had existed, his reign must have been of the earliest date. He is by some
represented as succeeding Thoules: according to others he comes one degree
higher, being introduced after [898]Orus, who in the catalogue of Panodorus
is placed first of the Demigods, that reigned in Egypt; but by
[899]Herodotus is ranked among the deities. According to Dicaearchus the
reign of Sesostris was two thousand five hundred years before Nilus: and
the reign of the latter was four hundred and thirty-six years before the
first Olympiad. I do not place the least confidence in these computations;
but would only shew from them that the person spoken of must be referred to
the mythic age, to the aera of the Demigods of Egypt. Some of these
evidences are taken notice of by Sir John [900]Marsham; who cannot
extricate himself from the difficulties with which his system is attended.
He has taken for granted, that Sesostris and Sesonchosis are the Sesac of
the Scriptures; though every circumstance of their history is repugnant to
that notion. [901]_I know_ _not,_ says he, _what to make of this
Sesonchosis; who is represented as five thousand years before Menes, and
who is referred to the time of the Demigods_. In another place: _Sesostris,
who is in the twelfth Dynasty of Africanus, and whose aera extends higher,
than the Canon of Eusebius reaches, reigned according to Scaliger's
computation in the 1392d year of the Julian Period. By this calculation
Sesostris is made prior to Sesostris; and this too by no less than 2355
years: for it is manifest, as I will shew from Scripture, that Sesostris
undertook his expedition into Asia, and got possession of Jerusalem in the
3747th year of the Period abovementioned_. What is said in the sacred
writings, I have taken notice of before. Not a word occurs about Sesostris,
nor of any such Asiatic expedition. I am obliged to say, that through the
whole of this learned writer's process, instead of a proof, we find nothing
else but the question begged, and some inferences of his own in consequence
of this assumption. He indeed quotes the authority of Manethon from
Josephus to prove that the great actions of Sesostris were the same as were
performed by Sesac. But Manethon says no such thing: nor does Josephus
attribute any such exploits to Sesac: but expressly says more than once,
that Sesac, and Sesostris were two different [902]persons. It is no where
said of Sesac, that he made an expedition into Asia; much less that he
conquered it, as is supposed of Sesostris. Sesac went up against Jerusalem,
and took it, [Greek: amacheti], without meeting with any opposition. Upon
this he departed, and carried with him the treasures which he had there
seized: in other words, he went home again. There is not the least mention
made of his invading [903]Samaria, or the country about Libanus, and Sidon;
or of his marching to Syria: all which made but a small part of the great
Continent, called in aftertimes Asia: much less did he visit the countries
of the Assyrians, and Babylonians; or the regions of Elam and the Medes.
All this, and much more he must have done, to have come up to the
character, to which they would fain entitle him.
I will not enter into any farther discussion of the great conquests
attributed to this supposed monarch Sesostris. They are as ideal as those
of Sesac, and sufficiently confute themselves. First Osiris is said to have
conquered the whole earth: then Zeus, then Perseus, then [904]Hercules, all
nearly of the same degree of antiquity, if we may believe the best
Mythologists. Myrina comes in for a share of conquest in the time of Orus.
After her Thoules subdues the whole from the Eastern Ocean, to the great
Atlantic: and as if nothing had been performed before, Sesostris
immediately succeeds, and conquers it over again. [905]Herodotus informs
us, as a token of these victories, that Sesostris erected pillars and
obelisks with emblematical inscriptions: and that he saw some of them in
Phrygia, and in other countries, which had been conquered. He without doubt
saw pillars: but how did he know for certain, by whom they were erected?
and who taught him to interpret the symbols? Pausanias takes [906]notice of
a colossal statue in the Thebaeis, and says that the history given of it was
not satisfactory. He tells us, that it stood near the Syringes, in upper
Egypt; and he viewed it with great admiration. It was the figure of a man
in a sitting posture; which some said was the representation of Memnon the
Ethiopian: others maintained, that it was the statue of Phamenophis: and
others again, that it related to Sesostris. There were here emblems, and
symbols; yet a diversity of opinions. I want therefore to know, how
Herodotus could interpret in Phrygia, what a native could not decypher in
Egypt. The same question may be asked about the people of Syria, among whom
were obelisks attributed to the same person. How came they to be so
determinate about an Egyptian work; when people of that country in the same
circumstances were so utterly at a loss? the whole undoubtedly was matter
of surmise. I shall not therefore say any thing more of Sesostris; as I
must again speak of him, when I come to the kings of Egypt.
