Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons (part 3 of 4)

Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons (part 3 of 4)

Here then is another instance where the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are announced to be the same people. “At the mouth of two witnesses shall the matter be established.” See Deut. xix. 15; also 2 Cor. xiii. 1. “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.” Exod. iii. 1.

“When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt, then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, (after he had sent her back,) and her two sons.” Exod. xviii. 1, 2, 3.

“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” Num. xii. 1.

Even in the poetic strain of the prophet, there is a vestige that goes to prove the sameness between the Midianites and the Ethiopians. “I saw the tents of Cushan (כוּשָׁ֑ן Ethiopians) in affliction, and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.” Hab. iii. 7.

Are these facts no proof that the descendants of Misraim were black?

* * * * *

Let us then proceed to the same inquiry concerning the descendants of Phut.

In the Antiquities of Josephus, book i. 6, we find the following: “The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus and the mountains of Lybanus; seizing upon all that was upon the seacoasts and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some, indeed, of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given, hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are, which kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men of Asia, called Chusites.” “The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name, for we who inhabit this country (Judea) call Egypt Mestra, and the Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the founder of Lybia, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself. There is also a river in the country of the Moors which bears that name, whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river, and the adjoining country, by the appellation of Phut. But the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mestraim, who was called Lybios.” His name, in the English version of Genesis, is Ludim. From him the Lybian desert has taken its name, and the country now called Lybia. Thus we discover from Josephus that the memorials of the nephew had obliterated those of Phut, his uncle. As Phut was the founder of Lybia, which was at one time called by his name, it may be well to inquire as to the extent of that region, that we may know where the descendants of Phut have resided from the time of their progenitor till now.

In order to form a tolerably correct idea of what was the country once called Phut, we have to examine how far the son of Misraim extended his name in superseding him. We quote from the Melpomene of Herodotus, where he compares the extent of Lybia, Asia, and Europe. Concerning Lybia, he says—

“Except in that particular part which is contiguous to Asia, the whole of Lybia is surrounded by the sea. The first person who has proved this was, as far as we are able to judge, Necho, king of Egypt: when he had desisted from his attempt to join, by a canal, the Nile with the Arabian Gulf, he despatched some vessels, under the conduct of Phœnicians, with directions to pass the columns of Hercules, and, after penetrating the Northern Ocean, to return to Egypt.

“These Phœnicians, taking their course from the Red Sea, entered into the Southern Ocean. On the approach of autumn they landed in Lybia, and planted some corn in the place where they happened to find themselves. When this was ripe, and they had cut it down, they again departed.

“Having thus consumed two years, they in the third doubled the columns of Hercules and returned to Egypt. Their relation may obtain attention from others, but to me it seems incredible; for they affirm that, having sailed round Lybia, they had the sun on their right hand. Thus was Lybia for the first time known.”

Hanno, a Carthaginian, was sent, about 600 years before our era, with 30,000 of his countrymen, to found colonies on what is now the western coast of Africa. His account commences—“The voyage of Hanno, commander of the Carthaginians, round the parts of Lybia, which lie beyond the pillars of Hercules.”

In the body of the work he says—“When we had passed the pillars on our voyage, and sailed beyond them two days, we founded the first city, which we named Thurmiaterium. Below it lay an extensive plain. Proceeding thence towards the west, we came to Solous, a promontory of Lybia.”

Having proceeded on with his voyage, he says—“We came to the great Lixus, which flows from Lybia; on its banks the Lixitæ, a shepherd tribe, were feeding their flocks, among whom we continued several days, on friendly terms. Beyond the Lixitæ dwell the inhospitable Ethiopians.”

Herodotus, immediately preceding our quotation of him, says—“Lybia commences where Egypt ends; about Egypt the country is narrow; one hundred thousand orgiæ, or one thousand stadia, comprehend the space between this and the Red Sea. Here the country expands and takes the name of Lybia.”

Africa, to an indefinite extent, was the country of Phut.

The result of the inquiry thus far is, that the tribes of Phut amalgamated with the descendants of Misraim, until all family memorials of them became extinct. But let us examine what memorials of Phut are to be found in the holy books. “Ethiopia and Egypt were thy strength, Put and Lubim were thy helpers.” Nahum iii. 9.

Put is the same Phut; in the text the letter is dagheshed, which takes away the aspirate sound. We here notice that Put and Lubim are associated together.

“They of Persia, and of Lud, and of Phut, were in thine army, thy men of war.” Ezek. xxvii. 10.

“Persia, Ethiopia, and Lybia with them: all of them with shield and helmet.” Ezek. xxxviii. 5.

In this instance the word Lybia is translated from Phut. We take this as proof that the country of the son of Misraim and Phut was the same, and the two families amalgamated.

“Come up, ye horses, and rage, ye chariots: and let the mighty men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Lybians that handle the shield.” Jer. xlvi. 9. Lybians is also here translated from Phut.

“Were not the Ethiopians and the Lubims a huge host?” 2 Chron. xvi. 8. There Phut is lost in that of Lubim, as accounted for by Josephus. The families were wholly amalgamated, the nephew carrying off the trophy of remembrance.

The proof that the family of Phut were black is rather inferential than positive; but can the mind fail to determine that it is certain?

But again, Phut, as an appellative, signifies scattered. Thus Num. x. 30. “Let thine enemies be scattered,” (פֻּצּוּ phutsu.) In Genesis x. 18, it is used with the same Heemanti, and with the same effect, which we have noticed in the word Naamah, thus: “And afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad,” נָפֹ֔צוּ naphotsu. The idea is, by the influence of the circumstances attending them, they were scattered. The condition is involuntary, the action implied is reflective. A similar use of the word occurs in 2 Samuel xviii. 8: “The battle was scattered,” נָפִֹצֶו֯ת naphotseth; that is, it was scattered only as it was forced to be by the circumstances attending it. The distinctive appellation thus of the family of Phut, means a scattered people. The phonetic synonyme of Phut means scattered, in all the Shemitic tongues.

* * * * *

Thus in Arabic, فَاَطس phats, and its variations, put down, abiit, peregrinatus fuit in terra, &c. In Coptic, Ⲫⲏⲧ fet phet has the same meaning; but in the hieroglyphical writings of the Copts, found in Egypt, the idea scattered is represented by an arrow. But an arrow is called phet, because it is shot away, scattered. And the country or people of the Phutites is represented by a bow, segment of a globe, nine arrows, and an undulating surface. Those who have made researches in such matters say, the phonetic power of this is nephaiat. It will be perceived to be quite analogous to the Heemanti prefixed to the root. The people who have been compelled to be exceedingly scattered.

When Jonathan wished in an emphatic manner to signify to his friend David that he should depart, go off from his family, &c., he shot an arrow beyond him. Was not the arrow emblematical of what was supposed his only safe condition?

These explanations as to the significance of the word Phut will enable us better to understand Zephaniah iii. 10. “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, (בַּת־פּוּצַ֔י bath Putsa, the descendants of Phut,) shall bring mine offering.” Unknown and scattered as they are over the trackless wastes of Africa, yet even to them shall come the knowledge of the true God. They shall, at one day, come to the knowledge of the truth.

The hieroglyphical record relating to the Phutites is considered, by those versed in such matters, to point to a period of at least 2000 years anterior to our era. The inference, to our mind, is clear, that the family of Phut at an exceedingly ancient period was wholly absorbed and lost sight of among the other families of Ham, especially in that of Ludim, the oldest son of Mitsraim: that they were of the same colour and other family distinctions, unless it may be they differed in a deeper degradation: that for numberless ages the mass of the descent are alone to be found in the most barbarous portions of Africa.

------------------

LESSON XII.

In the inquiry, What evidence have we that the Canaanites were black? we may find it necessary to refer to various facts which have come down to us, connecting their history with that of the Israelitish people.

Perhaps no fact could be better established than that Abraham lived on the most friendly terms with the Canaanites. He was a confederate with their kings. When they lost a battle, he retrieved it. They treated him with the utmost regard, and he them with a generous liberality. Could he not have wedded his son among them, to whom he chose?

“And Abraham said unto the eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell.” Gen. xxiv. 2, 3.

Under the circumstances of the case, what could have influenced such a determination?

“And Rebecca said unto Isaac, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as those which are the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me? And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” Gen. xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1.

On what rational ground are we to account for this extraordinary repugnance?

The conduct of the sons of Jacob does not determine them to have been very sincerely religious. The soul of Shechem, a prince of the country, clave unto Dinah their sister; he was rich, and offered ever so much dowry for an honourable marriage with her; and to show his sincerity, even abandoned his old, and adopted their religion. There must have been some other deep and unalterable cause for their unchangeable aversion to that proposed marriage of their sister.

“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

“And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” Deut. vii. 1, 2, 3.

The laws of God are always predicated upon some sufficient cause: in such cases we may ever notice a tendency towards the prevention of deterioration.

“Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” Ex. xxii. 19.

The terms Japhet, Laban, Hor, and their derivatives in significancy ever include the idea white, of a light colour. These terms are applied among the descendants of Japheth and Shem, as the appellatives of their races and individual names, and as adjectives in description of their personal appearance, too frequently to permit a doubt of these families belonging to the white race.

There is but a single case in all the holy books, where any of these terms is applied to a person of colour, and which we trust we have explained; and if our view be correct, how came the poet to require its use there, unless to elevate the character he celebrates! Do we use any term to signify that a person is white in a country where there are none but white people? Whatever evidence then there may be that the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were white people, is also just as positive testimony that the Canaanites were black. See Gen. xxvi. 34, 35.

But in Judges i. 16, we find that the family of the race of Ishmael out of which Moses took his wife are denominated Kenites. We think that we have abundantly proved that they were black. From this connection of Moses, the Israelites seem to have felt some regard for that race. Now it appears that some of that descent were afterwards residing in the cities of Amalek; for we find in 1 Samuel xv. 6, that “Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed.” How should it be a fact, since they were black, that he could not distinguish them from the Amalekites, unless the Amalekites were black also?

The Amalekites were Canaanites, notwithstanding they claimed Esau in their ancestry. “Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan. Adah the daughter of Ebon the Hittite; * * * and Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz; * * * and Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek.” Gen. xxxvi. 2, 4, 12.

The Amalekites were one of those tribes, that the Israelites were particularly commanded to destroy from off the earth; and in them, he who amalgamates with the daughters of Ham may see his own prospect as to posterity.

------------------

LESSON XIII.

There are circumstances in evidence that the descendants of Ham were black, more properly referable to the whole family than to either particular branch.

Among this class of circumstances, we might mention the tradition so universal through the world, that we know no age of time or portion of the globe that can be named in exception, that the descendants of Ham were black; and that the fact announced by that tradition is made exceedingly more probable by the corresponding tradition, that the descendants of Japheth and Shem were white.

The holy books provide proof that Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, were white. Their descendants sojourned in Egypt in a state of bondage about four hundred years, in the course of which time there was a law that all the male Hebrew children should be put to death at their birth. When the mother of Moses put him in the ark of bulrushes, she would have disguised his birth as much as possible, for the safety of his life. Yet no sooner had the daughter of Pharaoh beheld the infant than she proclaimed it to be a Hebrew child. If there was no difference of colour, from whence this quick decision as to the nationality of an infant three months old?

But during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, it is to be apprehended there was more or less commixture between the two races; and, if the two races were of different colour, that there would have been left us some allusion to such offspring; and so we find the fact.

“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, besides children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them.” Exod. xii. 37, 38. The word “mixed” is translated from עָרָב ereb, arab. The word means of mixed-blood, that is, the mixture of the white man with the black; and in consequence thereof is often used to mean black itself, and is universally applied as the appellative, and has become the established name of the mixed-blooded people of Arabia, the Arabs; and because it became a common term to express the idea black, a dark colour, &c., it was applied to the raven; and even at this day, who can tell whether Elijah was fed by the ravens or the Arabs, because the one word was used to mean both or either. And a multitude of persons of colour, of Hebrew and black parentage, went up also with them.

This word is used to express the idea of a mulatto race, in Num. xi. 4, and the “mixed multitude;” also Neh. xiii. 3, “They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude;” also Jer. xxv. 20, 24, thus: “And all the mingled people,” mixed-blooded, “and all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people,” mixed-blooded people. By the expression mixed multitude, it is clear Moses included the offspring of the Hebrew with the race of Ham. But would there have been such distinction if there was no difference of colour? It will be recollected that the children of Ishmael were three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, consequently quite dark. It will also be recollected that when Esau perceived how extremely offensive to his father and mother was his connection with the Canaanitish women, that he took wives of the house of Ishmael. It should also be recollected that Ishmael named one of his sons Kedar. As we shall hereafter refer to this word, we propose to examine its meaning and formation. It is of Arabic derivation, Arab. درࣨ, Hebrew דַּר dar, and in this form is used Esth. i. 6, and translated black marble. With the prefix of the Hebrew koph it becomes קֵדָר Kedar, and is equivalent to “the black.” It is used in Hebrew to mean black, in 1 Kings xviii. 45; Job vi. 16, 30, 28; Isa lx. 3; Jer. iv. 28; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8, and many other places. The very name of the son of Ishmael was tantamount to “the black.”

In the poem called Solomon’s Song, the female whose praises are therein celebrated, says, “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me because I am black; because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me, they made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyards have I not kept.” Cant. i. 5, 6.

The word black, which twice occurred in the text, is translated from שָחַר shahar, with many variations. The words mean abstractly the idea black. Examples of its use will be found in Lev. xiii. 31, 37, thus: “And there is no black hair in it.” “And there is black hair grown up therein.” Job xxx. 30: “My skin is black upon me.” Zech. vi. 2, 6: “And in the second chariots black horses. The black horses that are therein.” Lam. iv. 8: “Their visage is blacker than a coal.” Cant. v. 11: “His locks are bushy and black as a raven.” There is no mistake about the meaning of this word; she was surely black, and she says that she is as black as the tents of Kedar.

The inquiry, then, now is, who was she? When we take into consideration the Asiatic mode of expression, from the term “because the sun hath looked upon me,” we are forced to understand that she was from a more southern region. That she was not a native of Palestine, or especially of Jerusalem. Figures of somewhat analogous import are occasionally found among the Roman poets. But we suppose, no one will undertake the argument that she was black, merely because she had been exposed to the sun!

In vii. 1 of the Hebrew text, she is called Shulamite. Some suppose this is a formation of the Gentile term שׁוּנֵם Shunem, because they say the lamda was sometimes introduced. In that case it would be the synonyme of Shunamite, and would locate her in the tribe of Issacar. But we see no necessity of a forced construction, when a very easy and natural one is more obvious. We omit the dagesh. שׁוּלַמִית Shulammith is readily formed as the feminine of שְׁלֹמֹה Shelomoh, Solomon, after the Arabic form شُليْمَنࣨ Suleiman, and, so used, would be quite analogous to what is now quite common—to apply the husband’s name as an appellative of the wife. Upon the occasion of her consecration into Solomon’s household, she well might, even at that age, be called by a term that would imply such consecration, especially in the poem celebrating her nuptials. And we may remark that the use of this word is in strict conformity to the usage of the Hebrew and Arabic poets, because it creates an implied paronomasia, derived from שׁוּל, signifying that she was a captive by her love to Solomon, and if she stood in any such relation to him politically, the beauty of the figure would at that age have been considered very greatly increased. The poets, at that age of time, in compositions of the character of this poem, appear to have been ever on the search for an occasion to introduce figures of this class; and the more fanciful and extreme, the more highly relished. We fail therefore to derive any knowledge of her origin from this term. We have dwelt upon this particular thus long, merely because commentators have been so desirous to find out a clue to the history of the poem. Some commentators of elevated character, suppose this subject of their epithalamium to have been the daughter of Pharaoh, simply because she was black, and is addressed: “O prince’s daughter!” Undoubtedly she was the daughter of some prince or king. But the question now, is of what one? There is no probability that the kings of Egypt, nor even the nobility of that kingdom, had been of the race of Ham for many ages. Egypt had been conquered by the Shemites as early as the days of Abraham, and there is no proof that the descendants of Ham ever again ascended the throne; although, perhaps, their religion had been adopted by their successors from motives of policy, the great mass of the population being of the old stock.

In fact, the mixed-blooded races, and indeed the Shemites of pure blood, have, from time immemorial, shown a disposition to settle in Egypt. The Persians and the Greeks have also, for a very long time, aided in the amalgamation of the Egypt of the middle ages of the world.

But she is made to say that she is “the rose of Sharon;” as much as to say, the most excellent of her country. This district of country will be found to embrace the Ammonites, and perhaps some other of the ancient tribes of the family of Ham, at that time under the government of Solomon. And, iv. 8, we find Sharon called by its Ammonitish name, amid a cluster of figures having relation to the locality and productions of that country.

In short, the whole body of this extraordinary poem points to the region of the Ammonites for her native place of abode. Now, since Solomon had an Ammonitess by the name of Naamah for a wife, and since he selected her son to succeed him on the throne, it seems at least quite probable she was the person it commemorates; and that fact will make quite intelligible the allusion to her having been elevated from a servile condition. But, nevertheless, if it shall be thought not sufficiently proved that she was the mother of Rehoboam, yet she surely was of some one of the Canaanitish or Hamitic tribes, and was as surely black; and so far is in direct proof that the descendants of Ham generally were black also.

There are incidents of this poem which it would seem cannot be explained on other ground than that this marriage was one of state policy on the part of Solomon; and the queen upon this occasion selected was from some one of the heathen nations of the descendants of Ham, whom he had subjected to his government. It will be recollected that these nations, whom the Israelites had failed to destroy, had omitted no occasion to make war on the Hebrews, from the time of Joshua down to that of David; and that they occasionally had them in subjection.

Solomon had no guarantee how long his rule over them would prove quiet, or how far they would yield obedience to his successor. What could induce him to marry an Ammonite princess, and place her son upon his throne, if not to effect this purpose? Even at the time of the nuptials a reference to this political union might well find a place in the songs to which it gave birth. We introduce one of the incidents to which we allude: we select the close of the sixth strain. This poem is written in the form of a dialogue, mostly between the bride and groom.

Solomon. Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee.

Naamah. What will ye see in the Shulamite?

Solomon. As it were the company of two armies.

This surely needs no comment. The poem had already recited every mental and personal quality; was it then unnatural delicately to allude to her political importance? The art of the poet, however, to cover the allusion, recommences a view of her personal charms, changes his order, and commences with her feet.

Much learning has come to many untenable conclusions concerning this poem, among which, that of the Targum may be placed in the lead.

------------------

LESSON XIV.

We have heretofore noticed how, in 2 Chron. xvi. 8, the name Phut is lost in that of Lubim, as accounted for by Josephus. But it should be recollected that the prophet Hanani most distinctly refers to one of the wars between the black tribes and the Jewish people, of which there had been a long series from the exodus down.

We propose to adduce an argument from the language used in the description of these wars.

In the time of King Asa, the invading army is described thus: “And there came out against them Zerah, the Ethiopian, with a host of a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots. And Asa cried unto the Lord his God; so the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled: and Asa, and the people that were with him, pursued them unto Gerar, and the Ethiopians were overthrown.” These people the prophet calls Ethiopians and Lubims. This term proves that many of them were from Lybia. Now is it to be presumed that so vast an army, one million of men and three hundred chariots, was not composed of all the tribes between the remotest location of any named and the place of attack?

But this battle was commenced in the valley of Zephathah, in Philistia, and pursued to Gerar, a city of the same country. “And they smote all the cities round about Gerar. For the fear of the Lord came upon them, and they spoiled all the cities, for there was exceeding much spoil in them. They smote all the tents of cattle, and carried away sheep and camels in abundance, and returned to Jerusalem.” See 2 Chron. xiv. 14, 15.

These facts could not have existed had not the Philistines composed a part of the army.

Yet they are all Ethiopians. Is this no evidence that the tribes of Ham generally were black?

But again, with the view to arrive at a greater certainty as to what races did compose these armies, we propose to examine that which invaded Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam.

“And it came to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him; and it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians; and he took the fenced cities, which pertain to Judah, and came to Jerusalem.” 2 Chron. xii. 1–10. “And the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians.” The Hebrew construction of the latter clause of this is thus: מִמִּצְרַיִם לוּבִ֥ים סֻכִּיִּ֖ים וְכוּשִַׁים׃ Mim-mits-raim, Lubim, Sukkiyyim ve Cushim. We suggest a slight error in the translation of these words. The prefix מ mem preceding Mitsraim, we read a preposition, out of, from, &c., influencing and governing the two following words also; as, from Egypt, from Lybia, from Succoth. It will be noticed that Cushim is preceded by the prefix ו vav. Grammarians have written much upon this particle: we cannot enter into an argument on Hebrew grammar, but, with all the learning that has been expended on this particle, the Hebrew scholar must find the fact to be, that it is sometimes used to designate a result; and we take occasion here to say that, in our opinion, Professor Gibbs has given a more definite and philosophical description of the Hebrew use of this particle, than any lexicographer of modern research.

Suppose an ancient Hebrew physician wished to teach that certain diseases were incurable, that they ended in death, might he not have said, מִשַׁחֶפֶת קַדַּחַת אָנוּשׁ וְמוּה׃ mish shahhepheth kaddahhath anish vemuth,—from consumption, burning fever, the mortal sickness, termination is death? Or, allow our Hebrew not to be so classical, could he not have expressed the idea after this form? “The army was without number, from Egypt, from Lybia, from the Nomads, all Ethiopians.” And we here suggest the query, whether this is not the true reading? We do not propose that this prefixed וְ vav has the power of an adjective or a verb, although it might require the one or the other to give the idea in English. What we say is, that it is the sign of the thing which is the result of the preceding nouns. If it had been used here as a connective particle, then the two preceding nouns would also have had it for a prefix. Such was the Hebrew idiom. It would then have read, “And the people were,” &c., from Egypt, and from Lybia, and from the Nomads, and from Ethiopia, as the translator seems to have supposed. But, as it is, it determines them all to have been Ethiopians. This will be in strict conformity with the description of the army at the time of Asa. The invading army, at that time, was denominated Ethiopian, although it is evident that many of the Hamitic tribes composed it.

