tandem: "ego sicut inclitas quondam urbes igne cœlesti flagrasse concesserim, ita halitu lacus infici terram, corrumpi superfusum spiritum, eoque fœtus segetum et autumni putrescere reor.'

2

Iterum de Oceano opiniones aliorum referens e suo palam quid addere amat "Sed mare pigrum et grave (ultra Caledoniam Septentriones versus) remigantibus perhibent: ne ventis quidem perinde attolli: credo, quod rariores terræ montesque, caussa ac materia tempestatum, et profunda moles continui maris tardius impellitur," et postea de longis Borealium regionum diebus: "Quod si nubes non officiant, adspici per noctem solis fulgorem, nec occidere et exsurgere, sed transire affirmant. Scilicet extrema et plana terrarum, humili umbra, non erigunt tenebras, infraque cœlum et sidera nox cadit."

;

Mirum videri possit, quod in physicis, quippe in alieno versatus, suam ut judicis quasi ad decidendum ingerat personam, quum in rebus ad hominum mores et naturam pertinentibus ipse apparere nolit, verum quæ ipse cogitarit, judicarit, aliorum quasi ex ore referat. Verum in divinis rebus, quum ipse ex scrutatoris naturæ persona loquebatur, non veritatem et unitatem narrationis turbasse sibi videtur in humanis contra_rebus non nisi veritatis ipsius testimonium referre, fas esse ducit. Etiamsi igitur quam maxime ingenio indulgeat, tamen ingenium suum, suum judicium interponi non vult. Historicus ipse ut rationes deducens, judicans, decernens nullibi apparere, personæ vero, quas quodque ævum tulerat, solæ loqui, agere, omnia in omnibus esse. Etiamsi conjecturæ tantum adduci possent, has conjecturas tamen æqualibus, non sibi tribuit. 3

"Prorogatur Poppæo Sabino provincia Masia, additis Achaia et Macedonia. Id quoque morum Tiberii fuit, continuare imperia, ac plerosque ad finem vitæ in iisdem exercitibus, aut jurisdictionibus habere. Caussæ variæ traduntur: alii tædio novæ curæ semel placida pro æternis servavisse: quidam invidia, ne plures fruerentur, sunt, qui existiment, ut callidum eius ingenium, ita anxium judicium, neque enim eminentis virtutes sectabatur, et rursum vitia oderat: ex optimis periculum sibi, a pessimis dedecus publicum metuebat, qua hæsitatione postremo eo provectus est, ut mandaverit quibusdam provincias, quos egredi urbe non erat passurus."

Uti quisque, in quacunque conditione, quocunque loco positus, suæ naturæ convenienter se gesserit, id quidem ex hominum natura, rebusque externis ipse Tacitus conjiciebat, et secum perpendebat ; quum narrationi vero esset includendum, tum, ut historiæ fides servaretur, testibus quibusdam, quippe qui hæc viderint, id tribuit, quod forsan non nisi in Taciti imaginandi vi exstiterat. E. g. "Pisonem (oratione gravi et honorifica a Galba adoptatum) ferunt, statim intuentibus, et mox conjectis in eum omnium oculis, nullum turbati aut exsultantis animi motum prodidisse.” 4 Sic scilicet decere ejus personam Tacitus probe viderat.

Quamquam igitur tot monumenta antecedentium temporum, tot

Hist. V. c. 7. 4 Hist. XI. c. 12.

2 Agric. c. 10. et 12.

3 Annal. I. c. 80.

tabulæ publicæ, tot singulorum libelli, epistolæ, commentarii in privatis domibus asservati, tam pervulgatus et diu sustentatus rumor, argumentum omne historia Tacito suggerere potuisse videantur, credamus tamen, eum ex ista farragine indicia quidem, et externas significationes omnes desumsisse, internam vero hominum naturam, tecta animorum, caussas, modum, quo quæque res gesta esset, videri sibi ipsi finxisse.

Otium illi, per imperium Domitiani necessario impositum, facultatem dederat cuncta ista tacite colligendi. Nerva, tum et Trajanus illi concesserant, ut procederet, et homines, quales in rebus civilibus in curia, in aula se manifestant, cognosceret; tum senex se totum in antiquum ævum, quod sibi describendum sumserat, retulit; tum ex vestigiis, quæ collecti a se aliorum libelli indicarant, sibi animos hominum, sibi modum et ductum rei quam maxime naturæ convenientes, meditando, colligendo, comparando efformavit: tum denique quemque agentem, loquentem induxit, vim vitamque narrationi ad-didit.

