than he is understood of others. 3 So much for Favorinus fabulator. Another reason for my rejecting this reading of the Vulgate is the terms it is compounded of. For, if the etymology of Euroclydon 3 Who could imagine, there would ever be any controversy about the particular stations of the Greek winds, as long as the Octogon temple of Andronicus Cyrrheftes at Athens, commonly called the Temple of the Winds, was in being? It is intire, and has been described by Sir George Wheeler and Spon. It has fince been delineated at large by Monf. Le Roy, and ftill more accurately by Mr. Steuart. Vitruvius and Varro quote it's authority. Agreeable to this is the determination of Dionyfius Uticenfis in his defcription of the Grecian winds. Απο των τεσσάρων κλιμάτων τέσσαρες αυτ θεντικοι πνευσιν ανεμοι, ὁ Απηλιώτης, και ο Ζέφυρος, και ο Βορέας, και ὁ Νοτος, Ο μεν εν Απηλιώτης απο ανατολικο κεντρο φερομενος έχει παραπνεοντας αυτόν Tov Euрov, xaι тov Kaixiav, x. T. λ. Geopon. Edit. Cantab. p. 16.-In like manner Vitruvius -Inter Solanum et Auftrum.-Eurus, Lib. 1. Cap. 6. Euroclydon is unfatisfactory to Grotius, Lipfienfis and Bochart; that of Euroaquilo may be equally fo to others. Those learned men seem to me to have proceeded on a wrong principle: for they think, as the Greeks compounded the two winds Eurus and Notus, and formed a third that was a medium to the extremes; so Eurus and Aquilo might have been blended in the fame manner, and a third called Euroaquilo have been conftituted from them. But they do not fufficiently confider that in the former cafe the Greeks joined together two winds of Greek original; in doing which there was no impropriety: but there is a manifest impropriety in the latter cafe, where a Greek and a Roman wind are unnaturally combined: for Eurus is a Greek name, Aquilo a Roman; and they are for that reafon incompatible, and inconfiftent with each other. It is true, Seneca does fay in his pointed and witty manner, that both Eurus and Zephyrus were in his time admitted into the Roman language:4 Eurus jam civitate donatus eft, et noftro fermoni non tanquam alienus intervenit; "Eurus has had at laft "the freedom of the city prefented him, and no more passes among us as a foreigner:" Favonium-Zephyrum effe dicent tibi, etiam qui græcè nefciunt loqui; " even thofe that cannot "fpeak Greek will tell you that Zephyrus is the fame as Favonius." From whence we may gather that these words were in fome degree admitted at Rome among people of rank and letters: but, if the author means that they were become the current language of the Romans, he expreffes himself in a very lax manner. Pliny himfelf makes ufe of this word more than once; yet tells us 5 very exprefsly that for Eurus the Romans had Vulturnus, for Boreas they used Aquilo-and he lived after Ab Oriente æquino&iali Subfolanus; ab Oriente brumali Vulturnus: illum Apelioten, hunc Eurum Greci appellant. Plin. Hift. Nat. Lib. 2. Cap. 47. Edit. Harduin. 4 Nat. Quæft. Lib. 5. Cap. 16. 5 Hift. Nat. Lib. 18. Cap. 34. Edit. Harduin. after Seneca. For it does not follow, because a word is in vogue within the verge of the court, or in ufe with the learned, that it is immediately in general acceptation. Sea-faring people keep long to their own terms: pilots and mariners come but late into the fashion. But, as this may be matter of uncertainty, let us abide by Seneca, where he speaks fully to the purpose; which he does, when he proves there was no fuch wind as Euroaquilo, by faying, the wind that answered to Καικίας Kamias had among the Romans no name. And here I cannot but take notice of the strangest inference that, I believe, was ever made. The words of Seneca I have mentioned before-Quem Græci Kaniav vocant, apud nos fine nomine eft. As this writer was contemporary with St. Paul, one would think his teftimony decifive; and might naturally expect it to be used to prove there was no fuch word in the language. But Dr. Bentley makes quite a different inference "As the Roman feamen had no specific word, they propa"bly might express it by the compound Euroaquilo;" and he afterwards tells you he found that they did fo: all which, ftript of it's specific distinction, amounts in plain English to this Since Seneca affures us the Romans had no name for this wind, the Roman failors must for that very reason have had one which diftinction between the Romans and Roman failors is truly curious.7 This is the first time, I believe, a writer's authority is used to contradict his own