Obrazy na stronie

tent, enclosed within steep, and, for the most part, perndicular, sides of solid rock, rising sometimes to a i. of sixty or seventy feet, or more, before they reach the level of the plain in which they are situated. The soil at the bottom of these chasms appears to have been washed down from the plain above by the heavy rains, and is frequently cultivated by the Arabs; so that a person, in walking over the country where they exist, comes suddenly upon a beautiful orchard or garden, *...* in secret, and in the greatest luxuriance, at a considerable depth beneath his feet, and defended on all sides by walls of solid rock, so as to be at first sight apparently inaccessible. The effect of these secluded little spots, protected, as it were, from the intrusion of mankind, by the steepness and depth of the barriers which enclose them, is singular and pleasing in the extreme ; they reminded us of some of those secluded retreats which we read of in fairy legends or tales. It was impossible to walk along the edge of these precipices, looking everywhere for some part less abrupt than the rest, by which we might descend into the gardens beneath, without calling to mind the description given by Scylax of the far-famed gardens of the Hesperides.”—It has been supposed by many, and among the rest by Gossellin and Pacho, that the Hesperian gardens of the ancients were nothing more than some of those verdant caves which stud the Libyan desert, and which, from their concealed and inaccessible position, their unknown origin, and their striking contrast to the surrounding waste, might well suggest the idea of a terrestrial paradise, . become the types of the still fairer creations of poetic fable. Possibly, therefore, supposing the fable to rest on a real basis, the first of these Elysian groves may have been at the extremity of Cyrenaica mentioned by Beechey, and the original idea of the legend may have been taken from a subterranean garden of the above description.—The garden of the Hesperides is stated by Scylax (p. 46) to have been an enclosed spot of ten stadia each way, filled with thickly-planted fruittrees of various kinds, and inaccessible on all sides. It was situated at six hundred and twenty stadia (fifty geographical miles) from the port of Barce; and this agrees precisely with that of the place described by Captain Beechey from Ptolemata. The testimony of Pliny (5, 5) is very decided in fixing the site of the Hesperides in the neighbourhood of Berenice. “Not far from the city” (Berenice), “is the river Lethon, and the sacred grove where the gardens of the Hesperides are said to be situated. We do not mean,” remarks Captain B., “to point out any one of these subterranean gardens as that which is described in the passage above quoted from Scylax; for we know of no one which will correspond, in point of extent, to the garden which that author has mentioned. All those which we saw were considerably less than the fifth of a mile in diameter (the measurement given by Scylax); and the places of this nature which would best agree with the dimensions, are now filled with water sufficiently fresh to be drinkable, and take the form of romantic little lakes. Scarcely any two of the gardens we met with were, however, of the same depth or extent; and we have no reason to conclude that, because we saw none which were large enough to be fixed upon for the garden of the Hesperides, there is therefore no place of the dimensions required ; particularly as the singular formation alluded to continues to the foot of the Cyrenaic chain, which is fourteen miles distant in the nearest parts from Berenice.” (Compare Edinb. Rev., n. 95, p. 228.) HEsperioux Insulae, are generally thought to correspond with the Cape de Verd islands; but, as these are too far from the coast, they possibly may have been rather the small islands called Bissagos, lying a little above Sierra Leone. In these, some place the gardens of the Hesperides, which others will have to be

on the Continent. Consult remarks under the preceding article. Hespéris, I. daughter of Hesperus. She married Atlas, her father's brother, and became mother of the Hesperides, according to one legend. (Diod. Sic., 4, 27.)—II. A city of Cyrenaica. (Vid. Berenice IX.) Hesperium Cornu ('Eatreptov képac), a promontory on the western coast of Africa; according to Mannert, the present Cape Verd. It is mentioned in the peri plus of Hanno. Rennell, however, makes the Western Horn to have been a bay and not a promontory, and identifies it with the modern bay or gulf of Bissago. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 10, pt. 2, p. 531. – Rennell, Geogr. of Herod., vol. 2, p. 424.) Hesperius SINUs, a bay on the western coast of Africa, and now the bay or gulf of Bissago. Consult preceding article. Hesperus, I. son of Iapetus and Asia, and brother of Atlas. He became the father of Hesperis, who married her uncle Atlas, from which union, according to one account, sprang the Hesperides. Hesperus, like Atlas, was fabled by some to have been a great astronomer, and when ascending Mount Atlas, on one occasion, for the purpose of making his observations, was blown away by a tempest and no more seen. Divine honours were accordingly rendered to him, and the evening star was called after his name. (Diod. Sic., 3, 59.) By some he is termed the son of Atlas, as, for example, by Diodorus in the passage just cited ; and yet the same writer, with the contradiction that usually marks ancient fables, elsewhere calls him the brother of Atlas (4, 27.—Consult Wesseling, ad Diod. Suc., 3, 59). —Another version of the story makes Hesperus to have been the son of Aurora and Cephalus, and so remarkable for beauty as to have contested the palm with Venus, from which circumstance the beautiful star of eve was called after him, and the name of Venus was also given to the same planet. (Hygin., Poet. Astron., 2, 42.—Eratosth., Catast., c. 44.)—II. A name given to the star of evening. (Consult preceding article.) The same planet, when it appeared as the morning star, was called Phosphorus (Pwcô6poc) and Lucifer, both appellations meaning “the bearer of light.” (Hygin., l. c.—Catull., 62, 34, seqq.—Serv., ad Virg., Georg., 1,250– Id., ad Virg., AEn., 8, 590–Muncker, ad Hygin., fab., 65.—Van Staveren, ad eund, loc.) Pythagoras is said to have first pointed out the identity of Hesperus and Lucifer. (Menag., ad Diog. Laert., 8, 14.)—Radloff has written a curious work on the planets Hesperus and Phaethon, and on their having been respectively shattered by coming in collision with some comet or other heavenly body. He makes the present planet Venus to be but a portion of the original star, and among other learned and curious arguments in support of his singular position, refers to the well known passage of Scripture as illustrating the tradition of the great event: “How art thou fallen, Lucifer, star of the morning !” (Radloff, Zertrummerung der grossen Planeten Hesperus und Phaethon, Berlin, 1823.) Hesus, a deity among the Gauls, the same as the Mars of the Romans. (Lucan, 1,445.) Lactantius (Dip. Inst., 1, 21) writes the name Heusus. Compare the Hu-Cadarn (“Hu, the powerful”) in the traditions and ballads of the Welsh. The god Hesus or Heusus, in the polytheism of Gaul, was probably an intercalation of the Druids. (Consult remarks under the article Gallia, p. 534, col. 2.) Hesychius, I. an Egyptian bishop, mentioned by St. Jerome as having published a critical edition of the Septuagint in the third century. It was introduced into the churches of this country; and Jerome usually cites it under the title of Eremplar Alerandrinum.— II. A lexicographer of Alexandrea, who lived, according to the common opinion, towards the close of the fourth century. The question still remains undecided whether the glossary which has reached us under the name of this writer be really his, or whether it be not merely an abridgment of his work. What has inclined some to favour the latter opinion is the circumstance of the citations being omitted. Others think, and with some appearance of reason, that this lexicon was originally a small volume, and that the numerous biblical glosses which are at present found in it have been intercalated by the copyists, who have taken the remarks made in the margin by the possessors of manuscripts for portions of the text itself. However this may be, the work of Hesychius is very important towards acquiring a full knowledge of the Greek language. It has preserved for us a large number of passages from poets, orators, historians, and physicians, whose works are lost. Hesychius explains, moreover, various words that depart from the ordinary usage of the Greek tongue, as well as terms used in sacrifices, gymnastic encounters, &c. And yet it must be acknowledged that his text is in a most corrupt state, and that when he is a solitary witness his testimony ought to be received with caution. (Mus. Crit., vol. 1, p. 503.) The work, in fact, has all the appearance of rough notes, put down in the course of reading, rather than of a finished production. It was not known until the sixteenth century. Only one MS., in the library of St. Mark, at Venice, is said to be preserved, and that is full of abbreviations, and has many erasures; which accounts for the great corruption of the text, in spite of the labours of many able editors. It appears, however, that in the seventeenth century there existed a second manuscript in the Florence library. (Ebert's Bibliogr. Lericon, vol. 1, p. 772.)—The best edition of Hesychius is that of Alberti, completed by Ruhnken, Lugd. Bat., 1746–1776, 2 vols. fol. It is to be regretted, however, that Alberti could not avail himself of the valuable MS. notes of Bentley on this lexicographer.