Home Site Menu Religion Menu Interesting Menu Humour Menu Guestbook Forum Email

Index

A New System; or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology. Volume I

By Jacob Bryant

Dissertation Upon The Helladian And Other Grecian Writers

Ενθα πυλαι νυκτος τε, και ηματος, εισι κελευθων.—— 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]Εκ της Πανος της Αιγυπτου γεγενημενος; and had opportunity of collecting many antient traditions, and fragments of mysterious history, which never were known in Greece. To these may be added Porphyry, Proclus, and Jamblichus, who professedly treat of Egyptian learning. The Isis and Osiris of Plutarch may be admitted with proper circumspection. It may be said, that the whole is still an enigma: and I must confess that it is: but we receive it more copiously exemplified; and more clearly defined; and it must necessarily be more genuine, by being nearer the fountain head: so that by comparing, and adjusting the various parts, we are more likely to arrive at a solution of the hidden purport. But the great resource of all is to be found among the later antiquaries and historians. Many of these are writers of high rank; particularly Diodorus, Strabo, and Pausanias, on the Gentile part: and of the fathers, Theophilus, Tatianus Athenagoras, Clemens, Origenes, Eusebius, Theodoretus, Syncellus; and the compiler of the Fasti Siculi, otherwise called Chronicon Paschale. Most of these were either of Egypt or Asia. They had a real taste for antiquity; and lived at a time when some insight could be obtained: for till the Roman Empire was fully established, and every province in a state of tranquillity, little light could be procured from those countries, whence the mythology of Greece was derived. The native Helladians were very limited in their knowledge. They had taken in the gross whatever was handed down by tradition; and assumed to themselves every history, which was imported. They moreover held every nation but their own as barbarous; so that their insuperable vanity rendered it impossible for them to make any great advances in historical knowledge. But the writers whom I just now mentioned, either had not these prejudices; or lived at a time when they were greatly subsided. They condescended to quote innumerable authors, and some of great antiquity; to whom the pride of Greece would never have appealed. I had once much talk upon this subject with a learned friend, since lost to the world, who could ill brook that Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, should be discarded for Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius; and that Lysias and Demosthenes should give way to Libanius and Aristides. The name of Tzetzes, or Eustathius, he could not bear. To all which I repeatedly made answer; that it was by no means my intention to set aside any of the writers, he mentioned: whose merits, as far as they extended, I held in great veneration. On the contrary, I should have recourse to their assistance, as far as it would carry me: But I must at the same time take upon me to weigh those merits; and see wherein they consisted; and to what degree they were to be trusted. The Helladians were much to be admired for the smoothness of their periods, and a happy collocation of their terms. They shewed a great propriety of diction; and a beautiful arrangement of their ideas: and the whole was attended with a rhythm, and harmony, no where else to be found. But they were at the same time under violent prejudices: and the subject matter of which they treated, was in general so brief, and limited, that very little could be obtained from it towards the history of other countries, or a knowledge of antient times. Even in respect to their own affairs, whatever light had been derived to them, was so perverted, and came through so dim a medium, that it is difficult to make use of it to any determinate and salutary purpose. Yet the beauty of their composition has been attended with wonderful ^[510]influence. Many have been so far captivated by this magic, as to give an implicit credence to all that has been transmitted; and to sacrifice their judgment to the pleasures of the fancy.

It may be said, that the writers, to whom I chiefly appeal, are, in great measure, dry and artless, without any grace and ornament to recommend them. They were likewise posterior to the Helladians; consequently farther removed from the times of which they treat. To the first objection I answer, that the most dry and artless historians are, in general, the most authentic. They who colour and embellish, have the least regard for the truth. In respect to priority, it is a specious claim; but attended with no validity. When a gradual darkness has been overspreading the world, it requires as much time to emerge from the cloud, as there passed when we were sinking into it: so that they who come later may enjoy a greater portion of light, than those who preceded them by ages. Besides, it is to be considered, that the writers, to whom I chiefly appeal, lived in parts of the world which gave them great advantages. The whole theology of Greece was derived from the east. We cannot therefore but in reason suppose, that Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Tatianus of Assyria, Lucianus of Samosata, Cyril of Jerusalem, Porphyry of Syria, Proclus of Lycia, Philo of Biblus, Strabo of Amasa, Pausanias of Cappadocia, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, must know more upon this subject than any native Helladian. The like may be said of Diodorus, Josephus, Cedrenus, Syncellus, Zonaras, Eustathius: and numberless more. These had the archives of antient ^[511]temples, to which they could apply: and had traditions more genuine than ever reached Greece. And though they were posterior themselves, they appeal to authors far prior to any Helladians: and their works are crowded with extracts from the most curious and the most antient ^[512]histories. Such were the writings of Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Nicholaus Damascenus, Mocus, Mnaseas, Hieronymus Ægyptius, Apion, Manethon: from whom Abydenus, Apollodorus, Asclepiades, Artapanus, Philastrius, borrowed largely. We are beholden to Clemens^[513], and Eusebius, for many evidences from writers, long since lost; even Eustathius and Tzetzes have resources, which are now no more.

It must be after all confessed, that those, who preceded, had many opportunities of information, had they been willing to have been informed. It is said, both of Pythagoras and Solon, that they resided for some time in Egypt: where the former was instructed by a Son-chen, or priest of the Sun. But I could never hear of any great good that was the consequence of his travels. Thus much is certain; that whatever knowledge he may have picked up in other parts, he got nothing from the Grecians. They, who pretended most to wisdom, were the most destitute of the blessing. ^[514]Αλλα παρ αλλοις συλλεξαμενος, μονον παρα των σοφων Ἑλληνων εχειν ουδεν, πενιᾳ σοφιας και αποριᾳ συνοικουντων. And as their theology was before very obscure, he drew over it a mysterious veil to make it tenfold darker. The chief of the intelligence transmitted by Solon from Egypt contained a satire upon his own country. He was told by an antient ^[515]priest, that the Grecians were children in science: that they were utterly ignorant of the mythology of other nations; and did not understand their own. Eudoxus likewise and Plato were in Egypt; and are said to have resided there some time: yet very few things of moment have been transmitted by them. Plato had great opportunities of rectifying the history and mythology of Greece: but after all his advantages he is accused of trifling shamefully, and addicting himself to fable. ^[516]Πλατων δε, ὁ δοκων των Ἑλληνων σοφωτατος γεγενησθαι, εις ποσην φλυαριαν εχωρησεν. Yet all the rites of the Helladians, as well as their Gods and Heroes, were imported from the ^[517]east: and chiefly from ^[518]Egypt, though they were unwilling to allow it. Length of time had greatly impaired their true history; and their prejudices would not suffer them to retrieve it. I should therefore think it by no means improper to premise a short account of this wonderful people, in order to shew whence this obscurity arose; which at last prevailed so far, that they, in great measure, lost sight of their origin, and were involved in mystery and fable.

