Juno is by Varro styled Covella. [408]Dies quinque te kalo, Juno Covella; Juno Covella, dies septem te kalo. Here, as in many instances, the place of worship is taken for the person, to whom the worship is directed. Covella is only a variation for Cou-El, or Co-El, the house or region of the Deity, and signifies heavenly. It is accordingly by Varro interpreted Urania, [Greek: Ourania]: whence Juno Covella must be rendered Coelestis. From the substantive, Cou-El, the Romans formed Coel, heaven; in aftertimes expressed Coelus, and Coelum. I say, in aftertimes: for they originally called it Co-el, and Co-il, and then contracted it to Coel. Hence Ausonius in his Grammaticomastix mentions a passage to this purpose.

Unde Rudinus ait Divom domus altisonum Coel: or as Ennius, to whom he alludes, has rendered it, according to the present MSS. altisonum [409]Coil. He sometimes subjoins the Latine termination:

Coilum prospexit stellis fulgentibus aptum. Olim de Coilo laivum dedit inclytus signum. Saturnus, quem Coilus genuit. Unus erit, quem tu tollas in Coirila Coili Templa.

Coelus in aftertimes was made a Deity: hence there are inscriptions dedicated [410]Coelo AEterno. The antient Deity Celeus, mentioned by [411]Athenagoras, and said to have been worshipped at Athens, was the same as the above.

Many places and regions, held sacred, and called Coel by the Amonians, were by the Greeks rendered [Greek: koila], cava. Hence we read of [Greek: Koile Lakedaimon], [Greek: Koile Elis,] and the like. Syria was by them styled [Greek: Koile], the hollow: but the true name was Coela, the heavenly or sacred. It was so denominated from the Cuthites, who settled there, on account of the religion established. Hence it was also named Shem, and Shama; which are terms of like purport, and signify divine, or heavenly. It is a name, which it retains at this day; as we are informed by [412]Abulfeda, and others. Elis Coela was the most sacred part of Greece; especially the regions of Olympia, Cauconia, and Azania. It was denominated Elis from [Greek: El], Eel, the Sun: and what the Greeks rendered [Greek: Koile] of old meant [413]heavenly. Hence Homer styleth it peculiarly [414][Greek: Elida dian], Elis the sacred. As Coele Syria was styled Sham, and Sama; so we find places, which have a reference to this term, in Elis. A town of great antiquity was named [415]Samicon, which signifies Coeli Dominus. Here was also a temple of Poseidon Samius, surrounded with a grove of olives; and there were festivals observed, which were called Samia. There was likewise of old a city named Sama, or Samos: which Strabo imagines, might have been so named from its high situation: for high places were called [416]Samia. It certainly signifies in some degree high; but the true meaning of Sama was heavenly, similar to Sam, Sham, Shamem, of the eastern nations. Hence Same, Samos, Samothrace, Samacon, were denominated on account of their sanctity. Strabo supposes, that the city Samos in Elis was situated in the Samian plain: it therefore could not well have this name from its high situation. It is moreover inconsistent to suppose regions called [Greek: koila], or cava, to have been denominated from Sama, high. In short both terms have been mistaken: and Coilus in the original acceptation certainly signified heavenly: whence we read in Hesychius, as also in Suidas, [Greek: Koioles, ho Hiereus]. By which we learn, that by Coioles was meant a sacred or heavenly person; in other words, a priest of Coelus. In Coioles there is but a small variation from the original term; which was a compound from Coi-El, or Co-El, the Coelus of the Romans.

Concerning the term Coel in Ennius, [417]Janus Gulielmus takes notice, that this poet copied the Dorians in using abbreviations, and writing Coel for Coelus and Coelum. But herein this learned person is mistaken. The Dorians were not so much to be blamed for their abbreviating, as the other Greeks were for their unnecessary terminations, and inflexions. The more simple the terms, the more antient and genuine we may for the most part esteem them: and in the language of the Dorians we may perceive more terms relative to the true mythology of the country, and those rendered more similar to the antient mode of expression, than are elsewhere to be found. We must, therefore, in all etymological inquiries, have recourse to the Doric manner of pronunciation, to obtain the truth. They came into Greece, or Hellotia, under the name of Adorians; and from their simplicity of manners, and from the little intercourse maintained with foreigners, they preserved much of their antient tongue. For this there may be another additional reason obtained from Herodotus; who tells us, that they were more immediately descended from the people of the [418]east. The antient hymns, sung in the Prutaneia all over Greece, were [419]Doric: so sacred was their dialect esteemed. Hence they cannot but afford great help in inquiries of this nature. What was by others styled [Greek: Athene], they expressed [Greek: Athana]: Cheops they rendered Chaops: Zeen, Zan: [Greek: Chazene], [Greek: Chazana]: [Greek: Men], [Greek: Man]: Menes, Manes: Orchenoi, Orchanoi: Neith, Naith: [Greek: Ienisos], [Greek: Ianisos]: Hephaestus, Hephastus: Caiete, Caiate: Demeter, Damater: all which will be found of great consequence in respect to etymology. And if they did not always admit of the terminations used by their neighbours: they by these means preserved many words in their primitive state: at least they were nearer to the originals. They seem to have retained the very term, of which I have been treating. It was by them styled [Greek: Chai], Cai; and signified a house, or cave: for the first houses in the infancy of the world are supposed to have been caves or grottos[420]. They expressed it Cai, Caia, Caias, similar to the cava, cavus, and cavea of the Romans. When these places were of a great depth, or extent, they were looked upon with a kind of religious horror. A cavern of this sort was at Lacedaemon, with a building over it; of which in aftertimes they made use to confine malefactors. It was called [Greek: Kaiades], or as the Spartans expressed it, [Greek: Kaiadas], the house of death. [421][Greek: Kaiadas desmoterion—to para Lakedaimoniois]. Cai signified a cavern: Adas, which is subjoined, was the Deity, to whom it was sacred, esteemed the God of the infernal regions. He was by the Ionians, &c. expressed Ades, and Hades; and by other nations Ait, and Atis. Hence these caverns were also styled [Greek: Kaietes], and [Greek: Kaietoi]. The author above quoted gives us the terms variously exhibited: [422][Greek: Kaietoi.—Hoi apo ton seismon rhochmoi Kaietoi legontai. Kai Kaiadas to desmoterion enteuthen, to para Lakedaimoniois, spelaion]. Hesychius renders it in the plural, and as a neuter: [Greek: kaiata], [Greek: orugmata]. Whether it be compounded Cai-Ait, Cai-Atis, or Cai-Ades, the purport is the same. The den of Cacus was properly a sacred cave, where Chus was worshipped, and the rites of fire were [423]practised. Cacus is the same name as Cuscha in Ethiopia, only reversed. The history of it was obsolete in the days of Virgil; yet some traces of it still remained.