—The editio princeps of Hesychius was published by the elder Aldus, Venice, 1514, fol., under the care of Marcus Musurus. The manuscript followed was the Venice one. This, however, being, as we have already remarked, very difficult to decipher, and in other respects extremely inaccurate, Musurus took great pains to correct and restore it. This is often done with intelligence and success; but often also he deceives himself in his corrections, and in general treats his original in too arbitrary a mannér. Schow, of Copenhagen, being at Venice, collated the manuscript with the edition of Alberti, and took note of all the variations. He published this collation at Leipsic, 1792, 8vo, under the title, “Hesychii Lericon er cod. Ms. bibliothecae S. Marci restitutum, et ab omnibus Musuri correctionibus repurgatum.” By the help of this volume, the possessor of any edition of Hesychius, for they are all based upon this manuscript, can make the necessary corrections. The glosses, taken from the Scriptures, that are found in Hesychius, were collected and published by J. C. G. Ernesti, Lips., 1785, 8vo. We may regard as the second volume of this production the work published by Ernesti in 1786, 8vo, under the title, “Suidae et Pharorini Glossa sacrae,” in which are found two hundred and twenty-nine losses of Hesychius, forgotten in the first volume. #. this may be joined the work of Schleusner, Obserrat. in Suid. et Hesych., Wittemb., 1810, 4to. Among the subsidiary works that illustrate Hesychius, may be mentioned Toup's Emendations (Toupil Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium, Oron, 1790, 4 vols. 8vo), and the Dissertation of Ranke (De Lerici Hesychiani vera origine et genuina forma commentatio, Lips., 1831, 8vo). —III. A native of Miletus, surnamed, by reason of the office with which he was invested, Illustris (“Illustrious"). He is supposed to have lived under the emperors Justin and Justinian, and was the author of a chronicle (latoptroy & Ev avvoi et kogukjo (atopia,), from Belus king of Assyria to the

end of the reign of Anastasius I. This work, em. bracing the history of 1190 years, was divided into six sections or epochs (Tuñuata), viz., 1. Events anterior to the Trojan war. 2. From this latter period to the building of Rome. 3. From the building of Rome to the abolition of royalty in that city. 4. From the latter period to the death of Julius Caesar. 5. From the death of Caesar to the reign of Constantine the Great. 6. From the latter period to the death of Anastasius I. The last section, of which we have a valuable fragment remaining, entitled IIárpta Kovaravrivoviróżewo (“Of the origin of Constantinople”), served as an aid to George Codinus in his description of this city. Hesychius also composed Memoirs on the reign of Justinian the elder ('Erépa Bitoor, év # repuéxeru 'Iovarivov trpaxtlévra). This work has entirely perished. The fragment of Hesychius, mentioned above, has been published under the name of Codinus by Douza, Heidelb., 1596, 8vo. Hesychius also wrote an Onomasticon, or Table of Men distinguished in the various branches of knowledge (IIiva: röv Šv trauðeig Övouadrāv), of which Suidas professes to have availed himself. We have likewise, under the name of Hesychius, a small work entitled IIepi rāv trauðeia duahau"pávrov goodv, “Of Philosophers celebrated for their learning.” It is nothing more than a very careless compilation either from Diogenes Laertius, or from the lost Onomasticon of the writer whom we are at present considering. It contains, however, some things which are not found elsewhere, and this serves to stamp a certain value on the work. The latest and best edition of these two works is that of Orellius, Lips., 1820, 8vo.—IV. A native of Jerusalem, who died about 428 A.D. He was a priest, and wrote an ecclesiastical history, which is lost.—W. This name was also borne by many other ecclesiastics, among whom are reckoned several martyrs. (Consult Fabricius, Bibl. Graec., lib. 5, c. 5, and the Prolegomena to Alberti's edition of the Lexicon of Hesychius.) Hetruria (more commonly Etruria), a celebrated country of Italy, lying to the west and north of the Tiber. Of all the nations of Italy, none appear to have such claims on our notice as that of the Etrurians. The origin of this nation, however, was involved in a degree of uncertainty at the time when the earliest of our ancient historians wrote, which was hardly to have been expected, considering their extended dominion, their immemorial possession of an alphabet, the existence among them of a sacerdotal caste, and their acknowledged superiority in civilization to all their European contemporaries except the Greeks. Their subsequent history is chiefly known from their connexion with other nations; for, never having cultivated their language so as to attain to the possession of a literature, their writings have long since perished; and what they recorded on brass or marble is far less intelligible than the hieroglyphics of Egypt. Even in