The first inhabitants of the country, called afterwards Hellas, were the sons of Javan; who seem to have degenerated very early, and to have become truly barbarous. Hence the best historians of Greece confess, that their ancestors were not the first inhabitants; but that it was before their arrival in the possession of a people, whom they style ^[519]Βαρβαροι, or Barbarians. The Helladians were colonies of another family: and introduced themselves somewhat later. They were of the race which I term Amonian; and came from Egypt and Syria: but originally from Babylonia. They came under various titles, all taken from the religion, which they professed. Of these titles I shall have occasion to treat at large; and of the imaginary leaders, by whom they were supposed to have been conducted.

As soon as the Amonians were settled, and incorporated with the natives, a long interval of darkness ensued. The very union produced a new language: at least the antient Amonian became by degrees so modified, and changed, that the terms of science, and worship, were no longer understood. Hence the titles of their Gods were misapplied: and the whole of their theology grew more and more corrupted; so that very few traces of the original were to be discovered. In short, almost every term was misconstrued, and abused. This^[520] æra of darkness was of long duration: at last the Asiatic Greeks began to bestir themselves. They had a greater correspondence than the Helladians: and they were led to exert their talents from examples in Syria, Egypt, and other countries. The specimens, which they exhibited of their genius were amazing: and have been justly esteemed a standard for elegance and nature. The Athenians were greatly affected with these examples. They awoke, as it were, out of a long and deep sleep; and, as if they had been in the training of science for ages, their first efforts bordered upon perfection. In the space of a century, out of one little confined district, were produced a group of worthies, who at all times have been the wonder of the world: so that we may apply to the nation in general what was spoken of the school of a philosopher: cujus ex ludo, tanquam ex Equo Trojano, meri Principes exierunt. But this happy display of parts did not remedy the evil of which I have complained. They did not retrieve any lost annals, nor were any efforts made to dispel the cloud in which they were involved. There had been, as I have represented, a long interval; during which there must have happened great occurrences: but few of them had been transmitted to posterity; and those handed down by tradition, and mixed with inconsistency and fable. It is said that letters were brought into Greece very early, by ^[521]Cadmus. Let us for a while grant it; and inquire what was the progress. They had the use of them so far as to put an inscription on the pediment of a temple, or upon a pillar; or to scrawl a man's name upon a tile or an oyster-shell, when they wanted to banish or poison him. Such scanty knowledge, and so base materials, go but a little way towards science. What history was there of Corinth, or of Sparta? What annals were there of Argos, or Messena; of Elis, or the cities of Achaia? None: not even of ^[522]Athens. There are not the least grounds to surmise that any single record existed. The names of the Olympic victors from Corœbus, and of the priestesses of Argos, were the principal memorials to which they pretended: but how little knowledge could be obtained from hence! The laws of Draco, in the thirty-ninth Olympiad, were certainly the most antient writing to which we can securely appeal. When the Grecians began afterwards to bestir themselves, and to look back upon what had passed, they collected whatever accounts could be ^[523]obtained. They tried also to separate and arrange them, to the best of their abilities, and to make the various parts of their history correspond. They had still some good materials to proceed upon, had they thoroughly understood them; but herein was a great failure. Among the various traditions handed down, they did not consider which really related to their country, and which had been introduced from other^[524] parts. Indeed they did not chuse to distinguish, but adopted all for their own; taking the merit of every antient transaction to themselves. No people had a greater love for science, nor displayed a more refined taste in composition. Their study was ever to please, and to raise admiration. Hence they always aimed at the marvellous, which they dressed up in a most winning manner: at the same time they betrayed a seeming veneration for antiquity. But their judgment was perverted, and this veneration attended with little regard for the truth. ^[525]They had a high opinion of themselves, and of their country in general: and, being persuaded that they sprang from the ground on which they stood, and that the Arcadians were older than the moon, they rested satisfied with this, and looked no farther. In short, they had no love for any thing genuine, no desire to be instructed. Their history could not be reformed but by an acknowledgment which their pride would not suffer them to make. They therefore devoted themselves to an idle mythology: and there was nothing so contradictory and absurd but was greedily admitted, if sanctified by tradition. Even when the truth glared in their very faces, they turned from the light, and would not be undeceived. Those who, like Euemerus and Ephorus, had the courage to dissent from their legends, were deemed atheists and apostates, and treated accordingly. Plutarch more than once insists that it is expedient to veil the truth, and to dress it up in ^[526]allegory. They went so far as to deem inquiry a ^[527]crime, and thus precluded the only means by which the truth could be obtained.

Nor did these prejudices appear only in respect to their own rites and theology, and the history of their own nation: the accounts which they gave of other countries were always tinctured with this predominant vanity. An idle zeal made them attribute to their forefathers the merit of many great performances to which they were utterly strangers: and supposed them to have founded cities in various parts of the world where the name of Greece could not have been known; cities which were in being before Greece was a state. Wherever they got footing, or even a transient acquaintance, they in their descriptions accommodated every thing to their own preconceptions; and expressed all terms according to their own mode of writing and pronunciation, that appearances might be in their favour. To this were added a thousand silly stories to support their pretended claim. They would persuade us that Jason of Greece founded the empire of the Medes; as Perseus, of the same country, did that of the Persians. Armenus, a companion of Jason, was the reputed father of the Armenians. They gave out that Tarsus, one of the most antient cities in the world, was built by people from ^[528]Argos; and that Pelusium of Egypt had a name of Grecian ^[529]original. They, too, built Sais, in the same ^[530]country: and the city of the Sun, styled Heliopolis, owed its origin to an ^[531]Athenian. They were so weak as to think that the city Canobus had its name from a pilot of Menelaus, and that even Memphis was built by Epaphos of ^[532]Argos. There surely was never any nation so incurious and indifferent about truth. Hence have arisen those contradictions and inconsistences with which their history is ^[533]embarrassed.

