ancient as well as the modern languages furnish only general denominations, common to several objects or species, and are consequently extremely vague, a single word being employed to designate beings of very different natures. Scholars, grammarians, and lexicographers frequently add error to the confusion by their false distinctions, and sometimes the prodigious erudition of modern commentators increases the difficulty still more.
The true method of acquiring a complete and exact idea of the notions represented by each of the names we seek to explain appears to be this; to examine all the texts in which these names are employed, and afterwards to endeavour to remove the obscurity of the various meanings which have been assigned to them when they have been employed in different significations. By this method we can establish our opinions and conjectures upon the ancient texts with security, and without being exposed to the danger, to which we often yield without perceiving it, and sometimes even consciously, of selecting from the ancient authors only such passages as support our interpretations and systems, while we keep out of sight all those which are in opposition to them.
II. List of the Names of Insects injurious to the Vine mentioned by the Ancients.—The following are all the names of insects infesting the vine, or mentioned in connexion with it, that I have been able to discover in ancient authors:
|
1. Thola, Tolea or Tholaat. 2. Gaza. 3. Ips. 4. Iks. 5. Spondyle or Sphondyle. 6. Cantharis. 7. Phteïre or Phteïra. 8. Kampé. |
9. Joulos or Julus. 10. Biurus or Bythurus. 11. Involvolus, Involvulus, Involvus. 12. Convolvulus. 13. Volvox. 14. Volucra. 15. Eruca. |
III.List of the Authors in whom the above Names are found, and whose texts are explained in these Researches—The following are the authors in whom the names above mentioned are found, and who will consequently receive some explanation in this dissertation:
