primo papiliones parvos, nudosque ; mox frigorum impatientia villis inhorrescere, et adversum hyemem tunicas sibi instaurare densas, pedum asperitate radentes foliorum lanuginem vellere: hanc ab his cogi unguiúm carminatione, mox trahi inter ramos, tenuari ceu pectine: postea apprehensam corpori involvi nido volubili: tum ab homine tolli, fictilibusque vasis tepore et furfurum esca nutriri: atque ita subnasci sui generis plumas, quibus vestitos ad alia pensa dimitti: quæ vero cœpta sint lanificia, humore lentescere, mox in fila tenuari junceo fuso: nec puduit has vestes usurpare etiam viros, levitatem propter æstivam: in tantum a lorica gerenda discessere mores, ut oneri sit etiam vestis; Assyria tamen bombyce adhuc feminis cedimus." Hence, then, we learn that the Coan vests were silk, the produce of that particular species of silk-worm, which was bred in the island of Cos. Had I leisure for a more elaborate discussion of this curious and interesting subject, I think that I could adduce a vast body of evidence to support this idea, if, indeed, it needs any support. I have already cited Isidorus, who says: "Bombycina est a bombyce vermiculo, qui longissima ex se fila generat, quorum textura bombycinum, conficiturque in insula Coo ;-Serica a serico dicta, vel quod etiam Seres primi miserunt ;-byssina, candida, confecta ex quodam genere lini grossioris, sunt qui genus quoddam lini byssum esse existiment." We have in this passage, bombycina, serica, and byssina, distinguished from each other: what is the cause of this distinction? It is obviously this, that bombycina was a term appropriated to the Coan vest, which was well known to be the production of a worm, whereas the Serica of the Seres was not so well known to be the production of a worm: Salmasius had made this observation, to which sufficient attention has not been paid. Scholars will do well to attend to the following note of Facciolati in his Lexicon, who, after having cited the last quotation from Pliny, adds: "Ex his satis apparet quos nunc habemus bombyces, alterius quidem speciei esse ab iis, quos Plinius memorat, similes tamen, ut eadem omnibus. appellatio aptissime tribui possit: putat nihilominus Salmas. ad Tertull. de Pall. c. 3. nec absurde, bombyces Plinii eosdem omnino fuisse cum nostris, sed Plinium, cum apud falsum quendam scriptorem eam invenisset descriptionem, quam attulimus, sine delectu arripuisse, quod veram esse putaverit: lis est inter eruditos non levis, utrum serica, et bombycina antiquorum idem sint vestis genus, an diversum: distincta esse putat Lips. in Excurs.1. ad Tac. 1. 11. Ann. ; bombycina enim e verme, serica ex arborum lana fuisse: distinguit etiam Paul. Sentent. Lib. III. Tit. 7. a med. illis verbis, veste legata, ea cedunt, quæ ex lana et lino texta sunt, item serica et bombycina: cui adde Ulpian. Dig. L. XXXIV. Tit. 2. Leg. 24.: contra Salmas. in Exercitt. Plin. ad Solin. c. 24. in Adnotationibus ad Tertull. de Pall. c. 3. et ad Vopisc. in Aurelian. c. 45. pluribus ostendit, sericum et bombycinum eandem omnino rem esse; quod enim Seres, a quibus Sericum denominatum est, lanuginem arborum depectere dicuntur tum a Virg. 2 Georg. v. 121., tum a Plin. l. vI. c. 17. et aliis, cam ipsam lanuginem nihil aliud esse quam telam ac texturam bombycum, quos in ramis arborum texere idem Plin. tradit, ut supra dictum est: re itaque hæc duo idem esse, nomine tamen distincta, quod Sericum dictum sit, quod a Seribus texebatur; bombycinum, quod in Cea insula: Salmasio adstipulantur Isidor. 1. xix. Orig. c. 27. et Serv. ad loc. Virg. cit., eaque sententia vero propior videtur." I must confess that I have, upon this subject of the Coan vests, the misfortune to differ from Dr. Vincent; for

the Doctor writes thus, in a letter addressed to the Editor of the Classical Journal.

