all things; and [he will anger] all the gods and goddesses and demigods, and the lady queen herself. For the depositing of any other corpse [together] with these is forbidden once for all. Here it is impossible not to see that the maker of all things is the Hebrew god, and that he is classed with the gods of the heathens. Now in order to understand this apparently incongruous medley of Judaism and Heathenism, it is to be borne in mind that even before the commencement of the Christian era many of the Gentiles of Western Asia, especially the women, adopted the religion of Moses.* Sober-minded and austere people, it would seem, preferred Jewish morality to heathen licentiousness. Circumcision was not required of the converts at first. The stricter of the Jews, however, regarded it as one of the essentials of religion. † Proselytes to Judaism were called by the Greek Jews οἱ Ἰουδαΐζοντες, Judaizers, οἱ σεβόμενοι τὸν deóv, or simply oi σeßóμevoɩ, the worshippers of god, that is, of the god of the Jews. Among these converts, it is natural to suppose, there were some who, although willing to venerate and even to give the precedence to the god of the hated and despised nation, were by no means ready to admit that he was the only god in existence. They could not see why the addition of a barbarian god to the received list rendered it necessary for them to discard the gods of their forefathers. And such seems to have been the author of the Magnesian inscription before us. People of this liberal tendency are not wholly unknown in the East even now. Thirty years ago there was a Mussulman in Cairo who believed that Christ was as good as Mohammed. His Greek friends, who could not conceive of religious sincerity unaccompanied by intolerance, applied to him the epithet coμπaixτns (from θεός, ἐμπαίζω), the mocker of God. It is hardly necessary to mention * JOSEPH. Ant. 20, 2, 1 Τῶν ̓Αδιαβηνῶν βασιλὶς ̔Ελένη καὶ ὁ παῖς αὐτῆς Ἰζάτης εἰς τὰ Ἰουδαίων ἔθη τὸν βίον μετέβαλλον. Ibid. 20, 2, 3 et seq. Bell. Jud. 2, 20, 2 Εδεδοίκεσαν δὲ [οἱ Δαμασκηνοὶ] τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ἁπάσας πλὴν ὀλίγων ὑπηγμένας τῇ Ἰουδαϊκῇ θρησκεία. 7, 3, 3 'Αεί τε προσαγόμενοι ταῖς θρησκείαις πολὺ πλῆθος Ελλήνων, καὶ ἐκείνους τρόπῳ τινὶ μοῖραν αὐτῶν πεποίηντο. †NT. Act. 15, 1. 16, 1 seq. JOSEPH. Ant. 20, 2, 4, Izates is circumcised. TACIT. Histor. 5, 5. NT. Act. 13, 43. 50. 17, 4. 17. 18, 7. JOSEPH. Ant. 14, 7, 2 Пávтwv τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην Ἰουδαίων καὶ σεβομένων τὸν θεόν. Bell. Jud. 2, 18, 2 Τοὺς ἰουδαΐζοντας εἶχον ἐν ὑποψίᾳ. here the case of the Emperor Alexander Severus, who seriously thought of erecting a temple to the new god Christus.* With respect to the god of the Jews, the Greeks called him Iao (la, rarely 'Iaw, a word representing approximately the pronunciation of in the first century before Christ), and regarded him as one of the many gods of the universe. There is no evidence that they identified him with any of their known gods. Thus, Diodorus of Sicily, in speaking of the Jews, says that Moses, their lawgiver, received his laws from the god Iao,† so called. It would seem further that heathen magicians made use of 'Ia in their incantations, together with other appropriate divinities. ‡ Strabo's knowledge on the subject of the Hebrew god was very imperfect. He asserts that Moses taught the Jews that god was identical with nature; that is, he makes the greatest of the Jewish prophets a teacher of pantheism. § Josephus, however, in his fabulous account of the miraculous translation of the Hebrew books into Greek, represents a learned Alexandrian as saying to Ptolemy Philadelphus that the god of the Jews was identical with the Hellenic Zeus. And in an oracle forged by some Judaizing Greek, Iao, the most high god, appears as Aïdes or Hades in the winter, as Zeus in the spring, as Helios (Sun) in the summer, and as Iacchus in the autumn.|| This is another species of pantheism. But who is the Lady Queen of the inscription? Were we to adopt the practice of the most popular interpreters of the Bible, namely, to transfer the floating notions of the present day to the past, we should at once affirm that she can be no other than the Virgin Mary. This, * LAMPRIDIUS, Alex. Sever. 29 In larario suo (in quo . . . Christum, Abraham, et Orpheum et hujusmodi deos habebat). Ibid. 43 Christo templum facere voluit eumque inter deos accipere. † DIOD. 1, 94. † INSCR. 5858, 6, Δαίμονες καὶ πνεύματα . . ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸ ἅγιον ὄνομα 'Iac. ὁ τῶν ὅλων βασιλεὺς ἐξεγέρθητι [καὶ] ὁ τῶν φθιμένων βασιλεὺς μετὰ τῶν καταχθονίων θεῶν. See also IREN. 1, 4, 1. § STRAB. 