« PreviousContinue »
cal symbols, which a foolish but harmless superstition had taught him to reverence. It is, however, manifest that Laban was persuaded that these Teraphim were as highly prized by Jacob as by himself, since he suspected Jacob of carrying them away with him. Indeed, if Jacob had known, that astrologers were already become au abomination unto Jehovah, his conduct was rather extraordinary. How could he prevail on himself to live for twenty years under the roof of a professed astrologer ? Why, while “ he was wroth, and chode with Laban,” did be not reproach him for having these Teraphim—these astrological symbols, in his possession? Why did he not indignantly repel the idea of his ever having looked at these symbols without a feeling of horror? Why, if Laban called them his Gods, in the strict sense of the word, did not Jacob notice and reprove his impiety? Wly did le not only not destroy these images, but suffer Rachel to keep, and of course to consult them? If Jacob knew and believed, that astrologers in bis days were already an abomination unto Jehovab, it seems difficult to answer these questions. It is, indeed, said, (Gen. xxxv.) that Jacob ordered his household to put away the strange Gods. But this is according to the English version. We find, that the Patriarch hid the strange Gods and the ear-rings under the oak of Shechem. This, then, was not done from contempt, but for security; and accordingly, Mr. Hails will observe, that the word 17017 should not be rendered “put away,” but “ remove," or “ displace.” Jacob and his family, being about to commence a journey, the Patriarch desired his household to remove the Teraphim, and he caused them to be hid with the jewels under a particular tree. It is evident, then, that Jacob did not consider these astrological symbols as he must have done, if he had thought that astrologers were an abomination unto Jehovah.
Mr. Hails seems to doubt whether there were any zodiac so ancient as the times of which we have been speaking. The zodiac of Esné is unquestionably anterior to the age of the Patriarchs; and so are probably the Mithraic monuments.
I should endeavour to answer the questions of Mr. Hails concerning the degel, or standard, were it not that he treats such writers as Jonathan, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra, with contempt; and from whom can we learn any thing of Jewish antiquities, where the Bible is silent, if we do not apply to Jewish historians and Jewish doctors ? Mr. Hails says, that whatever the degel were, it could have had no image de-picted upon it without the positive command of God; and as the Scriptures do not mention any such command, he concludes that the authority of the Rabbis is of no weight. But it is to be observed that commands might have been given, without being recorded. Thus there is no command recorded for carving the cherubic figures in the Temple with the face of a lion, an eagle, a man, and an ox; and yet we can scarcely doubt that such a particular command was given. I must, however, reniind Mr. Hails, that a command was given for every man of the children of Israel to pitch by his own standard, witli the ensign of their father's house. (Num. ii.) Now this seems to prove, that each of the tribes had a particular image depicted on its standard.
Tradition describes four of these images, which description corresponds pretty exactly with the words of Jacob in the 49th chapter of Genesis. I have further to remark to Mr. Hails, that Ben Uzziel, who lived nearly about the time of Christ, and who must have seen the breastplate with the twelve stones which was worn by the High Priest, atfirms that these twelve stones corresponded with the twelve zodiacal symbols, and this account is corroborated by Josephus, and by Clemens Alexandrinus. Mr. Hails says, that it is probable that the vexillum had no image whatever upon it. But what then was the signum? Each man was to pitch by his owu standard, with the ensign of his father's house. Is it not probable, that each of these ensigns was distinguished by a different image, whether sculptured, or painted; and since there were twelve tribes, what could be more natural than that they should take the twelve zodiacal signs for their emblems? Ben Uzziel gives us good reason to believe, that this was really the case, since he must have, at least, known the general tradition. Mr. Hails inveighs against the Jewish traditions ; but surely he allows for the difference between those traditions which related to mere matters of fact, to customs, to manners, &c., and those which related to doctrines, and which recorded idle tales, in support of extravagant opinions.
I think it evident, that the author of the Testaments of the twelve sons of Jacob must have understood the emblematical language of the 49th chapter of Genesis nearly as I have done. The work is clearly a forgery; but it is allowed to be very ancient by most of the critics.