If we compare the above histories, we may perceive that they bear a
manifest similitude to one another; though they are attributed to different
persons. They contain accounts of great achievements in the first ages: in
effecting which these antient heroes are represented as traversing immense
regions, and carrying their arms to the very limits of the known world: the
great Tartarian ocean to the east, and the Atlantic westward, being the
boundaries of their travel. Some of them seem to have been of the same age;
and to have carried on these conquests at nearly the same time: and those,
whose aera may possibly differ, have this in common with the others; that
they visit the same countries, march for the most part by the same rout;
and are often joined by the same allies, and are followed by the like
attendants. They are in general esteemed benefactors, wherever they go: and
carry the sciences with them, as well as their religious rites; in which
they instruct the natives in different parts of the world. These are to be
sure noble occurrences; which however could not possibly have happened, as
they are represented above. It is not to be supposed, that any person in
those early ages, or in any age, could go over such a tract of country;
much less that he should subdue it. It is still more improbable, that such
extensive conquests should be so immediately repeated: and that they should
in some instances be carried on by different people at nearly the same
time. They, who speak of mighty empires being founded in those early days,
know little of true history; and have formed a very wrong judgment of the
politics, which then universally prevailed. The whole earth, as far as we
can learn, was divided into little cooerdinate states: every city seems to
have been subservient to its own Judge and Ruler, and independent of all
others. In the land of [907]Canaan thirty-one kings were subdued by Joshua,
between Jordan and the sea: and some were still left by him unconquered. In
those days, says the learned Marsham, quot urbes, tot regna. The like was
for many ages after observable in Greece, as well as in Latham, Samnium,
and Hetruria. A powerful enemy made Egypt unite under one head: and the
necessities of the people in a time of dearth served to complete that
system. The Israelites too, when settled in Canaan, formed a large kingdom.
Excepting these two nations we know of none of any considerable extent,
that were thus united. The [908]Syrians and the Philistim were in separate
states, and under different governors. The kingdoms of Nineve and Babylonia
consisted each of one mighty city, with its environs; in which were perhaps
included some subordinate villages. They were properly walled
[909]Provinces; and the inhabitants were in a state of rest for ages. The
Assyrian did not till about seven hundred years before Christ, begin to
contend for dominion, and make acquisition of territory: and we may form a
judgment, from what he then [910]gained, of what he was possessed before.
The cities Hala, Habor, Haran in Mesopotamia, with Carchemish upon the
Euphrates, were his first conquests: to these he added the puny states Ina,
Iva, and Sepharvaim upon the same river. He then proceeded to Hamath,
Damascus, and other cities of Syria; and at last came to Samaria. The line
of conquest points out the route, which he took; and shews that there were
in Mesopotamia numberless little states, independent of Babylon and Nineve,
though in their immediate vicinity. Consequently the notion of the extent,
dominion, and antiquity of those Monarchies, as delivered by Ctesias and
others, is entirely void of truth. The conquests likewise of those Heroes
and Demigods, who are made coeval with the supposed foundations of those
Monarchies, must be equally groundless. To say the truth, the very
personages are ideal, and have been formed out of the titles of the Deity:
and the history, with which they are attended, related not to conquest, but
to peregrinations of another nature; to Colonies which went abroad, and
settled in the countries mentioned. The antients, as I have repeatedly
said, have given to a person, what related to a people: and if we make this
small allowance, the history will be found in great measure true.
NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS.
