From these observations it appears that the more ancient nations were not worshippers of images, and that the Greeks were the first who offered posthumous adoration to mankind, and the first also by whom specific objects of worship were transformed and multiplied. As, therefore, several of the figures of the zodiac are humanized personifications, and as the whole are merely so many different attributes of the same deity, the Sun, or Bacchus, it follows that these figures must have been invented by the Greeks, subsequently to the time of Homer. To leave no material proof behind us, it will be necessary on this part of the subject to remark farther, that Egypt for upwards of six centuries B. C. contained two distinct peopleEgyptians proper, and Greeks. The former, from the earliest to the latest period of their authentic history, were obstinately attached to the worship of brutes and the most loathsome reptiles. The texture of their superstition was not of so flexible a nature as that of the Greeks and many other nations. During the dominion of the Pharaohs it was directed by a permanent hierarchy, whose regulations so firmly established the principles and practice of the system, as enabled it to survive all the civil and religious persecutions which afterwards afflicted that country. While the whole nation concurred in the adoration of the ox, dog, cat, and Ibis, each nome or province had its particular or tutelar god, who engrossed the chief share of their veneration; wolves were worshipped at Lycopolis; monkies at Hermopolis; crocodiles at Crocodilopolis, &c. These Greek names of cities attest the prevalence of brute worship after that people had established colonies in Egypt, and Diodorus proves the excessive zeal with which it was maintained after the Romans were connected with that country.1 This long maintenance of an indigenous superstition is, among other testimonies, supported by the Rosetta stone, which proves the existence of their sacred language to almost the same period, ' Ptolemy XI. Auletes, father to the celebrated Cleopatra, was restored by Gabinius and M. Antony, and during the last 4 years of his reign, was supported by Roman soldiers. "One of these," says Diodorus, “in practising with some missile weapon shot a cat; the Egyptians were thrown into a tumult by the murder of a god; neither the magistrates, nor the king himself, nor the swords of the legionaries could restrain their rage, they pursued the delinquent to his house, and having dragged him from thence to the public place inflicted on him their fiercest vengeance."-Diodorus, lib. i. sec. 83. VOL. XXVIII. Cl. JI. NO. LVI. and which it does not appear was ever known to the Greeks or Romans. Bold as the supposition may be, there yet seems no reason to believe that this singular people, whose idolatry spread far and wide through the ancient world, ever adopted any part of the mythology of their pagan neighbours, or that with foreigners they ever held community of worship. The gods, therefore, together with the religious rites and ceremonies of other countries, mentioned by Herodotus and other ancient authors, as common in Egypt, in their time, must be considered as forming no part of the religious establishments of the native Egyptians. -While all around seem to have derived some portion of the arts and sciences, of religion, of manners and customs from them, there appears not throughout the whole course of their authentic history, any instance of innovation or apostacy on their part. NOTICE OF ̓ΑΝΑΛΕΚΤΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΑ : sive COLLECTANEA GRECA MAJORA; ad usum Academica Juventutis accommodata. Cum notis Philologicis, quas partim collegit, partim scripsit ANDr. DALZELL, A.M. Pluribus in locis emendata, et Notis uberioribus aucta, curavit et edidit GEORGIUS DUNBAR, A. M. Edinb. PART II. [Concluded from No. LV. p. 10.] WITH regard to the extracts from Xenophon, the Professor informs us in his preface, that he has transferred those from the "Cyropædia" to the "Analecta Minora." This arrangement must obtain general approbation, since it has enabled him to raise the character of the extracts in this latter work, and to allow room for the introduction of much new matter in the present volume. The extracts from the "Anabasis" he has retained and illustrated by many additional remaiks. A few of the more important we subjoin. 111. 3. ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἑλλήνας κ. τ. λ.) Professor Dalzell had construed εἰς μάχην after ταχθῆναι, as if the Grecian been drawn out for actual combat. Mr. Dunbar accurately refers army had them to οὕτω ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς. Thus Schneider, " post μάχην intellige raxoñval. Igitur comma, vulgo post avrois positum, retraxi et post μáxny collocavi, quod fieri voluit et monuit in Addendis Weiske." 113. 2. Kaì ôтɩ tpinpeis K. T. X.) This very involved construction Mr. D. has explained as satisfactorily, perhaps, as the text will permit. Strong doubts prevail amongst commentators with respect to the genuineness of the latter clause, “Ταμὼν ἔχοντα τὰς Aakedaypovíwv kaì avrov Kúpov.” Weiske would reject it, and declares those, who translate it as our Professor has done, guilty of "durities orationis." In answer to this Schneider thus writes: "Duritiam orationis nescio quam Xenophonti obtrudere ait eos, qui post exovra demum ponunt incisum, ut accusativus rpinpeïs regatur ab ἔχοντα.” 117. 2. μὴ φθάσουσι—καταλαβόντες. The minute scholarship of the learned Professor has in this note enabled him to detect an inaccuracy overlooked both by Porson and Schneider. In pp. 117, n. 2. and 243, n. 7., similar inaccuracies are pointed out. 119. 6. ὡς μέντοι πλείστοι ἐδόκει, κ. τ. λ.) This passage in its present state is evidently corrupted. When Xenias and Pasion left Cyrus, it is evident that they were dissatisfied with his conduct in some respects. A word therefore expressive of this feeling must have been employed by the historian: and commentators, aware of this, have twisted piλoriμnévres to assume such a meaning as it no where else bears, so far at least as our observation has extended. The conjecture offered by the learned Professor meets the difficulty fully, although perhaps it might be rather bold to introduce it into the text. 123. 4. πολὺ γὰρ κ. τ. A.) This passage has afforded much employment to commentators, and, notwithstanding all that has been said, it remains as much undecided as ever. In order to restore the true reading, Schneider has adopted areσrãro, on the suggestion of his friend Buttmann, unsupported by any manuscript, and merely because that gentleman happened to find aлоσлár0wμev applied in the second book of the Anabasis to the retreat of the Grecian army. What resemblance there is between a retreating army, and the speed of an ostrich "half on foot, half flying," that the word expressive of the one, should be also a suitable term for the other, we are at a loss to conceive. So great a deviation from the vulgar reading àπéπrα, and from so slight a reason, or rather from no reason at all, should not have induced Professor D. to receive it. Surely his own conjecture of άnén is much simpler, and might have been adopted with as good pretensions to accuracy. We agree with him in rejecting the praxis of άñéπτα, as given either by Dalzell or the London Editor. Matthiæ considers it as the 2nd a. Attic. But this is certainly erroneous. 141. 2. καὶ οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες κ. τ. λ.) Some difficulties have been started about poolóvres in this passage. One manuscript has Tроolóvros, referring to the king. But if any change were to be made, we would agree with Professor D. and Schneider, the latter of whom thus writes: quæ (sc. oratio) multo facilior erat, si Xenophon dixisset ὡς ταύτῃ προσιόντα δεξόμενοι.” We see no reason, however, for any change; and are of opinion with the same critic, "futurum Tρoσtóvres si interpreteris de occursu, bene convenit cum sequenti δεξόμενοι.” 144. 9. καὶ ἐξείη πρὸς ἄλλους κ. τ. λ.) This passage, generally supposed to be corrupted, Mr. D. has explained in a manner at once simple and accurate. We have been thus particular in our remarks on the historical extracts, to present our readers with a sufficient specimen of the additions and amendments, with which the Professor has enriched the present volume. It would be trespassing too much on their time, to enter into a similar examination of the many additions which he has made to the notes on the "Oratorical Excerpts." Suffice it to say, that the same vigilance to every difficulty, with equal ability and research in removing it, is every where observable. It is with reluctance, therefore, that we are compelled to pass unnoticed several passages in the mutilated text of Lysias, on which he has brought his learning and ingenuity to bear with the happiest effect; and with equal regret we find ourselves obliged to omit his additional illustrations of Isocrates. We cannot, however, without injustice, avoid stopping to point out an important emendation in the text of Demosthenes. 