"Dear Sir,

"I am persuaded myself, though I have not the means of proving it, that the Coan vests were originally fine cottons, or muslin; for they are spoken of much earlier than silk; and the manufacture of silk, when silk grew into fashion, was at Tyre and Berytus, both for the holoserica, and the mixture of silk with other materials: but it appears from Pliny that silk, when first introduced, was as thin as gauze, or Persian: this caused the impropriety of Juvenal's friend, who pleaded in a silk-gown: this caused the indecency imputed to the Roman ladies, who were as fond of nudity, as modern Parisian or English ladies: and this, I believe, explains the passage of Pliny relating to the additional labor redordiendi fila; for the importation of νῆμα Σηρικὸν, οι μέταξα, implies a stout thread, which it was necessary to unravel, before it would be fine enough to weave up into gauze : I cannot think that a web was reaved out (as the women term it) to be wove up in a finer fabric; but in this I may be mistaken: Mr. Barker will make allowance, as I write wholly from memory by looking over his paper again, I observe that I may have made a mistake, according to Pliny, in saying that the Coans did not spin silk, or weave it but my idea still is, that the early Coa vestes were not silk, though as the Coans were weavers of fine webs, they might have applied their skill afterwards to silk: I rather think that my printed Dissertation will explain the whole better than I can do here: If you write to Mr. Barker, present my congratulations to him on the advancement of critical learning in the Cambridge School, and in my Alma Mater, Trinity, in particular: it is a beam of Porson's Sun, and, I hope, it will illuminate the whole hemisphere of literature: Success attend your bors:

And believe me

Your most obedient and faithful Servant,

"Islip, July 14. 1811."

la

W. VINCENT.”

The νῆμα σηρικὸν, οι μέταξα, is here well explained by the learned Dr. : Mr. Patrick observed to me on this subject that " I might refer the commercial reader to the late long and ingenious discussions in the Liverpool and the Manchester papers, on the nature and uses of cotton-twist, or cotton merely twisted and prepared in Lancashire, and exported from Hull at a cheap price into Germany, to be there re-manufactured into cotton-cloths, or stockings." It was thus imported into Rome, and hence Pliny says in Bk. 6. c. 20. "Primi sunt hominum, qui noscantur, Seres, lanicio sylvarum nobiles, perfusam aqua depectentes frondium canitiem : unde geminus feminis nostris labor redordiendi fila, rursumque texendi : tam multiplici opere, tam longinquo orbe petitur, ut in publico matrona transluceat." Pamphila's invention was simply the art of unravelling the silk of the worm, and then weaving it up for dresses.

I have intimated above that, while the bombycina of Cos was well known to be manufactured from the produce of a worm, the knowledge of the fact, that the Serica, which was imported from the Seres, is the gift of the worm, was confined to very few persons: Pausanias was, however, awar● of the fact, though it must be confessed that his account is erroneous:

.

Pliny was not aware of it, as is evident from the words, which have been just cited: Isidorus, in the passages cited above, considers it in one place as the wool of a tree, and in another place says expressly that it is supposed to be the production of a worm. Pollux, in his Onomasticon, evidently distinguishes between the bombycina, and the serica vestis, though he seems to have been inclined to believe that both were the production of a worm ; καὶ μὴν καὶ τὰ βύσσινα, καὶ ἡ βύσσος, λίνου τὶ εἶδος παρ' Ινδοῖς- τὰ δὲ ἐκ βομβύκων, σκώληκες εἰσιν οἱ βόμβυκες, ἀφ ̓ ὧν τὰ νήματα ἀνύεται, ὥσπερ ἀράχνης· ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς Σῆρας ἀπὸ τοιούτων ἑτέρων ζώων ἀθροίζειν φασὶ τὰ ὑφάσματα: we are presented with the following note on this passage : eo respexisse videtur et Achilles Tatius libr. 3. de Leucipp. ubi Andromedæ picturam refert, in Euanthæ Tabula, quamvis hoc nomen in vulgatis deest, locumque mutilum ita ex codice Thuani supple sis :--ubi tamen locus pessime defectus est non semel, quem totum tibi ex Thuani Codice restitutum exscribo: ἕστηκε δὲ νυμφικῶς ἐστολισμένη, ὥσπερ ̓Αϊδωνέως νύμφη κεκοσμημένη· ποδήρης χιτῶν, τὸ ὕφασμα λεπτὸν, ἀραχνίῳ (ubi tamen vulgatum ἀραχνίων potius mihi) ἐοικὸς πλοκῇ· οὐ κατὰ τὴν τῶν προβατείων τριχῶν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐρίων τῶν πτηνῶν· οἷον ἀπὸ δένδρων ἕλκουσαι νήματα, γυναῖκες ὑφαίνουσιν Ινδαί.”

