to the Indians, and which I have rendered so probable with respect
to the inhabitants of the valley of the Nile, be presumed also to
be the case with those of the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris?
Established, like the Indians[160] and Egyptians, upon a much
frequented route of commerce, in vast plains, which they had been
obliged to intersect with numerous canals; instructed, like them,
by hereditary priests, the pretended depositaries of secret books,
the privileged possessors of the sciences, astrologers, builders
of pyramids, and other great monuments[161]; should they not also
resemble them in other essential points? Should not their history
be equally a mere collection of legendary tales? I venture almost
to assert, that not only is this probable, but that it is actually
demonstrated.
Up to this period neither Moses nor Homer speak of any great empire
in Upper Asia. Herodotus[162] gives to the supremacy of the Assyrians
a duration of only 520 years, and does not attribute to their origin
a greater antiquity than about eight centuries before his own time.
After having been at Babylon, where he consulted the priests, he had
not even learnt the name of Ninus as king of the Assyrians, and does
not mention him otherwise than as the father of Agro[163], the first
Lydian king of the family of the Heraclides. Notwithstanding, he
makes him the son of Belus: so much confusion had there been in the
traditions. Though he speaks of Semiramis as one of the queens who
left great monuments in Babylon, he only places her seven generations
before Cyrus.
Hellanicus, who was cotemporary with Herodotus, far from allowing
that Semiramis had built any thing at Babylon, attributes the
foundation of that city to Chaldæus, the fourteenth successor
of Ninus[164]. Berosus, a Babylonian and a priest, who wrote
scarcely a hundred and twenty years after Herodotus, gives an
astounding antiquity to Babylon; but it is to Nabuchodonosor, a
prince comparatively very modern, that he attributes the principal
monuments[165]. Regarding even Cyrus, a prince so remarkable, and
whose history must have been so well known and so popular, Herodotus,
who only lived a hundred years after him, owns that, in his time,
there already existed three different opinions; and, in fact, sixty
years later, Xenophon gives a biography of this prince quite at
variance with that of Herodotus.
Ctesias, who was nearly cotemporary with Xenophon, pretends to have
extracted from the royal archives of the Medes, a chronology which
carries back the origin of the Assyrian monarchy upwards of 800
years, putting at the head of their kings, that same Ninus, the son
of Belus, whom Herodotus had made one of the Heraclides; and, at the
same time, he attributes to Ninus and Semiramis conquests towards
the west, of an extent absolutely incompatible with the Jewish and
Egyptian history of the times in question[166].
According to Megasthenes, it was Nabuchodonosor who made these
incredible conquests. He pushed them by way of Libya, as far as
Spain[167]. We find that, in the time of Alexander, Nabuchodonosor
had completely usurped the reputation which Semiramis had possessed
in the time of Artaxerxes. But we must suppose, without doubt, that
Semiramis and Nabuchodonosor had conquered Ethiopia and Libya, much
in the same way as the Egyptians made India and Bactria to be subdued
by Sesostris or Osymandias.
It would lead to no result were we now to examine the different
accounts respecting Sardanapalus, in which a celebrated writer
imagined he had found proofs of the existence of three princes of
that name, who were all victims of similar misfortunes[168]; much in
the same way as another writer found in the Indian Vicramaditjia,
at least three princes, who were equally the heroes of similar
adventures.
It is apparently from the want of agreement in all these accounts,
that Strabo thought himself justified in saying, that the authority
of Herodotus and Ctesias was not equal to that of Homer or
Hesiod[169]. Nor has Ctesias been more happy in transcribers than
Manetho; and it is very difficult, at the present day, to harmonize
the extracts made from his writings by Diodorus, Eusebius, and the
Syncelle.
Since there existed such a state of uncertainty in the fifth century
before the Christian era, how should it be imagined that Berosus had
been able to clear it up in the third century before that era; or how
should we repose more confidence in the 430,000 years which he puts
before the deluge, or the 35,000 years which he places between the
deluge and Semiramis, than in the registers of 150,000 years, which
he boasts of having consulted[170].