The real cause of all these wars was the contest whether Palestine should be held by the Hamitic race, or by the Shemitic, who were bearing rule. Keeping this in mind, let us note how perfectly natural is this description of those who composed the army under Shishak. The troops first collected would be from among his own immediate people, the Egyptians. The next, those who lived beyond him from the point of attack, to wit, the Lubims, who lived to the west of Egypt. These being collected together, they would commence their march, and the Nomads be added to the list of the army after they joined it; but none other than those governed by the same impulses would attach themselves to it. Suffer us to illustrate this description of Shishak’s army by supposing a somewhat analogous case, in much more modern times:—That during the reign of Elizabeth, King Philip of Spain had made war on England, upon the issue of whether the Protestant or Catholic faith should prevail in that country. Philip would have first collected troops in Spain. He may be supposed to collect large numbers in Portugal. These Spanish and Portuguese troops may be supposed to march through France, and his army vastly increased there; and, when upon the coast of England, some Froissart would have said, that the people who came with Philip were without number, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, all Catholics. The manner of such description would be in exact similitude with this description of Shishak’s army. Any one who is acquainted with the history of the Crusades will readily see how a similar description would have in truth fitted the army of the Cross. We think it proof conclusive that the descendants of Ham were black. But we might add some proof from sketches of profane history. In the 22d section of Euterpe, Herodotus says that the natives on the Nile are universally black. In the 32d section, giving an account of a party of Neesamonians, who in Africa were out upon an excursion, he says—“While they were thus employed, seven men, of dwarfish stature, came where they were, seized their persons, and carried them away. They were mutually ignorant of each others’ language. But the Neesamonians were conducted over marshy grounds to a city, in which all the inhabitants were of diminutive appearance and of a black colour.”

In the 57th section, he gives an account of an Egyptian priestess who was brought among the Threspoti. He says that “the circumstance of her being black explains to us her Egyptian origin.”

In the 104th section, he says—“The Cholchians certainly appear to be of Egyptian origin, which indeed, before I had conversed with any one on the subject, I had always believed. But as I was desirous of being satisfied, I interrogated the people of both countries. The result was, that the Cholchians seemed to have a better remembrance of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians of the Cholchians. The Egyptians were of the opinion that the Cholchians were descended of a part of the troops of Sesostris: to this I myself was also inclined, because they are black, and have their hair short and curling.”

Cambyses fought the black tribes of Egypt and Africa under Amasis, in the western parts of Arabia. Herodotus says, (Thalia, section 12th,) “The bones of those who fell in the engagement were soon afterwards collected, and separated into two distinct heaps. It was observed of the Persians, that their heads were so extremely soft as to yield to the slight impression even of a pebble. Those of the Egyptians, on the contrary, were so firm that the blow of a large stone could hardly break them. * * * I saw the very same fact at Papremis, after examining the bones of those who, under the conduct of Achæmenes, son of Darius, were defeated by Inaius the African.”

Herodotus notices the distinction between the Arabs and the Negroes, but calls them all Ethiopians. In the 70th section of Polymnia, he says—“Those Ethiopians who came from the most eastern part of their country, served with the Indians. These differed from the former in nothing but their language and their hair. The Oriental Ethiopians have their hair straight: those of Africa have their hair more crisp and curling than other men.”

Herodotus lived and wrote about five hundred years before our era. We have quoted him through a translation, but not without examining the original.

We shall close our evidence on this point with a single quotation from Judg. iii. 8 and 10. The children of Israel intermarried with the Canaanites: the writer says, “Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chusan rishathaim,” the wicked Ethiopians. Whereas it is as well known as any other fact of biblical history, that these “wicked Ethiopians” were none other than the Philistines and other aboriginal tribes of the land of Canaan.

Upon the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites, portions of the Canaanites overspread the approachable parts of Africa, where numerous hordes of their race were already in possession. For ages, there is said to have stood near Tangier, a monument with inscriptions signifying that it was built in commemoration of the people who fled from the face of Joshua the robber. From the presumption of this being a fact, and from a collection of other facts connected with early commerce, Moore, in the first volume of his History of Ireland, has strongly suggested that the ancient Irish are partially indebted to the ancient Canaanites for their origin; whereas we think we have sufficiently proved that they were black. We hope the impulsive sons of the Emerald Isle will repel the insult. But, if what Moore says be true, it only proves another portion of our theory; for, as sin sinks to all moral and physical degradation and slavery, so virtue and holiness elevate to freedom and all animal and mental perfections; and since Iern was for ages regarded as an island of saints, Moore may have the benefit of the argument, if he chooses, whereby to account for the high-toned feeling and personal perfections of the modern Irish.

In conclusion, from the history of the family of man, we may all know that the descendants of Japheth and Shem, when free from amalgamation with the black tribes, are white people. Unless then the descendants of Ham were black, how are we to account for the phenomena of the existence of that colour among men? Philosophy has been in search, and history has been on the watch; facts upon facts have been recorded touching every matter; but have you ever heard of the uncontaminated descendants of Japheth, living in the extreme, or in the central zone, exhibiting the woolly crown of the sons of Ham?

------------------

LESSON XV.

We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.

The Arabic word مَا ma corresponds with the Syriac ܡܳܐ ma, and the Hebrew מָה mah, and has been translated into the Latin quid, as an interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, Gen. iv. 10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ “What have you done?” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָ had been omitted, the מֶ֣ה would have expressed the whole idea.

It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob said, מָה mah, What is my trespass? &c., as if in derision,—What is my horrid crime? Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary, must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּה and همُّ and هَمَي ham and hami in Arabic, ܚܳܡ ham in Syriac, to mean a cognate idea, i. e. to grow hot, &c., to boil, rage, &c., sometimes tumult, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind, taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation, and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.

However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word הָם is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the ם mem by a (ָ) Kamets, or a (וֹ) Kholem. This circumstance has induced Hiller to suppose that the ם mem, as a Heemanti, was a particle, while the adjunct was either הֵם or אוֹם; but all agree that the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their signification.

If then הָם ham is a particle of הָמָה hamah, which carries with it the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also, while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.

But we find the word חָ֞ם ham, as applied to the son of Noah, from the root הָמָה hammah, or חֵמַה and used in Hebrew thus: In Josh. ix. 12, “This our bread we took hot חָ֞ם for our provision,” &c. Job xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments warm (חַמִּ֑ים hammin, hot) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax warm, they vanish when it is hot,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹ behummo, in the heat. So Gen. viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat וָחֹ֜ם, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” Gen. xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat בְּחֹ֥ם of the day.” 1 Sam. xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, (בְּחֹ֣ם be hom, in heat.) And slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day,” עַדחֹם ad hom, until the hot. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the English text): “To put hot, חֹ֔ם hot in the day,” &c. 2 Sam. iv. 5: “And came about the heat of the day,” כְּחֹ֣ם ke hom, at the hot. Isa. xxiii. 4: “Like a clear heat כְּחֹם upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥ם of harvest.” Hag. i. 6: “Ye clothe you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥ם be hom, not hot. Jer. li. 39: “In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּם be hummon, in their heats, &c.

But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing the idea hot, heat, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger, wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say hell is hot, and hence, in Dan. iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹא hama, heat, hot. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,” בְּחִמָּ֣א֥ be hama, heat, rage, fury, &c.

Should it be said, the words in their declination, or rather the affixed and suffixed particles, differ, and are marked with different vowel points, we answer by quoting Lee’s Heb. Lex. p. 205: “This variety in the vowels may be ascribed either to the punctuatists or the copyists, and is of no moment. But as the word חָם ham was thus applied in Hebrew to the original idea of active caloric, as emanating from the sun, so it will agree with its homophone in Arabic and Syriac; for let it be noticed, that the Arabic word حَمٌّ ham or haman, means to be hot, as of the sun. So the Syriac ܗܡܳܐ hama means œstus, calor, &c. But in Deut. xxxii. 24, 33, it is translated poison; thus, poison of serpents, and ‘the poison of dragons,’ from the notion that great heat, rage, anger, &c. are cognate with poison.”

This word occurs in Zeph. ii. 12. The received version is, “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.” The original is, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה, and has been subject to much investigation. Gesenius considers the word הֵֽמָה a pronoun in the second person, and Lee seems to side with him, but says, “the truth is, the place is inverted and abrupt, and should read thus: גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י כּוּשִׁ֔ים הֵֽמָּה,” and which he translates thus—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.” We do not perceive how he has made the passage more plain. Let us, for a moment, examine how the Hebrews used this form חֵמָה or חֵם, that we may the better comprehend its sense in the present instance. Jer. v. 22: “Though they roar,” וְהָמ֥וּ ve hamu, rage, &c., “yet can they not pass over it!” vi. 23: “Their voice roareth like the sea,” יֶֽהֱמֶה rageth, &c. xxxi. 35; “Which divideth the sea, when the waves thereof roar,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ say ye, hemen, rage, &c. li. 15: “When her waves do roar (וְהָמ֤וּ ve hamu se, rage, &c.) like great waters.” Isa. li. 13: “But I am the Lord thy God that divided the sea, whose waves roared,” raged. li. 13: “Because of the fury (חֲמַ֣ת rage, &c.) of the oppressor,” “and where is the fury (חֲמַ֥ת hamath, rage, &c.) of the oppressor?” li. 15: “whose waves roared,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ raged, &c. Ps. xlvi. 4 (the 3d of the English text): “Though the waters thereof roar (יֶֽהֱמ֣וּ rage, &c.) and be troubled,” יֶחְמְ֣רוּ great agitation, rage, &c.

But let us take a more particular view of this word, as used in the passage from Zephaniah. The Septuagint has translated this passage in Καὶ ὑμεῖς Αἰθίοπες τραυματίαι ῥομφαίας μοῦ ἐστέ, which is very much like our received version.

But it should be noticed that it has translated the Hebrew word חַלְלִ֥י into τραυματίαι; τραῦμα would imply the injury, wounds, carnage, or slaughter of a whole nation, army, or body of people; but τραυματίαι implies individuality, and reaches no farther than the person or persons named. The prophet had been uttering denunciations against many nations, but in this passage emphatically selects the Ethiopians as individuals; and the Greek translator evidently discovered there was in this denunciation something peculiarly personal as applied to the Ethiopians.

The Hebrew conveys the idea of reducing, subjecting, or bringing low, as by force, to cause to sink in character as in Ps. lxxxix. 40 (39th of the English text): “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast חִלַּֽלְתָּ wounded, subjected, or reduced his crown to the earth.” Ezek. xxii. 26: “Her priests have violated my law, and have חַלְּל֣וּ (wounded, subjected, lowered the character of) my holy things.”

But the word חַלְּלֵי is here used in the construct state, showing that the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term, חַדְבִי֖, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּי means any weapon, a goad harpoon as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִית or דֹחַמ or כִּדוֹן, or perhaps שׂכה; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖י, which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument of its execution. Thus Jer. xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee, for the sword חֶ֖רֶב shall devour round about thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from the oppressing sword,” חֶ֖רֶב. Many such instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the enforcement of his authority over his slave.

In a further view of the word חֵמָּה, as used in this passage, we deem it proper to state that Gibbs considers it a pronoun of the third person plural, masculine, they, and adds, “sometimes” (probably an incorrectness drawn from the language of common life) “used in reference to women,” and quotes Zech. v. 10; Cant. vi. 8; Ruth i. 22. And he further adds, “It is used for the substantive verb in the third person plural, 1 Kings viii. 40, ix. 20; Gen. xxv. 16; also for the substantive verb in the second person, Zeph. ii. 12: ‘Also, ye Cushites חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה shall be slain by my sword.’” Gibbs’s Lex. p. 175. In Stuart’s Grammar, p. 193, he says, “Personal pronouns of the third person sometimes stand simply in the place of the verb of existence;” e. g. he cites Gen. ix. 3, Zech. i. 9, and says, “Plainer still is the principle in such cases, as follows: Zeph. ii. 12, ‘Ye Cushites, victims of my sword אַתֶּ֣ם הֵֽמָּה are ye.’”

The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant, p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence, like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔ה ‘I (am) the seer,’ 1 Sam. ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula of the verb to be, e. g. Gen. xli. 26: ‘The seven good cows, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה seven years (are) they.’” To say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression converts “they” into the verb “to be.”

But again, the same author says, p. 261: “The union of the substantive or pronoun, which forms the subject of the sentence, with another substantive or adjective, as its predicate, is most commonly expressed by simply writing them together without any copula. 1 Kings xxiii. 21: יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ ‘Jehovah (is) the true God.’” The idiom of the language then does not necessarily convert הֵמָּה in the passage before us into the verb “to be.” And here let us repeat the sentence, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַֽלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה Zeph. ii. 12. It will be perceived that גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם are connected by Makkaph. Hebrew scholars do not agree as to how far this character is effective as an accent. But the rules for its use are—“Makkaph is inserted in the following cases: 1. Particles, which, from their nature, can never have any distinctive accent, are mostly connected with other words by the mark Makkaph: גַּם־לְאִישַׁהּ even to her husband; בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛י in the integrity of my heart. Gen. xx. 5, &c. 2. When words are to be construed together, &c., as זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ its seed (is) within itself. Gen. i. 11,” &c.—Lee’s Lectures, p. 61.

But Stuart, seeing no way to translate the sentence without making הִ֖מָּה the verb “to be,” 3d person plural, “are,” takes אַתֶּ֣ם the personal pronoun, 2d person plural, equivalent to ye or you, away from גַּם, to which it is attached by Makkaph, and carries it down to precede הֵמָּה in the sentence, and thus reads “are ye,” while he supplies another אַתֶּם֣ as understood to precede כּוּשִים, and reads, “ye Cushites, victims of my sword are ye.” We consider this as quite as objectionable as Dr. Lee’s—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.”

But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּה being even a pronoun. אָנכִי a-no-khi is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a homophone of the Coptic word Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, and used by the Egyptians, who spoke Coptic, as the personal pronoun I. This word is believed to have been borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200. In Chaldaic, the personal pronoun, first person singular, is אֲנָה a-nah, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister dialects. We may then well suggest that the lost Hebrew term was אֲנָא a-na, or quite analogous thereto.

Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition, and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.

It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic, which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the personal pronoun אֲנָה I, I am, and the word כִּי ki, which means a mark as a stigma, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly called, as, mark me, mark ye, are just, &c. &c. Isa. iii. 24: pm tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' a burned mark of stigma, instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally expressing also the fact, that such person was marked as a stigma indelibly, as burned in, &c. Anoki, I, a marked one; I, one deformed as if branded, &c.; I, one that carry the mark of, &c. &c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the extraordinary appearance of הֵם and sometimes הֵמָּה in the third person of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.

These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages, would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our word obedient still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word עֶבֶד ebed and abed, from which it has been derived through the Latin.

This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖י I, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into אֲנִ֖י ani, and in its declination stood thus:

1st person singular, common gender: אָנכִי sometimes אֲנִי I. Plural: אֲנַֽחְנוּ We. 2d person singular masculine: אַתָּ֖ה Thou. Plural: אַתֶּ֖ם You. Singular feminine: אַתְּ Thou, fem. Plural: אֲתֶּן You, fem. 3d person singular, masculine: הֽוּא He. Plural: הֵ֥ם hem—occasionally הֵ֖מָה They.

Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖א, and plural נָה, and yet הֵֽפָּה is used in Canticles in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in Zeph. ii. 12, it is said it must be in the second person plural. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son soldier, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say soldier am sleepy, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.

More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“I, the pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In the plural, we use we and us, which appear to be words radically distinct from I.” Under we, he says, “From plural of I, or rather a different word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that I, you, me, and us are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for such a man.

Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵם or occasionally הֵמָּה as a person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so introduced derived from the noun חָם Ham. For, can we suppose the first person singular אָנֹכִ֖ה a-no-ki, and its third person plural הֵ֖ם hem, occasionally הֵֽמָּה hemmah, have the same root, or are of the same origin? This הֵם and the word חָם the son of Noah, are identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a heth, instead of a he; but all know, who have studied the matter, these characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the pronoun is used in Gen. xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it as a pronoun; but our received version has no doubt restored the true reading. The passage בְּהָ֑ם is translated “in Ham,” i. e. the land occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of Kamets into Tsere, is really of no moment. These characters were never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language. The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the preposition בְּ.

Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them, find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּה a noun of the same order as the הָם of xiv. 5 of Genesis,—in some respect in apposition to כּוּשִים, but more emphatic, as the affix of ה would seem to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting for the dagesh of the מ mem, or its duplication. Let us consider it to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great intensity, that the Cushites were Hamites. True, it is not in the usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language. With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: So ye Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites—with the meaning, that the Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was unalterable.

The meaning of the prophet is—So ye Ethiopians, reduced to a condition of bondage, remember ye are the inheritors of the curse of Ham!

The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense. Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the words חַלְלֵי and חַרְבִּ֖י— that the prophet is writing in a highly figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of the same people. כּוּשִׁים is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham, as in Amos ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, Aithiops, sun-burnt, swarthy as Ethiopians; αιθος, warmth, heat, fire, ardent, blazing like fire, blackened by fire, black, dark; αιθοπς, burning fiery, blazing, burned, darkened by fire, dark-coloured, consuming, destroying. Donnegan p. 34. But Isaiah speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language, and in a more elevated and poetical strain:

1. Wo to the land shadowing with wings, Which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:

2. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, Saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled; To a people terrible from the beginning hitherto; A nation meted out and trodden down,

3. Whose land the rivers have spoiled! All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, See ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains, And when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye!

4. For so the Lord said unto me, I will take my rest, And I will consider in my dwelling-place, Like a clear heat upon herbs, And like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

5. For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect, And the sour grape is ripening in the flower, He shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning-hooks, And take away and cut down the branches.

6. They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, And to the beasts of the earth; And the fowls shall summer upon them, And the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.

7. In that time shall a present be brought unto the Lord of hosts, Of a people scattered and peeled, And from a people terrible from the beginning hitherto; A nation meted out and trodden under foot, Whose land the rivers have spoiled, To the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion. Isa. 18.

The denouncements of Jehovah against the children of Ham are more plainly expressed in the promises of God to these of the true worship, his peculiar people:

Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia, And of the Sabeans, men of stature, Shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: They shall come after thee; In chains they shall come over; And they shall fall down unto thee. They shall make supplication unto thee, Saying, Surely God is in thee; And there is none else, There is no God (beside),—(or, there is no other God.) Isa. xlv. 14.

So Jeremiah: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish it in Migdol, and publish in Noph and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee; for the sword shall devour round about thee.

“O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate, without an inhabitant.

“The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into the hands of the people of the north.” Jer. xlvi. 1, 19, 24.

“And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitudes, and her foundations shall be broken down.

“Ethiopia, and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the mingled (mixed-blooded) people, Chub and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

“The young men of Aven and of Pibeseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.

“At Taphanhes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her; and her daughters shall go into captivity.

“And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the countries, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” Ezek. xxx. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 26.

“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Joel iii. 8.

It may be we have occupied too much time, in remarks too obscure and indistinct for biblical criticism, upon this passage of Zephaniah; and it may be that, in the judgment of some, we have thus made ourselves obnoxious to the satire of the reverend and witty commentator upon the words:

“Strange such difference there should be 'Twist tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”

But we were sure the passage had been greatly misunderstood, and were, perhaps, too much emboldened by the hope, that the providence of the All-wise might yet again issue forth the truth from the tongue of the feeble.

------------------

LESSON XVI.

From the root המּה has also been derived the Arabic word حَمَّانٌ haman, and the Syriac ܚܳܡܳܢ' haman, and adopted by the Hebrews in the word חַמָן haman, which Castell translates “images,” dedicated to the worship of the sun, the worship of fire, heat, &c.

The Hebrew use of this word will be found in a plural form in Lev. xxvi. 30, thus: “And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images,” hammanekem. 2 Chron. xiv. 3 (the fourth of the Hebrew text:) “And brake down the images,” חַמָנִ֑ים hammanim; also xxxiv. 4, 7: “And the images, (חַמָּנִים hammanim) that were on high above them, he cut down,” “and had beaten the graven images (חַמָנִ֖ים hammanim) into powder.” Isa. xvii. 8: “Either the groves or the images,” חַמָנִֽים hammanim; also xxvii. 9: “The groves and images (חַמָנִֽים hammanim) shall not stand up.” Ezek. vi. 4, 6: “Your altars shall be desolate, and your images (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם hammanekem) shall be broken,” “and your images (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם hammanekem) may be cut down.” We have no possible word to express literally this term, but the hammanekens, or little HAMS, or fire-houses, the objects of religious adoration, were conical towers, from fifty to one hundred feet high, and fifteen to twenty feet in diameter at the base, and gradually decreasing upward, with a small door or opening fifteen or twenty feet above the base, and four smaller ones near the apex, looking towards the cardinal points.

The moderns have no certain knowledge of their particular use, yet all believe that in them was attempted to be kept the perpetual or holy fire, and perhaps into them was thrust the infant sacrificed to the god. May we not suppose that Daniel and his brethren would have informed us, had it been necessary for us to know more? Spencer, Heb. Laws, lib. ii. cap. 25, § 3, says of these edifices: “They were of a conical form and of a black colour.” It seems to us this identifies these edifices with the round towers of Persia and elsewhere, remains of many of which were anciently found in Ireland. The curious about this matter are referred to Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 489; also Lee’s Lex. p. 297, where he quotes Henrici Arentii Hamaker Miscellanea Phœnicia, pp. 49, 54; also Diatribe Philologico-Critica aliquot monumentorum Punicorum; Selden, de Diis Syris, ii. cap. 8, and the authors severally cited by them. Upon a full consideration of the subject, Dr. Lee says—“Upon the whole, I am disposed to believe that the term הָם (haman) is rather derived from הָם Ham, the father of Canaan, of Mitsraim, &c., Gen. x. 6–20; and hence by the latter worshipped as presiding angel of the sun, under the title of Ἄμουν, Greek Ἄμμων (Ammon), which is probably our very word.” If so, then his very name became significant of the worship of fire, and even expressive of the fire-temples themselves.

By some fanciful relation, not relevant to our subject, between the fire or sun worshippers and astronomy, when the sun was in aries (the ram), the god Ham, Ammon, Hammon, or Jupiter Hammon, was represented with a ram’s head for his crest; with this crest became associated the idea of the god, and hence chonchologists, even to this day, call certain shells, that are fancied to resemble the ram’s horn, Ammonites, giving further evidence, even now, of how deeply seated was the association between the earlier descendants of Ham and the fire worship of their day.

