
Operz pretium erit paucis de singulis agere. 

§. VIII. Et primum quidem de Ostracismi legitimo tempore 
decenni vix ullus est dubitandi locus in ananimi veterum consensu. 
Preter Plutarch. in Aristid. l. cit. Schol. Aristophanis, Andocidem, 
Corn. Nepotem, qui ia υἱέά Aristidis refert, hunc sexto fere anno, 
postquam expulsus erat, Populi-scito in patriam esse restitutum, 
neque legitimam decem annorum penam pertulisse, (ita ex consuetu- 
dine voce pend magis usus, quam ex re ipsd) Cap. I. 8. 3. 5.— 
preter hos igitur Scriptores, aliosque, unus Diod. Siculi' locus im 
contrarium adbiberi posset, quinquennale tempus Ostracismi πενσαετῆ 
χρόνον scribentis, ubi vetus interpres xv aunos legit, eoque ipso 
peccatum librariorum manifestum fecit, non errorem Diodort, qui in 
re adeo not4 falli non potuit, uti merito animadvertit Wesselingius 
ad illum Jocum. | 

δ. IX. Queritur deinde de loco hujus exilii, quem laudatus modo 
Scholiastes disertis verbis designari consuevisse tradidit. Sed hc 
quidem res ad liquidum perducta non est. Erasmus in Adag. x. 
Num. 80., βουκολήσεις, hoc ait velut enigmate significabant exilium, 
sigquidem qui per Ostracismum ejiciebantur, in Argivam. exulatum 
ibant, et auctorem excitat Erasmus,.tum Plutarchum in Collectaneis 
Proverbiorum, tum Hesychium, qui repertum olim hoc dicterium in 
Menandri Phasmate testetur; sed animadvertit Battierius Dessert. 
laud. Cap. 6. ista Plutarchi Collectanea, Erasmo et in hoc, de quo 
agitur, loco et alibi passim citata, inedita adhuc esse, testante Andrea 
Schotto in Notis ad Zenobii Proverb. Cent. 1. n. 67. et quod de 
Hesychio dicitur, pertinere tllud ad sequens apud Erasmum Prover- 
bium ἔμβαρός εἰμι, cujus auctorem Hesychius Menandrum laudat in 
Phasmate. Edidit quidem, post scriptam Battierii Dissertationem, 
Cl. Jacobus Gronovius in Pref. ad tom. X. Thesauri Antiquitatum 
Gracarum pag. 6. seqg.e Codice Florentino, sub Plutarchi nomine, 
Syllogen cxxxi. Proverbiorum Grece, addita Interpretatione Latin4 : 
verum neque iste αἱ Πλουγάρχον παραιμίαι, als ᾿Αλεξανδρεῖς ἐχρῶντο, 
uti ad calcem Sylloges scribitur,.eeedem sunt vel esse videntur, quibus 
Erasmus usus, neque una aut altera Sylloge iidem ac duo isti Pare- 
-miarum Libri, quos Plutarchi filius Lamprias in censum scriptorum 
paternorum retulit.* Denique, quod caput rei est, ne in ista quidem 
Sylloge Florentina vel Gronoviana Proverbium βουκολήσεις reperitur. 

Neque ex ips4 τῶν ἐξοστρακισθέντων historia res satis definiri potest. 
De Themistocle narrat Thucydides Lib. 1. Cap. 135. eum, Ostracismo 
pulsum patria, Argis quidem domicilii sedem (δίαιταν) habuisse, sed 
per. reliquam quoque Peloponnesum frequenter commeasse. ᾿ Nepos 
Themistoclem Argos habitatum concessisse, ibique propter multas. 
ejus virtutes magna cum dignitate vixisse, scribit in Them. Cap. viii. 


~ 


1 Lib. XI. Cap. 55. 
3 Vid. Fabric, Bibl. Grac. Vol. WN. pag, 282, 


de Ostracismo Atheniensium. = 357 


§. 1.ad quem Jocum Lambinus, Argis commorabantur, qui testa- 
rum suffragtis e civitate ejecti erant. ‘Et, si verum, idem haud 
rawum fuerit, cum Argivi priscis temporibus eAdem usi linguA, * 
qua Attici, magnam cum Athentenstbus necessitudinem habuerint, 
tum similitudine imperii popularis, tum vinculis federum, tum deni- 
que invidid* Lacedeemoniorum, ita ut nusquam sedem aptius figere 
potuerint, ad recuperandum civium favorem, illi, qui patriam, quam- 
quam erga se iogratam, diligebant tamen: sed alia est res, volen- 
tes sedem ibi posuisse, alia etiam nolentibus locum commorandi. 
fuisse adsignatum. Universe autem, quicunque Athenis exulabant, 
si non Argos, in Peleponnesum tamen se recepisse Xenophontis 
aliorumque exemplo patet: ac de Cimone quidem suspicari id licet, 
quum constet, hunc ‘Tanagre arma cum civibus suis voluisse sociare, 
sed repudiatum. Plut. in Per. pag. 157. B. in Cimone pag. 489. ἢ. Ex 
Tanagra urbs erat Boeotiee ; et priore loco Cimon dicitur ἐλθὼν ἐκ 
φυγῆς illuc venisse, ut operam contra Lacedemonios civibus prestans 
Laconismi sibi impacti suspicionem ‘factis dilueret: jam autem Boo- 
tiam venientibus in agrum Atticum fuisse transeundam, ton est quod 
moneamus. 

δ, A. Postrema de bonis τῶν ὀστρακισθέντων videndum. Diserte 
Schol. Aristoph. ad Vesp. vers. 941. differre ait et hac parte φυγὴν 
ab ὀστρακισμῷ, quod bona τῶν φευγόντων publicata fuerint ; ea autem, 
que ὀστρακισθέντες reliquissent, populus sibi non vindicaret, exulanti- 
bus fructum saltem eorum permittens, καρποῦσθαι τὰ ἁμυτῶν, (ut verbis 
utamur Plutarchi* cum Scholiaste consentientis) ipsam posséssionem 
plenamque adeo (ut loquuntur JCti) proprietatem iis. redditurus, si 
per Ostracismi tempus nibil hostiliter contra Patriam essent moliti, 
nec quidpiam ex odio aut ird.ergg illam admisissent: probatque hoc 
exemplo Thucydidis Melesiz F. qui, quum Ostracismo esset pulsus, 
ad Artaxerxen confugerat, eoque nomine Greciz proditor habitus, 
et a civibus ad ἀειφυγίαν dampatus, tum demum bona _ aniisit, - 
Athenis publicata. Ceterum paen@ nomen, quo usus Cornelius. 
Nepos, usi etiam alii, non uisi, ut modo dicebamus, improprie in. 
Ostracismum convenit, qui, ut Plutarchi iterum adhibeamus verba, 
κύλασις οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ παραμνθία φθόνον φιλάνθρωτος, quemadmodum 
ex historia nobiliorum inter ὀστρακισθέντας intelligitur, jam ἃ nobis’ 
contexenda. 


Sg SS GD, 
' Vid. Paus. in Gracie descriptione Lib. 11. Cap. 37. pag. 199. 
2 Paus. Lib. 11. Cap. 20. . . 
3 In Aristide pag. 322. ε. Lexicon Riet. MS. quod beneficio ΟἹ. Rubnkenii 
descripsit,Cl. Praeser. Ὀσσρακισμὸς φυγῆς εἶδος, --- Διαφίρει δὲ ψυγῆς, ὅτι τῶν ὀστρωκιφος- 
μίνων αἱ οὐσίαι ob δημεύονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ τόπον χαὶ χρόνον ὠρισριίγον ἔχουσι" τῶν δὲ φευγόντων, 
οὐδέτερογ τούτων πρόσιστι. 