188. 2. éπloxíν. In the very outset of the first Olynthian, we meet with εἰ μὲν περὶ καινοῦ—ἐπισχων ἂν,—a reading entirely at variance with the strict rules of syntax, and the structure of the sentence. In the two succeeding members, the one opens with ei pèv, and the other with ei dè, and in both the indicative with av follows. Why, then, is there a difference in the construction of the first member; and, more particularly, why is there a participle in place of that indicative? The only reason we can give, is, that some blundering copyist has made it; and critics and annotators, supposing that to be beautiful, which in reality was vitiated, have thus written: "Tales autem elegantiæ non solum linguis recentioribus, verum etiam ipsi Latinæ prorsus ignotæ." It would have been more to the purpose, if they had either given us the reason for such a syntax, or afforded us an example from a Greek classic of a sentence similarly constructed. We receive, therefore, Professor D.'s amendment, and think the sentence ought to be read as he has given it, εἰ μὲν περὶ καινοῦ κ. τ. λ. ἐπέσχον ἄν·—εἰ μὲν ἤρεσκε κ. τ. λ. ἡσυχίαν ἂν ἦγον· εἰ δὲ μὴ, τότ' ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπειρώμην. 216. 10. 11. 12. In these additional notes on the Memorabilia, the learned Professor has very properly pointed out to young students, the particular sects alluded to. σε 223. 2. où σe čuɩke, k. 7. λ.) In this quotation from the Iliad, Mr. D. has corrected an erroneous translation of Clarke. Seidioreobat, he justly observes, is no where used by Homer in the sense of "trepidare." The meaning of the sentence evidently is, "Worthy Sir, it is unbecoming your character to alarm, like a coward, the minds of the soldiers." Were it necessary to add more citations to those already given, we would refer to Il. v. 201. 432. Ib. 7. ἀλλ ̓ οὐδ ̓ αἰτίαν—) In this note our Professor embraces the opportunity to express his just indignation at the unworthy treatment which the character of Socrates has received from a contemporary review. -To serve the purposes of faction, to gratify the malignant affections of the heart, to please the mob, by sacrificing at their shrine rank, or wisdom, or virtue, might perhaps, in the state of society at Athens, be some apology for the vile buffooneries and detraction of Aristophanes. Nay, we will go so far as to say, that Socrates might, in various parts of his character and conduct, have been tangible by the comic Muse: for what man exists, or has existed, invulnerable to raillery and ridicule? But we may ask, without the fear of contradiction, if any philosopher, under the guidance of unassisted reason, ever maintained so fair a character, or ever penetrated so far, with all his faults, and follies, and errors, into moral science. We can admire the excursive and playful genius of Aristophanes, we can smile at his sallies of wit and humor, we can even pay our adorations when "he unveils the awful face of genuine poesy;" but we execrate his muse, when she attacks virtue, and exerts her attractive arts to give efficiency to her insidious attempts." 237. 5. Notwithstanding the ability with which Benwell contends for evopkos, we are inclined with Ernesti and Professor Dunbar to prefer avτápkns. We assent to Benwell, when he says, "Certe non h. 1. virtutes vitiis supra dictis contrarias ex ordine omnes commemorat Socrates, (id quod falso opinati sunt Hindenburgius et Ernestus), sed paucas quasdam, et eas quidem præcipuas, ex hisce virtutibus seligit:" yet as it cannot be denied that eyкparys μév ἐστι τῶν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἡδονῶν, the first virtue enumerated is opposed to the characters described in the 1st section; and as the critic himself argues for the contrast between ei cußodos the third virtue in the enumeration, and dvogúμßoλos in the third section, so we think it pretty evident that the virtue mentioned second in order, was intended as a contrast to the vice described in the same order. It militates nothing against our argument, that Socrates does not mention the virtues in the same order as he had done the vices; since it is by no means unusual, in the second enumeration of the like particulars, to specify directly the first three or four, and refer generally to the others, or omit them altogether. From these considerations, as well as from the propriety of avrápkŋs, we give our suffrage to Mr. D.'s choice. |