Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/181

Memnon. I7I and modern writers have done, from this source, still I as little see the necessity of attributing an oriental origin to such rites, when we meet with them among the Greeks. Homer'^s de- scription of the obsequies of Patroclus, though the poet strives to soften the ferocity of the act, by leading us to view it as a measure of the love of the hero for his deceased friend, when combined with other ancient legends, seems to imply that the Scythian practice described by Herodotus, of sa- crificing human victims together with other animals at the tombs of their dead kings, was not unknown to the Greeks of the heroic age^^ ? The inference I draw from this remark is, that, even if it could be proved that mournful rites had once been performed at the grave of Memnon on the ^Esepus, Mr J.'s hypothesis would gain nothing by the admission. I must here digress for a moment to meet an objection which may possibly occur to some readers, who have been led to consider it as an unquestionable truth, that hero-worship was unknown to Homer, and may therefore have been startled by the foregoing observation. Mr Mitford says (Chap. 11. Sect. 1.) '^Nor is there found in Homer any mention of hero-worship, or divine honours paid to men deceased, which became afterward so common."" This is an unfor- tunate mode of expression, since it must in general have the effect of preventing the reader from suspecting the real state philosophical or mystic doctrine wholly unknown to the ancient Greeks, though Pro- fessor Dissen (Pindar Comm. p. 653) seems to view it in a different light. '^ Ne Em- pedocles quidem philosophus deos ex his animabus fieri dicens plane inania finxit." Yet in the very passage he refers to, the distinction between the doctrine of Emp. and the old Greek theology appears very clearly, when we consider how Pindar expresses the same thing. Emp. (Sturz. v. 407 — 9) says: eU dh nriXo^ fxdvTei*^ t€ Kai v^voiroXoi Kal U]Tpoly Kai. Trpofxoi dvdpcoTroLCTLV eTrtx^oi/tOiCt TreXoi/Tai/'Ei/Oez/ dvaf^XdarTova-L ueol Tifiyai (fyipLcrn-OL, Pindar merely says: Olcrt oe (^epaecfiova iroivdv iraXaLov TrevOeo^ oe'Jerat, es tov virepdev dXiov Keivuov eudTcp erei dvoidoT ^J/vxd^ irdXiv. e/c n-dv pacri- X{J€9 ayavol, Kal adevei Kpanrvol, (rocpla t€ fxeyicrn-OL dvSpe^ av^ovT' es dh tov Xolitov Xpovov rjpwe^ dyvol irpo^ avdpoSirujv KoXevvTai Thren. 4. Indeed it can scarcely be imagined that Empedocles meant to express any commonly received doctrine, since he spoke of himself as a god in his life-time: eyw ^' vfxlv Oeos dptPpoTo^ ovk eVt Ovtjto^ HdjXedfxaL fieTd irdcn T6Tt/xei/o5, w(nrep eoiKe, V. 36?. Aristotle, or some one for him, says in his apology ( Athen. p. 697) ov yap av ttotc "Epfieia dueLV ol? ddavaTM irpo- aipovpLevo^ ws dvr]TU) pivr]fxa KarecrKevalov, Kal ddavaTlleLV ti^V (pvcriv l3ovX6p.evo^ eiri- TacpLOL^ dv TLfxa1*5 kKoapL^fja, 4» Quintus III. 680 describes a similar sacrifice at the funeral of Achilles, which he probably took from Arctinus.