It may appear ungracious, and I am sure it is far from a pleasing task to point out blemishes in a people of so refined a turn as the Grecians, whose ingenuity and elegance have been admired for ages. Nor would I engage in a display of this kind, were it not necessary to shew their prejudices and mistakes, in order to remedy their failures. On our part we have been too much accustomed to take in the gross with little or no examination, whatever they have been pleased to transmit: and there is no method of discovering the truth but by shewing wherein they failed, and pointing out the mode of error, the line of deviation. By unravelling the clue, we may be at last led to see things in their original state, and to reduce their mythology to order. That my censures are not groundless, nor carried to an undue degree of severity, may be proved from the like accusations from some of their best writers; who accuse them both of ignorance and forgery. ^[534]Hecatæus, of Miletus, acknowledges, that the traditions of the Greeks were as ridiculous as they were numerous: ^[535]and Philo confesses that he could obtain little intelligence from that quarter: that the Grecians had brought a mist upon learning, so that it was impossible to discover the truth: he therefore applied to people of other countries for information, from whom only it could be obtained. Plato^[536] owned that the most genuine helps to philosophy were borrowed from those who by the Greeks were styled barbarous: and ^[537]Jamblichus gives the true reason for the preference. The Helladians, says this writer, are ever wavering and unsettled in their principles, and are carried about by the least impulse. They want steadiness; and if they obtain any salutary knowledge, they cannot retain it; nay, they quit it with a kind of eagerness; and, whatever they do admit, they new mould and fashion, according to some novel and uncertain mode of reasoning. But people of other countries are more determinate in their principles, and abide more uniformly by the very terms which they have traditionally received. They are represented in the same light by Theophilus: ^[538]he says, that they wrote merely for empty praise, and were so blinded with vanity, that they neither discovered the truth theirselves, nor encouraged others to pursue it. Hence Tatianus says, with great truth, ^[539]that the writers of other countries were strangers to that vanity with which the Grecians were infected: that they were more simple and uniform, and did not encourage themselves in an affected variety of notions.

In respect to foreign history, and geographical knowledge, the Greeks, in general, were very ignorant: and the writers, who, in the time of the Roman Empire, began to make more accurate inquiries, met with insuperable difficulties from the mistakes of those who had preceded. I know no censure more severe and just than that which Strabo has passed upon the historians and geographers of Greece, and of its writers in general. In speaking of the Asiatic nations, he assures us, that there never had been any account transmitted of them upon which we can depend. ^[540]Some of these nations, says this judicious writer, the Grecians have called Sacæ, and others Massagetæ, without having the least light to determine them. And though they have pretended to give a history of Cyrus, and his particular wars with those who were called Massagetæ, yet nothing precise and satisfactory could ever be obtained; not even in respect to the war. There is the same uncertainty in respect to the antient history of the Persians, as well as to that of the Medes and Syrians. We can meet with little that can be deemed authentic, on account of the weakness of those who wrote, and their uniform love of fable. For, finding that writers, who professedly dealt in fiction without any pretensions to the truth, were regarded, they thought that they should make their writings equally acceptable, if in the system of their history they were to introduce circumstances, which they had neither seen nor heard, nor received upon the authority of another person; proceeding merely upon this principle, that they should be most likely to please people's fancy by having recourse to what was marvellous and new. On this account we may more safely trust to Hesiod and Homer, when they present us with a list of Demigods and Heroes, and even to the tragic poets, than to Ctesias, Herodotus, and Hellanicus, and writers of that class. Even the generality of historians, who wrote about Alexander, are not safely to be trusted: for they speak with great confidence, relying upon the glory of the monarch, whom they celebrate; and to the remoteness of the countries, in which he was engaged; even at the extremities of Asia; at a great distance from us and our concerns. This renders them very secure. For what is referred to a distance is difficult to be confuted. In another place, speaking of India, he says, that it was very difficult to arrive at the truth: for the ^[541]writers, who must necessarily be appealed to, were in continual opposition, and contradicted one another. And how, says Strabo, could it be otherwise? for if they erred so shamefully when they had ocular proof, how could they speak with certainty, where they were led by hearsay? In another place^[542] he excuses the mistakes of the antient poets, saying, that we must not wonder if they sometimes deviated from the truth, when people in ages more enlightened were so ignorant, and so devoted to every thing marvellous and incredible. He had above given the poets even the preference to other writers: but herein his zeal transported him too far. The first writers were the poets; and the mischief began from them. They first infected tradition; and mixed it with allegory and fable. Of this Athenagoras accuses them very justly; and says, ^[543]that the greatest abuses of true knowledge came from them. I insist, says this learned father, that we owe to Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod, the fictitious names and genealogies of the Pagan Dæmons, whom they are pleased to style Gods: and I can produce Herodotus for a witness to what I assert. He informs us, that Homer and Hesiod were about four hundred years prior to himself; and not more. These, says he, were the persons who first framed the theogony of the Greeks; and gave appellations to their Deities; and distinguished them according to their several ranks and departments. They at the same time described them under different appearances: for till their time there was not in Greece any representation of the Gods, either in sculpture or painting; not any specimen of the statuary's art exhibited: no such substitutes were in those times thought of.

The antient history and mythology of Greece was partly transmitted by the common traditions of the natives: and partly preserved in those original Doric hymns, which were universally sung in their Prutaneia and temples. These were in the antient Amonian language; and said to have been introduced by ^[544]Pagasus, Agyieus, and Olen. This last some represent as a Lycian, others as an Hyperborean: and by many he was esteemed an Egyptian. They were chanted by the Purcones, or priests of the Sun: and by the female, Hierophants: of whom the chief upon record were ^[545]Phaënnis, ^[546]Phæmonoë, and Bæo. The last of these mentions Olen, as the inventor of verse, and the most antient priest of Phœbus.

