On Plants of the Odyssey

Author(s): R. M. Henry
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 20, No. 9 (Dec., 1906), pp. 434-436
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/695813
Accessed: 08/07/2009 01:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
434 THE CLASSICAL
the mass, and insist that knowledge impairs
enjoyment,
Good scholars who sit still in easy chairs
And damn the world for standing up,
to adapt words from Aurora Leigh . We
shall not sit and wonder that these
avowed enemies of learning are among
its professed exponents in a land where the
dangerous spirit of independent thought has
so long been confined in the strait-jacket
of examinations. But we shall point out
that truth is the most powerful solvent, and
its pursuit the most potent motive, that the
world has known; that studies decay the
moment that they cease to grow; and that
there is a doom awaiting the intellectual as
surely as the moral Sybaris.
Day by day we are drifting further from
antiquity. Harder and harder does it be-
come to learn the lessons which it alone can
teach us. And of the current fallacies
there is none more mischievous than that
which insinuates that we can dispense with
the motive, the practice, and the fruits of
research in any department of its study.
Most mischievous of all is it when it is
dangled before a class which circumstances
have already predisposed to receive it.
The suggestion to the hard-worked and ill-
paid teachers of Classics in our schools,
that their duties do not comprise the acqui-
ON PLANTS OF THE ODJrSSEJ.
I.-- &AuV.
THE attempt to identify the magic 'moly,
which Hermes once to wise Ulysses gave,'
has lately been responsible for two very
elaborate and learned pieces of investigation.
M. Berard in Les Pheniciens et l'Odyssge,
ii. 288 ff. discusses the plant at length and
ends by identifying it with the atriplex
hallmus, for which he finds strong support
in one of his favourite Semitic roots. More
lately M. Champault, Pheniciens et Grecs en
Italic d'aprgs l'Odyssee, pp. 504 Sf. dis-
cusses it at still greater length and decides
positively for the peganum harmala. That
the Homeric description
*
pi{ Ix~v ,Aav ydaaKTt ' C?C?AOvSos
EO'K?,
(K304) is not of itself likely to carry one far
on the road to deciding the question, most
people will agree. The attempt to find a
REVIEW.
sition of fresh knowledge, and that they may
subsist upon their original capital, however
scanty it may be, is one of the most
noxious errors that complaisance has ever pre-
sented to its victims. If these will reflect
why their experience and capacities should
become unmarketable at an age which in
other walks of life is held to be most ripe
for preferment, they will see that, when the
old fires, unfed by fresh interests, have
burned to extinction, when the mind's
agility has been crushed by drudgery and
its keen edge dulled by routine, what is left is
not a teacher but a teaching machine, which
perhaps has a claim to be tolerated but which
can have no hopes of promotion.
It is then, we conceive, no part of the
functions of Classical journals to provide
diversion for an unamused and unamusing
generation. But those who desire that both
for themselves and others the Classics shall
remain a thing alive will, it is trusted, find
in the new departure a satisfaction of real
wants perhaps insufficiently regarded in the
past, and that the Classical Review, in one or
both of its branches, will be found worthy of
encouragement by the new friends whom it
seeks to attract and the old ones whom it
desires to retain.
Cras amet qui numquam amauit quique
amait cras amet.
J. P. POSTGATE.
third characteristic in the following line:
Xa\ErTov 8~ T' OpV6rrrEtv ye OvrTolcr
[ avSp&a&L
has been shown by M. Champault to be a
false scent. His quotation from Josephus
(Bell. Jud. vii. 6, 3) on the difficulty of pro-
curing the magic baaras is on the right track.
The difficulty of pulling the plant is purely
imaginary: it is a magic plant and, according
to the magicians, dangerous to procure unless
for some one who understands the proper
ceremonies. It is strange that neither scholar
seems to be aware of the light that is thrown
upon the passage by the Magical Papyri.