Structures raised in remote provinces, and bearing the name of
Semiramis, have been spoken of; and columns erected by Sesostris[171]
have been pretended to have been seen in Asia Minor, in Thrace.
But, in the same way, in Persia, at the present day, the ancient
monuments, perhaps even some of the above, bear the name of Roustan;
and in Egypt or Arabia, they bear the names of Joseph or Solomon.
This is an ancient custom among the eastern nations, and probably
among all ignorant people. The peasants of our own country give the
name of Cæsar’s Camp to all the remains of Roman entrenchments.
In a word, the more I consider the subject, the more I am persuaded
that there existed no ancient history at Babylon or Ecbatan, more
than in Egypt and India. And, in place of reducing mythology to
history, with Evhemere and Bannier, I am of opinion that a great part
of history should be referred to mythology.
It is only at the epoch of what is commonly called the Second Kingdom
of Assyria, that the history of the Assyrians and Chaldeans begins to
become more intelligible; and this epoch is also that at which the
history of the Egyptians undergoes a similar change, when the kings
of Nineveh, of Babylon, and of Egypt, commence their conflicts on the
theatre of Syria and Palestine.
It appears, nevertheless, that the authors of these countries, or
those who had consulted the traditions regarding them, Berosus, and
Hieronymus, and Nicholas de Damas, agreed in speaking of a deluge.
Berosus has even described it with circumstances so similar to those
detailed in the book of Genesis, that it is almost impossible what he
says of it should not have been derived from the same sources, even
although he removes its epoch a great number of ages back,--insomuch,
at least, as we may judge of it, by the confused extracts which
Josephus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, have preserved of his writings.
But we must remark, and with this observation we shall conclude what
we have to say with regard to the Babylonians, that these numerous
ages, and this long series of kings, placed between the deluge and
Semiramis, are a new thing, entirely peculiar to Berosus, and
of which Ctesias, and those who have followed him, had no idea,
and which has not even been adopted by any of the profane authors
posterior to Berosus. Justin and Velleius consider Ninus as the first
of the conquerors, and those who, contrary to all probability, place
him highest, only refer him to a period of forty centuries before the
present time[172].
The Armenian authors of the middle age nearly agree with one of
the texts of Genesis, when they refer the deluge to a period of
4916 years from their own time; and it might be thought that
having collected the old traditions, and perhaps extracted the old
chronicles of their country, they form an additional authority in
favour of the newness of the nations. But when we reflect that their
historical literature commences only in the fifth century, and that
they were acquainted with Eusebius, we perceive that they must have
accommodated themselves to his authority, and to that of the Bible.
Moses of Chorene expressly professes to have followed the Greeks, and
we see that his ancient history is moulded after Ctesias[173].
However, it is certain, that the tradition of the deluge existed
in Armenia long before the conversion of its inhabitants to
Christianity; and the city, which, according to Josephus, was called
_the Place of the Descent_, still exists at the foot of Mount Ararat,
and bears the name of _Nachid-chevan_, which, in fact, has the same
signification.[174]
Along with the Armenians, we include the Arabians, Persians, Turks,
Mongolians, and Abyssinians, of the present day. Their ancient
books, if they ever had any, no longer exist. They have no ancient
history, but that which they have recently made up, and which they
have modelled after the Bible; hence, what they say of the deluge is
borrowed from Genesis, and adds nothing to the authority of that book.
It were curious to inquire what had been the opinion of the ancient
Persians upon this subject, before it was modified by the Christian
and Mahomedan creeds. We find it deposited in their Boundehesh, or
Cosmogony, a work of the time of Sassanides, (but evidently extracted
or translated from more ancient works), and which was discovered
by Anquetil du Perron, among the Parsis of India. According to it,
the total duration of the world could only be 12,000 years; hence
it cannot still be very old. The appearance of _Cayoumortz_ (the
bull-man, the first of the human race), is preceded by the creation
of a great water.[175]
For the rest, it would be as useless to expect a regular history of
ancient times from the Parsis, as from the other eastern nations. The
Magi have left none, any more than the Brahmins or Chaldeans. Of this
there is nothing more required for proof than the uncertainty which
exists regarding the epoch of Zoroaster. It is even asserted, that
the little history they may have possessed, that which relates to the
Achemenides, the successors of Cyrus to Alexander, had been expressly
altered, and this in consequence of an official order to that purpose
from a monarch named Sassanides[176].