These hymns grew, by length of time, obsolete; and scarce intelligible. They were, however, translated, or rather imitated, by Pamphos, Rhianus, Phemius, Homer, Bion Proconnesius, Onomacritus, and others. Many of the sacred terms could not be understood, nor interpreted; they were however ^[548]retained with great reverence: and many which they did attempt to decipher, were misconstrued and misapplied. Upon this basis was the theology of Greece founded: from hence were the names of Gods taken: and various departments attributed to the several Deities. Every poet had something different in his theogony: and every variety, however inconsistent, was admitted by the Greeks without the least hesitation: ^[549]Φυσει γαρ Ἑλληνες νεοτροποι—Ἑλλησιν αταλαιπωρος της αληθειας ζητησις. The Grecians, says Jamblichus, are naturally led by novelty: The investigation of truth is too fatiguing for a Grecian. From these antient hymns and misconstrued terms ^[550]Pherecydes of Syrus planned his history of the Gods: which, there is reason to think, was the source of much error.

Such were the principles which gave birth to the mythology of the Grecians; from whence their antient history was in great measure derived. As their traditions were obsolete, and filled with extraneous matter, it rendered it impossible for them to arrange properly the principal events of their country. They did not separate and distinguish; but often took to themselves the merit of transactions, which were of a prior date, and of another clime. These they adopted, and made their own. Hence, when they came to digest their history, it was all confused: and they were embarrassed with numberless contradictions, and absurdities, which it was impossible to ^[551]remedy. For their vanity, as I have shewn, would not suffer them to rectify their mistakes by the authority of more antient and more learned nations. It is well observed by Tatianus ^[552]Assyrius, that where the history of times past has not been duly adjusted, it is impossible to arrive at the truth: and there has been no greater cause of error in writing, than the endeavouring to adopt what is groundless and inconsistent. Sir Isaac Newton somewhere lays it down for a rule, never to admit for history what is antecedent to letters. For traditionary truths cannot be long preserved without some change in themselves, and some addition of foreign circumstances. This accretion will be in every age enlarged; till there will at last remain some few outlines only of the original occurrence. It has been maintained by many, that the Grecians had letters very early: but it will appear upon inquiry to have been a groundless notion. Those of the antients, who considered the matter more carefully, have made no scruple to set aside their ^[553]pretensions. Josephus in particular takes notice of their early claim; but cannot allow it: ^[554]They, says this learned historian, who would carry the introduction of letters among the Greeks the highest, very gravely tell us, that they were brought over by the Phenicians, and Cadmus. Yet, after all, they cannot produce a single specimen either from their sacred writings, or from their popular records, which savours of that antiquity. Theophilus takes notice of these difficulties; and shews that all the obscurity, with which the history of Hellas is clouded, arose from this deficiency of letters. He complains, that the ^[555]Hellenes had lost sight of the truth; and could not recollect any genuine history. The reason of this is obvious: for they came late to the knowledge of letters in comparison of other nations. This they confess, by attributing the invention of them to people prior to themselves; either to the Chaldeans, or the Egyptians: or else to the Phenicians. Another cause of failure, which relates to their theology, and still greatly prevails, is owing to their not making a proper disquisition about the true object of worship: but amusing themselves with idle, and unprofitable speculations.

Notwithstanding this deficiency, they pretended to give a list of Argive princes, of which twenty preceded the war of ^[556]Troy. But what is more extraordinary, they boasted of a series of twenty-six Kings at Sicyon, comprehending a space of one thousand years, all which kings were before the time of ^[557]Theseus and the Argonauts. Among those, who have given the list of the Argive kings, is ^[558]Tatianus Assyrius, who advises every person of sense, when he meets with these high pretensions, to consider attentively, that there was not a single voucher, not even a tradition of any record, to authenticate these histories: for even Cadmus was many ages after. It is certain, that the Helladians had no tendency to learning, till they were awakened by the Asiatic Greeks: and it was even then some time before letters were in general use; or any histories, or even records attempted. For if letters had been current, and the materials for writing obvious, and in common use, how comes it that we have not one specimen older than the reign of Cyrus? And how is it possible, if the Grecians had any records, that they should be so ignorant about some of their most famous men? Of Homer how little is known! and of what is transmitted, how little, upon which we may depend! Seven places in Greece contend for his birth: while many doubt whether he was of Grecian original. It is said of Pythagoras, ^[559]that according to Hippobotrus he was of Samos: but Aristoxenus, who wrote his life, as well as Aristarchus, and Theopompus, makes him a Tyrrhenian. According to Neanthes he was of Syria, or else a native of Tyre. In like manner Thales was said by Herodotus, Leander, and Duris, to have been a Phenician: but he was by others referred to Miletus in Ionia. It is reported of Pythagoras, that he visited Egypt in the time of Cambyses. From thence he betook himself to Croton in Italy: where he is supposed to have resided till the last year of the seventieth Olympiad: consequently he could not be above thirty or forty years prior to the birth of Æschylus and Pindar. What credit can we give to people for histories many ages backward; who were so ignorant in matters of importance, which happened in the days of their fathers? The like difficulties occur about Pherecydes Syrius; whom Suidas styles Babylonius: neither the time, when he lived, nor the place of his birth, have been ever satisfactorily proved. Till Eudoxus had been in Egypt the Grecians did not know the space of which the true year consisted. ^[560]Αλλ' ηγνοειτο τεως ὁ ενιαυτος παρα τοις Ἑλλησιν, ὡς και αλλα πλειω.