Strabo says that many people called these caves [Greek: Kooi.] [424][Greek: Enioi koous mallon ta toiauta koilomata legesthai phasin.] Hence he very truly explains a passage in Homer. The poet, speaking of Theseus, Dryas, Polyphemus, and other heroes of the Mythic age, mentions their encountering with the mountaineers of Thessaly, whom he styles [Greek: pheres oreschooi]:

[425][Greek: Kartistoi de keinoi epichthonion traphen andron,] [Greek: Kartistoi men esan, kai kartistois emachonto] [Greek: Phersin oreschooisi]——

[Greek: Oreschoos] signified a person, who lived in a mountain habitation; whose retreat was a house in a mountain. Co, and Coa, was the name of such house. Strabo says that this term is alluded to by Homer, when he styles Lacedaemon [426][Greek: Lakedaimona ketoessan], for it was by many thought to have been so called on account of their caverns. From hence we may fairly conclude, that [Greek: ketoessa] was a mistake, or at least a variation, for [427][Greek: kaietaessa], from Cai-Atis; and that Co, [428]Coa, Caia, were of the same purport.

But this term does not relate merely to a cavern; but to temples founded near such places: oftentimes the cave itself was a temple. Caieta, in Italy, near Cuma, called by Diodorus [Greek: Kaiete], was so denominated on this account. It was a cave in the rock, abounding with variety of subterranes, cut out into various apartments. These were, of old, inhabited by Amonian priests; for they settled in these parts very early. It seems to have been a wonderful work. [429][Greek: Aneoget' enteuthen spelaia hupermegethe, katoikias megalas, kai poluteleis dedegmena.] In these parts were large openings in the earth, exhibiting caverns of a great extent; which afforded very ample and superb apartments. Diodorus informs us, that, what was in his time called Caiete, had been sometimes styled [430]Aiete: by which we may see, that it was a compound; and consisted of two or more terms; but these terms were not precisely applicable to the same object. Ai-Ete, or Ai-Ata, was the region of Ait, the Deity to whom it was sacred. Colchis had the same name; whence its king was called Aietes: and Egypt had the same, expressed by the Greeks [431][Greek: Aetia], Aetia. Aiete was the district: Caiete was the cave and temple in that district; where the Deity was worshipped.

In Boeotia was a cavern, into which the river Cephisus descended, and was lost. It afterwards emerged from this gulf, and passed freely to the sea. The place of eruption was called An-choa, which signifies Fontis apertura. The later Greeks expressed it Anchoe[432]. [Greek: Kaleitai d' ho topos Ankoe; esti de limen homonumos]. The etymology, I flatter myself, is plain, and authenticated by the history of the place.

From Cho, and Choa, was probably derived the word [Greek: Choikos], used by the apostle. [433][Greek: Ho protos anthropos ek ges Choikos; ho deuteros anthropos ho Kurios ex ouranou. Hoios ho Choikos, kai toiautoi hoi Choikoi.] Hesychius observes, [Greek: Choikos, pelinos, geinos]. From hence we may perceive, that by Cho was originally meant a house or temple in the earth. It was, as I have shewn, often expressed Gau, and Go; and made to signify any house. Some nations used it in a still more extended sense; and by it denoted a town or village, and any habitation at large. It is found in this acceptation among the antient Celtae, and Germans, as we learn from Cluverius. [434]Apud ipsos Germanos ejusmodi pagorum vernaculum vocabulum fuit Gaw; et variantibus dialectis, gaw, gew, gow, gow, hinc—Brisgaw, Wormesgaw, Zurichgow, Turgow, Nordgaw, Andegaw, Rhingaw, Hennegow, Westergow, Oostergow. The antient term [Greek: Purgos], Purgos, was properly Pur-Go; and signified a light-house, or temple of fire, from the Chaldaic Pur.

PARTICLES.

Together with the words above mentioned are to be found in composition the particles Al and Pi. Al, or El, for it is differently expressed in our characters, is still an Arabian prefix; but not absolutely confined to that country, though more frequently there to be found. The Sun, [Hebrew: AWR], was called Uchor by the people of Egypt and Cyrene, which the Greeks expressed [Greek: Achor], Achor. He was worshipped with the same title in Arabia, and called Al Achor. [435]Georgius Monachus, describing the idolatry which prevailed in that country before the introduction of the present religion, mentions the idol Alachar. Many nations have both expletives and demonstratives analogous to the particle above. The pronoun Ille of the Romans is somewhat similar; as are the terms Le and La of the French; as well as Il and El in other languages. It is in composition so like to [Greek: El], the name of [Greek: Helios], the Sun, that it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other.

