assistance we must particularly have recourse; and whose evidence may be
most depended upon, in disquisitions of this nature. All knowledge of
Gentile antiquity must be derived to us through the hands of the Grecians:
and there is not of them a single writer, to whom we may not be indebted
for some advantage. The Helladians, however, from whom we might expect most
light, are to be admitted with the greatest caution. They were a bigotted
people, highly prejudiced in their own favour; and so devoted to idle
tradition, that no arguments could wean them from their folly. Hence the
surest resources are from Greeks of other countries. Among the Poets,
Lycophron, Callimachus, and Apollonius Rhodius are principally to be
esteemed. The last of these was a native of Egypt; and the other two lived
there, and have continual allusions to the antiquities of that country.
Homer likewise abounds with a deal of mysterious lore, borrowed from the
antient Amonian theology; with which his commentators have been often
embarrassed. To these may be added such Greek writers of later date, who
were either not born in Hellas, or were not so deeply tinctured with the
vanity of that country. Much light may be also obtained from those learned
men, by whom the Scholia were written, which are annexed to the works of
the Poets above-mentioned. Nonnus too, who wrote the Dionysiaca, is not to
be neglected. He was a native of Panopolis in Egypt, [509]Εκ της Πανος της
Αιγυπτου γεγενημενος; and had opportunity of collecting many antient
traditions, and fragments of mysterious history, which never were known in
Greece. To these may be added Porphyry, Proclus, and Jamblichus, who
professedly treat of Egyptian learning. The Isis and Osiris of Plutarch may
be admitted with proper circumspection. It may be said, that the whole is
still an enigma: and I must confess that it is: but we receive it more
copiously exemplified; and more clearly defined; and it must necessarily be
more genuine, by being nearer the fountain head: so that by comparing, and
adjusting the various parts, we are more likely to arrive at a solution of
the hidden purport. But the great resource of all is to be found among the
later antiquaries and historians. Many of these are writers of high rank;
particularly Diodorus, Strabo, and Pausanias, on the Gentile part: and of
the fathers, Theophilus, Tatianus Athenagoras, Clemens, Origenes, Eusebius,
Theodoretus, Syncellus; and the compiler of the Fasti Siculi, otherwise
called Chronicon Paschale. Most of these were either of Egypt or Asia. They
had a real taste for antiquity; and lived at a time when some insight could
be obtained: for till the Roman Empire was fully established, and every
province in a state of tranquillity, little light could be procured from
those countries, whence the mythology of Greece was derived. The native
Helladians were very limited in their knowledge. They had taken in the
gross whatever was handed down by tradition; and assumed to themselves
every history, which was imported. They moreover held every nation but
their own as barbarous; so that their insuperable vanity rendered it
impossible for them to make any great advances in historical knowledge. But
the writers whom I just now mentioned, either had not these prejudices; or
lived at a time when they were greatly subsided. They condescended to quote
innumerable authors, and some of great antiquity; to whom the pride of
Greece would never have appealed. I had once much talk upon this subject
with a learned friend, since lost to the world, who could ill brook that
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, should be discarded for Clemens, Origen,
or Eusebius; and that Lysias and Demosthenes should give way to Libanius
and Aristides. The name of Tzetzes, or Eustathius, he could not bear. To
all which I repeatedly made answer; that it was by no means my intention to
set aside any of the writers, he mentioned: whose merits, as far as they
extended, I held in great veneration. On the contrary, I should have
recourse to their assistance, as far as it would carry me: But I must at
the same time take upon me to weigh those merits; and see wherein they
consisted; and to what degree they were to be trusted. The Helladians were
much to be admired for the smoothness of their periods, and a happy
collocation of their terms. They shewed a great propriety of diction; and a
beautiful arrangement of their ideas: and the whole was attended with a
rhythm, and harmony, no where else to be found. But they were at the same
time under violent prejudices: and the subject matter of which they
treated, was in general so brief, and limited, that very little could be
obtained from it towards the history of other countries, or a knowledge of
antient times. Even in respect to their own affairs, whatever light had
been derived to them, was so perverted, and came through so dim a medium,
that it is difficult to make use of it to any determinate and salutary
purpose. Yet the beauty of their composition has been attended with
wonderful [510]influence. Many have been so far captivated by this magic,
as to give an implicit credence to all that has been transmitted; and to
sacrifice their judgment to the pleasures of the fancy.