358. 


~ POEM BY THE KING OF PERSIA. 


Ir is generally known from the reports both of French and Eng- 
lish travellers, that Fateh Ali Shah (olé ht 35) the present 


Sovereign of Persia, is a poet of considerable eminence, at least 
in the estimation of his subjects. Some translations from his 
verses have been given in this Journal, (No. XIII. p. 131.) 


and we now extract from the Royal Divan (21..5) or Collection 
of his Elegies and Sonnets, a ghazl (S55) or Ode, in which, per- 


haps, the critical Orientalist may discover some resemblances to 
various passages of Hafiz, Saadi, Jami, and other Persian poets of 
the best school. _The King’s Divan does not exhibit his own 
proper name: like most authors of Elegies and Sonnets, he has as- 
sumed a poetical surname, and styles himself (as in the ode which 


we here offer to our readers) Khakan (οι) a title which al- 
ludes, however, to his own royal dignity, and signifies in the Scy- 
thian or Turcoman language, a Kg or Emperor. But this as- 


sumed title must not be confounded with Khakdni (ω ὦ the 
name of a celebrated Persian poet who” florished some centuries 
σο. 

One of the most splendid and beautiful manuscripts now in Eu- 
rope, is, probably, a copy of the Persian Monarch’s Divan, which 
his Majesty himself (in the year 1813,) presented to Sir Gore 
Ouseley, our Ambassador αἱ the Court of Tehran. It was tran- 
scribed with the utmost accuracy and elegance under the King’s 
, immediate inspection, by Mirza Abd al Wehab (Ws,3 dus) a 

man of high rank, considered as the finest penman of the present 
age. ‘The size of this volume is folio—the covers are magnificently 
ornamented with miniature paintings, and every page is illuminated 
with patterns of foliage, flowers, and various arabesques.in brilliant 
and exquisite colours, and enriched with gold by the most distin- 
guished artist of the Persian capital. On a future occasion 
we shall offer our English version of the royal Sonnet which 
follows. : 


eT δ bin pT Gol sy ppl 
MT Glephe ide Guat gee _ 


Adversaria Literaria. 359 
ὥραν Slest buss ga yu ge 
eT Gletig gly Cod 3) Gs, 2G} 
uigy3 oat: ag Glee Obi 9 
oll Sled ost 3) SS 5 an ur o ὁ5 
et ely Send μοῦ gh tay 
Το» 93 39 Iw care Js 
Hated ἃς Oy yh Ko λαδο glow 
op lina xed OF aS old 5 yan 
Liga iy ὁ 5} tas OS Gide κὸν 


DoT οἷς ἡ bub ool ΑΓ ὦ 


δῶ οὐ δ tps δ ὦ 
Mp δ > 9 ὁ ow gy 5! 


ADVERSARIA LITERARIA. 


NO. XX. 


On the Utility and the Propriety of studying the Classical 
Writers in Public Schools. 


“ Curistianus Guil. Vollandus Mulhusa 6 Kal. Nov. 1720. 
scribit esse apud se qui classicos auctores Juventuti in Schola 
eripere velint, et pro eis Christianos scriptores utut barbaros 
obtrudant : huic barbariei dum ipse pro viribus obviam eat, cum 
ab allis viris principibus, tum a Cell. Bergero, Menckenio, 
Walchio, Hederico confirmatum esse, petere etiam ut Fabricius 


969 ‘Adversaria Citerarita. 


harum rerum judex idoneus sententiam suam apenat; cui ille hoc 
modo respondit : 

Quearis, vir Venerande, ex me, num periclitetur res Christiana, si 
in ludis litterariis, ita ut hactenus fier! consuevit, classici Terentius, 
Horatius, Cicero, Curtius, alii, Ethnici scilicet scriptores porro 
personent, tenerisque pubis Christiarie auribus et animis hac 
monumenta aliena a pietate Christiana instillentur; demonstras 
enim esse apud vos cum maxime, qui vehementer contendant, 
scholas hac in parte emendatione necessario indigere, longeque 
melius fore actum et prudentius consultum rei Christiane, si scan- 
dalum illud manifestarium tollatar, et loco detestabilium illorum 
nominum a Christo alienorum frequententur Prudentius, Schoneus, 
Seyboldus, et scripta certa deligantur Christianorum hominum, ex 
quibus longe rectius, et tutius linguam Latinam adolescentes 
addiscant: Petis igitur pro humanitate tua a me, ut sententiam 
hac de re’ meam tibi perscribam, et quid de hoc consilio mihi 
videatur, candide et libere aperiam : Quanquam vero pulchre sentio 
quam parum in hac causa meo sive judicio, sive suffragio sit opus, 
cum jam non inficianda exstent tot seculorum, tot nationum, tot 
virorum eruditissimorum omni @tate judicia et testimonia, qui 
semper existimarunt rectissime evs facere et ad eruditionem com- 
parandam aptissime, qui linguas et artes non ex rivulis, tenuibus 
spe ac lutulentum fluentibus, sed ex fontibus limpidis, ἢ. 6. -anti- 
quitatis probatissimis scriptoribus pétendas esse arbitrantur: atta- 
men ut desiderio tuo faciam satis, hanc eandem sententiam, quam ° 
et tu non diffiteris tuam esse, et ego esse meam libenter profiteor, 
paucis argumentis asseram. De hoc quidem nemo nostrum dubitat, 
si cum Ethnicorum scriptorum tractatione consistere non posset 
Christi amor, et qui Latine lingue cultum ex Romanis, Grece 
ex Atticis haurit quantumvis Ethnicis scriptoribus, eum oporteret 
Christianz ideo pietatis jacturam facefe, vel illius faciende proba- 
bile periculum incurreret, nemo inquam nostrum dubitat, omnes 
illos et totos abjiciendos jure merito, et ex scholis Christianorum 
longe longeque eliminandos, etiamsi ipsarum simul linguarum opes 
omnes ac delicia tunc forte propterea fugere nos deberent: Sed 
hoc nullo modo ita se, habet, quod ex Scholastica Ethnicorum 
scriptorum tractatione illud Christiane pietati periculum immineat : 
Atque illud minime ‘ita se habere, etiam tempore adhuc passim 
obtinentis Ethnicismi omnes sibi.veteres Christiani libenter. persua- 
serunt, qui in scholis suis ubique, τοὶ Homerum, Demosthenem, 
Aristophanem, Xenophontem, alios, Latini Ciceronem, ‘lerentium, 
Virgilium, similesque classicos constanter habuere, donec Julianus 
Apostata, ut Christianos ἄστεα faceret, et insigni illos eloquentia et 
cruditionis spoliaret instrumento, Ethnicorum scriptorum usum 