It must be admitted by every reader of the Pentateuch, that there are passages in it which have been interpolated. If I could suspect the interpolation of a whole chapter, I confess I should look with doubt to this 49th chapter of Genesis, which is certainly not written in the clear and simple style of the preceding chapters. That Jerom did not understand it seems clear; and our translators' have followed him in several instances, where the Greek version should have been preferred. Mr. Hails says, that the benediction pronounced by Jacob upon
his children could not have been an astrological jargon. But why might not Jacob have taken his emblems from the celestial bodies ? Under the cloudless skies of Egypt, and in a climate which invites men to pass so much of the night under the canopy of lieaven, the glorious appearance of the stars, their rising and setting, and their divisions into various constellations, must have attracted the notice and admiration of the Shepherds of Goshen. It is easy to prove, that astrononiy had been cultivated for ages in the East before the time of Jacob; that the Indian, Persian, and Chaldean spheres had been already formed; and that the zodiac had been divided into twelve parts at Dendera, at Latopolis, and probably at Thebes, long before the æra of which we speak. Why, then, inight not Jacob lave typified the future destinies of his family by allusions to celestial as well as to terrestrial objects? Without making continual references to “ the tables of the heavens," I find it utterly impossible for me to comprehend the words of the Patriarch. His address to Simeon and Lavi is rather a curse than a blessing ; and how could Jacob say, when he spoke of
Levi, that his honor should not be united unto him, since the priestliood was reserved for the tribe of Levi ? 'The greater part of the passage concerning these brothers is wrongly translated; and Mr. Hails is too good a Hebraist not to know it. If the allusions be all to terrestrial objects, why is Judah compared to a lion's whelp, a couching lion, and an old lion? In the great French work on Egypt, in which the zodiac of Esné is represented, three lions mark the three decans in the sign of Leo, though these have been omitted in a copy of the print, which some of my readers may have seen. What does the Patriarch mean by saying that Zebulun shall be for an haven of ships, and that his border shall be unto Tsidon? If the meaning be taken literally, and without allusion to the signs, Jacob prophesied what was not true, for the border of Zebulun was not unto Tsidon. Every person who has studied sacred geography must know this. My explanation removed the difficulty: Issachar is denominated a strong ass, couching down between two burdens; and Dan is told that he shall be a serpent, and an adder, without its being very easy to tell why, if we follow the common hypothesis. It is said, that Naphtali is a hind let loose; he giveth goodly words. How is this to be understood, and what could the Patriarch mean by an eloquent hind let loose? The LXX give another version ; and upon my hypothesis either sense will answer; while neither is very clear according to the usual interpretation. Moses says to Naphtali (Deut. xxxiii.) "possess thou the south and the west.” This does not answer to fact if the geographical situation of Naphtali be considered; but is explained by my system, The 22nd verse concerning Joseplı, is wrongly translated; but putting this aside, how comes it to be said of Joseph—“thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel ?” The Messiah was of Judah ; and, therefore, it is clear, that Jacob did not allude to him by these words. When I wrote ny Dissertation, this passage embarrassed me. The difficulty is now removed in my estimation ; but I should wish to know how it can be explained by the common hypothesis. Wherefore is it said, that Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf, &c. when we hear nothing in the future history of his tribe peculiarly to justify the comparison? Moses, indeed, says, that the Beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Benjamin, (Deut. xxxii.) and this does not exactly correspond with the notion given of him by his father, if the words be understood as I believe they generally are.
Mr. Hails acknowledges, that “there is something wonderfully striking in the manner in which Sir W. D. has arranged the subject.” Now I contend that this could not have happened, if there had been no foundatiou in truth for my system to be raised upon. I have been obliged to write this letter in much more baste than I could have wished to have done; but I hope I have obviated the principal objections irged against my Dissertation by Mr. Hails.
W. DRUMMOND. April 27th, 1813.
OBSERVATIONS ON PERSICS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. Since the publication of my Translation of Persius, a few additional remarks have occurred illustrative of my author, which, if you approve of their insertion, I shall beg leave to submit to the public eye through the medium of your Journal. Acle, Norfolk,
FRANCIS HOWES. July 14, 1813.
Sat. I. 59. Koenig has, Nec manus auriculas imitata est mobilis altas, instead of the common reading albas, but without assigning any authority, or even noticing the difference.