ancient times it was a disputed question whether the Etrurians were Pelasgi from Greece, or Lydians from Asia, or indigenous in Italy. According to Herodotus (1,94), the Lydians ought to be considered as the parent stock of the Etrurian nation. The former had a tradition among them, that a great famine arose in Lydia during the reign of Atys, one of their earliest kings. When it had lasted for several years, it was at length determined that the nation should divide itself into two parts, under the respective command of Lydus and Tyrrhenus, the two sons of Atys, one of which was to migrate, and the other to remain in Lydia. It fell to the lot of Tyrrhenus to abandon Lydia with the people under his charge. He accordingly equipped a sleet at Smyrna, and set sail in quest of a country to settle in ; when, after passing by various countries and nations, he finally arrived among the Umbri, in Italy, where he founded several cities, which the people, who, from him, were called Tyrrhenians, occupied up to the time of Herodotus. If we divest the Lydian tradition of some marvellous circumstances which are attached to it, particularly those that relate to the famine, which may be fairly charged to Oriental hyperbole, there still remains the record of an important event, which, considering the character of the historian who has handed it down to us, and the geographical information he possessed, is certainly entitled to our attention if it does not recommend itself to our belief. The greatest argument, however, in favour of this tradition, must be allowed to consist in the weight of testimony which can be collected in support of it from the writers of antiquity, especially those of Rome, who, with few exceptions, seem to concur in admitting the fact of the Lydian colony. (Consult Virg., AEm., 8, 479, et pass.-Catull., 31, 13.−Horat., Sat., 1, 6.-Stat. Silv., 1, 2.-Id., 4, 4.—Senec., ad Helv.–Justin, 20, 1.—Wal. Max., 2, 4.—Plut., Wit. Rom.—Pluny, 3, 5.) —Strabo, who has entered more fully into the discussion of the Tyrrhenian origin, does not seem to entertain any doubt of the event which we are now considering, and he quotes Anticlides, an historian of some authority, who reports that the first Pelasgi settled in the islands of Imbros and Lemnos, and that some of them sailed with Tyrrhenus, the son of Atys, to Italy. (Strabo, 219.) In short, the presumption would appear so strong in favour of this popular account of the origin of the Tyrrheni, that we might consider the question to be decided, were not our attention called to the opposite side by some weighty objections, advanced long since by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and farther strongly urged by some modern critics of great reputation and learning. Dionysius seems to stand alone among the writers of antiquity as invalidating the facts recorded by Herodotus; and though his own explanation of the origin of the Tyrrhenians is evidently inconsistent and unsatisfactory, still it must be owned that his arguments tend greatly to discredit the colony of the Lydian Tyrrhenus. He maintains, in the first place, that it is fabulous, from the silence on so important an event of Xanthus the historian of Lydia, a writer of great research and authority, and more ancient than Herodotus. Xanthus acknowledges no Lydian prince of the name of Tyrrhenus; the sons of Atys, according to him, were Lydus and Torybus, who both remained in Asia. Again, Dionysius asserts that there was no resemblance to be discovered either in the religion, customs, or language of the Lydians and Tuscans; and, lastly, from the discrepance to be observed in the various statements of the genealogy of Tyrrhenus and the period of his migration, he feels justified in rejecting that event as a mere fiction. (Ant. Rom., 1, 30.) The advocates of Herodotus, however, have not been intimidated by these arguments, but have endeavoured to prove their insufficiency. Among these may be reckoned Ryckius (de primis Italia, colonis, c. 6); Bishop Cumberland (Connerion of the Greek and Roman Antiquities. Tract. 7, c. 2); Dempster (Etrur. Regal., 1,4); Larcher (Hist, d'Herod., vol. 1, p.); and Lanzi (Saggio, &c., vol. 2, p. 102). On the other hand, the reasons advanced by the Greek historian have appeared convincing to some eminent critics, such as Cluverius (Ital. Antiq., vol. 1, lib. 1, c. 1); Freret (Mem. de l'Acad, vol. 18, p. 97); and Heyne (Comment., &c., Nov. Soc. Gott., vol. 3, p. 39); who have, besides, added other objections to those already started. At length, in 1826, the Academy of Sciences at Berlin, by proposing the Etruscans as the subject of a prize essay, showed their opinion that the time was come when the scattered notices of the ancient writers should be combined with the discoveries in Etruscan antiquities which the last century brought to light, and the historical truth separated from the mass of contradictory theories beneath which successive writers had

