« PreviousContinue »
Let it be observed that the whole intent and end of this satire is to condemn and brand the Tentyrites, not for killing a man, but for eating liim. A bomicide committed in the course of a violent riot and affray, is an occurrence common enough in all countries; it was the cannibalism that succeeded, which Juvenal weant to hold up to such bitter and peculiar reprobation, and to represent as so black and distinguishing a stain on the Egyptian name. With this idea be begins —" Carnibus humanis vesci licet ;"_with this be concludes “non sufficit iræ occidisse aliquem, &c.;"-of this every part, every allusion, every illustration,--the Læstrygons--the Cyclops—the Vascons--the Saguntines--the Tauric Chersonese, -in short, all-or nearly all--are full. To complete the matter, this is the idea be is more peculiarly pressing in the very context of the passage in question, as the lines above quoted will show. Now it does not well harmonize with this idea, to ask whether the cruel deed of the Tentyrites was intended as an expiatory sacrifice. Such expiation would have referred only to the murder of the unfortunate Ombite, not to the devouring his body. It is true that certain portions of the victims offered in the ancient sacrifices were eaten; but this was only incidental; it constituted no part of the sacred rite itself. Besides, we never read even this of their human sacritices. The victim was slain, but there appears no reason to believe that any part of his body was eaten. On the contrary, we seem to have Juvenal's own authority, and in this very satire, for believing otherwise ; for he expressly says, that the horrible Tauric sacrifices were contined to simple immolation, without any cannibalism. The supposition, therefore, of an expiatory rite would have had no bearing on his subject, which was the cannibalism committed on the Ombite captive. Having specifically declared that the mystery of wickedness which so confounded him was not the killing but the eating, he would hardly have
' I enter not here into the question, whether sacrifices originated in the notion of eating with the Gods; a question, of which some eminent authors have maintained the affirmative side. Such certainly was not the theory of sacrifices in their mature state. But, whether it was so or vot, my present purpose will be sufficiently answered by remarking, that even writers who are strong for the festal character of a sacrifice, admit the case of expiatury or deprecatory sacrifices to be an exception. In these, it seems that the worshipper did not partake; as considering himself unworthy to sit at table with the offended divinity. See Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, Vol, i. No, 49.
proposed a solution which, after all, could only explain, not the eating but the killing
These considerations, together with a close regard to the context, may lead us to what I humbly conceive to be the right explication of this puzzling passage. The poet had before observed that there were cases which might palliate, though they could not positively justify, the feeding on human flesh. The Vascons and the Saguntines, closely besieged by their respective enemies, and reduced to famine, had excusably resorted to this dreadful expedient. But, now recurring to this subject, be proceeds to ask, in the lines under review, what similar apology could be found for the Tentyrites. I shall offer a paraphrase of the passage, according to this conception of it, and, after the observations already made, shall leave it to the candid exa. mination of the reader,
“ What afflicting exigence impelled the Tentyrites to this act? By what mighty stress of hunger were they oppressed ? By what hostile weapons and besieging armies were they blockaded, and thus reduced, after exhausting their provisions, to the dreadful and monstrous resource of feeding on their fellow-men? Should the Nile refuse to overflow his banks, and should the land of Egypt be in consequence parched with a destructive drought, even in that case, could the inhabitants do worse than thus to devour one another, thus bringing a heavy reproach on the river for his cruel obstinacy ?"
Dr. Maltby's Edition of MORELL’s Ler. Gr. Pros.
Part II. [Continued from No. xxvii. p. 91.]
