« ZurückWeiter »
Σχ. p. 54. Σηκός, ένθα έγκλείουσιν οι νομείς τα νεογνα, όταν τας μητέρας αμέλγωσιν, ή εις νομήν εκπέμπωσι· σηκός και το τέμενος και έτερα. Μάνδρα in the Ecclesiastical writers denotes Monastery:" see Suicer's Thes. Eccl. Scaliger de Emend. Temp. 539.:-“Mandræ nomine agmen bestiarum vocatum fuisse nemo paulo doctior ignorat. Cur suos monachos eo nomine dictos voluerint, ipsi viderint; nam ego nescio." But the passages, which Du Cange has quoted, would have removed his ignorance, and it would not have existed, if he had recollected the language of Scripture, which speaks of one fold under the shepherd Jesus Christ.
pro cænobiis ponitur: nempe quod monachi in eremis olim viverent. Hanc causam adfert Alciatus in l. ult. c. de Trin. et Fid. Cath. Sed rectius statuitur, ut ovile dicitur pro Ecclesia Christi, sic et mandra posuisse pro monasterio, tanquam in quo sint oves Christi.” G. J. Voss. Etym. L. L. This conjecture is confirmed by the following passage, which is quoted by Suicer from Metaphrastes in Theodosio Coenobiarcha: .“ • Et jam magnus quidam erat numerus discipulorum, spelunca autem exigua et plane minor, quam ut posset eos capere; ipsi autem accedentes sollicitabant, ut excitaret monasterium, et ampliorem ejus faceret mandram oviam spiritualium. Hic mandra sumitur pro tota monasterii capacitate." “ Scribit Evagrius 1, 14. et ex eo Nicephorus Callistus Templum S. Symeoni Stylitæ juxta Antiochiam dicatum, Mandram appellatum: Mávopar oi étiχώριοι καλούσι, της ασκήσεως, oίμαι, του παναγίου Συμεώνος την προσηγορίαν τω χώρω καταλιπόντος.-Sed de hac Mandra audiendus in primis Auctor Ms. Vitæ ejusdem Symeonis, ubi de illius matre: “Ο θείος δε Συμεών τον ταύτης νεκρόν εντός της μάνδρας" τούτο γαρ και του στύλου περίβολος εκαλείτο εισενεχθήναι προστάττει περιωκοδόμητο γάρ τι πάντοθεν τειχίον τω κίονι, ώστε μη guvaiçiv sio ITntòv sivai.” Du Cange. Hence it is evident that Dr. Osann is mistaken in supposing that pávępu would not bear the interpretation, which Valck.'s conjecture attributes to it. But on the other hand it may be remarked that the only sense, in which ápxc is used by the Greek Ecclesiastical writers, is Fiscus, Thesaurus publicus, as the reader will see in Du Cange's work, and that therefore Dr. O.'s own reading has little to support it without appealing to the Latin writers. But this reading has been anticipated by Valesius:-"EútperńS ÉGTI onxos, Langus et Christophorsonus sacrarium interpretati sunt; Musculus vero adytum : quod non probo. Ego tumulum interpretari malui. Id enim
VOL. XXVII. Cl. Jl. NO. LIV. х
significat v. orxos, ut testantur Hes. ác Suid. Per tumulum autein intelligo locum septum ac munitum cancellis, in cujus medio arca erat argentea, in qua depositæ erant reliquiæ sanctæ martyris Euphemiæ. Id enim ita se habuisse, patet e seqq. Evagrii verbis. Maxgay čvoob xadoãow, scr. puto äpxav. "Certe non video quisnam sensus sit in vulgata lectione, cum paupå et émipúxns idem sit, neque id pomen proprium sit, sed adjectivum. Præstat igitur õprav legere. Quidam, inquit Evagrius, eam martyris capsam arcam vocabant. Sic enim Lat. dicunt. Glossæ vett.: Eopós Arca funebris. The present reading has not been ill defended by Du Cange :-* Μακρα ita appellatam την αγίαν oopòv S. Euphemiæ Calchedone scribit Evagr. 2, 3. Maxgay évios rancūriv, ubi eruditus Vales. epxay leg. putat. Sed videtur Ecclesia ista sic appellata a structuræ forma et figura, forte quod longior esset, nec fere quadrata, ut ceteræ apud Græcos ædes sacræ.” But this interpretation falls to the ground, when it is considered that the order of the words requires us to apply uaxgà not to onxos, which might signify “a sacred enclosure, “ a temple," but to copos, which has no such signification; and the same remark
may be applied to refute Valck.'s reading pávềpa, which equally depends on σηκός. « Μακρων, sic dicta Edis Patriarchalis Constantinopoli Porticus oblongior, a structuræ forma, de qua nos pluribus in Constantinopoli Christiana 2, 8, 3.” Du Cange. On the whole the conjecture of Valesius, with his explanation, is the most satisfactory.
4. DE TRIBUS CORPORIBUS MUNDI.
I Am much obliged to Mr. Nares for the learned and interesting article which is inserted in Classical Journal 52, 404-6. He observes :" But the passage in his Fasti 5, 11. where Ovid more particularly quotes Lucretius, on this subject, has never been understood, for want of recollecting this threefold division (into heaven, earth, and sea). All the commentators that I have seen, either leave it unexplained, or blunder about the elements, trying to account for his making them 3 instead of 4. Yet here he uses some of the most remarkable words of his predecessor, the tria corpora:
Post chaos, ut primum data sunt tria corpora mundo,
Inque novas species omne recessit opus.” But an exception must be made in favor of Forcellini Ler. totius Latinitatis, where under the word Mundus this very passage of Ovid is quoted, with the comment, “h.e. coelum, terra, aqua.” I add the following examples, which are not quoted by Mr. Nares :
Annuit invicto Cælestum numine rector,
Catulli Carm. 63. de Nupt. P. et Th. 205. (Mundus is here used for “the heaven," as in Seneca Q. N. 7, 2. Lucr. 5, 1435. mundi magnum et versatile templum.) So Ovid Met. 12, 39.
