« ElőzőTovább »
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 knowledge. 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 florishing kingdom. Already the merchants of Arabia braved the perils of the desert, to furnish her with the rarest products of the East. Already her marts 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 nature 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' perse
cution, and that the Greek philosophers after that period could do no more than collect the fragments of the mighty ruin. Five hundred and twenty-five years before Christ, Cambyses conquered Egypt, pillagedthe 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 Egyptians 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 he 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.
LOCI QUIDAM LUCIANI, EMENDATI
A JOANNE SEAGER, A.B.
BICKNOR. WALLICE IN COMITATU MONUMETHIE RECTORE.
ICAROMENIPPUS. p. 776. [291. D. ed. Salmur.] Pergit Luna; ἀλλὰ κἄν τινα ἴδω αὐτῶν μοιχεύοντα, ἢ κλέπτοντα, ἢ ἄλλο τι τολμῶντα νυκτε ρινώτατον, εὐθὺς ἐσπισπασαμένη τὸ νέφος, ἐνεκαλυψάμην, ἵνα μὴ δείξω τοῖς πολλοῖς γέροντας ἄνδρας, βαθεῖ πώγωνι καὶ ἀρετῇ ἐνασχημονοῦντας. Το νέφος manifeste mendosum est. articulo nullus hic locus. Reponendum igitur ἐπισπασαμένη ΤΙ νέφος.
ICAROMENIPPUS. p. 779. [294. C. ed. Salmur.] μετὰ δὲ, ἠρώτα (Jupiter Menippum, qui in cœlum volarat) εἰ τις ἔτι λείπεται τῶν ἀπὸ Φειδίου, καὶ δι ̓ ἣν αἰτίαν ἐλλίποιεν 'Αθηναῖοι τὰ διάσια τοσούτων ἐτῶν, καὶ εἰ τὸ ὀλύμπιον αὐτῶν ἐπιτελέσαι διανοοῦνται, καὶ εἰ συνελήφθησαν οἱ τὸν ἐν Δωδώνῃ νεὼν σεσυληκοτες. Longe melius esset καὶ εἰ τὸ ὀλύμ πιον ΑΥΤΩ (ipsi scilicet Jovi) ἐπιτελέσαι διανοοῦνται.
ICAROMENIPPUS. p. 784. [298. C. ed. Salmur.] ὁ γὰρ βέλτιστος Γανυμήδης ὑπὸ φιλανθρωπίας, εἰ θεάσαιτο ἀποβλέποντά ποι τὸν Δία, κοτύλην ἂν, ἢ, καὶ δύο τοῦ νέκταρος ἐνέχει μοι φέρων. οἱ δὲ θεοὶ, ὡς Ομηρός που λέγει, καὶ αὐτὸς, οἶμαι, καθάπερ ἐγὼ, τἀκεῖ τεθεαμένος, οὔτε σῖτον ἔδουσιν, οὔτε πινοῦσιν αἴθοπα οἶνον, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμβροσίαν παρατί θενται, καὶ τοῦ νέκταρος μεθύσκονται. Rectius puto: οἱ γὰρ θεοὶ ὡς Ομηρός 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, τὶ γὰρ ἂν, εἰ τοῦς ἀνέμους φυτουργοῦντας λέγοιμι, καὶ παραπέμποντας τὰ πλοῖα, καὶ τοῖς λικμῶσιν ἐπιπνέοντας; ἢ τὸν ὕπνον ἐπὶ πάντας πετόμενον ; ἢ τὸν ὄνειρον μετὰ τοῦ ὕπνου διανυκτερεύοντα, καὶ ὑποφητεύοντα αὐτῷ; πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα ὑπὸ φιλανθρωπίας οἱ θεοὶ πονοῦσι, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βίον ἑκάστοις συντελούσι. Scopum Jovis querelarum consideranti major vis in ἕκαστοι esse videbitur, quam in ἑκάστοις. καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βίον ΕΚΑΣΤΟΙ συντέλουσι. Nullus eximius ; nullus ἀσύμβολος. Point d'exemption.
BIS ACCUSATUs. p. 797. [310. Α. ed. Salmur.] Justitia : αὖθις ἐς τὴν γῆν ; (scilicet descendam ego Justitia) ἵν ̓ ἐξελαυνομένη πρὸς αὐτῶν δραπετεύω πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ βίου, τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐπιγελῶσαν οὐ φέρουσα; Ζ. χρηστὰ ἐλπίζειν γε δεῖ. πάντως γὰρ ἤδη πεπείκασιν αὐτοὺς οἱ φιλοσόφοι σὲ τῆς ἀδικίας προτιμᾷν, καὶ μάλιστα ὁ τοῦ Σωφρονίσκου, τὸ δίκαιον ὑπε ρεπαίνεσας καὶ ἀγαθῶν τὸ μέγιστον ἀποφήνας.Verum esse puto: χρηστὰ ἐλπίζειν ΣΕ δεῖ. παντὼς γὰρ κ. τ. λ.