Having given an account of the mythic heroes of Egypt, I think it necessary
to subjoin an history of two others of the like stamp, who have made no
less figure in the annals of Babylon and Assyria. The persons, to whom I
allude, are Ninus and Semiramis; whose conquests, though they did not
extend so far as those above, are yet alike wonderful, and equally
groundless. It is said of Ninus, that he was the first king of
[911]Assyria: and being a prince of great power, he made war on his
neighbours the Babylonians, whom he conquered. He afterwards invaded the
Armenians; whose king Barsanes, finding himself much inferior to his
adversary, diverted his anger by great presents, and a voluntary
[912]submission. The next object of his ambition was Media, which he soon
subdued; and getting Phanius, the king of the country, into his hands,
together with his wife and seven children, he condemned them all to be
crucified. His hopes being greatly raised by this success, he proceeded to
reduce all the nations to his obedience between the Tanais and the Nile:
and in seventeen years he made so great a progress, that, excepting
Bactria, all Asia submitted to him as far as the river Indus. In the series
of conquered countries Ctesias enumerates Egypt, Phenicia, Coile Syria,
Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, Lydia, Cappadocia, and
the nations in Pontus, and those near the Tanais. To these are added the
Dacians, Hyrcanians, Derbicians, Carmanians, Parthians, with all Persis and
Susiana, and the numerous nations upon the Caspian sea. After these notable
actions he laid the foundation of the great city Nineve: which by mistake
is said to have been built upon the banks of the [913]Euphrates. His last
expedition was against the Bactrians: at which time he first saw Semiramis,
a woman of uncommon endowments, and great personal charms. He had an army
which amounted to seven millions of foot, and two millions of horse, with
two hundred thousand chariots with scythes. For the possibility of which
circumstances Diodorus tries to account in favour of the historian, from
whom he borrows. By the conduct of Semiramis the Bactrians are subdued; and
Ninus takes the capital of the country: upon which, in return for her
services, he makes Semiramis his queen. Not long after he dies, leaving
only one son by this princess, who was called Ninyas.
The history of Semiramis is variously related by different authors. Some
make her a native of Ascalon; and say that she was exposed in the desert,
and nourished by pigeons. She was in this situation discovered by a
shepherd named Simma. He bred her up, and married her to Menon; whom she
deserted for Ninus. During her son's minority she assumed the regal state:
and the first work which she undertook was the interment of her husband.
She accordingly buried him with great splendor; and raised over him a mound
of earth, no less than a mile and a quarter high, and proportionally wide
at bottom: after which she built Babylon. This being finished, she made an
expedition into Media; and wherever she came left memorials of her power
and munificence. This was effected by erecting vast structures, forming
lakes, and laying out gardens of great extent; particularly in Chaonia and
Ecbatana. In short, she levelled hills, and raised [914]mounds of an
immense height, which retained her name for ages. After this she invaded
Egypt, and conquered Ethiopia, with the greater part of Lybia: and having
accomplished her wish, and there being no enemy to cope with her, excepting
the people of India, she resolved to direct her forces towards that
quarter. She had an army of three millions of foot, five hundred thousand
horse, and one hundred thousand chariots. For the passing of rivers, and
engaging with the enemy by water, she had procured two thousand ships, to
be so constructed as to be taken to pieces for the advantage of carriage:
which ships were built in Bactria by experienced persons from Phenicia,
Syria, and Cyprus. With these she entered into a naval engagement with
Strabrobates king of India; and at the first encounter sunk a thousand of
his ships. Upon this she built a bridge over the river Indus, and
penetrated into the heart of the country. Here Strabrobates engaged her;
but being deceived by the numerous appearance of her elephants, at first
gave way. For being deficient in those animals, she had procured the hides
of three thousand black oxen; which being properly sewed, and stuffed with
straw, formed an appearance of so many elephants. All this was done so
naturally, that the real animals could not stand the sight. But this
stratagem being at last discovered, Semiramis was obliged to retreat, after
having lost a great part of her [915]army. Soon after this she resigned the
government to her son Ninyas, and died. According to some writers, she was
slain by his hand.
The history of Ninus and Semiramis, as here represented, is in great
measure founded upon terms, which have been misconstrued; and these
fictions have been invented in consequence of the mistakes. Under the
character of Semiramis we are certainly to understand a people styled
Semarim, a title assumed by the antient Babylonians. They were called
Semarim from their insigne, which was a dove, expressed Semaramas, of which
I shall speak hereafter more at large. It was used as an object of worship;
and esteemed the same as Rhea, the mother of the gods: [916][Greek:
Semiramin kai ten Rhean kaloumenen par' Assuriois.]