The long and fanciful story of Io, changed by Jupiter into a white cow; of her flight from the fifty sons of Egyptus; of her becoming the progenitor of the Ionians; the Egyptians claiming her under the name of Isis; of her marriage with Osiris, who became at length Apis and Serapis, worshipped in the image of a black bull with a white spot in his forehead, and many such tales, are all legitimately descended from his family peculiarities, their relative condition in the world, and the fact that Ham became the imaginary deity of his descendants.

Much evidence may be had proving that Ham became inseparably associated with, and in fact the very father of, idolatry, and of all those enormities growing out of it; enormities with which idolatry has ever been attended, and which time and the history of man for ever give proof to be a total preventive of all physical and moral elevation and improvement; and which, like other breaches against the laws of God, have, at all times, among all men, for ever been accompanied by both physical and moral degradation. But the descendants of Ham gave his name to their country. Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi was the Coptic name for Egypt, which the Septuagint translates into Χαμ Cham. Plutarch styles Egypt Χημία Chemia, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi, and, as if he wished to give some account of its origin, adds, θερμή γὰρ ἐστὶν καὶ ὕγρα, “for it is hot and humid;” showing that the Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi of the Copts signified the same as the Ham of the Hebrews. But the Coptic word Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi, Χημι and Χημε of Plutarch, also signified the adjective black. See Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, under the word חָם Ham; and with this signification the word Ham is used in Ps. lxxviii. 51: “The chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ, Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. cv. 23: “And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham,” חָם Ham: Septuagint, Χαμ, Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. 27: “And wonders in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. cvi. 22: “Wondrous works in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. The idea is, the land of the black people.

In this sense also the word is used in Gen. xiv. 5: “And smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham.” The Septuagint translates this passage into Καὶ ἔθνη ἰσχυρά ἅμα αὐτοῖς, as though the בְּהָ֑ם be Ham was a pronoun, and which seems to have been the view of several ancient translators. But such certainly was not the view of the translators of the received version; nor of Martindale, and others from whom he compiled. He says of this passage—“2. Ham, crafty, or heat; the country of the Zuzims, the situation of which is not known:” p. 326. We certainly agree with the Septuagint that זוּזִים Zuzim was a significant term, and perhaps well enough explained by ἔθνη ἰσχυρὰ, for which a suitable translation would seem to be wicked, perverse, strong, numerous, or stubborn heathen. They were probably the זַמְזֻמֲים Zamzummims of Deut. ii. 20.

The word בְּהָ֑ם be Ham, unless a pronoun as above, against which much can be said, is evidently used as in the Psalms quoted. In all these cases Ham is used somewhat as a synonyme of כּוּשׁ Cush; and when applied to a country generally, meant whatever country was occupied by the descendants of Ham. The sense of the sentence, and Zuzims in Ham, will then be, and the stubborn heathen in Ethiopia, or, the perverse tribes of Cush, or the wicked nations of Ham; all meaning the black tribes, descendants of Ham, or some one of them, when particularity is intended, as probably in this case; and let it be noticed, that Martindale, p. 241, gives “blackness” as his first definition of Cush. The descendants of Ham applying his name to themselves and country, they being black, it necessarily became significant of that colour. We have Germans, Swedes, English; but if we say “Negroes,” or if we say Africans, we mean black men, because those words, as now used, mean men of colour; and in a sense analogous, the word Ham seems to have been used in the passages quoted.

This view of the word Ham we think elucidates the history of Esther and that of Haman הָמָ֥ן the son of Hamadatha—Agagite, ha Agagi. The word is a patronymic of אַגָג Agag,—hence he was an Amalekite: “Agag, the king of Amalek”—“Agag, the king of the Amalekites.” 1 Sam. xv. 20, 32. “Now there was one Haman, the son of Amadatha, by birth an Amalekite.” Josephus, book ii. cap. vi. 5. This shows the cause of the extraordinary hatred that existed between her people and his. His very name shows that he was a descendant of Ham, and we think also proves that the Amalekites were black; and which fact is confirmed by 1 Sam. xv. 6: “And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart; get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them,”—evincing the fact that by mere inspection he could not distinguish the one from the other. We have before shown that the Kenites were black. The argument follows, that the Amalekites were also.

The word Ham is also used in 1 _Chron._iv. 40, in the same manner as it is in Psalms and Genesis, thus: “For they of Ham חָ֔ם had dwelt there of old.” This is said of Gedar, “even unto the east side of the valley.” Now Gedar was in the mountains of Judea, (see Josh. xv. 48–60,) or in the valley, (see Josh. xv. 36;) and as that account of the country of Judea closes (see idem, 63) by informing us whom the inhabitants of Judah could not drive out, and as the inhabitants of Gedar are not included in such list, it is to be presumed that the inhabitants of Gedar were so driven out at the time of Joshua; and leaves us nothing else to conclude than that, whoever they were, they who are spoken of in this passage, as having dwelt there of old, were the people driven out by him. But Josh. xii. 7, 8 informs us who the people were on the west side of Jordan, both in the mountains and valleys, and names them as Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and from the 9th to the 24th gives us an account of their kings, among whom is named the king of Gedar, who was smitten and driven out. It is immaterial which of the tribes they were. They were inhabitants of Palestine, (see 2 Chron. xxviii. 18 and 1 Chron. xxvii. 28,) of the land of Canaan, not of south, east, nor of northern Arabia, nor of Egypt or any part of Africa; yet they are emphatically spoken of as of Ham, clearly having reference to their descent and colour. Here we have an additional key whereby to unlock the meaning of this word as used in Psalms and Genesis. There can be no doubt these primitive inhabitants of Gedar were the descendants of Canaan. Yet they are described by the same term which in other places is used to describe the descendants of Cush and Mitsraim; a term which most unquestionably determines them to have been black.

But the Coptic word chemi, which we have seen had the same significancy as חָם ham in Hebrew, opens to the view the real meaning of a few Hebrio-Coptic words that grew into common use among the Hebrews subsequent to their bondage in Egypt. We allude solely to the derivatives of Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi. כֹּמֶר Chemar is thus derived, and occasionally used by the holy writers to signify black; thus, Lam. v. 10: “Our skin was black” נִכְמָ֔רוּ ni chemaru. True, some have disputed the accuracy of this translation. They take a cognate meaning, and say our skin was hot, &c. We hope to be excused for adopting the received version. But either meaning proves the origin of the word from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, the same as the ham of the Hebrews. The fact is, the cognate meaning, sometimes, necessarily forces itself into an English translation, as in Gen. xliii. 30: “For his bowels did yearn,” נִכְמְרוּ grew hot, warmed, became agitated, &c. 1 Kings iii. 26: “Her bowels yearned,” נִכְמְרוּ grew hot, troubled, &c.; and also Hosea xi. 8: “My repentings are kindled,” נְכְמְרוּ became hot, &c.

But in all these instances the figure of speech is more particularly Asiatic, and more obscure than is well suited to our modern dialect, as we think will be seen by comparing them with Job iii. 5, “Let the blackness of the day terrify it.”

From this Coptic name of HAM has also been derived the appellative term of the Moabitish and Ammonitish god כְּמֹוּשׁ Chemosh. The Syrians applied this term to the fancied being who oppresses mankind during the dark hours of their sleeping, and hence distressing dreams, incubus, &c. Chemosh is ranked with the god of destruction among the Hindoos, Muha Dēvā. The worshippers of this god are in Scripture called עַם־כְּמוֹשׁ am Chemosh, the people of Chemosh, particularly the Moabites and Ammonites. The image of this god was a black stone.

The term applied to the priesthood in this worship among the black tribes is also derivative from the same Coptic word to which we have often added in translation the word “idolatrous.” Thus, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, “and he put down the idolatrous priests הַכְּמָרִים ha chemarim.” Hosea x. 5, “And the priests thereof” כְּמָרָיו. Zeph. i. 4, “And the name of the Chemarims,” הַכְּמָרִים ha Chemarim, i. e. the priests of the Hamitic fire-worshippers, &c. Some commentators, not connecting these words with the Coptic, and the priest, as the term applies, with the black families of Ham, have conceived that the idea blackness, as associated with these idolatrous priests, had reference to their apparel. Hence they conceive that these priests always wore black apparel; whereas the fact is they were black men, and, as such, are described by a term indicating that fact, as well as that of their idolatry and descent; and here we find the foundation of that modern and common prejudice, that the appropriate dress of the clergy is black.

But we find another derivative from the word Ham, Gen. xxxviii. 13: “And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father-in-law חָמִיךְ goeth up.” 25: “She sent to her father-in-law,” heḥāmîhā So also 1 Sam. iv. 19: “And that her father-in-law was dead.” 21. “And because of her father-in-law,” חָמִֽיהָ. This word is used in the feminine in Micah, vii. 6, thus: “Against her mother-in-law,” בַּֽחֲמֲֹתָ֑הּ la hamtha. We notice the word is preceded by the word כַּלָּה, which word, in Gen. xxxviii. 11, is applied to Tamar, and in Jer. ii. 32, evidently to a “bride” taken from the heathen, which was forbid; and is also used in Cant. iv. 8, for the “spouse,” who is made to declare herself a black woman, giving evidence that the word in Micah is used in character.

This word is also used in the feminine in Ruth i. 14: “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law,” לַּֽחֲמוֹתָ֔הּ la hamotha. ii. 11: “All that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law,” חֲמוֹתֵךְ hamothek. 18: “And her mother-in-law saw what she had done,” hamotha. 19: “And her mother in-law (hamotha) said unto her;” “and she showed her mother-in-law,” la hamotha. 23: “And dwelt with her mother-in-law,” hamotha. iii. 1: “Then Naomi her mother-in-law,” hamotha. 6: “All her mother-in-law bade her,” hamotha. 16: “And when she came to her mother-in-law,” hamotha. This is certainly not the most usual word in Hebrew to express the idea of parent-in-law.

But these instances of its use are too frequent, its declination too varied, and in both genders, to admit the idea that they are the result of error or casualty, although some lexicographers seem to reject it. It may be noticed that the individual holding the junior position was a female—that in each case the parent-in-law was most unquestionably of pure Shemitic race.

But suspicion may at least be allowed to such purity in these young females. Tamar’s husbands were half of Canaanitish blood. It would be expected that she was of that race, but if not, her intermarriage with those sons of Judah placed her in that rank. The sons of Eli were notoriously wicked and licentious, and although the widow of Phinehas appears to have been of a devout cast, yet God had determined to destroy the house of Eli on their account, and to wrest the priesthood from the family. The suspicion as to her race grows out of these facts and the character of her husband. Ruth was declaredly a Moabitess, and Orpah was of that country.

Much might be said in favour of the position that in these cases the parents-in-law on the husband’s side were of pure Shemitic blood, and the reverse as to the daughters-in-law. Now as this peculiar term is nowhere else used in the holy books, are we not to suppose that this peculiar state of facts is nowhere else thus described? In Gen. xviii., when the father-in-law of Moses is named, this term is not used, but the more usual one; and the reason is because the position of the parties is changed. Had the father or mother of Moses been spoken of as the parent-in-law of Zippora, then we may presume this peculiar term would have been used and expressed the fact as to the distinction of races; that he would have been called חֲמִ֖יהָ, and she her חֲמוֹתָה. And we now present the inquiry, how came the name of Ham to be thus compounded and used to express this particular position of relationship and distinction of race, unless from the fact that he had placed his parents in a similar position, liable to have been called by these peculiar terms?

------------------

LESSON XVII.

Having thus, at some length, passed these subjects in review, we present our reflections to the impartial mind.

But there are grown up upon this earth some men who would seem to be so holy and pure that even the providences of God are defective in their sight, and by their conduct seem to evince their opinion to be that Jehovah could not well manage the government of the world without their especial counsel and aid. And do such really mean to condemn God, unless his government shall comport with their views? In kindness of heart, and for the benefit of such poor fallen ones, we propose to close this our present Study by reading to them the thirty-third chapter of Ecclesiasticus, omitting the five verses irrelevant to the subject.

“There shall no evil happen unto him that feareth the Lord, but in temptation even again he will deliver him. A wise man hateth not the law; but he that is a hypocrite therein is as a ship in the storm. A man of understanding trusteth in the law; and the law is faithful unto him as an oracle. Prepare what to say, and so thou shalt be heard; and bind up instruction, and then make answer.” “Why doth one day excel another, where as all the light of every day in the year is of the sun? By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished: and he altered seasons and feasts. Some of them hath he made high days, and hallowed them, and some of them hath he made ordinary days. And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth. In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned them out of their places. As the clay is in the potter’s hand, to fashion it at his pleasure, so is man in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best. Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the godly against the sinner, and the sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most High; and there are two and two, one against another. I awaked up last of all, as one that gathereth after the grape-gatherers; by the blessing of God I profited, and filled my wine-press, like a gatherer of grapes. Consider that I laboured not for myself only, but for all them that seek learning. Hear me, O ye great men of the people, and hearken with your ears, ye rulers of the congregation.” “In all thy works keep to thyself the pre-eminence; leave not a stain on thy honour. At the time when thou shalt end thy days, and finish thy life, distribute thine inheritance. Fodder, a wand and burdens, are for the ass; and bread, correction, and work, for a servant. If thou set thy servant to labour, thou shalt find rest, but if thou let him go idle, he shall seek liberty. A yoke and a collar to bow the neck, so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour, that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him; if he be not obedient, put on more fetters. But be not excessive toward any, and without discretion do nothing. If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because thou hast bought him with a price. If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him as thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him.”

The doctrine is, that man is not exempt from the general law, that governs the animal world; that among all the animated races upon this earth, certain causes produce deterioration; and that it may take a longer course of time for the restoration of a degenerate race, under the controlling influences of opposite causes, than even that occupied in a downward direction. “Quickly is the descent made to hell; but to recover from the fall, and regain our former standing, is a labour, a task indeed.” Virgil. In short, that sin has a tendency forcing downward to moral and physical ruin; to deteriorate the mental powers, to rot, to blast, as with a mildew, all animal perfections; to fill life with disease and pain, and its hours with misery and wo, and that it never willingly ceases its iron hold until it can shake hands with death. That God, in mercy, by the wisdom of his providence, has contrived as it were a shield, sheltering poor fallen man from the action of such portion of this deadly poison as would have destroyed every hope of intercession, and for ever excluded from our view, perhaps, even the advent of a Saviour. When the patient is dead, the physician is not called. The law which produced the deluge and destruction of the antediluvian world was a law established from all eternity, meet for just such a case as the moral and physical condition of man then was. For the sake of ten, Sodom would not have been destroyed; but it was less than ten for whom the Ark was provided; and we are to remember that quick upon the promise that all flesh were not again to be cast off, the lowest grade of slavery was promulgated, and its subjects ordered into the protection of the master; and may we not hence infer that slavery is intended, to some extent, as a preventive, as a shield against sin? And do we not notice that this shield is more or less weighty, more or less heavy to be borne, as the safety of the individual bearing it may require; and that it is so cunningly contrived, that its weight and burden are diminished in proportion as the danger abates?

“He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way; yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock. The righteous shall see it and rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop her mouth. Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving-kindness of the Lord.” Ps. cvii. 40–43.

In close, we may everywhere notice that some among the family of man have become so poisoned with sin, so destroyed, that they are no longer safe guardians to themselves, even under the general interdict, that animal wants enslave us all. That for such God provides, as the general safety may seem to require. That, in the history of man, some races have become so deteriorated by a continued action in opposition to the laws of God, that he has seen fit to care for them, by placing them under the control of others; or by placing them, in mercy, under the guidance of a less deteriorated race, whom, no doubt, he holds responsible for the good he intends them. And may we be permitted of the humble Christian to inquire, if this position presents any thing contrary to the general law of benevolence of the Deity,—contrary to the welfare of man on earth, or his hopes of heaven? Will you reject the doctrine, saying the biblical proofs are too scattered, too deeply buried under the dust of time? or, because a prophet has not appeared, or one arisen from the dead? The geologist, from a few fragments of bone, now dug from the deep bowels of the earth, is able to set up the osseous frame, to clothe with muscle and sinew, and give character to the animals of ancient time. And shall it not be recollected by you, who are striving to make your descendants the very princes of intellect and talent, that similar researches may be made in the moral history of man?

We submit the foregoing, confident, although there may be obscurity and darkness yet surrounding the subject, which we have not the ability to dispel, that the time will come, when it will be made plain to the understanding of all. We therefore resign the subject, touching the colour of the descendants of Ham, of their relationship with the family of Cain, and the ordinances of God influencing their condition in the world, to those more learned, more critical, and of more mental power, and into the hands of those whose lips have been touched by a more living coal from the altar of the prophet.

------------------------------------

Study VII.

------------------

LESSON I.

In the inquiry into the scriptural views of slavery, by ALBERT BARNES, Philadelphia, 1846, page 322, we find the following assertion: “No man has a right to assume that when the word δοῦλος, doulos, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, or that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”

Our object in our present study is to prove that this assertion is not true; and our object further is to prove that when the word δοῦλος, doulos, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, and that he to whom it was applied, as an appropriate distinctive quality, was a slave.

Suppose some infidel, a monomaniac in the study of infidelity, should put forth the proposition that when the words Jesus Christ occur in the New Testament, no one had the right to assume that they meant the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. We should feel it a needless labour to refute it; a foolish, false assertion often does not merit or require refutation, but the falsity of propositions may not be equally obvious to all, as in the present case.

The premises include the observance of the constitution, idioms, and use of the Greek language.

To him whose mind can flash upon the volume of Greek literature, like the well-read schoolboy upon the pages of Dilworth,—our present study and argument will be unnecessary and useless; but, as unsavoury as it may seem, from the evidence that reaches us, we doubt whether the great mass of those called learned, do not remember and practise their Greek only as the old veterans in sin do the evening and morning prayers of their childhood.

But, however that may be, a great proportion of us know no language but our own, and take on trust what any Magnus Apollo may choose to assume concerning others. The assertions of one man, unaccompanied by evidence, may excite little or no attention; but we have seen the substance of this assertion put forth by the abolition clergy in various small publications, no doubt having great weight in their immediate vicinage.

We fear those who sit under such teaching may grope in deep darkness; and may we humbly pray, that, like the stroke of Jove, the light of the Almighty may reach them from afar.

------------------

LESSON II.

When the untruthfulness of the lesson taught involves a misconception of the character and laws of God, its direct tendency is to create in the mind an idea of, we may say, an image of God and his laws, as decidedly different from him and his law as is the lesson taught from the truth; and here, perhaps, through all time, has been the commencement of idolatry.

Is it not as much idolatry to worship a false image of the mind, as it would be an image of wood or stone?

You teach that δοῦλος, doulos, does not mean slave in the word of God; you consequently teach that God disapproves of it, and that his laws forbid it. We say the exact contrary. It is therefore evident that the idea, the image we form in the mind of our God, is quite different from the idea you form in your mind of your God. But God cannot possess a contradiction in quality; therefore the God we worship must be a different God from the God you worship. But there can be but one God; therefore your God is a false God, or our God is a false God. You are an idolater, or we are one.

And shall it be said that our language is too strong?—unnecessarily extreme in its denunciation?—unwarranted by the views, by the language held by the advocates of abolition and the friends of the anti-slavery movements now in action in the Northern sections of our country? Hear the proclamation of Mr. Wright, an eloquent speaker, before the Anti-Slavery Society, as reported in the Boston papers, May 30th, 1850:

“Down with your Bible!—down with your political parties!—down with your God that sanctions slavery! The God of Moses Stuart, the Andover God, the God of William H. Rogers, which is worshipped in the Winter-street Church, is a monster, composed of oppression, fraud, injustice, pollution, and every crime, in the shape of slavery. To such a God I am an atheist.”

Thus the enemies of Jehovah give rapid proof of their idolatry.

It may be well here to remark, that the doctrine thus strange and astray from truth, may be expected to engraft itself upon such intellects as are led to the conclusion that man possesses within himself an unerring guide between right and wrong,—a doctrine which to us appears deeply fraught with ruin to the individual, and degradation to public morals.

We therefore condemn, most decidedly, the doctrine that man possesses a mental power called “moral sense,” “conscience,” or the “light within us,” which enables him unerringly to decide on right and wrong. You may as well say it will always enable him to discern the truth. Nor do we comprehend how the mind can entertain such a notion, unless the intellect is thus impressible that the mind can believe in the existence of what would be a sister faculty, clairvoyance, or a thousand other such fantasies.

Man possesses no power by which he can know God, only as he has revealed himself by inspiration and by the daily manifestations of his law. We prefer to worship the God of Abraham and Moses, who gave them directions how slaves should be governed, and of whom they should be purchased:—the God of the Bible, in which he has plainly revealed the reason why they are slaves. The history of the human intellect gives proof that among its strong characteristics is a desire, a fondness to search into mystery. While this quality stimulates to inquiry after truth, in well organized minds, it is an important means of man’s improvement and progression. But in the absence of all guides which can direct the path to successful inquiry, or by the substitution of false lights, man has ever gone astray. Here idolatry commences her reign.

The condition of man, from the most exalted instance of mental power, down to the most abject degradation of the African savage, is for ever marked and located by the fact, whether the guides to truth in their influence on him and his race have been universal, or only occasional; whether their influence has been obeyed only at distant periods, or at all times rejected. It is the law of God, man shall not progress to greatness only under the guidance of truth; under the guidance of falsehood, man degenerates to insignificance, crime, slavery, or to inglorious death.

We do not propose that any man or any race has, without exception, been under the constant influence of those axioms that guide the mind along the thread of truth; but that some men and some races have deviated far more than others, and that the effect of such difference is quite perceptible. Some races have become highly improved, while others only give evidence that they belong to the animal race of men.

Distinctions from this source arose between Cain and Abel; between the sons of Noah, Abraham, and the fire-worshippers of his day; between Jacob and Esau; and between the Israelites and the idolaters of the surrounding Hamitic tribes. This love of searching into mystery without using the aids to find truth, has at all times of the world, when supreme power was the object of contemplation, led men to idolatry, sometimes of the grossest kind; to the belief in mysterious influences, supernatural agencies, of spirits and demons, magic, witchcraft, &c.

To the same order of causes we are to attribute the sentiment entertained by some, that certain portions of Scripture and certain words sometimes contain unknown, hidden, secret, or mysterious meanings or instructions. Such views involve the proposition that such words, when used in the Scripture, have a different meaning than when otherwise used by men, and are to be translated into another language by substituting different ideas than those expressed by such words when used by man in his own oral or written language.

