Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

polidis loco ap. Plut. Symp. 4, 1. p. 662. quem Meineckius meus Cur. Crit. 58. dextre tractavit; sed præterierunt eum emendd. Bodæi Stap. ad Theophr. 409. propositæ, quibus res fere ad liquidum perducta erat. In eo pariter xÚTICOS, (non xuτισος, ut in Εd. Pauw. scribitur,) σφάκος, άνθέρικος, φλόμος, Caprarum pabula, commemorantur.” P. 110. The scholar, who

. is interested in determining the sense and the reading of these two Fragments, will not perhaps repent of consulting the New Gr. Thes. p. 1422. e-23. a.

Here I am reminded of two other Fragments, which are also handled, rightly or wrongly, in the Thes. The ingenious and acute Mr. G. Burges in his Comicorum Gr. Fragmm. Spec. Edit. (Classical Journal 44, 282.) cites the following verses of Pherecrates, as corrected and arranged by himself:

* Εξαρμονίαις γ' υπερβολαίς δείπνο σ' όσαις,
Kάν νιγλάροις μ', ώσπερ Τελέαν ραφάνοις έλων

Κόπτων τε, *κατεμέστωσε των τερετισμάτων. See the New Gr. Thes. p. cccxxxix. a. et n. 1. and Barker's Amænitates Cr. et Philol. in Classical Journal 31, 112. In the notes on those lines of Pherecrates Mr. Burges p. 285-6. cites from an unknown comic writer the verses preserved by Hesychius v. 'Papaviowbñvai, which he thus corrects and arranges :

τις γαρ αν
της ραφανιδος οξυθύμιεισορών

*Ελθοι προς ημάς; and he then quotes Harpocr. v. 'Ogubúuia. On these passages he will find some things to his purpose in the New Gr. Thes. p. 199. a. et n. 1.; 204, n. 2.; see also Barker's Amænitt. Cr. et Philol. in Class. Journ, 32, 375.

“Atque hinc est, quod rectius legeretur ap. Athen. 9, 9. (39. 432.) *Λεκτέον δε και άττάγαι (Εust. ατταγαι,) και ουχί άτTayávtes. Id enim longe convenientius, quam quod vulgo editur, xai ouxi attayñves. Vident omnes. Pauw. ' Hoc Pauwianum áttayávtes non verbum est, sed portentum.” P. 117. la his Diss. de Substantivis in äs exeuntibus, (Wolfii Anal. Liter. 2, 60.) Lobeck writes thus:-“ Pauwii emend. ad Phryn. 44. xai ouxi &ttayávtes, a Schweigh. prætermissam, Stephani Britannici Editores (p. cccxxix. a. ccccxcviii. a.) ut mihi V. D. Edmundus Barkerus per Literas significavit, in memoriam revocarunt, haud scio an nimio inepti commenti honore. Idem addebat, Sturz, de Dial. Aler. 88. cur attagenes Ægyptiæ vocentur, ex Æliano H. A. 15, 27. potuisse intelligere." But the editors will be still prepared to maintain that Pauw's con

[ocr errors]

.

canon.

17 jecture is entitled to notice, and they cannot conceive why &TTAγάντες, (as to the accent, see Lobeck Diss. 1. c. p. 59.) should be considered a portentum, or ineptum commentum, when óaTávtes is admitted to be correct: see Lobeck. Diss. 1.c. Athen. himself merely says that the plural áttayáytes is not to be used. The words of Athen. are these : 'Attayàs (read with the Ms. 'Ατταγάς, or rather αττάγας,) περισπώσιν οι 'Αττικοί παρά τον ορθόν λόγον τούνομα" τα γαρ εις ας λήγοντα εκτεταμένον υπέρ δύο συλλαβας, ότε έχει το απαραλήγον, βαρύτονα εστιν, οίον ακάμας, 'Αθάμας, αδαμας λεκτέον δε και άττάγαι (Εust. less rightly ατταγαι,) και ουχί ατταγήνες. “ Mirus vero Canon, quo confunditur primæ declinationis nomen cum nominibus tertie; nam ατταγάς prima declinationis est : itaque in accus. plur. etiam attayās formatur in Comici Acharn.: a quo multum differunt ο αδάμας του αδάμαντος, et ο ακάμας του ακάμαντος.” Schweigh. But there is no such confusion, if you read with the editors αττάγας-αττάγαι. The

meaning of Athenæus is this: the word értéyas is changed, παρά τον ορθόν λόγον, by the Attic writers into ανταγάς, and he then proves the truth of his remark by producing a grammatical