It may seem hazardous to illustrate Homer
by a literature composed in Egypt during
the Christian era. But to any one who
understands the fanatical persistence of
magical ideas and practices such a parallel
will carry considerable weight. We can
illustrate the magic of the pre-Christian era
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 435
from the Grimoire du Pape Honorius, and In the Leyden Papyrus J 384 we find the
find the same practices persisting unchanged following (xii. 17 ed. Dieterich, Leipzig
for a thousand years. 1888). 'EpFrlvvJ~aLra ?KT'V IepwvlaeOrlp,Lrlvev-
Thus in the great Paris Magical Papyrus !Leva,ols EXp&vTOo[ [epoL ypalxar 'ets'a T&rV
(ed. C. Wessely in Denkschriften der Kaiser- rTv *roX\Wv *r?pt?py[av rTs/3oTravasKia T&aAAa
lichen A kademieder Wissenschaften, Vienna, o['s ?Xp&vroels Oe&ve'ooAXa O,rto}fur
~,reypatpav,
1888) 1. 2967 we read ,rap' A/yv,rTLoLsadE orvX\af3ovp,?eoL ,reptepydatovratturfoevSta Trvy
t3oTaval )tafJ3avovTaL OvTOS' o pigOTOyjOSKaOaap(i ~faiKOXOVJ?TC'tVTfS adaprtas' Oy/pes8e ras X(rets
,rpo'epov TO [oiov crlZ,a, ,rpofEpov v[Tp? treptpd- 0ydyo/Lev {K TrV TroX\&Vavnypdaov KaU Kpvl,'>-
vaS KcaTrrvfiorTv7/v Ov/zaoras plrlTrvy {K TTrVOS /Jcov,rnvrowv.There follows a list of plants
ltSy 7rpt?ev?yKasTOVTOTOV. KV'L ?ra Ovudas and other 'medicine' with the names by
Kal Tr]voSa TOVyaXaKTos aTrovorv Xfa/evos /ZT which they were known in magic. The list
ev~Xv avacr7ra TO (f>vov, Z~ &od/aros &LriKaXov- has been drawn from two sources, to only
fJLVO'S TOV oa*uJova <S 77 foTavrf av L(pwraL KT\. one of which (those containing the names of
Then follows the invocation of the plant gods) the opening description applies, e.g.
(~riK& crs) in which it is, among other yovos 'Ep,uov-=vrIOov. But there are others
epithets, addressed as V Kapota TOV'Ep/,ov; in which no god is named, e.g. atJa o ~es =
and again aL o8va e ivLs (JOVevT&r Kapo[a TOV avSpdXv7). We have the same thing in Pap.
'Ep/zo5 dLaV . .. (rvvoTrL'o'OrrTr r'(r eVX, KaL Leyden J 395 where gtx;pva and Kpt?Vvov
oos 0zutv ovvaf/Lv Uos o Apr7sKaLv} 'A0r/va' e;y tzvpovare referred to by their magic names
?;L, 'Ep/z~s. This last phrase will concern (xxv. 21 ed. Dieterich). That these names
us later. were often borrowed from foreign languages,
In the same Papyrus 11. 286 ff. we have a e.g. Hebrew, we know from other passages.
i~oTavrldpcrts'Xp& *p? VAL[ov. Xoyos XAyod/zvos In Pap. J 395, we find (viii. 1) in a recipe
(i.e. ' the formula is as follows ') a[pto ae ~TrS to Kaopvoevov t3aXXaO&a to T(V 'IovSa[/v: in
OT(0av77 X)tpL r{vo,TasaKTV\? ;yi o o?tva Kat the line before we have a substance called
<f)?pwvrap e/javTov Iva ,uot ?V?pyrj(rfsels TrfV fiepBTver,fcrthe derivation of which is un-
TrvaKpetav opKt^ as Ka~a TOV ayiivrov known. To such a class of words ,JLwv
6v6fJLaTO<5 TOV0?ov eav ,rapaKovow, Ts,v e o'a evidently belongs and we must look for its
ya^a T? OVKeTL 'pexo-Tai T,r(rOTe (V :a raXv, derivation in either Phoenician or Egyptian.
eav a7ropf0a Tr& TS OtKOVOtf&St~OVOafap As to M. Berard's derivation, I am not com-
(here follow five ' words of power ') .?eAX&a.I petent to express an opinion.