Sic ratiocinationes, et judicia enascebantur, quæ vel antiquioris Augustani ævi hominibus tribuenda sustineret ; "Igitur verso (post -Actiacam pugnam) civitatis statu, nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnis, exuta æqualitate, jussa principis aspectare: nulla in præ-sens formidine, dum Augustus ætate validus, seque, et domum, et pacem sustentavit. Postquam provecta jam senectus, ægro et corpore fatigabatur, aderatque finis, et spes novæ : pauci bona libertatis incassum disserere, plures bellum pavescere, alii cupere: pars multo maxima imminentis dominos variis rumoribus differebant; trucem Agrippam Tiberium Neronem maturum annis, spectatum bello, sed vetere atque insita Claudiæ familiæ superbia. Multus hinc ipso de Augusto sermo, plerisque vana mirantibus, quod idem dies accepti quondam imperii princeps, et vitæ supremus At apud prudentes vita ejus varie extollebatur, arguebaturve. tate erga parentem, et necessitudine Reip. in qua nullus tunc legibus -locus, ad arma civilia actum. Dicebatur contra, pietatem erga parentem, et tempora reip. obtentui sumta: ceterum cupidine dominandi concitos per largitiones veteranos

Hi pie

2

Sic etiam descriptiones rerum atrocitate sua animos percellentium : "Quadraginta armatorum millia irrupere, calonum lixarumque amplior numerus, et in libidinem ac sævitiam corruptior. Non dignitas, non ætas protegebat, quo minus stupra cædibus, cædes stupris miscerentur. Grandavos senes, exacta ætate feminas, viles ad prædam, in ludibrium trahebant. Ubi adulta virgo, aut quis forma conspicuus incidisset, vi manibusque rapientium divulsus, ipsos postremo direptores in mutuam perniciem agebat. Dum pecuniam, vel gravia auro templorum dona, sibi quisque trahunt, maiore aliorum vi truncabantur. Quidam obvia aspernati, verberibus tormentisque dominorum abdita scrutari, defossa eruere.'

Quisque hæc ita accidere potuisse sentit; num vero ex anteceden

'Annal. I. c. 4.

2 Hist. I. c. 3.

I

tis alicujus scriptoris narratione, an ex nostri imaginatione fluxerint, Quinctiliani de amplificatione præceptum, quod sane nemo rerum talium narrator tum spernendum sibi duxit, præceptoque additum exemplum, dubium reddere videtur. "Sic urbium captarum crescit miseratio. Sine dubio enim, qui dicit expugnatam esse civitatem, complectitur omnia, quæcunque talis fortuna recipit: sed in affectus minus penetrat brevis hic velut nuntius. At si aperias hæc, quæ ver'bo uno inclusa erant, apparebunt et fusæ per domos ac templa flammæ, et ruentium tectorum fragor, et ex diversis clamoribus unus quidam sonus, aliorum fuga incerta, alii in extremo complexu suorum cohærentes, et infantium feminarumque ploratus, et male in illum diem servati fato senes: tum illa profanorum sacrorumque direptio, efferentium prædas repetentiumque discursus, et acti ante suum quisque prædonem catenati, et conata retinere infantem' suum mater, et sicubi majus lucrum est, pugna inter victores. Licet enim hæc omnia complectatur eversio, minus est tamen totum dicere quam omnia. Consequemur autem, ut manifesta sint, si fuerint similia: et licebit etiam falso adfingere, quicquid fieri solet."

Hic scriptores fere æquales eundem campum esse nactos vides, quorsum acris ingenii et imaginandi vis excurrere posset; castiorem tamen rhetore historicum, et magis leges historiæ retinentem non sine judicii et sensus ejus admiratione videre est.

INQUIRY INTO THE ETYMOLOGY OF PEOR

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

Ar p. 293. in your No. XIV. Sir W. Drummond has favored your readers with another of those novelties, to which he often arrives by the aid of etymology and ingenious imagination, but which, as I presume, cannot be supported by sufficient evidence or even probability; this is, that the name of the chief God of the Moabites, Baal Peor, together with the worship of that deity, were borrowed by them from the name and respect paid by the Egyptians to their god Horus, whom in their language they would call Pi-or, in which name Pi is only the article the, and even by the Copts at present is often changed into Pe. To this etymologic novelty there seem to be many objections, some of which I will point out. In the first place, neither Philo Judæus in ancient times, nor any of the modern learned Jews, have ever had any suspicion of such an origin to this deity, or

Quinct. instit. L. VIII. c. 3.

that the Moabites had any connexion with the Egyptians. The name also they all derive from the Hebrew language, not the Egyp tian, and consider its sense as being in some degree significant of the character of the Deity and the worship paid to him, by denoting something of filthiness or obscenity, although indeed they do not sufficiently explain what the nature of it was. Why then should we be inclined to conjecture, that instead of a native it had a foreign origin, without any other evidence than merely some similitude be tween the name Pe-or and a supposed Pi-or as being the Egyptian mode of denoting the God Horus? It appears indeed by the inscription on the Rosetta stone, that they did write that name oor (we) sa far as M. Akerblad has been able to decypher the Egyptian letters in it; but the article Pi is never there prefixed to it, although it occurs often; nor, so far as I can discover by Woide's Lexicon, is an article ever prefixed to the proper name of any person whatever in the modern Coptic language. At p. 74 we read of Pachom, at p. 120 of mena, at p. 126, Shenutius, all without any article prefixed; if there be any examples to the contrary in a language of which we know so little, I shall willingly be better instructed.