66

The ancients entertained three opinions on the subject of the origin of silk, which I shall cite in the words of Salmasius : “ Eodem plane modo, quo ex cortice lini, cannabis, et byssi, texebantur olim telæ, et hodieque texi mos est: urticæ genus corticem telæ faciendæ bonum habere etiam nunc compertum est: quin et sericas vestes veterum e corticibus quibusdam confici solitas ejusdem Strabonis sententia est L. xv., τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ σηρικὰ ἐκ τινῶν φλοιῶν ξαινομένης βύσσου, tales et serica vestes, busso sc. ex quibusdam corticibus carminata, ac neta; nam byssus genus lini delicatissimi, cujus cortex linteis texendis aptus: hanc fuisse quorundam de serico opinionem testatur etiam Pausanias in Eliacis, ut hæc ejus verba ostendunt, τὴν μὲν γὰρ κανναβίδα, καὶ λίνον, καὶ τὴν βύσσον σπείρουσιν, ὅσοις ἡ γῆ τρέφειν ἐστὶν ἐπιτήδειος· οἱ μήτοι δὲ, ἀφ ̓ ὧν τὰς ἐσθῆτας ποιοῦσιν οἱ Σῆρες, ἀπὸ οὐδενὸς φλοιοῦ, τρόπον δὲ ἕτερον γίνονται τοίονδε: cum de cannabide, lino, et bysso loqueretur, quarum herbarum cortex ad lintea texenda, et vestes faciendas demitur, occasione data subjicit, non ex ullo cortice serica fila parari, ut quorundam erat opinio, sed alio modo, quem ibi describit: at Plinius, et plerique alii veterum ex lanugine fieri crediderunt, qua Indicarum arborum et Séricarum folia erant obducta, ut nostratium arborum pleræque lanata folia habent: idem Plinius de genere quodam vitis, cujus folia lanata, Quintum genus lanatæ, ne Seres miremur, aut Indos, adeo lanugo eam vestit : alii ea fila vermes nere bombycum generis tradidere: sic tres fuerunt diversæ veterum de serico sententiæ, quarum hanc ultimam veriorem esse tempora Justiniani in plenum deprehenderunt: ab illis bombycibus, qui et in Co insula nascebantur, a quibus et bombycina Coa, molliorem omnem lanuginem faciendis idoneam vestibus bombycem appellarunt veteres, recentiores autem Græci, Latinique bambacem.” Pliniana Exercitatt. in C. J. S. Polyhistora, p. 212.

E. H. BARKER.

Observations on Mr. Patrick's Chart of Numerals.'

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

جزم

You will not impute the observations which I am about to make to a desire of detracting from your indefatigable correspondent, as I am fully sensible of the labor, which his Chart must have caused him, and of the thanks which he deserves, but to a wish of making some general animadversions on the barbarous manner, in which oriental words are rendered in Roman characters. Indeed I am, acquainted with very few of the languages in question, and the few errors which I have discovered in some of these, I suppose to have been caused chiefly by words misplaced, which may be expected to be the case with so great a number. To pronounce some of Mr. Patrick's Arabic numerals were impossible; and here I will not contend for the origin of the diacritic vowels, but maintain, that without their aid, neither Arabic, Persic, nor Turkish can be pronounced. Many, nay most, MSS. it is true, have not them, but whether they are used or not, the acquisition of a correct pronunciation will be by no means impeded; for where occur, they are to be pronounced as long vowels, and where they do not, and the called by the Turks, is not used, a diacritic vowel is introduced, which vowel has nearly the same sound, whether we express it by a, e, i, o, or u; and for this reason, that the sound given to it is obscure, and not so full as that of -wherefore orientalists most generally use the u, but whether be written mărā, mērā, mira, morā, mŭra, if that diacritic vowel be articulated indistinctly, the sound will be the same: hence it is that fatha expresses either a ore, kesra either e or i, dhemma either o oru: No difficulty would therefore arise, if certain points were placed under those letters, which had a somewhat similar sound, if aa represented and a a and the long vowel were marked accordingly, and the diacritic with the short sign. In rendering the Arabic character into the Roman, there is scarcely a more difficult task than to convert into the original letters, what has been expressed in our characters. The Arabic might be more clearly written ähhüd for wegd, hn is a vitiated pronunciation for athnan in his second specimen, as is hlth for thǎlätă: rhbo is also the same as Arbaa, chems is but the feminine of kumsa, which should be written klämsǎt, sheds and sätta are the same: hlsebo and