Do they forget that the language of man is the language of God? That revelation is always adapted to the understanding of men? They forget to know this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. It happens that men take their own circumscribed view of the providence of God, as God’s ordinance touching a matter, and if Scripture is in contradiction, then they search for mysterious or unusual meaning, and give it such interpretation as they imagine suits the case.

Hence theologians who deny that slavery is of Divine authority, are led to the necessity of also denying that the Greek word δοῦλος, doulos, means slave; or that, in its verbal formation, it expresses a cognate action.

The frequency of the use of this word in the copies of the ancient Greek Testament, as left us in the evangelical writings of the apostles; the varied manner in which they have applied the term, in figurative illustration, in comparison, in the most simple explanations, as well as in the expression of the primitive idea which they intended to convey by it, would seem to be sufficient proof that whatever such primitive idea may have been, yet that it surely was in exact conformity to the common and received opinion of its signification among those who wrote in and used the Greek language. This is very clear, since it is often used and addressed to the Greeks themselves, insomuch that no temerity has ever yet asserted that this word is of different import when found in the writings of the apostles than when found in the Greek authors generally.

------------------

LESSON III.

The Greek noun δοῦλος, doulos, which we say means a slave unconditionally, so far as we have been able to examine, took its origin, both phonetically and literally, among the Greeks. Let us take δοῶ, as theme for διδώμι, and λοὐω, or from the radical λοῶ, lŏō: both phonetically and significantly the word is complete. At the most ancient period of the Greeks, it is said they had no slaves, and it is a little remarkable that the word “doulos” is very seldom found in the most ancient of the Greek writers: but other nations more advanced had slaves. The idea, slave, was then expressed by them by the term δμώς, dmos, evidently of foreign origin. This latter term was nearly or quite obsolete as early as the days of Alexander, when the word doulos is found to have taken its place.

The ancient and Eastern nations were particular in their custom of bathing their bodies and washing their feet, &c. One of the first and most important uses to which the early Greeks seem to have applied slaves, was in these personal purifications; and hence the peculiar name δοῦλος originated; δου-λούω, one whose office it was to bathe and wash them, a bondman for that particular use.

There is no instance in which Homer has used the word incompatible with such an association. The most affecting, we may say afflicting, circumstance in which he has introduced the word is the parting of Hector and Andromache; when Hector, anticipating his own death, and the probability of her being made a slave to the Greeks, emphatically laments her being compelled to carry water for her master, as if that was a particular employment in which the doulos was engaged.

But it does not affect the force of our argument, even if it shall be thought that the origin we give the word is doubtful. All we at the present moment propose is, that it is an original Greek term, all of which terms, either remotely or immediately, spring from particles having a significant and phonetic relation with the derivative. Such has been the doctrine of all who have written upon the philology and origin of the Greek language. Valckenaerus (the edition of Venice, published by Coletos) says, p. 8—

“Verba simplicia apud Græcos sunt vel ‘primitiva,’ vel a primitivis per varios flexus ‘derivata.’

“Primitiva verba admodum sunt ‘pauca:’ ‘derivatorum’ numerus est infinitus.

“‘Binæ’ literarum syllabæ verbum primitivum constituunt.

“Verba primitiva, secundum observationem tertiam, dissyllaba sunt vel ‘bilittera,’ vel trilittera, vel quadrilittera.

“Primitiva ‘bilittera,’ per rei naturam, dari possunt in universum (si vel totam linguam perscrutemur) tantum quinque, nempe ἄω,ἔω, ὅω,ἴω, ὔω Primitiva ‘trilittera’ sunt, quæ a ‘vocali,’ ‘quadrilittera’ (pleraque saltem) quæ a ‘consonante,’ incipiunt. Hoc certum est: sed de eo etiamnum addubito, an nonnulla verba ‘quinque’ litteris constantia pro ‘primitivis’ debeant haberi?” &c.

And Lennepius, de Anologia Linguæ Græcæ, (eadem editio,) p. 38:

“Cognita literarum potestate, earumque antiquitate, ad primas linguæ Græcæ origines indagandas progrediendum est. Videndum itaque primo loco, quænam voces pro ‘simplicissimis originibus’ haberi possint, quænam minus? Hoc autem ut rite peragatur, quædam de ‘partibus orationis’ ante sunt monenda.

“Ex viii. partibus quas vulgo statuunt grammatici, ‘Verbum et Nomen’ principem obtinent locum: quum reliquæ omnes facillime ad harum partium alterutram referi possint. Quapropter etiam ‘Aristoteles,’ aliique de veteribus, revera ‘duas’ tantum esse ‘partes orationis’ voluerunt.

“Addunt quidem alii tertiam partem, utriusque, nempe et ‘verbi et nominis, ligamentum,’ sive particulas, quod, nempe, particulæ orationem in unum corpus veluti connectant et devinciant. Sed, qui attentius ‘particularum’ naturam inspexerit, facile animadvertat, omnia fere, quæ ‘particularum’ nomine insigniuntur, si ‘exteriorem formam’ eorumque naturam grammaticam inspiciamus, referenda esse vel ad ‘nomen’ vel ad ‘verbum.’

“Ita verbi gr.: particula ᾽ȣ͂ν, Lat. igitur, revera participium est, contracta pro ἐὸν, quod neutrum a masculo ἐὼν est, quo modo participium verbi ἐὼ, vel εἰμὶ, pronuntiarunt Iones, quum Attici ἐὸν contraxerint in ᾽ȣ͂ν. Apparet itaque, Græcum ᾽ȣ͂ν revera pertinere ad nomina participialia. Eadem ratio cernitur quoque in particulis ποὶ, πῆ, πȣ͂, quæ ‘adverbia loci’ dicuntur, quorum duo priora proprie ‘dativa antiqua’ sunt, postremum vero genitivus est; quemadmodum similis ratio cernitur in adverbiis quæ dicuntur ‘Loci’ apud Latinos, quò, quà, et similibus.

“Ad ‘verba’ porro referenda sunt ἄγε, φέρε, ἰδȣ͂, ἲθι, ἔια vel ἔα, et plura alia similia, id quod in aliis clarius, in aliis minus manifesto, apparet. Horum tamen omnium rationem eandem fuisse in prima linguæ Græcæ infantia, non est quod dubitemus.

“Hæc igitur quum revera sic sese habeant, jam porro inquirendum est, utrum verba, an vero nomina, ‘primas’ linguæ Græcæ stirpes nobis subministrent.

“Docet autem ipsa rei natura, si de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis sermo fiat, ‘nomina’ a ‘verbis,’ non verba a nominibus, primum esse formata.

“Quum enim omnes res vocabulis, tanquam nominibus, signatæ, ab usu qui singulis adest, vel quacumque etiam actione, nomina, sua acceperint: clare apparet, sicut ipsam actionem unde res denominata sit, ita etiam verbum, quo actio designetur, præcedere nomini, quod ab actione aliqua rei sit inditum. Atque hoc adeo certum est, non solum in lingua Græca, sed etiam omnibus omnino linguis, ut extra omnem controversiam positum esse videatur: nisi quis delabatur illuc, ut linguas integras, qua late patent, nullo artificio humano accedente, uno temporis articulo hominibus divinitus datas esse, eosque statim caluisse tot myriadas quot in singulis linguis sunt vocabulorum; tametsi res ipsas vocabulis istis designandas plerosque primos homines ignorasse certum est.

“Hoc autem quam sit rationi contrarium, atque ipsi experientiæ, facile apparet, si modo consideremus, ea ratione multa vocabula existere jam debuisse priusquam eorum utilitas inter homines ulla esset, quæque proinde, non nisi vani et inutiles soni, facile et sine ulla jactura dediscenda fuissent.

“Quin imo experientia abunde docet, primum res ipsas inveniri hominum industria, deinde autem inventis nomina imponi, sive ab utilitate sive alia qualitate ducta. Ex quo porro apparet, quo plures res ab aliquo populo inveniantur, eo ditiorem et uberiorem eorum linguam fieri, ut adeo mirandum non sit tantam esse linguæ Græcæ copiam et ubertatem, quum exculta ea fuerit a populo ingeniosissimo, cui omnes artes et disciplinæ non tantum primordia sua, sed etiam omnem fere splendorem, debent. Linguas itaque diligenter consideranti, idem quod in artibus, in iis quoque usu venire apparebit: eas nimirum a paucis simplicissimisque initiis profectas, non nisi sensim et progressu temporis ad eam qua postea patuerunt amplitudinem pervenisse. Quum autem hominum natura ita sit comparata, ut primum eas res circumspiciat, quæ necessario ad vitam sustentandam, et cum aliis quibuscum homo societatis vinculo conjunctus est secure agendam, requirantur, dein vero ea excogitat quæ vitam jucundiorem possint reddere, valde verisimile fit vocabula ea in linguis antiquissima esse quibus res designantur ad vitam degendam necessariæ, si recesseris ab iis vocabulis, quæ in antiquissimorum vocabulorum locum deinceps substitute sunt, ut revera hujus generis multæ vocabulorum formæ inveniantur, quæ verborum obsoletorum locum occupaverunt.

“Porro non alienum erit hic observasse non tantum ejusmodi vocabula antiquissima existimari debere, sed etiam ‘ipsas’ significationes verbis subjectas tanto antiquioris usus esse, tantoque magis proprias esse habendas, quanto sunt propiores iis rebus quas corporis sensibus percipimus. Ab iis enim semper servata quadam similitudine ad reliquas quascumque verborum significationes progrediendum est: ut adeo appareat, paucissimas revera esse proprias verborum ‘significationes,’ nec alias esse nisi corporeas, sive eas quibus res sensibus externis expositæ designantur.

“E contrario autem, translatarum significationum copiam immensam, quæ ex propria notione, tanquam ex trunco arboris rami, quaquaversum pateant; manente similitudine inter eas omnes et propriam seu primam stirpis significationem, similiter atque rami, utcumque dispersi, et communem et communis trunci naturam retinent.

“Ex his præterea intelligitur ea verba, quæ ὄνοματα πεποιήμενα a Græcis vocantur, sic dicta quia a ‘nomine’ vel ‘sono’ formentur, ‘propriam’ eam significationem quæ soni, unde facta sunt, naturam referat. Quorum verborum numerus ingens revera in linguis est, et longe major quam vulgo credi solet. Sed, ut ad propositum redeamus, ex iis quæ supra dicta sunt, clare apparet, simplicissimas origines non posse repeti nisi ab ejusmodi verbis, quibus actiones ipsæ significentur; adeoque a verbis sic proprie dictis.

“Quumque actiones infinitæ, sive nulli certæ personæ adsignatæ, per rei naturam antecedere debeant iis quæ certæ personæ attribuuntur, verba ‘infinitiva’ simplicissima proprie primas linguæ Græcæ origines continere certum est.

“Harum autem plurimæ, quum jam a longissimis temporibus, una cum plerisque notionibus propriis, ex usu ceciderint, ac difficillimaæ sæpe indagatu sint, quo certiores progredi possimus, id semper tenendum est, ne quidquam admittamus quod constanti analogiæ linguæ repugnet; dein etiam, ut ex ipsis linguæ reliquiis, rite inter se comparatis, inquiramus a quo verbo originali vocabulum quodque oriatur: etiam tum, quum minus ipsum verbum originale superstes sit.

“Ubi enim in sequentibus agetur de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis ‘primitivis,’ id non ita accipiendum est quasi ea omnia, sicut etiam multa derivata simpliciora, florente lingua Græcæ, in sermone Graæcorum adhuc exstitisse vellem; sed tantum, in primo linguæ Græcæ ortu, aut exstitisse revera aut saltem existere potuisse. Neque enim, in hoc linguæ Græcæ defectu, æque certo sciri potest, an tanta copia, quantam fingere verborum per linguæ naturam constanti analogiæ ductu liceat, prima linguæ Græcæ ætate reipsa viguerit.”

* * * * *

Our object is here to present the Greek scholar, who may not have reflected on the subject, such suggestions as will lead him to perceive that δοῦλος, doulos, is an original Greek word, not borrowed; and although he may not agree with us in the derivation of the term, yet that he may readily satisfy himself what is the true derivation. It is true, Scheidius, in his “Animadversiones ad analogiam linguæ Græcæ,” has criticized the views of Lennepius, and has devoted near thirty pages to that which is our quotation from him; and we did fancy, upon its examination, that he had rather established than weakened the argument of Lennepius: in fact we did propose to quote him as authority; but to the most of us long quotations, in a language to us unknown, are quite objectionable. We therefore refer to his work, pp. 246 to 275, apud Paddenburg et filium, 1790, “Traiecti ad Rhenum.” It has been said by some of those who contend that δοῦλος, when found in the Greek Testament, does not mean slave, that the Greek, like all other languages of modern date, is a compilation from the more ancient ones; and since the Greeks at an early day had no slaves, it is evident, it is good proof that the more ancient tribes, from whom they and their language descended, had none; and in all such early periods of the world men never had words in their language to express things which did not exist among them, of which they could have no idea.

Therefore δοῦλος could not have meant slave,—“an idea of which they had no notion.” Even if this statement were true, we do not perceive how it proves their proposition. To show the futility of such argument, we consent, for the moment, that δοῦλος is not an original Greek word, but was borrowed from some other language, in which it meant something distinct from the idea of slave: say, a freeman, if you choose. Language, and all its parts, has ever been found to conform itself to the habits and wants of those who use it. Wherefore we often find a term, which some centuries ago expressed a certain distinct idea, now to express quite a different one. We therefore cannot say, with any propriety, that, because the word δοῦλος meant a “freeman,” at the age of Noah, that it also meant the same thing at the age of Alexander. If it meant a “freeman” at the age of Noah, we are to determine that fact by its use at that period; if otherwise, we should be able to prove that our word slave does not mean a slave now, but a proud and lofty distinction.

It is a term borrowed from the Schlavonic, where its significance was fame, renown, &c.; but the Schlavonians going into bondage to other nations, upon their inroads on Europe, the term implying fame in their ancient national distinctions came to signify in succeeding ages the condition of bondage. But although, as we have seen, a language is modified by the habits of those who apply it, yet this liability to change ceases when the language ceases to be the common vehicle of thought. Such substantially has been the case with the ancient Hebrew, since the era of the prophets; and such has, emphatically, been the case with the ancient Greek since the breaking down of the Roman Empire.

And even at the age of the apostles, the Greek had already arrived at the very highest point of its cultivation. No history, no writer gives proof of any subsequent improvement. If, then, we desire with seriousness and truth to determine the significance of any term then in use, the same is alone to be found by an investigation of the Greek literature of that age.

There are two modes by which an idea expressed in one language is explained in another. Where both languages contain words of synonymous meaning, then the expressing the idea through the medium of the words in another language, is properly what we mean by “translation.” But in many instances, the second language contains no word or words which are synonymes of the term by which the idea is expressed in the language which we wish to translate. In that case we can accomplish the object only by transferring the term expressing the idea from the one language to the other. Example:—When the French exhibited to the natives here a padlock, the natives associated the thing with their idea of the tortoise, from the fancied mechanical resemblance, and with them the name of the one became the name of the other also. But when we exhibited to them a steamboat, they found their language destitute of any word to express their idea of the thing exhibited; consequently, they transferred into their own language the word steamboat, to express the new idea.

With a view to be enabled to come to a truthful decision as to the definiteness of the idea intended to be conveyed by the word doulos, when used in the writings of the apostles, let us make a suitable inquiry among the Greek authors read and studied at their time, regardless of what may be the result as to the establishment of any peculiar theory or favourite notion. Let a development of the truth be the sole object of the research, careless of what else may stand or fall thereby. And since all have not chosen to burden themselves with the toilsome lesson necessary in a preparation for such examination, we consent that such may pass it by with the same indifference with which they regard the study.

------------------

LESSON IV.

We commence our quotations from the Greek authors with the Cebetis Tabula, from the Gronovius edition, Glasgow, 1747:

P. 17.——διὸ καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσῃ πανθ’ ὅσα ἔλαβε παρά τῆς τύχης, ἀναγκάζεται ταύταις ταῖς γυναιξὶ δουλεύειν, καὶ πάνθ’ ὑπομένειν, καὶ ἀσχημονεῖν, καὶ ποιεῖν ἕνεκεν τούτων ὅσα ἐστὶ βλαβερά.

P. 34. Τοὺς μεγίστους, ἔφη, καὶ τὰ μέγιστα θηρία, ἅ πρότερον αὐτὸν κατήσθιε, καὶ ἐκόλαζε, καὶ ἐποίει δοῦλον. Ταῦτα πάντα νενίκηκη, καὶ ἀπέῤῥιψεν ἀφ’ ἑαυτου, καὶ κεκράτηκεν ἑαυτοῦ, ὥστε ἐκεῖνα νῦν τούτῳ δουλεύουσι, καθαπερ οὕτος ἐκείνοις πρότερον.

Æschylus, Prometheus Chained. Line 463:

κἄζευξα πρῶτος ἐν ζυγοῖς κνώδαλα ζεύγλαισι δουλεύοντα.

In his Chœphoroi line 75:

ἒκ γαρ οἲκων πατρῴων δούλιον ἐσᾶγον αἶσαν, δίκαια καὶ μὴ δίκαια, πρέποντ’ ἀρχαῖς βίου, βίᾳ φερομένων αἰνέσαι πικρόν φρενῶν στύγος κρατούσῃ.

Burney translates this passage thus:

Etenim e domo paterna servilem induxeram sortem, stat juste et injuste, convenienter origini meæ, eorum qui vi agunt laudare acerbum mentis odium coërcenti.

Line 133. κἄγω μὲν ἀντίδουλος—which the same author translates, Et ego quidem pro serva habeor.

Anacreon, Sur l'Amour Esclave:

Καὶ νῦν ἡ Κυθέρεια Ζητεῖ, λύτρα φέρουσα, Λύσασθαι τόν Ἔρωτα. Κἄν λύσῃ δέ τις αὐτόν, Οὐκ ἔξεισι, μενεῖ δέ· Δουλεύειν δεδίδακται.

Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods—Jove, Æsculapius, and Hercules:

ἐγὼ δε, εἰ καὶ μηδέν ἄλλο, οὔτε ἐδούλευσα ὥσπερ σύ.

Translation: Ego vero, si nihil aliud, neque servivi quemadmodum tu, &c.

Mercury and Maia:

——ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν γῇ κακῶς δουλεύοντες,

Ut in terris solent, qui malam servitutem serviunt.

Charon sive Contemplantes. Mercury:

Οὐ γαρ οἶοθα, ὅσοι πόλεμοι διὰ τοῦτο, καὶ ἐπίβουλαι, καὶ λῃστήρια, καὶ ἐπιορκιαι, καὶ φόνοι, καὶ δεσμὰ, καὶ πλοῦς μακρὸς, καὶ ἐμπορίαι, καὶ δουλεῖαι·

Nescis enim quot propterea bella existant, et insidiæ, latrocinia, perjuria, cædes, vincula, navigatio longinqua, mercaturæ, servitutes denique?

Cataplus sive Tyrannus:

Clotho — Ἄκουε μᾶλλον γὰρ ἀνιάσῃ μαθών. Τὴν μὲν γυναῖκά σοι Μίδας ὁ δοῦλος ἕξει, καὶ πάλαι δέ αὐτὴν ἐμοίκευεν.

Audi, magis enim iis auditis lugebis: uxorem tuam Midas habebit, servus qui olim adulterio illi cognitus est.

Megapenthes.—Κἄν ἰδιώτην με ποίησον, ὦ Μοῖρα, τῶν πενήτων ἕνα, κᾄν δοῦλον, ἀντί τοῦ πάλαι βασιλέως.

Vel privatum me facito, Parca, pauperum unum, vel servum, pro eo, qui rex nuper fui.

Necyomantia, Menippus:

* * * ἐκολάζοντο τε ἅμα πάντες, βασιλεῖς, δοῦλοι, σατράπαι, πένητες, πλούσιοι καὶ μετέμελε πᾶσι τῶν τετολμημένων. ἐνιους δὲ αὐτων καὶ ἐγνωρισαμεν ιδοντες, ὁποσοι ἦσαν τῶν ἐναγχος τετελευτηκότων. οἱ δε ἐνεκαλύπτοντο καὶ ἀπεστρέφουτο· εἰ δὲ καὶ προσβλέποιεν, μάλα δουλοπρέπες τι, καὶ κολακεύτικον· καὶ ταῦτα, πῶς οιει, βαρεῖς ὄντες καὶ ὑπερόπται παρὰ τὸν βίον;

Unà autem omnes puniebantur, reges, servi, satrapæ, pauperes, divites, mendici; cunctosque pœnitebat patratorum; nonnullos agnovimus etiam conspicati, eorum de numero scilicet qui nuper vitam finierant; illi vero præ pudore vultus tegebant seseque avertebant; quod si forte respicerent, valde quidem servilem in modum, atque adulatorie, illi ipsi, qui fuerant quàm putas graves et superbi aliorum contemtores in hac vita.

Deorum Comitia:

Momus: * * * τοιγαρουν οἱ Σκυφαι καὶ οἱ Γεται ταυτα ὁρῶντες αὐτῶν, μακρά ἡμῖν χαίρειν εἰπόντες, αὐτοὶ ἀπαθανατίζουσι, καὶ θεοὺς χειροτονοῦσιν, οὕς ἄν ἐθελὴσωσι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ καὶ Ζάμολξις, δουλος ὤν, παρενεγράφη, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὁπως διαλαθών.

Proinde Scythæ ac Getæe hæc illorum videntes, longum nobis valere jussis, immortalitati se donant, et deos quoscunque voluerint feris suffragiis consalutant, eodem modo quo Zamolxis etiam, servus cum esset, in album nescio quomodo delitescens, irrepsit.

Demosthenes. Leipsic Ed. 1829, in 4 vols. Vol. i.

Olynthiac 2d. * * * ἤ ὡς οἱ παρά τὴν αὑτῶν ἀξίαν δεδουλωμένοι Θετταλοὶ υῦν οὐκ ἄν ἐλεύθεροι γένοιντο ἀσμενοι—which Leland translates thus: * * * “or that the Thessalians, who have been so basely, so undeservedly enslaved, would not gladly embrace their freedom.”

P. 70.——ὅτι Λακεδαιμονίοις καταδουλουμένοις, &c.

Philippic 4th, p. 142.——μήτε δουλεύειν ἄλλῳ.

P. 148.——εἰς δούλειαν, &c.

Idem.——τήν δε τῶν δούλων ἀπέχεσθαι δήπου μη γένεσθαι δεῖ.

