princes, of which twenty preceded the war of [556]Troy. But what is more
extraordinary, they boasted of a series of twenty-six Kings at Sicyon,
comprehending a space of one thousand years, all which kings were before
the time of [557]Theseus and the Argonauts. Among those, who have given the
list of the Argive kings, is [558]Tatianus Assyrius, who advises every
person of sense, when he meets with these high pretensions, to consider
attentively, _that there was not a single voucher, not even a tradition of
any record, to authenticate these histories: for even Cadmus was many ages
after_. It is certain, that the Helladians had no tendency to learning,
till they were awakened by the Asiatic Greeks: and it was even then some
time before letters were in general use; or any histories, or even records
attempted. For if letters had been current, and the materials for writing
obvious, and in common use, how comes it that we have not one specimen
older than the reign of Cyrus? And how is it possible, if the Grecians had
any records, that they should be so ignorant about some of their most
famous men? Of Homer how little is known! and of what is transmitted, how
little, upon which we may depend! Seven places in Greece contend for his
birth: while many doubt whether he was of Grecian original. It is said of
Pythagoras, [559]that according to Hippobotrus he was of Samos: but
Aristoxenus, who wrote his life, as well as Aristarchus, and Theopompus,
makes him a Tyrrhenian. According to Neanthes he was of Syria, or else a
native of Tyre. In like manner Thales was said by Herodotus, Leander, and
Duris, to have been a Phenician: but he was by others referred to Miletus
in Ionia. It is reported of Pythagoras, that he visited Egypt in the time
of Cambyses. From thence he betook himself to Croton in Italy: where he is
supposed to have resided till the last year of the seventieth Olympiad:
consequently he could not be above thirty or forty years prior to the birth
of Æschylus and Pindar. What credit can we give to people for histories
many ages backward; who were so ignorant in matters of importance, which
happened in the days of their fathers? The like difficulties occur about
Pherecydes Syrius; whom Suidas styles Babylonius: neither the time, when he
lived, nor the place of his birth, have been ever satisfactorily proved.
Till Eudoxus had been in Egypt the Grecians did not know the space of which
the true year consisted. [560]Αλλ' ηγνοειτο τεως ὁ ενιαυτος παρα τοις
Ἑλλησιν, ὡς και αλλα πλειω.
Another reason may be given for the obscurity in the Grecian history, even
when letters had been introduced among them. They had a childish antipathy
to every foreign language: and were equally prejudiced in favour of their
own. This has passed unnoticed; yet was attended with the most fatal
consequences. They were misled by the too great delicacy of their ear; and
could not bear any term which appeared to them barbarous and uncouth. On
this account they either rejected foreign [561]appellations; or so modelled
and changed them, that they became, in sound and meaning, essentially
different. And as they were attached to their own country, and its customs,
they presumed that every thing was to be looked for among themselves. They
did not consider, that the titles of their Gods, the names of cities, and
their terms of worship, were imported: that their ancient hymns were grown
obsolete: and that time had wrought a great change. They explained every
thing by the language in use, without the least retrospect or allowance:
and all names and titles from other countries were liable to the same rule.
If the name were dissonant, and disagreeable to their ear, it was rejected
as barbarous: but if it were at all similar in sound to any word in their
language, they changed it to that word; though the name were of Syriac
original; or introduced from Egypt, or Babylonia. The purport of the term
was by these means changed: and the history, which depended upon it, either
perverted or effaced. When the title Melech, which signified a King, was
rendered Μειλιχος and Μειλιχιος, _sweet and gentle_, it referred to an idea
quite different from the original. But this gave them no concern: they
still blindly pursued their purpose. Some legend was immediately invented
in consequence of this misprision, some story about bees and honey, and the
mistake was rendered in some degree plausible. This is a circumstance of
much consequence; and deserves our attention greatly. I shall have occasion
to speak of it repeatedly; and to lay before the reader some entire
treatises upon the subject. For this failure is of such a nature, as, when
detected. and fairly explained, will lead us to the solution of many dark
and enigmatical histories, with which the mythology of Greece abounds. The
only author, who seems to have taken any notice of this unhappy turn in the
Grecians, is Philo Biblius. [562]He speaks of it as a circumstance of very
bad consequence, and says, that it was the chief cause of error and
obscurity: hence, when he met in Sanchoniathon with antient names, he did
not indulge himself in whimsical solutions; but gave the true meaning,
which was the result of some event or quality whence the name was imposed.