Ib. 76. I now agree with those commentators who represent these three verses (est nunc Briseis, &c.) as the monitus put into the mouth of those Patres lippi mentioned'in v. 79. Est nunc quem -sunt quos—are forms of exultation in the supposed prospect of an improvement in the public taste. In like manner Pliny (Lib. i. Ep. 17.) writing in commendation of one Capito, who had lately erected in the Forum a statue of his friend Syllanus, breaks forth thus : Est adhuc curæ hominibus fides et offícium. Sunt qui defunctorum quoque amicos agant.
Ib. 95. Sic costam longo subduximus Appennino. It is impossible thoroughly to ascertain the relation of these words, ignorant as we are of the context in which they originally occurred. One thing, however, which has escaped the notice of all the commentators is, that the author of this sonorous line has been guilty of a vile pun. I have before observed, that as a ridge of hills is often termed Dorsam, so a part of such a ridge is here called costa. But this is not all. Subduco is a term applied to carving, and resem. bles our English expression—to take off the wing or leg of a fowl. Thus Juvenal uses the word, (Sat. xi. 1 42.) mentioning his slave's want of skill in the art of carving :
Nec frustum capreæ subducere, nec latus Afræ
Novit avis noster tyrunculus. Hitherto subduximus has been erroneously taken as equivalent to clam occupavimus, by which justice has not been done to the sense (or rather nonsense) of the verse.
Sat. II. 32–34. Concerning this superstitious custom of using spittle as a preservative against the fascination of envious eyes, see
Ælian, V. H. Lib. I. c. xv. Plin. N. H. Lib. XXVIII. c. ii-iv. Petron. p. 179. ed. Wechel, and their respective commentators.
Ib. 63. Et bona Dîs ex hac scelerata ducere pulpa. Markland ad Stat. Sily. III. i. 82. proposes to read dicere in the sense of to consecrate, as in Virg. Æn. vi. 138. Junoni infernæ dictus sacer. Vulgo (says he) ducere, nullo apto sensu. But ducere ex aliqua re is a perfectly classical expression, denoting, to judge of, or estimate by, any standard. Æschines against Ctesiphon, has a sentence involving a construction precisely similar : Dewgür Tòy 'Αλέξανδρον ούκ έκ της Αλεξάνδρου φύσεως, αλλ' εκ της εαυτού ανανagias.
Sat. III. 64. Venienti occurrite morbo ; Et quid opus Cratero, &c. A similar use of the copulative occurs in the oration of Æschines, above quoted > Taūtu gumowvourra árýnous étioel&as xaτάβαινε, ΚΑΙ τι δεί σε Δημοσθένην παρακαλείν.
Ib. 67. Soon after the publication of my Persius, I received, in a letter from a friend, the following judicious remarks upon this passage: “I agree with you entirely in preferring the common reading unde. The whole appears to me to be a metaphor borrowed from the chariot race. Indeed the expression--Ordo quis datus, at the beginning, fixes it. The first arrangement for the race was dare ordinem--to appoint the places for the different chariots by lot. In the 352nd verse of the 23rd Iliad we have a full account of it, and in the Electra of Sophocles, oi Tetayuevos βραβείς κλήροις έπηλαν και κατέστησαν δίφρους. The whole passage in this view appears to be a clear and consistent metaphor, and it confirms the sense you have given it. Probably, indeed, you saw it in the same light, though your note does not notice the Ordo, &c."
Sat. IV. 25. Quæsieris,- should one inquire,—not addressed to any one in particular, but spoken indefinitely. So Hor. Lib. II. Sat. vi. 39. Dixeris, experiar : Should one say, I will try what can be done : where Gesner, with his usual good sense and perspicuity remarks : Dixeris, impersonaliter et negligenter ; debebat enim, si dicam vel dixerim.
Ib. Nostin' Vectidî prædia ? In my note on these words I have remarked, that this was a common way of beginning any narrative where it is requisite to assume in the hearer a general acquaintance with the subject about to be spoken of, as in Terence's Phorm. Act i. Sc. 2. Senis nostri, Dave, fratrem majorem Chremem nostin'? To this instance I might have added, Soph. Trachin. 418. where the messenger says to Lichas, the αιχμάλωτον ήν έπεμψας ές δόμους κατοίσβα δή πού;, which words, Brunck in his two first editions rightly observes, are not meant to ask particulars respecting lole, but merely as an adjustment of the subject preparatory to further inquiries. To this, Lichas