BIS ACCUSATUS. p. 797. [310. C. ed. Salmur.] Sequitur statim ;
Justitia, πάνυ γοῦν ὃν φῇς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ὠνήσαν οἱ περὶ ἐμοὺ λόγοι. ὃς παραδοθεὶς τοῖς ἕνδεκα, καὶ εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐμπεσὼν ἐπίεν ἀθλίος τοῦ κωνείου, μὴ δὲ τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα τῷ ̓Ασκληπιῷ ἀποδεδωκώς. παρὰ τοσοῦτον ὑπερέσχον οἱ κατήγοροι τἀναντία περὶ τῆς ἀδικίας φιλοσοφοῦντες. Videndum num melius sit τἀναντία ΠΑΡΑ τῆς Ἀδικίας φιλοσοφοῦντες. 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: μὴ φιλονεικῆτε. ὑπερκείσεται γὰρ καὶ αὕτη, ἡ δίκη ἔστ ̓ ἂν ὁ Ζεὺς δικάσῃ περὶ τοῦ Διονυσίου. παραπλήσιον γάρ τι καὶ τοῦτο ἔοικεν εἶναι. ὥστε ἂν μὲν ἡ ἡδονὴ κρατήσῃ, καὶ τὸν ̓Αρίστιππον ἕξει ἡ τρύφη, νικώσης δὲ αὖ τῆς στοᾶς, καὶ οὗτος ἔσται τῆς ἀρετῆς κεκριμένος. ὥστε ἄλλοι παρέστωσαν. τὸ δεῖνα μέντοι μὴ λαμβανέτωσαν οὗτοι, τὸ δικαστίκων· ἀδικάστος γὰρ ἡ δίκη μεμένηκεν αὐτοῖς. Hic rursus commentatores interpretesque nihil viderunt. Nemo τὸ δεῖνα intellexit, Guietus “ τὸ δικαστικὸν glossema videtur τοῦ δεῖνα.” #que falsi Scholiastes, Gesnerus, Reitzius. Interpungendum τὸ δεῖνα μέντοι ! μὴ λαμβανέτωσαν οὗτοι (judices) τὸ δια καστικόν. ΤΟ ΔΕΙΝΑ interjectio est, qua utebantur quum subito in mentem venisset aliquid, cujus oblivisci periculosum vel certe incommodum fuisset. ἰδου, κατάκεισ ̓ ἀνύσας τι κἀγὼ ἠδύομαι. καίτοι, τὸ δεῖνα! Ψιαθός ἐστ ̓ ἐξοιστέα. Aristoph. Lysistr. v. 925. ἀτάρ, τὸ δεῖνα, δεῦρ ̓ ἐπανάκρουσαι πάλιν. Aristoph. Avib. 648. εἰπέ μοι· τί δ', ἦν, τὸ δεῖνα, τῇ διαίτῃ μὴ 'μμένης; Aristoph. Vesp. v. 524. Καὶ μὴν, τὸ δεῖν', ἀκροκώλιά γε σοι τέτταρα ἥψασα τακερά. Aristoph. Αἰολοσικο Fragm. I. Apud Athen. p. 95. F. Mercator. τίς ἡ τιμή; Mercurius. δύο μναῖ. Mercator. λάμβανε. τὸ δεῖνα δὲ ! ὅπως ἴδω, τίσι χαίρει τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ; Lucian. Vitarum auctio. p. 374. Ed. Salmur. p. 558. ed. Reitzii.
BIS ACCUSATUS. p. 824. [p. 333. A. ed. Salmur.] Τὰ δὲ πράγματα, εἰς τοῦτο προήκοντα ὄψεσθε, ὥστε ὅπως μὴ χεῖρόν τι πείσομαι πρὸς αὐτοῦ, σκέψασθαι δέον. Num ΔΕΙΝ?
DE PARASITO. p. 838. [345. C. ed. Salmur.] Tychiades. κai où ἄρα Παράσιτος ; Parasitus. πάνυ ὠνείδισας, ὦ Τυχιάδη. πάνυ ὠνείδισας ειρωνείαν esse ait Scholiastes. Suspicatus eram de πάνυ ΟΡΘΩΣ ὢν ΟΜΑσας, ὦ Τυχιάδη.
DE PARASITO. p. 840. [346. E. ed. Salmur.] Distingue, Tychia→ des: Τί ποτ' οὖν ἐστὶ τέχνη; ὡς ἐπίστασαι. (namque scis profecto.) Parasitus. πάνυ μὲν οὖν.
DE PARASITO. p. 850, 851. [p. 354. D. ed. Salmur.] πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τὸν ἀναλίσκοντα τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, πολλαῖς περιπίπτειν ἀηδίαις. τοῦτο μὲν, τῷ μαγείρῳ κακῶς σκευάσαντι τὸ ὄψον μαχόμενον, ἢ εἰ μὴ μάχοιτο, φαῦλα παρὰ τοῦτο ἐσθίοντα τὰ ὄψα, καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος ὑστερεῖν. τοῦτο δὲ, τῷ οἰκονο μοῦντι τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, εἰ μὴ καλῶς οἰκονομοίη μαχόμενον; ἢ οὐχ οὕτω ; Τυ, νὴ Δία, κἀμοὶ δοκεῖ. Πα. τῷ μὲν Ἐπικούρῳ, πάντα ξυμβαί γειν εἰκός, ὥστε οὐδέποτε τεύξεται τοῦ τέλους. Legendum videtur τοῦ ἡδέος ΥΣΤΕΡΟΥΝΤΑ. Deinde post τῷ μεν interponendum ΟΥΝ. Τῷ μὲν ΟΥΝ Ἐπικούρῳ πάντα συμβαίνειν εἰκός.