Chapter 11

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_.

Notwithstanding this deficiency, they pretended to give a list of Argive 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.