buried it. Professor K. O. Müller, whose essay obtained the prize, had already distinguished himself by his Orchomenus und due Minyer (“Orchomenus and the Minyans”), and Dorier (“The Dorians”), two works in which an extraordinary extent of reading in archaeology and ancient literature is united to great sagacity in reconstructing from its fragments the ruined edifice of early Greek history. The dissertation on the Etrurians forms in every respect a suitable accompaniment to these.—We have already remarked, that even in ancient times it was a disputed question, whether the Etruscans were Pelasgi from Greece, or Lydians from Asia, or indigenous in Italy; and that the moderns had added more than an equal number to the hypotheses of the ancients. Thus some have supposed that the Etrurians might be descended from the Egyptians (Bomarotti, ad Monum.); others, from the Canaanites (Maffei, Ragion. delli Itali primitivi, p. 218, seqq.— Mazocchi, Comment, in Tab. Heracl., p. 15, &c.); others, from the Phoenicians (Swinton, de Ling. Etruria regalis Vernacula, Oxon., 1738); others again contended for their Celtic origin (Pelloutier, Hist, des Celtes, lib. 1, p. 178.-Bardetti, dei primi abut, d'Ital, vol. 1). Freret ascribed it to the Raeti (Mem. de l'Acad., &c., vol. 18); Hervas to the ancient Cantabri (Idea del Universo, vol. 17, c. 4); while some again gave up all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion in this puzzling question, and seemed to consider it as one of those historical problems which must for ever, remain without a solution. Müller's theory appears ingenious and plausible. He admits a primitive population of Etruria, whom he calls, after Dionysius, the Rasenae, on whose origin he does not decide, but thinks there are grounds for assuming, that these were mingled with a body of o: colonists from the coast of Lydia. We find in Greece a people bearing the name of Pelasgian Tyrrheni, driven from Baeotia by the Dorian migration, appearing as fugitives in Athens, and thence betaking themselves to Lemnos, Imbros, and Samothrace, where, as well as on Mount Athos, they remained in the historic times. The name Tyrrhenian is applied to the Etrurians in Hesiod (Theog., 1015), and, in the Homeric hymn to Bacchus, to this people of the Ægean. That they were not the Tyrrhenians of Italy by whom the god was carried off is evident; the pirates intended to carry him to Egypt or to Cyprus, not to Italy; and from other sources it appears that the mythus was a Naxian legend. Ovid (Met., 3, 577, seqq.) relates it at great length, and represents the Tyrrhenians as Maeonians. Now, on the coast of Maeonia or Lydia there was a place named Túppa, from which Müller deduces the name Tyrrhenian ; in all probability radically the same with Torrhebian, the name borne by the southern district of Lydia. He is inclined, however, to consider the people, to whom, from their occupation of Tiffa, the name Tyrrhenian was given, not as Lydians, but as Pelasgians, who settled for a time on this part of the coast, and having thence acquired their name, and made it notorious by their piracies in the AEgean, migrated first to the Malean promontory, and then to Etruria. In deriving them, however, immediately from the Pelasgians who came from Attica to Lemnos and Imbros, and thence to Lydia, he seems to embarrass his hypothesis with an unnecessary difficulty. He himself makes the worship of the phallic Hermes to be characteristic of the Pelasgi in Attica and the islands; yet of this he admits o; a trace is to be found in the Etrurian religion. It is remarkable how late is the application of the name Pelasgian to the Tyrrhenians. Herodotus not only never calls them so, but even by referring to the Crestonians, who live above the Tyrrhenians, for a proof of what the Pelasgic language was, he seems to imply that the Tyrrhenians themselves were, in his view, not Pelasgians; else why not take them at once for his ion No l

ancient author describes the Tyrrhenians of Lydia as Pelasgians from Attica and the islands. The genealogy of Herodotus from the Lydian authors makes Tyrrhenus a son of Atys, king of Lydia; in that given in Dionysius without the author's name, Lydus and Tyrrhenus are brothers; in that of Xanthus the brothers are called Lydus and Torybus or Torrhubus, i.e., according to Müller, Tyrrhenus. Whichever of these we argue from, it appears very improbable that the lineage of a band of Pelasgian pirates, who had settled on the coasts of Lydia, should have been carried up to the ancient kings or gods of the country; and that, too, not by the Greeks, but by the Lydians themselves. We cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion, that the Tyrrhenians were much more intimately connected with the Lydian population than Muller's account of them supposes. K. makes the Moeonians (the Homeric name for the Lydians) to be Pelasgians, arguing