a horrible corruption had polluted the sanctuary of Eleusis. It is probable, however, that these excesses occurred only among the Mystæ→→ of the Epopta, we have reason to believe that the number was very limited; and if it increased as the mysteries declined, still it cannot have been considerable, for we do not find that the secret of the sanctuary has ever been violated, even at this epoch.

In proportion as corruption was introduced, that spirit which aniinated the institution decreased, and vain forms continued to exist after the main spring had long ceased to act. The initiations were still practised under the christian emperors. St. Jerome says, "Hierophantas quoque Atheniensium usque hodie cicuta sorbitione castrari." Valentinian, who died in the year of Christ 374, wished to abolish the mysteries, after the reign of Julian, but abandoned this design, as we learn from Zonaras, on the representation of Prætextatus, proconsul in Greece, who told him that life would be no longer supportable to the Greeks, were they prevented from celebrating, after the customs of their forefathers, those sacred mysteries which bind together the human race-τὰ συνέχοντα τὸ ἀνθρωπεῖον γένος ἁγιώτατα μυστήρια.

But the mysteries appear to have been included in that general proscription of Theodosius the Great (between the year 346 and 395) which, as historians relate, overwhelmed all the altars of Polytheism. The mysteries, however, before their fall, enjoyed a brilliant although an unexpected epoch, and assumed a new aspect. This certainly was one of the most interesting moments of their history. It appears that the knowledge of some primordial truths confided to a small number of elect was perfectly compatible with the ignorance of the multitude, and that the natural ideas concerning the unity of God and the immortality of the soul were more diffused than is generally imagined, but the multitude persevered in the practices of Polytheism, through habitual respect for antiquity. Before its fall, Polytheism endeavoured to combat Christianity with its own weapons; and as the new religion addressed itself at once to all the intellectual faculties of man, the adherents of Polytheism strove to ennoble their faith by a moral dignity which it had never possessed, attributing to it an object entirely foreign from its character. For this purpose they assembled all that wore an appearance of mysticism, and thus formed what gave to Polytheism an aspect entirely new. Philosophy entered into the general conspiracy, or rather was at its head, but all in vain—and their united efforts only served to enhance the triumph of Christianity.

Of the Eclectic System, Marcus Aurelius was the hero, Julian the martyr-in the schools of the Philosophers its principal supporters were Apollonius Tyaneus, Ammonius Saccas, Jamblichus, Celsus, Porphyry, Proclus, and above all Plotinus, who so much abused his brilliant imagination. The Eclectics wished not only to re-establish the ancient authority of the Eleusinian Temple, but they introduced new mysteries unknown or unused before. The rites of Mithra, not practised in Greece, appeared at Rome under Trajan, about the year 101 of Christ. As all those efforts had but one object, it was contrived that the greater part of the ceremonies of Christianity should be borrowed. To these were added severe trials and terrible proofs. It is

even affirmed that blood was shed in the cavern of Mithras. Adrian forbade human sacrifices, but Commodus is accused of having immolated a man.

In these Mysteries were many symbolical representations: a fragment of Pallas, preserved by Porphyry, informs us that of these representations the principal subjects were the various transmigrations of the soul, and its residence on earth. The Orphic ceremonies were at this time considerably extended, the Platonists did not disdain to countenance them, and this sect made a great progress in the early ages of Christianity. Proclus undertakes to demonstrate that the doctrine of Plato was the same with that of the Orphics. It would seem, however, that the Platonists regarded the Eleusinian Epoptæ as a kind of physico-mystical theology, and that, like the Stoics, they sought in it, rather the nature of things than of the Gods. A passage of Eusebius (from Porphyry) serves to show how they sometimes explained certain symbols: Crystal, Parian marble, and even ivory, suggested an idea of the divine light, as gold of the divine purity. Some thought that a black stone expressed the invisibility of the divine essence. The divinity was represented under the human form, as designating supreme reason; and beautiful, God being the source of beauty. Of different ages, in various attitudes, of both sexes; all' that was luminous belonged to the Gods; the sphere and all that was spherical to the universe; to the sun and moon; sometimes to Fortune and to Hope; circular forms to eternity, and to celestial movements. The sections of circles to the phases of the moon; pyramids and obelisks to the principle of fire, and thence, to the heavenly Gods; a cone designated the sun; a cylinder, the earth; a phallus and trian gle, generation, &c.

Of these symbols, as we learn from Clemens Alexandrinus, most appertained to the Mysteries of Eleusis.

