YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for any purpose other than for scholarship, research, educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy (or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes. RESEARCHES THE NATURE AND AFFINITY OF ANCIENT AND HINDU MYTHOLOGY. BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VANS KENNEDY, OF THE BOMBAY MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. H, m fttXrwv oifiai, tov fiev Xsyovra cupiq, uti xllP°>v "" a/iiivwv bij' to Si \syofitva tjKOirei, cite aXrjBt] tire ijjtvSri Xfytrat, irpoOv/iiae aveyupag Ttjv Siavoiav. Vel potius mitte, quis sit qui loquatur, inferiorne an praestantior ; quae autem dicuntur, et vere an falso affirmentur, prompto et experrecto ingenio considera. Jamblichus de My stems, sect i. chap. 1. LONDON: PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1831. Great respect is certainly due to men of learning, and a proper regard should be paid to their memory ; but they forfeit much of this esteem when they misapply their talents, and put them selves to these shifts to support an hypothesis. They may smile at their reveries, and plume themselves upon their ingenuity in finding out such expedients, but no good can possibly arise from it, for the whole is a fallacy and imposition. Bryant's Anal, of Ane. Myth., vol. iv. p. 180 London s Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, New-Street-Square. PREFACE. In composing my former work on the Origin and Affinity of Languages it naturally occurred to me that the argument which I maintained in it would have been greatly corroborated, could I have at the same time evinced that the original seat ofthe mythology which prevails in India at the present day was Babylonia ; and that it had been thence com municated to Asia Minor, from which country the Pelasgi had, in the course oftheir migrations, introduced it into Thracia, Greece, Latium, and Etruria. But, when I considered this subject, it appeared to me, that it was of much too extensive a nature to admit of its beino- treated incidentally ; and that, even for discussing it satisfactorily, the requisite materials were not available. For, though much has been written on ancient mythology, authors have been so fond of hypothesis, that it becomes impossible to ascertain from their works what is the precise nature ofthe information respecting it, that is really entitled to credit • while, on the contrary, so little has been published respecting the Hindu religion, and that so erroneously, that it was necessary, in order to exhibit a correct view of it, to depend solely on Sanscrit authority. Having, however, at length examined both these subjects in such a manner as will, in their discussion, prevent me, I believe, from falling into any mistakes of importance, I now venture to lay the following Researches before the public. The affinity which appears to exist amongst the polytheisms of India, Egypt, Greece, and Italy, has already attracted considerable attention : but it will perhaps be admitted, that no correct opinion can be formed on this point, unless just notions, with respect to the principles upon which ancient mythology was founded, have been previously acquired. Unfortunately, however, all authors, whether ancient or modern, who have attempted to explain these principles, a 2 IV PREFACE. have rested their reasoning on gratuitous assumptions, and not on facts ; and, in later times, it cannot but excite surprise, to observe the paucity of facts on which the most voluminous systems have been erected.* In instituting, therefore, a comparison between ancient and Hindu mythology, which of these systems ought to be preferred? or, is it not most probable that they should be all equally rejected ? But I may not be a competent judge to decide on the merits of these hypotheses, because I must confess that I am one of those persons to whom this reproach of Dupuis applies with the greatest justice : — " Si les erudits a, cerveau etroit trouvent notre marche trop libre, parce qu'elle n'est point pesante ; nous ne chercherons point a nous justifier aupres d'eux, puisque la nature, en leur refusant le genie, les a par la meme rendus incapables de le reconnoitre partout ou il se montre dans l'antiquite, a la hauteur de laquelle iis ne peuvent s'elever." f For I cannot but think that, however necessary imagination and genius may be in works of fiction, they are altogether misemployed in antiquarian and historical researches. I have endeavoured, therefore, in Chapters IL, IIL, and IV. of this work, to ascertain the real grounds on which all reasoning on the subject of ancient mythology ought to depend ; but the authentic materials adapted for this purpose are so scanty, that I cannot flatter myself that this attempt has been attended with much success. The principal object, however, of these Researches is to exhibit as correct a view as possible of the Hindu religion ; and, if I have not failed in attaining this object, the reader will be able to form his own opinion with respect to the affinity which exists between it and the religious systems of antiquity. But I am not certain that the manner in which I have illustrated this subject will be generally approved of; for, being convinced that, with whatever care summaries and abstracts For the hypotheses on this subject, prevalent amongst the ancients, 1 may refer to Diodorus Siculus and Cicero ; and, amongst the moderns, I allude particularly to these works • — Vossius, De Origine et de Progressu Idololatrire, 2 vols. fol. ; Barrier, Mythologie, ou les Fables exphquees par l'Histoire, 3 vols. 4to; Dupuis, Origine de tous les Cultes, 3 vols 4-to • Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology, and Faber's Origin of Pagan Idolatry, 3 vols 4to' each ; and Professor Creuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie, 2d edit., 6 vols. 8vo. f Origine des Cultes, torn. i. p. 304. PREFACE. v may be made, they never faithfully convey the precise meaning of the original text, I have deemed it most advisable to quote at length the different passages of the Sanscrit works on which my remarks are founded. Such, also, was the only mode by which I could satisfactorily evince the justness of the grounds on which I have controverted the speculations of former writers, and the consonancy of my own state ments with those opinions respecting their religion which have been entertained by the Hindus themselves from the remotest antiquity. It has hence been impossible to avoid repetition altogether ; but, as the quotations are taken from different works, they may be considered as so many distinct testimonies to the point which they are adduced to elucidate. It is now more than forty years since Sir W. Jones observed, — " Since Europeans are indebted to the Dutch for almost all they know of Arabic, and to the French for all they know of Chinese, let them now receive from our nation the first accurate knowledge of Sanscrit, and of the valuable works composed in it ; but, if they wish to form a correct idea of Indian religion and literature, let them begin with for getting all that has been written on the subject, by ancients or moderns, before the 'publication of the Gita." * But this very just remark seems to be entirely disregarded, and elaborate systems, with respect to the religion of India, continue to be founded on works, the bare perusal of which might alone evince that they were totally undeserving of being considered as competent authority. In the Beitrage, for instance, of J. G. Rhode, published at Berlin in 1819, that author enters into a discussion (in p. 73.) respecting what the book was which Holwell intended by the name Chartah Bhade Shastah; and yet the slightest acquaintance with the subject must have at once shown that these words should have been correctly written, Chatur Veda Shastra, and that the Veda and the Shastra were two distinct branches of the sacred literature ofthe Hindus. M. Rhode might, therefore, have spared the expression of his surprise that Mr. Colebrooke should not have no ticed this pretended work in his Essay on the Vedas. But it is really * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 363. The dedication to the Gita is dated 19th November, 1784. vi PREFACE. astonishing that a person, who professes to have cultivated Oriental literature for twenty years, should not have immediately perceived that Holwell's account ofthe creation and the fall ofthe angels* must have been written by a Mohammedan ; for the very expression on which M. Rhode lays so much stress, Be, and it was, an expression so frequently quoted by Mohammedan authors, should alone have apprized him that such an account could not have been written by a Hindu. f It seems, also, inexplicable why any attention should still be given to accounts professedly obtained through the medium of the Persian language, or of conversation with uninformed natives, when correct information, immediately derived from Sanscrit authority, is available in the unquestionably correct translations of Sir W. Jones, Mr. Colebrooke, and, in general, of Mr. Ward. I observe, however, that the works which have been most depended upon, in speculations respecting the Hindu religion, are the Oupnekhat of Anquetil du Perron, the Systema Brahmanicum and the other writings of Fr. Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo, the Mythologie des Indous, composed from the MSS. of Colonel Polier, and the Asiatic Re searches. With respect to the Oupnekhat, it must be obvious that it is written in such a barbai'ous and unintelligible style, as to render im possible the deriving from it of any correct notions respecting the abstruse metaphysical discussions which are contained in the original work. It must also be evident, that no person could have properly translated a work of this kind without being acquainted with the Sanscrit language, and with the philosophy and religion of the Hindus ; and yet Anquetil appears to have been not only ignorant of these indispensable requisites, but even to have possessed a very inadequate knowledge of Persian. It has hence necessarily followed, that his pretended translation differs so materially from the original, that, in * The converting of Mahesh-Asura into Satan must appear somewhat ludicrous to the Sanscrit scholar. f I observe, however, that this account of Holwell is quoted in a work recently published in Paris by M. Maries ; so that it seems destined that every erroneous opinion respecting the Hindu religion, which has been ever published, is to be perpetually reproduced. PREFACE. Vll comparing the two together, it is almost impossible to recognise that the one is intended to be a translation of the other. How far, indeed, this striking discordancy may be attributable to the Persian version, I cannot judge, as I have not a copy of it. But Sir W. Jones has remarked, — " Of this book I procured, with the assistance of Colonel Polier, a complete copy, corrected by a learned Rajah, named Anandaram, with whom the Colonel was very intimate ; but, though the sublime and majestic features of the original were discernible in parts through the folds ofthe Persian drapery, yet the Sanscrit names were so bar barously written, and the additions of the translator has made the work so deformed, that I resolved to postpone a regular perusal of it till I could compare it with the Sanscrit original." * Had, however, the Systema Brahmanicum of Fr. Paulinus cor responded with the lofty pretensions so unhesitatingly announced in the address ad Lectorem, it