XIV. We will now proceed to the applications of the illustrious Huet,
which are made in two ways, some directly, others indirectly. I call
those to be made directly, in which he proposes some immediate likeness
between Moses and Prometheus; and I look upon those as indirect, in
which he seeks for the likeness, by introducing some third agent or
property. For example, Mons. Huet pretends, and by the assistance of
certain analogies, endeavours to prove, that Prometheus and Mercury are
one and the same person; and afterwards strives to demonstrate by other
analogies, that Mercury and Moses are the same. This kind of proof is
very frequently introduced by Mons. Huet, who, by pursuing the system of
confounding all, or very nearly all the heathen deities in one, whatever
similitude he finds to Moses in any one of them, he applies to identify
the persons of every one of the others. But as in our progress, we mean
expressly to dispute and arraign this system, we shall confine ourselves
for the present, to the direct applications which are made by this
author of the history of Prometheus to that of Moses.
XV. In his first application, he begins by saying, that Herodotus calls
Prometheus the husband of Asia, and that others call him the son. Moses
was of Asiatic extraction, and all the Israelitish people when they
returned from Egypt, came back with him into Asia. (Demonstr. Evang.
prop. 4. cap. 8. numb. 7.) I have used the very words of the author in
this quotation, that no one should think, I was guilty of the least
imposition, in stating this strained and violent application. It is
really astonishing, to see a man celebrated in the Republic of Letters,
apply so trifling an allusion to so serious a business. Who does not
perceive, that according to this mode of reasoning, Prometheus may be
made to resemble every man who was born in Asia? and with more propriety
than he could be likened to Moses? for he was not born in Asia, but in
Africa, and was only of Asiatic descent. Besides this, what Herodotus
says of Prometheus, his being the husband of Asia, and others that he
was the son, should not be understood to allude to that vast extent of
country, which is reputed one of the four quarters of the world, but
to the nymph Asia, who the poets feigned to have been the daughter of
Thetis and the Ocean, and from whom, it is said, that prodigious tract of
land derived its name.
XVI. This second application begins thus: In the opinion of some authors,
Prometheus was the brother of Deucalion, of whom Apollonius speaking,
says, that he was the first who erected temples to the gods. This he
thinks applies to Aaron, the brother of Moses, who was the first high
priest of the Israelites. But this application is more extraordinary than
the other; because, in order to adopt it, the illustrious Huet falls into
two gross contradictions. The first is, that a little lower down, for the
sake of another application, he supposes Deucalion not to be the brother,
but the son of Prometheus; and this coincides with the general opinion;
at least I have never seen any other adopted by any author whatever.
The second contradiction is, that in the tenth chapter he affirms, and
endeavours to prove, that Deucalion and Aaron mean the same person. But
how can Deucalion and Aaron be supposed to mean the same person, when
the character and description of Aaron, differ so widely from that of
Noah? Who could imagine, that so learned a man could fall into such an
absurdity? and it would be idle to insist, that the building of temples
was peculiarly annexed to the office of high priests, as many more
temples have been built by legitimate princes, than by high priests.
XVII. In his third application, he observes, that Diodorus says,
Prometheus reigned in a part of Egypt. Moses was the leader or prince
of the Hebrews, who inhabited a portion of Egypt, that is, the land of
Gessen. Besides this, Thermutis, the daughter of Pharaoh, who adopted
him for her son, destined him to reign over her paternal inheritance.
This application, in the first place, proceeds upon a false supposition,
because Moses, was neither king or prince of the Israelites during their
abode in Egypt, nor can it be said with any propriety, that he ruled
over any part of Egypt; as the contrary clearly appears from scripture.
The second application is a strained one, because being destined to a
kingdom, and enjoying it, are things as different, as possession and
expectation. And besides all this, the scripture does not say one word of
the destination of Moses to the crown of Egypt. It is Josephus only who
relates it, and who, with respect to a matter of such remote antiquity,
it is not credible should have been able to obtain any authentic
instrument wherewith to corroborate his assertion.
