Page images
PDF
EPUB

which I shall endeavour to prove, by analogy, to be the stalk and flower of the lotus.

The various opinions concerning this plant have hitherto rendered every determination very uncertain; and such false and precarious explanations must abate and lessen the credit of those who have so grossly misrepresented it: Florem illum sacrum Isidis capiti impositum, loti esse putat Laur. Pignorius in expositione Mensæ Isiacæ, et recte, utpote quem Ægyptii magnificerunt, ut constat ex Plinii, lib. xiii. c. 17 et 18. aliis abrotanum referre videtur, de quo Plinius lib. XXI. c. 10 et 21. roborando utero, vel erucam, de qua dictum,

'Excitat ad Venerem tardos eruca maritos,

sunt qui Perseam interpretentur, cujus arbor Isidi sacra fuit.' Õiselius. If Pliny means the birds-foot trefoil, or any other land plant, it is certain he knew nothing of the true lotus; and, if this great naturalist knew not what it was, we may take it for granted, that the people of Rome knew less, who seem, in this case, to have worshipped these deities rather from the knowledge they had of their fables, than the history of their lives; in short, they appear to have known them better as gods, than as mortals.

As for our modern professors of virtù, they are so wide from the mark, that they have quite mistaken the element in which the plant grows; for if there be any credit to be given to Herodotus, the lotus is not a land plant, as they suppose it, but an aquatic, the water, and not the land being its proper situation; it was on the overflowing of the Nile, that this father of history saw it floating on the wat e in great abundance: ἐπιὰν πλήξης γένηται ὁ ποταμὸς, καὶ τὰ πεδία πελαγίση, φύεται ἐν τῷ ὑδαλι κρίνεα πολλα, τὰ ̓Αιγύπλιοι καλέυσι λωτος ταῦτ ̓ ἐπεὰν δρέψωσι, ἀναίνεσι πρός ἥλιον· καὶ ἔπελα τὸ ἐκ τὸ μέσω τὸ λωΐν, τῷ μήκων, ἐὰν ἐμφερές, ὁπλήσαντες, ποιεῦνται ἐξ αὐτῷ ἄρτὲς ὀπτὲς πυρὶ, ἔσι δὲ καὶ ἡ ῥίζα τὸ λωτο τετε ἐδωδίμη καὶ ἐγγλύσσες ἐπιεικέως ἐὸν τρογγύλον, μέγεθος nara unλor. 'When the river is become full, and all the grounds round it are a perfect sea, there grows a vast quantity of lilies, which the Egyptians called lotus, in the water. After they have cut them, they dry them in the sun; then, having parched the seed within the lotus, which is most like the poppy, they make bread of it, baking it with fire. The root also of the lotus is eatable, easily becoming sweet, being round, and of the size of an apple.' Herodotus Eut. c. From so plain a direction, in so celebrated an author, it is strange how the writers, mentioned by Oiselius, could be guilty of such a notorious blunder, as to seek this plant

92.

on land, where it never did or could grow, instead of the water, where they might have been sure to have found it without much trouble, if they had but trusted to the evidence of an eye-witness, and not to their own fanciful imaginations.

The lotus being thus re-instated in its proper element, from whence it has been unfortunately transported for so many ages, the next thing to be done, is, to consider where and to what tribe to refer this plant. This now is no difficult task to one whose wretched destiny it is, to live in the Delta of England, where the principal prospect is water, whereon are crawling insects innumerable, and in which grow some plants, and amongst the rest the lotus.

If analogy, or similitude, can be admitted as a reason, I will then venture to pronounce, that the Egyptian lotus, and the nymphæa alba major, are one and the same plant, and that there is no difference between them, but what is occasioned by the variety or difference of climates.

Before the reader gives his determination, he should compare what Herodotus has said of the inside of the flower-cup of the lotus, with the inside of the flower-cup of the nymphæa, or the white water lily, and he will find an exact similitude. But this is not all; he must view the stalk, with the flower at its extremity, in the medal, along with the nymphæa, when floating in the water in July, in all its glory, from whence he will be clearly convinced, that the stalk in the hand of Orus, with the flower at its extremity, can be no other but the white water lily. This I can assert, that after frequently examining them together, to me they seem in every part alike.

The lotus being now found not only to be an aquatic, but also to belong to a certain species, it is to be hoped we may from hence investigate the reason, why it was so particularly dedicated to the goddess Isis and her son Orus. It is well known that the Egyptians perpetuated their memorable facts by figures, which, when ascribed to their deities, often inculcated a double meaning; that is, they had different meanings, according to the different manners in which they were represented. Thus the lotus in this reverse, has a two-fold meaning; it is both a representation and a symbol, according to its different situation, and partakes not at all of the hieroglyphic, as it stands here.

In the hand of Orus it is figurative; importing no less a transaction, than his preservation. The Egyptians could not devise a more significant attribute to perpetuate the momentous event in the life of Isis, the saving of her son

1

from perishing in the water, than the making this most beau tiful water-flower the type or symbol of the deliverance. "Hunc, dum a Typhone ut spurium accusatum, imo discerptum, et in aquas projectum volunt, a Luna vero, seu Iside mundi matre, in aqua repertum, vitæque restitutum et immortalem redditum dicunt." Oiselius, fig. iii. What interpretation can be more natural, or so expressive of the story, as what is here given of it upon the medal? The flower is placed in her son's hand, as a symbol of the fact, which yet was so ancient and obscure, as to be quite forgotten in the days of Hadrian; for, if the Romans then knew not the plant, how should they know the meaning of the device.