It may be said, that the writers, to whom I chiefly appeal, are, in great
measure, dry and artless, without any grace and ornament to recommend them.
They were likewise posterior to the Helladians; consequently farther
removed from the times of which they treat. To the first objection I
answer, that the most dry and artless historians are, in general, the most
authentic. They who colour and embellish, have the least regard for the
truth. In respect to priority, it is a specious claim; but attended with no
validity. When a gradual darkness has been overspreading the world, it
requires as much time to emerge from the cloud, as there passed when we
were sinking into it: so that they who come later may enjoy a greater
portion of light, than those who preceded them by ages. Besides, it is to
be considered, that the writers, to whom I chiefly appeal, lived in parts
of the world which gave them great advantages. The whole theology of Greece
was derived from the east. We cannot therefore but in reason suppose, that
Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Tatianus of Assyria, Lucianus
of Samosata, Cyril of Jerusalem, Porphyry of Syria, Proclus of Lycia, Philo
of Biblus, Strabo of Amasa, Pausanias of Cappadocia, Eratosthenes of
Cyrene, must know more upon this subject than any native Helladian. The
like may be said of Diodorus, Josephus, Cedrenus, Syncellus, Zonaras,
Eustathius: and numberless more. These had the archives of antient
[511]temples, to which they could apply: and had traditions more genuine
than ever reached Greece. And though they were posterior themselves, they
appeal to authors far prior to any Helladians: and their works are crowded
with extracts from the most curious and the most antient [512]histories.
Such were the writings of Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Nicholaus Damascenus,
Mocus, Mnaseas, Hieronymus Ægyptius, Apion, Manethon: from whom Abydenus,
Apollodorus, Asclepiades, Artapanus, Philastrius, borrowed largely. We are
beholden to Clemens[513], and Eusebius, for many evidences from writers,
long since lost; even Eustathius and Tzetzes have resources, which are now
no more.
It must be after all confessed, that those, who preceded, had many
opportunities of information, had they been willing to have been informed.
It is said, both of Pythagoras and Solon, that they resided for some time
in Egypt: where the former was instructed by a Son-chen, or priest of the
Sun. But I could never hear of any great good that was the consequence of
his travels. Thus much is certain; that whatever knowledge he may have
picked up in other parts, he got nothing from the Grecians. They, who
pretended most to wisdom, were the most destitute of the blessing.
[514]Αλλα παρ αλλοις συλλεξαμενος, μονον παρα των σοφων Ἑλληνων εχειν
ουδεν, πενιᾳ σοφιας και αποριᾳ συνοικουντων. And as their theology was
before very obscure, he drew over it a mysterious veil to make it tenfold
darker. The chief of the intelligence transmitted by Solon from Egypt
contained a satire upon his own country. He was told by an antient
[515]priest, that the Grecians were children in science: that they were
utterly ignorant of the mythology of other nations; and did not understand
their own. Eudoxus likewise and Plato were in Egypt; and are said to have
resided there some time: yet very few things of moment have been
transmitted by them. Plato had great opportunities of rectifying the
history and mythology of Greece: but after all his advantages he is accused
of trifling shamefully, and addicting himself to fable. [516]Πλατων δε, ὁ
δοκων των Ἑλληνων σοφωτατος γεγενησθαι, εις ποσην φλυαριαν εχωρησεν. Yet
all the rites of the Helladians, as well as their Gods and Heroes, were
imported from the [517]east: and chiefly from [518]Egypt, though they were
unwilling to allow it. Length of time had greatly impaired their true
history; and their prejudices would not suffer them to retrieve it. I
should therefore think it by no means improper to premise a short account
of this wonderful people, in order to shew whence this obscurity arose;
which at last prevailed so far, that they, in great measure, lost sight of
their origin, and were involved in mystery and fable.