Idem, p. 149.——δούλῳ δὲ, πληγαὶ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ σώματος αἴκυσμος· &c.

Idem, p. 158. * * * ὑπόλοιπον δουλεύειν.

Idem.——οἶδε γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι δουλεύειν μεν ὑμεῖς οὔτ’ ἐθελησετε.

Idem, p. 159.——ὑπηγάγετο εἰς τὴν νῦν παροῦσαν δουλεὶαν.

On the Treaty with Alexander, p. 227. * * * ἤ πείσθεντας γε δουλεύειν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων.

Idem, p. 229.——τόν δ’ εἰς δουλείαν ἄγοντά με, &c.

De Corona, p. 208.——πότερ’ ὡς ὁ πατήρ σου, Τρόμης, ἐδούλευε παρ’ Ἐλπίᾳ τῷ πρός τῷ Θησείῳ διδάσκοντι γράμματα, &c.

Idem.——ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁ τριηραύλης Φορμίων, ὁ Δίωνος τοῦ φρεαῤῥίου δοῦλος, &c.

Idem, p. 289.——ὥστ’ ἐλεύθερος ἐκ δούλου, καὶ, &c.

Idem, p. 309.——τοὺς Ἑλλήνας καταδουλουμένους.

Idem, p. 315.——προσθεμένην ἀσφαλῶς δουλεύειν.

Idem, p. 316.——δι’ ὅτου δουλεύσουσιν εὐτυχῶς.

Idem.——ὁ δὲ καὶ τῇ πατρίδι ὑπέρ τοῦ μὴ ταύτην ἐπιδεῖν δουλεύουσαν ἀποθνήσκειν ἐθελήσει, καὶ φοβερωτέρας ἡγήσεται τάς ὕβρεις καὶ τας αἰτίμιας, ἅς ἐν δουλευούσῃ τῇ πόλει φέρειν ἀνάγκη τοῦ θανάτου.

Idem, p. 343, (in the Epitaph.)——ὡς μὴ ζυγὸν αὐχένι θέντες δουλοσύνης, &c.

Idem, p. 345.——ἕως δούλους ἐποίησαν.

Oratio de Falsa Legatione, vol. ii. p. 37.——ἀλλὰ δουλεύειν, καὶ τεθνᾶναι τῷ φόβω, καὶ τοὺς Θηβαίους, καὶ τοὺς Φιλίππου ξένους, [ὁὕς] ἀναγκάζονται τρέφειν, διωκισμένοι κατὰ κώμας, καὶ παρῃρημένοι τὰ ὅπλα.

Idem, p. 54.——καὶ γὰρ τοι, πρῶτον μὲν Αμφίπολιν, πόλιν ὑμετέραν, δούλην κατέστησεν, ἣν τότε σύμμαχον αὐτοῦ καὶ φίλην ἒγραψεν.

Idem, p. 60.——ὥστ’ ἐκεῖνος ὁ δουλεύσων ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς εἰρήνης λυσιτελοῦσιν, οὐχ ὑμεις.

Idem, p. 78.——ὅτι ταῦτα μὲν αὐτῷ συνῄδει πεπραγμένα, καὶ δοῦλος ἦν τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων.

Idem, p. 95. Ἐλεγεῖα Σολωνος.

Εἰς δὲ κακήν ταχέως ἤλυθε δουλοσύνην, Ἥ στάσιν ἔμφυλον, πόλεμόν θ’ εὕδοντ’ ἐπεγείρει, Ὅς πολλῶν ἐρατὴν ὤλεσεν ἡλικίην.

Idem, p. 97.——οἱ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι γνωριμώτατοι, καὶ προεστάναι τῶν κοινῶν ἀξιούμενοι, τὴν ἁυτῶν προδιδόντες ἐλευθερίαν, οἱ δυστυχεῖς, αὐθαίρετον αὑτοις ἐπάγονται δουλείαν, Φιλίππου φιλίαν, καὶ ξενίαν, καὶ ἑταιρίαν, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦθ’ ὑποκοριζόμενοι.

Oratio adversus Leptinem, p. 174.——πῶς γὰρ οὐχὶ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο δεινότατ’ ἄν πεπονθὼς ὁ Χαβρίας φανείη εἰ μὴ μόνον εξαρκέσειε τοῖς τα τοιαῦτα πολιτευομένοις τὸν ἐκείνου δοῦλον Λυχίδαν πρόξενον ὑμετερον πεποιηκέναι, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ δια τοῦτον πάλιν τῶν ἐκεὶνῳ τι δοθὲντων ἀφελοιντο, χαὶ ταῦτ’ αἰτίαν λέγοντες ψευδῆ;

Oratio contra Midiam, p. 207.——καὶ τοσαύτῃ γ’ ἐχρήσατο ὑπερβολῇ, ὥστε, κᾄν εἰς δοῦλον ὑβρίζῃ τις, ὁμοίως ἒδωκεν ὑπὲρ τούτου γραφήν. * * * ἐπειδή δὲ εὕρεν οὐχ ἐπιτήδειον. μητε πρὸς δοῦλον, μηθ’ ὅλως ἐξεῖναι πραττεῖν ἐπέταξεν.

P. 208. Νομος.—Ἐὰν τις ὑβρίσῃ εἴς τινα, ἤ παῖδα, ἤ γύναῦκα, ἤ ἄνδρα, τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἤ τῶν δοῦλων, ἤ παράνομον τι ποιήσῃ εἴς τούτων τινὰ, γραφέσθω πρός τούς θεσμοθέτας ὁ βουλόμενος Ἀθηναῖων, οἷς ἔξεστιν. * * * ἀκούετε, ὤ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦ νόμου τῆς φιλανθρωπίας, ὅς οὐδὲ τούς δούλους ὑβρίζεσθαι ἀξιοῖ.

P. 209.——ὅμως οὐδ’ ὅσων ἄν τιμὴν καταθέντες δούλους κτήσωνται.

P. 210.——Ἀπόλλωνι ἀποτροπαίῳ βοῦν θῦσαι, καὶ στεφανηφορεῖν ἐλευθέρους καὶ δούλους, καὶ ἐλινύειν μίαν ἡμέραν.

Idem, p. 253.——τύπτειν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς πομπῆς καὶ τοῦ μεθύειν πρὸφασιν λαβὼν, ἀδικεῖν, ὡς δούλοις χρῶμενος τοῖς ἐλευθέροις.

Oratio adversus Androtionem, p. 293.——ὑπέρ τοῦ μή τό σῶμα ἁλούς εἰς τό δεσμωτήριον ἕλκεσθαι, ἤ ἄλλα ἀσχημονοίη, ἃ δουλων, οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, ἐστὶν ἔργα, &c.

Idem.——καὶ μὴν, εἰ θέλοιτε σκέψασθαι, τί δοῦλον, ἤ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι, διαφὲρει, τοῦτο μέγιστον ἄν ἕυροιτε, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν δούλοις τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἁδικημάτων ἁπάντων ὑπεύθυνόν ἐστι.

Idem, p. 295.——πότερ’ οὖν οἴεσθε τούτων ἕκαστον μισεῖν, καὶ πολεμεῖν αὐτῷ, διὰ τὴν εἰσφοραν τύυτην, ἤ τὸν μὲν αὐτῶν, ὅτι, πάντων ἀκουόντων ὑμῶν, ἐν τῷ δήμῳ δοῦλον ἔφη, καὶ ἐκ δούλων εἴναι, καὶ προσήκειν αὐτῷ τὸ ἕκτον μέρος ἐισφέρειν μετὰ τῶν μετοίκων.

Idem, p. 298.——εἰ γὰρ ἀνδραπόδων πόλις, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῶν ἄρχειν ἑτέρων ἀξιούντων, ὡμολογεῖτε εἶναι, ὀυκ ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς ὕβρεις ἠνέσχεσθε τὰς τούτου, ἅς κατὰ τὴν ἀγοραν ὕβριζεν, ὁμοῦ μετοίκους, Ἀθηναίους, δέων, ἀπάγων, βοῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος, δούλους καὶ ἐκ δούλων καλῶν, ἑαυτοῦ βελτίους, καὶ ἐκ βελτίονων, ἐρωτῶν.

Idem, p. 299.——νῦν δ’ ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς, ὅ δίκαιον ἔσθ’ ὁρίσας, μὴ σοὶ πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς αὑτῆς δούλοις, τὴν πόλιν, ὁπότ’ ἄλλο τι πράττων, &c.

Oratio adversus Timocratem, vol. iii. p. 128.——καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων, ὦ ἀνδρες δικασταὶ, ὅσοι ἄν ἐλεῦθεροι γένωνται, οὐ τῆς ἐλευθερίας χάριν ἔχουσι τοῖς δεσπόταις, ἀλλὰ μισοῦσι μάλιστα ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων, ὅτι συνίσασιν αὐτοῖς δουλούσασιν.

Idem, p. 133.——εἰ οὖν μὴ τιμωρήσησθε τούτους, οὐκ ἄν φθάνοι το πλῆθος τούτοις τοῖς θηρίοις δουλεῦον. Idem, p. 141.——καὶ μὴν εἰ θέλοιτε σκέψασθαι παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικαταὶ, τι δοῦλον, ἤ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι διαφέρει, τοῦτο μεγίστον ἄν ἕυροιτε, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν δούλοις τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἁπάντων ὑπεύθυνον ἐστι, τοῖς δ’ ἐλευθέροις ὒστατον τοῦτο προσήκει κολάζειν.

Oratio III. adversus Aphobum, p. 242.——καίτοι ἒιγ’ ἦν δοῦλος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ μὴ προωμολόγητο πρὸς τῦυδ’ ἐλεύθερος εἶναι, &c.

Idem, p. 243.——ἀλλά καὶ δοῦλον εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ ὄντι.

Idem, p. 247.——διόπερ τοὺς ὁμολογουμένως δούλους παραβὰς, τὸν ἐλεύθερον ἠξίον βασανίζειν, ὅν οὐδ’ ὅσιον παραδοῦναι, &c.

Oratio I. adversus Onetorem, p. 266.——οὐ χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοῦς δούλους βασανίζοντες οὕτω ζητεῖτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν τῶν πεπραγμένων. * * * δούλων δὲ βασανισθέντων, οὐδένες πώποτ’ ἐξηλέγχθησαν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐκ τῆς βασάνου εἶπον.

Oratio in Phormionem, vol. iv. p. 13.——νῦν δ’ οὐκ ἐμοὶ, * * * ἀλλ’ ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, καὶ τῆς συγγραφῆς σοι κειμένης Ἀθηνηοι καὶ πρὸς ἐμὲᾧ, καὶ, ᾧ τὸ χρυσίον ἀπεδίδους, ὄντος θνητοῦ, καὶ πέλαγος τοσοῦτον μέλλοντος πλεῖν, μάρτυρα οὐδέν’ ἐποιήσω, οὔτε δοῦλον, οὔτ’ ἐλεύθερον.

Oratorio in Pantanænetum, p. 80.——τίς γὰρ πωποτε τῷ δεσπότῃ λαχών, τοῦ δούλου τὰ πράγματα, ὥσπερ κυρίου, κατηγόρωρησεν;

Oratio in Macartatum, p.173.——ἐπαγγέλλειν δὲ, περὶ μὲν τῶν δοῶλων τῷ δεσπότῃ περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων τοις τα χρήματ’ ἔχουσιν.

Oratio in Stephanum, I. p. 217.——φανήσεται γὰρ οὐ πατρὸς, ὑπὲρ ὑιέων γράφοντος, ἐοικυῖα διαθήκη, ἀλλὰ δούλου λελυμασμένον τὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν, ὅπως μή δώσει δίκην σκοποῦντος.

Idem, p. 231.——καὶ εἰ μέν πένης οὗτος ἦν, ἡμεῖς δ’ εὐυποροῦντες ἐτυγχάνομεν, καὶ συνέβη τι παθεῖν, οἷα πολλὰ, ἐμοὶ, οἰ παῖδες ἄν οἰ τούτου τῶν ἐμῶν θυγατέρων ἐδικάζοντο, οἰ τοῦ δούλου τῶν του δεσπότου· * * * οὗτος δ’ αὖ τοὐναντίον τόν δεσπότην ὁ δοῦλος ἐξετάζει, ὡς δῆτα πονηρὸν καὶ ἄσωτον ἐκ τούτων ἐπιδείξων.

Idem, p.234.——ὄντων γὰρ ἡμῶν τοιωυτων, ὁποίυς τινὰς ἄν καὶ σὺ κατασκευάσῃς τῷ λόγω, σὺ δοῦλος ἦσθα.

Idem, p. 235.——καὶ δέομαι καὶ ἀντιβολῶ καὶ ἱκετεύω, μὴ ὑπεριδητέ με καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας, δι’ ἔνδειαν τοῖς ἐμαυτοῦ δούλοις, καὶ τοῖς τούτου κόλαξιν ἐπιχάρτους γενομένους. * * * δοῦλοι μεν ἐκεῖνοι, δοῦλος δ’ ὗυτος ἦν, δεσπόται δ' ὑμεῖς, δεσπότης δ’ ἦν ἐγώ.

Oratio in Timotheum, p. 312.——ὁ δέ οὔτε μαρτυρίαν παρέσχετο, οὔθ' ὡς δοῦλον τοῦ Αἰσχρίωνα παραδοὺς, ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τὸν ἔλεγχον ἠξίου γενέσθαι, φοβούμενος, ἄν μὲν μαρτυρίαν παράσχηται, ὡς ἐλευθέρου ὄντος, &c.

Sophocles, Electra, line 814:

ἤδη δεῖ με δουλεύειν πάλιν ἐν τοῖσιν ἐχθίστοισιν ἀνθρώπων ἐμοί, φονεῦσι πατρός.

This Francklin translates thus: “Left at last, a slave to those whom most on earth I hate.”

Antigone, line 202.——τοὺς δὲ δουλώσας ἄγειν.

Francklin thus—“And made you slaves.”

Idem, line 478.

οὐ γαρ ἐκπέλει φρονεῖν μέ γ’ ὅστις δοῦλός ἐστι τῶν πέλας.

Thus—“’Tis not for slaves to be so haughty.”

Idem, line 517.——οὐ γάρ τι δοῦλος, ἀλλ’ ἀδελφὸς ὤλετο.

Thus—“He was a brother, not a slave.”

Idem, line 756.——γυναικὸς ὥν δούλευμα, μὴ κώτιλλέ με.

Thus—“Think not to make me thus thy scorn and laughter, thou woman’s slave.”

Ajax, line 489.——νῦν δ’ εἰμι δούλη.

Thus—“Though now a wretched slave.”

499.——ξύν παιδὶ τῷ σῷ δουλὶαν ἕξειν τροφήν.

Thus—“And thy loved son shall eat the bread of slavery.”

1020.——δοῦλος λόγοισιν ἀντ’ ἐλευθέρου φανείς.

Francklin thus——“And to slavery doomed.”

1235.——ταῦτ’ οὐκ ἀκούειν μεγάλα πρὸς δούλων κακά;

Thus——“Shall we be thus insulted by our slaves?”

1289.——ὁ δοῦλος, ὁ ἐκ τῆς βαρβάρου μητρὸς γεγώς.

Thus——“I am a slave, born of a barbarian mother.”

Oedipus Tyrannus, line 1062——

σύ μέν γάρ, οὐδ’ ἄν ἐκ τρίτης ἐγὼ υντρός φανῶ τρίδουλος, ἐκφανεῖ κακή.

Thus——“Were I descended from a race of slaves, ’twould not dishonour thee.”

1123.——ἦ δοῦλος, οὐκ ὠνητός, ἀλλ’ οἴκοι τραφείς.

Thus——“Although I am a slave, yet I was not purchased, but born and reared up in his house.”

1168.——ἦν δοῦλος, ἤ κείνου τις ἐγγενὴς γεγώς;

Thus—“Was he the son of a slave; if not, of whom?”

Oedipus Coloneus, line 917—

καὶ μοι πόλιν κένανδρον ἤ δούλην τινὰ ἔδοξας εἶναι.

Francklin thus—“Or didst thou think I valued a desert land, or that my people were a race of slaves?”

Trachiniæ, line 53.——δούλαις, female slaves.

Line 63—

ἥδε γὰρ γυνή δούλη μέν, ἑιρηκεν δ’ ἐλεύθερον λόγον.

Francklin thus—“This woman, though a slave, hath spoken what would have well become the mouth of freedom’s self to utter.”

257.——ξύν παισὶ καὶ γυναικὶ δουλώσειν ἔτι.

Thus—“And bind in slavery his wife and all his race.”

267.——φωνεῖ δέ, δοῦλος ἀνδρὸς ὡς ἐλεύθερου ῥαίοιτο.

Francklin thus—“And said a slave like him should bend beneath a freeman’s power.”

283.——πόλις δέ δούλη.

302.——τανῦν δε δοῦλον ἴοχουσιν βίον.

367.——οὐδ’ ὥς τε δούλην.

467.——ἔπερσε κᾳδουλωσεν.

Philoctetes, line 995——

οἴ μοι τάλας. ἡμᾶς μὲν ὡς δούλους σαφῶς πατὴρ ἄρ’ ἐξέφυσεν, οὐδ’ ἐλευθέρους.

Aristophanes, Ranæ (Batrachoi), line 191——

δοῦλον οὐκ ἄγω, εἰ μὴ νεναυμάχηκε τὴν περὶ τῶν κρεῶν.

531.——ὡς δοῦλος ὤν καὶ θνητός.

541.——εἰ Ξανθίας μὲν δοῦλος ὤν.

584.——δοῦλος ἅμα καὶ θνὸτος ὤν;

632.——ἀθάνατος εἰναί φημι Διόνυσος Διὸς, τοῦτον δὲ δοῦλον.

694.——κᾀντὶ δούλων δεσπότας.

742.——ὅτι, δοῦλος ὤν, ἔφασκες εἶναι δεσπότης.

743.——

τοῦτο μέντοι δουλικὸν εὐθυς πεποίηκας.

949.——ἀλλ’ ἔλεγεν ἡ γυνή τ’ ἐμοὶ χῷ δοῦλος οὐδὲν ἧττον.

Aves (Ornithes), line 69.——ὄσνις ἔγωγε δοῦλος.

Line 763—

τοῦ Φιλήμονος γένους εἰ δέ δοῦλος ἐστι Κὰρ, etc.

911.——ἔὣπειτα δῆτα δοῦλος ὣν κόμην ἔχεις.

Equites (Hyppes), line 44—

οὗτος τῇ προτέρᾳ νουμυηνίᾳ ἐπρίατο δοῦλον.

Lysistrate, line 330.——δούλῃσιν ὠστιζομένη.

Acharnenses, 401—

ὅθ’ ὁ δοῦλος οὑτωσὶ σαφῶς ἀπεκρίνατο.

Vespæ (Sphekes), 517—

ἀλλά δουλεύων λέληθας. παῦε δουλείαν λέγων, ὅστις ἄρχω τῶν ἁπάντων.

Line 602—

ἥν δουλείαν οὖσαν ἔφασκες χὐπηρεσίαν ἀποδείξειν.

Line 681—

ἀλλ’ αὐτην μοι τὴν δουλείαν οὐκ ἀποφαίνων ἀποκναίεις. οὐ γὰρ μεγάλη δουλεία στὶν, τούτους μὲν ἅπαντας ἐν ἀρχαῖς.

Thesmophoriazusæ, line 537—

αὐταί γε καὶ τα δουλάρια, &c.

564.———οὐδ’ ὡς σὺ, τῆς δοὺλης τεκούσης ἄῤῥρεν’.

Ecclesiazusæ, line 651.——οἱ δοῦλοι.

Line 721—

καὶ τάς γε δούλας οὐχὶ δεῖ κοσμουμένας τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ὑφαρπάζειν Κύπριν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῖς δοὺλοισι κοιμᾶσθαι μόνον, κατωνάκῃ τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας.

Homer, Iliad iii. 407—

Μηδ’ ἔτι σοῖσι πόδεσσιν ὑποστρέψειας Ὄλυμπον, Αλλ’ αἰεὶ περὶ κεῖνον ὀΐζυε, καὶ ἑ φύλασσε, Εἰσόκε σ’ ἢ ἄλοχον ποιήσεται, ἢ ὅγε δοὺλην.

Which Pope has paraphrased thus—

“A handmaid goddess at his side to wait, Renounce the glories of thy heavenly state, Be fix’d for ever to the Trojan shore, His spouse, or slave, and mount the skies no more.”

Iliad vi. 460—

Ἕξτορος ἥδε γυνή, ὅς ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι Τρώων ἱπποδάμων, ὅτε Ἴλιον ἀμφεμάχοντο. Ὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέει· σοὶ δ’ αὖ νέον ἔσσεται ἄλγος Χήτεϊ τοιοῦδ’ ἀνδρός, ἀμύνειν δούλιον ἧμαρ.

We should be happy to see the exquisite tenderness of the original transferred into English. We offer:—“This is the wife of Hector, the bravest of the horse-taming Trojans, when our people fought about Ilion. Thus perchance some one will say: and this will be to thee a fresh sorrow, to feel the want of thy husband to ward off the day of slavery.”

Odyssey xiv. 339—

Ἀλλ’ ὅτε γαίης πολλὸν ἀπέπλω ποντοπόρος νηῦς, Αὐτικα δούλιον ἧμαρ ἐμοὶ περιμηχανόωντο.

Pope thus—

“Soon as remote from shore they plough the wave, With ready hands they rush to seize the slave.”

Odyssey xxii. 421—

Πεντηκοντά τοί εἰσιν ἐνι μεγάροισι γυναῖκες Δμωαί, τὰς μεν τ’ ἔργα διδάξαμεν ἐργάζεσθαι, Εἰρια τε ξαίνειν, καὶ δουλοσύνης ἀνεχέσθαι.

Pope thus—

“Then she: In these thy kingly walls remain (My son) full fifty of the handmaid train; Taught by my care to cull the fleece or weave, And servitude with pleasing tasks deceive.”

Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, line 130—

πόδα παρθένιον ὅσιον ὁσίας κλῃδούχου δούλα (a slave) πέμπω.

Line 451.——δουλείας ἐμέθεν δειλαίας παυσίπονος.

Potter thus—“And bid the toils of slavery cease.”

Troades (Trojan Dames), line 140—

δούλα δ’ ἄγομαι γραῦς ἐξ οἴκων.