XVIII. In the fourth application, he says that Prometheus found himself
in great distress, on account of an exorbitant inundation of the Nile,
which overflowed all the lands of his dominions; and that Hercules freed
him from the difficulty. In this event, Monsieur Huet figures to himself
the passage of the Israelites through, and the drowning of the Egyptians
in the Red Sea; but to make the allusion probable, he supposes Joshua,
the military leader of the Israelites, and the constant companion of
Moses and Hercules, to be one and the same person. The whole of this
application goes lame. The making the Nile the Red Sea is a voluntary
transformation; and this last must be supposed to have broke through a
large tract of country, and to have inundated the land of Egypt; which
is a circumstance that never happened. The ruin that was brought upon
the Egyptians by the Red Sea, was so far from giving Moses anxiety, that
it put him in safety. How then could the distresses of Prometheus, be
made to apply to Moses? Joshua in no shape assisted Moses in the passage
of the Red Sea? What relation then can the assistance which Hercules
afforded to Prometheus bear to Joshua?
XIX. In the fifth application, he remarks, that the statues of Prometheus
are carved holding a sceptre in the right hand, and that this alludes
to the miraculous rod or wand of Moses. This puerile mode of straining
for allusions, is terrible, and especially, when men descend to deduce
them from such trifling and impertinent circumstances. At this rate, all
the statues of princes with a sceptre in the right hand, are emblems of
Moses; and by the same mode of reasoning, may be called so many statues
of him. If Monsieur Huet was of opinion, that Prometheus was a king,
why should he seek for any other symbol or figure of it, than his being
carved with a sceptre in his hand, which is the proper and natural one;
and is intended as an emblem of regal authority? Finally, the resemblance
between a sceptre and a wand is so trifling, that we need not take the
trouble of dwelling upon, or attending to other particulars, this alone
being sufficient to reprobate the application.
XX. In his sixth application, he takes notice that Julius Africanus says,
that the fable of Prometheus having formed a man, took its rise from his
having by wise instructions, made those men penetrating and polished, who
were before rustic and stupid. By giving this turn to, and viewing things
in this light, we may, with more propriety, compare or identify Moses
with Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Minos, Draco, Solon, Lycurgus, and the
whole Areopagus.
XXI. In the seventh application, he tells us, that Prometheus held
conversations with Jupiter; and that Moses held them with God. I have
read in the scripture, of the conversation of Moses with God; but I never
in any author, read of the conversations of Prometheus with Jupiter.
But granting there were such, Jupiter is said to have conversed with
many other mortals; and, according to this mode of reasoning, it should
follow, that all those were so many Moseses. Truly, with respect to the
frequency of conversations with Jupiter, I would bet Ganymede against
Prometheus, and indeed against all others whatever.
XXII. In his eighth application, he tells us, that in a tragedy of
Æschylus, Prometheus is introduced saying, that he was the inventor of
divining by the inspection of the entrails of victims. Moses regulated
all the forms of worship, and the rights of sacrifices practised by the
Israelites. What analogy is there between these two things? Between
offering victims to false deities, in order to divine by their entrails,
and sacrificing to the true God, there is as great a difference, as there
is between due worship and superstition. Besides, what stress should
be laid upon what a poet, and a Greek one too, says in a theatrical
piece? Don’t we know that fictions are essentially material to poems;
and especially to those of this kind, as are likewise particular feigned
incidents, whether the subject of the piece is taken from true events or
common fables? The text of a tragedy, therefore, should never be quoted
as authority, when the matter in question is an enquiry into truth.