This being a secret to the Greeks, they always took things in a wrong
acceptation; being misled by a twofold sense of the terms which occurred to
them: one was the genuine and original meaning, which was retained in the
language whence they were taken: the other was a forced sense, which the
Greeks unnaturally deduced from their own language, though there was no
relation between them. The same term in different languages conveyed
different and opposite ideas: and as they attended only to the meaning in
their own tongue, they were constantly [563]mistaken.
It may appear strange to make use of the mistakes of any people for a
foundation to build upon: yet through these failures my system will be in
some degree supported: at least from a detection of these errors, I hope to
obtain much light. For, as the Grecian writers have preserved a kind of
uniformity in their mistakes, and there appears plainly a rule and method
of deviation, it will be very possible, when this method is well known, to
decypher what is covertly alluded to; and by these means arrive at the
truth. If the openings in the wood or labyrinth are only as chance
allotted, we may be for ever bewildered: but if they are made with design,
and some method be discernible, this circumstance, if attended to, will
serve for a clue, and lead us through the maze. If we once know that what
the Greeks, in their mythology, styled a wolf, was the Sun; that by a dog
was meant a prince, or Deity; that by bees was signified an order of
priests; these terms, however misapplied, can no more mislead us in
writing, than their resemblances in sculpture would a native of Egypt, if
they were used for emblems on stone.
Thus much I have been obliged to premise: as our knowledge must come
through the hands of the [564]Grecians. I am sensible, that many learned
men have had recourse to other means for information: but I have never seen
any specimens which have afforded much light. Those, to which I have been
witness, have rather dazzled than illustrated; and bewildered instead of
conducting to the truth. Among the Greeks is contained a great treasure of
knowledge. It is a rich mine; which as yet has not been worked far beneath
the surface. The ore lies deep, and cannot be obtained without much
industry and labour. The Helladians had the best opportunities to have
afforded us information about the antiquities of their country: of their
negligence, and of their mistakes I have spoken; yet with a proper clue
they may still be read to great advantage. To say the truth, there is
scarce an author of them all, from whom some good may not be derived.
What has been wanting in the natives of Greece, has been greatly supplied
by writers of that nation from other countries, who lived in after-times.
Of these the principal have been mentioned; and many others might be added,
who were men of integrity and learning. They were fond of knowledge, and
obtained a deep insight into antiquity: and, what is of the greatest
consequence, they were attached to the truth. They may sometimes have been
mistaken in their judgment: they may also have been deceived: but still
truth was the scope at which they aimed. They have accordingly transmitted
to us many valuable remains, which, but for them, had been buried in
oblivion. There are likewise many pagan authors, to whom we are greatly
indebted; but especially to Strabo and Pausanias; who in their different
departments have afforded wonderful light. Nor must we omit Josephus of
Judea; whose treatise against Apion must be esteemed of inestimable value:
indeed, all his writings are of consequence, if read with a proper
allowance.
I have mentioned, that it is my purpose to give a history of the first
ages; and to shew the origin of many nations, whose descent has been
mistaken; or else totally unknown. I shall speak particularly of one great
family, which diffused itself over many parts of the earth; from whom the
rites and mysteries, and almost the whole science of the Gentile world,
were borrowed. But as I venture in an unbeaten track, and in a waste, which
has been little frequented; I shall first take upon me to treat of things
near at hand, before I advance to remoter discoveries. I shall therefore
speak of those rites and customs, and of the nations, where they prevailed;
as I shall by these means be led insensibly to the discovery of the people,
from whom they were derived. By a similarity of customs, as well as by the
same religious terms, observable in different countries, it will be easy to
shew a relation, which subsisted between such people, however widely
dispersed. They will be found to have been colonies of the same family; and
to have come ultimately from the same place. As my course will be in great
measure an uphill labour, I shall proceed in the manner which I have
mentioned; continually enlarging my prospect, till I arrive at the point I
aim at.