“I, an old woman, am led from my home a slave.”

Idem, 159. δουλείαν αἰάζουσιν.

“Bemoan their slavery.”

186.——τῷ πρόσκειμαι δούλα τλάμων.

“Assigned a slave,” &c.

197.——δουλεύσω γραῦς.

“An old woman enslaved.”

214.——ἔνθ’ ἀντάσω Μενέλα δούλα.

“Exposed me a slave to Menelaus.”

Idem, 235—

δοῦλαί γαρ δὴ Δωρίδος ἐσμέν χθονὸς ἤδη.

“We are slaves of the Dorian land, even now.”

284.——φωτὶ δουλεύειν.

“I am enslaved,” &c.

599.——ζυγά δ’ ἤνυσε δούλια Τροία.

“Troy yields to the yoke of slavery.”

615.——εἰς δοῦλον ἥκει.

“Is sunk in slavery.”

661.——δουλεύσω δ’, &c.

Idem, 678—

ναυσθλοῦμαι δ’ ἐγὼ πρός Ἑλλάδ’ αἰχμάλωτος εἰς δοῦλον ζυγόν.

“I go by sea to Greece, a prisoner of war, to a yoke of slavery.”

957.——κείνης δέ δοῦλός ἐστι.

“But is her slave.”

971.——πικρῶς ἐδούλευς’.

“Harshly enslaved.”

1341.——ἴτ’ ἐπὶ τάλαιναν δούλειον ἁμέραν βίου.

Bacchæ, 366.——γὰρ τῷ Διὸς δουλευτέον.

803.——τί δρῶντα; δουλεύοντα δουλείαις ἐμαῖς;

Potter thus—“What should I do? be to my slaves a slave?”

1028.——ὥς σε στενάζω, δοῦλος ὤν μὲν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως χρηστοῖσι δούλοις συμφορὰ τὰ δεσποτῶν.

Potter thus—

“How I lament thee, though a slave; yet slaves, If faithful, mourn the ruin of their lords.”

Cyclops, 76—

ἐγὼ δ’, ὁ σος πρόσπολος, θητεύω Κύκλωπι τῷ μονοδέρκτᾳ, δοῦλος ἀλαινων σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ μελέᾳ σᾶς χωρὶς φιλίας.

Helena, 283—

καὶ φίλων τητωμένη, δούλη καθέστηκ’, οὖς’ ἐλευθέρων ἄπο. τὰ βαρβάρων γὰρ δοῦλα πάντα, πλὴν ἑνός.

Potter thus—

“Of friends deprived, I, from the free who draw my generous blood, Am made a slave; for ’mong barbarians all Are slaves, save one.”

299.——ἀσχήμονες μὲν ἀγχόναι μετάρσιοι, κᾀν τοῖσι δούλοις δυσπρεπὲς νομίζεται.

Potter thus—

“The pendent cord Disgraces; even in slaves it is deemed base.”

Line 728—

ἐγω μὲν εἴην, κεἰ πέφυχ’ ὅμως λάτρις, ἐν τοῖσι γενναίοισιν ἠριθμημένος δούλοισι, τοὔνομ’ οὐκ ἔχων ἐλεύθερον, τόν νοῦν δε· κρεῖσσον γὰρ τόδ’ ἤ δυοῖν κακοῖν ἕν ὄντα χρῆσθαι, τὰς φρένας τ’ ἔχειν κακὰς, ἄλλων τ’ ἀκούειν δοῦλον ὄντα τῶν πέλας.

Potter thus—

“It is my wish, Though born a slave, among the generous slaves To be accounted, bearing a free mind, If not the name; for better this I deem, Than two bad things, to harbour a base mind, And hear from those around the name of slave.”

We deem this translation defective, because it makes no distinction between the ideas conveyed by the words λάτρις and δουλος. True, at this late day, the passage is somewhat obscure. But the speaker was not a slave: he says he was born a λάτρις—a character far less elevated than the δοῦλος, yet a freeman, but possessing a greater servility of mind than even the doulos, and his condition often far more abject. The slave possessed the protection of his master; but the latris, with all the destitution and degradation incident to the lowest conditions of the freeman, often coveted the happier condition of the doulos. The idea conveyed by this messenger is literally this: “Although born a latris, I had rather be considered among the home-born slaves, not having the name of freedom, than to have merely the name; for I consider this a good choice between the two evils—the being supposed to have the base mind of the latris, and the being truly called a slave by those near us.” The substance is, he had rather be a doulos than a latris.

That he was not a slave is evident from what follows in the 797th line, where Menelaus calls him emphatically his prospolon, merely an attendant.

1630.——ἀλλὰ δεσποτῶν κρατήσεις, δοῦλος ὤν;

Potter—“Slave as thou art, wilt thou control thy lord?”

Idem, 1640.

πρὸ δεσποτῶν τοῖσι γενναίοισι δούλοις εὐκλεέστατον θανεῖν.

“To home-born slaves, it is glory to die for their masters.”

Ion, line 132.——θεοῖσι δούλαν χέρ’ ἔχειν.

“To be a slave to the gods.”

182.——Φοίβῷ δουλεύσω, &c.

327.——τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ κοσμούμεθ’, ᾧ δουλεύομεν.

556.——ἐκπεφεύγαμεν τὸ δοῦλον.

761.——δούλευμα πιστόν, &c.

837.——εκ δούλης τινός, &c.

854.——ἕν γάρ τι τοῖς δούλοισιν, &c.

855.——τοὒνομα· τὰ δ’ ἀλλα πάντα τῶν ἐλευθέρων οὐδεὶς κακίων δοῦλος, ὅστις ἐσθλὸς ᾖ.

Potter—

“It is the name; in all else than the free The slave is nothing worse, if he be virtuous.”

983.——ἐπίσημον ὁ φόνος, καὶ τὸ δοῦλον ἀσθενές.

Potter—“An open murder, and with coward slaves.”

1109.——τί δ' ἔστιν, ὦ ξύνδουλε;

“What is the matter, my fellow-slave?”

Hercules, 190.——ἀνὴρ ὁπλίτης δοῦλος ἐστι τῶν ὅπλων.

Potter—

“——the man array’d in arms Is to his arms a slave.”

Electra, 110.——δούλης γυναικός, female slave.

633.——δούλων γὰρ ἴδιον τοῦτο, σοὶ δὲ σύμφορον.

Potter—“Such the slave’s nature, but this favours thee.”

Line 898—

σὸς γάρ ἐστι νῦν δοῦλος.

“He is thy slave now.”

Medea, line 54—

χρηστοῖσι δούλοις ξυμφορὰ τὰ δεσποτῶν κακῶς πίτνοντα καὶ φρενῶν ἀνθάπτεται.

“Slaves who are faithful, suffer in the afflictions of their masters.”

Line 65.——μή, πρὸς γενείου, κρύπτε σύνδουλον σέθεν.

“Now by this beard, deceive not by secrecy thy fellow-slave.”

Hecuba, line 234—

εἰ δ’ ἔστι τοῖς δούλοισι τοὺς ἐλευθέρους μὴ λυπρὰ μηδὲ καρδίας δηκτήρια ἐξιστορῆσαι, σοὶ μὲν εἰρῆσθαι χρεών, ἡμᾶς δ’ ἀκοῦσαι τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας τάδε.

Potter thus—

“But may slaves be permitted of the free To ask—I mean no rudeness, no reproach— But may we ask? And wilt thou answer us?”

247.——τί δῆτ’ ἔλεξας, δούλος ὤν ἐμὸς τότε;

Potter—“What didst thou say, when thou wast then my slave?”

Idem, 291—

νόμος δ’ εν ὑμῖν τοῖς τ’ ἐλευθέροις ἴσος καὶ τοῖσι δούλοις αἵματος κεῖται πέρι.

Potter thus—

“The laws of blood Are equal to us slaves, and you our lords.”

331.——αἰαῖ· τὸ δοῦλον ὡς κακὸν πεφυκέναι.

“Ah well, how great the evil to have become a slave!”

356.——νῦν δ’ εἰμὶ δούλη.

“But I am now a slave.”

Idem, 365—

λέχη δε τἀμα δοῦλος ὠνητός πόθεν χρανεῖ.

“And then, a female stewardess, a slave purchased somewhere, shall defile my bed.”

Idem, 444—

αὔρα, ποντιὰς αὔρα, ἅτε ποντοπόρους κομίζεις θοὰς ἀκάτους ἐπ’ οἶδμα λίμνας, ποῖ με τὰν μελέαν πορεύσεις; τῷ δουλόσυνος πρὸς οἶκον κτηθεῖσ’ ἀφίξομαι; ἤ Δωρίδος ὅρμον αἴας, ἤ Φθιάδος.

Potter—

“Tell me, ye gales, ye rising gales, That lightly sweep along the azure plain, Whose soft breath fills the swelling sails, And wafts the vessel dancing o'er the main; Whither, ah! whither will ye bear This sickening daughter of despair? What proud lord’s rigour shall the slave deplore, On Doric or on Phthian shore?”

495.——αὕτη δὲ δούλη, γραῦς, ἄπαις, ἐπὶ χθονι κεῖται, κόνει φύρουσα δύστηνον κάρα.

Potter—

“Herself a slave, old, childless, on the ground She lies, and soils her hoar head in the dust.”

741.——

ἀλλ’ ἔι με δούλην πολεμίαν θ’ ἡγούμενος γονάτων ἀπώσαιτ’, ἄλγος αὖ προσθείμεθ’ ἄν

Potter—

“But should he treat me as a slave, a foe, And spurn me, I should add to my afflictions.”

757.——

οὐ δῆτα· τοὺς κακοὺς δὲ τιμωρουμένη, αἰῶνα τὸν ξύμπαντα δουλεῦσαι θέλω.

Potter—

“Not freedom, but revenge; revenge on baseness: Grant me revenge, and let me die a slave.”

798.——ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν δοῦλοί τε κἀσθενεῖς ἴσως.

Potter—“But we are slaves, but we perchance are weak

809.——τύραννος ἦν ποτ’, ἀλλὰ νῦν δούλη σέθεν.

Potter—“Erewhile I was a queen, but now a slave.”

Idem, 864—

οὐκ ἕστι θνητῶν ὅστις ἔστ’ ἐλεύθερος· ἢ χρημάτων γὰρ δοῦλος ἐστιν ἢ τύχης, ἢ πλῆθος αὐτὸν πόλεος ἢ νόμων γραφαὶ εἴργουσι χρῆσθαι μὴ κατὰ γνώμην τρόποις

Potter—

“Vain is the boast of liberty in man: A slave to fortune or a slave to wealth, Or by the people or the laws restrained, He dares not act the dictates of his will.”

1252.——

oimoi, gynaikos, hôs eoich', hêssômenos doulês, hyphexô tois kakiosin dikên.

Potter—

“What! from these wretches shall I suffer thus, Defeated by a woman and a slave?”

Phœnissæ, line 94.——ὡς δούλω, as a slave.

189.——δουλείαν περιβαλών.

“To lead in slavery.”

192.——δουλοσύναν τλαίην.

“To suffer slavery.”

205.——Φοίβω δούλα. “Slave to Phœbus.”

1606.——ἀλλὰ δουλεῦσαι τέ με—Πολύβον, &c.

“Slave to Polybus,” &c.

Orestes, line 221.——ἰδοὺ τὸ δούλευμ’ ἡδύ, κοὐκ ἀναίνομαι.

Idem, 715—

——νῦν δ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχει δούλοισιν εἶναι τοῖς σοφοῖσι τῆς τύχης.

937.——ἤ γυναιξὶ δουλεύειν χρεών.

Potter—“Vile slaves to your wives.”

1115.——οὐδὲν τὸ δοῦλον πρὸς τὸ μὴ δοῦλον γένος.

Such was the reply of Pylades to his friend Orestes, in reference to the Phrygian slave; and we shall close our quotations from this remarkable tragic poet, with an interview between Orestes and one of these Phrygian slaves.

Line 1522—

Orestes. Δοῦλος ὤν φοβεῖ τὸν Ἁΐδην, ὅς σ’ ἀπαλλάξει κακῶν; ΐ Slave. Πᾶς ἀνὴρ, κἂν δοῦλος ᾖ τις, ἥδεται τὸ φῶς ὁρῶν.

Potter—

Orestes. “Fears a slave death, the end of all his ills?

Slave. “To slave or free, sweet is the light of heaven.”

Alcestes, line 638—

δουλίου δ’ ἀφ’ αἵματος μαστῷ γυναικὸς σῆς ὑπεβλήθην λάθρα.

Potter—“But, the base offspring of some slave, thy wife stole me, and put me to her breast.”

We find the following in a short notice of the life of Isocrates, by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

Page 23.——διδάσκει δ’ ὡς οὐ Μεσσηνίοις τοῖς οὐκετ’ οὖσιν, ἀλλὰ δούλοις καὶ εἵλωσιν ὁρμητηριον καὶ καταφυγὴν παρέξουσι τὴν πόλιν.

Also, page 26.——δουλευει γὰρ ἡ διάνοια πόλλακις τῷ ῥυθμῷ τε λέξεως, καὶ τῶν κομψοῦ λείπεται τὸ ἀληθινὸν.

Idem, 35.——ἡμεῖς δε καταδούλευμενοι, καὶ τᾀναντια τοῖς τότε πράττοντες.

Idem, 36.——καὶ τότε μὲν εἰ τριήρεις πληροῖεν, τοὺς μὲν ξένους καὶ τούς δούλους ναύτας εἰσεβίβαζον, τούς δε πολίτας μεθ’ ὅπλων ἐξέπεμπον.

Isocrates, (Cantabrigigiæ, 1686,) Orat. ad Demonicum, page 52— ἐν δὲ τοῖς τερπνοῖς, ἄν αἰσχρὸν ὑπολάβῃς, τῶν μὲν οἰκετῶν ἄρχειν, ταῖς δι’ ἡδοναῖς δουλεύειν.

Ad Nicoclem, p. 74.——καὶ τοῦτο ἡγοῦ βασιλικώτατον ἐάν μηδεμίᾳ δουλεύης τῶν ἡδονων, ἀλλὰ κρατῇς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν μᾶλλον ἤ τῶν πολιτῶν.

Panegyricus, p. 121.——τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων οἵ βουλομένοι καταδουλώσασθαι τοὺς Ἑλλήνας, ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πρώτους ἰόντες.

Idem, 133.——ἧροῦντο δὲ τῶν εἱλώτων ἐνίοις δουλεύειν, ὥστε εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν πατρίδας ὑβρίζειν.

Idem, 137.——νῦν δὲ εἰς τοσαύτην δουλείαν καθεστώτων.

Idem.——μέγιστον δε τῶν κακῶν, ὅταν ὑπὲρ αὐτης τε δουλείας ἀναγκάζωνται συστρατεύεσθαι.

Idem.——κατορθώσαντες δὲ μᾶλλον εἰς τὸν ἐπίλοιπον χρόνον δουλεύσουσιν.

Idem, 144.——πρός μὲν τὸν πόλεμον ἐκλελύμενος, πρὸς δὲ τὴν δουλείαν ἄμεινον τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν οἰκετῶν πεπαιδευμένος.

Idem.——ἅπαντα δὲ τὸν χρόνον διάγουσιν, ὡς μέν τοὺς ὑβρίζοντες, τοῖς δὲ δουλεύοντες.

Idem, 150.——Σικελία δὲ καταδεδούλωται.

Idem, 151.——ὡς ὑπὲρ τούτων δουλεύειν ἠναγκασμέναι.

Idem, 153.——δημοσία δε τοσούτους τῶν συμμάχων περιορᾷν αὐτοις δουλεύοντας.

Orat. ad Philippum, p. 161.——ζητεῖν δὲ ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους τοὺς πόῤῥω μὲν κειμένους τῶν ἄρχειν δυναμένων, ἐγγὺς δὲ τῶν δουλεύειν εἰθισμένων.

Archidamus, p. 235.——νῦν καὶ τὴν τῶν δούλων παῤῥησίαν ὑπομένοντας φαίνεσθαι.

De Pace, sive Socialis, page 281.——καὶ τοτε μὲν εἔ τριήρεις πληροῖεν, τοὺς μὲν ξένους καὶ τοὺς δούλους ναύτας εἰσεβίβαζον.

Idem, p. 280.——ὑμεῖς δέ καταδουλούμενοι.

Idem, p. 306.——μὴ δουλείας ἀλλά σωτηρίας αὐτοῖς αἰτίαν γενέσθαι.

Evagoras, p. 310.——οὐ μὲν δουλεύτεον.

Idem, p. 320.——τοὺς μὲν φίλους ταῖς εὐεργεσίαις ὑπ’ αὐτῷ ποιούμενος τοὺς δέ ἄλλους τῇ μεγαλοψυχία καταδουλούμενος.

Idem, p. 326.——οἱ δέ Ἕλληνες ἀντί δουλείας αὐτονομίαν ἔσχον Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ τοσαῦτον ἐπέδοσαν.

Panathenaicus, p. 396.——οὕς μὲν ἐλευθερώσειν ὡμολόγησαν κατεδουλώσαντο μᾶλλον ἥ τοὺς εἵλωτας.

Idem, p. 400.——καὶ τὸ μη δικαίως τῶν ἄλλων ἄρχειν μᾶλλον ἤ φεύγοντας τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην, ἀδίκως Λακεδαιμονίοις δουλεύειν.

Idem, p. 412.——τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἑλλήνας καταδουλώσασθαι πρὸς μὲν τοιοῦτον κρατίσασαι ῥαδίως ἄν αὐτου.

Idem, p. 418.——καταδουλωσαμένους.

Plataicus, p. 459.——οἵ μὲν οὐδὲν ἧττον τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων δουλεύουσιν.

Idem.——τε δὲ τῶν ἄλλων δουλείας αὐτους κυρίους καθιστᾶσι.

Idem, p. 463.——δουλεὐειν.

Idem, p. 465.——δουλευουσῶν.

Idem, p. 466.——ἀλλὰ πολλοὺς μὲν μικρῶν ἕνεκα συμβουλαίων δουλεύοντας, ἄλλους δὲ ἐπὶ θητείαν ἴοντας.

Orat. de Permutatione, p. 493.——τὴν δε τῷ γένει τῆς σωτηρίας αἰτίαν οὖσαν, δουλεύειν αὐτοις ἀξιοῦν.

Idem, p. 494.——τῶν δέ βαρβάρων οἱ βουλόμενοι καταδουλοῦσθαι τοὺς Ἑλλήνας.

Idem, p. 502.——τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοις τὴν δουλείαν αἱρουμένοις.

Idem.——οὕτω καὶ τῶν πόλεων ταις ὑπερεχούσαις λυσιτελεῖν λεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀφανισθῆναι μᾶλλον ἤ δούλας ὀφθῆναι γενομένας.

Idem.——ὥστε μὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν αἴτιον γενήσθαι τί δουλείας.

Idem, p. 510.——ἡμεῖς δέ καταδουλούμενοι.

Idem, p. 511.——τοὺς μὲν ξένους καὶ τοὺς δούλους.

De Bigis, p. 530.——τοὺς πολίτας ἰδεῖν δουλεύοντας.

Epistolæ: to Philip, p. 611.——ἅ Ξέρξη τε τῷ καταδουλώσασθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας βουληθέντι.

To Jason, a freedman, p. 629.——καὶ τὰς τιμὰς ἡδίους νομίζω τὰς παρὰ τῶν μέγα φρονούντων, ἤ τὰς παρὰ τῶν δουλευόντων.

------------------

LESSON V.

But if it shall be objected, that by these writers the word δουλος, doulos, and its derivatives are used in a figurative sense, since these writers all exhibit minds deeply excited, or used all language with poetic license; we think such objection unfounded, so far as it alleges that they have used this word in an unusual manner, or have attributed to it any other sense than was attributed to it by all the Greeks.

Nevertheless, we propose now to present this word as it was used by Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, against whose use no cavil can be made; and we now fear not to assert that their use of this word will be in the most strict accordance with the authors already examined.

Plutarch, who was somewhat disposed to criticize other authors, speaking of Thucydides, expresses the idea that he wrote in such a manner that the reader saw the picture of what he represented. (See his De Gloria Atheniensium.) Plutarch was then clearly of opinion that the language of Thucydides was most appropriately accurate.

We here premise, that we shall not presume to offer our own translation to the extract we propose to make from Thucydides. From the many that have been made, we have selected that of the Rev. Dr. William Smith, of the cathedral of Chester, England, and concerning whom it may be proper to say a word. He translated Longinus with great accuracy and beauty. The Weekly Miscellany of Dec. 8th, 1739, says of this translation, “It justly deserves the notice and thanks of the public.” Father Phillips says, 1756, “A late English translation of the Greek critic, by Mr. Smith, is a credit to the author, and reflects lustre on Longinus himself.” Laudits of this work will fill a volume. In 1753 he translated Thucydides, and was directly created a doctor of divinity,—and we find in his epitaph now in the cathedral of Chester, “as a scholar his reputation is perpetuated by his valuable publications, particularly his correct and eloquent translations of Longinus, Thucydides, and Xenophon.” We have been thus minute that it may be known with what spirit we prepare this work.

THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, by Thucydides.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. chap. 8. Οἵ τε ἥσσους ὑπέμενον τὴν τῶν κρεισσόνων δουλείαν

“And the great, who had all needful supplies at hand, reduced less powerful cities into their own subjection.”

At that age of the world, when one city was conquered by another, all were reduced to slavery, unless by the especial favour of the conqueror. In this instance it would have been more literal to our present idiom to have used the term slavery, instead of subjection; because now there has grown up a wide distinction between the mere subjugating and enslaving.

Chap. 16. Κῦρος καὶ ἡ Περσικὴ βασιλεια, Κροῖσον καθελοῦσα, καὶ ὅσα ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ πρὸς θάλασσαν, ἐπεστράτευσε, καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ ἠπείρω πόλεις ἐδούλωσε.

“For Cyrus, after he had completed the conquest of Crœsus, and all the country which lieth between the river Halys and the sea, invaded them, and enslaved their towns upon the continent.”

Chap. 18. Δεκάτω δὲ ἔτει μετ’ αὐτην αὖθις ὁ βάρβαρος τῷ μεγάλω στόλῳ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα δουλωσόμενος ἦλθε.

“And in the tenth year after that, the barbarian, with a vast armament, invaded Greece in order to enslave it.”