16, 2, 35 Εἴη γὰρ ἂν τοῦτο μόνον θεὸς τὸ περιέχον ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. || MACROBIUS, 1, 18 Φράζεο τῶν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν Ιάω, Χείματος μέν τ' 'Αΐδην, Δία δ' εἴαρος ἀρχομένοιο, Ἠέλιον δὲ θέρευς, μετοπώρου δ ̓ ἁβρὸν 'Iáw. The last word is obviously a mistake. The true reading seems to be "Iakɣov, the god of autumn when wine begins to be abundant. Lobeck's emendation "Adwviv is not tenable. however, would bring the date of the inscription down to the sixth century; for the epithet déorowa did not begin to be applied to the Deipara long before the Justinian age. And it may be said that, as Justinian was the professed exterminator of the ancient religion of Greece and Rome, it would not have been safe for any one of his subjects to profane the name of the god of the emperor, by putting it in juxtaposition with the gods of the heathens. It must be added here, that this epithet began to be given to the empress as a title about the same period. But it is not easy to believe that the Lady Queen of the inscription refers to the emperor's wife. She must have been a goddess. It may be supposed also that she is the same as Isis, the great goddess of Egypt. Her worship indeed was quite fashionable in Greece during the Roman period, and her name appears in connection with Sarapis, Anubis, and Harpocrates, in several of the Delian inscriptions; but I am not aware that the Greeks ever designated her by the appellation the Lady Queen. * Pausanias informs us that the Lady ( Aéorowa) was the daughter of Poseidon and Demeter. This distinctive epithet was analogous to the Maid ( Kópŋ), the popular name of Persephone or Persephoneia, the daughter of Zeus and Demeter. Pausanias is prevented by his religious scruples from disclosing her real name to the uninitiated. He only states that Aéσowa bears the same relation to this mystical divinity, that Kópŋ does to Пepσepón. This Lady was the favorite Κόρη Περσεφόνη. goddess of the Arcadians.† And if we assume that she is identical with the Lady Queen of the inscription, it is natural to infer that her worship was not confined to Arcadia. On the walls of the church of Saint Nicholas (ó "Ayios Nikóλaos), near what is called, by courtesy, the Fort of Volo (τò KáσтρoV TOÛ Bóλov), I found the following sepulchral inscriptions. The slabs had * INSCR. 2293. 2295. 2302. † Pavs. 8, 37, 9 (6) Ταύτην δὲ μάλιστα θεῶν σέβουσιν οἱ ̓Αρκάδες τὴν Δέσποιναν, θυγατέρα δὲ αὐτὴν Ποσειδῶνός φασιν εἶναι καὶ Δήμητρος. Επίκλησις εἰς τοὺς πολλούς ἐστιν αὐτῇ Δέσποινα, καθάπερ καὶ τὴν ἐκ Διὸς Κόρην ἐπονομάζουσιν, ἰδίᾳ δὲ ἐστιν ὄνομα Περσεφόνῃ, καθὰ ̔́Ομηρος καὶ ἔτι πρότερον Πάμφως ἐποίησαν. Τῆς ·δὲ Δεσποίνης τὸ ὄνομα ἔδεισα εἰς τοὺς ἀτελέστους ypápew. For this unwillingness to reveal the true name, compare HER. 2, 170 Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ αἱ ταφαὶ τοῦ οὐκ ὅσιον ποιεῦμαι ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ πρήγματι ἐξαγορεύειν τοὔνομα ἐν Σάϊ. been brought from the ruins of Pagasæ, in the vicinity of said fort. With one exception they contain nothing but proper names and adjectives derived from proper names. I copied them in conformity with the philological canon that no ancient writing should be suffered to perish. Η ῥα ποθεινὸς πᾶσιν ἔβης δόμον Αϊδος οὔπω Διόγενες· γένος ΔΕ ΛΥΓΙ. ΝΣΤΥΓΙ. ΝΤΕΓ. ΝΕΥΣΙ ̓Αλλ ̓ [ο]ὐκ ἔστι τύχην προφυγεῖν καὶ δαίμονα ΝΗΤ Professor Jeffries Wyman, exhibiting a stereoscopic view of the skeleton of a double human foetus, discussed the question of the mode of origin of such monstrosities, and insisted that they never arose from actual coalescence of two individuals, but from the more or less extensive longitudinal division, or rather bifurcation, of the primitive stripe of the ovum, with which the development of the embryo begins. He was thus led to consider the question of individuality, and to maintain the ground that, since the two bodies or parts of bodies were not formed by the coalescence of two originally distinct primitive stripes, therefore they were to be regarded as one individual, even in a case so extreme as that of the Siamese twins. This view was criticised by Professors Parsons, Bowen, and Gray, the latter assenting to. this view of the origination of such double individuals, as agreeing with the chorisis or similar doubling of organs in the vegetable kingdom; but insisting that to call the Siamese twins one individual was a practical reductio ad absurdum of that idea of individuality, and that individuality should be considered as of complete or incomplete realization; e. g. that a bicephalous monster was the result of an incomplete development, the Siamese twins, of an essentially effectual development of two individuals out of the foundation of one, or in the normal place of one. Dr. C. Pickering submitted a statement relative to the geographical distribution of species, viz.: That his experience as a naturalist had led him to the conclusion, that the main limiting cause in the diffusion of species is to be found in the envelope of the ovum; in other words, the shell of the ovum governs the diffusion of species. When the shell of the ovum breaks before exclusion, as in animals called viviparous, the species cannot be diffused by means of ova. Other organic beings capable of locomotion are diffused both by ova and the wandering progeny; but plants are diffused exclusively by ova. Change the order of Nature; let the ova of insects be all borne VOL. V. 11 |