Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

The two following notes of Giacomellius, and Schutz, respectively, deserve the attention of the student: ποικιλείμων, ἡ ὡς λειμών, τοῖς ἄστροις ποικιλλομένη, ἡ ποικίλον ἔνδυμα ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ πεποικίσθαι τοῖς ἄστροις, Schol. A. and B. ποικιλολειμωνίτις οὖσα, ἢ καὶ ἔχουσα ποικίλα είματα καὶ ἱμάτια διὰ τὰ ἄστρα, ὁ δὲ Σοφόκλης μέλαιναν, Schol. C. : “ Κατὰ τὸ ἐν ἄστροις ποικίλον αὐτῆς, inquit Eustathius, Æschylum nostrum laudans in K. Il., Hesych. λειμῶν, ἀνθηρὸς τόπος.” Stanley: « Vox non a λειμών, sed ab εἶμα composita, ut λαμπρείμων, λεοχείμων, et similia,” Giacom.: "Nox in monumentis etiam repræsentabatur, ut velamen sideribus pictum super caput teneret: ideo etiam ab Argonauticorum, quæ Orpheo tribuuntur, auctore, αστροχίτων appellatur.” Schutz, who was probably indebted to Barthius, Adversaria, L. VII. c. 11. for this excellent opinion; for he says: "Stellantes nox picta sinus; pingebant enim noctis idolon in tunica multis stellis obsita."

ν. 194. οἶδ' ὅτι τραχὺς καὶ παρ' ἑαυτῷ
τὸ δίκαιον ἔχων Ζεύς.

Mr. Blomfield here gives to us two references of Professor Porson to Eurip. Suppl. 441. (431.) κρατεῖ δ' εἰς τὸν νόμον κεκτημένος Αὐτὸς παρ' αὐτῷ, and Sext. Empiric. adv. Μathem. 11. 31. μηδένος γὰρ ἐπιστα τοῦντος νόμου, ἕκαστος ἐν χειρὶ τὸ δίκαιον εἶχε. But neither professor Porson, nor Dr. Butler, nor Mr. Stanley, nor Mr. Blomfield, nor any of the commentators, whom I have seen, have noticed the following passage in Eustathius's Commentary upon Homer, Ed. Rome, p. 201.: οὕτω καὶ παρ' Ησιόδω διαφέρει ο χειροδίκης, καὶ ὁ ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων τὴν δίκην, χειροδίκης μὲν γὰρ συνθέτως, ὁ βίαιος καὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, ἀλλ' χερσὶ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ κείμενον ἔχων τὸ δίκαιον· ὁ δὲ ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν, ὁ δίκαιος καὶ ἀεὶ πρὸ χειρῶν οἷον φέρων τὸ δίκαιον.

ν. 393. ὁρμωμένῳ μοι τόνδ' ἐθώνξας λόγον.

[ocr errors]

Stanley translates these words thus-propenso mihi renuntiasti hæc verba, and Schutz says, ἐθώντας h. 1. nihil aliud significat quam dixisti." I cannot assent to this notion of Schutz: there is a propriety in the word ἐθώνξας, which the critics have not perceived : the word was suggested to the mind of the poet by the precedent Ερμωμένῳ, and the recollection of the Homeric proverb, to which Lucian refers in his Nigr. c. 5. τοῦτο γάρ τοι τὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου, σπεύδοντα καὶ αὐτὸν παρακαλείς, where Gilbertus Cognatus has the following excellent note: "Metaphora est ducta ab his, qui cursu certant, quibus acclamatio solet addere velocitatem ; sumta ex illo Homeri Il. Θ. 293.

̓Ατρείδη κύδιστε, τί με σπεύδοντα καὶ αὐτὸν
ἐτρύνεις;

eodem allusit Od. w. 486.

ὡς εἰπὼν ὤτρυνε πάρος μεμαυίαν ̓Αθήνην :

Itaque currentem incitamus, cum ad id vocamus aliquem, ad quod suapte cupiditate fertur ac propendet.” “ Currentem hortari, incitare, proverb. παρακαλεῖν τὸν σπεύδοντα, de eo, qui alium ad quippiam hortatur paratum jam ac promptum, Cic. 3 Phil. c. 8. et 2. de Orat. c. 44. et Fam. L. xv. Ep. 15. et Plin. L. 1. Ep. 8. et L. 111. Ep. 7.”

Proverbii vim habet illud

Forcellini Lexicon totius Latinitatis. Cic. Att. 13. 42. Quod me hortaris, ut eos dies consumam in philosophia explicanda, currentem tu quidem: Id. de Orat. 2. 186. Facilius enim cst currentem (quod aiunt) incitare, quam commovere languentem: ducta est metaphora ab his, qui cursu certant, quibus acclamatio solet addere velocitatem: cf. Cic. ad Q. Frat. 1. 1 c. ult.” Gesner's Thes. Ling. Lat.

ν. 470. μνήμην θ ̓ ἁπάντων μουσομήτορ' ἐργάνην.