The article Pi was in use among the antient Egyptians and Cuthites, as well as other nations in the east. The natives of India were at all times worshippers of the Sun; and used to call themselves by some of his titles. Porus, with whom Alexander engaged upon the Indus, was named from the chief object of his worship, [Hebrew: AWR], Pi-Or, and P'Or; rendered by the Greeks [Greek: Poros], Porus. Pacorus the Parthian was of the same etymology, being a compound of P'Achorus, the Achor of Egypt: as was also the [436]city Pacoria in Mesopotamia, mentioned by Ptolemy. Even the Grecian [Greek: pur] was of Egyptian or Chaldaic original, and of the same composition (P'Ur) as the words above; for [437]Plato informs us that [Greek: pur], [Greek: hudor], [Greek: kunes], were esteemed terms of foreign importation. After the race of the Egyptian kings was extinct, and that country came under the dominion of the Grecians, the natives still continued to make use of this prefix; as did other [438]nations which were incorporated with them. They adapted it not only to words in their own language, but to those of other countries of which they treated. Hence there is often to be found in their writings, [439][Greek: Pizeus], [Greek: Pimartur], [Greek: Pimathetes], [Greek: pisoma], [Greek: pilaos], Pidux, Picurator, Pitribunus; also names of persons occur with this prefix; such as Piterus, Piturio, Pionius the martyr; also Pior, Piammon, Piambo; who are all mentioned by ecclesiastical [440]writers as natives of that country. This article is sometimes expressed Pa; as in the name of Pachomius, an abbot in Egypt, mentioned by [441]Gennadius. A priest named Paapis is to be found in the Excerpta from Antonius [442]Diogenes in Photius. There were particular rites, styled Pamylia Sacra, from [443]Pamyles, an antient Egyptian Deity. We may infer from Hesychius that they were very obscene: [Greek: Paamules, Aiguptios Theos Priapodes.] Hades, and Pi-Ades, was a common title of the Sun: and the latter, in early times, was current in Greece; where I hope to give ample testimony of the Amonians settling. He was termed Melech Pi-Adon, and Anac Pi-Adon: but the Greeks out of Pi-Adon formed [Greek: Paidon]: for it is inconceivable how very ignorant they were in respect to their antient theology. Hence we read of [Greek: paidon Letous], [Greek: paidon Zenos], [Greek: paidon Apollonos]; and legends of [Greek: paidon athanaton]; and of [Greek: paidon]; who were mere foundlings; whose fathers could never be ascertained, though divine honours were paid to the children. This often puzzled the mythologists, who could not account for this spurious race. Plutarch makes it one of his inquiries to sift out, [444][Greek: Tis ho Paidon taphos para Chalkideusi]; Pausanias mentions, [445][Greek: Amphilukou paidon bomos]: and, in another place, [446][Greek: Bomoi de Theon te onomazomenon agnoston, kai Heroon, kai PAIDON tou Theseos, kai Phalerou]. From this mistake arose so many boy-deities; among whom were even Jupiter and Dionusus: [447][Greek: Auton ton Dia, kai ton Dionuson Paidas, kai neous, he theologia kalei]. According to the theology of the Greeks, even Jupiter and Dionusus are styled boys, and young persons. One of the most remarkable passages to this purpose is to be found in the antiquary above quoted; who takes notice of a certain mysterious rite performed by the natives of Amphissa, in Phocis. The particular Gods, to whom it was performed, were styled [Greek: Anaktes paides]. [448][Greek: Agousi de kai teleten hoi Amphisseis ton Anakton kaloumenon Paidon. Hoitines de Theon eisin hoi Anaktes Paides, ou kata t' auta estin eiremenon]. The people of Amphissa perform a ceremony in honour of persons styled Anactes Paides, or Royal Boys: but who these Anactes Paides were, is matter of great uncertainty. In short, the author could not tell; nor could the priests afford him any satisfactory information. There are many instances in Pausanias of this nature; where divine honours are paid to the unknown children of fathers equally unknown.

Herodotus tells us, that, when he discoursed with the priests of Thebes about the kings who had reigned in Egypt, they described them to him under three denominations, of Gods, of heroes, and of men. The last succeeded to those above, and were mere mortals. The manner of succession is mentioned in the following words: [449][Greek: Piromin ek Piromios gegonenai—kai oute es theon, oute es Heroa anadesan autous (hoi Aiguptioi)]. There are many strange and contradictory opinions about this [450]passage; which, if I do not deceive myself, is very plain; and the purport of it this: After the fabulous accounts, there had been an uninterrupted succession of Piromis after Piromis: and the Egyptians referred none of these to the dynasties of either the Gods or Heroes, who were supposed to have first possessed the country. From hence I think it is manifest that Pi-romis signifies a man. Herodotus, indeed, says, that the meaning of it was [Greek: kalos kagathos], a person of a fair and honourable character: and so it might be taken by implication; as we say of a native of our own country, that he is a true and staunch [451]Englishman: but the precise meaning is plain from the context; and Piromis certainly meant a man. It has this signification in the Coptic: and, in the [452]Prodromus Copticus of Kircher, [Greek: Piromi], Piromi, is a man; and seems to imply a native. Pirem Racot is an Alexandrine; or, more properly, a native of Racotis, called Raschid, and Rosetta. Pirem Romi are [453]Romans.

