416

[Novi

perty sold), Lewknor, Evering, almost all the numerous branches of Bays, Gibbon, Roberts of Glassenbury, &c. &c. The most ancient which remain (I mean of those sprung from the county) are Dering, Twysden, Honywood, Finch, Oxenden, Toke, Darell of Calehill (from the time of Henry VI. but anciently from Yorkshire), &c. The great families of Sackville, Sydney, Fane, Wotton, Wyat, Astley, Sondes, &c. are extinct in the male line, or have emigrated from the county. Knatchbull sprung in the time of Henry VIII. W.M-G..

THE HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES, TRANSLATED

IN

BY S. T. BLOOMFIELD, D.D. F.S.A.
(Continued from p. 323.)

N our last number we had ad. vanced as far, in our brief survey of the principal contents of the venerable Greek Historian, as c. 60 of the 2d book. But before we proceed further, we must somewhat retrace our steps, in order to notice the merits of the learned annotator on the latter part or portion of the author just mentioned. Our limits will only permit us to extract a few samples of the many masterly annotations which occur in the .work.

At p. 101 is a note which will be very interesting to naval readers; in which it is proved that the nautical manœuvre of overpowering an enemy's fleet by cutting the line, was no new discovery of Rodney, but had been acted on by the ancients. At p. 145, we observe a note which will arrest the attention of Jurists, on the ouμBoraias dixar of the Athenians. At p. 168-170, is a cluster of notes peculiarly interesting to antiquaries and architects, on the methods pursued in building the walls of Athens. At p. 180 is a complete refutation of one of the most confident assertions of the redoubtable critic, Gilbert Wakefield; which, therefore, it may be proper to lay before our readers.

"Gilbert Wakefield, in his Silva Critica, pt. iv. p. 31, does not scruple to accuse all the Commentators of Thucydides of gross ignorance, and directs · τοῦ σεισμοῦ to be understood of a civil commotion. This he seeks to prove from a parallel passage at 3, 34, μerà To

σεισμὸν τῶν ἐς Αθ., Εἱλώτων ἀποστάντων, But that is totally mistaking the construction there, which is like that of Malacus apud Athen. 267. A. doúλor ἀποστάντες εἰς τὸ ἐν νήσῳ ὅρος, and Pausan. 72, οἱ Ε. ἐς Ιθώμην ἀπέστησαν. And so our author, infra, si Elates is 'Iμny arornoav. In these passages the earthquake and the insurrection are plainly distinguished; as also at 2, 27, ὑπὸ τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ τῶν Εἰλώτων ἐπανάστ rac; also at 4, 56. Mr. W., indeed, endeavours to destroy all belief that such an earthquake ever took place; but in vain. Its existence is attested by, or alluded to, in numerous passages of various ancient authors. those above adduced from Thucydides may be noticed Plutarch Amat. Narrat. who there calls it, to μiyzy σTμER; as does our author at 1, 128, and Diod. Sic. t. 6, 426. The earthquake is plainly distinguished from the insurrection, by Pausan. p. 357, 17; and p. 72, init; Aristoph. Lys. 1 142.; Plutarch Lycurg. C. 28.; and Cimon, c. 16.; Pausan. 4, 24, 2.; Aristid. t. 1, 273, B. & 3, 257, D. By Pausanias, 4, 24, 2, the origin of the rebellion is rightly ascribed to the horrible earthquake."

Besides

At p. 215 is a curious note, proving that in Greece, at the time of the Peloponnesian war, the Teniples were the great national banks, where alone money or other valuables could be safely deposited, and from which it was allowed to take what was indispensably necessary to the defence of the state, so that the same value were afterwards faithfully returned.

At p. 224 is the following masterly annotation on the puzzling words "on

1830.]

which the city, in full concourse, offer up many, not living victims, but the old country sacrifices."