Adversaria Literaria. 361 


scholis-Christianorum notissimo illo edicto suo interdixit : Cumgue 
necessitate compulsi Gregorius Nazianzenus et Apollinaris suis 
quz recens composuerant Grecis carmiuibus vellent veluti succer 
daneis illum defectum sarcire, mox sublato Juliano et edicto illo 
abolito, libenter iterum ad vetera ista tanquam meliora—quantum, 
vis Ethnica, sed ad propositum et institutum suum aptiora redie-. 
runt: Quis igitur non miretur idem, quod Julianus olim nominig 
Christiani hostis,- ut’ Christianis noceret, edixit, idem esse inter 
Christianos, qui specie pietatis nobis sive persuadere, sive injun- 
gere cupiant? Quod autem innoxia possit esse Ethvicorum 
scriptorum in Scholis tractatio, imo utilis pietati etiam, si idoneus 
doctor accedat, non minus certo sum persyasus, quam posse ali 
Epicureismum et hypocrisin etiamsi quis Schonzi, vel alterius 
Christiani hominis scripta prelegat : Testantur hoc exempla iunu- 
mera virorum omni ztate preclarissimorum, qui sive imbuti in 
scholis linguz Latine atque Grece tirociniis ex Cicerone, Teren- 
tio, Horatio, Curtio, Homero, Demosthene, nihil tamen Ethn)- 
cismi, nihil irreligiositatis ex illis imbiberunt ; sive alios ex 1sdem 
instituentes, quominus ulla impietatis semina teneris simul animis 
instillarent, caverunt quam diligentissime : Memuini ipsemet atque 
de utroque possum testari; nou modo enim, quod Dei agnosco 
beneficium, in juventute ejusmodi magistris sum usus, atque ex 
illis scriptoribus, quantumvis Ethnicis, ve unum quidem animo 
hesisse sceleratum axioma sentio, vel impiam aut propudiosam 
sententiam menti se mee ex illurum tractatione insinuasse, sed 
etiam quando ipse deinde adultior scriptores illos exposui ado- 
lescentibus, in illis quam plurima sese offerebant recta, preclara, 
bona, hortationes egregie, sententiz insignes, exempla laudatissima : 
In hoc inquam, Deus enim Ethnicis non intestatum se reliquit, in 
hoc habent quod imitentur, in hoc etiam quod erubescant licet 
melius longe edocti Christiani, in hoc danda est opera ne ab 
Ethnicis Christian vincamur: Si que vicissim, ut evenit interdum, 
sed rarius, occurrant dicta nequam, et falsa, sententiz mimme 
probabiles, illa detestatus, has confutans, ostendi quante sint 9106 
shristo etiam sapientum hujus mundi et quam crassa tenebre, 
quanta sit nostra felicitas, quos rectius sapere Christus docuit, 
quanta obligatio ut tam divino Doctori sincero studio obsequamur, 
neque ethnicis contaminari nus patiamur sive erroribus, sive |ibj- 
dinibus : Quod porro utiliores sint ad scopum quem sili Scholz 
proposuerunt scriptores in lingua Greca Latinaque optimi quique 
ac vetustissimi, debebat quidem pertinaces etiam constans doctisst- 
morum tot seculis virorum judicium convincere, sed res quoque 
ipsa evidenter hoc arguit: Ipsus ilos scriptores legere posse et 
intelligere magua eruditionis pars habetur; ipsi euim sunt, a quibus 
non modo linguarum ipsarum, sed etiam rerum gestarum et scien- 


VOL. XIX. ὦ. NO. XXXVIIL 4ἀὰ 


362 Adverseria Leterania. 


tiaram notitiam haurire licet et convenit. Tidem principes:ingenio- 
‘yam sua wtate, in suo quique dicendr genere accurati et -eleguntes, 
‘consensu omnium etatum probati et classici, sive prime classis, ad 
quos tanquam ad normam scripta recentium exiguntur, ubi cultas 
et eastimonia sermonis quaritur. Quid xaque agunt, qui, his rejec- 
‘tis, ad recentiores nulla auctoritate scriptores amandant juventatem? 
quid agunt aliud, nisi ut adultioribus deinde factis seras querelas 
exprimant, merito mirantibus quod ad imitandum sibi non optima 
queeque, sed longe inferiora perverso docentium judicio fuerint 
‘proposita. Nam qui phrasibus et verbis solis putant veterum pre- 
‘tium ac decus omne constare et causas, ob quas legendi ipsi simt, 
‘his solis definiont, quas adeo in recentiorum etiam scriptis putant 
posse invehiri; illi vehementer falluntur. Ciceronis certe qui phrases 
et verba omnia tenuerit ad unguem, is ne umbram quidem Tullii 
habebit, nisi colorem etiam ipsum orationis, inveniendi, et argu- 
‘mentandi copiam, rerum pulcherrimarum delectum et ubertatem, 
vim divinam ingenu, dignitatem denique et honestatem sententiarum 
ejus cognoverit: Schonzus autem quo minus Terentio preferatur, 
non modo eruditionis, sed etiam ptetatis judicio interesse: Videant 
1111, qui argumenta sanctissima per comcedias juventuti proponendas 
existimant, mihi res magis seriz videntur, quam ita per ludum ac 
jocum tractandz, ut deinde narrationes verissimas pueri in sacris 
literis legentes procul absint ab illa debita divinis veneratione, sed 
fabulam aliquam Comicam vel Tragicam legere sibi videantur.” 
H. S. Reimari Commentarius de Vita et Seriptis J. A. Fabréecit, 
Hamburgi, 1737. p. 340-5. . EH. Bo 


+. 


On the Persea of the Ancients. | 
[An Extract from the Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences.] 


Lies anciens parlent beducoup d’un arbre de l’Egypte auquel ils 
donnent le nom de persea, qui ressemblait ἃ un poirier, mais dont 
les feuilles duraient toute l'année, dont le fruit 4 noyau était trés- 
doux, et trés-sain, et dont le bois dur et noir avait une grande 
valeur. On trouve encore, dans les auteurs arabes du moyen 4ge, 
des descriptions d’un arbre qu’ils appellent leback, et qui offre 
tous les caractéres attribués par les anciens ἃ leur perséa ; -mais 
aujourd’hui cet arbre est devenu si rare, au moins dans la Basse- 
Egypte, que les botanistes ne |’ont pas reconnu avec certitude : les 
uns, comme Lécluse, et Linneus d’aprés lui, ont donné Je nom de 
persea a une espéce de laurier ; opinion d’autant moins admissible 
gue ce laurier vient d’Amérique. D’autres, comme.Schréber, ont 


Adversaria Léteraria. ' $68 


cru-le retrouver dans le sébestier (cordia méxa),- dont.le. fruit yis- 
-queux est tout différent. M. Delisle a été plus heurenx : ayant 
.observé dans un jardin du Caire. un individu de arbre appelé par 
Linneus zimenia egyptiaca, il lui ouva 18. plupart des caractéres 
du perséa: une hauteur de dix-huit a vingt pieds, des branches 
épineuses, des feuilles ovales persistantes, longues d’un pouce 
- dix-huit lignes, traits qui ant pu donner lieu ἃ la comparaison avec 
Je poirier ; un fruit de la forme d'une datte, doux lorsqu’il est mdr, 
‘contenant uv noyau un peu ligneux, etc. Parvenu dans la ,ha 
Egypte, M. Delisle en rencontra deux autres, et il apprit, par.les 
-habitans des contrées supérieures, que l’espéce est commune. en 
,Nubie et en Abyssinie, et trés-estimée dans le Darfour; cependant 
il n’a pu savoir si Je coeur du bois est noir comme le disent.les 
_anciens de leur. perséa. 

Cet arbre se nomme aujourd’hui, en Nubs, eglig. M. Delisle 
lui trouve des différences assez marquées pour le séparer des autres 
xtmenta, et.il en fait un genre sous le nom de balanites, .. 


On the philosophical meaning of the words Bios, κινημα; 
: evepynpc, and αἰσδημα. : 7 


The following. explanations satisfactorily show the necessity of 
studying the commentaries of the Platonic and Peripatetic philoso- 
phers that bave been preserved to us, as the accurate signification 
of the above words 1s only im these writings to be obtained. 