Another reason may be given for the obscurity in the Grecian history, even when letters had been introduced among them. They had a childish antipathy to every foreign language: and were equally prejudiced in favour of their own. This has passed unnoticed; yet was attended with the most fatal consequences. They were misled by the too great delicacy of their ear; and could not bear any term which appeared to them barbarous and uncouth. On this account they either rejected foreign ^[561]appellations; or so modelled and changed them, that they became, in sound and meaning, essentially different. And as they were attached to their own country, and its customs, they presumed that every thing was to be looked for among themselves. They did not consider, that the titles of their Gods, the names of cities, and their terms of worship, were imported: that their ancient hymns were grown obsolete: and that time had wrought a great change. They explained every thing by the language in use, without the least retrospect or allowance: and all names and titles from other countries were liable to the same rule. If the name were dissonant, and disagreeable to their ear, it was rejected as barbarous: but if it were at all similar in sound to any word in their language, they changed it to that word; though the name were of Syriac original; or introduced from Egypt, or Babylonia. The purport of the term was by these means changed: and the history, which depended upon it, either perverted or effaced. When the title Melech, which signified a King, was rendered Μειλιχος and Μειλιχιος, sweet and gentle, it referred to an idea quite different from the original. But this gave them no concern: they still blindly pursued their purpose. Some legend was immediately invented in consequence of this misprision, some story about bees and honey, and the mistake was rendered in some degree plausible. This is a circumstance of much consequence; and deserves our attention greatly. I shall have occasion to speak of it repeatedly; and to lay before the reader some entire treatises upon the subject. For this failure is of such a nature, as, when detected. and fairly explained, will lead us to the solution of many dark and enigmatical histories, with which the mythology of Greece abounds. The only author, who seems to have taken any notice of this unhappy turn in the Grecians, is Philo Biblius. ^[562]He speaks of it as a circumstance of very bad consequence, and says, that it was the chief cause of error and obscurity: hence, when he met in Sanchoniathon with antient names, he did not indulge himself in whimsical solutions; but gave the true meaning, which was the result of some event or quality whence the name was imposed. This being a secret to the Greeks, they always took things in a wrong acceptation; being misled by a twofold sense of the terms which occurred to them: one was the genuine and original meaning, which was retained in the language whence they were taken: the other was a forced sense, which the Greeks unnaturally deduced from their own language, though there was no relation between them. The same term in different languages conveyed different and opposite ideas: and as they attended only to the meaning in their own tongue, they were constantly ^[563]mistaken.

It may appear strange to make use of the mistakes of any people for a foundation to build upon: yet through these failures my system will be in some degree supported: at least from a detection of these errors, I hope to obtain much light. For, as the Grecian writers have preserved a kind of uniformity in their mistakes, and there appears plainly a rule and method of deviation, it will be very possible, when this method is well known, to decypher what is covertly alluded to; and by these means arrive at the truth. If the openings in the wood or labyrinth are only as chance allotted, we may be for ever bewildered: but if they are made with design, and some method be discernible, this circumstance, if attended to, will serve for a clue, and lead us through the maze. If we once know that what the Greeks, in their mythology, styled a wolf, was the Sun; that by a dog was meant a prince, or Deity; that by bees was signified an order of priests; these terms, however misapplied, can no more mislead us in writing, than their resemblances in sculpture would a native of Egypt, if they were used for emblems on stone.

Thus much I have been obliged to premise: as our knowledge must come through the hands of the ^[564]Grecians. I am sensible, that many learned men have had recourse to other means for information: but I have never seen any specimens which have afforded much light. Those, to which I have been witness, have rather dazzled than illustrated; and bewildered instead of conducting to the truth. Among the Greeks is contained a great treasure of knowledge. It is a rich mine; which as yet has not been worked far beneath the surface. The ore lies deep, and cannot be obtained without much industry and labour. The Helladians had the best opportunities to have afforded us information about the antiquities of their country: of their negligence, and of their mistakes I have spoken; yet with a proper clue they may still be read to great advantage. To say the truth, there is scarce an author of them all, from whom some good may not be derived.

What has been wanting in the natives of Greece, has been greatly supplied by writers of that nation from other countries, who lived in after-times. Of these the principal have been mentioned; and many others might be added, who were men of integrity and learning. They were fond of knowledge, and obtained a deep insight into antiquity: and, what is of the greatest consequence, they were attached to the truth. They may sometimes have been mistaken in their judgment: they may also have been deceived: but still truth was the scope at which they aimed. They have accordingly transmitted to us many valuable remains, which, but for them, had been buried in oblivion. There are likewise many pagan authors, to whom we are greatly indebted; but especially to Strabo and Pausanias; who in their different departments have afforded wonderful light. Nor must we omit Josephus of Judea; whose treatise against Apion must be esteemed of inestimable value: indeed, all his writings are of consequence, if read with a proper allowance.

I have mentioned, that it is my purpose to give a history of the first ages; and to shew the origin of many nations, whose descent has been mistaken; or else totally unknown. I shall speak particularly of one great family, which diffused itself over many parts of the earth; from whom the rites and mysteries, and almost the whole science of the Gentile world, were borrowed. But as I venture in an unbeaten track, and in a waste, which has been little frequented; I shall first take upon me to treat of things near at hand, before I advance to remoter discoveries. I shall therefore speak of those rites and customs, and of the nations, where they prevailed; as I shall by these means be led insensibly to the discovery of the people, from whom they were derived. By a similarity of customs, as well as by the same religious terms, observable in different countries, it will be easy to shew a relation, which subsisted between such people, however widely dispersed. They will be found to have been colonies of the same family; and to have come ultimately from the same place. As my course will be in great measure an uphill labour, I shall proceed in the manner which I have mentioned; continually enlarging my prospect, till I arrive at the point I aim at.

It may be proper to mention to the reader that the following treatises were not written in the order in which they now stand; but just as the subject-matter presented itself before me. As many, which were first composed, will occur last, I have been forced to anticipate some of the arguments, as well as quotations, which they contained, according as I found it expedient. Hence there will be some few instances of repetition, which however I hope will not give any great disgust: as what is repeated, was so interwoven in the argument, that I could not well disengage it from the text, where it occurs a second time.

There will also be found some instances, where I differ from myself, and go contrary to positions in a former treatise. These are very few, and of no great moment; being such as would probably escape the reader's notice. But I think it more ingenuous, and indeed my strict duty, to own my mistakes, and point them out, rather than to pass them over in silence, or idly to defend them.

Footnotes

[509] Agathias. l. 4. p. 133.

[510] See Theophilus ad Autolycum. l. 2. p. 357.

[511] See Philo Biblius apud Euseb. P. E. l. 1. c. 10. p. 32. He mentions applying to a great number of authors, in Phenicia.

[512]

[513] Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 1. p. 356.

[514] Eusebij Præp. Evang. l. 10. c. 4. p. 471.

[515] Plato in Timæo. Clemens. Strom. l. 1. p. 426.

[516] Theophilus ad Autolycum. l. 3. p. 390.

