« ZurückWeiter »
parture, established itself on Salisbury Plain, as a kind of ecclesiastical metropolis, and raised there and elsewhere the structures which have so exercised the ingenuity of antiquaries. The lateness of its erection explains the mechanical skill which Stonehenge manifests, inexplicable among a people so rude as the Britons before the Roman Conquest. Ambresbury (now Abury) was not only the religious centre of a federation, in which Christianity and Druidism were strangely blended, but the place to which the national councils were summoned, and where rites, festive and religious, were celebrated. Its name retains that of Ambrosius, the Emmrys of the Welsh Triads, to whom one of the three mighty architectural achievements of the Isle of Britain is attributed. The great Druidical work of Carnac in Bretagne is nearly of the same age, having been raised by those who migrated from Britain in the middle of the fifth century after Christ, or at all events, subsequently to the reign of Maximus, in the latter part of the fourth.
Mr. Herbert is not the first who has called in question the ante-Roman date of Stonehenge. Mr. Rickman, in the 28th volume of the Archäologia, pp. 399—419, has produced some arguments to show that it was erected after the establishment of the Roman power. These are, its vicinity to the Via Badonica, which he thinks too close to have been casual; the distances of the different parts, which appear to have been derived from the Roman mile; and a resemblance between the great earthen circus and a Roman amphitheatre. These are slight reasons, and have produced little conviction. Mr. Herbert's theory also is open to very serious objections. We cannot find more than half a century from the abandonment of Britain by the Romans, to the conquest of Kent by the Saxons, even allowing to Mr. Herbert that it was in the first and not the third consulship of Ætius, that the “Groans of the Britons” were addressed to him.
Into this narrow space we must compress the return of Druidism from Ireland, a new organization of the kingdom of which Ambresbury was the capital, an impure mixture of Christianity with Druidism, the erection of Stonehenge and its dependencies, and, if we rightly apprehend Mr. Herbert, all the circles, rocking-stones, altars and other works commonly called Druidical. Truly these must have been stirring times. And while these great works were going on, the kingdom, according to Gildas, was distracted by civil war and the frequent depositions of anointed kings.
Milbourne was called “the fairest of critics,” because, having found fault with Dryden's Virgil, he published a Translation of his own. Reviewers do not usually give authors such an opportunity of revenge, but having rejected Mr. Herbert's theory we will venture on a suggestion of our own. The evidence of archæology seems to us quite at variance with the common opinion of the extent to which Christianity prevailed in Roman Britain. That the Roman soldiers were Pagans to the last is fairly presumable from the circumstance, that no Christian emblems are ever found with articles, known to be Roman in the camps or towns which they occupied. What was the prevailing religion of the Britons themselves? Tertullian (adv. Jud., c. 7) tells us that Christ had subjugated parts of Britain, into which the Romans could not penetrate; but we distrust the generalities of the African Father. Mr. Hallam has lately exposed the mythe of the conversion of King Lucius; the interval between the departure of the Romans and the conversion of the Saxons is equally devoid of archæological evidence for the existence of the Christian religion, whence we may fairly infer that it prevailed to no great extent. The account of Augustine's mission implies that except in Wales it was little known among the population of the island, which must still have been in great measure British. Is it not probable, then, that the native religion was that of the great mass of the people under the Roman dominion, notwithstanding the mention of Christian bishops, and that the remains which we call Druidical are their works? Of course we do not believe that the Romans would permit the establishment of Druidism in its hierarchical pride ; but having once broken its tyranny and reduced it into subordination to the civil power, they might, in accordance with their usual policy, allow the people to practise its rites, as far as they did not contravene the law. So we tolerate and even foster the religions of India, though we have put down Suttees, and no longer allow fanatics to throw themselves under the wheels of Juggernaut's car.
Mr. Rickman pronounces
that tools of bronze were unequal to the work of fashioning the trilitha of Stonehenge. Now it appears that the German nations, who had not been conquered by the Romans, had not the use of iron till their great migration. We may presume that Britain was equally ignorant of it till subdued by the Romans, and therefore a work which presupposes its use cannot have been anterior to that event. The negative argument from the absence of all mention of Stonehenge, before the Saxon times, presses equally on every hypothesis.
