« PreviousContinue »
Αντιφώντα, σπανίως δὲ καὶ Ομηρος κέχρηται. Περὶ Σχημ. p. 186. Valcku. Ammonius). Traces of a different usage of un from that which afterwards obtained may, we believe, be found in Thucydides; and how often may these older forms have been changed by more recent transcribers? M. De Jongh makes no remark on this passage.
V. 28. Saúμara Toλλá. On this contested passage Mr. C. adduces the readings of Heyne and Hermann, but decides for neither; leaving his tirones to grope their way out as they may. Hermann's rule is not stated quite correctly. He does not deny that the verb substantive can be understood except where it is an auxiliary, but, except where it is a copula. M. De Jongh has not yet made up his mind about the truth of this rule; but we think that it is so true as to be self-evident. Where the substantive verb is not used merely to join subject and predicate, but to affirm existence, it is plain that it contains the predicate; and without a predicate there can be no sentence. Mr. De J., -as Heyne also once thought, but afterwards abandoned,-makes θαύματα πολλά the subject of the verb ἐξαπατῶντι, in common with μῦθοι. But, though fables may deceive the minds of men, we do not see how a wonderful action or miracle can with propriety be said to do so; for, in that case, it would lose its proper nature, and instead of being a miracle would be only a deception. Mr. C. translates Earar@vti by corrupt, which is not the meaning of the word. This is done to humour Böckh's text, which has pár-obviously, as Heyne says, only a gloss or various reading, for the following λóyor-instead of the more common and better reading, ppévac.
V. 75. És xápiv Téλλɛrai, Mr. C. renders-" are done so as to please you." This is certainly a vulgar, and probably a wrong, interpretation. Mr. De J.'s version is much more elegant: "Jucunda dona Cypridis age, si quâ, Neptune, gratiosa sunt."
V. 94. "Xéos has two subjects in this passage, namely, Pelops and the Olympic contests." Mr. C. We confess that we do not understand this. The genitive Ὀλυμπιάδων surely belongs to ἐν δρόμοις, though there may be two ways of construing the words: one, with Mr. De J. and Dissen, gloria Pelopis quæ est in studiis Olympiadum; the other with Hermann, in his Review of Dissen, "fernhin strahlt in der Olympiaden Wettlaüfen des Pelops Ruhm" (The fame of Pelops shines afar in the Olympic contests).
V. 104. Mr. C. construes-"I am sure I shall never adorn by my song any man, of all who are now living, more virtuous, or more renowned, or more powerful." We would defy the Captain of Eton himself to refer these words to their respective Greek ones. Here are three epithets bestowed on Hiero, when the poet, by the word appórepa, has clearly shewn that he meant to give him only two.
We do not see whence Mr. C. gets more renowned," unless
it be from Kλvraio. Surely this is very loose construing.
V. 109. “ Αt γλυκυτέραν understand νικὰν οι μέριμναν.” Mr. C. So also says Heyne. But we think the adjective can refer only to vukáv, else how are we to construe où appari Jo? Mr. De J. refers γλυκυτέραν το όδον; but that makes a very harsh aud unintelligible construction.
A CHRONOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. By the Rev. S. F. Jarvis, D.D. 1844. (W. J. Cleaver, Bakerstreet, Portman-square.)