The author of the Critical Notice of Dr. Maltby's Edition of Morell's Lexicon Græco-Prosodiacum, inserted in Mus. Crit. Cant. vi. supposes that “ in all the instances, enumerated by Dr. Maltby, in which the Greek Epigranımatists have either licentiously or ignorantly violated the laws of prosody, the fault is rather charge
able upon copyists or editors than on the original authors." But how can it be supposed that the copyists or editors should have blundered in all the sixteen instances adduced? The 8th instance, quoted by the learned, but anonymous critic, is this-“ Tútofas, Amipater of Sidon. p. 561. Λαμπάδα κηροχίτωνα, Κρόνου τυφήρεα λύχνον,
Σχοίνο και λεπτή στιγγόμενον παπύρων. . We cannot bring ourselves to believe that so correct a writer [as] Antipater should have made such a blunder. The reader will obverve that letti is in the feminine gender, whereas nánupos is masculime. The distich is found, totidem litteris, in Suid. v. Tupper [et v. llatúpm.] We would read,
τυξήρεα λύχνον 'Εκ σχοίνων λεπτή σφιγγόμενόν τε βύβλω. To make this conjecture probable, we observe, first, that these torches were bundles of small rlishes. Photius: Davos apenas ñ éx κλημάτων. Πανός δέσμη κληματίδων. Secondly, εκ and και are frequently confounded. See Bast. ad Gregor. p. 746. So also are up and w. Thirdly, Bußaos is the word usually employed by Greek authors in speaking of the Egyptian plant alluded to. See Athen, xv. 6576. d. Nicander Alex. 362. Æschylus Suppl. 757. [768.] Xenoph. Anab, vii. p. 542. Eustath. ad. Odyss. $. p. 1913, 31. Fourthly, Tutúfw is to be attributed to some scholiast, who wrote it in the margm, or inmediately above Bußaw. Nothing is more coinmon than the intrusion of glosses ; but it is sufficient to give an instance where the very game accident has happened. Photius : Φιλύρα: φυτών έχον φλοιόν βύβλω παπύρω όμοιον. Κuster Suidas
proposes Bußrop nanupo. But the words are synonymous. It is evident that matupa was the explanation of some copyist.
1. The writer is mistaken ir attributing to Antipater Sidonius the epigram above mentioned. It was the composition of Antipater Thessalonicensis, and occurs in Brunck's Anal. t. ii. Jacobs' Anthol. t. ii. p. 98.
2. The writer quotes the verse of Antipater, as if it were otorróuevov, not o&ory quévny, and the verse is so cited by Salmasius, whose words we shall soon produce. But Jacobs, who is silent about the other lection, gives o doyyouévny, which is without doubt the true reading, and which is found in Suidas v. natúpu et τυφήρεα, and also in Phavorinus v παπύρω.
3. Were we inclined to adopt the proposed substitution of Bußaw for natúpo, yet we could not assent to the great alterations made in the second verse for the purpose of introducing it.
4. Though we admit that “éx and xai are frequently confounded,” and that w and' wy may be " frequently confounded,” vet we must be allowed to doubt whether it be within the rules of sober criticism to suppose that any " copyist,” however illiterate, could so far blunder
in writing two words, as not only to confound fx and xal, w and but to alter the true position of the words, putting ozolva xal for εκ σχοίνων.
5. The writer is mistaken in supposing that any alteration of the verse is necessary, because lentŷ in the feminine gender is joined to Tamúgy, which he supposes to be masculine only. But if he had consulted the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, the Lexicon of Schneider, or Dr. Maltby's Lexicon Græco-Prosodiacum p. 747., he would have discovered that mánugos is both masculine and feminine. Phavor. et Suidas : Mamupos: On auxūs Ý Tánupos".
Λαμπάδα κηροχίτωνα, Κρόνου τυφήρεα λύχνον,
Σχοίνω και λεπτή σφιγγομένην παπύρω. . Let not the writer imagine that these Lexicographers had no other authority for making ránupos feminine than this passage of Suidas, and Phavorinus, who, in support of the assertion, addiice the very versé of Antipater, maintained by the writer to be corrupt. Papyrus in Latin also is feminine.
Conseritur bibula Memphitis cymba papyro. Lucan iv. 135.
Succinctus patria quondam, Crispine, papyro. Juvenal iv. 24. ; Hoeschel. ad Phrynichum p. 133. quotes two passages from Philo, where the word is feminine: Ευτελή πάνυ χαμαίστρωτα παπύρου της éyxwpíou, Id. Lib. in Flaccum. p. 666. Bpaxú to natúpou muñua tñs εγχωρίου καθ' οδόν ερριμένον ιδών τις αναδίδωσιν, Ms. Aug. ίδoντες αναδιdoct. Dioscorides 1. 115.: Dátupos yvágonós ÉGTI Tãow, ám' ns ó zápons Xat@oxeválstad. Theophrastus, however, H. P. iv. 9., writes ó Tátrupos. It appears that the more ancient writers made the word masculine, while the later writers thought proper to make it feminine.
