DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4372#0114
98
into the ground; or, according to another reading of the passage,
that of breaking up the soil after the inundation, and clearing it
of aquatic plants. Costaz indeed does not admit such interpreta-
tion ; and as he overlooked this drove of hogs, he supposes the
custom to have been confined to the neighbourhood of Mem-
phis : but as we know that pork was held in abomination among
the Egyptians, and hogs were only slain for some few sacrifices,
as those of Bacchus and the Moon *, we can hardly conceive
the propriety of their being admitted here, unless they were used
for some purpose of husbandry.
apex; Si, ditoXsivv oitlvw, -rofi <rirtipx.s Jxatrro? «jv kuivtS xpapxv, to-taXXei I; duryy !;•
eirsdv Si xarxifxtrfii) rota ua) ta a-jrip^x, rov d^rov ri, aird riru pim. ' AitoStv^a-a; Si
to7<7( or) rov rlrov, ira xop'Ctrai. Vide Herod, lib. 2. xiv. The difficulties of this pas-
sage, arising from the extraordinary uses to which, according to the Historian, hogs were
reserved by the Egyptians, have been variously explained by his commentators. Some
have rejected the whole as a fable—others have interpreted us by porcce or porcellce,\. e.
furrows, as mentioned by Pliny. Some again, on the authority of Hesychius, have
alleged that this word sometimes signified oxen: and Larcher and Borheck (see the
note of the former on this passage, in his translation of Herodotus, vol. ii. page 102)
read /Bar/, instead of v<n, in the two places in which this latter occurs in the above
quotation : and instead of the reading, rirt cTttipa-s Ixxtrros rrtv Luiur' apapav, lo-faAAti
is »'unjy -j;, they substitute rors IvZxWuiv Is dvrrtv vs, ttiipti Zxxvros rrtv icuurS apupxv.
By these changes the only service in the process of Egyptian agriculture, ascribed to
the animals in question, is that of preparing the ground for receiving the seed after the
waters have retired.
As to the former part of the above passage, wherein Herodotus denies the use of the
plough to the Egyptians, the painted sculptures at Eleithias and in other parts of Egypt
afford a direct contradiction to his evidence on this subject. We must attribute this
incongruity cither to his want of information, or to the officious interpolation of some
ignorant transcriber.
* Vide Herod, lib. 2. xlvii 8c xlviii. At the former of these two festivals a hog was
sacrificed at the house door of each inhabitant, at the time of the evening meal
(rj) S'jr.vW.), and returned to the person of whom it had been purchased : at the latter,
which took place at the full moon, as soon as the animal was killed, the end of the
tail, the caul, and the spleen were collected together, covered with the fat contained
within the stomach, and burnt: the rest of the meat was eaten in the course of the day.
The
into the ground; or, according to another reading of the passage,
that of breaking up the soil after the inundation, and clearing it
of aquatic plants. Costaz indeed does not admit such interpreta-
tion ; and as he overlooked this drove of hogs, he supposes the
custom to have been confined to the neighbourhood of Mem-
phis : but as we know that pork was held in abomination among
the Egyptians, and hogs were only slain for some few sacrifices,
as those of Bacchus and the Moon *, we can hardly conceive
the propriety of their being admitted here, unless they were used
for some purpose of husbandry.
apex; Si, ditoXsivv oitlvw, -rofi <rirtipx.s Jxatrro? «jv kuivtS xpapxv, to-taXXei I; duryy !;•
eirsdv Si xarxifxtrfii) rota ua) ta a-jrip^x, rov d^rov ri, aird riru pim. ' AitoStv^a-a; Si
to7<7( or) rov rlrov, ira xop'Ctrai. Vide Herod, lib. 2. xiv. The difficulties of this pas-
sage, arising from the extraordinary uses to which, according to the Historian, hogs were
reserved by the Egyptians, have been variously explained by his commentators. Some
have rejected the whole as a fable—others have interpreted us by porcce or porcellce,\. e.
furrows, as mentioned by Pliny. Some again, on the authority of Hesychius, have
alleged that this word sometimes signified oxen: and Larcher and Borheck (see the
note of the former on this passage, in his translation of Herodotus, vol. ii. page 102)
read /Bar/, instead of v<n, in the two places in which this latter occurs in the above
quotation : and instead of the reading, rirt cTttipa-s Ixxtrros rrtv Luiur' apapav, lo-faAAti
is »'unjy -j;, they substitute rors IvZxWuiv Is dvrrtv vs, ttiipti Zxxvros rrtv icuurS apupxv.
By these changes the only service in the process of Egyptian agriculture, ascribed to
the animals in question, is that of preparing the ground for receiving the seed after the
waters have retired.
As to the former part of the above passage, wherein Herodotus denies the use of the
plough to the Egyptians, the painted sculptures at Eleithias and in other parts of Egypt
afford a direct contradiction to his evidence on this subject. We must attribute this
incongruity cither to his want of information, or to the officious interpolation of some
ignorant transcriber.
* Vide Herod, lib. 2. xlvii 8c xlviii. At the former of these two festivals a hog was
sacrificed at the house door of each inhabitant, at the time of the evening meal
(rj) S'jr.vW.), and returned to the person of whom it had been purchased : at the latter,
which took place at the full moon, as soon as the animal was killed, the end of the
tail, the caul, and the spleen were collected together, covered with the fat contained
within the stomach, and burnt: the rest of the meat was eaten in the course of the day.
The