"'Egyάvy, notum epitheton Minerva: Diod. L. v. p. 340., ubi inter alia Minervam invenisse dicit τὴν τῆς ἐσθήσεις κατασκευήν, vestium parandarum rationem, postremo addit, καὶ τὸ σύνολον, πολλὰ τῶν φιλοτέχνων ἔργων, ἀφ' ὧν Εργάνην αὐτὴν προσαγορεύεσθαι: Αl. V. H. 1. 1. c. 2. υφαντικὴν καὶ ὑφαίνειν καὶ δῶρα τῆς Εργάνης Δαίμονος : sed et alibi passim ejus mentio : eadem Μαχανάτις, sive Μηχανίτις ex eadem ratione." Bergler's Alciphron, V. 1. p. 130. Ed. Wagner.

ν. 908. λύσσης Πνεύματι μάργω.

Mr. Blomfield has omitted the word λucra in his Glossary. I therc fore add the following passages: Josephus somewhere says, oi de ur ἐνδείας κεχηνότες, ὥσπερ λυσσώντες κύνες, ἐσφάλοντο καὶ παρεφέροντο. "Avoca primum est vermiculus sub lingua canum, de quo Plinius L. 29. c. 5.; deinde est rabies canum morbus, quo illi plerumque sub caniculæ ortum aut alias in æstu corripiuntur, de quo Aristot. L. 8, c. 22. et Plin. l. c.; de ejus causis et remediis disserit Olympius Nemesianus in Cynegetico: ibi,

Est etiam canibus rabies letale periclum,

et seqq.; tertio quemlibet etiam furorem sive effrenem atque indomitam cupiditatem significat, ut hic voracitatem, ut infra L. 3. v. 622. amoris impetum." Conradi Ritterhusii In Lib. 11. Halieut. Oppiani Commentaria, Lug. Bat. 1597. Toup says, "Idyll. Iv. v. 11.

πείσαι τοι Μίλων καὶ τῶς λύκος αὐτίκα λυσσῆν :

-Avoy est proprie canum'; est et luporum famelicorum: poeta nescio quis de S. Theodoro 154.

λύκου τε λύσσαν ἐξελὼν τοῦ ποιμνίου.”

Toup's Appendicula Notarum atque Emendatt. in Theocr. Londini 1772. p. 11.

Hatton,

January 13th, 1813.

E. H. BARKER.

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DRUIDS.

τῶν δ ̓ ἀμόθενγε, θεὰ θύγατερ Διός, εἶπε καὶ ἡμῖν.

HOMERI Odyss. 1.

FROM what part of the world this island was at first peopled, is a point which has given birth to a variety of discordant opinions, from very few of which we are able to educe any thing, that may be deemed satisfactory. Some writers, who from their productions appear to discredit the Mosaic account, without taking much pains to disguise their sentiments, conceive the Druids to be autóxoves; others, wandering in a labyrinth not less confused, imagine the Goths and the Celta to be the same people; and a different class, who seem not altogether to be convinced by the idea, and who yet do not reject it, are manifestly undecided respecting the different tribes, and the countries which they occupied. By some, the Phoenicians have been summoned to solve the difficulty, but Bryant observes, with the greatest truth, that ignorance has frequently taken shelter under that name, since Phoenician was a title, which was given to Tyrians, to Tsidonians, and to Canaanites, and was introduced by a people from Egypt, according to his quotation from Eusebius, Φοίνιξ καὶ Κάδμος ἀπὸ Θήβων τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἐξέλθοντες εἰς τὴν Συρίαν, Τύρου καὶ Σίδωντος ἐβασίλευον.

Pezron informs us, that a people called Gomarians, Cimmerians, Celts, and Scythæ, in the earliest ages spread themselves over Bactria and Margiana, and that, travelling by way of Armenia, and Cappadocia, they passed into Europe. Tacitus, in words not very dissimilar from those of the writers, who deem the Druids to be autoxoves, says of the Germans: "Ipsos Germanos indigenas crediderim, minimèque aliarum gentium adventibus et hospitiis mixtos; quia nec terrâ olim sed classibus advehebantur, qui mutare sedes quærebant ; et immensus ultrà, utque sic dixerim, adversus Oceanus raris ab orbe navibus aditur." This reasoning is too evidently absurd, to require a refutation, and thus calls forth the criticism of Brotier: "Indigenæ et quasi è terrâ prognati veteribus scriptoribus dicti sunt populi omnes, quorum origo eos latebat...............aliter et verè ipse Tacitus infrà cap. 28 et 43. Gallos, Gothinos, et Osos advenas atque hospites memorat," and accordingly in cap. 28. he contradicts his assertion, that colonists did not travel by land. But as Cluverius and others have so amply treated of the Sarmatæ, Gothi, Gothini, Getæ, Osi, Daci, &c. it is needless for us to go over the same ground: suffice it