from the name of their stronghold, Larissa, which is found in all countries occupied by Pelasgians; Müller represents them as wholly different, alleging that no ancient author calls the Moeonians Pelasgians. This is true; but they make the Tyrrhenians Moeonians and also Pelasgians, and therefore imply, though they do not assert, the identity of the people who bore these three names. The whole coast of Asia Minor appears to have been occupied by the Pelasgi, or nations differing from them only in name. Menecrates (ap. Strab., 571) related, that the Pelasgi had occupied the whole of Ionia, from Mycale northward, and the adjacent islands; the Carians, the Leleges, and the Caucones, the Trojans, and Mysians, were of the same race, and also allied to the Lydians, as appears from the genealogy given by Herodotus (1,171). The Greeks themselves attribute the Pelasgic population of Asia Minor to colonies sent from Greece or from the islands; but their accounts of colonies before the Homeric age, being founded on no contemporary authority, must generally be regarded as historicai hypotheses, chiefly grounded upon similarity of names, which may often be more rationally explained from other causes. It is, however, by no means probable that the Lydians were wholly a Pelasgic people. The phenomena of the history of Asia Minor are most easily solved by the supposition that a nation of Syrian origin was mingled in its two principal districts, Lydia and Phrygia, with another nearly allied to the Greeks. The Mosaic genealogy of nations (Gen., 10, 22) assigns a Semitic origin to the Lydians; while it rofers most of the tribes of Asia Minor, along with the Greeks, to the stock of Japheth. The mythology of Lydia, the basis, as usual, of its dynasties of kings, betrays its Syrian as well as Grecian affinities. Their deities "Arrm, or "Arvo (the same as IIaraç, Hes.), and Mā, father and mother, have probably given their name to the Atyades and the Moeonians; and their worship is clearly the same with that of the Syrian oddess, who was variously denominated Atargatis, #. Semiramis, Rhea, Juno, and Venus. The chief seat of her worship at Hierapolis, was the resort of the people of Asia Minor; and Ascalon, in Phoenicia, appears to have been considered as a colony of the Lydians (Steph. Byz., s. v.) for no other reason than that the traditions of the great goddess were in a peculiar manner connected with this place. In the list of the kings of Troy, whose names are generally of Grecian etymology, the Oriental name of Assaracus points to a mixture of Oriental mythology; and this remark is still more applicable to the genealogy of the Heraclid kings of Lydia, in which Greek and Assyrian personages are so strongly mixed, Hercules, Alcaeus, Belus, Ninus, Agron. (Herod., 1, 7.) If, then, the Lydians were a people partly Asiatic, partly allied to the Greeks, there is really no contradiction between those historians who call the Tyrrhenians Lydians, and those who speak of Tyrrhenian Pelas

gians. The settlement of the Tyrrhenians at Malea, on their progress from Lydia to Italy, rests on very slight grounds. A passage, namely, in the commentator Lactantius or Lutatius on Statius (Theb., 4,224), who calls the inventor of the Tyrrhenian trumpet Maleus; but the resemblance between the Tuscan and the Lydian or Phrygian music, really adds considerable weight to the other arguments in favour of the Oriental colonization of Etruria. The musical instrument of the Greeks, in the heroic and Homeric age, was the lyre ; the flute was unknown, or, at least, not in use. }. has been long since remarked that Homer mentions the at 26, only in two passages (Il., 10,13; 18, 495). In the first of these he is describing the nightly noise of the Trojan camp, and the Villoison scholiast observes, that these instruments were known only to the Barbarians. This observation, though limited, is not contradicted by the other passage, in which youths are represented as dancing at a wedding to the sound of lyres and flutes. To say nothing of the suspicions which have been entertained, that the description of the shield of Achilles, of which this is a part, is not of the same age with the rest of the Iliad, it is very possible that the Greeks of Ionia may have employed the flute-players of Lydia or Phrygia at their festivities; or, should it be supposed that in the days of Homer the use of the flute was familiar to the Ionians themselves, the entire absence of all mention of it in the Odyssey shows that in Greece itself it had not yet been introduced. It came in there along with the worship of Bacchus, which, whatever may have been its remoter origin, certainly passed from Lydia and Phrygia to Thrace, and thence into southern Greece, devouring with its stormy music the feebler notes of the lyre. The double flute, of which the left hand played a treble to the bass of the right hand, is mentioned by Herodotus (1, 7) under