By means of this prefix we may be led to understand what is meant by Paraia in the account given by Philo from Sanchoniathon: who says, that Cronus had three sons in the region of Paraia: [454][Greek: Egennethesan de kai en Paraiai Kronoi treis paides.] Paraia is a variation of P'Ur-aia; and means literally the land of Ur in Chaldea; the region from whence antient writers began the history of mankind. A crocodile by the Egyptians was among other names called [455][Greek: Souchos]: and the name is retained in the Coptic, where it is expressed [456]Pi-Souchi.

This prefix is sometimes expressed with an aspirate, Phi: and as that word signifies a mouth, and in a more extensive signification, speech and language, it sometimes may cause a little uncertainty about the meaning. However, in most places it is sufficiently plain. Phaethon, a much mistaken personage, was an antient title of the Sun, a compound of Phi-Ath-On. Bacchus was called Phi-Anac by the Mysians, rendered by the poets [457]Phanac and Phanaces. Hanes was a title of the same Deity, equally reverenced of old, and compounded Ph' Hanes. It signified the fountain of light: and from it was derived Phanes of Egypt: also [Greek: phaino], [Greek: phaneis], [Greek: phaneros]: and from Ph'ain On, Fanum. In short, these particles occur continually in words, which relate to religious rites, and the antient adoration of fire. They are generally joined to Ur, by which that element is denoted. From P'Ur Tor came Praetor and Praetorium, among the Romans: from P'Ur-Aith, Purathi and Puratheia among the Asiatics. From P'Ur-tan, [Greek: prutaneis], and [Greek: prutaneia] among the Greeks of Hellas: in which Prutaneia there were of old sacred hearths, and a perpetual fire. The antient name of Latian Jupiter was P'ur, by length of time changed to Puer. He was the Deity of fire; and his ministers were styled Pueri: and because many of them were handsome youths selected for that office, Puer came at length to signify any young person. Some of the Romans would explain this title away, as if it referred to Jupiter's childhood: but the history of the place will shew that it had no such relation. It was a proper name, and retained particularly among the people of Praeneste. They had undoubtedly been addicted to the rites of fire; for their city was said to have been built by Caeculus, the son of Vulcan, who was found in the midst of fire:

[458] Vulcano genitum pecora inter agrestia Regem, Inventumque focis.

They called their chief God Pur: and dealt particularly in divination by lots, termed of old Purim. Cicero takes notice of this custom of divination at Praeneste; and describes the manner, as well as the place: but gives into the common mistake, that the Purim related to Jupiter's childhood. He says, that the place, where the process was carried on, was a sacred inclosure, [459]is est hodie locus septus, religiose propter Jovis Pueri, qui lactens cum Junone in gremio Fortunae mammam appetens, castissime colitur a Matribus. This manner of divination was of Chaldaic original, and brought from Babylonia to Praeneste. It is mentioned in Esther, c. 3. v. 7. They cast Pur before Haman, that he might know the success of his purposes against the Jews. Wherefore they call these days Purim after the name of Pur[460]. c. 9. v. 26. The same lots of divination being used at Praeneste was the occasion of the God being called Jupiter Pur. This in aftertimes was changed to Puer: whence we find inscriptions, which mention him under that name; and at the same time take notice of the custom, which prevailed in his temple. Inscriptions Jovi Puero, and Fortunae Primigeniae Jovis [461]Pueri are to be found in Gruter. One is very particular.

[462]Fortunae Primigeniae Jovis Pueri D.D. Ex SORTE compos factus Nothus Ruficanae L. P. Plotilla.

That this word Puer was originally Pur may be proved from a well known passage in Lucretius:

[463]Puri saepe lacum propter ac dolia curva Somno devincti credunt se attollere vestem.

Many instances, were it necessary, might be brought to this purpose. It was a name originally given to the priests of the Deity who were named from the Chaldaic [Hebrew: AWR], Ur: and by the antient Latines were called P'uri. At Praeneste the name was particularly kept up on account of this divination by [464]lots. These by the Amonians were styled Purim, being attended with ceremonies by fire; and supposed to be effected through the influence of the Deity. Praeneste seems to be a compound of Puren Esta, the lots of Esta, the Deity of fire.

These are terms, which seem continually to occur in the antient Amonian history: out of these most names are compounded; and into these they are easily resolvable. There are some few more, which might perhaps be very properly introduced: but I am unwilling to trespass too far, especially as they may be easily taken notice of in the course of this work. I could wish that my learned readers would afford me so far credit, as to defer passing a general sentence, till they have perused the whole: for much light will accrue; and fresh evidence be accumulated in the course of our procedure. A history of the rites and religion, in which these terms are contained, will be given; also of the times, when they were introduced; and of the people, by whom they were diffused so widely. Many positions, which may appear doubtful, when they are first premised, will, I hope, be abundantly proved, before we come to the close. In respect to the etymologies, which I have already offered and considered, I have all along annexed the histories of the persons and places spoken of, in order to ascertain my opinion concerning them. But the chief proof, as I have before said, will result from the whole; from an uniform series of evidence, supported by a fair and uninterrupted analogy.

* * * * *

OF

ETYMOLOGY,

AS IT HAS BEEN TOO GENERALLY HANDLED.

[Greek: Alla theoi ton men manien apetrepsate glosses,] [Greek: Ek d' hosion stomaton katharen ocheteusate pegen.] [Greek: Kai se, polumneste, leukolene parthene, mousa,] [Greek: Antomai, hon themis estin ephemerioisin akouein.] [Greek: Pempe par' eusebies elaous' euenion harma.]——EMPEDOCLES.

