FOOTNOTES
[4] It has been a favourite theory of learned men, that Virgil had access to Sibylline prophecies, which foretold the birth of a Saviour. How came the Sibyls, any more than the Pythonesses of Delphos, to be ranked on a sudden with the really inspired prophets? or is it credible that they should have had either the curiosity, or the power, to inspect the Jewish Scriptures? The “Sibylline Verses” were confessedly interpolated, if not fabricated, by the pious fraud of Monks. The imitations from Isaiah seem no less chimerical. Every description of a golden age among the poets may be wrested into a similar parallel. Nor is it to be conceived that Virgil would have produced so dry a copy of so luxuriant an original. This argument does not affect the extraordinary coincidence of the time of the appearance of this eclogue, with the epoch of the Messiah’s birth; which is exceedingly curious.
[5] See the epigram; which, for want of an owner, is ascribed by Tzetzes to Pindar:
Hail Hesiod! wisest man! who twice the bloom
Of youth hast prov’d, and twice approach’d the tomb.
[6] The Greeks were extremely fanciful about dolphins. Several stories of persons preserved from drowning by dolphins, and romantic tales of their fondness for children, and their love of music, are related by Plutarch in his “Banquet of Diocles.”
[7] See “Specimens of ancient Sculpture,” by the society of Dilettanti.
SECTION II.
ON THE ÆRA OF HESIOD.
The question of the æra when Hesiod flourished, and whether he were the elder or the junior of Homer, or his contemporary, has given rise to such endless disputes, that Pausanias declines giving any opinion on the subject. Some of the moderns have attempted to ascertain the point from internal evidence: 1st, by the character of style: 2dly, by philological criticism: 3dly, by astronomical calculation.
In the first instance they are unfortunately by no means agreed. Justus Lipsius asserts that a greater simplicity and more of the rudeness of antiquity are apparent in Hesiod: Salmasius insists that Hesiod is more smooth and finished, and less imbued with antiquity than Homer.
As to the argument of Heinsius respecting τεκμαιρομαι being used by Homer in the sense of to effect or bring to pass, and by Hesiod in that of to appoint, contrive, or will; and as to the former being the more ancient acceptation; the proof totally fails: inasmuch as Homer has repeatedly used the word in the latter sense: and with regard to the use of θεμιστας by Homer for law, when Hesiod uses νομους, which is asserted not to have been known in Homer’s age, the objection is vague; unless we suppose that Homer’s poems[8] contained every word in the language. The argument of the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, in favour of their being of a different age, and of Hesiod being the junior, turns on the word καλος; which in Homer is invariably made long in the first syllable; whereas Hesiod makes it either long or short at pleasure: and on the word οπωρινος; of which the penult is long in Homer, and short in Hesiod. But should the argument affect their being coeval, it does not appear why Hesiod might not be the elder: for who will be bold enough to decide as to the most ancient quantity? nor could we possibly determine the question, unless we were in possession of other poets, contemporary with Homer, who should be found to conform exactly with the Homeric prosody: in which case the disagreement of Hesiod might favour a presumption of his belonging, at least, to a different age. The criticism seems, however, in all respects unworthy of so acute a reasoner as Dr. Clarke: for surely the difference of country alone might induce a difference of prosodial usage, no less than a dissimilarity of dialect. But the most decisive answer to all such minute criticisms appears to be, that all the evidence afforded us on historical authority respecting the discovery, collection, and arrangement of the poems ascribed to Homer, justifies the presumption that their dialect, diction, and prosody have undergone[9] such modifications and changes, as to baffle all chronological reasoning drawn from the present state of the poems.
Scaliger and Vossius have thought that the æra of Hesiod could be ascertained within seventy years, more or less, by astronomical calculation, from the following passage of The Works and Days.
When sixty days have circled, since the sun
Turn’d from his wintry tropic, then the star
Arcturus, leaving ocean’s sacred flood,
First whole-apparent makes his evening rise.