[517] See Eusebius. Præp. Evan. l. 10. c. 4. p. 469. and c. 5. p. 473. also Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 1. p. 361. Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 62, 63. and p. 86, 87.

[518] Καθολου δε φασι τους Ἑλληνας εξιδιαζεσθαι τους επιφανεστατους Αιγυπτιων Ἡρωας τε, και Θεους. l. 1. p. 20.

See here a long account of the mythology of Egypt being transported to Greece; and there adopted by the Helladians as their own, and strangely sophisticated.

[519] Ἑκαταιος μεν ουν ὁ Μιλησιος περι της Πελοποννησου φησιν, ὁτι προ των Ἑλληνων ῳκησαν αυτην Βαρβαροι· σχεδον δε τι και ἡ συμπασα Ἑλλας κατοικια Βαρβαρων ὑπηρξε το παλαιον. Strabo. l. 7. p. 321.

[520] Οδε μεταξυ χρονος παραλελειπται, εν ᾡ μηδεν εξαιρετον Ἑλλησιν ἱστορηται. Theopompus in Tricareno.

[521] How uncertain they were in their notions may be seen from what follows: Alii Cadmum, alii Danaum, quidam Cecropem Atheniensem, vel Linum Thebanum, et temporibus Trojanis Palamedem Argivum, memorant sedecim literarum formas, mox alios, et præcipue Simonidem cæteras invenisse. Lilius Gyraldus de Poetis. Dialog. 1. p. 13. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1696.

Τοτε ὁ Παλαμηδης ἑυρε τα ις γραμματα του αλφαβητου, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ο, π, ρ, ς, τ, υ· προσεθηκε δε Καδμος ὁ Μιλησιος ἑτερα γραμματα τρια, θ, φ, χ—προς ταυτα Σιμωνιδης ὁ Κειος προσεθηκε δυο, η και ω. Επιχαρμος δε ὁ Συρακουσιος τρια, ζ, ξ, ψ· ὁυτως επληρωθησαν τα κδ στοιχεια. Eusebii Chron. p. 33. l. 13.

[522] Ου γαρ μονον παρα τοις αλλοις Ελλησιν ημεληθε τα περι της αναγραφηι, αλλ' ουδε παρα τοις Αθηναιοις, ὁυς αυτοχθονας ειναι λεγουσι, και παιδειας επιμελεις, ουδεν τοιουτον ἑυρισκεται γενομενον. Josephus contra Apion. l. 1. p. 439. Their historians were but little before the war with the Persians: doctrina vero temporum adhuc longe recentior—hinc tenebræ superioribus sæculis, hinc fabulæ. Marsham. Chron. Canon. p. 14.

[523] The Arundel Marbles are a work of this sort, and contain an account of 1318 years. They begin from Cecrops, and come down to the 160th Olympiad. So that this work was undertaken very late, after the Archonship of Diognetus.

[524] See Diodorus above. p. 19, 20.

[525] —Τις ου παρ' αυτων συγγραφεων μαθοι ῥαδιως, ὁτι μηδεν βεβαιως ειδοτες συνεγραφον, αλλ' ὡς ἑκαστοι περι των πραγματων εικαζοιντο· πλειον γουν δια των βιβλιων αλληλους ελεγχουσι, και εναντιωτατα περι των αυτων λεγειν ουκ οκνουσι—κτλ· Josephus contra Apion. vol. 2. l. 1. c. 3. p. 439.

Ὁμοιως δε τουτῳ (Εφορῳ) Καλλισθενης και Θεοπομπος κατα την ἡλικιαν γεγονοτες απεστησαν των παλαιων μυθων· ἡμεις δε την εναντιαν τουτοις κρισιν εχοντες, και τον εκ της αναγραφης πονον ὑποσταντες, την πασαν επιμελειαν εποησαμεθα της αρχαιολογιας. Diod. l. 4. p. 209.

[526] Plutarch de Audiendis Poetis.

See Strabo's Apology for Fable. l. 1. p. 35, 36.

[527] Πλην γε δε ὁτι ουκ ακριβη εξηταστην χρη ειναι των ὑπερ του Θειου εκ παλαιου μεμυθευμενων. Arrian. Expedit. Alexandri. l. 5.

Herodotus puts these remarkable words into the mouth of Darius—Ενθα γαρ τι δει ψευδος λεγεσθαι, λεγεσθω· του γαρ αυτου γλιχομεθα, ὁι τε ψευδομενοι, και ὁι τῃ αληθηιη διαχρεωμενοι. l. 3. c. 72. We may be assured that these were the author's own sentiments, though attributed to another person: hence we must not wonder if his veracity be sometimes called in question; add to this, that he was often through ignorance mistaken: Πολλα τον Ἡροδοτον ελεγχει (Μανεθων) των Αιγυπτιακων ὑπ' αγνοιας εψευσμενον. Josephus cont. Ap. l. 1. c. 14. p. 444.

[528] Ταρσος επισημοτατη πολις Κιλικιας—εστι δ' αποικος Αργειων. Steph. Byzantinus, and Strabo. l. 16. p. 1089.

[529] Ωνομασται δ' απο του πηλου. Strabo. l. 17. p. 1155.

According to Marcellinus, it was built by Peleus of Thessaly. l. 22. c. 16. p. 264.

[530] Diodorus. l. 5. p. 328.

[531] Diodorus. l. 5. p. 328. built by Actis.

[532] Apollodorus. l. 2. p. 62. Clemens. l. 1. Strom. p. 383. from Aristippus.

[533] See Josephus contra Apion. l. 1. c. 3. p. 439.

[534] Ὁι γαρ Ἑλληνων λογοι πολλοι και γελοιοι, ὡς εμοι φαινονται. Apud Jamblichum—See notes. p. 295.

[535] Πολυν αυτοι επηγον τυφον, ὡς μη ῥαδιως τινα συνορᾳν τα κατ' αληθειαν γενομενα. He therefore did not apply to Grecian learning—Ου την παρ' Ἑλλησι, διαφωνος γαρ αυτη και φιλονεικοτερον ὑπ' ενιων μαλλον, η προς αληθειαν συντεθεισα. Philo apud Euseb. P. E. l. 1. c. ix. p. 32.

See the same writer of their love of allegory. p. 32.