It may appear invidious to call to account men of learning, who have gone before me in inquiries of this nature, and to point out defects in their writings: but it is a task which I must, in some degree, take in hand, as the best writers have, in my opinion, failed fundamentally in these researches. Many, in the wantonness of their fancy, have yielded to the most idle surmises; and this to a degree of licentiousness, for which no learning nor ingenuity can atone. It is therefore so far from being injurious, that it appears absolutely necessary to point out the path they took, and the nature of their failure; and this, that their authority may not give a sanction to their mistakes; but, on the contrary, if my method should appear more plausible, or more certain, that the superiority may be seen upon comparing; and be proved from the contrast.

The Grecians were so prepossessed with a notion of their own excellence and antiquity, that they supposed every antient tradition to have proceeded from themselves. Hence their mythology is founded upon the grossest mistakes: as all extraneous history, and every foreign term, is supposed by them to have been of Grecian original. Many of their learned writers had been abroad; and knew how idle the pretensions of their countrymen were. Plato in particular saw the fallacy of their claim, he confesses it more than once: yet in this article nobody was more infatuated. His Cratylus is made up of a most absurd system of etymology. [465]Herodotus expressly says, that the Gods of Greece came in great measure from Egypt. Yet Socrates is by Plato in this treatise made to derive Artemis from [Greek: to artemes], integritas: Poseidon from [Greek: posi desmon], fetters to the feet: Hestia from [Greek: ousia], substance and essence: Demeter, from [Greek: didousa hos meter], distributing as a mother: Pallas from [Greek: pallein], to vibrate, or dance: Ares, Mars, from [Greek: arrhen], masculum, et virile: and the word Theos, God, undoubtedly the Theuth of Egypt, from [Greek: theein], to run[466]. Innumerable derivations of this nature are to be found in Aristotle, Plato, [467]Heraclides Ponticus, and other Greek writers. There is a maxim laid down by the scholiast upon Dionysius; which I shall have occasion often to mention. [468][Greek: Ei barbaron to onoma, ou chre zetein Helleniken etumologian autou]. If the term be foreign, it is idle to have recourse to Greece for a solution. It is a plain and golden rule, posterior in time to the writers above, which, however, common sense might have led them to have anticipated, and followed: but it was not in their nature. The person who gave the advice was a Greek, and could not for his life abide by it. It is true, that Socrates is made to say something very like the above. [469][Greek: Ennoo gar, hoti polla hoi Hellenes onomata, allos te kai hoi hupo tois Barbarois oikountes, para ton Barbaron eilephasi—ei tis zetoi tauta kata ten Helleniken phonen, hos eoikotos keitai, alla me kat' ekeinen, ex hes to onoma tunchanei on, oistha hoti aporoi an.] I am very sensible that the Grecians in general, and especially those who are subjects to foreigners, have received into their language many exotic terms: if any person should be led to seek for their analogy or meaning in the Greek tongue, and not in the language from whence they proceeded, he would be grievously puzzled. Who would think, when Plato attributed to Socrates this knowledge, that he would make him continually act in contradiction to it? Or that other [470]writers, when this plain truth was acknowledged, should deviate so shamefully? that we should in after times be told, that Tarsus, the antient city in Cilicia, was denominated from [Greek: tartos], a foot: that the river Nile signified [Greek: ne ilus]: and that Gader in Spain was [Greek: Ges deira].

The antients, in all their etymologies, were guided solely by the ear: in this they have been implicitly copied by the moderns. Inquire of Heinsius, whence Thebes, that antient city in upper Egypt, was named; and he will tell you from [Hebrew: TBA], Teba, [471]stetit: or ask the good bishop Cumberland why Nineve was so called? and he will answer, from Schindler, that it was a compound of [472]Nin-Nau, [Hebrew: NIN NWH], a son inhabited. But is it credible, or indeed possible, for these cities to have been named from terms so vague, casual, and indeterminate; which seem to have so little relation to the places to which they are appropriated, or to any places at all? The history of the Chaldeans is of great consequence; and one would be glad to know their original. They are properly called Chasdim; and are, very justly, thought to have been the first constituted nation upon earth. It is said of the patriarch Abraham, that he came from the city Ur of the Chasdim. Whence had they their name? The learned Hyde will [473]answer, that it was from Chesed, their ancestor. Who was Chesed? He was the fourth son of Nahor, who lived in Aram, the upper region of Mesopotamia. Is it said in history that he was the father of this people? There is no mention made of it. Is it said that he was ever in Chaldea? No. Is there the least reason to think that he had any acquaintance with that country? We have no grounds to suppose it. Is there any reason to think that this people, mentioned repeatedly as prior to him by ages, were in reality constituted after him? None. What, then, has induced writers to suppose that he was the father of this people? Because Chesed and Chasdim have a remote similitude in sound. And is this the whole? Absolutely all that is or can be alleged for this notion. And as the Chasdim are mentioned some ages before the birth of Chesed, some would have the passage to be introduced proleptically; others suppose it an interpolation, and would strike it out of the sacred text: so far does whim get the better of judgment, that even the written word is not safe. The whole history of Chesed is this: About fifty years after the patriarch Abraham had left his brother Nahor at Haran in Aramea, he received intelligence that Nahor had in that interval been blessed with children. [474]It was told Abraham, behold Milcah, she also hath borne children to thy brother Nahor; Huz, Buz, Kemuel, and Chesed: of these Chesed was the fourth. There occurs not a word more concerning him.