_ Concerning the first of these words therefore, Proclus observes 
as follows in Tim. p, 229, Ψυχης yap osesoraros ὁ Bios. εἰ δεποτε και 
xi vou λέγοιτο, καθαπερ ev Φιληβῳ, τὴν ιδιοτητα σημάινει τῆς Cwys. 
δυο yap o Bios raura δηλοι, To, τε sdsov εκαστου τῆς Cwns εἰδος, καὶ τὴν 
ανελιξιν τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀφ᾽ ἧς eyes τὴν προῦδον, λέγεται our xugins {μὲν 
ἐπι τῶν ψυχων. εν ταυταῖς yao ἡ ανελιξις. i.e. The life signitied by 
the word βιος is most adapted to the soul. For if at any time this 
word is used in speaking of. intellect, as in the Philebus, it signifies 
the peculiarity of the life. For βιος manifests these two things, 
viz. the peculiar form of each life, and the evolution of the choice, 
from which it has its progression. It is properly, therefore, 
asserted of souls: for in these there is an evolution [of choice].” 
What is here said by Proclus, that sos signifies the evolution of 
choice, is coutirmed by the following passage from the J0th book 
of the Republic of Plato. Avayxns θυγατρος xoens Aayerews λογος. 
Wuyas εφημεροι, ἀρχὴ ἀλλὴς mepsodou θνητοῦ γενους Yavarnpogou oux 
ὑμᾶς δαίμων ληξεται, αλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς δαίμονα αἱρησεσθε wowros δ᾽ 0 λάχῶν, 
πρῶτος αἰρεισθω Biv, wm συνέσται εἰ αναγκής᾽ ἀρετὴ δὲ αδεσποτον, ἣν 


564  Mdversivia Léteraria. - 


“tipeoy χαὶ whialov, rAsov καὶ srkrroy αὐτῆς exaoros εξοι' atria eXopd- 
vou Geos ‘avairios. 1. 6. * The ‘spéeéch ofthe virgin Lachesis, the 
daughter of Necessity: Souls 6f a day! The-begiming of ‘another 
‘period of imen of mortal race. The‘demon shall not receive you 
‘as his lot, but you shall choose the demon. ‘He who draws the 
firgt, let him ‘first make choice of ‘a life (Bios), to which he mutt 
‘Of necessity adhere. Virtue is indépendent, which every one 
shall partake of more or less, according as he honors or dis- 
honors'her: the’cause is in‘him ‘who makes the chotce, and God 
is blameless.” ‘The evohition of lives which follows this speech, 
is therefore evidently the evolution of choice. And the word fm; 
perpetually occurs in‘the whole of what is said by Plato about the 
different lives of .the human soul. 

In the next place, we are informed by Simplicius in his Com- 
mentary on the 6th book of Aristotle’s Physics p. 280, that κιρημα 
signifies the boundary or end of motion. - For he says, oposeog δὲ xa 
TO νυν TOU “χρονου, και TO Χινῆμα τῆς χινησεῶς. χαλοῦυσι Yap οὐυτῶ τὸ 
τῆς κινήσεως περας. i.e. “ The now of time, and the κενημα. οἱ 
motion, are similar. For thus the end or boundary of motion is 
called.” In like manner ἐνεργημα, which occurs in Proclus on the 
Parmenides, and also on the Timens, is the boundary of energy. 
For in the latter of these Commentaries p. 288, he says, Aoyou δὲ 
ἔνεργῆμα τὸ λέγειν, ὡς vou τὸ νοεῖν, ὡς φυσεῶως To Puen. i.e. “ΤῸ speak 
1s the ἐνεργημα of reason, in the same nranner as to perceive intel- 
lectually is the ἐνεργημα of intellect, and to germinate, of nature.” 
Thus too, in the last place, αἰσθημα, which occurs in the MS. 
Commentary of Proclus on the Parmenides, is the boundary of 
αισθησις, or sensible perception. And as αἰσθημα, bemg the termi- 
nation of sensible perception, is an impression of it in the senso- 
num, that which ‘1s‘analagous to this must be conceived to take 
place in κινήμα and ἐνέργημα. For the now, or an instant, is, as it 
“were, an evanescent wmpresston of time, and ximp2 may be said to 
be an impression of motion. For the latter is analogous to a poitt 
which marks the end of the flux of a line’ on another line. 

‘THOMAS TAYLOR. 

Manor Place, Walworth. 


On Mr. Bellamy's Translation of the latter part of the 9th 
. and 19th Chapters of Genesis. ᾿ 


In his translation of these two passages, Mr. Bellamy has 
entirely done away the account of ‘Noah’s drunkenness, and of 
Lot’s incest. Will any of your readers oblige the world with a 
minute criticism of the alterations in question ? ‘Mr. BeHamy has 


Adversarig, Literaria. ‘ $65 


been severely treated by some of the periodical Journals; and 
many seem to have considered it to be their duty to reprobate his 
translation. If in any.instance he has wilfully perverted the mean- 
ing of the sacred text, he deserves all that he has received. If he 
has been guilty only of those mistakes and errors which are the lot 
of all, the severity of his critics will be a lasting reproach. The 
whole question with the world, and with posterity, will be, “ Is 
Mr. Bellamy right, or wrong?” ‘“ Has he thrown any light on 
obscure passages, or not?” -Lhave fixed on these portions of his 
version, in which he has so materially departed from the recejyed 
translation, as a criterion, by which a, Biblical scholar may judge 
if his claim on the attention and approbation of hig countrymenbe | 
well founded. : | ΝΙΝ 

A ConsTANT READER. 


PALINDROME. 


From πάλιν and δρομέω, 4. word, line, or sentence, which is the 
- same, read backward or forward, ‘Thus constructed 18 an inscrip- 
tion round the font of the church of Sandbach, in Cheshire, and at 
some other places : " 
NI¥ON ANOMHMA MH ΜΟΝΑΝ Q¥IN. 
Similarly constructed is the Latin verse; 
Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor. 
And the English line : 
Lewd 1 did lice, evil did I dwel. 
The word Madam is a palindrome. | 

: It is related, that a noble lady, who. had been, forbidden. to. ap- 
peas at the court of Queen, Elizabeth, on, account of a suspicion of 
too, great. familiarity with 3, certaip. lord high in her majeaty’s fayor, 
chose for a dexige upon her seal the moon. partly obscured by a 
cloud, with this palindrqme. for a motto: . | 

: ὌΝ Ε Ablata, at alba. 

A lawyer is said to have taken for his motto : 
St nummi, inmynis. 

. The following line is q r ent upon the palindrome, for 
each word is the same, arian fram the gptleue or the 
ast: . ; 


Odo tenet mulum, mappam mudidam, tenet Anna. 


366 


Literary Bntelligence. 


JUST PUBLISHED. 


CLASSICAL. 


Stephens’ Greek Thesaurus, Nos. VII. and VIII. i.e. Part 
VI. of Lex. and Part If. of Gloss. The present price is 
11. ὅς. small, and 27. 12s. 6d. large paper; and will soon be ad- 
vanced to 1/. 7s. and Ql. 15s. | 


The Delphin and Variorum Classics, Parts III. and IV. Pr. 
12. Js. small, and 2/. 2s. large paper. V. and VI. will be delivered 
this month. The price will be raised hereafter. Very few 
copies are unsubscribed. Present Subscription 908. 