the name of at 20g divoptioc and Yvvakeios, as used by the Lydians in war. Now the double flute, as we know both from ancient authors and from Inonuments (Inghirami, Monumenti Etruschi, pt. 3, pl. 20; pt. 2, pl. 96), was in use among the Etrurians; and the Romans not only borrowed their flute-music from them, but generally employed at sacrifices and festive dances a Tuscan flute-player. (Compare Virg., Georg., 2, 193. —Orid, A. A., 1, 111.) It is very improbable that such a coincidence between the Etruscan and Asiatic customs should be accidental; and no more probable explanation of it can be given than that the Tyrrhenians were really a colony of Pelasgi from Lydia. They were probably not numerous, compared with the Rasenae, whom they found in possession of the country; and hence, though some of their arts were communicated to the nation among whom they settled, they were soon so completely absorbed in it, that the language of Etruria bore no traces either of a Greek or a Lydian mixture. The adoption of a story of a Lydian origin by no means requires that we should reject the accounts of migrations of Pelasgi from Thessaly, and from the opposite shore of the Adriatic to the mouths of the Po, which we find in other writers on Etrurian history. Professor Mülker thus sums up this part of his researches: “It remains, then, that we regard the Tuscan nation as an original and peculiar people of Italy; their language is widely different from the Greek; the names of their gods are not those which we find among the earliest Greeks whom we call Pelasgi, and which passed from them to the Hellenes; there is much, too, in the doctrine of their priests entirely foreign to the Greek theology. But it appears to have been the fate of this nation, which never displayed any independent civilization, but only adopted that of the Greeks, to have been indebted for its first impulse towards improvement to a Greek, or, at best, half-Greek tribe. The Tuscans themselves, in their native legends, referred their polity and civilization to the maritime town Tarquinii, and the hero Tarchon, both probably only variations of the name Tyrrheni. Here it was that the much-dreaded Pelasgians of Lydia landed and settled, bringing with them the arts they had acquired at home or on their way. For the first time the barbarous land saw men covered with brass array themselves for battle to the sound of the trumpet; here first they heard the loud sound of the Lydo-Phrygian flute accompanying the sacrifice, and perhaps witnessed for the first time the rapid course of the fifty-oared ship. As the legend, in its propagation from mouth to mouth, swells beyond all bounds, the whole glory of the Tuscan name, even that which did not properly belong to the colonists, attached itself to the name of Tarchon, the disciple of Tages, as the author of a new and better era in the history of Etruria. The neighbouring Umbrians and Latins named the nation, which from this time began to increase and diffuse itself, not from the primitive inhabitants, but from these new settlers. For since, in the Eugubine tables, Trusce occurs along with Tuscom and Tuscer, it is impossible not to conclude, that from the root TUR have been formed Trusicus, Truscus, Tuscus; as from the root OP, Opscus and Oscus ; so that Tvønvoi or Tupanvoi, and Tusci, are only the Asiatic and Italic forms of one and the same name.” (Etrusker, vol. 1, p. 100.) The time of such a colonization can, of course, only be fixed by approximation. Müller supposes it to have coincided with the Ionic migration, and to have been occasioned by it. The Umbrians were powerful in the land of which the new colonists took possession, and long wars must have been carried on with them before they were dispossessed of the three hundred towns which Pliny (3, 19) says they once held in the country afterward called Etruria. To the south the Etrurians extended themselves to the banks of the Tiber, and even beyond it into Latium, as the name of Tusculum proves. According to their own traditions, the same Tarchon who founded the twelve cities of Etruria led a colony across the Apennines and sounded twelve other cities. Of such a tradition, the historian can receive no more than the fact, that Etruria, in the valley of the Po, was colonized from the southern Etruria. Bologna, anciently Felsina, which stands where the Apennines descend into the fertile plains which border the Po, was probably the first of these colonies, as it is called by Pliny (3, 20), “princeps quondam Etruriae :” the names of most of the others are uncertain. A stone, with an Etruscan inscription, has been found (Lanzi, vol. 2, p. 649) as far to the westward as Alessandria. Atria and Spina, near the mouth of the Po, were certainly Tuscan cities, and very important from their commerce with the Adriatic; but the foundation of both was claimed for the Pelasgians of Thessaly or the followers of Diomede. The