It is moreover to be observed, that these etymologists differ greatly from one another in their conceptions; so that an unexperienced reader knows not whom to follow. Some deduce all from the Hebrew; others call in to their assistance the Arabic and the Coptic, or whatever tongue or dialect makes most for their purpose. The author of the Universal History, speaking of the Moabitish Idol Chemosh, tells us, [475]that many make it come from the verb [Hebrew: MSHSH], mashash, to feel: but Dr. Hyde derives it from the Arabic, Khamush, which signifies gnats, (though in the particular dialect of the tribe Hodail) supposing it to have been an astronomical talisman in the figure of a gnat:—and Le Clerc, who takes this idol for the Sun, from Comosha, a root, in the same tongue, signifying to be swift. There is the same variety of sentiment about Silenus, the companion of Bacchus. [476]Bochart derives his name from Silan, [Hebrew: SHYLN], and supposes him to have been the same as Shiloh, the Messias. Sandford makes him to be Balaam, the false prophet. [477]Huetius maintains that he was assuredly Moses. It is not uncommon to find even in the same writer great uncertainty: we have sometimes two, sometimes three, etymologies presented together of the same word: two out of the three must be groundless, and the third not a whit better: otherwise, the author would have given it the preference, and set the other two aside. An example to this purpose we have in the etymology of Ramesses, as it is explained in the [478]Hebrew Onomasticum. Ramesses, tonitruum vel exprobratio tineae; aut malum delens sive dissolvens; vel contractionem dissolvens, aut confractus a tinea—civitas in extremis finibus AEgypti. A similar interpretation is given of Berodach, a king of Babylon. Berodach: creans contritionem, vel electio interitus, aut filius interitus, vel vaporis tui; sive frumentum; vel puritas nubis, vel vaporis tui. Rex Babyloniae.

It must be acknowledged of Bochart, that the system upon which he has proceeded is the most plausible of any; and he has shewn infinite ingenuity and learning. He every where tries to support his etymologies by some history of the place concerning which he treats. But the misfortune is, that the names of places which seem to be original, and of high antiquity, are too often deduced by him from circumstances of later date; from events in after ages. The histories to which he appeals were probably not known when the country, or island, received its name. He likewise allows himself a great latitude in forming his derivations: for, to make his terms accord, he has recourse, not only to the Phenician language, which he supposes to have been a dialect of the Hebrew; but to the Arabian, Chaldaic, and Syriac, according as his occasions require. It happens to him often to make use of a verb for a radix, which has many variations and different significations: but, at this rate, we may form a similitude between terms the most dissimilar. For, take a word in any language, which admits of many inflexions and variations, and, after we have made it undergo all its evolutions, it will be hard if it does not in some degree approximate. But, to say the truth, he many times does not seem to arrive even at this: for, after he has analysed the premises with great labour, we often find the supposed resemblance too vague and remote to be admitted; and the whole is effected with a great strain and force upon history before he brings matters to a seeming coincidence. The Cyclops are by the best writers placed in Sicily, near Mount [479]AEtna, in the country of the Leontini, called of old Xuthia; but Bochart removes them to the south-west point of the island. This he supposes to have been called Lelub, [Greek: Lilubaion], from being opposite to Libya; and, as the promontory was so named, it is, he thinks, probable that the sea below was styled Chec Lelub, or Sinus Lebub: and, as the Cyclops lived hereabouts, they were from hence denominated Chec-lelub, and Chec-lub, out of which the Greeks formed [480][Greek: Kuklopes]. He derives the Siculi first from [481]seclul, perfection; and afterwards from [Hebrew: ASHKWL], Escol, pronounced, according to the Syriac, Sigol, a bunch of grapes. He deduces the Sicani from [Hebrew: SHKN], Sacan[482], near, because they were near their next neighbours; in other words, on account of their being next to the Poeni. Sicani, qui Siculorum Poenis proximi. But, according to the best accounts, the Sicani were the most antient people of any in these parts. They settled in Sicily before the foundation of Carthage; and could not have been named from any such vicinity. In short, Bochart, in most of his derivations, refers to circumstances too general; which might be adapted to one place as well as to another. He looks upon the names of places, and of people, rather as by-names, and chance appellations, than original marks of distinction; and supposes them to have been founded upon some subsequent history. Whereas they were, most of them, original terms of high antiquity, imported and assumed by the people themselves, and not imposed by others.

How very casual and indeterminate the references were by which this learned man was induced to form his etymologies, let the reader judge from the samples below. These were taken, for the most part, from his accounts of the Grecian islands; not industriously picked out; but as they casually presented themselves upon turning over the book. He derives [483]Delos from [Hebrew: DHL], Dahal timor. [484]Cynthus, from [Hebrew: CHNT'], Chanat, in lucem edere. [485]Naxos, from nicsa, sacrificium; or else from nicsa, opes. [486]Gyarus, from acbar, softened to acuar, a mouse; for the island was once infested with mice. [487]Pontus, in Asia Minor, from [Hebrew: BT'NA], botno, a pistachio nut. [488]Icaria, from icar, pastures: but he adds, tamen alia etymologia occurrit, quam huic praefero [Hebrew: AY KWRY], Icaure, sive insula piscium. [489]Chalcis, in Eubea, from Chelca, divisio. [490]Seriphus, from resiph, and resipho, lapidibus stratum. [491]Patmos, from [Hebrew: BT'MWS], batmos, terebinthus; for trees of this sort, he says, grew in the Cyclades. But Patmos was not one of the Cyclades: it was an Asiatic island, at a considerable distance. [492]Tenedos is deduced from Tin Edom, red earth: for there were potters in the island, and the earth was probably red. [493]Cythnus, from katnuth, parvitas; or else from [Hebrew: GWBNA], gubna, or guphno, cheese; because the next island was famous for that commodity: Ut ut enim Cythnius caseus proprie non dicatur, qui e Cythno non est, tamen recepta [Greek: katachresei] Cythnius dici potuit caseus a vicina Ceo. He supposes Egypt to have been denominated from [494]Mazor, an artificial fortress; and the reason he gives, is, because it was naturally secure. Whatever may have been the purport of the term, Mizraim was a very antient and original name, and could have no reference to these after-considerations. The author of the Onomasticum, therefore, differs from him, and has tried to mend the matter. He allows that the people, and country, were denominated from Mazor, but in a different acceptation: from Mazor, which signified, the double pressure of a mother on each side[495], pressionem matris geminam, i. e. ab utraque parte. Upon which the learned Michaelis observes—[496]quo etymo vix aliud veri dissimilius fingi potest.