If we take the history of Semiramis, as it is given us by Ctesias and
others; nothing can be more inconsistent. Some make her the wife of Ninus:
others say that she was his [917]daughter: and about the time of her birth
they vary beyond measure. She is sometimes made coeeval with the city
Nineve: at other times she is brought down within a few centuries of
[918]Herodotus. She invades the Babylonians before the city was [919]built,
from whence they were denominated: and makes sumptuous gardens at Ecbatana.
Hence that city is introduced as coeval with Nineve: though, if the least
credit may be given to [920]Herodotus, it was built many ages after by
Deioces the Mede. The city Nineve itself is by Ctesias placed upon the
[921]Euphrates; though every other writer agrees, that it lay far to the
east, and was situated upon the Tigris. This shews how little credit is to
be paid to Ctesias. The whole account of the fleet of ships built in
Bactria, and carried upon camels to the Indus, is a childish forgery. How
can we suppose, that there were no woods to construct such vessels, but in
the most inland regions of Asia? The story of the fictitious elephants,
made out of the hides of black oxen, which put to flight the real
elephants, is another silly fable. Megasthenes, who wrote of India, would
not allow that Semiramis was ever in those [922]parts. Arrian seems to
speak of it as a groundless [923]surmise. Her building of Babylon was by
[924]Berosus treated as a fable. Herennius Philo maintained, that it was
built by a son of Belus the wise, two thousand years before her [925]birth.
Suidas says, that she called Nineve [926]Babylon: so uncertain is every
circumstance about this Heroine. She is supposed to have sent to Cyprus,
and Phenicia, for artists to construct and manage the ships abovementioned;
as if there had been people in those parts famous for navigation before the
foundation of Nineve. They sometimes give to Semiramis herself the merit of
building the [927]first ship; and likewise the invention of weaving cotton:
and another invention more extraordinary, which was that of emasculating
[928]men, that they might be guardians, and overseers in her service. Yet,
it is said of her, that she took a man to her bed every night, whom she put
to death in the morning. How can it be imagined, if she was a woman of such
unbridled [929]lust, that she would admit such spies upon her actions? We
may as well suppose, that a felon would forge his own gyves, and construct
his own prison. Claudian thinks, that she did it to conceal her own sex, by
having a set of beardless people about her.
[930]Seu prima Semiramis astu
Assyriis mentita virum, ne vocis acutae
Mollities, levesque genae se prodere possent,
Hos sibi junxisset socios: seu Parthica ferro
Luxuries nasci vetuit lanuginis umbram;
Servatosque diu puerili flore coegit
Arte retardatam Veneri servire juventam.
In respect to Semiramis I do not see how this expedient could avail. She
might just as well have dressed up her maids in mens clothes, and with less
trouble. In short the whole of these histories in their common acceptation
is to the last degree absurd, and improbable: but if we make use of an
expedient, which I have often recommended, and for a person substitute a
people, we shall find, when it is stripped of its false colouring, that
there is much truth in the narration.
It was a common mode of expression to call a tribe or family by the name of
its founder: and a nation by the head of the line. People are often spoken
of collectively in the singular under such a patronymic. Hence we read in
Scripture, that Israel abode in tents; that Judah was put to the worst in
battle; that Dan abode in ships; and Asher remained on the sea-coast. The
same manner of speaking undoubtedly prevailed both in Egypt, and in other
countries: and Chus must have been often put for the Cuthites, or Cuseans;
Amon for the Amonians; and Asur, or the Assyrian, for the people of
Assyria. Hence, when it was said, that the Ninevite performed any great
action, it has been ascribed to a person Ninus, the supposed founder of
Nineve. And as none of the Assyrian conquests were antecedent to Pul, and
Assur Adon, writers have been guilty of an unpardonable anticipation, in
ascribing those conquests to the first king of the country. A like
anticipation, amounting to a great many centuries, is to be found in the
annals of the Babylonians. Every thing that was done in later times, has
been attributed to Belus, Semiramis, and other, imaginary princes, who are
represented as the founders of the kingdom. We may, I think, be assured,
that under the character of Ninus, and Ninyas, we are to understand the
Ninevites; as by Semiramis is meant a people called Samarim: and the great
actions of these two nations are in the histories of these personages
recorded. But writers have rendered the account inconsistent by limiting,
what was an historical series of many ages, to the life of a single person.
