« EdellinenJatka »
contrary, Homer himself asserts expressly, at the end of the seventh
Ντες δ' εκ Λήμενοιο παρέστησαν, οίνον άγουσαι,
"Αλλοι μεν χαλκώ, άλλοι,
Again, how is it to be proved that “ Heley and most of the chieftains had attained an extreme old age before the commencement of the siege?” Euripides introduces Tyndarus the husband of Leda, as yet alive even after the Trojan war was ended; and Hermione, the daughter of Helen, was but in her childhood, if not in her infancy, when the expedition took place ; for Electra says in the Orestes, that,
upon the departure of Menelaus, she was left with Clytemnestra to be brought up :
ήν γάρ κατ' οίκους ίλιφ', ότ' είς Τροίαν άπλει,
Μενέλαος, αγαγών Ερμιόνην Σπάρτης άπο,κ. τ. λ. Orest. 63.
Βρέφος γαρ ήν τότ' εν Κλυταιμνήστρας χερούν,
“Οτ' εξέλειπον μέλαθρον ές Τροίαν ιών. And with respect to “the incredible duration of the ships, and still more surprising duration of the chieftains ;' I confess I see nothing marvellous in either; I should imagine the ships might remain sea-worthy for ten years, particularly when the Greeks were always careful to draw them ashore after disembarking, nor suffered them to be buffeted by the force, or decayed by the moisture, of the waves: and for the chieftains, I think our own army would furnish instances of as many chiefs, living as many years, under as many perilous circumstances, as the heroes of the Iliad.
Another argument to prove that Troy never existed is, that there , remain at present no decided vestiges of its site. But may not this be accounted for from Homer himself? No sooner, says the poet, were the Greeks returned home victorious from Troy, than Neptune and Apollo conspired to overturn every stone of the wall which the
Greeks had so laboriously constructed, by bringing in one torrent all
"Dorot és? 'idalwy ógéwy árade agogéouri,
Συνεχές, όφρα κ. Βασσον αλίπλοα τείχια θείη.
Λεία δ' εποίησεν παρ' άγάρροον Ελλήσποντον:
Τείχος αμαλδύνας: 31. Μ.19-32.
Having stated, unobjectionably I hope, the observations which occurred to me in reading the paper in question, I shall conclude with another argument, which appears to me to speak loudly in
avor of the existence of Troy, viz. that the ancients believed it to have existed. This I would prove from the circumstance that upon a dispute between Athens and Megara respecting the possession of Salamis, the contest was decided in favor of the former, because it was brought forward, that Homer in his catalogue of the ships arranges the Salaminian by the side of the Athenian vessels ; such was the argument brought forward by Athens, and such was the argument submitted to by Megara. Some of the authorities on which this fact rests are noticed by Clarke on the 558th line of the 2d book--Demosthenes neither asserts, nor contradicts it; he only says that Solon Insysice štoinze, and by that means preserved Salamis to the Athenians; this is neither proof nor contradiction, for in these compositions of Solon the verses of Homer might have been introduced.--Aristotle speaks in a less questionable shape, Αθηναίοι Ομήρο μάρτυρι έχρήσαντο περί Σαλαμίνος" Laertius is rather more doubtsul, évsor de Pori, *. 5. n. Strabo seems to have believed the fact, but says some attribute the quotation to Pisistratus, others to Solon, and he adds another circumstance, which
proves still more of what great consequence this authority of Homer was esteemed, viz. that the Megareans altered the verse, and read it as though Ajax had drawn up the Salaminian vessels by the side of those from the cities around Megara.-The only authority against the fact is Plutarch, who writes that the generality asserted it
, but αυτοι Αθηναίοι ταύτα μεν οίονται φλυαρίας είναι. Whether the authority of Aristotle be not to be preferred to that of Plutarch, respecting the opinion of the Athenians, I think no candid person who will consider their respective ages, and places of abode, can hesitate. —Such then being the fact, there cannot, I think, remain a doubt upon the minds of any, that the ancients considered the Iliad as history of unquestionable veracity, for it is not possible that an appeal to a fictitious poem could have decided the possession of an important island, Sept. 1812.
