66 Σχ. p. 54. Σηκὰς, ἔνθα ἐγκλείουσιν οἱ νομεῖς τὰ νεογνά, ὅταν τὰς μητέρας ἀμέλγωσιν, ἢ εἰς νομὴν ἐκπέμπωσι· σηκὸς καὶ τὸ τέμενος καὶ ἕτερα. Μάνδρα in the Ecclesiastical writers denotes a 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. "Mandra etiam pro cœnobiis 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 ovium 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: Mávòpav oi éπχώριοι καλοῦσι, τῆς ἀσκήσεως, οἶμαι, τοῦ παναγίου Συμεώνος τὴν προσηγορίαν τῷ χώρῳ καταλιπόντος.—Sed de hac Mandra audiendus in primis Auctor Ms. Vitæ ejusdem Symeonis, ubi de illius matre: Ο θεῖος δὲ Συμεὼν τὸν ταύτης νεκρὸν ἐντὸς τῆς μάνδρας· τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ τοῦ στύλου περίβολος ἐκαλεῖτο· εἰσενεχθῆναι προστάττει· περιῳκοδόμητο γάρ τι πάντοθεν τειχίον τῷ κίονι, ὥστε μὴ yuvativ BioTytov siva." Du Cange. Hence it is evident that Dr. Osann is mistaken in supposing that pávipa 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 apxa 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:-" Expeπýs éσti onxo's, Langus et Christophorsonus sacrarium interpretati sunt; Musculus vero adytum: quod non probo. Ego tumulum interpretari malui. Id enim NO. LIV. VOL. XXVII. Cl. JI. X significat v. anxos, ut testantur Hes. ac Suid. Per tumulum autem 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. Maxgav vo xaλσ, scr. Μακρὰν ἔνιοι καλοῦσιν, puto apxav. Certe non video quisnam sensus sit in vulgata lectione, cum μaxpa et éμxns idem sit, neque id nomen proprium sit, sed adjectivum. Præstat igitur apxav legere. Quidam, inquit Evagrius, eam martyris capsam arcam vocabant. Sic enim Lat. dicunt. Glossæ vett.: Zopós Arca funebris. The present reading has not been ill defended by Du Cange:—" Μακρὰ ita appellatam τὴν ἁγίαν Copov S. Euphemiæ Calchedone scribit Evagr. 2, 3. Maxgàv Evios xaλouσiv, ubi eruditus Vales. apxav 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 paxgà not to onxos, which might signify a sacred enclosure,' "a temple," but to copos, σορός, which has no such signification; and the same remark may be applied to refute Valck.'s reading μávdpa, which equally depends on σηκός. “ Μακρών, 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. 66 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 Lex. 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 Cœlestum numine rector, Quo tunc et tellus, atque horrida contremuerunt 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, And in 15, 858. Jupiter arces Temperat æthereas, et mundi regna triformis. Isidor. Origg. 2, 28. p. 902.:-" Mundus est hic, qui constat ex cœlo 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 air:-" Mundus appellatur coelum, terra, mare, et aër." Quis cœlum terris non misceat et mare cœlo, Juvenal. 2,25. (This is an allusion to the Proverb, Miscere cœlum ac terras, Liv. 4,3. Virg. Æn.1, 133. Tỹ vã rời của voi ả rau quí đai, Lucian. Prom. 9. Mare cœlo 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 Távτa, Esch. Pr. 1030.: on which Proverb I have spoken fully in the Classical Recreations, p. 211-14.) Quæ mare, quæ terras, quæ denique nubila cœli Non sic terra mari miscebitur, et mare cœlo. 9, 854. Thetford, March, 1823. E. H. BARKER. 312 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. The 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 Persa 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 form, and similar to a congé d'élire. 2 L. 779. et seqq. |