interposition of divine power. What was done might be effected by natural causes; but it is only a chemist, who can so manage natural causes as to render gold potable and innoxious. If we question the facts, it can only be, because we doubt the kuowledge. Why should we doubt the knowledge? Did M. de Voltaire ever fairly put this question to himself, when he attempted to turn into ridicule the passages which I have cited ? Two hundred years before the adoration of the golden calf nigh Horeb, Egypt was a forishing kingdom. Already the merchants of Arabia braved the perils of the desert, to furnish her with the rarest products of the East. Already her inarts were thronged with Hebrew, Ismaelite, and Midianite strangers. Already her kings were environed with all the splendor of regal pomp; her civil, military, and religious establishments were formed before Joseph was sold to Potiphar, more than two centuries before the period in question. Egypt had then her chief captains, her priests, her wise men, (chacmoni) her hierogrammatists, (chartomi) and her physicians (rephaim). Is it then incredible—is it in any way improbable, that she had also her chemists? Does not the embalming of Jacob's body prove that chemistry must have been known even at that early period? Where was the chemistry of Europe two centuries ago? Van Helmont was then the ablest chemist of the age. Who speaks, at the present day, of Van Helmont? Upon what principle can it be urged, that the Egyptians were incapable of making the same progress in the sciences, as the moderns? Was not the book of vature open to them as well as to us? Upon the higher claims of the Hebrew historian to obtain, or to command, our belief, we can entertain no doubt. In the passages which I have cited, he states facts, which could not have naturally happened, if the science of chemistry had not been greatly advanced when he lived. Shall we then-thirty-three centuries after his time-we, who know nothing certain of what happened in Egypt either during his life, or before it, but from his own writings—shall we argue, that his account of facts does not accord with our own notions of the progress,

which men had then made in the sciences? I have stated, and I think I have proved, in the first part of this Essay, that the great edifice of Egyptian learning was overthrown during the forty years' persecution, and that the Greek philosophers after that period could do no more than collect the fragments of the nighty ruin. Five hundred and twenty-five years before Christ, Cambyses conquered Egypt, pillaged the temples of the Gods, and proscribed the priests. Forty years afterwards, the Egyptians shook off the terrible yoke of the Persian tyrants; but they enjoyed this short respite for only about one year; the next year, 484 years before Christ, Xerxes reconquered Egypt; and it was not under the auspices of this proud and luxurious despot, that philosophy was likely to re-establish its influence, or science to regain its ascendancy. About 463 years before Christ, the persecuted Egyptiang made another desperate effort to liberate themselves from the cruel thraldom of their oppressors; and for five years they maintained the unequal contest, which was to terminate like all the rest. It was during this short period that Herodotus visited Egypt. Before the time of this historian, the Greeks seem to have known little more of the Egyptians, than that Thales, Epigenes, Pythagoras, Democritus, and a few other philosophers, had studied the sciences among them. The first Greek writer then, who has given us any account of the Egyptians, did not visit their country, until about sixty years after its conquest and devastation by the Persians. Herodotus himself knew nothing of

any science; and if he had, he could have found but little of the ancient learning of the Egyptians. For more than half a century before his time, the scientific books and instruments had been destroyed; the keys, according to which the initiated explained the hieroglyphics, were apparently lost. Herodotus mentions the use of the sacred and vulgar characters, that is, the letters which were commonly employed by the scribes and by the people; but he says nothing of the hieroglyphical and symbolical characters, which Pythagoras, before the Persian conquest, had been taught to decypher. Thus, when Herodotus wrote, the sciences had been banished from the shores of the Nile. Of all her sages, none remained to explain the enigmatical wisdom of mysterious Egypt. Some traces of knowledge were, no doubt, preserved by tradition ; and the fragments of the Pythagorean philosophy still transmit to us some glimpses of that light, which once shone in full splendor for the descendants of Mizraim. But sixty years had elapsed from the conquest of Egypt to the time of Herodotus. The priests imposed on the Greek stranger, when they pretended to read to him the ancient records of their country. The recollection of some facts might have been preserved by tradition, and these facts may have been written down by the Priests, who endeavoured to supply the records which were destroyed, and who, not being able to interpret the symbolical and hieroglyphical characters, seem freely to have added to traditionary reports, the wild inventions of their own imaginations. What can we think of a history, in which it is seriously said, that an army of men had been put to flight by an army of rats; and that a king returned to govern his country, after having descended to Hell to play at dice with Ceres? In vain do we search in the Old Chronicle, as it is called, or in the fragments of Manetho, for more certain information. We find only fables to compare with fables : nothing is clearer, than that the Greeks knew very little of the ancient history of Egypt. Were we then to bring Moses down to the level of other historians, there can be no reason for questioning the truth of his statements, when he relates facts from which the scientific attainments of the Egyptians, at the period when be lived, must be necessarily inferred. The Greeks themselves acknowledge, that the sciences were cultivated in Egypt from remote antiquity; and their assertions, vague and hazarded as they may be, still coincide in this respect with the inferences which I have drawn from the Hebrew narrative. Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, wrote the Exodus more than 900 years before the time of Herodotus. He asserts that he performed, what only a considerable knowledge of chemistry could have enabled him to perform. If there be any thing improbable in this statement, let incredulity prove it by some better arguments, than can be derived from the prejudice, which depreciates the knowledge and wisdom of an ancient people, the monuments of whose grandeur, and the remnants of whose science, have excited curiosity, and perplexed inquiry, for more than two thousand years. Marseille, March, 1818. WILLIAM DRUMMOND,

!