[536] Πλατων ουκ αρνειται τα καλλιστα εις φιλοσοφιαν παρα των βαρβαρων εμπορευεσθαι. Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 1. p. 355.

—Κλεπτας της βαρβαρου φιλοσοφιας Ἑλληνας. Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 2. p. 428.

Clemens accuses the Grecians continually for their ignorance and vanity: yet Clemens is said to have been an Athenian, though he lived at Alexandria. He sacrificed all prejudices to the truth, as far as he could obtain it.

[537] Φυσει γαρ Ἑλληνες εισι νεοτροποι, και αττοντες φερονται πανταχη, ουδεν εχοντες ἑρμα εν ἑαυτοις, ουδ' οπερ δεξωνται παρα τινων διαφυλαττοντες· αλλα και τουτο οξεως αφεντες παντα κατα την αστατον ἑυρεσιλογιαν μεταπλαττουσι. Βαρβαροι δε μονιμοι τοις ηθεσιν οντες, και τοις λογοις βεβαιως τοις αυτοις εμμενουσι. Jamblichus. sect. 7. c. 5. p. 155.

[538] Δοξης γαρ κενης και ματαιου παντες ὁυτοι ερασθεντες, ουτε αυτοι το αληθες εγνωσαν, ουτε μεν αλλους επι την αληθειαν προετρεψαντο. Theophilus ad Autol. l. 3. p. 382.

[539] Παρ' ἡμιν δε της κενοδοξιας ὁ ἱμερος ουκ εστι· δογματων δε ποικιλιαις ου καταχρωμεθα. Tatianus contra Græcos, p. 269.

[540] Τους μεν Σακας, τους δε Μασσαγετας εκαλουν, ουκ εχοντες ακριβως λεγειν περι αυτων ουδεν, καιπερ προς Μασσαγετας τον Κυρου πολεμον ἱστορουντες· αλλα ουτε περι τουτων ουδεις ηκριβωτο προς αληθειαν ουδεν, ουτε τα παλαια των Περσων, ουτε των Μηδικων, η Συριακων, ες πιστιν αφικνειτο μεγαλην δια την των συγγραφεων ἁπλοτητα και την φιλομυθιαν. Ὁρωντες γαρ τους φανερως μυθογραφους ευδοκιμουντας, ωηθησαν και αυτους παρεξεσθαι την γραφην ἡδειαν, εαν εν ἱστοριας σχηματι λεγωσιν, ἁ μηδεποτε ειδον, μητε ηκουσαν, η ου παρα γε ειδοτων σκοπουντες· δι αυτο δε μονον τουτα, ὁτι ακροασιν ἡδειαν εχει, και θαυμαστην. Ραδιως δ' αν τις Ἡσιοδῳ και Ὁμηρῳ πιστευσειεν Ἡρωολογουσι, και τοις τραγικοις Ποιηταις, η Κτησιᾳ τε και Ἡροδοτῳ, και Ἑλλανικῳ, και αλλοις τοιουτοις. Ουδε τοις περι Αλεξανδρου δε συγγραψασιν ῥαδιον πιστευειν τοις πολλοις· και γαρ ὁυτω ῥαδιουργουσι δια τε την δοξαν Αλεξανδρου, και δια το την στρατειαν προς τας εσχατιας γεγονεναι της Ασιας πορρω αφ' ἡμων· το δη πορρω δυσελεγκτον. Strabo. l. 11. p. 774.

Græcis Historicis plerumque poeticæ similem esse licentiam. Quinctilianus. l. 11. c. 11.

Strabo of the antient Grecian historians: Δει δε των παλαιων ἱστοριων ακουειν ὁυτως, ὡς μη ὁμολογουμενων σφοδρα. ὁι γαρ νεωτεροι πολλακις νομιζουσι και τ' αναντια λεγειν. l. 8. p. 545.

Παντες μεν γαρ ὁι περι Αλεξανδρον το θαυμαστον αντι τ' αληθους αποδεχονται μαλλον. Strabo. l. 15. p. 1022.

[541] —Αλλα ἑκαστος ἑκαστῳ τ' αναντια λεγει πολλακις· ὁπου δε περι των ὁρασθεντων ὁυτω διαφερονται, τι δει νομιζειν περι των εξ ακοης. Strabo. l. 15. p. 1006.

See also l. 771, 2, 3, 4. And Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 63. Of Herodotus and other writers—Ἑκουσιως προκριναντες της αληθεις το παραδοξολογειν.

[542] Ου θαυμαστον δ' ειναι περι του Ὁμηροι· και γαρ τους ετι νεωτερους εκεινου πολλα αγνοειν, και τερατολογειν. Strabo. l. 7. p. 458.

[543] Φημι ουν Ορφεα και Ὁμηρον και Ἡσιοδον ειναι τους ονοματα και γεννη δοντας τοις ὑπ' αυτων λεγομενοις θεοις· μαρτυρει δε και Ἡροδοτος—Ἡσιοδον γαρ και Ὁμηρον ἡλικιην τετρακοσιοις ετεσι δοκεω πρεσβυτερους εμου γενεσθαι, και ου πλειοσι. Ὁυτοι δε εισιν, ὁι ποιησαντες θεογονιαν Ἑλλησι, και τοισι θεοισι τας επωνυμιας δοντες, και τιμας και τεχνας διελοντες, και ειδεα αυτων σημαινοντες· ἁι δε εικονες μεχρι μηπω πλαστικη και γραφικη, και ανδριαντοποιητικη ησαν, ουδε ενομιζοντο. Athenagoræ Legatio. p. 292. See Herodotus. l. 2. c. 53.

[544] Pausanias. l. 10. p. 809. Clemens mentions Αγυιεα θυρωρος τῳ Ἑρμη. Cohort. p. 44.

Οσα μεν αδουσιν εν τῳ Πρυτανειῳ, φωνη μεν εστιν αυτον ἡ Δωρικη. Pausanias. l. 5. p. 416.

[545] Pausanias. l. 10. p. 828. of Phaënnis and the Sibyls.

[546] Pausanias. l. 10. p. 809. of Phæmonoë and antient hymns.

[547] Pausanias. l. 10. p. 809, 810. Ωλην.

[548] Jamblichus de Mysteriis. Sect. vii. c. 5. p. 156.