Chap. 34. Οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῷ δοῦλοι, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ ὅμοιοι τοῖς λειπομένοις εἶναι, ἐκπέμπονται.

“They are not sent out to be the slaves, but to be the equals of those who remain behind.”

Chap. 55. Καὶ τῶν Κερκυραίων ὀκτακοσίους μὲν, οἵ ἦσαν δοῦλοι, ἀπέδοντο.

“Eight hundred of their Corcyrean prisoners, who were slaves, they sold at public sale.”

Chap. 68. Νῦν δὲ τί δεῖ μακρηγορεῖν, ὧν τοὺς μὲν δεδουλωμένους ὁπᾶτε.

“But now, what need can there be of multiplying words, when some you already see enslaved.”

Chap. 69. Ἐς τόδε τε ἀεὶ ἀποστεροῦντες οὐ μόνον τοὺς ὑπ’ ἐκείνων δεδουλωμένους ἐλευθερίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ὑμετέρους ἤδη ξυμμάχους. οὐ γὰρ ὁ δουλωσάμενος ἀλλ’ ὁ δυνάμενος μὲν παῦσαι, περιορῶν δὲ, ἀληθέστερον αὐτὸ δρᾷ.

“Ever since you have connived at liberty overthrown, not only in whatever communities they have proceeded to enslave, but now where even your own confederates are concerned. For not to the men who rivet on the chains of slavery, but to such as, though able, yet neglect to prevent it, ought the sad event with truth to be imputed.”

Chap. 74. Τῶν ἄλλων ἤδη μέχρι ἡμῶν δουλευόντων, &c.

“And every state already enslaved,” &c.

Chap. 81. Οὕτως εἰκὸς, Ἀθηναίους φρονήματι, μήτε τῇ γῇ δουλεῦσαι, μήτε ὥσπερ ἀπείρους καταπλαγῆναι τῷ πολέμῳ.

“It is by no means consistent with the spirit of Athenians to be slaves to their soil, or, like unpractised soldiers, to shudder at war.”

Chap. 98. Πρώτη τε αὕτη πόλις ξυμμαχὶς παρὰ τὸ καθεστηκὸς ἐδουλώθη.

“This was the first confederate state which was enslaved to gratify their aspiring ambition.”

Chap. 101. Πλεῖστοι δὲ τῶν Εἱλώτων ἐγένοντο οἱ τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων τότε δουλωθέντων ἀπόγονοι· ᾗ καὶ Μεσσήνιοι ἐκλήθησαν οἱ πάντες.

“Most Of the Helots were descendants of the ancient Messenians, then reduced to slavery, and on this account all of them in general were called Messenians.”

Chap. 103. Ἤν δέ τις ἁλίσκηται, τοῦ λαβόντος εἶναι δοῦλον.

“What if any one of them be ever found there, he should be made the slave of whoever apprehended him.”

Chap. 121. Εἰ οἱ μὲν εκείνων ξύμμαχοι ἐπί δουλεία τῇ αὐτῶν φέροντες οὐκ ἀπεροῦσιν.

“Which rivet slavery on themselves,” &c.

Chap. 122. Καὶ τὴν ἧσσαν, εἰ καὶ δεινόν τῷ ἀκοῦσαι, ἴστω οὐκ ἄλλο τι φέρουσαν ἣ ἄντικρυς δουλείαν.

“Such a triumph, how grating soever the bare mention of it may be to any of your ears, yet be it known, can and is nothing else but plain and open slavery.”

Chap. 124. Καὶ τοὺς νῦν δεδουλωμένους Ἕλληνας, ἐλευθερώσωμεν.

“And shall immediately recover liberty for those Grecians who are already enslaved.”

Chap. 138. Καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐλπίδα, ἣν ὑπετίθει αὐτῷ δουλώσειν.

“As the hope be suggested to him of enslaving Greece.”

Chap. 141. Τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν δύναται δούλωσιν.

“The very same tendency to make them slaves.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. chap. 61. Δουλοῖ γὰρ φρόνημα τὸ αἰφνίδιον καὶ ἀπροσδοκητον, καὶ τὸ πλείστω παραλόγῳ ξυμβαῖνον

“Accidents sudden and unforeseen, and so opposite to that event you might reasonably have expected, enslave the mind.”

Chap. 63. Μηδὲ νομίσαι περὶ ἑνὸς μόνου, δουλειας ἀντ’ ἐλευθερίας.

“Think not you have only one point at stake, the alternative of slavery instead of freedom.”

Idem. Οὐδὲ ἐν ἀρχούσῃ πόλει ξυμφέρει, ἀλλ’ ἐν ὑπηκόῳ ἀσφαλῶς δουλεύειν.

“Slavery is never to be endured by a state that once hath governed. Such a situation can be tolerable only to that which has ever been dependent.”

Chap. 71. Στρατεῦσαί τε μηδένα ποτὲ ἀδίκως επ’ αὐτοὺς, μηδ’ ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ.

“That no one should unjustly make war on them, or endeavour to enslave them.”

Idem. Ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρα ἥκετε.

“Are come hither to enslave us,” &c.

Chap. 78. Καὶ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς ἦν τῷ τείχει, οὔτε δοῦλος, οὔτε ἐλεύθερος.

“Nor was there any other portion within the wall, either slave or free.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. chap. 10. Ξύμμαχοι μέντοι ἐγενόμεθα οὐκ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῶν Ἑλλήνων Ἀθηναίοις

“We made an alliance with the Athenians—not to enslave the rest of Greece to the Athenians.”

Idem. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἑωρῶμεν αὐτοὺς τὴν μὲν τοῦ Μήδου ἔχθραν ἀνιέντας, τὴν δὲ τῶν ξυμμάχων δούλωσιν ἐπαγομένους, οὐκ ἀδεεῖς ἕτι ἦμεν. ἀδύνατοι δὲ ὄντες καθ’ ἕν γενόμενοι, διά πολυψηφίαν ἀμύνασθαι, οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἐδουλώθησαν, πλὴν ἡμῶν καὶ Χίων.

“But when we perceived that they relaxed in their zeal against the Mede, and were grown earnest in riveting slavery upon allies, we then began to be alarmed. It was impossible, where so many parties were to be consulted, to unite together in one body of defence; and thus all the allies fell into slavery except ourselves and the Chians.”

Chap. 38. Δοῦλοι ὄντες τῶν ἀεὶ ἀτόπων, ὑπερόπται δὲ τῶν εἰωθότων.

“Slaves as you are to whatever trifles happen always to be in vogue, and looking down with contempt on tried and experienced methods.”

Chap. 56. Ἐν ἐκείνω δὲ τῷ καιρῷ, ὅτε πᾶσι δουλείαν ἐπέφερεν ὁ βἁρβαρος, οἵδε μετ’ αὐτου ἦσαν.

“But at that season, when the barbarians struck at enslaving us all, these Thebans were then the barbarians’ coadjutors.”

Chap. 58. Πρὸς δὲ, καὶ γῆν, ἐν ᾗ ἠλευθερώθησαν οἱ Ἕλληνες, δουλώσετε;

“Will you further enslave the spot on which the Grecians earned their liberty?”

Chap. 63. Τοὺς μὲν, καταδουλουμένους τὴν Ἑλλάδα, τοὺς δὲ, ἐλευθεροῦντας.

“The Athenians truly have enslaved your country; and the others would regain its freedom.”

Chap. 64. Ἀπελείπετε γὰρ αὐτὴν, καὶ παραβὰντες, ξυγκατεδουλοῦσθε μᾶλλον Αἰγινήτας, καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς τῶν ξυνομοσάντων, ἤ διεκωλύετε.

“You renounced, you violated first the oaths, which rather concurred to enslave the Æginetæ and some other people of the same association, than endeavoured to prevent it.”

Chap. 70. Ὑπάγουσιν αὐτον οὗτοι οἱ ἄνδρες εἰς δίκην, λέγοντες Ἀθηναίοις τὴν Κέρκυραν καταδουλοῦν.

“And therefore against him the accomplices prefer an accusation, as plotting how to subject Corcyra to Athenian slavery.”

Chap. 71. Δράσαντες δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ ξυγκαλέσαντες Κερκυραίους, εἶπον ὅτι ταῦτα καὶ βέλτιστα εἴη, καὶ ἥκιστ’ ἄν δουλωθεῖεν ὑπ’ Ἀθηναίων.

“After this bold assassination, they summoned the Corcyreans to assemble immediately, where they justified their proceedings as most highly for the public good, and the only expedient of preventing Athenian slavery.”

Chap. 73. Τῇ δ’ ὑστεραίᾳ ἠκροβολίσαντό τε ὀλίγα, καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἀγροὺς περιέπεμπον ἀμφότεροι, τοὺς δούλους παρακαλοῦντες τε, καὶ ἐλευθερίαν ὑπισχνούμενοι. καὶ τῷ μὲν δήμῳ τῶν οἰκετῶν τὸ πλῆθος παρεγένετο ξύμμαχον, τοῖς δ’ ἐτέροις ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου ἐπίκουροι ὀκτακόσιοι.

“The day following they skirmished a little with their missive weapons, and both parties sent out detachments into the field to invite concurrence of the slaves, upon a promise of their freedom. A majority of the slaves came in to the assistance of the people, and the other party got eight hundred auxiliaries from the continent.”

It will be noticed that οἰκετῶν in this passage is also translated slave; but the οἰκετος was a slave whose condition was above the mere δοῦλος. In English the word will imply a house-slave. The οἰκετος enjoyed a greater portion of his master’s confidence, and consequently was under a less rigorous government. The truth of what Thucydides states is evident to those acquainted with the character: the higher class of slaves ever take sides with their masters in such cases. It is this word St. Paul uses, by which he describes the character of Onesimus in his letter to Philemon. He had acted as Paul’s house-slave at Rome.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. chap. 86. Ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον, ὑμῖν δεδουλωμένοις ὑπὸ Ἀθηνανίων ξυμμαχήσοντες

“But, on the contrary, are to act in support of you, who are oppressed with Athenian bondage.”

Idem. Ὀυδὲ ἀσαφῆ, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ, τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς, τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις, ἤ τὸ ἔλασσον τοῖς πᾶσι δουλώσαιμι.

“I am convinced that liberty can never be re-established by me, if, disregarding ancient constitutions, I enslave the multitude to the few, or the few to the crowd.”

Chap. 87. Οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ἵνα μὴ κωλύωνται ὑφ’ ὑμῶν δουλείας ἀπαλλαγῆναι.

“For the sake of the Grecians, that they may not be obstructed by you in their deliverance from bondage.”

Chap. 92. Καὶ πρὸς τούτοις γε δὴ, οὅ καὶ μὴ τοὺς ἐγγὺς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄπωθεν πειρῶνται δουλοῦσθαι, πῶς οὐ χρὴ καὶ ἐτὶ τὸ ἔσχατον ἀγῶνος ἐλθεῖν;

“Let me add further, that when men are bent on enslaving, not neighbours only, but such people as are more remote, how can it be judged improper to encounter such, so long as we can find ground whereon to stand?”

Idem. Οἷς δὲ γενναῖον, τήν τε αὑτῶν αἰεὶ ἐλευθεροῦν μάχῃ, καὶ τὴν ἄλλων μὴ δουλοῦσθαι ἀδίκως, ἀναγώνιστοι ἀπ’ αὐτων οὐκ ἀπίασι.

“But from men who were born to vindicate their own country for ever by the dint of arms, and never unjustly to enslave another, that from such men they shall not get away without that struggle which honour enjoins.”

Chap. 114. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ.

“They had no enslaving views.”

Chap. 118. Μήτε ἐλεύθερον, μήτε δοῦλον.

“Whether they be free men or slaves.”

Book v. chap. 9. Καὶ τῇδε ὑμῖν τῇ ἡμέρα, ἢ ἀγαθοῖς γενομένοις ἐλευθερίαν τε ὑπαρχειν, καὶ Λαχεδαιμονίων ξυμμάχοις κεκλῆσθαι, ἢ Ἀθηναίων τε δούλοις, ἢ τὰ ἄριστα ἄνευ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ ἢ θανατώσεως πράξητε, καὶ δουλείαν χαλεπωτέραν, ἢ πρὶν εἴχετε.

“That this very day, if you behave with valour, you are henceforth free, and will gain the honourable title of Lacedæmonian allies; otherwise you must continue to be the slaves of Athenians, where the best that can befall you, if neither sold for slaves nor put to death as rebels, will be a heavier yoke of tyranny than you ever yet have felt, while the liberty of Greece must by you for ever be obstructed.”

Chap. 23. Ἤν δὲ ἡ δουλεία ἐπανίστηται, ἐπικουρεῖν Ἀθηναίους Λακεδαιμονίοις παντὶ σθένει, κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν.

“That if there happen any insurrection among the Helots, the Athenians march to the succour of the Lacedæmonians with their whole strength, to the full extent of their power.”

In this instance the translator has substituted “Helots” for slaves, because the Helots were the slaves at Sparta, and the usual term by which slaves were designated in Lacedæmonia, Helot and δουλος, were synonymous terms there.

Chap. 27. Ὡς χρὴ, ἐπειδὴ Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῆς Πελοποννήσου.

“That since the Lacedæmonians, not in order to serve, but to enslave Peloponnesus,” &c.

Chap. 29. Μὴ μετὰ Ἀθηναίων σφᾶς βούλωνται Λακεδαιμόνιοι δουλώσασθαι.

“That the Lacedæmonians might strike up a bargain with the Athenians to enslave other states.”

Chap. 69. Καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀρχῆς ἅμα καὶ δουλείας.

“Either such on slavery.”

Chap. 86. Περιγιγνομένοις μὲν τῷ δικαίῳ, καὶ δι’ αὐτο μὴ ἐνδοῦσι, πόλεμον ἡμῖν φέρουσαν, πεισθεῖσι δὲ, δουλείαν.

“Since if, superior in debate, we for that reason refuse submission, our portion must be war and if we allow your plea, from that moment we become your slaves.”

Chap. 92. Καὶ πῶς χρήσιμον ἂν ξυμβαίη ἡμίν δουλεῦσαι, ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμῖν ἄρξαι;

“And how can it turn as beneficial for us to become your slaves as it will be for you to be our masters?”

Chap. 100. Ἤπου ἄρα, εἰ τοσαύτην γε ὑμεῖς τε, μὴ παυσθῆναι ἀρχῆς, καὶ οἱ δουλεύοντες ἤδη, ἀπαλλαγῆναι, τὴν παρακινδύνευσιν ποιοῦνται, ἡμῖν γε, τοῖς ἔτι ἐλευθέροις, πολλὴ κακότης καὶ δειλία, μὴ πᾶν πρὸ τοῦ δουλεῦσαι ἐπεξελθεῖν.

“If this be, and if you, ye Athenians, can readily embark in so many perils to prevent the desolation of your empire; if states, by you enslaved, can do as much to throw off your yoke, must it not be wretchedly base and cowardly in us, who yet are free, to leave any method, even to the last extremity, untried of averting slavery.”

Book vi. chap. 20. Ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ παρόντι ἃ γιγνώσκω σημανῶ. ἐπὶ γὰρ πόλεις, ὡς ἐγὼ ἀκοη αἰσθάνομαι, μέλλομεν ἰέναι μεγάλας, καὶ οὔθ’ ὑπηκόους ἀλλήλων, οὔτε δεομένας μεταβολῆς, ᾗ ἂν ἐκ βιαίου τὶς δουλείας ἄσμενος ἐς ῥᾴω μετάστασιν χωροίη.

“According to the last information I have been able to procure, we are now going to invade a number of powerful cities; cities independent of one another, nor standing in need of public revolutions; which people, who cringe under the yoke of slavery, might easily embrace, in order to render their condition more supportable.”

Chap. 27. Μηνύειν ἀδεῶς τὸν βουλόμενον καὶ ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων καὶ δούλων.

“He should boldly inform the public of it, whether he were a citizen, or a foreigner, or a slave.”

Chap. 76. Δουλωσαμένους ἔχειν.

“They hold fast riveted the yoke of slavery.”

Idem. Καταδουλώσεως. “By enslaving,” &c.

Chap. 77. Ὡς ἐδουλώθησαν. “Who will be slaves,” &c.

Chap. 80. Δουλείαν “Slave,” &c.

Chap. 82. Οὕς ξυγγενεῖς φασὶν ὄντας ἡμᾶς Συρακούσιοι δεδουλῶσθαι.

“Whom the Syracusans say we thought proper to enslave, though connected with us by ties of blood.”

Idem. Δουλείαν δὲ αὐτοί τε ἐβούλοντο ὑμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπενεγκεῖν.

“They made slavery their choice, and in the same miserable fate would have been glad to envelop us.”

Chap. 83. Καὶ οὐ δουλωσόμενοι, μὴ παθεῖν δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦτο κωλύσοντες.

“So far from the view of enslaving them to ourselves, that we are solely intent on preserving them from being enslaved by others.”

Chap. 84. Ὅν ἀλόγως ἡμᾶς φησὶ δουλωσαμένους.

“Whom, after unjustly enslaving,” &c.

Chap. 88. Πλὴν καθόσον εἰ τὴν Σικελίαν ᾤοντο αὐτους δουλώσεσθαι.

“Save only the ambition they showed of enslaving Sicily.”

Book vii. chap. 75. Μέγιστον γὰρ δὴ το διάφορον τοῦτο τῷ Ἑλληνικῷ στρατεύματι ἐγένετο, οἷς ἀντι μὲν τοῦ ἄλλους δουλωσομένους ἥκειν.

“For a most cruel turn of fortune this really proved to a Grecian army; who, coming hither to enslave others, were departing now with the sad alternative of fearing to be made slaves themselves.”

Book viii. chap. 15. Τάς τε τῶν Χίων ἑπτὰ ναῦς, αἳ αὐτοῖς ξυνεπολιόρκουν τὰς ἐν τῷ Πειραιῷ, ἀπαγαγόντες, τοὺς μὲν δούλους ἐξ αὐτῶν ἠλευθέρωσαν, τοὺς δ’ ἐλευθέρους κατέδησαν.

“Having, moreover, fetched off the seven vessels belonging to the Chians, which assisted in forming the blockade at Piræus, they set at liberty the slaves who were on board them, and threw all the freemen into prison.”

Chap. 43. Ἐνῆν γὰρ καὶ νήσους ἁπάσας πάλιν δουλεύειν.

“For thus he might be enabled once more to enslave all the islands.”

Chap. 48. Δουλεύειν μᾶλλον, &c.

------------------

LESSON VI.

XENOPHON, Memorabilia, &c.

Book i. chap. 3, § 11. Ὦ τλῆμον, ἔφη ὁ Σωχράτης, καὶ τί ἂν οἴει παθεῖν, καλὸν φιλήσας; αρ’ οὐκ ἂν αὐτίκα μάλα δοῦλος μὲν εἶναι ἀντ’ ἐλευθέρου;

“Miserum te, ait Socrates, quid eventurum tibi existimas, si formosum osculeris? annon subitò pro libero servus esses?” Leunclavius.

Chap. 5. § 2. Δούλω δ’ ἀκρατεῖ ἐπιτρέψαιμεν ἂν ἢ βοσκήματα ἢ ταμιεῖα ἢ ἔργων επιστασίαν;

“Et servo intemperanti num vel pecora, vel penum, vel ut operi præesset, committeremus?” Leunc.

§ 3. Ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γὲ μηδὲ δοῦλον ἀκρατῆ δεξαίμεθ’ ἂν, πῶς οὐκ ἄξιον αὑτόν γε φυλάξασθαι τοιοῦτον γενέσθαι;

“Enimvero si ne servum quidem intemperantem accepturi simus, quî non operæ pretium sit cavere ne quis ipse talis fiat?” Leunc.

§ 5. Ἢ τίς οὐκ ἂν, ταῖς ἡδοναῖς δουλεύων, αἰσχρῶς διατεθείη καὶ τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν;

“Quis voluptatibus serviens non turpiter tum corpore tum animo affectus sit?” Leunc.

Ibid. Ἐμοὶ μὲν δοκεῖ, νὴ τὴν Ἥραν, ἐλευθέρω μὲν ἀνδρὶ εὐκτέον εἶναι, μὴ τυχεῖν δούλου τοιότου, δουλεύοντα δὲ ταῖς τοαύταις ἡδοναῖς, ἱκετεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς, δεσποτῶν ἀγαθῶν τυχεῖν.

“Equidem ita profectò statuo, homini libero optandum esse, ut hujusmodi servum non consequatur, atque illi qui voluptatibus ejusmodi servit deos esse obsecrandos ut dominos bonos nanciscatur.” Leunc.

Book ii. chap. 1. § 11. Ἀλλ’ ἐγώ τοι, ἔφη ὁ Ἀρίστιππος, οὐδὲ εἰς τὴν δουλείαν αὖ ἐμαυτὸν τάττω· ἀλλ’ εἶναι τις μοὶ δοκεῖ μέοη τούτων ὁδὸς, ἣν πειρῶμαι βαδίζειν, οὔτε δι’ ἀρχῆς, οὔτε διὰ δουλείας, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἐλευθερίας, ἥπερ μάλιστα πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἄγει. (12) Ἀλλ’, εἰ μέντοι, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, ὥπερ οὔτε δι’ ἀρχῆς οὔτε διὰ δουλείας ἡ ὁδὸς αὕτη φέρει, οὕτω μηδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπων, ἴσως ἂν τι λέγοις.

“I surely, says Aristippus, do not place myself in slavery; but my doctrine is, that the condition equally free from the objections of those who govern and of those who are in slavery, is true liberty. But, says Socrates, the condition of which you speak, beyond the influences affecting those who bear rule or those in slavery, can never exist among men; for,” &c. § 12. ὡς δούλοις χρῆσθαι—“for safety they desire slavery.”

§ 13. Ἕως ἂν πείσωσιν ἑλέσθαι δουλεύειν ἀντὶ τοῦ πολεμεῖν τοῖς χρείττοσι;

“Donec persuaserint eis servire potiùs quàm bellum cum potioribus gerere?”

§ 15. Ἦ διότι καὶ δοῦλος ἂν οἴει τοιοῦτος εἶναι, ἷιος μηδενὶ δεσπότῃ λυσιτελεῖν;

“An quòd talem te servum esse putas, qui nulli domino prosit?”

Chap. 6. § 9. Χαλεπὸν δὲ καὶ δήσαντα κατέχειν, ὥσπερ δοῦλον.