It may be proper to mention to the reader that the following treatises were
not written in the order in which they now stand; but just as the
subject-matter presented itself before me. As many, which were first
composed, will occur last, I have been forced to anticipate some of the
arguments, as well as quotations, which they contained, according as I
found it expedient. Hence there will be some few instances of repetition,
which however I hope will not give any great disgust: as what is repeated,
was so interwoven in the argument, that I could not well disengage it from
the text, where it occurs a second time.
There will also be found some instances, where I differ from myself, and go
contrary to positions in a former treatise. These are very few, and of no
great moment; being such as would probably escape the reader's notice. But
I think it more ingenuous, and indeed my strict duty, to own my mistakes,
and point them out, rather than to pass them over in silence, or idly to
defend them.
* * * * *
SOME NECESSARY
RULES AND OBSERVATIONS
IN RESPECT TO
ETYMOLOGICAL INQUIRIES;
AND FOR
THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE MYTHOLOGY
OF GREECE.
We must never deduce the etymology of an Egyptian or oriental term from the
Greek language. Eustathius well observes, Ει βαρβαρον το ονομα ου χρη
ζητειν Ἑλληνικην ετυμολογιαν αυτου.
We should recur to the Doric manner of expression, as being nearest to the
original.
The Greeks adopted all foreign history: and supposed it to have been of
their own country.
They mistook temples for Deities, and places for persons.
They changed every foreign term to something similar in their own language;
to something similar in sound, however remote in meaning; being led solely
by the ear.
They constantly mistook titles for names; and from these titles multiplied
their Deities and Heroes.
All terms of relation between the Deities to be disregarded.
As the Grecians were mistaken, it is worth our while to observe the mode of
error and uniformity of mistake. By attending to this, we may bring things
back to their primitive state, and descry in antient terms the original
meaning.
We must have regard to the oblique cases, especially in nouns
imparasyllabic, when we have an antient term transmitted to us either from
the Greeks or Romans. The nominative, in both languages, is often abridged;
so that, from the genitive of the word, or from the possessive, the
original term is to be deduced. This will be found to obtain even in common
names. From veteris we have veter for the true term; from sanguinis we have
sanguen: and that this is right we may prove from Ennius, who says:
[565]O! pater, O! genitor, O! sanguen diis oriundum.
[566]Cum veter occubuit Priamus sub marte Pelasgo.
So mentis, and not mens, was the true nominative to mentis, menti, mentem;
as we may learn from the same author:
[567]Istic est de sole sumptus ignis, isque mentis est.
In like manner Plebes was the nominative to Plebi and Plebem.
Deficit alma Ceres, nec plebes pane potitur.
Lucilius.
All the common departments of the Deities are to be set aside, as
inconsistent and idle. Pollux will be found a judge; Ceres, a law-giver;
Bacchus, the God of the year; Neptune, a physician; and Æsculapius, the God
of thunder: and this not merely from the poets; but from the best
mythologists of the Grecians, from those who wrote professedly upon the
subject.
I have observed before, that the Grecians in foreign words often changed
the Nu final to Sigma. For Keren, they wrote Κερας; for Cohen, Κωης; for
Athon, Αθως; for Boun, Βους; for Sain, Σαϊς.
People, of old, were styled the children of the God whom they worshipped:
hence they were, at last, thought to have been his real offspring; and he
was looked up to as the true parent. On the contrary, Priests were
represented as foster-fathers to the Deity before whom they ministered; and
Priestesses were styled τιθηναι, or nurses.