The first inhabitants of the country, called afterwards Hellas, were the
sons of Javan; who seem to have degenerated very early, and to have become
truly barbarous. Hence the best historians of Greece confess, that their
ancestors were not the first inhabitants; but that it was before their
arrival in the possession of a people, whom they style [519]Βαρβαροι, or
Barbarians. The Helladians were colonies of another family: and introduced
themselves somewhat later. They were of the race which I term Amonian; and
came from Egypt and Syria: but originally from Babylonia. They came under
various titles, all taken from the religion, which they professed. Of these
titles I shall have occasion to treat at large; and of the imaginary
leaders, by whom they were supposed to have been conducted.
As soon as the Amonians were settled, and incorporated with the natives, a
long interval of darkness ensued. The very union produced a new language:
at least the antient Amonian became by degrees so modified, and changed,
that the terms of science, and worship, were no longer understood. Hence
the titles of their Gods were misapplied: and the whole of their theology
grew more and more corrupted; so that very few traces of the original were
to be discovered. In short, almost every term was misconstrued, and abused.
This[520] æra of darkness was of long duration: at last the Asiatic Greeks
began to bestir themselves. They had a greater correspondence than the
Helladians: and they were led to exert their talents from examples in
Syria, Egypt, and other countries. The specimens, which they exhibited of
their genius were amazing: and have been justly esteemed a standard for
elegance and nature. The Athenians were greatly affected with these
examples. They awoke, as it were, out of a long and deep sleep; and, as if
they had been in the training of science for ages, their first efforts
bordered upon perfection. In the space of a century, out of one little
confined district, were produced a group of worthies, who at all times have
been the wonder of the world: so that we may apply to the nation in general
what was spoken of the school of a philosopher: cujus ex ludo, tanquam ex
Equo Trojano, meri Principes exierunt. But this happy display of parts did
not remedy the evil of which I have complained. They did not retrieve any
lost annals, nor were any efforts made to dispel the cloud in which they
were involved. There had been, as I have represented, a long interval;
during which there must have happened great occurrences: but few of them
had been transmitted to posterity; and those handed down by tradition, and
mixed with inconsistency and fable. It is said that letters were brought
into Greece very early, by [521]Cadmus. Let us for a while grant it; and
inquire what was the progress. They had the use of them so far as to put an
inscription on the pediment of a temple, or upon a pillar; or to scrawl a
man's name upon a tile or an oyster-shell, when they wanted to banish or
poison him. Such scanty knowledge, and so base materials, go but a little
way towards science. What history was there of Corinth, or of Sparta? What
annals were there of Argos, or Messena; of Elis, or the cities of Achaia?
None: not even of [522]Athens. There are not the least grounds to surmise
that any single record existed. The names of the Olympic victors from
Corœbus, and of the priestesses of Argos, were the principal memorials to
which they pretended: but how little knowledge could be obtained from
hence! The laws of Draco, in the thirty-ninth Olympiad, were certainly the
most antient writing to which we can securely appeal. When the Grecians
began afterwards to bestir themselves, and to look back upon what had
passed, they collected whatever accounts could be [523]obtained. They tried
also to separate and arrange them, to the best of their abilities, and to
make the various parts of their history correspond. They had still some
good materials to proceed upon, had they thoroughly understood them; but
herein was a great failure. Among the various traditions handed down, they
did not consider which really related to their country, and which had been
introduced from other[524] parts. Indeed they did not chuse to distinguish,
but adopted all for their own; taking the merit of every antient
transaction to themselves. No people had a greater love for science, nor
displayed a more refined taste in composition. Their study was ever to
please, and to raise admiration. Hence they always aimed at the marvellous,
which they dressed up in a most winning manner: at the same time they
betrayed a seeming veneration for antiquity. But their judgment was
perverted, and this veneration attended with little regard for the truth.