But now, on the other hand, the lotus, placed on the head of the goddess, was not a symbolical but a real representation, signifying that she had discovered the use of meal for the benefit of man, by kneading it into bread, iy siμí ñ æpárn καρπὸν ανθρώποις εὑρωσα. A more beneficial invention never was, nor could be, for man's support, than the act of making bread, which was gratefully commemorated by some cities with much pomp and ceremony: παρ ̓ ἐνίαις δὲ των πολέων, καὶ τοῖς Ισείοις, εν τῇ πομπή μετὰ των ἄλλων φέρεσθαι πυθμένας πυρὼν καὶ κριθωνη ἀπομνημόνευμα των εξαρχῆς τῆ θεώ φιλοτεχνώς εὑρεθενίων. "In some of the cities, in the feasts of Isis, there were carried in the procession, amongst other things, the stamina of wheat and barley, as a memorial of the original and beneficial inventions of the goddess." Could any other representation be so full to the purpose, or declarative of the goddess's discovery, as the flower of that very plant, from whence the seed proceeded of which the bread was made? This however must be added, that if the lotus of the Nile made no better bread than the nymphæa alba major of the fens does, whoever sups on it once will never desire a second repast of the same. But still Herodotus assures us, that bread was actually made of it, and that's enough for our present purpose, seeing we are not speaking of the goodness of bread, but the fact of its invention.

BEN. RAY.

1759, April.

XLIV. On the Temples of the Ancients.

AFTER all the wonders that have been related of the temples of Jupiter Olympius, Diana of Ephesus, Serapis, &c.

it may well be questioned, if, upon the whole, those ancient edifices surpassed our modern churches in grandeur and riches. To determine the point, it will be necessary to take a view of the temples, built in the plains, and those erected in great cities.

Traverse the open countries of Greece, Peloponnesus, and the adjacent isles, and you will every where meet with little edifices, said to be temples; some half in ruins, others in tolerable good condition, without any thing material to distinguish them; no external ornaments, most of them brick, and the best of them finished in a dome or roof, ornamented with some slight sculpture. A few indeed there are surrounded with groves, consecrated by superstition, or designed to shade the worshippers of the idol; all of them placed in desarts, uninhabited, except by here and there a hermit, who makes it his whole study to amuse travellers with fables. It is not therefore among these structures that you are to look for the magnificence of the Grecian temples.

The Romans, who were also accustomed to erect temples in the country, derived all their deities, celestial, terrestrial, and infernal, from Greek origin. There was not a single canton of Attica, or Thessaly, where some metamorphosis had not been wrought, or some divine combat happened. These exploits served to extend superstition, and multiply the monuments that were to perpetuate it. But the Romans, who were the petty imitators of the Greeks, fell short of their masters in the dimensions of their insulated temples.

It may perhaps be said, that we give the name of temples to edifices, which, in ancient times, were never considered as such; but without entering into a discussion, let it suffice, that the buildings we are speaking of, were sacred and public; still retaining their first furniture of statues, altars, and tripods. We meet with nothing more essential to the ceremonious part of worship, among the larger temples of Athens and Corinth. If no other structures were to be com prehended in the denomination of temples, but those whose extent is to be measured by acres and stadia, it must be admitted that Rome herself, the city of all the Gods, had no more than three; those of Jupiter Capitolinus, of Peace, and the Pantheon. These are the only ones that were above the ordinary size; the last, still subsisting, is but 144 feet in diameter. Time has also spared the temple of Fortuna Virilis, and of Vesta; the one is an oblong square, the other round: the Pantheon will hold them both.

We know to what heights the bold imaginations of the ancient architects ascended, in their profane edifices, as theatres, baths, and basilicæ, But we must examine their city temples, to know if they did as much in honour of their Gods.

Most of the antiquaries, who have treated of ancient temples, have been more curious in describing their magnificence, than in fixing their dimensions. In what they have said upon this head, we have discovered two marks of inaccuracy, out of which has arisen the false idea that has prevailed of the sacred edifices of Greece and Rome. 1. They apply to temples in general, what appertained only to some particular ones. 2. They distinguish not between the temple and its appendages. They tell us, that in the front of these temples there was always a spacious court, called the area, where merchants vended the necessaries for sacri fices, offerings, and libations; that there was besides, a fountain for purifying the sacrificators and victims; that from the area you passed into a court called Atrium; thence to the Vestibulum, and then into the body of the building, named Cella, where were the Gods, Altars, &c. This Cella consisted of three principal divisions; the Basilica, answering our nave; the Adytum, like a sanctuary; and the Tribunal, where stood the statue of the deity whose name the temple bore. They speak of the Penetrale and Sacrarium, and are not a little perplexed about the distribution of these several parts. If this description holds good of the temple of Diana Ephesea, or of Jupiter Olympius, it cannot of most of the rest.

Ancient Rome was of immense extent; but, considering the great number of temples contained within it, we must suppose it at least three times as large as it really was, if all those temples were furnished with Porticos, Prodromi, &c. It is certain, that during the six first centuries of Rome the temples were no larger, nor more magnificent, than the houses of the citizens, which were but of one floor; their poverty would admit of no more. Such at least, was the state of things before the Romans made conquests in Greece. Pliny assures us, that in the 662d year of the city, there was not a marble column in any public edifice; at which time the temple of the Feretrian Jupiter was but fifteen feet in length. Fortune was one of the deities most honoured by the Romans; the worship of Vesta was held most sacred, and what I have remarked of the temples of these Goddesses, which are still standing, may suffice to

« PreviousContinue »