Thus far, however, there is at most nothing but mere conjecture, from some similitude in the two names, to support the etymology, and this also liable to objection; but Sir W. Drummond proceeds to add written testimony from Suidas and Jerom in the following sentence: "Most certainly this Egyptian God Or was the same with Priapus; thus Suidas says τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ Πριάπου τοῦ Ὥρου παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις κεκλη pevov &c.; and Jerom says: Israelitæ educti ex Egypto fornicati sunt cum Madianitis et ingressi sunt ad Baalphegor idolum Moabitarum, quem nos Priapum possumus appellare. This species of idolatry seems to have been borrowed from the Egyptians-it is therefore not improbable, that the name Pe-or was likewise of Egyptian origin." Hence it appears that, like Jerom, Sir W. Drummond adheres to the opinion of the Jews that there is some obscenity in the worship of Baalpeor, and he rejects the opinion of Selden, who maintained that the fornicatio in question included no other meaning, than merely that of Idolatry, this being the word constantly used in scripture for the worship of Idols in general. But how does this account suit with the character of Horus? for he is not described by Plutarch or any others as an obscene Deity, like Priapus or Pan; but quite the contrary, as a noble-spirited, active son of Osiris and Isis, who revenged the death of his father by Typhon, whom Horus afterwards conquered and thus recovered the supreme power in Egypt. “Prælium cum Typhone per plures dies durasse ac victoriâ Orum potitum." Why then has Sir William confounded him with Pan and Priapus? If he admits the accounts by Plutarch in other articles, why not in this likewise? By acting otherwise, he has connected together incoherent accounts, in order to give plausibility to his own etymology. It may be said, however, that Suidas had set him the example; but if Suidas is contradicted by Plutarch, is the testimony of the former to be preferred, although nothing is to be found in other ancient authors to confirm it? In the Isiac table, Horus is represented more than once as

a deified youth, but without the least circumstance of obscenity. If then the rites of Baalpeor contained any such obscenity as the Jews, Jerom, and Sir W. Drummond, suppose, how could they be borrowed from the worship paid by the Egyptians to the youthful and pious hero Horus? or the name Pe-or be copied from Pi-or in Egypt? The only evidence to support this is that above-mentioned from Suidas. The very same words are indeed found in Codinus, but they must have been copied from Suidas, as Codinus lived later than 1000 years after Christ, which is the latest date of any events found mentioned in Suidas; and shall the testimony of so late a compilation as this be set in opposition to Plutarch? Where Suidas could find such an account of Horus as his being the Egyptian Priapus is unknown; yet there is however one sentence in Plutarch which might possibly have been the accidental and erroneous foundation of it, and I know of no other either there or elsewhere. After having described Orus as being finitus et perfectus, and that the object of his exertions was ulcisci patrem et matrem injuria affectos, he adds, that Horus did not kill Typhon after having conquered him, but only vim ejus et efficacitatem abstulit. As a memorial of this (he says). In Copto (ut ferunt) simulachrum Ori alterâ manu Typhonis genitalia tenere. This is the only act of indelicacy to be found ascribed to Horus: but this was not in reality any act by Horus himself, but only the arbitrary invention of a painter or sculptor to express by representation the fact of Horus having extinguished all the former powers of Typhon: and this only in that one particular city of Coptos, not throughout all Egypt. It seems to be only just possible then that such a representation as this could have afforded foundation for the obscenities attributed to the rites of Baalpeor, or that this deity should on this account have derived even his name from Horus, who had not actually any concern whatever in that sculpture, and could not on this account be assimilated to Priapus; as it is not any act of a lascivious nature in him, but only a symbolical expression of the consequences of a martial event, by a particular painter. One would have wished therefore to have found an author of novelties, supporting his opinions by some better testimony than the above sentence in Suidas; where it seems very possible, that Orus may, in the reading of some MS. have been a mistake for Osiris, to whom Plutarch does indeed in one place ascribe some Phallophorian attitudes, as quoted by Sir W. Drummond, yet in that one place only. The name, however, of Osiris would have ruined the etymology. It may moreover be doubted, whether in that objectionable sentence abovementioned, Plutarch did not again mean only to relate such another invention of some particular sculptor, as in the case of Horus; for no where else either in Plutarch, Herodotus, Diodorus, the Isiac table, or in the Egyptian antiquities collected by Caylus, are any obscenities whatever attributed to Osiris himself; all the Phallophorian rites having been introduced after his death by Isis and her pos terity, and never ascribed in any respect to Osiris himself. So that it must have been from the Egyptian practices in later times, and not from Horus, that the Moabites must have borrowed them, in case this was their real origin, and that they were not their own native inventions,