[525]They had a high opinion of themselves, and of their country in
general: and, being persuaded that they sprang from the ground on which
they stood, and that the Arcadians were older than the moon, they rested
satisfied with this, and looked no farther. In short, they had no love for
any thing genuine, no desire to be instructed. Their history could not be
reformed but by an acknowledgment which their pride would not suffer them
to make. They therefore devoted themselves to an idle mythology: and there
was nothing so contradictory and absurd but was greedily admitted, if
sanctified by tradition. Even when the truth glared in their very faces,
they turned from the light, and would not be undeceived. Those who, like
Euemerus and Ephorus, had the courage to dissent from their legends, were
deemed atheists and apostates, and treated accordingly. Plutarch more than
once insists that it is expedient to veil the truth, and to dress it up in
[526]allegory. They went so far as to deem inquiry a [527]crime, and thus
precluded the only means by which the truth could be obtained.
Nor did these prejudices appear only in respect to their own rites and
theology, and the history of their own nation: the accounts which they gave
of other countries were always tinctured with this predominant vanity. An
idle zeal made them attribute to their forefathers the merit of many great
performances to which they were utterly strangers: and supposed them to
have founded cities in various parts of the world where the name of Greece
could not have been known; cities which were in being before Greece was a
state. Wherever they got footing, or even a transient acquaintance, they in
their descriptions accommodated every thing to their own preconceptions;
and expressed all terms according to their own mode of writing and
pronunciation, that appearances might be in their favour. To this were
added a thousand silly stories to support their pretended claim. They would
persuade us that Jason of Greece founded the empire of the Medes; as
Perseus, of the same country, did that of the Persians. Armenus, a
companion of Jason, was the reputed father of the Armenians. They gave out
that Tarsus, one of the most antient cities in the world, was built by
people from [528]Argos; and that Pelusium of Egypt had a name of Grecian
[529]original. They, too, built Sais, in the same [530]country: and the
city of the Sun, styled Heliopolis, owed its origin to an [531]Athenian.
They were so weak as to think that the city Canobus had its name from a
pilot of Menelaus, and that even Memphis was built by Epaphos of
[532]Argos. There surely was never any nation so incurious and indifferent
about truth. Hence have arisen those contradictions and inconsistences with
which their history is [533]embarrassed.
It may appear ungracious, and I am sure it is far from a pleasing task to
point out blemishes in a people of so refined a turn as the Grecians, whose
ingenuity and elegance have been admired for ages. Nor would I engage in a
display of this kind, were it not necessary to shew their prejudices and
mistakes, in order to remedy their failures. On our part we have been too
much accustomed to take in the gross with little or no examination,
whatever they have been pleased to transmit: and there is no method of
discovering the truth but by shewing wherein they failed, and pointing out
the mode of error, the line of deviation. By unravelling the clue, we may
be at last led to see things in their original state, and to reduce their
mythology to order. That my censures are not groundless, nor carried to an
undue degree of severity, may be proved from the like accusations from some
of their best writers; who accuse them both of ignorance and forgery.
[534]Hecatæus, of Miletus, acknowledges, _that the traditions of the Greeks
were as ridiculous as they were numerous_: [535]and Philo confesses _that
he could obtain little intelligence from that quarter: that the Grecians
had brought a mist upon learning, so that it was impossible to discover the
truth: he therefore applied to people of other countries for information,
from whom only it could be obtained_. Plato[536] owned _that the most
genuine helps to philosophy were borrowed from those who by the Greeks were
styled barbarous_: and [537]Jamblichus gives the true reason for the
preference. _The Helladians_, says this writer, _are ever wavering and
unsettled in their principles, and are carried about by the least impulse.