It is singular that so great a philosopher as Dr. Priestley should also have argued for the certainty of the same method of chronology in this instance of Hesiod. (Lectures on History, Lect. xii. p. 99.) But neither the accuracy nor the precise nature of the astronomical observation here commemorated can possibly be ascertained. It is uncertain whether the single star Arcturus may not be placed for the whole constellation of Boötes; of which there are examples in Columella, and other writers. It is wholly uncertain whether this rising was observed in Hesiod’s own country, or even in Hesiod’s own time; a knowledge of both which particulars is essential to our making a just calculation. We shall scarcely ascribe to Hesiod a more scientific accuracy than to subsequent astronomers; yet we find that even their observations of the solstices and of the risings and settings of the stars, are ambiguous, and most probably fallacious. Hesiod makes the achronycal rising of Arcturus sixty days after the winter solstice: many other writers, and particularly Pliny, say the same. Now setting the difference between Hesiod and Pliny at 800 years, this will make a difference of eleven days in the time of the phænomenon. Both therefore cannot have written from actual observation, and probably neither did. The ancients copied from each other without scruple; because they knew not till the time of Hipparchus, that the times of rising &c. varied by the course of ages. They seem besides to have copied from writers of various latitudes: unconscious that this also made a difference. We shall not then be disposed to rely on this, or similar passages of Hesiod, for any secure data of chronology.
In the absence of internal evidence we are therefore referred to the opinions of antiquity. There is a remark of Gibbon in that part of his Posthumous Writings entitled “Extraits raisonnés de mes Lectures,” which lays down an excellent rule of judgment in matters of chronology. He very justly observes, that the differences of chronologers may be reconciled by the consideration that they reckoned from different æras of the person’s life. The fixing the date from different periods, as from the birth or death, the production of a work,[10] or any other remarkable event of a person’s life, might easily make the difference of a century. “So that we may establish it as a rule of criticism, that where these diversities do not exceed the natural term of human life we ought to think of reconciling, and not of opposing them. There are, indeed, many writers, with respect to Homer, whom it is impossible to conciliate; since they take in so enormous a period as 416 years, from the return of the Heraclidæ A. C. 1104 to the twenty-third Olympiad A. C. 688. But besides that they are of inferior note, the great difference among them leaves the authority of each to stand singly by itself.”
This reasoning very much diminishes whatever force might be derived from the authority of names, to the computations of those writers who contend that Hesiod is a century younger than Homer. These are the Latin writers; whose concurrence is however so exact as to induce a belief of their having merely copied from each other. Thus Velleius Paterculus, who wrote his history 30 years after Christ, says that Homer flourished 950 years before his time; that is, before Christ 920; and Pliny about the year 78 computed that Homer lived 1000 years before him; before Christ 920. Paterculus follows Cicero in placing Hesiod 120 years after Homer: Pliny, Porphyry, and Solinus, concur in the order of their ages, and in the interval between them: varying only from ten to twenty or thirty years. But on the plan laid down by Gibbon, this chronology might be reconciled with that of Ephorus, and Varro: who, according to Aulus Gellius, made Hesiod and Homer contemporaries: as did Plutarch and Philostratus.
This opinion is supported by the ancient authority of Herodotus; and by that of the Chronicler of the Parian Marbles. The authenticity of these marbles has, indeed, been impugned by a learned dissertation of Mr. Robertson, printed in 1788. To this an answer was published in 1789, by Mr. Hewlett: and Mr. Gough has defended the genuineness of the Chronicle in a Memoir of the Archæologia, vol. ix. Gibbon observes, “I respect that monument as a useful, as an uncorrupt monument of antiquity: but why should I prefer its authority to that of Herodotus? it is more modern: (B. C. 264:) its author is uncertain: we know not from what source he drew his chronology.”[11] The Parian Marble, however, if not a modern forgery, may be allowed to stand on the same footing with other Greek tablets of chronology.
Herodotus was born B. C. 484. He affirms Hesiod and Homer to have preceded his own time by four hundred years: thus making them contemporaries; and fixing their æra at B. C. 884.
The Chronicler of the Marbles fixes the æra of Hesiod at 944 years B. C.: and that of Homer at 907; by which Hesiod is placed 37 years before Homer; a difference, however, too trifling to affect the chronological evidence in favour of their contemporary existence.