Colonies always went out under the patronage and title of some Deity. This
conducting-God was in after-times supposed to have been the real leader.
Sometimes the whole merit of a transaction was imputed to this Deity
solely; who was represented under the character of Perseus, Dionusus, or
Hercules. Hence, instead of one person, we must put a people; and the
history will be found consonant to the truth.
As the Grecians made themselves principals in many great occurrences which
were of another country, we must look abroad for the original, both of
their rites and mythology; and apply to the nations from whence they were
derived. Their original history was foreign, and ingrafted upon the history
of the country where they settled. This is of great consequence, and
repeatedly to be considered.
One great mistake frequently prevails among people who deal in these
researches, which must be carefully avoided. We should never make use of a
language which is modern, or comparatively modern, to deduce the etymology
of antient and primitive terms. Pezron applies to the modern Teutonic,
which he styles the Celtic, and says, was the language of Jupiter. But who
was Jupiter, and what has the modern Celtic to do with the history of Egypt
or Chaldea? There was an interval of two thousand years between the times
of which he treats and any history of the Celtæ: and there is still an
interval, not very much inferior to the former, before we arrive at the æra
of the language to which he applies.
It has been the custom of those writers, who have been versed in the
Oriental languages, to deduce their etymologies from roots; which are often
some portion of a verb. But the names of places and of persons are
generally an assemblage of qualities and titles; such as I have exhibited
in the treatise above; and I believe were never formed by such evolutions.
The terms were obvious, and in common use; taken from some well-known
characteristics. Those who imposed such names never thought of a root; and,
probably, did not know the purport of the term. Whoever, therefore, in
etymology, has recourse to this method of investigation, seems to me to act
like a person who should seek at the fountain-head for a city which stood
at the mouth of a river.
* * * * *
A
SHORT ACCOUNT
OF THE
HELLADIANS,
AND THEIR ORIGIN;
_In order to obviate some Objections._
As I have mentioned that the Helladians came from Egypt, and the east; it
may be proper to obviate an objection which may be made, to the account I
give; as if it were contradictory to the tenor of the scriptures, as they
are in general understood. Greece, and the islands of Greece, are
continually supposed, from the account given by Moses[568], to have been
peopled by the sons of Japhet; and there is scarce any body, either antient
or modern, who has touched upon this subject, but has imagined Javan to
have been the same as Ion, the son of Xuth, from whom the Ionians were
descended. This latter point I shall not controvert at present. In respect
to the former, the account given in the scriptures is undoubtedly most
true. The sons of Japhet did people the isles of the Gentiles; by which is
meant the regions of Greece and Europe, separated in great measure from the
Asiatic continent by the intervention of the sea. They certainly were the
first inhabitants of those countries. But the Helladians, though by family
Ionians, were not of this race. They came afterwards; and all their best
writers agree, that when their ancestors made their way into these
provinces, they were possessed by a prior people. Who these were is no
where uniformly said: only they agree to term them in general Βαρβαροι, or
a rude, uncivilized people. As my system depends greatly upon this point;
to take away every prejudice to my opinion, I will in some degree
anticipate, what I shall hereafter more fully prove. I accordingly submit
to the reader the following evidences; which are comparatively few, if we
consider what might be brought to this purpose. These are to shew, that the
Helladians were of a different race from the sons of Japhet: and that the
country, when they came to it, was in the possession of another people:
which people they distinguished from themselves by the title of Βαρβαροι.
Ἑκαταιος μεν ουν ὁ Μιλησιος περι της Πελοποννησου φησιν, ὁτι προ των
Ἑλληνων ῳκησαν αυτην Βαρβαροι· σχεδον δε τι και ἡ συμπασα Ἑλλας κατοικια
Βαρβαρων ὑπηρξατο το παλαιον. Strabo. l. 7. p. 321.
Εισι δε ἡμων αρχαιοτεροι Βαρβαροι. Plato in Cratylo. vol. 1. p. 425.
Παλαι της νυν καλουμενης Ἑλλαδος Βαρβαροι τα πολλα ῳκησαν. Pausanias. l. 1.
p. 100.