They want steadiness; and if they obtain any salutary knowledge, they
cannot retain it; nay, they quit it with a kind of eagerness; and, whatever
they do admit, they new mould and fashion, according to some novel and
uncertain mode of reasoning. But people of other countries are more
determinate in their principles, and abide more uniformly by the very terms
which they have traditionally received._ They are represented in the same
light by Theophilus: [538]he says, _that they wrote merely for empty
praise, and were so blinded with vanity, that they neither discovered the
truth theirselves, nor encouraged others to pursue it_. Hence Tatianus
says, with great truth, [539]_that the writers of other countries were
strangers to that vanity with which the Grecians were infected: that they
were more simple and uniform, and did not encourage themselves in an
affected variety of notions_.
In respect to foreign history, and geographical knowledge, the Greeks, in
general, were very ignorant: and the writers, who, in the time of the Roman
Empire, began to make more accurate inquiries, met with insuperable
difficulties from the mistakes of those who had preceded. I know no censure
more severe and just than that which Strabo has passed upon the historians
and geographers of Greece, and of its writers in general. In speaking of
the Asiatic nations, he assures us, that there never had been any account
transmitted of them upon which we can depend. [540]_Some of these nations_,
says this judicious writer, _the Grecians have called Sacæ, and others
Massagetæ, without having the least light to determine them. And though
they have pretended to give a history of Cyrus, and his particular wars
with those who were called Massagetæ, yet nothing precise and satisfactory
could ever be obtained; not even in respect to the war. There is the same
uncertainty in respect to the antient history of the Persians, as well as
to that of the Medes and Syrians. We can meet with little that can be
deemed authentic, on account of the weakness of those who wrote, and their
uniform love of fable. For, finding that writers, who professedly dealt in
fiction without any pretensions to the truth, were regarded, they thought
that they should make their writings equally acceptable, if in the system
of their history they were to introduce circumstances, which they had
neither seen nor heard, nor received upon the authority of another person;
proceeding merely upon this principle, that they should be most likely to
please people's fancy by having recourse to what was marvellous and new. On
this account we may more safely trust to Hesiod and Homer, when they
present us with a list of Demigods and Heroes, and even to the tragic
poets, than to Ctesias, Herodotus, and Hellanicus, and writers of that
class. Even the generality of historians, who wrote about Alexander, are
not safely to be trusted: for they speak with great confidence, relying
upon the glory of the monarch, whom they celebrate; and to the remoteness
of the countries, in which he was engaged; even at the extremities of Asia;
at a great distance from us and our concerns. This renders them very
secure. For what is referred to a distance is difficult to be confuted_. In
another place, speaking of India, he says, that it was very difficult to
arrive at the truth: _for the [541]writers, who must necessarily be
appealed to, were in continual opposition, and contradicted one another.
And how_, says Strabo, _could it be otherwise? for if they erred so
shamefully when they had ocular proof, how could they speak with certainty,
where they were led by hearsay?_ In another place[542] he excuses the
mistakes of the antient poets, saying, that we must not wonder if they
sometimes deviated from the truth, when people in ages more enlightened
were so ignorant, and so devoted to every thing marvellous and incredible.
He had above given the poets even the preference to other writers: but
herein his zeal transported him too far. The first writers were the poets;
and the mischief began from them. They first infected tradition; and mixed
it with allegory and fable. Of this Athenagoras accuses them very justly;
and says, [543]_that the greatest abuses of true knowledge came from them.
I insist_, says this learned father, _that we owe to Orpheus, Homer, and
Hesiod, the fictitious names and genealogies of the Pagan Dæmons, whom they
are pleased to style Gods: and I can produce Herodotus for a witness to
what I assert. He informs us, that Homer and Hesiod were about four hundred
years prior to himself; and not more. These, says he, were the persons who
first framed the theogony of the Greeks; and gave appellations to their
Deities; and distinguished them according to their several ranks and
departments. They at the same time described them under different
appearances: for till their time there was not in Greece any representation
of the Gods, either in sculpture or painting; not any specimen of the
statuary's art exhibited: no such substitutes were in those times thought
of._
The antient history and mythology of Greece was partly transmitted by the
common traditions of the natives: and partly preserved in those original
Doric hymns, which were universally sung in their Prutaneia and temples.