same story of twelve colonies is repeated in reference to the settlement of the Etruscans in Campania. Müller supposes these to be really colonies from Etruria, in opposition to the opinion of Niebuhr, who thinks they were sounded by Pelasgian Tyrrhenians, confounded with the Etruscans from identity of name. At all events, the amount of Etruscan population in Campania cannot have been great, since the Oscan language, not the Etruscan, prevailed there; and not a single Etruscan inscription has been found in this whole district. This land of luxurious indulgence appears to have exerted its usual influence on the Etruscans, and they yielded the possession of it with little resistance to the Samnites, who poured down from the hills on the fertile plains of Campania. In their Italian settlement, the Tyrrhenians appear to have retained long the practice of piracy, which had made their name notorious in the Grecian seas; indeed, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the imputation falls on the Etruscans or the Tyrrhenians of

the Ægean. , Possessing harbours on both seas, they maintained the command of both, and made themselves formidable not only to merchant ships by their corsairs, but to the naval powers by their armaments. To their predominance in the lower sea, Muller attributes the circumstance, that the Greeks, while they had numerous colonies on the eastern and southern coasts of Sicily, had only one, Himera, on the north, as late as the age of Thucydides. Indeed, the dread of the Etruscans long prevented the Greeks from passing the straits of Rhegium with their ships; and it was not till the rise of the naval power of the Phocians that either the Adriatic or Tyrrhene seas were well explored by them. Rivalry soon followed; both nations endeavoured to possess themselves of Corsica; and the Etruscans, being joined by the Carthaginians, fought a desperate battle with their Phocian antagonists, in which victory ultimately sided with the latter. They were equally unfortunate in their naval wars with the Dorians of Cnidos and Rhodes, who had made a settlement on the island of Lipara. In the time of Pausanias, a consecrated offering of the Lipareans was seen at Delphi, made from the spoils of the Tyrrhenians. Another trophy of the victory of the Greeks over them has been brought to light in our own times. In the year 474 B.C., the people of Cumas, in Campania, being engaged in war with the Tyrrhenians, called in the aid of Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, by whom they were totally defeated; and Greece, as Pindar says (Pyth., 1,72), was delivered from slavery. In 1817, a brazen helmet was discovered among the ruins of Olympia, with an inscription to the following effect: “Hiero, son of Dinomeus, and the Syracusans (consecrate) to Jupiter, Tyrrhenian (arms) from Cuma." Two other helmets without inscriptions, but no doubt part of the same votive offering, were found at the same time. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript., 1, 34.—Id. ad Pind., vol. 1, p. 224.)--In opposition to the theory of Müller, however, another one has been advocated, with his usual ability and learning, by the celebrated Niebuhr. He makes the name Tyrsenior Tyrrheni, in Italy, to have belonged originally and properly to the Pelasgian population, and the Etruscans to have come in from the Rhetian Alps, and to have conquered the previous inhabitants. These new-comers he makes to have been the Rasenae of Dionysius, whereas Müller, it will be remembered, considers the Rasenae to have formed the primitive population of the land, and to have been conquered by the Tyrrheni. In reply to the question that very naturally presents itself, why, if the Etruscans were a foreign and distinct race, the Greek writers, nevertheless, invariably called them Tyrseni, and Etruria Tyrsenia, Niebuhr remarks, that the Etruscans had no more title to the name of Tyrsenians, than the English to that of Britons, or the Spanish Creoles to that of Mexicans or Peruvians: the strange name was acquired in all these cases, according to him, in precisely the same way. The whole theory is undoubtedly a very plausible one; but the difficulties with which it is encumbered are so numerous, that we cannot hesitate to yield an assent to the more rational view taken by Müller of this interesting but difficult subject. (Consult Niebuhr, Rom. Hist., vol. 1, p. 82, seqq., and 89, ed. 2, p. 38 and 108, ed. 3.-Hist. of Rome, p. 78, Libr. Us. Knowl.)

Domestic Manners, National Character, 4c., of the Etrurians.

It is not an easy task to paint the domestic manners and national character of a people who have transmitted no living image of themselves to posterity in literary compositions. The basis of the national prosperity of the Etrurians was agriculture, to which their soil and climate were well adapted, and which has always flourished in Tuscany, when the * of

« PoprzedniaDalej »