/zot T-7v T?\?eav ?7raotO8v. Evidently the
proper culling of these simples was a task II.--X ros.
demanding trained skill.
Now the moly was hard for mortal men The same two scholars have given con-
~e
to get, 0cot 84 TrdvTra 8vvavT'a. It will be siderable attention to the identification of
noted in the above formulae, that in the first the Xoros. M. Champault (op. cit. p. 400
the magician expressly identifies himself n. [2]) decides for the date: M. Berard
with the deity on whose authority he is more cautiously leaves the exact fruit an
acting. This is too common a practice with open question, but has no doubt that a tree-
magicians to call for detailed illustration. fruit is meant. He admits indeed (op. cit.
One may compare the Egyptian magical ii. 102) that the Greek word XArOSas used
texts in which the deceased identifies himself in Od. iv. 603-4 denotes a different thing-
with Osiris. In the second he uses the a kind of clover: and he even quotes Strabo
language of divine authority and threatens xvii. 829 A who speaks of a tribe inhabiting
the recalcitrant plant with divine vengeance. the Mauretanian desert who O(tToYTvro 8
One cannot help comparing ov 0jK?' & (K oV Ttrov,'roav Tva KoUpiCv d^ 7s Ovoev 0?OiVTO
Kap7ros yev7rfa& els rOV alwva' Kai ;&pavOr rotorv. But then he regards the lotus of the
*rapaXpil~a ~ (rVK (Eu. Matth. xxi. 19). In Lotus-eaters to be a Semitic word. There
the case of the moly, Hermes himself plucked are two definite statements made about
it up for Odysseus; but any magician who the lotus; it is called an av0tvov e[$ap (Od.
knew the proper way to proceed, and the ix. 84) and it is called tzeXt^$/s Kap,ro (ib.
words necessary to identify himself with 94). The first does not seem a very apt
Hermes, could have produced the same description of a tree-fruit, and the latter
effect. Further the 'gods' call the plant does not suit the taste of the jujube (accord-
/u&Xv. 'Gods' must here be taken in the ing to M. Champault) nor of the date. If
same extended sense. The magician in such Strabo's ,roa had the proper taste it would
cases used the same 'large language ' as the satisfy both requirements. Now Sulpicius
gods. What language is meant ? Severus (Dialogi i. 4, 4) tells of a friend of
FF 2
 436 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

his who being storm-bound on his way from similis, exuberans foliis, saporem mellis
Carthage to Alexandria put in at the praestabat. If this be Strabo's ~roa,might
extrema Cyrenorum ora: he was entertained it not be Homer's Mxors?
by a hermit who had not much to offer him R. M. HENRY.
in the way of food but fasciculum herbae Queen's College, Belfast.
intulit, cuius nomen excidit, quae menthae

ON DIODORUS: BOOKS XVI.-XVIII.

IT is well known that Greek MSS. are probably answered. It would be possible
sometimes corrupted by the substitution for to read OVKa&roTeXdtvavr{eirav, but I incline
the right word of another word suggested to think that OVK?0&?\V has been lost.
by the context, a mistake which we are all This would help rqpedvtoo.
conscious of making from time to time in
writing and in speaking. In this Review 16. 45. 1 Tov5 &7r^av?aTrOV
ov xv7 ~ro\irTv
I have many times tried to explain a difficult ?KaITovos (rvp^ovXovs.
passage by the hypothesis of such corruption; Perhaps <eds> K~aTOrv. ElC and EK are
and I think it worth while now to publish very like one another.