In order to discover authentic dates of the commencement of empires,
and traces of a general deluge, we must therefore go beyond the
great deserts of Tartary. Toward the east and north we find another
race of men, who differ from us as much in their institutions and
manners as in their form and temperament. Their language consists
of monosyllables, and they make use of arbitrary hieroglyphics in
writing. They have only a political system of morals, without
religion; for the superstitions of Fo were imported among them from
India. Their yellow skin, their prominent cheeks, their narrow and
oblique eyes, and their scanty beard, render them so different from
us, that one is tempted to believe that their ancestors and ours had
escaped the great catastrophe on two different sides. But however
this may be, the epoch which they assign to their deluge is nearly
the same as ours.
The Chou-king is the most ancient of the Chinese books[177]; it is
said to have been compiled by Confucius, about 2255 years ago, from
fragments of more ancient works. Two hundred years afterwards, a
general persecution of the men of letters, and destruction of the
books, is said to have taken place under the emperor Chi-Hoang-ti,
whose object in this was to destroy the traces of the feudal
government established under the dynasty which preceded his. Forty
years after, under the dynasty which had overturned that to which
Chi-Hoang-ti belonged, a portion of the Chou-king was restored from
memory by an old literatus, and another was discovered in a tomb; but
nearly the half of it was for ever lost. Now, this book, the most
authentic which the Chinese possess, commences the history of their
country with the reign of an emperor named _Yao_, whom it represents
to us as occupied in removing the waters, _which, having risen to
the skies, still bathed the foot of the higher mountains, covered
the less elevated hills_, and rendered the plains impassable[178].
According to some, the reign of Yao was 4163 years before the present
time; according to others, 3943. The discrepancy in the opinions
regarding this epoch even amounts to 284 years.
A few pages farther on we find one _Yu_, a minister and engineer,
re-establishing the courses of the waters, raising embankments,
digging canals, and regulating the taxes of all the provinces in
China, that is to say, in an empire extending 600 leagues in all
directions. But the impossibility of such operations, after such
events, shews clearly that the whole is nothing else than a moral and
political romance[179].
More modern Chinese historians have added a series of emperors
before Yao, but with a multitude of fabulous circumstances, without
venturing to assign them fixed epochs. These writers are at
perpetual variance with each other, even regarding the number and
names of their emperors, and are not universally approved by their
countrymen. Fouhi, with the body of a serpent, the head of an ox, and
the teeth of a tortoise, together with his successors, who are not
less monstrous, are altogether absurd, and have no more existed than
Enceladon and Briareus.
Is it possible that mere chance could have produced so striking a
result, as to make the traditional origin of the Assyrian, Indian,
and Chinese monarchies agree in being referred to an epoch of nearly
4000 years from the present period? Would the ideas of nations which
have had so little communication with each other, and whose language,
religion, and laws are altogether different, have corresponded upon
this point, had they not been founded upon truth?
We could not expect precise dates from the natives of America, who
had no real writings, and whose oldest traditions extended only to
a few centuries before the arrival of the Spaniards. And yet, even
among them, traces of a deluge are imagined to be found in their rude
hieroglyphics. They have their Noah, or Deucalion, as well as the
Indians, Babylonians, and Greeks[180].
The Negroes, the most degraded race among men, whose forms approach
the nearest to the brutes, and whose intellect has not yet arrived
at the institution of regular governments, or at any thing having
the least appearance of systematic knowledge, have preserved no
sort of annals or traditions. They cannot, therefore, afford us any
information on the subject of our present researches, though all
their characters clearly shew us that they have escaped from the
great catastrophe, at another point than the Caucasian and Altaic
races, from which they had perhaps been separated for a long time
previous to the occurrence of that catastrophe.