ع

|

اثنان

thamaneet, tshgh and ثامانية

شبع

اربع

săbbaa, mhnh and

tăsaa, oshrands aashra, mhbh and

1

lo mācēt are but the same words erroneously written; in these I have conjectured, which gender would best suit Mr. Patrick's orthography, and many such observations might be made against the Hebrew and

will perhaps approach the nearest to Mr. Patrick's word.

Observations on Mr. Patrick's Chart of Numerals.

219

the Chaldee. There is likewise a vast difference between the specimens of Æthiopic and those in Ludolf's grammar:

According to Ludolf, the following are the Ethiopic numerals አÕደ፡ ăhhådu 1. ክልኤቱ : kylyetu and ክቱሼ ፡ kylye 2. WANE: sălǎsytu and WAM: sylysy 3. Ano: ǎrybāyytu and ናብዕ ፡ ybyÿÿ 4. ኁምስቱ፡ klämysytu and ነሽ፡ khymysy 5. ስድስቱ : sydysytu and ስድሽ: sydysy 6. ሰብ0ቱ ፡ sbyatü and ስብዕ፡ sybb,y 7 - ሰነቱ፡ samaytu and ስነ፡ symyny 8. ተስዐቱ : tasyaǎtu and to tysyy 9. OWCE: aasārytu and OWC : yysyry 10. myyty 100. OWE::::: 1000. Mr. Patrick also makes a mistake, when he writes ashoora as the Persian for ten, for it is the very Arabic words, which he has called ashra and oshr:

:

hazār is the Persian for one thousand: vînsătă is the Sanskrita for 20, sǎtǎ for 100 and săhisră for 1000:l, is the Malayoo for 100 or more usually saratus and rēēbű for a thousand. The disagreement in the Chinese between Du Halde and eul Mr. Patrick is extraordinary, e. g. According to Du Halde, I 1, 2, san 3, tsë 4, où 5, lû 6, îsc 7, pa 8, kyew 9, shê 10, på 100, I-tsyen 1000: yuz is the Turkish for 100, and been for 1000, I do not observe here many of the dialects of the Sanskrita, but they may well be spared, on account of their affinity: however, the learned collector has fallen into one more error concerning the Hindoostānee, when he calls his specimen "Moors, Gipsey, or Hindustani:" now it happens that the Moorrh is perfectly distinct from the Hindoostanee, and is vulgarly spoken in Bengal; sometimes indeed Mahratta MSS. are written in the Moorrh character, but as yet there are no types of it. The Hindoostānee abounds with Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrita words, the numerals of which are various, and as I suppose that there are no Hindoostanee types in this country, Gilchrist's orthography will be adopted: 1 ek, yuk, wahid; 2 dooa; 3 teen tree, si, tiya trik, sulasu; 4 char, chuhar, urbu, chuok, chuoa, chutoor, chuoh, chutooh, gunda; 5 panch, punj, punju, punjree, gahee, ban, khums; 6 chhu, khut, shish, chhukka, chhuk; 7 sat, huft, subu; 8 ath, utha, husht; 9 nuo, nooh, tisuu, nuoa; 10 dus, dih, ushur; 20 bees, bist, koree; 100 suo, sue, sud, suekhra, sut; 1000 huzar, ulf, suhusr. For a similar reason the English character will be used to contrast the Bengalee with those in the JOURNAL, 1 ek, 2 duhe, 3 tina, 4 thari, 5 pantha, 6 chhaya, 7 sata, 8 āta, 9 naya, 10 dasha, 20 bisha or visha, 100 shata.

D. G. WAIT.

sysn

1 There are other Æthiopic numerals e. g. PL: kahhydy one, six, and Pylyfy ten thousand. Mr. Patrick mistook : saquui second for a cardinal: not having an Amharic Lexicon, I am unable to give specimens in that dialect.