‘Mr. Carson of Edinburgh has just published an edition of Taci- 
_tus for Schools, in One Volume Octavo. | | 

Dissertation sur le passage du Rhéne et des Alpes par Annibal 
(par le Comte de Fortia d’Urban.) Seconde édition, avec une 
Carte. Paris 1819, 8vo. 


Strabonis a Corayo editi Tomus Quartus et ultimus. 
The Third Volume of Clavier’s Pausanias is now printing. 


Notice sur quelques Monumens Anciens situés dans les envi- 
rons de Genéve ; par Eusébe Salverte. Genéve 1819. 


Etymological French Dictionary. Cuartes PoucEns, a 
Member of the Royal Academy of. Inscr. and Belles Lettres, 
has addressed a letter to Professor Wyttenbach of Leyden, deve- 
loping the plan of a work, which if executed with ability equal to ᾿ 
_ the vigor of the conception, will be of considerable importance not ' 
only to scholars in his own country, but in every other. The 
design must at least be well matured, as it appears to have been 
not merely in contemplation, but in progress of execution, since 
1771. It 1s to be entitled “ Dictionnaire des Origines de la Langue 
Frangaise ;” forming Six Folio Volumes; comprising, Ist. the 
Opimions of all preceding Etymologists ; a‘ Comparison of the 
principal, with a Discussion of their Opinions : 2d. The Author’s 
own Decision: Sd. Researches on the Origin and History of 
Words ; not applying to European languages exclusively, but to 

8 whence he derives those existing in French. Subjoined to 


this Dictionary is to be placed a Polyglot Vocabulary of words.of 


Literary Intelligence. 367 


_ the first necessity, supposed to be necessary to man in the rudest 
state; amounting in number to about 300. 

Of this Thesaurus, an ‘abridgment is. also in contemplation, 
forming at most 3 vols. in quarto, designed to contain, Ist. The 
Grammatical Classification of each word with its original applica- 
tion. 2d. A Summary Extract of.its Etymology ; but fuller than in 
Dr. Johnson’s of our own tongue, 3rd. The Definitions. On this 
part, as being the most difficult and of the most direct utility, the 
author appears to have bestowed the greatest pains. Our errors 
when not physical or moral arise, he says, from errors in lan- 
guage, the abuse of words, and false applications of them. Ten 
years of his life have been occupied in an attentive perusal of the 
principal Classical Authors in his language, whom he reckons 
about 65: from these he has culled a series of detached phrases, 
giving the particular acceptations of every word. ‘These extracts 
exceed in number 800,000: and a selection has been thade from 
them, already arranged alphabetically, and distributed in registers. 
«Ἐν the aid of these he deduces definitions in most cases, he hopes, 
tolerably exact. He has himself been often surprised at the num- 
ber of Nuances, of which, under the pen of able writers, each word 
is susceptible. These researches are quite terminated, 


Intettigenzbiatt, Jena. A. L. 2. October 1818. 


BIBLICAL. 


Vetus Testamentum Grecum cum Variis Lectionibus. Editio- 
nem a Roberto Hotmgs, S. T. P. inchoatam continuavit Jacobus 
Parsons, S. T. B. Tomus Secundus. Oxonii, e Typographeo 
Clarendoniano; 1818: 

The progress of this work, from its commencement to,the death 
of Dr. Holmes, and the publication of several succeeding fasciculi, 
have been already noticed in the Classical Journal, and are already 
well known to the public. Dr. H. died in 1805, at which time nothing 
more had been published than the Pentateuch, forming the Ist 
volume, and the book of Daniel in a separate fasciculus: viz. 
Genesis 1798. Exodus 1801. Levit. 1802. Numb. 1803. and 
Deuteronomy (completing the volume) 1804; though the date 
1798 is improperly affixed to the general title. The book of 
Daniel was published only a few months before bis death. And 
here was suddenly broken off a laborious and expensive work : but 
as a considerable sum of money had been subscribed both for the 
_ purpose of carrying on the collations abroad, and also for pub- 
lishing them-on the plan suggested by Dr, H., and as the dele- 
ates of the University Press had not only contributed large-. 
y to that subscription, but undertaken also to continue the. 


$68 Literary Intelligence: 


work, if possible, in case of Dr. H.’s death ; ‘they engaged the 
present Editor for the fulfilment of this object : by him has been 
ublished the volume, which forms the‘ subject of the following 
Notice. In its present form it consists of more than 800 folio 
pages, and comprehends all the Historical Books from: Joshua, to 
the second Book of Chronic. inclusively ; the several fascicult of 
which came out in the following order: Joshua 1810; Judges and 
Ruth 1812; and the six remaining books in the 5 years od moet: 
the whole being printed off soon after Christmas 1817, and 
ten years from the time when the editor first ‘entered on his task. 
To those who are not acquainted with the extent of Dr. H.'s 
plan, nor with the difficulties under which his successor has Idbored 
In carrying it on, it may appear extraordinary that no further 
progress has been made in a work, which must still be considered 
as imperfect, and for the final completion of which some years 
are yet required. But avoiding all discussions of this nature,-let 
us proceed to examine the materials of the present Vol. and the 
uses which may be made of them. These materials we shalt 
atrarige (according to the order in which they: are placed in the 
preface to each fasciculus) under the several heads of MSs. 
editions, fathers, and versions. 

1. In addition to a great number of the same - MSS. as are 
employed in the former volume, the present is also enriched with 
the collations of several curious and important MSS. the various 
readings of which have never been given in any edition of the 
Septuagint. As, 1. for the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 
Codex Dorothei iv. Vat. 331. 1746. (Dorotheus was a Divine, 
who at that time held a high ecclesiastical office in Moldavia. 
The MSS. furnished by him were conveyed to Wittemberg, where 
they were collated for this work by Professor Matthia.) 2. For 
Ruth, and the following books—Codex i. D. n. Muse Britan: 
nici. ‘This has been sometimes called the Arundelian' MS., and 
seems to have been copied from one in the uncial character, It 
contains two different copies of the book of Esther, one of which is 
according to the Hexaplar Text of Origen: they were both 
_ published by Archbishop Ussher at the erid of bis Syntagma de 

Greca LX X. Interpp. Versione. Londini, 1655. See Pref. to 
Lowth’s Isaiah. 3. For the : 
Books of Kings.—Codex Biblioth. Paris. viii. Stec. x. 

Biblioth. Escurial. Σ΄. 11. 19. Sed. x1. ΧΗ, 

Biblioth. Paris. olim Mediceus. Sec. x. (ut videtur.) 

Dorothei v. Sec. xi. 

Codex Biblioth. publicee Basiliensis, signatus B. vi. 22. . 

————-Coislinian, viii. Sec. x. Lectionibus: Aquile, Theodotionis 
| εἰ Symmechi itaprimis refertum. -- . 


Literary Fatelligence. 969 


Codex Biblioth. Cesar. Vindob. mediocriter antiquus. 
Vaticanus 333. Sec. x. circ. | 

-— $34. AMtat. fere eyusdem. 

1238. See. xiii. 

——-— Urbinato-Vatican. Sec. x. Kc. 