317

LOCI QUIDAM LUCIANI, EMENDATI

ATQUE EXPLANATI;
A JOANNE SEAGER, A.B.

BICKNOR. WALLICÆ IN COMITATU MONUMETHIÆ RECTORE.

τίνα

No. IX. ICAROMENIPPUS. p. 776. [291. D. ed. Salmur.] Pergit Luna; állà

, p. [. ] ; αλλά κάν ίδω αυτών μοιχεύοντα, ή κλέπτοντα, ή άλλο τι τολμώντα νυκτερινώτατον, ευθύς εσπισπασαμένη το νέφος, ένεκαλυψάμην, ίνα μη δείξω τοίς πολλοίς γέροντας άνδρας, βαθει πώγωνι και αρετή ενασχημονούντας.

Το νέφος manifeste mendosum est. articulo nullus hic locus. Reponendum igitur επισπασαμένη ΤΙ νέφος.

ICAROM ENIPPUs. p. 779. [294. C. ed. Salmur.] μετά δε, ήρώτα (Jupiter Menippum, qui in colum volarat) εί τις έτι λείπεται των από Φειδίου, και δι' ήν αιτίαν έλλίποιεν Αθηναίοι τα διάσια τοσούτων ετών, και εί το ολύμπιον αυτών επιτελέσαι διανοούνται, και ει συνελήφθησαν οι τον εν Δωδώνη νεών σεσυλήκoτες. Longe melius esset και εί το ολύμπιον ΑΥΤΩ (ipsi scilicet Jovi) επιτελέσαι διανοούνται.

ICAROMENIPPUs. p. 784. [298. C. ed. Salmur.] ο γάρ βέλτιστος Γανυμήδης υπό φιλανθρωπίας, εί θεάσαιτο αποβλέποντά που τον Δία, κοτύλην αν, ή, και δύο του νέκταρος ενέχει μοι φέρων. οι δε θεοί, ως "Ομηρός που λέγει, και αυτός, oίμαι, καθάπερ εγώ, τάκεϊ τεθεαμένος, ούτε σίτον έδουσιν, ούτε πινoύσιν αίθοπα οίνον, αλλά την αμβροσίαν παρατίθενται, και του νέκταρος μεθύσκονται. Rectius puto: οι γάρ θεοί ως “Όμηρός που λέγει. κ. τ.λ.

Bis ACCUSATUS. p. 793. [306. B. ed. Salmur.] Jupiter, quum deorum vitam exsecratus esset, multis, quæ hominum causa agunt patiunturque omnes fere dii, enumeratis, pergit, tè yap av, ei roos ανέμους φυτουργούντας λέγοιμι, και παραπέμποντας τα πλοία, και τοίς λικμώσιν επιπνέοντας; ή τον ύπνον επί πάντας πετόμενον; ή τον όνειρον μετά του ύπνου διανυκτερεύοντα, και υποφητεύοντα αυτό και πάντα γάρ ταύτα υπό φιλανθρωπίας οι θεοί πονούσι, και προς τον επί της γης βίον εκάστους συντελούσι. Scopum Jovis querelarum consideranti major vis in έκαστοι esse videbitur, quam in εκάστοις, και προς τον επί της γης βίον ΕΚΑΣΤΟΙ συντέλουσι. Nullus eximius ; nullus ασύμβολος. Point d'exemption.

Bis Accusatus. p. 797. [310. A. ed. Salmur.] Justitia : ajlis és την γήν; (scilicet descendam ego Justitia) ίν' εξελαυνoμένη προς αυτών δραπετεύω πάλιν εκ του βίου, την αδικίαν επιγελώσαν ου φέρουσα ; Ζ. χρηστα ελπίζειν γε δεϊ. πάντως γάρ ήδη πεπείκασιν αυτούς οι φιλοσόφου σε της αδικίας προτιμών, και μάλιστα ο τού Σωφρονίσκου, το δίκαιον υπερεπαινεσας και αγαθών το μέγιστον απoφήνας.--Verum esse puto: χρηστα ελπίζειν ΣΕ δεϊ. παντώς γαρ-κ. τ. λ.