teftimony; and a fuppofition 6 We have many inftances of this in French words, that are used by people of rank, and adopted into the English language, which the commonalty are not acquainted with. I dare fay, the wind Eurus was no more in use among the Roman failors, than the Levant or Ponent are among the British. The scope 7 The process of this investigation is worth attending to. of Dr. Bentley's argument is this-Seneca affures us that the Romans had no name for this Greek wind; confequently the Roman failors had none: as the Roman failors had no name for it, they probably invented one; and hence we find they had one. To all which I fubjoin, to com plete pofition inferred from pofitive evidence to the contrary. As Seneca and Pliny were both of them philofophers, and wrote particularly on this fubject; it cannot be supposed that they could be ignorant of a circumstance of this nature. I have already observed, that, through the whole course of Dr. Bentley's reasoning, the mariners are fuppofed to be Romans. This is without any hesitation taken for granted; though there is not the leaft fhow of evidence to countenance the opinion. Are we to imagine, because the Romans conquered all the world, that they navigated every fhip upon the feas? The Evangelift does not tell us, that this was an Italian ship coming from Alexandria; but an Alexandrine fhip going to Italy. It is therefore wonderful that Cluver, Bochart, Grotius, and, I believe, every writer upon the fubject, should overlook this circumstance, that entirely fubverts their hypothefis. There is not the least reason to imagine that the mariners were from Italy. Alexandrine fhips were navigated by people of Alexandria; as appears by a ship from that place, which Lucian in a serious Platonic dialogue gives a very particular account of. It fet out from the Pharos laden with corn; and was to bring back in return the amount of twelve Attic talents to the owner. Had the crew been Romans, it could not but have been mentioned. From the name of the pilot, and the converfation held in the Piraeus by the Athenians with the master of the ship, and indiscriminately with the failors, it is plain they had the fame language, and confequently were Greeks of Alexandria. It is obfervable the name of the fhip was the Isis; and it had the image of that goddess on the prow. 8 There plete the argument; as the Roman failors had a name for it, certainly the Romans had. Thus you may, by this fubtle way of reafoning, prove that the Romans, at one and the fame time, had and had not a name for the thing in difpute. 8 Πλοιον η Ευχαί There are many other accounts of Alexandrine fhips, that will prove what I maintain. Various authors fpeak of them, particularly 9 Cicero, Suetonius, 2 Seneca, 3 Strabo. As the trade they carried on was immenfe, and at the fame time is a circumftance closely connected with my fubject; I hope the reader will excufe me, if I dwell a little upon this head, and lay the nature and process of this navigation before him. Their chief commodity was corn, which they exported annually for Italy to a great amount. This was a freight of such confequence, that many laws were enacted under different emperors for it's regulation and dispatch. The mariners particularly were under great reftrictions,4 being obliged to use their utmost diligence; and were liable to a capital punishment, if they unneceffarily went out of their courfe. 5 The magistrates and commiffaries on fhore fuffered a total confiscation of their estates, if they were convicted of mismanagement. In short, no delay was allowed: for imperial Rome, the miftrefs of nations and pride of the universe, was often in want of bread. No city fuffered at times greater scarcity: nor was there any gratuity to the people more acceptable than a donative of corn. For this reafon Augustus, when he reduced Egypt into the form of a province, opened the canals of the Nile, that had been obstructed and spoiled; and exacted by way of tribute a certain portion of wheat, to be annually fent to Italy. The amount of this impoft was incredibly great. If we may credit Aurelius Victor,7 it was no less than twenty millions of Roman Modii: hujus (Augufti fcil.) tempore ex Ægypto urbi annua ducenties centena millia frumenti inferebantur; which in 9 Orat. pro Rab. Post. 14. In Augufto & Nerone. 2 Senec. Epift. 77. 3 Lib. 5. item Lib. 17. 4 Cod. L. XI. Tit. 1. 6. 5 L. 7. C. de Naviculariis. 6 L. 8. C.-L. 4. C. 7 Epitome de Vita et Moribus Imp. Roman. our |