« ForrigeFortsæt »
Pro ταύτας μη ποιήσαιτο,---πάντας μη ποιήσαιτο dat Paulli Manutii editio. Conjiciat igitur aliquis, extitisse quondam lectionem hanc ; nempe, ει γαρ πάντα τάλλα διοικήσεις καλώς, δι' ών δε τότε τ’ εξαρχής ταύτ' έκτησάμεθα, και νυν σώζομεν ΠΑΝΤΑ, μη ποιήσαιτο, (τας τριήρεις λέγω) ουδέν εκείνων όφελος.
In Androtionem. p. 600. 1. 16. ημείς τοίνυν ουκ εκ λόγων εικότων ουδ' εκ τεκμηρίων ταύτ' επιδείκνυμεν, αλλά παρ' ου μάλιστα δίκην εστί λαβείν τούτω, άνδρα παρεσχηκότα γραμματείον, εν ώ τα τούτω βεβιωμένα ένεστιν, ος αυτόν υπεύθυνον ποιήσας μαρτυρεί ταύτα.
Mallem ΑΝΔΡΙ ΠΑΡΕΣΧΗ ΚΟΤΙ, cum lectione que in veteribus quibusdam codicibus comparet; videlicet, ημείς τοίνυν ουκ εκ λόγων είκότων, ουδέ τεκμηρίων, αλλά παρ' ού μάλιστα δίκην έστι λαβεϊν, τούτη ταύτ' επιδείκνυμεν,
In Androtionem. p. 602. 1. 10. και συ μη δια ταύτα δίου σου προσήκειν μη δούναι δίκην, ει γράφεις ηταιρηκως, ότι και προς τους θεσμοθέτας έσθ' ημών επαγγελία.
γράφεις) ψηφίσματα scilicet.
In Androtionem. p. 607. 1. 16. και περί μεν τούτων, όν τρόπον υμάς, απαγαγών από του νόμου, παρακρούεσθαι ζητήσει, και & προς ταύθ' υμάς μνημονεύοντας μη επιτρέπειν προσήκει, πολλά λέγειν έχων έτι, και ταύθ' έκανα είναι νομίζων, εάσω.
Legi posset, και προς ταύθ' υμάς, μνημονεύοντας μη επιτρέπειν, ΤΠΟΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ προσήκει-κ. τ. λ.---p. 596. 1. 14. ώσθ', όταν μεν μη φή την βουλήν αιτεϊν, ταύθ' υπολαμβάνετε. p. 603. 1. 20. ταύτα δίκαια λέγειν αν έχoιτε εικότως, εάν φη δεϊν ημάς αυτόν ενδεικνύναι.-p. 605. 1. 28.
In Androtionem. p. 608. 1. 8. ούτος Ευκτήμονα φήσας τας υμετέρας έχειν εισφοράς, και τούτο εξελέγξειν, και παρ' εαυτού καταθήσειν, υποσχόμενος, καταλύσας ψηφίσματι κληρωτήν αρχήν, επί τη προφάσει ταύτη, επί την είσπραξιν παρέδυ, δημηγορίας επί τούτοις ποιούμενος, ως έστι τριών αίρεσις υμίν, ή τα πομπεία κατακόπτειν, ή πάλιν εισφέρειν, και τους οφείλοντας εισπράττειν αιρουμένων είκότως υμών τους οφείλοντας εισπράττειν, ταϊς υποσχέσεσι κατέχων, και δια τον καιρόν, δς ήν τότε, έχων εξουσίαν, τοις μεν κειμένοις νόμους περί τούτων ουκ ώετο δεϊν χρήσθαι, ουδ' ει μη τούτους ενόμιζεν ικανούς, ετέρους τιθέναι, ψηφίσματα δ' είπεν εν υμίν δεινά και παράνομα.
Demosthenem scripsisse puto, και δια τον καιρόν ΟΣΗΝ EΠοΘΕΙ έχων εξουσίαν.
In Aristocrat. p. 626. 1. 21. ό τι δή βούλεσθε οράτε, ίνα τούτο λέγω πρώτον υμίν. περί του παρανόμου βούλεσθε πρώτος και τούτο τοίνυν έρούμεν, και δη δεόμαί τε και αξιώ παρά πάντων υμών τυχεϊν, δίκαια
ως εμαυτόν πείθω. F. τούτο τοίνυν ερούμεν ΗΔΗ. δέομαι ΔΕ και αξιώ παρά πάντων υμών τυχεϊν-κ. τ. λ.