Bis ACCUSATUS. p. 797. [310. C. ed. Salmur.] Sequitur statim ;

Justitia, πάνυ γούν δν φης αυτόν εκείνον ωνήσαν οι περί εμού λόγοι. ος παραδοθείς τοίς ένδεκα, και εις το δεσμωτήριον έμπεσών επίεν άθλιος του κωνείου, μη δε τον άλεκτρυόνα το 'Ασκληπιό αποδεδωκώς, παρά τοσούτον υπερέσχον οι κατήγοροι ταναντία περί της αδικίας φιλοσοφούντες. Videndum num melius sit ταναντία ΠΑΡΑ της 'Αδικίας φιλοσοφούντες. Contraria dogmata, ab Injustitia suppeditata, philosophantes.

Bis ACCUSATUS. p. 822. [330. E. ed. Salmur.] Judicibus propter diversas causas cognoscendas constitutis, 'Αρετή et Τρυφή de Aristippi possessione disceptare volunt: quas sic compellat Δικαιοσύνη: μη φιλονεικήτε. υπερκείσεται γάρ και αύτη, η δίκη έστ' αν ο Ζευς δικάση περί του Διονυσίου, παραπλήσιον γάρ τι και τούτο έoικεν είναι. ώστε αν μεν ή ηδονή κρατήση, και τον 'Αρίστιππον έξει η τρύφη, νικώσης δε αύ της στοάς, και ούτος έσται της αρετής κεκριμένος. ώστε άλλοι παρέστωσαν. το δείνα μέντοι μη λαμβανέτωσαν ούτοι, το δικαστίχαν άδικάστος γάρ ή δίκη μεμένηκεν αυτοίς. Hic rursus commentatores interpretesque nihil viderunt. Nemo το δείνα intellexit, Guietus « το δικαστικών glossema videtur roở deiva.” Æque falsi Scholiastes, Gesnerus, Reitzius. Interpungendum το δείνα μέντοι ! μη λαμβανέτωσαν ούτοι (judices) το δικαστικόν, ΤΟ ΔΕΙΝΑ interjectio est, qua utebantur quum subito in mentem venisset aliquid, cujus oblivisci periculosum vel certe incommodum fuisset. ιδού, κατάκεισ' ανύσας τι κάγώ ήδύομαι. καίτοι, το δείνα ! Ψίαθός έστ' εξοιστέα. Αristoph. Lysistr. V. 925. ατάρ, το δεϊνα, δεύρ' επανάκρουσαι πάλιν. Αristoph. Avib. 648. είπέ μοι τί δ', ήν, το δείνα, τη διαίτη μη 'μμένης; Αristoph. Vesp. τ. 524. Και μην, το δείν', ακροκώλιά γε σοι τέτταρα ήψασα τακερά. Αristoph. Αίολοσικ. Fragm. Ι. Αpud Αthen. p. 95. F. Mercator. τίς η τιμή; Mercurius. δύο μναϊ. Mercator. λάμβανε. το δείνα δε! όπως 'ίδω, τίσι χαίρει των εδεσμάτων; Lucian. Vitarum auctio. p. 374. Ed. Salmur. p. 558. ed. Reitzii.

BIs AccuSATUs. p. 824. [p. 333. A. ed. Salmur.] Τα δε πράγματα, είς τούτο προήκοντα όψεσθε, ώστε όπως μη χειρόν τι πείσομαι προς αυτού, σκέψασθαι δέον. Νum ΔΕΙΝ ?

DE PARASITο. p. 838. [345. C. ed. Salmur.] Tychiades. και συ άρα Παράσιτος ; Parasitus. πάνυ ονείδισας, ώ Τυχιάδη. πάνυ ονείδισας ειρωνείαν esse ait Scholiastes. Suspicatus eram de πάνυ ΟΡΘΩΣ ών OMAσας, ώ Τυχιά

DE PARASITO. p. 840. [346. E. ed. Salmur.] Distingue, Tychiades : Tι ποτ' ούν εστί τέχνης ως επίστασαι. (namque scis profecto.) Parasitus. πάνυ μεν ούν.

DE PARASITO. p. 850, 851. [p. 354. D. ed. Salmur.] πάσα ανάγκη τον αναλίσκονται τα εαυτού, πολλαίς περιπίπτειν αηδίαις. τούτο μεν, το μαγείρω κακώς σκευάσαντι το όψον μαχόμενον, ή ει μη μάχοιτο, φαύλα παρά τούτο εσθίοντα τά όψα, και του ηδέος υστερείν. τούτο δε, τω οικονομούνται τα κατά την οικίαν, ει μη καλώς oικoνoμoίη μαχόμενον; ή ουχ ούτω; Τυ, νή Δία, κάμοι δοκεί. Πα. τω μεν Επικούρη, πάντα ξυμβαίνειν είκός, ώστε ουδέποτε τεύξεται του τέλους. Legendum videtur του ηδέος ΥΣΤΕΡΟΥΝΤΑ. Deinde post τω μεν interponendum. ΟΥΝ.

OYN. Το μεν ΟΥΝ Επικούρω πάντα συμβαίνειν είκός.