But if the ancients, it is argued, have left no history, their long
existence as nations is not the less attested by the advances which
they have made in astronomy, by observations whose date is easily
determined, and even by monuments which still remain, and which
themselves bear their dates. Thus, the length of the year, such as
the Egyptians are supposed to have determined it, according to the
heliacal rising of Sirius, proves correct for a period comprised
between the year 3000 and the year 1000 before Christ, a period to
which the traditions of their conquests and of the great prosperity
of their empire also refer. This accuracy proves to what perfection
they had carried their observations, and shews that they had for
many ages applied themselves to such investigations.
In order to determine the force of this argument, it is necessary
that we should here enter upon some explanations.
The solstice is the moment of the year at which the rise of the
Nile commences, and that which the Egyptians must have observed
with most attention. Having, at the beginning, made, from imperfect
observations, a civil or sacred year of three hundred and sixty-five
days complete, they would preserve it from superstitious motives,
even after they had perceived that it did not agree with the natural
or tropical year, and did not bring back the seasons to the same
days[181]. However, it was this tropical year which it behoved them
to mark for the purpose of directing them in their agricultural
operations.
They would, therefore, have to search in the heavens for an apparent
sign of its return, and they imagined they had found this sign when
the sun returned to the same position, relatively to some remarkable
star. Thus they applied themselves, like almost all nations who
are beginning this inquiry, to observe the heliacal risings and
settings of the stars. We know that they chose particularly the
heliacal rising of Sirius, at first, doubtless, on account of the
beauty of the star; and, especially, because, in those ancient times,
this rising of Sirius being nearly coincident with the solstice,
and indicative of the inundation, was to them the most important
phenomenon of this kind. Hence it was that Sirius, under the name of
Sothis, occupied so conspicuous a place in their mythology, and in
their religious ceremonies. Supposing, therefore, that the return of
the heliacal rising of Sirius and the tropical year were of the same
duration, and believing, at length, that this duration was 365 days
and a quarter, they would imagine a period after which the tropical
year and the old year, the sacred year of 365 days only, would return
to the same day; a period which, according to these incorrect data,
was necessarily 1461 sacred years, and 1460 of those improved years
to which they gave the name of years of Sirius.
They took for the point of departure of this period, which they named
the Sothiac or great year, a civil year, the first day of which was,
or had been, also that of a heliacal rising of Sirius; and it is
known, from the positive testimony of Censorinus, that one of these
great years had ended in the 138th year of the Christian era[182].
It had consequently commenced in the 1322d before Christ, and that
which preceded it in the 2782d. In fact, the calculations of M.
Ideler shew, that Sirius was heliacally risen on the 20th July of the
Julian year 139, a day which corresponded that year to the first of
Thot, or the first day of the Egyptian sacred year[183].
But not only is the position of the sun, with relation to the stars
of the ecliptic, or the sidereal year different from the tropical
year, on account of the precession of the equinoxes. The heliacal
year of a star, or the period of its heliacal rising, especially when
it is distant from the ecliptic, differs still from the sidereal
year, and differs in various degrees according to the latitudes of
the places where it is observed. What is very singular, however,
and the observation has already been made by Bainbridge[184] and
Father Petau[185], it happens, by a remarkable concurrence in the
positions, that, in the latitude of Upper Egypt, at a certain epoch,
and during a certain number of ages, the year of Sirius was really
within very little of 365 days and a quarter; so that the heliacal
rising of this star returned in fact to the same day of the Julian
year, the 20th July, in the year 1322 before, and the year 138 after
Christ[186].
From this actual coincidence, at this remote period, M. Fourier, who
has confirmed all these accounts by new calculations, concludes,
that, since the length of the year of Sirius was so perfectly known
to the Egyptians, they must have determined it by observations made
during a long series of years, and conducted with great accuracy;
observations which must be referred to at least 2500 years before the
present time, and which could not have been made long before or long
after this interval of time[187].