In Aristocrat. p. 629. Ι. 16. καίτοι ταύτα πάντα απείρηκεν αντικρυς και σαφώς και κάτωθεν νόμος μηδε τους εαλωκότας και δεδογμένους άνδροφόνους έξείναι ποιεϊν.
Atqui lex proxime subjecta etiam damnatos, compertos, homicidas sic afficere diserte et plane prohibet.
In Aristocratem. p. 634. 1. 7. ουκούν ει μεν έάσομεν υμάς, τούτων συμβάντων, ου καθαροίς ουσιν ομού συνδιατρίψομεν. ει δ' επέξιμεν, οίς εγνώκαμεν, αυτοί ταναντία πράττειν αναγκασθήσομεθα.
Distinguendum f. οίς εγνώκαμεν αυτοί, ταναντία πράττειν α. Iis rebus, quas decrevimus ipsi, (Aristocratis psephismate vide-. licet) adversari cogemur.
In Aristocratem. p. 636. 1. 19. ένταυθη δύο δηλοί δίκαια, και παρ' αμφότερα ούτος είρηκε το ψήφισμα ότι τε ενδεικνύναι δίδωσι τον άνδροφόνον, και ουκ αυτόν αγώγιμον οίχεσθαι λαβόντα και ότι, εάν κατίη τις όποι μή έξεστι, και αυτό τούτο δίδωσιν, ουχ όπη βούλεται τις.
αυτό τούτο) ενδεικνύναι scilicet.
In Aristocratenm. p. 637. 1. 2. εάν τις αποκτείνη εν άθλοις άκων, ή εν όδω καθελων, η εν πολέμω άγνοήσας, ή επί δάμαρτι-τούτων ένεκα μη φεύγειν κτείναντα.
Legendum censeo, ή εν ΟΧΛΩ καθελών, in turia, casu.Magno conatu magnas nugas dixerunt hic multi.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE ZODIAC
The removal of the Circular Zodiac of Dendera from Thebes to Paris having in some degree revived the question respecting the antiquity of several monuments of this description in Egypt, I beg leave to transmit to you the following observations on this interesting subject.
They forın one paper of a series which I had the honor of laying before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle on Tyne, on the subject of the age of the world, as indicated by geological and astronomical phenomena.
The favorable manner in which this society was pleased to receive it, encourages me to hope that there may be something
in it of interest to the public at large, and this belief induces me, with much diffidence, to solicit for it a place in your valuable journal.
It is a matter of much surprise and regret, that a satisfactory explanation of these Egyptian figures should have remained so long a desideratum in antiquarian literature, and I shall feel highly gratified if the following observations shall tend to shorten the controversy regarding them. In my humble opinion, the chief obstacle to the setting this matter at rest, bas been a blind adherence to the first impression made upon the minds of those modern travellers, to whose industry the learned world is indebted for the knowledge of their existence.
This impression was, that these groups of figures were astro: nomical representations of the heliocentric circle. Some philosophers both in France and Britain acted upon this erroneous opinion, and by assuming, of their own authority, false data for their calculations, deduced conclusions at variance with truths respected from the earliest times, which, coming from a quarter where the amount of learning gave weight to opinion, could not fail to have an influence, more or less, on minds the most fortified against philosophical scepticism.
The influence of this false reasoning is now rapidly passing away, and the following remarks are offered for publication, in the hope that they may be the means of suggesting those arguments which are yet wanting to its final extinction.
The novel view which I have taken of this subject, might, perhaps, (since the appearance of Dr. Richardson's travels in particular,) be supposed not original, did I not mention that this paper was written several months before the publication of that work. Without farther preamble, I now proceed to the subject.
Mr. Hamilton, in his Egyptiaca, describes the Zodiac of Dendera as follows:
The large Zodiac occupies the ceiling of the pronaon; its two inner rows contain the signs of the Zodiac interspersed with other figures, clusters of stars, and hieroglyphical inscriptions. The two outer rows contain each nineteen boats, with one or more figures in each boat, decorated likewise with stars, and illustrated with sacred characters. On entering the temple, the natural order of the signs is perceived to be from left to right; that is, beginning on the left hand near the front of the pronaon, and proceeding towards the back; they are then resumed on the right side in an opposite direction. The first which occurs in the line of the catasterisins is Leo: the last on that side is Capricornus. The first on the other line is Aquarius, and the last is Gemini. The sig Cancer appearing to be here wanting to make up the six last, Visconti concluded it to be represented under
the form of a sceptre surmounted
with a hawk; with these data, some philosophers have concluded that the situation of Leo ascertained the position of the summer Solstice. Visconti, however, rejects this opinion, on the ground that Libra, which, he says, must be the symbol of the equinox, would in that case be misplaced, there being only one sign between it and Leo. He then concludes that this Sulstice nust have been in the sign preceding Leothat is, in Cancer; and he remarks, as a proof of this opinion, that in the Zodiacal line between Gemini and Leo, there is the figure of Isis in a boat, pouring water from two jars, emblematical of the inundation of the Nile-a phenoinenon always contemporary with the beginning of summer.
