goes under the name of Orpheus (but is generally attributed to Onomacritus the Athenian, who flourished as early as b.c. 516),*
he will not, in my opinion, fail to perceive that both are works by the
same hand. The close resemblance in the versification, in the fondness
for spondaic endings, in the diction, in the reduplication of epithets
; and as regards the spirit, the peculiar form, marking a purely
Grecian epoch, under which the tender passion is pictured in both,
clearly indicate their common origin. Now to establish their common
antiquity. The ' Argo-nautica,' being comparatively a mere sketch, must
have necessarily preceded the elaborate composition by Apollonius
Ehodius upon the same theme. The story as told by Orpheus differs from
the latter in many important particulars, besides being narrated with
much more of primitive simplicity : indeed it is hardly conceivable
that any one coming after Apollonius should have attempted to
compete with an epic of such established reputation ; or that, having
such audacity, he should have deviated so far from his prototype. But,
on the grounds above stated, if Onomacritus is the author of the '
Argonautica,' he must also be considered the author of the ' Lithica.'
Indeed the question of the high antiquity of the latter is set at vest,
if we accept the statement of the scholiast " Demetrius, son of
Moschus," that it gave Nicander the idea of his ' Theriaca.' Now as
Nicander flourished at the court of Attalas III., about B.c. 135, this
circumstance presupposes a much earlier date in a work selected for
his model by a writer of no mean order.
There
are many expressions in Pliny, where he is laughing at the mystic
powers attributed to gems by the Magi of old times, which seem direct
allusions to pas-