THE object of this work is, to be an introduction to a general ecclesiastical history. The first part contains an investigation of Roman chronology, from the year 776 before to 238 after the Christian era. The second comprises the history of our Saviour's life, and fixes the real year of his birth, the common date of which is notoriously incorrect. Dr. Jarvis explains, by a long quotation from Geminus, the different modes of computing time adopted by the Egyptians and Greeks, up to the date of the invention of the cycle of Meton, somewhere about 430 B.C. This writer, however, in mentioning the cycle of nineteen years, assigns its construction to three other astronomers, Euctemon, Philip, and Calippus, without mentioning Meton, whose name it bears, and to whom it is generally attributed. Our author avows his ignorance who Philip was, though he was a celebrated pupil of Plato, and a native of Medama (see Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. IV. p. 10). The inference he draws from the quotation is, that the study of astronomical science among the Greeks originated in religious motives. This conclusion has lately been more fully developed by Karl Friedrich Hermann, in his dissertation Ueber Griechische Monatskunde, where he shews the connection between the various names of the months in the different Grecian states, and their oldest religious festivals. These very names were, in all probability, not given to the months till the ceremonies from which they were derived had been pretty generally celebrated. It is curious, at least, that very few of those which have come down to us relate, in any way, to the business of ordinary life, or even to the phenomena of nature which belong to the particular season of the year to which they were assigned. Where they do even seem to allude to these circumstances, there are other religious observances connected with the same period from which they may be derived. After shewing how the Olympiads were reckoned, Dr. Jarvis gives a complete table of them, from the Armenian version of
Eusebius's Chronicle, which proves that the text of Scaliger is not always genuine. It contains a list of the victors in the Olympic games, but the orthography is often incorrect, owing to the blunders, probably, of the Armenian scribe or translator, and the Greek text is unfortunately defective. In his translation of two passages from Pindar (Ol. III. 35, and v. 10), descriptive of the establishment of the Olympic games, the Doctor has not been very successful.
The Olympic years of Censorinus, the Julian Period, the Olympiads, and the years A.U.C., are arranged in parallel columns, and there made to synchronize with the era of Nabonassar, the Ref. Cal. of Julius Cæsar, the era of Augustus, and the Christian era. With these dates he connects the succession of the consuls, all which are verified by the calculation of several of the eclipses mentioned by Thucydides and those writers connected with this part of his subject. In ascertaining the date of the building of the city, the apparent discrepancies in ancient writers have created considerable difficulty. The conclusion Dr. Jarvis comes to, is, that these may be reduced to two only as worthy of consideration, viz.: that of Varro, Plutarch, and others, on one side, and that of Dionysins and Livy on the other, i.e. the third or fourth year of the sixth Olympiad. The various tables, however, connected with this part of the subject are most useful, and the system of the Sunday letters and golden number clearly and distinctly explained. This is followed by the development of the nature and use of the Julian Period, and the various cycles belonging to it. Dr. Jarvis shews that it is requisite to understand the Egyptian era of Augustus, in order not to be misled by the Chronology of Censorinus, in computing the beginning of the Augustan era at Rome, there being a difference of two years, four months, and one day between the two. The one dates from the taking of Alexandria, the other from the time of his receiving the title of Augustus. The list of the consuls is the last important matter considered. The series comprises one hundred years, from the birth of Augustus to the death of Tiberius. These are put into juxta-position to the corresponding years of the Julian Period and the Ref. Cal. of Julius Cæsar. The difficulty here lies in the doubt of the actual date of the Spanish war, whether it occurred in the last year of confusion or the first of the Ref. Cal., which creates a difference of one year in the whole chronology. By a computation of eclipses and an investigation of facts connected with Julius Caesar's consulates, Dr. Jarvis shews that the war in Spain occurred the year preceding the reform of the calendar, and therefore in the 4668th year of the Julian Period, and not the 4669th. It is subsequently shewn that Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the purple, three years and six-and-a
half months before he became sole emperor in the sixth month of the forty-first year after the battle of Actium, and the seventy-third of Augustus age. The eclipse of the sun, mentioned by Dion as occurring in the year of this emperor's death, but which Petavius and others have assigned to the following one, is accurately calculated by the Doctor, who decides in favour of the historians.