Αρκαδιαν Βαρβαροι ῳκησαν. Scholia Apollonii Rhod. l. 3. v. 461.
Diodorus mentions, Αθηναιους--αποικους Σαϊτων των εξ Αιγυπτου. l. 1. p. 24.
Again--Γενομεναι δε και των ἡγεμονων τινας Αιγυπτιους παρα τοις Αθηναιοις.
ibidem.
Africanus having spoken of the Egyptian rites, says, Ὁτι τε Αθηναιους των
αυτων Αιγυπτιοις απολαυειν εικος ην, αποικους εκεινων απονοουμενους, ὡς
φασιν αλλοι τε, και εν τῳ Τρικαρηνῳ Θεοπομπος. Apud Euseb. Præp. Evan. l.
x. c. x. p. 491.
Concerning persons from Egypt.
Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος ων, δυο γλωσσας ηπιστατο. Cedrenus p. 82.
Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος το γενος, ῳκισε τας Αθηνας. Scholia Aristoph. Pluti.
Ὡσδε απο Σαεως πολεως Αιγυπτιας,
Μετα τον κατα Ωγυγον κατακλυσμον εκεινον,
Ὁ Κεκροψ παρεγεγονεν Αθηναις της Ἑλλαδος. J. Tzetzes. Chil. v. hist. 18.
Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος το γενος, ῳκησε τας Αθηνας. Suidas.
Pausanias mentions Λελεγα αφικομενον εξ Αιγυπτου. l. 1. p. 95.
Erectheus from Egypt. Και τον Ερεχθεα λεγουσι το γενος Αιγυπτιον οντα.
Diodorus. l. 1. p. 25.
Triptolemus from thence, who had been the companion of Osiris. Diodorus. l.
1. p. 17. He gave the Athenians laws. Porphyry mentions Των Αθηνῃσι
νομοθετων Τριπτολεμον. Abstinent. l. 4. p. 431.
It is said, that Danaus was a native of the city Chemmis; from whence he
made his expedition to Greece. Δαναος Χεμμιτης. Herodotus. l. 2. c. 91.
Navem primus ex Ægypto Danaus advexit. Pliny. l. 7. c. 56. He brought a
colony with him. Λεγουσι δε τους περι Δαναον ὁρμηθεντας ὁμοιως εκειθεν,
scil. εξ Αιγυπτου. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 24.
All the heads of the Dorian race from Egypt. Φαινοιατο αν εοντες ὁι των
Δωριεων ἡγεμονες Αιγυπτιοι ιθαγενεες. Herodotus. l. 6. c. 53.
The Lacedæmonians esteemed themselves of the same family as the Caphtorim
of Palestine: hence they surmised, that they were related to the Jews, 1
Maccabees, c. 12. v. 20, 21. Josephus: A. J. l. 12. c. 4. p. 606. Perseus
was supposed to have been a foreigner. Ὡς δε ὁ Περσεων λογος λεγεται, αυτος
ὁ Περσευς εων Ασσυριος εγενετο Ἑλλην. Herodotus. l. 6. c. 54.
It is said of Cadmus, that he came originally from Egypt, in company with
Phœnix. Καδμος και Φοινιξ απο Θηβων των Αιγυπτιων. Euseb. Chron. p. 15.
Eusebius in another place mentions the arrival of Cadmus with a company of
Saïtæ. They founded Athens, the principal city of Greece: also Thebes in
Bœotia. They were of Egypt; but he says, that they came last from Sidon. It
is in a passage, where he speaks of a former race in Attica before those of
Egypt called Saïtæ: Πλην των μετοικησαντων ὑστερον εκει Σαϊτων, και
κατοικησαντων την της Ἑλλαδος μητροπολιν Αθηνας, και τας Θηβας. Σιδωνιων
γαρ ὁυτοι αποικοι εκ Καδμου του Αγηνορος. Chron. p. 14. The antient
Athenians worshipped Isis: and were in their looks, and in their manners
particularly like the Egyptians. Και ταις ιδεαις, και τοις ηθεσιν
ὁμοιοτατους ειναι τοις Αιγυπτιοις. The whole of their polity was plainly
borrowed from that country. Diod. Sic. l. 1: p. 24, 25, 26.