For-the 2 beoks of Chronicles, Codex antiquus Biblioth. publice ' 


Cantabrigtensis, quondamt» Theodori Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis 
See. vii. (‘Fhere is an imperfect collation of this MS. annexed to 
Walton’s Polyglott.) | : 

Beside these and several other MSS. in the Greek Language, 
we have also in the 4th book of Kings, a collation of the celebrated 
Syro-Hexaplar MS. in the Royal Library, Paris, of which P. J. 
Bruns extracted the various readings for the use of Dr. Kennicott, 
end has since reprinted in the Repertor. pro Biblic. et Orient. 
Liter. Tom. vitt. The importance of this MS. is consider- 
able m many respects, and is indeed evident on inspecting the 
Margin and Appendix of the volume before us. - For |. it preves 
many readings of the different texts of what is called the Septua- 
gint Version to have been taken from Aquila, Symmachus, &c. 
and consequently justifies the assertion of those who affirm that ad/ 
our present copies of this version, are mixed and confounded with 
those of the other Interpreters. (See Hody de Textibus p. 634. 
Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. p. 540, Ed. Lips. 1728. Eichhorn. Einleit. 
in das A. T. Toth. 1. p. 366, διε). 2. It supplies many readings 
of these Interpreters (Aquila, &c.) which are not to be found else- 
where, and may theréfure be of great service iti correcting and 
augmenting the collection of Hexaplar Fragments made by Mont- 
faucon, &c. 8. It shows thatthe hypothesis commonly received 
in respect to the contents of those versions, called Editio 5ta, 
Gta, 7ma, is not founded in fact. And 4. it not only discovers 
the origin of certain readings in the Alexandrine copy, (see chap. 
xvi, 9.) but also establishes: several others in conformity to the 
Masoretic Hebrew, against the authority of less ancient MSS. 
both Greek and Hebrew, and corresponding with the text of the 
Complut. edition, even when unsupported by any other MS. (see 
chap. xii. 28. chap. xv. 10. chap. xix. 32, &c. 7 

2. The editions collated m this volume are, with the exception 
of the Paulino-Lipsiens. (Fischer), which goes no further than the 
Pentateuch, the same as those cited by Dr. H. viz. the Complu- 
tensian, Aldine, Alexandrine, of Grabe’s, and that which forms the 
text of the Catena Nicephori. Itis well known that for many 

rs great prejudices prevailed against the Complut. Edition. 

t was not considered as a Critical Edition because it was not 
known from what MSS. its text was taken; it was moreover be- 
lieved that the Editors, without adhering to any perticuler copy, 


Ἀ 


80. Literary Intelligence. 


extracted from all of them, or even from commentaries, such read. 
ings as came neareast to the Hebrew; and that they wilfully cor- 
rupted the Greek Version to render it conformable to the Vulgate. 
From the volume before us it will appear that these charges, 
though sometimes true, are not so in general. ‘The text of the 
Complut. Edition follows so closely that of MSS. 19. 82. 93, 
108. (in Catalog. Holm.) throughout the several books of this vol. 
that it must evidently have been taken from the same original 
prototypes. Moreover where it differs from the Roman Edition, 
It is in very numerous instances supported not only by the Aldine 
and Alexandrine texts, but also by that of the Codex Couslinian. 
num, 1. one of the oldest and most highly esteemed MSS. extant, 
(See Repertor. pro Bibl. et Or. Liter. Tom. 11. p. .196). . In 
not a few passages the text is as evidently altered by the Editors, 
to make it agree with the Hebrew, and especially with the Vul- 
gate. Among the most remarkable of this kind may be reckoned, 
1 Reg. vi. 1, &.—@ Reg. xv. 7. xvi. 16—3 Reg. 1. 8. i, 1. ix. 8. 
xu. 18. xv, 22. xvi. 34—1 Paralip. x. 13—@ Paralip. xiv. 12.. To 
make these facts more clear, the present Editor. has found it expe- | 
dient ,frequently to cite the Vulgate, though citations from that | 
Edition are not included any more than from St. Hierom) in the 
plan of Dr. H. . , 

The Aldine Edition has also been represented as containing 
frequent Glosses, (glossemata), together with a mixture of several 
different Versions, and Interpolations even from the N. T. Its 
text however is here satisfactorily traced to MSS. 64. 120. 121, 
&c.(Holm.) and it also agrees in many instances both with the 
Coniplut. and Alexandr. Copies, and with Codex Coislin. 1. whea 
all these disagree with the Roman Edition. See a remarkable 
instance of the agreement of the Ald. Ed. with the MSS. above 
mentioned in 4 Reg. iii. 2. 

The prototype of Grabe’s Edition, like the Roman, is princi 
ally one MS. which perhaps it would. have been sufficient to 
ave cited under the numerical sign III. But as Grabe bas imsert-. 

ed numerous alterations into his text, taken from different sources, 
together with the OniGENIAN Marks, without making his readers 
acquainted with the different degrees of authority due to such 
Insertions, his text as it now stands can hardly be considered as a 
legitimate foundation for various readings. “ἢ 
Though the text of the Catena Nicephori comes very near to 
that of the Roman Edition, it is not, precisely the same, nor has the 
source of it been exactly ascertained. But in the historical books 
of the Greek version it agrees so constantly with MSS. 209. 236. 
2387, &c. (Holm.) that little doubt can be entertained that it. must: 
“haye.been derived from the.same prototype, or exemplar, with these . 


Literary) Tntelligerice. 571 


MSS. 9. Notwithstanding that the celebrated Μία) considered 
citations from the fathers and ecclestastical writers as of little con- | 
- sequence, it was by him that collations were made of the works of 
Cyrill. Alexaridr. Chrysostom. Athanas. Isidor. Pelus. Euseb. and 
. Gregor. Nyssen. for the use of this Edition. Various read- 
ings have also been collected from Philo-Judzus, the Aposto- 
lical fathers, and many other Ecclesiastical writers, especially from 
those cited in the Catena Nicephori by Dr. H. himself. In this, 
as in other respects, the present Editor has endeavoured to follow 
his steps, and to maimtaim the tenor of the work: but that, for 
want of more definite information as to. this part of Dr. H.’s plan, 
he has been sometimes subjected to additional labor and embarrass- Ὁ 
ment, will be-seen in the Preface to the book of Joshua. 4. The 
versions collated in this volume are the ‘Armenian, Slavonian, 
and Georgian, together with the fragments of the old Latin ver- 
sion preserved by Sabatier, and citations from the O. T. in the 
Syriac of Bar-Hebreus. Of the’three former, which were fur- 
nished by Professor Alter of Vienna, an account may be seen in 
his own words prefixed to the first volume. [1 may be proper to 
add, that as Alter translated the Armenian, &c. into Greek, the | 
present editor has deemed it expedient to describe the various 
readings in the very words of his translation, and not to turn them 
into Latin, as Dr. H. has frequently done. By multiplying trans- 
lations, it is obvious that the chances of error are also multiplied ; 
and it was to avoid this responsibility, as well as the difficulty of 
finding terms in the Latim exactly synonymous, that the editor of 
this volume has deviated in this single mstance from the plan of his 
predecessor. (See an example of Dr. H.’s mode of expressing the 
Armen. &c. Levit. xxv. 50.) In the two books of Chronicles 
we have no further use .of these versions than a collation of 15 
Armenian MSS. made with the Armen. Bible, (printed at Venice, 
1733) by Sergius Malea, superior of a monastery at Jerusalem, in 
the year 1773; which collation has also been employed in the 
preceding books. 

The citations from the Horreum Mysteriorum of Bar-Hebreus 
were extracted by that excellent oriental scholar the late Dr. Henry 
Ford, and a Latin version made of them for the use of this work. 
As the editor of the former volume did not make use of the original 
work of Dr. H. though in the Bodleian Library, nor mspect 
the autograph of Dr. F., some errors had crept into the transcript, 
which appears to have been made hastily, in several places; and 
which the present editor has endeavoured to correct. 