The Ninevites and Samarim did perform all that is attributed to Semiramis,
and Ninus. They did conquer the Medes, and Bactrians; and extended their
dominions westward as far as Phrygia, and the river Tanais, and to the
Southward as far as Arabia, and Egypt. But these events were many ages
after the foundation of the two kingdoms. They began under Pul of Nineve;
and were carried on by Assur Adon, Salmanassur, Sennacherib, and other of
his successors. Nineve was at last ruined, and the kingdom of Assyria was
united with that of [931]Babylonia. This is probably alluded to in the
supposed marriage of Semiramis and Ninus. Then it was, that the Samarim
performed the great works attributed to them. For, exclusive of what was
performed at Babylon; _There are_, says [932]Strabo, _almost over the face
of the whole earth, vast [933]mounds of earth, and walls, and ramparts,
attributed to Semiramis; and in these are subterraneous passages of
communication, and tanks for water, with staircases of stone. There are
also vast canals to divert the course of rivers, and lakes to receive them;
together with highways and bridges of a wonderful structure_. They built
the famous terraces at [934]Babylon; and those beautiful gardens at
Egbatana, after that city had fallen into their hands. To them was owing
that cruel device of emasculating their slaves, that their numerous wives,
and concubines might be more securely guarded: an invention, which cannot
consistently be attributed to a woman. They found out the art of weaving
cotton: which discovery has by some been assigned to those of their family,
who went into Egypt: for there were Samarim here too. In consequence of
this, the invention has been attributed to a Semiramis, who is here
represented as a man, and a king of the country: at least it is referred to
his reign. [935][Greek: Epi te Semirameos basileos Aiguption ta bussina
himatia heuresthai historousin.] The Samarim of Egypt and Babylonia, were
of the same family, the sons of Chus. They came and settled among the
Mizraim, under the name of the shepherds, of whose history I have often
spoken. The reason of their being called Semarim, and Samarim, I shall
hereafter disclose, together with the purport of the name, and the history,
with which it is attended.
ZOROASTER.
The celebrated Zoroaster seems to have been a personage as much mistaken,
as any, who have preceded. The antients, who treated of him, have described
him in the same foreign light, as they have represented Perseus, Dionusus,
and Osiris. They have formed a character, which by length of time has been
separated, and estranged, from the person, to whom it originally belonged.
And as among the antients, there was not a proper uniformity observed in
the appropriation of terms, we shall find more persons than one spoken of
under the character of Zoroaster: though there was one principal, to whom
it more truly related. It will be found, that not only the person
originally recorded, and reverenced; but others, by whom the rites were
instituted and propagated, and by whom they were in aftertimes renewed,
have been mentioned under this title: Priests being often denominated from
the Deity, whom they served.
Of men, styled Zoroaster, the first was a deified personage, reverenced by
some of his posterity, whose worship was styled Magia, and the professors
of it Magi. His history is therefore to be looked for among the accounts
transmitted by the antient Babylonians, and Chaldeans. They were the first
people styled Magi; and the institutors of those rites, which related to
Zoroaster. From them this worship was imparted to the Persians, who
likewise had their Magi. And when the Babylonians sunk into a more
complicated idolatry, the Persians, who succeeded to the sovereignty of
Asia, renewed under their Princes, and particularly under Darius, the son
of Hystaspes, these rites, which had been, in a great degree, effaced, and
forgotten. That king was devoted to the religion styled Magia[936]; and
looked upon it as one of his most honourable titles, to be called a
professor of those doctrines. The Persians were originally named Peresians,
from the Deity Perez, or Parez the Sun; whom they also worshipped under the
title of [937]Zor-Aster. They were at different aeras greatly distressed and
persecuted, especially upon the death of their last king Yesdegerd. Upon
this account they retired into Gedrosia and India; where people of the same
family had for ages resided. They carried with them some shattered
memorials of their religion in writing, from whence the Sadder, Shaster,
Vedam, and Zandavasta were compiled. These memorials seem to have been
taken from antient symbols ill understood; and all that remains of them
consists of extravagant allegories and fables, of which but little now can
be decyphered. Upon these traditions the religion of the Brahmins and
Persees is founded.