6. The reviewer is equally unistaken in supposing that his conjecture derives any support from the circumstance“ that Búßros is the word usually employed by Greek writers in speaking of the Egyptian plant alluded to," though it must be confessed that Phryuichus Ecl. p. 132 seeins to favor, the notion : Ilém zicos (f. to Πάπυρος.) τοπάσειεν άν τις Αιγύπτιον είναι τούνομα, πολύ γαρ κατ'.
Αίγυπτον πλάζεται, ημείς δε βίβλον έρούμεν. But still in point of fact Tánupos is employed quite as often as Bußros by Greek authers when speaking of the said plant. In the passages, to which the writer refers, βύβλος is certainly used as synonymous with πάπυρος,
!."Gloss.: Má kupove papyrum, scirpus. Male quidem genere neutro. Suidas enim muliebre esse ducuit." Nunnesius. But this learned, critic is mistaken. For Pliny uses papyrum for papyrus, and why should not the same liberty be allowed to the Greeks? The passage of Suidas does not militate against the supposition; for Suidas, as we have seei, merely saysMariposo enaunūs á tánupos, and then produces the line from Antipater, who has made it feminine. The form, ze zárugor, therefore merits a place in the new ed. of Stephens' Thesaurus.
but iv no one of those passages is Búßros applied to lamps, as the writer would apply it in the verse of Antipater, and so far as our reading extends, we have not seen a single instance, where it is so used, whereas aérupos is frequently mentioned in speaking of them:
Lenta paludigenam vestivit cera papyruin,
Anthol. Lat. t. ii. p. 462. Servius in Virg. Æn. i. (731. a Meursio laudatus ad Theocr. Spicileg., Opp. e recensione Lamii, t. v. p. 846. b. :)—“Funalia sunt, quæ intra ceram sunt, atque sunt dicta a funibus, quos ante usum papyri cera circumdatos habuere majores : unde et funera' dicuntur, quod funes incensos mortuis præferebant.” Cf. Isidori Origg. xx. 10. Veget, ii. 57. 1., Papyrum candelarum purgatam şubtiliter carpis, i. qualis ad candelarum ellychnia pro linamentis adhibetur. 7. The writer, after having proposed the strange readivg,
τυφήρεα λύχνον έκ σχοίνων, adds, “to make this conjeeture probable, let us first observe that these torches were bundles of small rushes. Photius : Davós Acculia πας ή εκ κλημάτων. [ούτως Μένανδρος :] Πανός δέσμη κληματίδων. [ο δε νεώτεροι Αττικοί φανόν. 'Αριστοφάνης.]” Now let us for a moment suppose that the reading proposed by the writer is the true reading. We should be glad to be informed what sense he affixes to the word Tupapec? If he understands it in the same sense, in which it is understood by Toup and Jacobs, he is unfortunate in the sense of his alteration : τυφήρεα λύχνον, Iychnum εκ τύφης factum : but, if made éx tuons, it was not made, as the writer supposes, xx oxolvov, “Quid sit aúxvos tupýpns, nemo interpretum explicavit. Intelligendus autem lyclinus εκ τύφης factus : Ut a κλίνη κλινήρης, sic a tuon tupňgns. Est autem túøn, herba palustris, quæ lucernis faciendis inserviebat, de qua Strabo v. p. 846., Tóan Te, xat πάπυρος, ανθήλη τε πολλή κατακομίζεται ποταμοίς εις την Ρώμην.
The sense of the passage requires funeræ, not funera. This derivation of the word funeræ differs from another elsewhere proposed by the same Servius. “ Serv, ad Æn. ix. 486.
nec te tua funera miter
Produxi: • Apud majores funeras dicebant eas, ad quas funus pertinet, ut sororem, matrem; nam præfice sunt planctus principes, non doloris. Funeras autem dicebant, quasi funereas. Hæc Serv. Huc trahunt alii illud Ennii ap. Cic. de Sen. 20., Nemo me lacrimis decoret, neque funere fletum Fazit. Ita enim leg. Scalig. et alii. Quæ si vera est lectío, aptius 5.1. præficam intelligeres, quam tamen Serv. distinguit a funera. Verum hæc omnia incerta sunt, aut obsoleta.” Forcellinus.