In like manner in Samothracia, the ancient Orphic language was obsolete, yet they retained it in their temple rites: Εσχηκασι δη παλαιαν ἱδιαν διαλεκτον ὁι Αυτοχθονες (εν Σαμοθρακῃ) ἡς πολλα εν ταις θυσιαις μεχρι του νυν τηρηται. Diodorus. l. 5. p. 322.

[549] Jamblichus de Myster. sect. 7. c. 5. See notes. p. 295.

[550] Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 5. p. 676.

Such was Aristæus Proconneisius: Ανηρ γοης ει τις αλλος. Strabo. l. 13.

[551] Thus it is said in Eusebius from some antient accounts, that Telegonus reigned in Egypt, who was the son of Orus the shepherd; and seventh from Inachus: and that he married Io. Upon which Scaliger asks: Si Septimus ab Inacho, quomodo Io Inachi filia nupsit ei? How could Io be married to him when she was to him in degree of ascent, as far off as his grandmother's great grandmother; that is six removes above him. See Scaliger on Euseb. ad Num. cccclxxxi.

[552] Παρ' οις γαρ ασυναρτητος εστιν ἡ των Χρονων αναγραφη, παρα τουτοις ουδε τα της ἱστοριας αληθευειν δυνατον· τι γαρ το αιτιον της εν τῳ γραφειν πλανης, ει μη το συναπτειν τα μη αληθη. Tatianus. p. 269.

[553] Νυν μην οψε ποτε εις Ἑλληνας ἡ των λογων παρηλθε διδασκαλια το και γραφη. Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 1. p. 364.

[554] Ὁι μεν ουν αρχαιοτατην αυτων την χρησιν ειναι θελοντες, παρα Φοινικων και Καδμου σεμνυνονται μαθειν. Ου μεν ουδ' επ' εκεινου του χρονου δυναιτο τις αν δειξαι σωζομενην αναγραφην εν ἱεροις, ουτ' εν δημοσιοις αναθημασι. Joseph. cont. Apion. l. 1.

[555] Των δε της αληθειας ἱστοριων Ἑλληνες ου μεμνηνται· πρωτον μεν δια το νεωστι αυτους των γραμματων της εμπειριας μετοχους γεγενησθαι και αυτον ὁμολογουσι, φασκοντες τα γραμματα ἑυρησθαι, οι μεν απο Χαλδαιων, ὁι δε παρ Αιγυπτιων, αλλοι δ' αν απο Φοινικων. δευτερον, οτι επταιον, και πταιουσι, περι θεου μη ποιουμενοι την μνειαν, αλλα περι ματαιων και ανωφελων πραγματων. Theoph. ad Autol. l. 3. p. 400.

Plutarch assures us, that Homer was not known to the Athenians till the time of Hipparchus, about the 63d Olympiad, yet some writers make him three, some four, some five hundred years before that æra. It is scarce possible that he should have been so unknown to them if they had been acquainted with letters.

[556] Eusebius. Chron. p. 24.

[557] Eusebius. Chron. p. 19. Syncellus. p. 148, 152.

The kings of Sicyon were taken from Castor Rhodius.

[558] Και χρη τον νουνεχη συνιεναι κατα πασης ακριβειας, ὁτι κατα την Ἑλληνων παραδοσιν ουδ' ἱστοριας τις ην παρ' αυτοις αναγραφη· Καδμος γαρ—μετα πολλας γενεας. κλ. Tatianus Assyrius. p. 274.

[559] Clemens Alexand. l. 1. p. 352. and Diogenes Laertius, from Dicæarchus, and Heraclides.

[560] Strabo. l. 17. p. 1160.

[561] Ælian mentions, that the Bull Onuphis was worshipped at a place in Egypt, which he could not specify on account of its asperity. Ælian de Animalibus. l. 12. c. 11.

Even Strabo omits some names, because they were too rough and dissonant. Ου λεγω δε των εθνων τα ονοματα τα παλαια δια την αδοξιαν, και ἁμα την ατοπιαν της εκφορας αυτων. l. 12. p. 1123.

[562] Μετα ταυτα πλανην Ἑλλησι αιτιαται (ὁ Φιλων) λεγων, ου γαρ ματαιως αυτα πολλακως διεστειλαμεθα, αλλα προς τας αυθις παρεκδοχας των εν τοις πραγμασιν ονοματων· ἁπερ ὁι Ἑλληνες αγνοησαντες, αλλως εξεδεξαντο, πλανηθεντες τῃ αμφιβολιᾳ των ονοματων. Philo apud Eusebium. P. E. l. 1. c. x. p. 34.

[563] Bozrah, a citadel, they changed to βυρσα, a skin. Out of Ar, the capital of Moab, they formed Areopolis, the city of the Mars. The river Jaboc they expressed Io Bacchus. They did not know that diu in the east signified an island: and therefore out of Diu-Socotra in the Red-Sea, they formed the island Dioscorides: and from Diu-Ador, or Adorus, they made an island Diodorus. The same island Socotra they sometimes denominated the island of Socrates. The place of fountains, Ai-Ain, they attributed to Ajax, and called it Αιαντος ακροτηριον, in the same sea. The antient frontier town of Egypt, Rhinocolura, they derived from ρις, ρινος, a nose: and supposed that some people's noses were here cut off. Pannonia they derived from the Latin pannus, cloth. So Nilus was from νη ιλυς: Gadeira quasi Γης δειρα. Necus in Egypt and Ethiopia signified a king: but such kings they have turned to νεκυας: and the city of Necho, or Royal City, to Νικοπολις and Νεκροπολις.

Lysimachus in his Egyptian history changed the name of Jerusalem to Ιεροσυλα: and supposed that the city was so called because the Israelites in their march to Canaan used to plunder temples, and steal sacred things. See Josephus contra Ap. l. 1. c. 34. p. 467.

[564] I do not mean to exclude the Romans, though I have not mentioned them; as the chief of the knowledge which they afford is the product of Greece. However, it must be confessed, that we are under great obligations to Pliny, Marcellinus, Arnobius, Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, Macrobius; and many others. They contain many necessary truths, wherever they may have obtained them.

---

Index | Next: Some Necessary Rules In Respect To Etymological Inquiries To Better Understand The Mythology Of Greece

---