XXIII. In the ninth application, he observes, that Prometheus is spoken
of in a dialogue of Lucian, as one who knew future events. Moses was
a prophet. The dialogues of Lucian may, without doubt, be as properly
quoted in a matter of this sort, as the tragedy of Æschylus. No one is
ignorant that Lucian in his dialogues, gives full scope and play to his
imagination; and introduces into them, all the pleasing fictions that
occur to him; and especially those, which are conducive to turning into
ridicule the deities of Paganism. But I will admit, that the antients
held Prometheus as a soothsayer: this being however a quality they
acknowledged in an infinite number of others, either all those had a
right to be called the representatives of Moses, or none of them had;
although there is no more reason for identifying Prometheus with Moses
on this account, than there is for comparing him with all the other
prophets that are mentioned in holy writ.
XXIV. In the tenth application, he says, the fire which Prometheus
brought from Heaven, may allude to the lightning mixed with hail, which
Moses caused to descend from Heaven to terrify the Egyptians, to the
fire with which he consumed two hundred and fifty seditious of those who
rebelled at Coré, to the fire of the bush, to the celestial splendid
rays on Mount Sinai, when Moses spoke with God, to the refulgent glare
of the face of Moses when he came down from the mount, or the perpetual
fire which God ordained should ever burn on the altar. Allusions
between history and fable are very easy to be met with, if finding the
word fire in each of them, is sufficient to establish the similitude,
without having regard to union or conformity with respect to any other
circumstance whatever. At this rate, all that we find written of water in
fabulous histories, may be made applicable to all that is said of water
in the scripture.
XXV. In the eleventh application, he observes, that Jupiter sent Pandora
to Prometheus, to deceive him; but he, knowing the design, would not
receive her. In the character of Pandora is represented that of Eve,
whose history was written by Moses, although he abominated her crime.
Let the reader now reflect, what relation the writer of an event bears to
an actor in it.
XXVI. He says, in the twelfth application, that Jupiter, because the men
had revealed to him the theft of Prometheus, granted them the boon of
perpetual youth; and observes, that this alludes to the privilege which
God conceded to the Israelites, that their cloaths should not wear out in
the desert. Such conceits ought more properly to be termed illusions than
allusions; and as the extravagance of them is self-evident, I shall not
waste time in exploding them.
XXVII. In the thirteenth application, he says, that Jupiter chained
Prometheus to a rock, in a cave of Mount Caucasus, and appointed a
vulture to gnaw his entrails. God placed Moses in a cavern of Mount
Sinai, in order to manifest his glory to him there. This confounding of
Mount Caucasus with Mount Sinai, and a delinquent abhorred by Jupiter,
with a just man beloved by God, is a strange mode of making applications;
as is, to compleat the whole, comparing the most cruel torment of a
continual gnawing of the entrails, to the greatest blessing that ever
was enjoyed by a mortal.
XXVIII. In the last application, he says, Hercules relieved Prometheus
from that punishment. This circumstance, Monsieur Huet is desirous
of making allude to Joshua, whom he supposes to have been meant by
Hercules; and also to the battle Joshua fought with the Amalakites, in
the midst of which, Moses was on the top of an adjacent hill, with his
hands lifted up to Heaven, and imploring success to the Israelites till
such time as they obtained the victory; and he likens the delivery of
Moses, whom he supposes to have been in a sort of imprisonment on the
mount, to that of Prometheus. This is all a compound of incoherences
and contradiction; for, in order to accommodate the application to the
circumstances, he compares the confinement of Prometheus in the cavern
of Mount Caucasus, to the situation of Moses in the cave of Mount Sinai,
and to his situation on the Hill of Amalec. The fable of Prometheus,
supposes no battle of Hercules with any nation whatever. Finally, and not
to dwell upon many other objections, this application of the fable, is
contradictory to the whole tenor of history; as, according to the fable,
Moses the benefactor of Joshua, should be considered as the person on
whom the benefit was conferred. When Moses lifted his hands to Heaven,
then Joshua conquered; so that the success of Joshua depended on the
action of Moses. How then can you reconcile this with the fable, where
Hercules, who is the representative of Joshua, confers all the favour;
and Prometheus, who is supposed to mean Moses, does no act whatever, but
is a mere passive agent who receives favours.