After concluding a summary of the history of Rome, from the birth of Augustus to the death of Tiberius, thirty-six days before the end of the 788th year A.U.C., Dr. Jarvis proceeds to that portion of his work which is most instructing to the chronological student, the correction of the Consular lists from A. D. 28, to A. D. 238, and the adjustment of the chronology of the emperors, from Caligula to the Maximini. To ascertain where the error, which occasioned a consulate to be lost, lies, we are furnished with lists in inverted order, given by Cassiodorus, Victorius, Idatius, and the Chronicon Paschale, the fixed starting point being the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, the 283rd year of the Ref. Cal.-A.D. 238,—as stated by Censorinus, to the 73rd year of the same cal., or A. D. 28, the consulate of the two Gemini. On looking at this tabular list, we find that "if we take A.J.P. 4741 from A.J.P. 4951, or A.D. 28 from A.D. 238, the difference is 210 years; and, consequently, excluding the consulship of A.D. 28, and including that of A.D. 238, there ought to be 210 pairs of consuls. Censorinus calls the consuls of A.D. 238 Ulpius and Pontianus; by Cassiodorus they are called Pius and Proculus; by Victorius, Ulpius Pius and Proculus; by Idatius, Pius and Pontianus ; by the Chronicon Paschale, Ulpicius and Pontianus. This diversity may be easily reconciled. Censorinus is certainly the best authority for the names of the consuls in the year in which he wrote. Ulpius might easily be changed into Pius or Ulpicius; and Proculus was probably the prænomen of Pontianus. The consuls of A.D. 28 are rightly named by Cassiodorus, C. Rubellius and C. Fufius. Both, as Tacitus asserts, had the cognomen of Geminus. But for Fufius, several authors read Rufus; and he is thus called by Idatius and in the Chronicon Paschale. Victorius calls him Rufinus. Their consulship is familiarly called that of the two Gemini; Duobus Geminis Coss.' This has led the Greek compiler into the egregious mistake of making two consulships out of one; the former of which he calls Geminus and Geminus; the latter, Rufus and Rubellinus. Excluding the consulship of the two Gemini, we find, on counting the lists, that Cassiodorus has given 211, Victorius, 210, and Idatius, 208. The list in the Chronicon Paschale is unfortunately defective; but by means of the Indictions, we are enabled to ascertain that exactly twenty years are missing. These, with the 171 preceding, and the seventeen which follow to the
consulship of Rufus and Rubellinus, make up 208. It is evident, therefore, that the number in the list of Victorius is right; that in the list of Cassiodorus there is an excess of one; and in the other two lists a defect of two consulships." After comparing the different accounts, which he sees no difficulty in reconciling up to that time, in A.D. 160 he finds the flaw, which we give in his own words.
“A.D. 161—A. D. 160. The next two consulships in the ascending series, according to Cassiodorus, were A.D. 161, the two Augusti; and A. D. 160, Antoninus V. and Aurelius III. Victorius, beside the two Augusti, has inserted the consulships of Antoninus and Aurelius twice. Idatius has confounded the two consulships of the two Augusti and Antoninus and Aurelius, blending them into one; 'Antonio V. et Aurelio Cæs. duobus Augustis.' The Chronicon Paschale, on the other hand, distinguishes the two consulships, but confounds the persons; omitting the name of Antoninus, and supposing both to have been borne by Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher, and his colleague, Lucius Verus; A. D. 161, Marco Aurelio Vero et Lucio Commodo Augusto III.; A. D. 160, Marco Aurelio Vero et Lucio Commodo Augusto II.' The modern critics, having mistaken the year of J. Cæsar's war in Spain, and placed that war one year later than it ought to be, have been obliged to omit one of these consulships. They have, therefore, neglected the testimony of Cassiodorus, and, by comparing Idatius with the Chronicon Paschale, have thought to correct both by representing thus the consulship of A. D. 161:
M. Aur. Verus Antoninus Cæs. III. dictus Philosophus.
L. Ælius Aur. Verus. Cæs. II. dictus etiam Commodus. "They have, therefore, suppressed entirely the consulship of A.D. 160, Antoninus Pius Imp. Aug. V., and M. Ælius Aurelius Cæsar III., which are correctly stated by Cassiodorus." He then goes through the remainder of the list, the accuracy of which is tested by the history of the Emperors, from Tiberius to the year 238, when Censorinus wrote. The numerical calculations in this period of the history are so accurately made as to prove, with almost mathematical precision, that, when the necessary corrections have been made, after comparing the statements of different writers, the exact length of each reign can be determined in connection with the consulships of each; because the aggregate number of years corresponds with the number of the consulships. "Then," says the author, 66 no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the problem is solved with regard to the adjustment of the ancient and modern computations of time." Proceeding upon these data, he shews the birth of Jesus Christ to have taken place die 25, 4707, J. P., on the 5th day of the 9th month, A.U.C. 747, and in the year in which Augustus closed the temple of Janus for the third time.