In the theology of the Greeks are many antient terms, which learned men have tried to analyse, and define. But they seem to have failed here too by proceeding upon those fallacious principles, of which I have above complained. In short, they seldom go deep enough in their inquiries; nor consider the true character of the personage, which they would decypher. It is said of the God Vulcan, that he was the same as Tubalcain, mentioned Genesis. c. 4. v. 22: and it is a notion followed by many writers: and among others by Gale. [497]First as to the name (says this learned man) Vossius, de Idolat. l. 1. c. 36, shews us, that Vulcanus is the same as Tubalcainus, only by a wonted, and easy mutation of B into V, and casting away a syllable. And he afterwards affects to prove from Diodorus Siculus, that the art and office of Vulcan exactly corresponded to the character of Tubalcain, [498]who was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. Upon the same principles Philo Biblius speaking of Chrusor, a person of great antiquity, who first built a ship, and navigated the seas; who also first taught husbandry, and hunting, supposes him to have been Vulcan; because it is farther said of him, [499]that he first manufactured iron. From this partial resemblance to Vulcan or Hephastus, Bochart is induced to derive his name from [Hebrew: KRSH AWR], Chores Ur, an artificer in [500]fire. These learned men do not consider, that though the name, to which they refer, be antient, and oriental, yet the character, and attributes, are comparatively modern, having been introduced from another quarter. Vulcan the blacksmith, who was the master of the Cyclops, and forged iron in Mount AEtna, was a character familiar to the Greeks, and Romans. But this Deity among the Egyptians, and Babylonians, had nothing similar to this description. They esteemed Vulcan as the chief of the Gods the same as the Sun: and his name is a sacred title, compounded of Baal-Cahen, Belus sanctus, vel Princeps; equivalent to Orus, or Osiris. If the name were of a different original, yet it would be idle to seek for an etymology founded on later conceptions, and deduced from properties not originally inherent in the personage. According to [501]Hermapion he was looked upon as the source of all divinity, and in consequence of it the inscription upon the portal of the temple at Heliopolis was [Greek: Hephaistoi toi Theon Patri]. To Vulcan the Father of the Gods. In short, they who first appropriated the name of Vulcan to their Deity, had no notion of his being an artificer in brass or iron: or an artificer in any degree. Hence we must be cautious in forming ideas of the antient theology of nations from the current notions of the Greeks, and Romans; and more especially from the descriptions of their poets. Polytheism, originally vile, and unwarrantable, was rendered ten times more base by coming through their hands. To instance in one particular: among all the daemon herd what one is there of a form, and character, so odious, and contemptible as Priapus? an obscure ill-formed Deity, who was ridiculed and dishonoured by his very votaries. His hideous figure was made use of only as a bugbear to frighten children; and to drive the birds from fruit trees; with whose filth he was generally besmeared. Yet this contemptible God, this scarecrow in a garden, was held in high repute at Lampsacus, and esteemed the same as [502]Dionusus. He was likewise by the Egyptians reverenced as the principal God; no other than the Chaldaic [503]Aur, the same as Orus and Apis: whose rites were particularly solemn. It was from hence that he had his name: for Priapus of Greece is only a compound of Peor-Apis among the Egyptians. He was sometimes styled Peor singly; also Baal Peor; the same with whose rites the Israelites are so often [504]upbraided. His temples likewise are mentioned, which are styled Beth Peor. In short, this wretched divinity of the Romans was looked upon by others as the soul of the world: the first principle, which brought all things into light, and being. [505][Greek: Priepos ho kosmos, e ho proestos autou Logos.] The author of the Orphic hymns styles him [506][Greek: Protogonon—genesin makaron, thneton t' anthropon]. The first born of the world, from whom all the immortals, and mortals were descended. This is a character, which will hereafter be found to agree well with Dionusus. Phurnutus supposes Priapus to have been the same as Pan, the shepherd God: who was equally degraded, and misrepresented on one hand, and as highly reverenced on the other. [507][Greek: Isos d' an houtos kai ho Priepos eie, kath' hon proeisin eis phos ta panta; ton archaion d' eisi Daimonon]. Probably Pan is no other than the God Priapus, by whose means all things were brought into light. They are both Deities of high [508]antiquity. Yet the one was degraded to a filthy monster; and of the other they made a scarecrow.

* * * * *

DISSERTATION

UPON THE

HELLADIAN

AND OTHER

GRECIAN WRITERS.

[Greek: Entha pulai nuktos te, kai ematos, eisi keleuthon.]——PARMENIDES.