“Neque minùs difficile vinctum retinere tanquam servum.” Leunc.

Chap. 7. § 3 and 4. Ὅτι νὴ Δί’, ἕφη, ὁ μὲν δούλους τρέφει, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐλευθέρους. (4) Καὶ πότερον, ἒφη, τοὺς παρὰ σοὶ ἐλευθέρους οἴει βελτίους εἶναι ἢ τοὺς παρὰ Κεράμωνι δούλους;

“By Jupiter, (says Aristarchus,) the reason is obvious. He (Ceramon) rears up slaves, while I only employ freemen. Well, then, truly, says (Socrates), which do you esteem the most valuable, your freemen or Ceramon’s slaves?”

Chap. 8. § 4. Χαλεπῶς ἂν, ἔφη, ἐγὼ, ὦ Σώκρατες, δουλείαν ὑπομείναιμι. Καὶ μὴν οἵ λε ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι προστατεύοντες, καὶ τῶν δημοσίων ἐπιμελόμενοι οὐ δουλοπρεπέστεροι ἕνεκα τούτου, ἀλλ’ ἐλευθεριώτεροι νομίζονται.

“But it is difficult, O Socrates, for me to submit to slavery. But (says Socrates) high political officers, and all those who have charge of public affairs, are not esteemed to be in a slavish employment, but in that which is the most appropriate to the most elevated of freemen.”

Book iii. chap. 12. § 2. Πολλοὶ δὲ δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ζῶντες ἁλίσκονται, καὶ ἁλόντες ἤτοι δουλεύουσι τὸν λοιπὸν βίον, ἐὰν οὕτω τύχωσι, τὴν χαλεπωτάτην δουλείαν.

“Many endure the most burdensome slavery, produced by their having been taken captives in war, and as captives, slaves themselves through the remainder of life.”

Book iv. chap. 2. § 33. Τί δέ; τὸν Δαίδαλον, ἔφη, οὐκ ἀκήκοας, ὅτι ληφθεὶς ὑπὸ Μίνω διὰ τὴν σοφίαν, ἠναγκάζετο ἐκείνῳ δουλεύειν, καὶ τῆς τε πατρίδος ἅμα καὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἐστερήθη, καὶ ἐπιχειρῶν ἀποδιδράσκειν μετὰ τοῦ υἱου τόν τε παῖδα ἀπώλεσε καὶ αὐτος οὐκ ἠδυνήθη σωθῆναι, ἀλλ’ ἀπενεχθεὶς εἰς τοὺς βαρβάρους πάλιν ἐκεῖ ἐδούλευε;

“Is it truly so? You have not heard (says Socrates) that Dædalus, captured, deprived of his liberty, and torn from his country and forced into slavery, on account of his knowledge and wisdom was detained by Minos; and, when afterwards attempting to make his escape with his son, who was slain in the attempt, was not able to save himself, but was seized by the barbarians and again forced into slavery.”

Ibid. Ἄλλους δὲ πόσους οἴει διὰ σοφίαν ἀναρπάστους πρὸς βασιλέα γεγονέναι, καὶ ἐκεῖ δουλεύειν;

“How many others are born and remain creeping, fawning about the king (of Persia); and because he deems them his, he there enslaves them.”

Chap 5. § 5. Δουλείαν δὲ ποίαν κακίστην νομίζεις εἶναι; Ἐγὼ μὲν, ἔφη, τὴν παρὰ τοῖς κακίστοις δεσπόταις. Τὴν κακίστην ἄρα δουλείαν οἱ ἀκρατεῖς δουλεύουσιν;

Of which Leunclavius gives the following: “Pessimam servitutem. Et quam esse arbitraris? Eam ait, quæ apud pessimos dominos serviatur. Ergone intemperantes servitutem pessimam serviunt?”

For the benefit of the mere English scholar, we give it thus: “Now, where do you esteem the most degraded slavery? Why, to be sure, says he, when the master is most degraded. It follows then, (says Socrates,) that the slaves of intemperance are the most degraded of slaves.”

In the 30th section of the defence of Socrates before his judges, by Xenophon, we find thus:—

Ὥστε φημὶ, αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ δουλοπρεπεῖ διατριβῇ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ παρεσκεύακεν, οὐ διαμενεῖν.

By Leunclavius: “Itaque aio, non permansurum in illo servili vitæ genere, quod pater ei præscripsit.”

We offer: “So that, I said, it is not becoming that his son should remain in an occupation only proper for a slave, in which alone his father educated him.”

------------------

LESSON VII.

At the close of the 23d chapter of the first book of Xenophon’s Cyropædia, we find:

Πολλοὶ δὲ, οἷς ἐξῆν φίλοις χρῆσθαι, καὶ ἢν ποιεῖν καὶ ἢν πάσχειν, τούτοις δούλοις μᾶλλον βουληθέντες η φιλοις χρῆσθαι, ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τούτων δίκην ἔδοσαν.

“There are instances of many, who, when they might have used others as their friends in a mutual intercourse of good offices, and who, choosing to hold them rather as slaves than as friends, have met with revenge and punishment at their hands.” Ashley.

Book iii. § 2. Καὶ γαρ ἔστιν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, καλὸν μάχεσθαι, ὅπως μὴ ποτέ τις δοῦλος μέλλοι γενήσεσθαι· ἢν δὲ δὴ ἢ πολέμω κρατηθεὶς, ἢ καὶ ἄλλον τινὰ τρόπον δουλωθεὶς, ἐπιχειρῶν τις φαίνηται τοὺς δεσπότας αποστερεῖν ἑαυτοῦ, τοῦτον σὺ, πρῶτος εἰπὲ, πότερον ὡς ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα καὶ καλὰ πράττοντα τιμᾷς, ἢ ὡς ἀδικοῦντα, ἢν λάβῃς, κολάζεις; κολάζω, ἔφη, &c.

“It is indeed noble, said Cyrus, to fight, in order not to be made a slave! But if a man be conquered in war, or by other means be reduced to slavery, and be found attempting to throw off his masters, do you yourself first pronounce whether you reward and honour such a one as an honest man, and as one that does noble things, or, if you take him, do you punish him as one that acts unjustly? I punish him, said he.” Ashley.

Ibid. Ἢν ᾗ, νὴ Δί’, ἑαυτῷ σύνοιδεν ἐλευθερίας μὲν ἐπιθυμήσας, δοῦλος δ’ ὡς οὐδεπώποτε γενόμενος.

“Why, by Jupiter, being conscious of himself that, affecting his liberty, he has become by far much more of a slave than ever.”

Ibid. Οἴει οὖν τι, ἔφη ὁ Τιγράνης, μᾶλλον καταδουλοῦσθαι ἀνθρωώους τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ φόβου;

“Can you, said Tigranes, imagine what brings men into yielding to slavery more effectually than very great fear?”

Ibid. καὶ δεσμὸν φοβούμενοι, οὗτοι μὲν οὔτε σίτου οὔθ’ ὑπνου δύνανται τυγχάνειν διὰ τὸν φόβον οἱ δὲ ἤδη μὲν φυγάδες, ἤδη δ’ ἡττημένοι, ἤδη δὲ δουλεύοντες, ἔστιν ὅτε δύνανται καὶ μᾶλλον τῶν εὐδαιμόνων ἐσθίειν τε καὶ καθεύδειν.

“They that are at sea, and dread shipwreck, and they that fear servitude and chains, are neither able to eat nor sleep for fear: but they who are already under banishment, who are already conquered, and already slaves, are often in a condition to eat and sleep better than the fortunate themselves.” Ashley.

Ibid. Τὸν δ’ ἐμὸν πατέρα, ἔφη, νῦν πῶς δοκεῖς διακεῖσθαι τὴν ψυζὴὃν, ὃς οὐ μόνον περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ περὶ γυναικὸς, καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν τέκνων δουλείας φοβεῖται;

“In what state of mind then, said he, do you take my father to be, he who fears not only for his own life, but that his wife, myself, and all his children will be plunged into slavery?”

Ibid. Ἀλλὰ μὰ Δι’, ἔφη, οὐκ ἐκεῖνον ἐθεώμην. Ἀλλὰ τίνα μὴν; ἔφη ὁ Τιγράνης. Τὸν εἰπόντα, νὴ Δία, ὡς τῆς αὑτοῦ ψυχῆς ἂν πρίαιτο ὥστε μή με δουλεύειν.

“Truly, said she, I did not look at him. At whom then did you look? said Tigranes. At him who said, that to save me from servitude he would ransom me at the expense of his own life.” Ashley.

Ibid. Ὡς ὀλιγα δυνάμενοι προορᾷν ἄνθρωποι περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος, πολλὰ ἐπιχειροῦμεν πράττειν. Νῦν γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ, ἐλευθερίαν μὲν μηχανᾶσθαι ἐπιχειρήσας, δοῦλος ὡς οὐδεπώποτε ἐγενόμην· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἑάλωμεν, σαφῶς ἀπολωλέναι νομίσαντες, νῦν ἀναφαινόμεθα σεσωσμένοι ὡς οὐδεπώποτε.

“How few things in futurity are we men able to foresee! and how many projects do we undertake! I have endeavoured upon this occasion to obtain liberty, and I have become more a slave than ever: and, after having been made a captive, and thinking our destruction certain, we now again appear to be in a condition of greater safety and security than ever.” Ashley.

Book iv. chap. 8. Αὐτίκα μάλα ὄψεσθε, ὥσπερ δούλων ἀπο διδρασκοντων καὶ εὑρημενων, τοὺς μὲν ἱκετεύοντας αὐτῶν, τοὺς δὲ φεύγοντας, τοὺς δ’ οὐδὲ ταῦτα φρονεῖν δυναμένους.

“You will see them, like slaves that have run away and are discovered, some supplicating for mercy, some flying, and some without presence of mind enough to do either.” Ashley.

Chap. 18. Ἐαν δέ τις ὐμων, καὶ ἰὼν ὡς ἡμᾶς εὐνοϊκῶς καὶ πράττων τι καὶ διδάσκων φαίνηται, τοῦτον ἡμεῖς ὡς εὐεργέτην καὶ φίλον, οὐχ ὡς δοῦλον, περιέψομεν.

“But, then, if you shall come to us, and shall appear to do any action, or give any information, in friendship and good-will to us, him will we treat as a benefactor and a friend, not as a slave.”

Chap. 23. Αὐτος δὲ ὁ Κῦρος ἀνειπεῖν ἐκέλευσεν, εἴ τις εἴη ἐν τῷ Ἀσσυρίων ἢ Σύρων ἢ Ἀραβίων στρατεύματι ἀνὴρ δοῦλος, ἢ Μήδων, ἢ Περσῶν, ἢ Βακτριανῶν, ἢ Καρῶν, ἢ Κιλίκων, ἢ Ἑλλήνων, ἢ ἀλλοθέν ποθεν Βεβιασμένος, ἐκφαίνεσθαι.

“Cyrus himself ordered them to make proclamation, that whatever slave there might be, either in the Assyrian, Syrian, or Arabian armies, whether he were Mede, Persian, Bactrian, Carian, Cilician, or Greek, or of any other country, forced to serve, that he should appear.” Ashley.

Chap. 24. Ἔχθιστος ὢν ἐμοὶ, ἥκω πρὸς σὲ, καὶ ἱκέτης προσπίπτω, καὶ δίδωμί σοι ἐμαυτὸν δοῦλον καὶ σύμμαχον, σὲ δέ τιμωρὸν αἰτοῦμαι ἐμοὶ γενέσθαι.

“I bow myself at your feet, a suppliant, and give myself a slave to you, and a confederate in the war.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. chap. 1. Καὶ τοίνυν ὁμοίαν ταῖς δούλαις εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα

“And was clothed in the same manner as were her female slaves.”

Ibid. Ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ, ἔφη, ἑώρακα καὶ κλαίοντας ὑπὸ λύπης δι’ ἔρωτα, καὶ δουλεύοντάς γε τοῖς ἐρωμένοις· καὶ μάλα κακὸν νομίζοντας, πρίν γε ἐρᾷν, τὸ δουλεύειν.

“But I have seen, says he, people in grief and tears when in love, slaves to those with whom they were in love, yet they deemed slavery a very great evil when not in love.”

Chap. 32. Οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοῶ τοῦτ’, ἔφη, ὅτι οὐ σύ μου μόνον μείζων εἶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ ἐμοὶ δοῦλοι ισχυροτεροι ἐμου ὑπαντιάζουσί μοι, καὶ, &c.

“I am not ignorant, says he, that you are above me, but that my own slaves are above me in power,” &c.

Book vi. chap. 26. Καὶ Κύρῳ δὲ δοκῶ μεγάλην τινὰ ἡμᾶς χάριν ὀφείλειν, ὅτι με, αἰχμάλωτον γενομένην καὶ ἐξαιρεθεῖσαν ἑαυτῷ, οὔτε με ὡς δούλην ἠξίωσε κεκτῆσθαι, οὔτε ὡς ἐλευθέραν ἐν ἀτίμῳ ὀνόματι· διεφύλαξε δέ σοι ὥσπερ ἀδελφοῦ γυναῖκα λαβών.

“Then I think we are both under great obligation to Cyrus, who, when I was captured, and chosen and selected particularly for him, thought proper not to receive me as a slave, nor even as a free woman of low standing, but detained me under such restraint as if I had been his brother’s wife.”

Book vii. chap. 20. Καὶ πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀόπλους τῶν ὑποχειρίων γενομένων σφενδονᾷν ἠνάγκαζε μελετᾷν, νομίζων τοῦτο τὸ ὅπλον δουλικώτερον εἶναι.

“All those whom he conquered, he compelled to practise with the sling, which he deemed more suitable for slaves.”

Chap. 30. Νόμος γαρ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀιδιός ἐστιν, ὅταν πολεμούντων πόλις ἁλῷ, τῶν ἑλόντων εἶναι καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ τὰ χρήματα.

“For it is a perpetual law among all men, that when a city is taken from an enemy, both the persons and treasures of the inhabitants belong to the captors.” Ashley.

Ibid. Θάλπους μὲν οὖν καὶ ψύχους, καὶ σίτων καὶ ποτῶν, καὶ πόνων καὶ ὕπνου ἀνάγκη καὶ τοῖς δούλοις μεταδιδόναι.

“In heat, and in cold, in meat and drink, in work and rest, we necessarily allow our slaves a portion.”

Ibid. Ὅτι, ἐπεὶ κεκτήμεθα δούλους, τούτους κολάσομεν, ἢν πονηροὶ ὦσι; καὶ τί προσήκει αὐτὸν ὄντα πονηρὸν πονηρίας ἕνεκα ηἢ βλακείας ἄλλους κολάζειν;

“When we acquire slaves, we punish them if they are slothful and vicious. But does it become him who is slothful and vicious himself, to punish others for vice and sloth?”

Book viii. chap. 1. Τοσοῦτον δὲ διαφέρειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ τῶν δούλων, ὅσον οἱ μὲν δοῦλοι, ἄκοντες τοῖς δεσπόταις ὑπηρετοῦσιν· ἡμᾶς δὲ, εἴπερ ἀξιοῦμεν ἐλεύθεροι εἶναι, ἑκόντας δεῖ ποιεῖν, ὅ τι πλείστου ἄξιον φαίνεται εἶναι.

“We ought to distinguish ourselves so far from slaves, as that slaves do service to their masters against their wills; and if we desire to be free, we ought willingly to perform what appears to be most excellent and worthy.” Ashley.

Chap. 14. Οὓς δ' αὖ κατεσκεύαζεν εἰς τὸ δουλεύειν, τούτους οὔτε μελετᾷν τῶν ἐλευθερίων πόνων οὐδένα παρώρμα, οὔτε ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι ἐπέτρεπεν.

“But in the management of slaves,” &c.

Chap. 41. Βουλοίμην δ’ ἂν ὑμᾶς καὶ τοῦτο κατανοῆσαι, ὅτι τούτων, ὧν νῦν ὑμῖν παρακελεύομαι, οὐδὲν τοῖς δούλοις προστάττω.

“And I desire likewise that you should observe, that of all these orders that I now give you, I give none to those that are of servile condition.”

Chap. 47. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν φίλους ἐπεῖδον δι’ ἐμοῦ εὐδαίμονας γενομένους, τοὺς δὲ πολεμίους ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ δουλωθέντας.

“By my means my friends have been made happy, and my enemies enslaved.”

* * * * *

In Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus, usually termed the Anabasis, book i. chap. 9, we find—

Ὥστε φαίνεσθαι τοὺς μὲν ἀγαθοὺς, εὐδαιμονεστάτος, τοὺς δὲ κακοὺς δούλους τούτων ἀξιοῦν εἶναι.

“So that brave men were looked upon as most fortunate, and cowards as deserving to be their slaves.” Spelman.

Ibid. Παρὰ μὲν Κύρου, δούλου ὄντος, οὐδεὶς ἀπῄει πρὸς βασιλέα.

“No one, not even a slave, ever deserted Cyrus to go to the king.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. chap. 3. Δοῦλοι δὲ πολλοὶ εἵποντο

“They were attended by a great many slaves.”

Chap. 5. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῶν βαρβάρων τινὲς ἱππέων, διὰ τοῦ πεδίου ἐλαύνοντες, ᾧτινι ἐντυγχάνοιεν Ἕλληνι ἢ δούλω ἢ ἐλευθέρῳ, πάντας ἔκτεινον. ׳ “After this, some of the barbarian horse, scouring the plains, killed all the Greeks they met with, both freemen and slaves.” Spelman.

Ibid. Ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ εἶναι φησὶν, ἐπείπερ Κύρου ἦσαν τοῦ ἐκείνου δούλου.

“For, he says, they are his, having belonged to his slave Cyrus.”

Book iii. chap. 1. Ἡμᾶς δὲ, οἷς κηδεμὼν μὲν οὐδεὶς πάρεστιν, ἐστρατεύσαμεν δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτον ὡς δοῦλον ἀντὶ βασιλέως ποιήσοντες καὶ ἀποκτενοῦντες, εἰ δυναίμεθα, τί ἄν οἰόμεθα παθεῖν;

“How then will he treat us, who have no support, and who have made war on him, with the design to reduce him from the condition of a king to that of a slave, and, if in our power, to put him to death?”

Book vii. chap. 4. Ὁ δ’ εἶπεν· Ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε ἱκανὴν νομίζω νῦν δίκην ἔχειν, εἰ οὗτοι δοῦλοι ἔσονται ἀντ’ ἐλευθέρων.

“And then he said, but I think myself sufficiently revenged, if these people, instead of freemen, are to be made slaves.”

Chap. 7. Σοῦ μὲν γὰρ κρατοῦντος, δουλεία ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς· κρατουμένου δὲ σοῦ, ἐλευθερία.

“For if you conquer, they are slaves,—but if you are conquered, they are free.”

------------------

LESSON VIII.

HERODOTUS of Halicarnassus.

WE often find the word δοῦλος, and its various derivatives, in the plain, the simple narrative of this author. His use of the term is as follows:

Book i. chap. 7. Παρὰ τούτων δὲ Ἡρακλεῖδαι ἐπιτραφθέντες ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ θεοπροπίου, ἐκ δούλης τε τῆς Ἰαρδάνου γεγονότες καὶ Ἡρακλέος.

“The Heraclidæ are descended from Hercules and a female slave of Jardanus.”

Chap. 27. Λαβεῖν ἀρώμενοι Λυδοὺς ἐν θαλάσση, ἵνα ὑπερ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἠπείρω οικημένων Ἑλλήνων τίσωνταί σε, τοὺς σὺ δουλώσας ἔχεις;

“Can they wish for a better opportunity than to meet the Lydians on the Ocean, to revenge those of the Greeks reduced by you to slavery on the continent?”

Chap. 94. Λυδοὶ μὲν δὴ ὑπὸ Πέρσῃσι δεδούλωντο.

“Thus the Lydians were enslaved by the Persians.”

Chap. 95. Καὶ ἀπωσάμενοι τὴν δουλοσύνην ἠλευθερώθησαν.

“And rejecting slavery, they became free.”

Chap. 114. Ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὑπὸ τοῦ σοῦ δούλου.

“O king! by your slave.”

Chap. 126. Οὐδένα πόνον δουλοπροπέα ἔχουσι.

“Slavish employment,” &c.

Chap. 129. Καὶ ἄλλὰ λέγων ἐς αὐτὸν θυμαλγέα ἔπεα, καὶ δὴ καὶ εἴρετό μιν πρὸς τὸ ἑωυτοῦ δεῖπνον, τό μιν ἐκεῖνος σαρξὶ τοῦ παιδὸς ἐθοίνισε, ὅ τι εἴη ἡ ἐκείνου δουλοσύνη ἀντὶ τῆς βασιληΐης.

“Among other things, he asked him what was his opinion of that supper, in which he had compelled a father to feed on the flesh of his child; a supper which had reduced him from a monarch to a slave.” Beloe.

Ibid. Ἀδικώτατον δὲ, ὅτι τοῦ δείπνου εἵνεκεν Μήδους κατεδούλωσε.

“(He said that he was) most wicked, on the account of the supper, to enslave the Medes.”

Ibid. Νῦν δὲ Μήδους μὲν ἀναιτίους τούτου ἐόντας δουλους ἀντὶ δεσποτέων γεγονέναι, Πέρσας δὲ δούλους ἐόντας τὸ πρὶν Μήδων νῦν γεγονέναι δεσπότας.

“The Medes, who were certainly not accessary to the provocation given, had exchanged situations with their slaves. The Persians, who were formerly the slaves, were now the masters.”

Chap. 170. Καὶ οὕτω ἀπαλλαχθέντας σφέας δουλοσύνης εὐδαιμονήσειν.

“And thus, freed from slavery, deem themselves happy.”

Chap. 173. Καὶ ἢν μὲν γε γυνὴ ἀστὴ δούλω συνοικήσῃ, γενναῖα τὰ τέκνα νενόμισται.

“If any free woman marries a slave, the children of such marriage are reputed free.” Beloe.

Chap. 174. Οἱ μέν νῦν Κᾶρες οὐδὲν λαμπρὸν ἔργον ἀποδεξάμενοι ἐδουλώθησαν.

“The Carians made little or no exertion, and were easily enslaved.”

Chap. 210. Ὃς ἀντὶ μὲν δούλων ἐποίησας ἐλευθέρους Πέρσας εἶναι.

“You have raised the Persians from slavery to freedom.” Beloe.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us