We shall not here pretend to trace the degrees of filiation which subsisted between the mysteries established at the birth of Polytheism, and the last philosophical systems preceding its fall, between the sanctuary of Eleusis, and the Alexandrian school of the Eclectics. The new Platonism was but an imperfect image of Plato's doctrine. Some of his ideas might be found in it, but distorted and deprived of their true signification. The Eclectics, in tracing them to Eastern ideas, restored them certainly to their source; but even this return must have affected the purity of Plato's philosophical conceptions. Of these they formed a strange combination with the worship of light, the system of emanation, and the doctrine of the metempsychosis, They personified the abstractions of the Greek philosopher, and the world was peopled with a crowd of intermediatory agents. It may also

* A Protestant divine of the seventeenth century accuses the Pythagoreans and Platonists as far as Marsilius Ficinus inclusively, of having been able Sorcerers and familiar with the Devil. (See "Colberg's Platon. Heriet. Christonth. tom. i. p. 168, et seqq.)

be said that the new Eclectics, who spoke more frequently of Plato than of Pythagoras, inclined, notwithstanding, more towards the latter and his school. Using the great authority of Plato's name, these Platonists, unfaithful disciples of the academy, would appropriate to themselves the severity of Aristotle's system, and hence resulted a strange compound obscure, full of imagination and of poetry, but which was the last form of Polytheism, and expired with it. However remote the school of Alexandria from that of Plato, we must allow to the Eclectics a happy and rare combination of force and imagination, of sagacity and genius. It is evident that placed amidst treasures accumulated by the Ptolemies, and thus become, as we may say, the heirs of ancient civilization and forerunners of the new lights, the Platonists formed a brilliant epoch in the annals of the human mind. We must particularly consider them with respect to the oriental ideas of which their works are full: a diligent study of the Mystic philosophy of the Indians, Arabs, and Persians, combined with new researches on the Platonic philosophy, would produce, undoubtedly, very great results, and enable us, perhaps, to seize the invisible but powerful chain that connects those singular doctrines, which we are in the habit of considering separately, and which, on that very account, appear to us almost incomprehensible.

It would be equally unjust to suppose that, in this great fermentation of ideas, the Christian religion was always found opposed to philosophy. Never, on the contrary, was an epoch more honorable to philosophy than the history of Christianity until the council of Nice. The impulse given by the Platonists had diffused a taste for philosophical study; nearly all the first fathers of the church were accused of having Platonised. Most of them believed that Plato was acquainted with the sacred writings; and this may be regarded as a proof that the Christian religion has never persecuted but rather wished to coalesce with true philosophy.

Thus has Mr. Ouvaroff endeavoured to show that the religious mysteries of Greece, far from being vain ceremonies, comprised, in fact, some remnants of ancient traditions, and formed the true Esoteric doctrine of Polytheism. This, when near its fall, strove to contend with the Christian religion. Faithful to its double doctrine, it revived on one hand all that was most striking in the Mysteries, and on the other, all that was exalted in philosophy. Hence the singular coincidence between the re-establishment of the Mysteries and the birth of Platonism; but public worship and philosophy had changed characters; they were only able to restore vain forms which involved Polytheism in their fall.

It now only remains for us to examine the fifth and sixth sections of our learned author's Essay, -- a pleasing task which we reserve for the next number of this Journal.

172

ARISTOTELIS PEPLI FRAGMENTUM.

ΑΡΙΣΤΟΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΠΕΠΛΟΣ, sive ARISTOTELIS EPITAPHIA in HEROAS HOMERICOS: Fragmentum ab H. STEPHANO primùm Editum, nunc pluribus auctum Epitaphus, partim nuper editis, partim nunc primum e eodice Harleiano.

Viro summo CHRISTIANO GOTTLOB HEYNE, Bonarum Literarum Antistiti gravissimo, Interpreti doctissimo, Literatorum Amico officiosissimo, Hoc ARISTOTELIS PEPLI FRAGMENTUM Honoris causa D. D. D. THOMAS BURGESS. DUNELMIE, 1798.

PEPLUS

LECTORI

S.