It is unnecessary to add any thing concerning the use and appli- 
‘cation of this, as well as the former volume, to the purposes of 


Scriptural criticism, especially after what hes been said by Amers-" - 


972 Literary Entelligence. 


foordt aud others. Before the publication of the present work, 
the only one of the kind ever attempted, it is obvious that we 
could have but an imperfect idea of the actual state of the Greek 
versions, of the autbority of any readings derived from them, or 
of the suurces of the four principal editions. In order to ascer- 
tain these points, it was expedient, according to the exhortation of 
Bishop Pearson, omnes codices excutiendos esse, eosque non solum 
cum. Hebrzo, sed etiam Philone, J osepho, vetustissimisque Patnbus 
Grecis, &c. comparandus. Such an undertaking had long been 
2 desideratum in the critical world, and was strongly recommended 
89 a necessary a dage and supplement to the t work of 
Keagicott. For it is menifext that in case of a nee, OF a revisal 
of the present, translation of the Bible, a synopsis of all the varr- 
ties, both in the Hebrew and Greek texts, will be indispensably 
requisite.* And above all, as it appears, notwithstanding the great 
mass of various readings collected from MSS., Fathers, &c. that 
the Greek version, the mother of so many others, exhibits a text 
I@ tpany respects different from that of any Hebrew copies hitherto 
known, it becomes an object of the utmost importance to the 
Biblical student, whose critical knowledge of the Scriptures must 
he very imperfect unless he is acquainted with the varieties οὗ the 
Greek text, as well as those of the Hebrew. - 


τς A New Edition of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and- Papists 
considered ; By Bishop Lavington, one vol. Svo. With Notes, 
and an Introduction, by the, Rev. ἢ. Polwhele. Price 12s. bda. 

. This is a reprint from the scarce edition now selling. for ὦ very 
high price. The author’s principal design in to draw ἃ compa- 
risoy, by way of caution to all Protestants, between the wild and 

rnicious enthusiasm of some of the most eminent -sainta in the 
δορὶ δὲ) communion, and those of the Methodists in our country; 
which latter he calls a set of pretended reformers, animated: by‘ an 
enthusiastic and fanatical spirit. 
ον be Oedipus Romanus, or an attempt to prove, from. the pxin- 
ciples of reasoning. adopted by: the Right Hon, Siar W. Drum, 
mond, in his Cedipus Judaicus, that the twelve Crsara are the 
twelve signs of the Zodiac. Addressed to the higher. apd literagy. 
classes of society. By the Rev. G. Townsend; A. M. οἱ Tria. 
Coli. Camb. 7s. 6d. bds. ΕΝ 


© See Inquiry into, the. present Stage of the βοριμβείης Veraion,, dee, ὍΥ 
Dr. Henry n, ΒΒ 8. London, 1769. ot 


ole 
a 


\ e 


Literary Intelligence. ΠΣ ὙΕ 


Discovery of a Manuscript of Ulphilas, in the Anibrosian 
: ° Library, at Milan. oT 


The paper-anciently:inade ‘from the Papyrus was ποῖ so -plén- 
tiful, we have reason to believe, as papér is in:modern tintes ; but, 
‘certuinly,. parchiment, or'vellum, was, in various ‘periods, of :considet- 
able ‘cost, and was ‘esteénied worth preserving, even after the 
purpose to which the writing it contained was answered. ‘The 
owners of such parchments employed a process, by which they 
4ntended to remove the writing, whether by washing off the:imk, dr 
by neutralising it, so that it no longer appeered. On -the skin 
thus reduced to ‘an uninscribed state, they wrote aftesh, such‘mut- 
ter as they thought proper. But, the-ldpse of ages has. in’ many 
instances shown, that the process of obliteration was imperfect; 
that the second coat of ink would. gradually fade, and become less 
Jegible, or less powerful, while the:first coat of ink lying bewesth, 
‘would revive, and’ become more distinguishable, nn consequence σῇ. 
me imperfect removal of its patticles, or of their imperfect neutra- _ 
‘isation. - ᾿ ͵ 

It needs no proof that the first writing may be several hundred 
years older than the second writing; and that the work thus pre- 
served, or rather regained, bemg of deeper antiquity, is of greater 
curiosity. An instance of this has lately occurred to Sig. Angelo 
Maio, who, as our readers know, is one of the Librarians of the 
Ambrosian library. That literato, on examinmg some very old 
MSS. perceived under the Latin text which they contained, another 
very different in form, and certainly of mueh egrlier origin. This 
‘raised his curiosity; and on examination the text concealed by 
its successor proved to be the Maso-Gothic translation of -the 
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, made by Bishop Ulphilas, in the 
fourth century, the loss of which has been exceednygly lament 
among the learned. : 

It is true, that the famous Coder Argenteus of Upsala, which 
contains a considerable part of the four Gospels, was- published in 
the seventeenth century ; and that two other editions, one so late 
as 1805, were well received. The learned Knittel also discovered 
in the library at Wolfenbuttel, several fragments of the Epistle to 
the Romans, which he published in 1762. But the text found at 
‘Milan, far exceeds in extent,’ all that has been hitherto published ; 
and opens a vast field of inquiry, as well on the subject of the 
Scriptures, as on that of the Northern languages and antiquities. 
This text tills two large manuscript volumes; they are not of the 
same hand writing; but are apparently of the fifth or sixth century. 
Whatis- wanting m one of these volrmes is supplied by the other ; 
though they will not form one whole. The letters are large and. 


874 Literary Intelligence. 


handsome, the titles of the Epistles are written on the top of the 
MS. and notes, in the same language, on the margin. 

An individual of Milan, distinguished by bis zeal for science, has 
ordered an extensive font of these Ulphilan letters to be cast by 
expert workman, as well for the text as the notes. ‘Che learned 
world may, therefore, expect copies of this truly ancient transla- 
tion; of which Sig. Maio intends to give a most complete idea in 
a preliminary dissertation. . 

Besides this discovery, the same indefatigable inquirer has had 
the good fortune to retrieve about twenty pages of the same lan- 
guage, from several other MSS. Among them are passages from 
the Gospels, which contribute to perfect the Upsala copy: also 
part of a homily, or commentary ; and fragments of ἃ version of 

and Nehemiah. . 

As so great a proportion of the language Is recovered in these 
labors of Bishop Diphilas, a new Vocabulary of the Meeso- 
Gothic tongue is in contemplation. It is well known, that this; 
dialect was that of the Goths, who obtained from the. Emperor - 
Valens permission to retire into his dominions, for shelter from the 
violence of the Huns. In consequence, not less than two hundred 
thousand men able to bear arms passed the Danube, and esta 
blished themselves in Mossia, whence. they obtained the name of 
Meeso-Goths. 

The connexion of this language with the languages of the North, 
including the Saxon, on which our modern English is founded, 
enhances the philological value and interest of this discovery. 

Italy boasts, that while her southern provinces furnish abundant 
examples for the study of the fine arts, her northern provinces are 
opening new fields to literature, by the publication.of a number of 
valuable classic works, retrieved from the ravages of barbarism, 
and the obliyion of departed time. - , 

Our readers will also recollect with pleasure, that Britain is not 
behiad in publishing valuable MSS. with fac-stmile types ; and 
that our national treasures of Jearning are not neglected. Who 
knows what the library of the British Museum may one day fur- 


nish ? . 