It may be proper to take some previous notice of those writers, to whose 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][Greek: Ek tes Panos tes Aiguptou gegenemenos]; 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 Caesarea, 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 AEgyptius, 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][Greek: Alla par allois sullexamenos, monon para ton sophon Hellenon echein ouden, peniai sophias kai aporiai sunoikounton.] 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][Greek: Platon de, ho dokon ton Hellenon sophotatos gegenesthai, eis posen phluarian echoresen.] 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][Greek: Barbaroi], 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] aera 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 Coroebus, 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]Hecataeus, 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 Sacae, and others Massagetae, 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 Massagetae, 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 Daemons, 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]Phaennis, [546]Phaemonoe, and Baeo. The last of these mentions Olen, as the inventor of verse, and the most antient priest of Phoebus.

[547][Greek: Olen d' hos geneto protos Phoiboio prophetes,] [Greek: Protos d' archaion epeon technosat' aoidan.]

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][Greek: Phusei gar Hellenes neotropoi—Hellesin atalaiporos tes aletheias zetesis.] 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 AEschylus 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][Greek: All' egnoeito teos ho eniautos para tois Hellesin, hos kai alla pleio.]

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 [Greek: Meilichos] and [Greek: Meilichios], 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, [Greek: Ei barbaron to onoma ou chre zetein Helleniken etumologian autou.]

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 AEsculapius, 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 [Greek: Keras]; for Cohen, [Greek: Koes]; for Athon, [Greek: Athos]; for Boun, [Greek: Bous]; for Sain, [Greek: Sais].

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 [Greek: tithenai], 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 Celtae: and there is still an interval, not very much inferior to the former, before we arrive at the aera 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 [Greek: Barbaroi], 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 [Greek: Barbaroi].

[Greek: Hekataios men oun ho Milesios peri tes Peloponnesou phesin, hoti pro ton Hellenon oikesan auten Barbaroi; schedon de ti kai he sumpasa Hellas katoikia Barbaron huperxato to palaion]. Strabo. l. 7. p. 321.

[Greek: Eisi de hemon archaioteroi Barbaroi]. Plato in Cratylo. vol. 1. p. 425.

[Greek: Palai tes nun kaloumenes Hellados Barbaroi ta polla oikesan.] Pausanias. l. 1. p. 100.

[Greek: Arkadian Barbaroi oikesan]. Scholia Apollonii Rhod. l. 3. v. 461.

Diodorus mentions, [Greek: Athenaious—apoikous Saiton ton ex Aiguptou]. l. 1. p. 24.

Again—[Greek: Genomenai de kai ton hegemonon tinas Aiguptious para tois Athenaiois]. ibidem.

Africanus having spoken of the Egyptian rites, says, [Greek: Hoti te Athenaious ton auton Aiguptiois apolauein eikos en, apoikous ekeinon aponooumenous, hos phasin alloi te, kai en toi Trikarenoi Theopompos]. Apud Euseb. Praep. Evan. l. x. c. x. p. 491.

Concerning persons from Egypt.

[Greek: Kekrops, Aiguptios on, duo glossas epistato]. Cedrenus p. 82.

[Greek: Kekrops, Aiguptios to genos, oikise tas Athenas]. Scholia Aristoph. Pluti.

[Greek: Hosde apo Saeos poleos Aiguptias,] [Greek: Meta ton kata Ogugon kataklusmon ekeinon,] [Greek: Ho Kekrops paregegonen Athenais tes Hellados.] J. Tzetzes. Chil. v. hist. 18.

[Greek: Kekrops, Aiguptios to genos, oikese tas Athenas]. Suidas.

Pausanias mentions [Greek: Lelega aphikomenon ex Aiguptou]. l. 1. p. 95.

Erectheus from Egypt. [Greek: Kai ton Erechthea legousi to genos Aiguption onta.] 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 [Greek: Ton Atheneisi nomotheton Triptolemon.] 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. [Greek: Danaos Chemmites.] Herodotus. l. 2. c. 91.

Navem primus ex AEgypto Danaus advexit. Pliny. l. 7. c. 56. He brought a colony with him. [Greek: Legousi de tous peri Danaon hormethentas homoios ekeithen], scil. [Greek: ex Aiguptou.] Diodorus. l. 1. p. 24.

All the heads of the Dorian race from Egypt. [Greek: Phainoiato an eontes hoi ton Dorieon hegemones Aiguptioi ithagenees.] Herodotus. l. 6. c. 53.

The Lacedaemonians 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. [Greek: Hos de ho Perseon logos legetai, autos ho Perseus eon Assurios egeneto Hellen.] Herodotus. l. 6. c. 54.

It is said of Cadmus, that he came originally from Egypt, in company with Phoenix. [Greek: Kadmos kai Phoinix apo Thebon ton Aiguption.] Euseb. Chron. p. 15.

Eusebius in another place mentions the arrival of Cadmus with a company of Saitae. They founded Athens, the principal city of Greece: also Thebes in Boeotia. 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 Saitae: [Greek: Plen ton metoikesanton husteron ekei Saiton, kai katoikesanton ten tes Hellados metropolin Athenas, kai tas Thebas. Sidonion gar houtoi apoikoi ek Kadmou tou Agenoros.] Chron. p. 14. The antient Athenians worshipped Isis: and were in their looks, and in their manners particularly like the Egyptians. [Greek: Kai tais ideais, kai tois ethesin homoiotatous einai tois Aiguptiois.] 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. [Greek: Elthon ar' (ho Kekrops) apo Saeos poleos Aiguptou tas Athenas sunoikise. Sais de kat' Aiguptious he Athena legetai, hos phesin Charax.] Lycoph. v. 111. Schol.

Hence it is, that almost the whole of the mythology of Greece is borrowed from Egypt. [Greek: Katholou de, phesi, tous Hellenas exidiasesthai tous epiphanestatous Aiguption Heroas te, kai Theous.] Diodorus. l. 1. p. 20. All their rites and ceremonies were from the same quarter.