ART. III.-LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ZUMPT.
De Caroli Timothei Zumptii Vita et Studiis Narratio Aug.
Wilh. Zumptii. Accedunt Caroli Timothei Orationes
A Latin Biography is an unusual phenomenon in these days, even in Germany. It would be a mark of pedantry, if its subject were a man whose life had been spent in action, or who had gained reputation in modern literature and science. But as a record of one whose days and nights were devoted to the Latin language, antiquities and history, and who lived more in the Roman world than his own, it is perfectly appropriate. The Lives of Hemsterhuys by Ruhnken, of Ruhnken by Wyttenbach, and of Wyttenbach by Mahne, have long been the delight of scholars, and have furnished some of the best specimens of modern Latinity. Zumpt will not take rank among philologers with these great lights of the 18th century, but he has rendered services to learning which well deserve a memorial, and in moral qualities he was not inferior to any of them. He has been fortunate in having a biographer who, as his nephew and son-in-law, knew him intimately, and who shows by his own mastery of Latin style how competent he is to estimate his uncle's merits.
C. G. Zumpt (he latinized his name of Gottlob into Timotheus) was born in Berlin, of parents in the middle rank of life, in 1792, and was educated in the Gymnasia in that city, of the studies and discipline of which he was accustomed to give no very flattering account. We transcribe his biographer's description of the mathematical lecturer in one of them, which may serve as a specimen of his Latinity.
“ Mathematici magistri, hominis alioquin non indocti atque ex eorum maxime genere quos quidam ingeniosos appellare solent, discipulorum contemptio atque incuria vix fidem nunc videtur posse invenire. Sed narrandum tamen quod Zumptius multique alii sibi accidisse sæpe questi sunt. Etenim ad speciem honestam servandam justo sane ille tempore ad scholas veniebat, sed confabulans cum paucis qui urbanitate ejus delectarentur, tempus terebat, dum altera horæ pars præterierat. Tum serio rem agere incipiebat, sed non cum omnibus, non ut interrogaret, ut excitaret, ut responderet, ut quicquam denique eorum, quæ magistrum decent, tractaret. Verum pauci quidam hominem circumstabant, studiosi mathematicorum, demonstrantique et in tabula scribenti operam dabant, reliqui, si aderant, quicquid placuisset agebant, vel fabulis legendis occupati, vel si quid omnino serii temptarent, quæ ad alias scholas opus erant meditantes. Ut tres horæ partes consumptæ erant, egregius magister, tamquam alter Juppiter, capite annuebat discipulis, significans nimirum, defunctum se esse institutione. Ac consimilis fere reliquarum scholarum erat disciplina, quam paucis exemplis demonstrare satis videbatur.”
The youth of Zumpt fell in the calamitous days of Prussia, after the battle of Jena, when the University of Halle had been broken up by the French, and that of Berlin was not yet founded. He repaired therefore, in 1809, for academical instruction to Heidelberg, performing the journey of twenty days on foot. Creuzer and Boeckh were the principal philologers of this University, the latter only in the beginning of his career; but already giving promise of the extraordinary powers and attainments which in maturer age have placed him at the head of the scholars of Germany. Having remained here a year, he returned to Berlin, just at the time of the inauguration of the new university, in which he spent two years. Berlin was in a state well fitted to excite the ardour of a mind like Zumpt's, and assist in its development. The university had been founded in a liberal spirit, and eminent men from every part of Germany had been brought together to fill its various departments. The spirit of the nation had been fully aroused after the stunning fall of its military defeat, and finding as yet no vent in action directed itself with great energy towards literature and science. F. A. Wolf held a conspicuous place among the philologers of the Berlin university; he had not then fallen into those habits of indolent self-indulgence which rendered his latter days useless and disreputable. Zumpt attached himself with ardour to his instructions, and was early pointed out by him as one who would become distinguished in Latin criticism and eloquence. He began his public