In former portions of this work, I have argued from the name and
the Phœnician extraction of Minos, both to illustrate the dependent
position of the Pelasgian race in the Greek countries[652], and
also to demonstrate the Phœnician origin of the Outer Geography
of the Odyssey[653]. But I have too summarily disposed of the
important question, whether Minos was of Phœnician origin, and of
the construction of the verse Il. xiv. 321. This verse is capable
grammatically of being so construed as to contain an assertion of it;
but upon further consideration I am not prepared to maintain that it
ought to be so interpreted.
[652] Achæis or Ethnology, sect. iii.
[653] Ibid. sect. iv.
~_Genuineness of Il._ xiv. 317-27.~
The Alexandrian critics summarily condemned the whole passage (Il.
xiv. 317-27), in which Jupiter details to Juno his various affairs
with goddesses and women. ‘This enumeration,’ says the Scholiast (A)
on verse 327, ‘is inopportune, for it rather repels Juno than attracts
her: and Jupiter, when greedy, through the influence of the Cestus, for
the satisfaction of his passion, makes a long harangue.’ Heyne follows
up the censure with a yet more sweeping condemnation. _Sanè absurdiora,
quam hos decem versus, vix unquam ullus commentus est rhapsodus_[654].
And yet he adds a consideration, which might have served to
arrest judgment until after further hearing. For he says, that the
commentators upon them ought to have taken notice that the description
belongs to a period, when the relations of man and wife were not such,
as to prevent the open introduction and parading of concubines; and
that Juno might be flattered and allured by a declaration, proceeding
from Jupiter, of the superiority of her charms to those of so many
beautiful persons.
[654] Obss. _in loc._
Heyne’s reason appears to me so good, as even to outweigh his
authority: but there are other grounds also, on which I decline to bow
to the proposed excision. The objections taken seem to me invalid on
the following grounds;