Itinerarium Alexandri, ad Constantium Augustum Constantini 
M. Filium, edente nunc primum cum notis Angelo Maio. 4to. and 
Svo. pp- 100. Milan, 1817. . 

The Itinerary of Alexander the Great, dedicated to. Constantius, 
son of Constantine the Great, now first published, with notes by 
Angelo Maio. ‘The history of Alexander, like that of most. military 
hesoes, has been so greatly intermingled with fable, that. we are 


Literary Intelligence. Ὁ 875 


glad of every assistance towards reducing it within the bounds of 
credibility. Itis no absurd supposition that early in the fourth 
century many authentic documents, .and even original monuments 
of the history of Alexander, were still existing ; and were accessible 
to a writer who dedicates his performance to the Emperor Con- 
stantius, son of Constantine.’ His agreement with many things ἴῃ 
Arrian, says Sig. Maio, proves his veracity ; while he differs from 
that historian in so many others, that he cannot be deemed his ab- 
breviator, or copyist. He writes with more modesty than Arrian, 
and rejects those fabulous traditions in which various biographers 
of Alexander have involved themselves. ‘The work contains an 
abridgement of the history of Alexander, from his birth to his 
death ; which the: writer does not attribute to poison, but to his 
excess at the table of Medius, where he emptied the cup of Her- 
cules. ' 

From the dedication we learn that the same author had com- 
posed an Itinerary of Trajan. 

The second part of this volume consists of Judit Valerti res 
geste dlerandri Macedonis, translate ex Aisopo greco prodeunt 
nunc primum, edente notisque tllustrante Angelo Maio, Ambrosiant 
Collegii Doctore. 4to. and 8vo. pp. 270. Milan, 1817. 

This is the second part of the same MS. as is reported in the 
foregoing article. Because they are found in connexion, some critics 
have attributed them both to the same Julius Valerius ; but it should 
seem that the former is the earlier writer, though both copies 
appear to be of the ninth, or at least of the tenth century. 
το Julius Valerius was not the same person with Acsopus, as some 
have thought, but was his translator; and this MS. correctly dis- 
tinguishes the two‘persons. ‘T‘bey are, however, wholly unknown. 
"Fhis work speaks of the temple of Serapis and the tomb of Alexan- 
der as then existing. From this Sig. Maio concludes that the 
Greek author could not be later than the fourth century: he might 
even be earlier, in the opimion of this discoverer, since the style of 
the Latin translation seems to place Julius Valerius in that century. 

.Sig. Maio besides the preface has added the summaries of the 
three books which compose the work ; with remarks on the fabu- 
lous histories of the exploits of Alexander ; and researches respect- 
ing authors who might have a knowledge of this Julius Valerius. 
The MS. is not complete: the whole of the first part is wanting, 
and there is a considerable deficiency in the second. A succinct 
analysis of the parts wanting 18 supplied by the editor from another 
MS. in the Ambrosian library, which contains an abridgement of 
. Julius Valerius. 

This work contains so many details respecting Egypt and 


376 Notes to Correspondents. 


Alexandria, that it is probable the author composed it in that 
country and city. Sig. Maio inclines to believe that the transkator 
Julius Valerius was, also, of Africa. 

Our readers may recollect, that some time ago, offence was 
taken by Dr. E. Ὁ. Clarke, at the silence of the ‘I'rustees of the. 
British Museum, who declined to authenticate a very capital Sar- 
cophagus, brought from Alexandria by the British troops, who 
had’ rescued it from the grasp of the French, as the Tomb of 
Alexander. It is possible that this work may contain such details 
respecting the nature, form, and situation of that monument, as may 
contribute to the effectual settlement of that question. We have 
no objection to invest a trophy of British valor with the most 
distinguished character; though we object to the pledging of 
British learning and veracity to a proposition not demonstrated as 
absolute fact. 


NOTES TO CORRESPONDENTS. 


Several articles are postponed till our next No. 


‘We thank N. A. O. for his very jadicious hints. In looking 
over our former Numbers, he will see that we entertain an opinion 
similar to his of Buttman’s Greek Grammar. His'Greek Epi- 
gram will be inserted. , | 


_ Liarticle de M. Abel-Remusat n’a qu’une faute; c’est* d’étre 
d’une longueur qui passe nos bornes. 


877 


JUST PUBLISHED, 


In 5 Vols, 4to. price to Subscribers, 101. 10s. boards, or with 
᾿ the Atlas, 22 guineas. 


THE DICTIONARY OF AMERICA AND THE 
WEST INDIES; 
“OR, THOMPSON’s ALCEDO: 


Affording a general account of all that is interesting in the Western 
World, and a unique picture of the Theatres of the present 
Wars in South America. 


“ς It is a work (says the last, Quarterly) in which the impartiality 
of the narrative is not less to be admired than the variety and ac- 
curacy of the general information.” ‘The British calls it “ an in- 
dispensable appendage to every library ;” whilst it was, even in 
the original, as the Edinburgh observes, “ one of the best books 
in Geography.” As all the Government Departments and prin- 
cipal Subscription Libraries have been provided, it is not probable 
that an equally cheap and handsome edition will be again published. 
A very few copies are now remaining, the number printed having. 
been regulated by the subscribers, a list of whom may be had by 
application to the Author, 1, Lambeth-Terrace. Persons possess- 
ing the book, whose names are not in the list, are most particularly 


requested to intimate the same to Mr. Thompson, that they may 
be recorded in the Work. 


By the same Author, in No. X. of the Pamphleteer, 


A NEW THEORY OF THE HEMISPHERES, 


Whereby it is attempted to explain, on Geographical and 
Historical Facts, the time and manner in which America was 


peopled, price 6s. 6d. 


A Mode of Guarding Dwelling Houses by their Construction 


against Accidents by Fire. By the Right Honorable Warren 
Hastings, price 25. 6d. 


*,** Subscriptions for the above are received by Messrs. Can- 
PENTER, Mr. ΝΆ ΡΥ, and by the Av1 08, 1, Lambeln “Terrace. 


VOL. XIX. Cl. J NO. χχχναι. Ὁ 


ch 
=~] 
θοῦ 


This day ts published, 2 τοῖς. ϑυυ. 80». 


A COPIOUS GREEK GRAMMAR. 
BY AUGUSTUS MATTHIA. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH NOTES. 


By the late REV. E. V. BLOMFIELD, M.A. Fellow o 
Emmanuel College, Cambridge. ° 


Printed for JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street. 


In Two Volumes, 8v0. Price 11. 11s. 6d. in boards, 


THE WHOLE WORKS OF CLAUDIAN, 
THE LATEST OF THE ROMAN CLASSICS, 


NOW FIRST TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH RHYME. 


BY A. HAWKINS, ESQ. F.H.S. 
Printed for J. Porter, 81, Pall Mall; and Langdon and Son, Sherborme. 


‘“‘ Mr. A. Hawkins has rendered a most acceptable service to literature by 
a complete, and we think elegant translation of the Works of Clauditan into 
English Verse. Gibbon’s character of Claudian, and the distinctions con- 
ferred upon him by his contemporaries, recommend this poet to public 
respect; but he possesses more unequivocal claims in the sterling merit of 
his compositions. These prove indeed that he was endowed with the rare 
and precious talent of raising the meanest, of adorning the most barren, and 
of diversifying the most similar topics; and in the hands of Mr. Hawkins, 
his genius has been naturalised in Great Britain.” 

Monraty Mac. for Sept. 1817. 


END OF NO. XXXVIEF. 


Ἕ 
» «ἔκ. A pace ξοὺνν ιδιδρϑβ