the following notes on the fourth volume
of the new Teubner Diodorus, without wait- 16. 59. 2 K(a < oAXyov > To Tgv xICerOofopov
ing to put into shape others which I have {XovT,a~rAX~os,?Or some such word.
by me on the earlier volumes, because so
16. 92. 3 6 tz?v T'XW%rTs
Kpvas olK?LOVV7TO-
many of them turn on the same point. In
book 17 especially occur a remarkable A\07f()roeIa'0TO7rotrffJa-TY TOV
oiajBao"?to ^iXt7rrov
number of passages, the text of which may Kal TvI evoaipuoviavettrAitrai jlOv?OA?,uvos
TOV
be explained in this way, and which are not Ileper&v
/yarO'tkXe, KatTrcp ov'aav eydXv Ka[
uninteresting in themselves. 7T?pOilr)TOV,OTtoS Je]ra7reo'olT'axvK.T.A.
There seems no reason for Fischer's doubt
16. 1. 1 yevd(rOatshould be yLyve(rOai.A of ota3daict. It is a perfectly suitable word
'gnomic ' or 'frequentative' aorist infinitive and occurs again 17. 16. 1 7rpovO)v?
has-in spite of Goodwin-no existence. fiovAr)v
7r?p,Trs dls rv 'Ao'av iafiadeos. On the other
ib. 6 7r[ TO (rV?x?S TS hand ?7ri7rX~ai,which he does not question,
~Topas 7ropEvaro-
can hardly be right. (1) It is not a suitable
Iz?Oa,]3paxea roZs Xpovois wTpocravaSpauAovTrE.
word. eV3aqov{a, prosperity, power, etc. is
In this and some other passages (see the not a fault to be rebuked. A man may be
references to Polybius 1. 12. 8, etc. in Liddell found fault with for pride, harshness, in-
and Scott) it seems clear that TrpoavaspaIoVTwS
justice, and so on, not for being very pros-
should be written. In all of them the writer
perous. (2) ro7xs K.T.X. cannot follow pro-
gives first a brief account of earlier events perly on a verb of
and then goes on with TO (rveXes TiJs we rebuking. If it is wrong,
may safely conclude that D. wrote ~:rI-
o'Topias. 7rpoS would be unmeaning.
8ed~aq,which goes perfectly with o'r~s /era-
16. 22. 3 Should KaO'f ~avTou be Ka0' 7rEo'oT'av, and in which o is the X (& A) of
&KOrrovTs? The two words do get confused. ?T7rAr)kOjat. av with the future optative is of
But ~avrovs may very well be right, though course doubtful.
the other would be clearer.
17. 7. 5 opa&rOaL oe TOVDAtov tt VVKTOsS
16. 35. 4 -rerj; fio,OicravTos IuEr&~re~ov oV(rS dvaTvar\ovTa, ,as aKT?'as oVK ev KVKAo-
&icrjLAvpt&v. T?p?~ or'xr/a~T T?erpocL{aduvov,aAAa Trr/v(fA6ya
Kara 7o\,ovo T'owovs~XOVraoteorrraptx{~,l.
7re~.j. Del. Reisk.; fort. scribendum 6$?<s
(Fischer). ,re4f is obvioulsly due to ,rEt?v. On T{Tpap/,/
?vov, which is clearly impos-
I suggest **rov as the original. sible, Fischer notes ita RX, p!?vovra F;
vel crvveXovTa coni. Hertl. II.
16. 44. 1 rrfvq~,tkv ,%aoarrrivTrpOsIIepo'as orvv?TTpauLqvov
2 p. 3, ~refJLT'ovra
Dind. ; fort. Treropv~vtjLeov
covJLqaXlav
Wrrpedv, 8oa~roXXAiv
av''eivrrav. (cf. Plat. Tim. 33 B).
avrwtdravcannot be used thus with an Remembering how easily r and T get
infinitive in the sense of refused. It means confused, we may, I think, confidently