The words, λεκτέον δε και άττάγαι, και ουχί άτταγήνες, are intended to show that in the plural the said Attic writers have deviated alike from the canon and from themselves; for they say αττάγαι, and if they preserved consistency, they would say ατταγάντες, because αττάγας nakes ατταγάντες, ατταγάς ατταγάντες, as αλλάς αλλάντες. The opposition meant by Athen. is quite destroyed by the vulgar reading, και ουχί άτταγήνες, and tlie word itself is quite foreign to the purpose of Athen.; if λεκτέον is not to be considered as applicable only to the Attic writers, Athen. is made to say what it is scarcely possible to suppose that he could mean to say, that áttayñves is a barbarism, For he himself p. 659. quotes Phoenicides: εν Μισουμένη, κουδεν ήν τούτων όλως Προς ατταγήνα συμβαλείν τών βρωμάτων, and adds, 'Εν τούτοις τηρητέον και την του ατταγήνος μνήμην.

Well then τηight H. Steph. Thes. exclaim:-« Sed mirum quod Αthen. 1. c. subjungit, λεκτέον δε και 'Αττάγαι, και ουχί άτταγήνες. Νam illud attayny non solum ap. Aristot. legitur H. A. 9, 26. (19.) sed a Latinis etiam usurpatur, ac inter alios a Plin. 10, 48. Quinetiaαι Εust. 854(4795, 38.) Το παλαιών ατταγα (read αττάγαι) μέν 'Αττικώς, ατταγήνες δε κοινώς: indicans in communi Gr. ceterorum dialecto fuisse usitatum. Et paulo ante, Ilegiσπώσιν οι 'Αττικοί το άτταγάς, δς ανταγήν κοινότερον λέγεται, κλινόμενος ατταγήνος. Ιtem Schol. Αristoph. (Σ. 257.) “ο άτταγάς

VOL. XXI X. Cl. . NO, LVII. B

όρνεόν εστι τερπόμενον έλεσι και πηλώδεσι τόπους και τέλμασιν, δν ημείς φαμέν ατταγήνα.”

In p. 124. observations on the words ανατολή, επιτολή, ανατέλaw, śmitéXXW, are introduced. The reader will find much on this subject in Barker's Notes on the Etym. M. p. 1081-2. and in the Classical Recreations, p. 156-62. “ In Prom. p. 176. line 99. 100. we approve of the separation between tñ and TÓTE, and think it equally just and ingenious; but appareo or orior appears to be in this passage a more natural translation of ÉTITETact, than injungere, if it can be supported.Edinburgh Monthly Review of Dunbar's Additions to Dalzel's Collectanea Majora, for March 1821. That the word will bear this sense had been abundantly shown by Mr. B. in the Class. Recr. 1. c.

In p. 187. Lobeck shows that aißavos is used pariter de arbore quam de lacryma, Baywròs de thure et de arbore,” and adds:

.De singulis locis nemo præstet, quum sæpe Codd. inter se dissentiant, Herod. 4, 75. Joseph. A. J. 3, 6, 136.; sed liberiorem fuisse hujus vocis usum vel ex eo colligi licet, quod similiter χελώνη de Supellectile testudinea, τρίκλινα χελώνης Philo de Vita Contempl. 896. et ragow pro sardonyche Philostr. Imag. 1, 6. 770. et périood pro melle usurpatur Soph. Ed. Č. 481. ut notiora præteream. Hence Barker in Wolfii Anal. Liter. 2, 63-7. (Classical Journal T. 18. p. 347. New Gr. Thes. p. 49. n. 1. 100, n. 3. 223. n.) has been rather unguarded in what he has said about the phrase éopos períoons, used by Epinicus ap. Athen. 432.