It is said by Sanchoniathon, that Cronus, in his travels over the earth in
company with his daughter Athena, came to Attica; which he bestowed upon
her. Euseb. P. E. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 38.
This is not unlike the account given by the Scholiast upon Lycophron
concerning Cecrops: from whence the legend may receive some light. Ελθων
αρ' (ὁ Κεκροψ) απο Σαεως πολεως Αιγυπτου τας Αθηνας συνῳκισε. Σαϊς δε κατ'
Αιγυπτιους ἡ Αθηνα λεγεται, ὡς φησιν Χαραξ. Lycoph. v. 111. Schol.
Hence it is, that almost the whole of the mythology of Greece is borrowed
from Egypt. Καθολου δε, φησι, τους Ἑλληνας εξιδιασεσθαι τους επιφανεστατους
Αιγυπτιων Ἡρωας τε, και Θεους. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 20. All their rites and
ceremonies were from the same quarter.
Πανηγυριας δε αρα, και πομπας, και προσαγωγας πρωτοι ανθρωπων Αιγυπτιοι
εισιν, ὁι ποιησαμενοι, και παρα τουτων Ἑλληνες μεμαθηκασι. Herod. l. 3. c.
58.
Επειτα χρονου πολλου διελθοντος, επυθοντο (ὁι Ἑλληνες) εκ της Αιγυπτου
απικομενα τα ουνοματα των Θεων. Herod. l. 2. c. 52. See also l. 2. c. 4.
Και παντα τα ουνοματα των Θεων εξ Αιγυπτου εληλυθε ες την Ἑλλαδα. Herod. l.
2. c. 50. Hence it is said that the Corybantes, with their mother Comba,
came and settled at Athens: Κομβης ἑπτατοκου μετα μητερος. Nonni Dionys. l.
13. And that the priests at Athens, styled Eumolpidæ, were from Egypt.
Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 25. One of the Egyptians, who brought these
rites to Greece, is mentioned under the name of Melampus: as the Egyptians
are, in general, under the character of Melampodes. Ἑλλησι γαρ δη Μελαμπους
εστιν, ὁ εξηγησαμενος του Διονυσου ονομα, και την Θυσιαν, και την πομπην
του φαλλου. Herod. l. 2. c. 49. He is likewise said to have first
introduced physic: by which this only is meant, that physic too came from
Egypt.
To the same purpose may be consulted Lucian de Suriâ Deâ. Πρωτοι μην
ανθρωπων Αιγυπτιοι κτλ. Eusebius. P. Evan. lib. 10. c. 4. p. 469. and c. 5.
p. 473. Clemens Alexand. l. 1. p. 361, 381. Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 20.
p. 62, 63. and p. 86, 87. Tatianus Assyrius. p. 243, 274. Thucydides. l. 1.
c. 2, 3.
* * * * *
A
NEW SYSTEM
OR AN
ANALYSIS
OF
ANTIENT MYTHOLOGY.
* * * * *
OF
ANTIENT WORSHIP,
AND OF
ETYMOLOGICAL TRUTHS
THENCE DEDUCIBLE:
EXEMPLIFIED IN THE NAMES OF CITIES, LAKES, AND RIVERS.
Εστι που και ποταμοις τιμη, η κατ' ωφελειαν, ὡσπερ Αιγυπτιοις προς τον
Νειλον, η κατα καλλος, ὡς Θετταλοις προς Πηνειον, η κατα μεγεθος, ὡς
Σκυθαις προς τον Ιστρον, η κατα μυθον, ὡς Αιτωλοις προς τον
Αχελωον.----MAX. TYRIUS. Dissert. viii. p. 81.