"There are few passages of our author on which more difficulties have been raised than this. Some have doubted the correctness of the reading; others have questioned the accuracy of the narration. Castellanus de festis Græc., referred to by Duker, endeavours to prove from Xen. Anab. 7, 8, 5, and Aristoph. Nub. 407, that bloody sacrifices were used in honour of Jupiter Milichius on the Diasia. But the former passage will only prove it of sacrifices to Jupiter Milichius generally; though no good reason can be imagined why such should not have been offered also on the Diasia. The words of Aristoph. Διασίοισιν ἔπτων γαστέρα τοῖς συγγένεσι, are more decisive; for as to what Duker urges, that the roast meat in question might have been sacrificed to other gods on the Diasia, or to none at all-that seems no very creditable way of evading the argument. It might as well be pretended respecting the kinds of food used on certain festivals in the Romish church, that the use of them in any particular case was no proof of the religious duty, because the persons, perhaps infidels, may have no regard to the festival. Custom is here all that is necessary to be supposed. Again, when Suidas in Διὸς κώδιον speaks of the skins of animals sacrificed to Jupiter Milichius, it is in vain urged by Duker, that these might not be slain on the Diasia. Such an argument is so evidently strained as to merit no attention. Are we, then, to conclude that Thucydides has been mistaken, or has written what is contrary to fact? Neither can well be supposed; and therefore some alteration of reading may with reason be thought of. Gyraldus read in a MS. oux ispeĩa μóvov, άλλà xal. But that is merely a conjecture, devoid of authority. The Scholiast, indeed, supplies us with one (for his words contain, not an explanation, but only a var. lect.) namely, Tavdnμel toprálovσi. Juovo di πολλοί, &c. And this is adopted by Abresch. and Hemsterh. on Lucian, Timon 7, the latter of whom also reads ἀλλ ̓ ἄγνα θύματα, which he supports from Pollux 1, 26. But though Pollux evidently reads ayva, yet it seems to have been from the margin, especially as it is found in no one MS.; which GENT. MAG. November, 1830.

417

also is a sufficient argument against the former conjecture, it evidently savouring of alteration, to get rid of a difficulty.

The words must therefore be left as they are, and our endeavours turned to remove the difficulty by change of punctuation or interpretation. And here I have nothing better to propose than that of Bredov., Haack, and Goeller; ἐν ᾗ πανδημεὶ θύουσι, πολλοὶ οὐχ ispsia a. D. ε. The πανδημεί and the oλλol are, as they observe, inconsistent with each other. At Juovo, there is the usual ellipsis of ewro, like the Germ. man. In this, therefore, I must acquiesce; though I cannot but wish for some example of a similar idiom.

"The iga were the animals sacrificed; the bloody sacrifices. See Schweigh. on St. Thes. 4416. A. And from the evident opposition in the next clause, Juara may very well be supposed to mean the unbloody sacrifices, consisting of the fruits of the earth, or some preparations from them. Pollux, indeed, understands by Juu. the άpμaτα and θυμιάματα, such as σμύρναν, λßávwτov. But, though such were in use in sacrifices (thus I find from Athen. p. 3, that the inside of the victim was sometimes stuffed with those) yet they would hardly be called θύματα; not to mention that the use of dupa for Juuíaua is confined to the Ionic dialect. Besides, I suspect that Pollux had not in his copy ixga, which is by no means favourable to that sense of Juara. I therefore acquiesce in the explanation offered by the Scholiast, who takes the duμara (or rather the θύματα ἐπιχώρια, for so the Scholium should be headed) to denote certain cakes, or paste figures, formed after the similitude of animals. On which cu

rious, but obscure, subject the commentators are silent. The following illustrations may therefore be acceptable. Pausanias 10, 8, 5, and 7, 24, 2, makes mention of these πέμματα ἐπιXpa in this sense; and especially at 8, 2, 1. Διὰ τε ὠνόμασεν Ὑπατον πρῶτος, καὶ ὅποσα ἔχει ψυχὴν, τούτων μὲν ἠξε ίωσεν οὐδὲν θύσαι, πέμματα δὲ ἐπιχώρια ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ καθήγισεν, ἅ πελάνου καλοῦσιν ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἡμᾶς Ἀθηναῖοι. See Harpocr. in λavos. These Tiμμara are also mentioned in other pas

sages, which throw some light on the origin and purpose of this kind of sacrifice. So Herodo. 2, 47, speaking of the sacrifice of animals to Luna and