Answer to the Defence of Sir W. Drummond, concerning
To The EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL,
It is but too true, that writers sometimes differ in opinion, because they misrepresent one another's words ; yet it is equally true, that they more ofien differ, because they really misunderstand one another. Thus Sir W. D. alleges, that I have misrepresented his words from beginning to end ; yet on examining my own words, and even the rery passage quoted by him, I cannot find that I have either misrepresented or misunderstood any thing said by bim, although he has done both with respect to myself. I will not take up your paper
any recapitulations of former words by either of us, as I have always found argumentations about what he said and I said to be very tiresome to readers: but I affirm, that I never asserted that “his sub. stitution of He for Heth was only because it is the reading in the Samaritan text,” but that such substitution was a reason which he
for it.--So again, I never affirmed, “ that he considered aaneah to be only Hebrew," but that he did derive it from Hebrew, and his own words were, " what is Paaneuh and how is it gotten from the Hebrew," p. 172. -I never affirmed,
" that he said some Scribe translated the Egyptian words," but that it was my own opinion, and only my own-I never affirmed it to be his statement,
" that the Scribe inscrted those words in the Hebrew text in place of the Egyptian,” but that it was again my own opinion only, and I am not now able to conceive what words of mine could be so much misunderstood by him; certainly that paragraph of mine, which he has quoted, could give no real cause for such mistakes; but as it is of more importance to know what than what I did say, I will explain my former opinion in other words, kst my former ones should not be sufticiently perspicuous.
meant to say,
Now I have all along conceived that Sir W. believed the name of Joseph in the Hebrew text, to be an Egyptian word or words ; the same bas invariably been the opinion of all commentators, so far as I know, not excepting even Calvin; for when he ridiculed the idea of explaining its meaning by the Hebrew, it was because he conceived it to be an Egyptian name, and that Egyptian words were inexplicable by the sense of Hebrew ones, and in this, I have here agreed with him. Nevertheless, all commentators have still continued to affirm the name in the Hebrew to be an Egyptian one, and have gone on also in the former way of attempting to interpret its meaning by the sense of Ilebrew words; in which Sir W. has followed them, and this under the pretence, that Hebrew and Egyptian were such similar languages, or cognate ones, that although the Egyptian was quite lost, yet it might be collected from Hebrew what the Egyptian name meant to express : but here a difficulty presented itself, for although aaneah may be a Ilebrew word, yet Paaneah is not; both Abenczra and Bechai agree,
“ that it hath no fellow in Scripture." Gregory's Dissert. p. 64. What then is to be done with the P? Sir W. proposes, that it may be the abbreviated Ph’ of the Egyptian article Phi, to which I object, as sending it back to Egypt, for as anneah is a Hebrew word, it would be a strange medley to have an Egyptian article prefixed to it; but, answers Sir W., although aaneah is a Hebrew word, yet the Egyptian and Hebrew were such cognate languages that it is an Egyptian word likewise, and therefore he has only preserved the proper Egyptian article for it. This assertion, however, is only a supposition by Sir W., which he neither has proved, nor can prove; he explains away indeed the Scripture, and affirms, “ that there is no evidence whatever in the Hebrew of ch. xlii. 23. of Joseph's having employed an interpreter to translate one language into another;" but this again is an assertion directly contrary to fact, at least, according to the testimony of the ancient Jews ; for the Jerusalem Targum renders that verse Interpretis loco stetit inter illos Manasses.
We must likewise require some better proof, that aaneah was an Egyptian word as well as Hebrew, than that the two languages were, as he asserts, cognute ones. So that hitherto no satisfactory account has been offered concerning that P prefixed to aaneach, and the case is the same concerning the ch or Heth which ends it, the real Hebrew word being, as Sir W. himself proves, aaneah, not aaneach; if then we take away those two letters from the beginning and end, the word is Hebrew, but with them, is neither Hebrew nor yet Egyptian, so far as we know: this then is one reason at least, why Sir W. preferred the reading in the Samaritan text, which has ah or e, instead of ach, and thus he got rid of the last letter, but could find no other way to get quit of the first letter P, than by sending it back to Egypt; from which he supposes the whole word to have come and to belong, although he still explains the meaning of it by the Hebrew. Now the reason why the name in the Hebrew text has been so invariably presumed by all commentators to be an Egyptian word, has been only, because the Hebrew text was the original, and the Greek test a translation, hence they concluded, that the name of Joseph in the Hebrew was the original
name, therefore an Egyptian name; but of what language the name in
But the insertion of two such letters not belonging to the two Hebrew words still did not render the Hebrew so bar. barous, but that the Jew Philo and all other ancient Jews saw glimpse enough of the sense to translate them by occultorum revelator, as they all have accordingly done. Now, whoever shall compare the account which I have here given of the means taken by me to remove the difficulties, which have so much perplexed all others before, I am persuaded that they will find it to agree perfectly with my former account expressed in different words but with the same meaning; and likewise that I have not done Sir W. the injury of imputing to him such an easy and probable mode of removing the above difficulties, instead of bis maintaining that Egyptian and Hebrew were such cognate languages,