The circular Zodiac is to be seen on the ceiling of an inner apartment, but the catasterisms, and the figures which accompany them, are to all appearance mingled together in so confused a manner, that nothing certain as yet can be deduced from them. In the centre is a fox or jackal; the ursa major is close to it, in the form of a female cynocephalus. A north line drawn from the centre passes through Cancer, which is here a beetle. This sign is nearer the centre than any of the others.
The eye is among the constellations; Virgo has a palm branch in her hand; Sagittarius is a Centaur with two heads, on the one is a mitre, the other is that of a hawk; he is winged, is shooting with a bow and arrows, and has a scorpion's tail besides his own. In Libra, Harpocrates is seated on the bar of the balance ; Aquarius is in every respect the male character, except in having large hanging breasts. Near Capricorn, is the figure of Hermes, probably intended for the constellation Canopus; and, as in the large Zodiac in the pronaon, of the two Gemini, one has evidently been painted black, the other brown.
In another compartment of the same ceiling on which this Zodiac is painted, are a variety of boats, with four or five human figures in each, one of whom is in the act of spearing some animal or crocodile's egg: and in another part of the wall, others are equally intent on similar employments, stamping at the same time with their feet on the victims of their fury, among which are several human figures.”
Such are the Zodiacs of Dendera; the figures on wbich, it is obvious, are the same with those of our sphere. It has long been a matter of just surprise that the constellations such as they are here represented, have never been referred with certainty to any particular age or country, or a satisfactory interpretation ever been given of them. Some suppose them of Chaldean, some of Egyptian invention, while others derive them partly from these countries, and partly from Scythia, assigning as a reason, that several of the signs have a common relation to every position of the globe; that Aries, and Taurus, for instance, are well associated to the labors of rural life; Virgo to agriculture ; that Scorpio is embleinatical of pestiferous blights; Cancer and Libra, of the motion of the sun; while Sagittarius, Aquarius, and Pisces, clearly allude to the vicissitude of climate. Their import seems equally doubtful, for at one time we find it conjectured that their adoption was founded upon
allegories supposed to be contained in the several figures, that Libra simply denoted the equality of day and night; Taurus, tlie season for laboring the earth ; Virgo, that for gathering in its fruits, &c. Others, improving upon this conjecture, supposed that the signs served to connect the labory of husbandry. with the celestial phenomena, and thus to answer the purpose both of a rural calendar and astronomical ephemeris. Nr. Colebroke says expressly, that we have the authority of the Vedas for considering the signs as indices both to the seasons and months. Ms. Bryant was of opinion that the zodiac was nothing more than an assemblage of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Aries was a representation of Ammon, Taurus of Apis, Leo of Osiris, and Virgo of Isis. They called the Zodiac the great assembly or senate of the twelve gods. The planets were esteemed lictors and attendants, who waited on the chief deity, the Sun.
In every interpretation of these signs, we invariably find a mixed import in regard to the whole, and frequently a variable import in respect to individual signs; and so far as I am aware, no systematic explanation has yet been given of them--an explanation illustrative of a unity of design in their configuration and numerical arrangement. As their signification, however, would probably throw considerable light on the country and age to which they belong, I have endeavoured to supply this desideratum in the following manner, with the assistance, chiefly, of Mr. Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology. I am aware that this work is regarded by many with little esteem, but whatever may be thought of his System, it must be allowed that the accredited information which he has brought forward to its support, is of great value, and in point of authority equal to any other performance of the kind. On this account, I have, without surrendering entirely to this author, released myself from the perplexing labor of consulting numerous authorities, however important some of them may be, being convinced that a multitude of evidence is both unnecessary and embarrassing, where the matter is sufficiently obvious without it.
Mr. Bryant, in his account of the gods of Greece, observes, I have mentioned that the nations of the East acknowledged originally but one deity, the sun, but when they came to give the titles of Orus, Osiris, and Cham, to some of the heads of their family, they too in time were looked up to as gods, and severally worshipped as ihe sun. This was practised by the Egyptians; but this nation, being much addicted to refinement in their worship, made niany subtile distinctions, and supposing, that there were certain emanations of divinity, they affected to particularise each by some title, and to worship the deity by his attributes. This gave rise to a multiplicity of gods; for the more