Orbe locus medio est inter terrasque, fretumque,
Celestesque plagas, triplicis confinia mundi. And in 15, 858.
Jupiter arces Temperat æthereas, et mundi regna triformis. Isidor. Origg. 2, 28. p. 902.:-“Mundus est hic, qui constat ex coelo et terra et mari cunctisque sideribus, qui idcirco mundus est appellatus, quia semper in motu est; nulla enim requies ejus elementis concessa est.” But Festus adds the uir:-"Mundus appellatur coelum, terra, mare, et aër.”
Quis cælum terris non misceat et mare cælo,
Juvenal. 2,25. (This is an allusion to the Proverb, Miscere cælum ac terras, Ìiv. 4, 3. Virg. Æn.1, 133. Tŷ yn Tòv cúpavòv ávalleuíxoai, Lucian. Prom. 9. Mare cælo confundere, Juvenal 6, 283. miscere, Virg. Æn. 5, 790. Tacit. Ann. 2, 23. Æsch. Pr. 1124.; Miscere omnia, Cic. de LL. 3, 19. ad Octav. et pro Roscio Amer., xuxav trávta, Æsch. Pr. 1030.; on which proverb I have spoken fully in the Classical Recreations, p. 211-14.)
Quæ mare, quæ terras, quæ denique nubila cæli
Lucr. 1, 280.
E. H. BARKER. Thetford, March, 1823.
ON THE MATERIALS FOR A HISTORY
OF ANCIENT PERSIA.
ACCUSTOMED as we have been to form our opinions of Asiatic history chiefly from European writers, it is not to be wondered at, that we should reject such national accounts as have reached us as improbable or spurious. The interesting details and animated descriptions of Herodotus find favor
in our sight, and we are easily disposed to consider what pleases us as no other than the truth. Another Greek, with more opportunities of information, left a history behind him, of which only a few fragments remain: we allude to Ctesias, the Cnidian physician, who was taken prisoner at Cunaxa, and served Artaxerxes Mnemon in his profession for several years. Subsequent research has brought to light the records of the country, though
it is to be lamented that they have not been given to the English reader in a proper form; they are only to be found in the bulky volumes of Orientalists, or meagre abridgments for the use of schools: we shall, therefore, indiscriminately refer, as we find occasion, to the Persian History.
In investigating comparative History, the want of frequent analogies cannot vitiate the detail: accounts which occasionally differ from each other may confirm but not invalidate a third, although the precise authority due to each be not ascertained. What Herodotus wrote must be considered as partial, and though by the beauties of his style he has glosed over defects which might appear of no importance to himself, his narrative cannot be received as a test for estimating that of another: the national details are too full of the marvellous, and possess little of that accuracy which bespeaks the contemporary. Native Asiatics, we suspect, write History in their cups, or with the help of a moral microscope. T'he fragments of Ctesias form what logicians call a middle term, being written in the peculiar situation of a Greek resident at the Persian court: preserved by Plutarch, Athenæus and Photius, they were translated into Latin by Henry Stephens, and published by him, together with Memnon and Agatharcidas, in 1594, and have
since been annexed by Wesseling to his edition of Herodotus. Those of Dinon, also, are occasionally serviceable.
The history of Iran, or Persia, commences with the Peishdadian dynasty, which closes about six hundred years before the Christian æra, and exhibits a succession of princes, whose identity is almost hopeless. Adam and Chedorlaomer have both been claimed for the first sovereign Cai-umeras. Dhohak is understood as the Deioces of Herodotus, but his personal history contradicts the nominal resemblance: the irruption of the Tartars under Afrasiab, in the reign of Minocheher, (when Iran was subjected for twelve years, the invader being at last driven back to his own kingdom) coincides with the expedition of the Scythians, who possessed the dominion of Asia, according to Herodotus, for a period of twenty-eight years.
Ctesias frequently differs from Herodotus, and forcibly illustrates the difficulty, as Sterne observes, of reconciling accounts: in one remarkable particular he nearly coincides with the Persian History; we are there told that Cai-Khosru (grandson of Cai-Kaus, the Astyagas of Ctesias) resigned the crown to his subjects, who presented it at his recommendation to Lohorasp, a prince of the royal family." Ctesias relates that Cyrus, being mortally wounded in an expedition against the Derbices, just before his death created his son Cambyses king. In the relation of what followed there is a disagreement among the historians, and Æschylus in the Persæ gives a totally different account: the son of Cyrus, he says, was succeeded by Mardus, (who must pass for Smerdis) who was slain by the confederates. Maraphis, Artaphernes, Darius, and Xerxes follow.? Gushtasp, our Darius Hystaspes, is commemorated as having restored the Jewish captives to their country, and for embracing the doctrines of Zoroaster, who is said to have appeared in his time. His son was Isfendiar (Xerxes), of whom we do not find a distinct account, as the events of his reign reflected little honor upon the nation. The following concise passage from Ctesias agrees nearly with the Grecian narrative-we quote the translation of Stephens :
" This was probably merely a constitutional forn, and similar to a congé d'élire.
2 L. 779. et seqq.