EPLUS erat navis Panathenaicæ velum, in quo depictus est Enceladus a Minerva occisus, et viri fortes, qui in bello de patria bene meriti essent. ' Nomen a nave Panathenica apte et ingeniose transtulit Aristoteles ad Epitaphiorum libellum, in quo ipse commemoravit fata ducum, qui in bello Trojano Græcis Trojanisque copiis præfuerunt. An præter duces Catalogo Navium Homerico memoratos, in alios etiam heroas Homericos Epigrammata scripserit hoc opusculo, non liquet e Porphyrii testimonio: in alios tamen scripta extant in iis, quæ Peplo vindicavit Canterus, scilicet in Antilochum, Automedontem, Deipylum, Patroclum, Teucrum, Talthybium, quæque ab uno et eodem scripta fuisse dubio caret: nec magis ex ejusdem Porphyrii verbis constat, an in ipsos omnes omnino duces. Certe Tzetzis temporibus, qui pleraque servavit, in nonnullos non extiterunt epigrammata, uti ille monuit.

Epitaphiorum, quibus contextum est Pepli hoc fragmentum, quadraginta et duo primus edidit H. Stephanus sine auctoris nomine. Eadem typis recudit G. Canterus et Aristoteli vindicavit : quibus autem argumentis, vide et in præfatione sua, et apud Fabricium. Deinceps in Aristotelis operum editiones Peplum receperunt editores.

Ex his plurima citavit Tzetzes in Scholiis ad sua Antehomerica, Homerica, et Posthomerica, quæ primus vulgavit V. Cl. G. B.

* "Ανδρες ἦσαν τῆσδε τῆς γῆς ἄξιοι, καὶ τοῦ ΠΕΠΛΟΥ. Aristoph. Ιππ. 566.

Schirachius Halæ 1778. editione quidem mutila sed acceptissima. Etenim in his Scholiis præter plurima olim edita tandem insperato prodierunt decem alia Epitaphia partim in duces Græcos Trojanosque scripta, partim in alios, neque vero Aristotelis nomine citata, neque ei a Schirachio tributa. Post Schirachium vir doctissimus Fr. Jacobs, qui Tzetzis opus longe emendatius et auctius edidit Lips. 1793. meliorum codicum lectionibus et additamentis adjutus, Epitaphiis in editione Halensi editis duo addidit; neque tamen ipse Aristoteli ea tribuit, neque in Anthologia sua egregia editione nupera Epitaphiis Stephanianis adjecit. Id fortasse me movere oportebat, ut Aristoteli ea ne tribuerem. Illa vero cum nulla careant eorum verisimilitudinis argumentorum, quæ CanteFum induxerunt, ut Stephaniana Aristotelis esse judicaret ; et eadem simplicitate scripta sint, quam in Aristotelicis laudavit Porphyrius; non dubitavi ea Aristoteli adscribere, et Stephanianis adeo hac editione adjungere.

Hæc duodecin Epitaphia a Scholiis Tzetzianis hausta tribus aliis auxi Epitaphiis in neam, Paridem, et Hectorem, quæ in eorundem Scholiorum codice Harleiano' reperi. Nec desperem, si diligentiore usu excutiantur codices Tzetziani, etiam iste, quem tractavi, Harleianus, ac præsertim Matritensis ille a Casirio memoratus, (vide infra not. ad Fabricii excerpta) aliquando alias repertum iri Pepli reliquias. Tzetzes enim Scholio ad Homerica sua, v. 118. de Leito scribens, Τὰ ἐπιγράμματα δὲ, ait, αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ὁμοῦ εἴπομεν. Αἱ Ληΐτου ἐπίγραμμα et aliorum nonnullorum in codice nostro frustra quæsivi. Tzetzis quidam plurima sunt in Thersitem, Polydamam, Troilum, Polyxenam, Palamedem, Euphorbum, alios; at hæc, quæ ab antiquis diligenter distinguit ipse Tzetzes, et revera longe differunt, ab instituto nostro aliena sunt. Epitaphii (56) in Asium fragmentum servavit Eustathius ad II. B. p. 270. ed. Bas.

Paulo diversi generis sunt Epitaphia (57 et 58.) in Penthesileam et Cycnum, qui ab Homero cum non memorati sint, in Trojani tamen belli tempora conveniunt, neque adeo fortasse ab Aristo telis consilio aliena: poeta certe non indigna: imo ceteris (excepto illo in Ajacem Telamonium) simplicitatis cum venustate conjunctæ palmam præripere videntur. Quæ Stephanus edidit in Laomedontem, &c. quoniam a Porphyrii testimonio longius discedunt, missa feci.

Notandum autem est Tzetzem, ut hæc quindecim Epitaphia Schirachio, Jacobsio, et nobis prolata, ita cetera a Stephano edita, non Aristotelis nomine citare: quippe quæ non Stagiritæ putaret esse, sed alius cujusdam Aristotelis, ut e Scholiis Tzetziis in He

MS. Reg. 16. C. IV.