then to observe, that the Goths and Celts appear to have derived their religious rites from the same source through different channels, but that in their transit they suffered a considerable change; that they were clearly distinct people at the time, that we read of them in Europe, that the various words of mutual affinity, which have been cited to support their coincidence, may probably have arisen from proximity of territory, in which some of the different tribes resided, or may have proceeded from some sacred tongue, which, for aught that we know to the contrary, may, in the more early part of their history, have been used by their priests. It is, therefore, proposed to demonstrate from the noble relics bequeathed to us by the Greek historians, that the foundation of Captain Wilford's opinions rests not merely on Sanskrita MSS. but on the records of other people likewise; but as it is presumed, that those opinions are now well-known, they will but seldom be quoted. Indeed, the almost universal account of Phoenicians, who settled in this island, is itself in direct favor of the idea; as will more fully appear from the words of Sir William Jones: « If Strabo and Herodotus were not grossly deceived, the adventurous Idumæans, who first gave names to the stars, and hazarded long voyages in ships of their own construction, could be no other than a branch of the Hindù race: in all events, there is no ground for believing them of a fourth distinct lineage; and we need say no more of them, till we meet them' again on our return under the name of Phoenicians," and in another part, he says, that he has no doubts that "Syria, Samaria, and Phoenice, or the long strip of land on the shore of the Mediterranean, were anciently peopled by a branch of the Indian stock, but were afterwards inhabited by that race, which for the present we call Arabian." And the Welsh, so far from considering themselves indigenous, aver, as Meyrick has shown from Taliesin and from the Triads, that Hu the Mighty stands on record as the first, who colonized Great Britain with Cimbric adventurers.

Tacitus writes in his Agricola, "Ceterum Britanniam, qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenæ an advecti, ut inter Barbaros parùm compertum." Nor is it to be denied, that we may justly rank among the things, that are inscrutable, if not among the things, that are fabulous, that the Celta were sons of Gomer, and that his brother Magog's descendants peopled Tartary; since all the authority, upon which we can absolutely depend, is to be found in Gen.

X. 3.

[ocr errors]

which is much too brief and indefinite to justify us in any such hypothesis; and in reality proves nothing. Trebellius in Claud.

c. 6. notices the Celta as a people of Scythia, who were conquered by Claudius: "Denique Scytharum diversi populi, Deucini...... Celtæ etiam et Heruli in Romanum solum et rempublicam prædæ cupiditate venerunt." Pelloutier observes, "On sait, que les Egyptiens et les Phoeniciens commencèrent de bonne heure à équiper les flottes, et à faire des établissemens le long des côtes de la mer Mediterranée, jusqu'aux Colonnes d' Hercule. D'ailleurs il est à presumer, que ces établissemens commencèrent par la Grece; cette contrée se trouvoit à leur bienséance, parcequ'elle leur ouvroit plusieurs autres provinces de l'Europe." In another place he writes, "Le célébre Bochart et plusieurs autres écrivains ont oui qu'il valoit mieux faire venir les Celtes de l'Egypte ;" and in a different part, "les Perses, les Iberes d'Orient, les Albaniens, les Bactriens paroissent avoir été le même peuple que les Celtes," and elsewhere he labors to establish their Scythian origin, and says, that the Scythians and the Celtes lived together united from all which it is evident that he knows not where to fix their origin, and in the sequel it will be shown, that these confused accounts most wonderfully harmonize; but, whenever an example is produced from Pelloutier, it should be remembered, that he indulged the common error of the identity of the Goths and Celta. However, it may not be amiss to wander from our subject for the sake of exhibiting an ingenious conjecture of Cluver, concerning the famous passage of Herodotus, ἄλλοι δὲ Πέρσαι εἰσὶ οἱ δὲ Πανθηλαῖοι, Δορευ σiaio, requávion. De cetero, eorum heic maxime notanda est parùm felix conjectura, qui à Persarum gente Germanos ortos, ex Herodoto probare posse arbitrantur: scilicet, quia huic in lib. 1. sub Persarum imperio populi recensentur reguvio, quibus equidem duplex hujus sententiæ ratio.........originem gentis nostræ, qui ex Herodoti vocabulo Tepμávio ostendere volunt, præter vocabulum hoc nihil in Herodoto legisse mihi videntur: quis namque geographiæ, historiæque veteris tam rudis, atque ignarus, quin vel primo statim intuitu percipiat l'efuáving Herodoti esse eosdem populos, qui aliis frequenter auctoribus Καρμάνιοι et Κάρμανοι dicuntur, gens ad fauceis sinûs Persici nobilissima? Now, although these observations are exceedingly probable, yet the evidence of other authors renders it certain, that we must look in that part of the world for the origin of that people. But the remark, which he makes concerning the Goths, erroneously calling them Celta, will also apply with undiminished force to the true Celta :" nam quum Deorum cultum primi Celta (lege Geta) quorum pars maxima Germani, ex Asia secum in Celticam attulerint, sacerdoteis quoque sacrorum procuratores, divinæque voluntatis interpreteis unà inde adduxisse, certum est."

The translator of Mallet, in his interesting preface, proves the difference on which we here insist, and says, that Gauls, Britons, and

« EdellinenJatka »