« Credo equidem Comicum (ap. Eust. 518.) *Bgotohoixòv, Fellatorem, ut intelligi voluisse, ita scripsisse. Ab hac communi terminatione non videtur Æsch, recessisse, neque aiuatóReixos scripsisse, quod Burneius ex Ed. Stanl. receptum malit in Diario Classico T. 24. p. 348., quodque cum xwuwdoneixeiv ap. Aristoph. nullam societatem habet." P. 573. Here we have aiuató eixos for aiuatorerxos, an accentual error, into which Dr. Blomf. has fallen : see Āristarch. Anti-Blomf. 111.

E. H. BARKER. Thetford, Oct. 1825.

[ocr errors]

19

OBSERVATIONS ON THE ZODIAC

OF DENDERA.

No. III.-[Continued from No. LVI.) To

explain how foreign divinities and foreign rites and ceremonies became common in Egypt, it will be necessary to advert for a moment to the history of the Egypto-Greeks.

In the 8th century before the Christian æra, the adventurous colonies of Ionia and Caria had, amidst other commercial, or rather piratical expeditions, undertaken a voyage to Egypt. Their brazen armour,' their courage, and activity were beheld with amazement by the Egyptians. At that time Psammetichus (son of Ecus, who was put to death by Sabbæon the Ethiopian) was one of the twelve lords, who, upon the death of king Sethon, had assumed the government of the country and divided it among them. Possessing chiefly the sea-coast, it appears that he had acquired considerable wealth by commerce, which excited the jealousy of the other petty potentates. In the disputes which ensued, Psammetichus secured the assistance of these wandering Greeks, by whose valor and discipline he ultimately became sole monarch of Egypt, about the year 670 B. C. In consideration of such important services he rewarded his allies with lands upon the Nile, which induced many of thein to settle in that country. From this æra a Grecian colony subsisted in Egypt, which maintained an intercourse with their countrymen, and rendered the transactions of that kingdom a part of genuine history. The Greeks upheld the throne of his successors until A pries, the fourth in descent from Psammetichus, having undertaken an expedition against the Greek colony of Cyrene, was dethroned by Amasis, the cotemporary and ally of Cresus. Amasis rivalled the Lydian prince in his partiality for the language and manners of the Greeks. He raised a Cyrenian woman to the honors of his bed. The Greeks who had served his predecessors, and who, in consequence of the Egyptian law, obliging the son to follow the profession of his father, now amounted to near 30,000, he removed to Memphis, his capital, and employed them.

[blocks in formation]

as his body-guard. He encouraged the correspondence of this colony with the mother-country; invited new inhabitants from Greece into Egypt; promoted the commercial intercourse between the two nations; and assigned to the Greek merchants, for their residence the town and district of Naucratis on the Nile, where they enjoyed the free exercise of their religious processions and solemnities, and where the iudustry of the little island of Ægina in Europe, and the opulence of several Greek cities in Asia, erected temples after the fashion of their respective countries.

Herodotus visited Egypt about the year 450 B. C.; there was therefore an interval of more than 200 years for the ex portation of the Gods and religious ceremonies of the Egyptians, and for the importation of foreign deities and rites of worship among the Egypto-Greeks and others whom commerce had induced to settle in that country.

This shows how the borderers of the Nile, according to Herodotus, were familiar with the Gods, and many civil institutions of Greece, during the most florishing period of the Egyptian hierarchy; and how the two systems subsisted and descended together to the Macedonian conquest, and, through the tolerant disposition of the Ptolenies, to the time when the sceptre of Egypt passed from their hands to those of the Romans without ever amalgamating. It was not the natives but the descendants of the Greek colony from Lesser Asia, who had acquired not only a permanent settlement but the exclusive commerce of the country, by whom the Egyptian synsbols were mingled with those peculiar to the mythology of their mother-country. Unlike the Egyptians, the Greeks had no scruples respecting objects of adoration : they welcomed those of every nation; and when they could not borrow, they invented.

From these observations it is easy to reconcile the appearance of Egyptian symbols in the Zodiac, in conjunction with those of Greece. As, therefore, the Zodiac consists of an assemblage of mythological figures peculiar to Greece and Egypt, and as the Egyptians never adopted foreign deities, it follows that the whole Zodiac was the work of the Greeks ; because the mixture of the niythological symbols of different countries was compatible with their religious customs, and incompatible

· As Libru is decidedly foreign to Egypt, and therefore not against the argument, I have not thought it necessary to notice in the text its exception to the classification there stated.

« PředchozíPokračovat »