These were in the antient Amonian language; and said to have been
introduced by [544]Pagasus, Agyieus, and Olen. This last some represent as
a Lycian, others as an Hyperborean: and by many he was esteemed an
Egyptian. They were chanted by the Purcones, or priests of the Sun: and by
the female, Hierophants: of whom the chief upon record were [545]Phaënnis,
[546]Phæmonoë, and Bæo. The last of these mentions Olen, as the inventor of
verse, and the most antient priest of Phœbus.
[547]Ωλην δ' ὁς γενετο πρωτος Φοιβοιο προφητες,
Πρωτος δ' αρχαιων επεων τεχνωσατ' αοιδαν.
These hymns grew, by length of time, obsolete; and scarce intelligible.
They were, however, translated, or rather imitated, by Pamphos, Rhianus,
Phemius, Homer, Bion Proconnesius, Onomacritus, and others. Many of the
sacred terms could not be understood, nor interpreted; they were however
[548]retained with great reverence: and many which they did attempt to
decipher, were misconstrued and misapplied. Upon this basis was the
theology of Greece founded: from hence were the names of Gods taken: and
various departments attributed to the several Deities. Every poet had
something different in his theogony: and every variety, however
inconsistent, was admitted by the Greeks without the least hesitation:
[549]Φυσει γαρ Ἑλληνες νεοτροποι--Ἑλλησιν αταλαιπωρος της αληθειας ζητησις.
_The Grecians_, says Jamblichus, _are naturally led by novelty: The
investigation of truth is too fatiguing for a Grecian_. From these antient
hymns and misconstrued terms [550]Pherecydes of Syrus planned his history
of the Gods: which, there is reason to think, was the source of much error.
Such were the principles which gave birth to the mythology of the Grecians;
from whence their antient history was in great measure derived. As their
traditions were obsolete, and filled with extraneous matter, it rendered it
impossible for them to arrange properly the principal events of their
country. They did not separate and distinguish; but often took to
themselves the merit of transactions, which were of a prior date, and of
another clime. These they adopted, and made their own. Hence, when they
came to digest their history, it was all confused: and they were
embarrassed with numberless contradictions, and absurdities, which it was
impossible to [551]remedy. For their vanity, as I have shewn, would not
suffer them to rectify their mistakes by the authority of more antient and
more learned nations. It is well observed by Tatianus [552]Assyrius, _that
where the history of times past has not been duly adjusted, it is
impossible to arrive at the truth: and there has been no greater cause of
error in writing, than the endeavouring to adopt what is groundless and
inconsistent._ Sir Isaac Newton somewhere lays it down for a rule, never to
admit for history what is antecedent to letters. For traditionary truths
cannot be long preserved without some change in themselves, and some
addition of foreign circumstances. This accretion will be in every age
enlarged; till there will at last remain some few outlines only of the
original occurrence. It has been maintained by many, that the Grecians had
letters very early: but it will appear upon inquiry to have been a
groundless notion. Those of the antients, who considered the matter more
carefully, have made no scruple to set aside their [553]pretensions.
Josephus in particular takes notice of their early claim; but cannot allow
it: [554]_They_, says this learned historian, _who would carry the
introduction of letters among the Greeks the highest, very gravely tell us,
that they were brought over by the Phenicians, and Cadmus. Yet, after all,
they cannot produce a single specimen either from their sacred writings, or
from their popular records, which savours of that antiquity_. Theophilus
takes notice of these difficulties; and shews that all the obscurity, with
which the history of Hellas is clouded, arose from this deficiency of
letters. He complains, _that the [555]Hellenes had lost sight of the truth;
and could not recollect any genuine history. The reason of this is obvious:
for they came late to the knowledge of letters in comparison of other
nations. This they confess, by attributing the invention of them to people
prior to themselves; either to the Chaldeans, or the Egyptians: or else to
the Phenicians. Another cause of failure, which relates to their theology,
and still greatly prevails, is owing to their not making a proper
disquisition about the true object of worship: but amusing themselves with
idle, and unprofitable speculations_.