This result would assuredly be very striking, had it been directly,
and by observations, made upon Sirius itself, that they had fixed
the length of the year of Sirius. But experienced astronomers affirm
it to be impossible that the heliacal rising of a star could afford
a sufficient foundation for exact observations on such a subject,
especially in a climate where _the circumference of the horizon
is constantly so much loaded with vapours, that, in clear nights,
stars of the second or third magnitude can never be seen within some
degrees of the verge of the horizon, and that the sun itself is
completely obscured at its rising and setting_.[188] They maintain,
that, if the length of the year had not been otherwise ascertained,
there would have been a mistake of one or two days.[189] They have no
doubt, therefore, that this duration of 365 days and a quarter, is
that of the tropical year inaccurately determined by the observation
of the shadow, or by that of the point where the sun rose each day,
and through ignorance identified with the heliacal year of Sirius; so
that it would be mere chance which had fixed with so much accuracy
the duration of this latter for the period of which we speak.[190]
Perhaps it will also be judged, that men capable of making
observations so exact, and which they had continued during so long
a period, would not have attributed so much importance to Sirius,
as to pay him religious homage; for they would have seen that the
relations of the rising of this star with the tropical year, and with
the inundation of the Nile, were merely temporary, and took place
only in a determinate latitude. In fact, according to M. Ideler’s
calculations, in the year 2782 before Christ, Sirius appeared in
Upper Egypt, on the second day after the solstice; in 1322, on the
third; and in the year 139 after Christ, on the twenty-sixth.[191] At
the present day, its heliacal rising is more than a month after the
solstice. The Egyptians would therefore set themselves by preference
to finding the period, which would bring about the coincidence of
the commencement of the sacred year, with that of the true tropical
year, and then they would discover that their great period must have
been 1508 sacred years, and not 1461.[192] Now, we assuredly do not
find any traces of this period of 1508 years in antiquity.
In general, we may defend ourselves with the idea, that, if the
Egyptians had possessed so long a series of observations, and of
accurate observations too, their disciple Eudoxus, who studied among
them for thirteen years, would, on his return, have brought into
Greece a system of astronomy more perfect, and maps of the heavens
less erroneous, and more coherent in their different parts.[193] How
should it happen that the precession of the equinoxes was not known
to the Greeks, but through the works of Hipparchus, if it had been
marked in the registers of the Egyptians, and inscribed in characters
so manifest upon the ceilings of their temples? And how comes it
that Ptolemy, who wrote in Egypt, should not have deigned to avail
himself of any of the observations of the Egyptians?[194]
Farther, Herodotus, who lived so long with them, says nothing of
those six hours which they added to the sacred year, nor of that
great Sothian period which resulted. On the contrary, he says
expressly that the Egyptians, making their year of 365 days, the
seasons returned to the same point, so that in his time the necessity
of this quarter of a day does not appear to have been suspected.[195]
Thalles, who had visited the priests of Egypt, less than a century
before Herodotus, did not, in like manner, make known to his
countrymen, any other than a year of 365 days only.[196] And, if we
reflect that all the colonies which migrated from Egypt, fourteen or
fifteen centuries before Christ, the Jews and the Athenians, carried
with them the lunar year, it will perhaps be inferred that the year
of 365 days itself had not existed in Egypt in these remote ages.
I am aware that Macrobius[197] gives the Egyptians a solar year of
365¼ days; but this author, who is comparatively modern, and who
lived at a long period after the establishment of the fixed year
of Alexandria, must have confounded the epochs. Diodorus[198] and
Strabo[199] only attribute such a year to the Thebans; they do not
say that it was in general use, and they themselves did not live till
long after Herodotus.
Thus the Sothian or great year must have been a comparatively recent
invention, since it results from the comparison of the civil year
with this pretended heliacal year of Sirius; and it is for this
reason that it is only spoken of in the works of the second and third
century after Christ[200], and that Syncellus alone, in the ninth,
seems to cite Manetho as having made mention of it.