Bacchus (i. e. the Isis and Osiris of the Egyptians) says: oi dè πéntes auTv ὑπ ̓ ἀσθενείης βίου, σταιτίνας πλάσαντες Üs, nal intnoartes Tautas, dúovo. Also Plut. Lucull. 498, A. C. .10: οἱ κυζικήνοι ἠπόρουν βόος, πρὸς τὴν θυσίαν, καὶ σταιτίνην πλάσαντες τῷ βωμῷ παρ ρέστησαν. ἐπελθούσης giornoar. Appian, 1,752: boons δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς, ἐν ᾗ θύουσι βοῦν μέλαιναν, οἱ μὲν οὐκ ἔχοντες, ἔπλαττον ἀπὸ σίτου. #sop, Fab. λς. : ἐπειδὴ βοῶν ἠπόρει στεαTívous Toinoas Boas, iπì тoû ßwμoυ xaTÉBekker, too, refers to a passage of Suidas, where paste oxen are mentioned.

καυσεν.

"This custom, I suspect, was very ancient, and introduced into Greece by the Cadmæan colony from Egypt. And probably it had been for time immemorial in use in the East, since it seems to have been carried from thence into the earliest of all oriental colonies, the one to America. See Humboldt's Researches into the Monuments of America, vol. 1. p. 196, who speaks of these Téμpara as in use among the Mexican idols, made of the flour of kneaded maize. And so Dionys. Hal. Ant. p. 31, 25, says, whα Tourras årdpeixe λa. Hence we may see the force of ix here, which does not mean peculiar to the country, as Hobbes and Smith render, nor usual in the country, as Goeller; but such as the old inha bitants of the country used, and which were probably still in use among the rustics, or the old fashioned and more religious, especially of the poorer sort, For such puara were held to be as agreeable to the gods as sacrifices of animals. Nor is the above sense of

X unfrequent in our author. That in the earliest ages the fruits of the earth alone were offered, we have the authority of holy writ; and Kistem. refers, as testimonies of this, to Porphyr. de Abstin. 2, 6, and Paus. 1, 2, 6."

At p. 233, is a note interesting to the antiquary, on the propriety of keeping distinct the names Median and Persian; and in which are distinguished the modes of dress which distinguished each nation. At p. 241 is another note, on the temple of Minerva Chalciœcus at Sparta, so excellent,

[Nov.

that, though somewhat long, we cannot refrain from laying it before our readers.

"The temple here mentioned was the most venerated and celebrated in Sparta. The epithet Chalciœcus, of course, properly appertained to the goddess; but, by a frequent metonymy, was often applied to the temple. So Livy, 35, 36; #toli circa Chalciccon (Minervæ est templum æreum) congregati cæduntur.' The goddess, however, obtained her epithet from some peculiarity in the building of the temple. What that was, interpreters and antiquaries are at a loss to discover. The Schol. supra 128, gives three opinions, the two first of which alone deserve attention. 1, Either because it had a brazen chapel; or 2, from the solidity of the edifice. Thus the murus aheneus esto of Horace; and so Zach. 6, 1, mountains of brass. Of these two, the former seems preferable. From Pausan. 3, 17, 3, we learn that it was built (or formed) by Tyndareus. And he seems to have thought that it had been of brass, from his words at p. 321, 15, which are as follows: That the temple should have been of brass is no great wonder, since we know that Acrisius formed a brazen chamber for his daughter, and that the Lacedæmonians remains to this day.' He also says that had the temple of Chalciccus, which both the temple and the statue were of brass. And he adduces other examples of brazen buildings. To which it may be added that Procop. p. 204, ult. says, the temple of Janus was ἅπας χαλκούς. Livy, too, (ubi supra) seems to have been of the same opinion. Yet it is difficult to believe this of any more than the ye (cella) or sanctum sanctorum, at least if we understand it of solid brass. But I cannot help suspecting that the edifices in question were only coated with brass plates. And, indeed, Dr. E.D. Clarke, in his Travels, vol. ii., 153, and iii., 734, says that the Greeks sometimes coated buildings with metallic plates. And he testifies that he saw vestiges of them in the ruins of the gymnasium at Alexandria Troas; to which I would add, that Livy, 1.41, 20, says the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus had not only the roof of gold, but that all the walls were plated with gold. His account may be illustrated from Procop. p. 97, 92, who says that the gold. In like manner I would underroof was of brass, richly plated with