would have been presumptuous to offer to the public another work on the same subject ; for that writer, among other equally modest observations, remarks, — " Ad hoc munus rite obeundum, me etiam tacente, jam intelligis, non solum linguse Indicae exquisitum studium, non solum jurium et consuetudinum distinctam notionem, sed etiam in recondita Gentilicse religionis mysteria sedulam disquisitionem, in libros Indicos acre examen, atque diligentem animad- versionem necessariam fuisse Duae itaque potissimum sunt causas, quae me ad hoc opus elucubrandum impulerunt. Prima : ut ex hoc classico Brahmanico codice nugigeruli, morologi, ardeliones, arioli, lin guae Samscrdamicce imperiti viator es Indici, Angli et Galli, aliique temerarii Indicarum rerum veleratores corrigantur, refellantur, castigentur, somnia denique eorum et ineptice, quibus totam repleverunt Europam, pellantur et dissipentur." But when this wonderful work, which is to produce such remarkable effects, is examined, it exhibits the most convincing proofs * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. vi. p. 415. Sir William Jones has also observed, in the preface to his Translation of the Institutes of Manu, — " The Persian translation of Manu, like all others from the Sanscrit into that language, is a rude intermixture of the text, loosely . rendered, with some old or new comment, and often with the crude notions ofthe translator; and though it expresses the general sense of the original, yet it swarms with errors, imputable partly to haste, and partly to ignorance." vm PREFACE. of the writer's very superficial acquaintance with the Sanscrit language and literature. Of this, no more unquestionable evidence can be required, than that all the observations and arguments of Fr. Paulinus are founded on one single work, and that a common vocabulary, which is put into the hands of every learner of Sanscrit, but which he, nevertheless, thus magnificently describes: — " Unicus et solus liber Amarasinha ingentem et pene infinitum veteris Indorum philosophise, astronomise, et mythologiag acervum detegit ; et hie liber, qui certe ab omnibus maximi habetur, antiquam Indorum religionem prasclare describit atque explicat." * This vocabulary, however, like all other vocabularies, contains words only ; and it therefore neither describes nor explains the philosophy and religion of the Hindus. But it may be proper to adduce a few instances, from this work, of the writer's ignorance of the most common words and most common topics, which occur in the Sanscrit language and mythology. For, under the names of the different deities, he thus explains Abjayoni, matrix nubium ; but it signifies lotos-produced, and refers to the origin of Brahma from the lotos that sprang from the navel of Vishnu. Garudadhwaja is explained, quia Vishnu vehitur acquila Garuda dicta ; but dhwaja, which occurs in the Amara Kosha, signifies a banner. Pashupati is explained bovis maritus ; and that this strange explanation should not be mistaken, it is added, ubi notandum pashu bovem et vaccam significare : pashu, however, here means a living being. Kapa- lahhrit (calvam tenens) is translated horridis et erectis capillis ; hence evincing that the writer did not know that Shiva was thus named in consequence of bearing in his hand the head of Brahma, which he had cut off. Tripurantika is thus rendered, tres urbes seu regiones inhabitans ; which betrays an ignorance of one of the most common Hindu legends, the destruction of the Tripura-Asuras by Shiva, whence he was called their antaka or destroyer. Vrishadwaja (he whose banner is a bull) is thus explained, pluviam, tempestatem, fulmen, et tonitru producens. But it seems that Fr. Paulinus did not even understand the very book which he considers to be of so much importance ; for he joins these two distinct words, Vak, Vani, two names of Saraswati, and * Systema Brahmanicum, p. 113. PREFACE. IX signifying speech, and then thus explains them, linguam seu verba regens. It would, however, be endless to produce all the instances of Sanscrit words misunderstood, and translated at mere random, which occur in this work. With respect, also, to the diligent and accurate enquiries into the mysteries of the Hindu religion, of which this author boasts, it is only necessary to observe, that no person could be more ignorant of them than one who asserts, as he does (p. 303.), that Shri Rama and Parasu Rama were one and the same incarnation of Vishnu ; and (p. 139.) that Shri Rama was the brother of Krishna, and born from the star Rohini. Nor is it possible to understand how such a passage as the following was not sufficient to discredit entirely the authority of its writer : — " Libri, qui de his incarnationibus Indicis agunt, hoc ordine recen- sentur ; Matsyapuranam vel Matsyakhandam, Kurmapuranam vel Kur- makhandam, Varahapuranam vel Varahakhandam, Narasinhapuranam, Ayodhyakhandam, Aranyakandam, Yudhakandam, Balakhandam. Hi libri omnes uno libro continentur, qui Mahabharatam dicitur." * The work of Madame Polier I have not been able to procure ; but, judging from extracts from it, which I have read, it appears to abound in the grossest misrepresentations of Hindu mythology. But, as I have not perused it, I shall only quote the following passage, which occurs in the Symbolik und Mythologie of Professor Creuzer, illustrated by a plate, and which is thus translated by M. Guigniaut : — " Bhavani, joyeuse d'etre cree, exprimait sa joie par des sauts et des bonds ; mais pendant qu'elle dansait ainsi avec beaucoup de mouvement, tout a coup s'echapperent de son sein trois ceufs, d'ou sortirent les trois dieux." -j- But such an account of the origin of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, I have never either heard in conversation, or met with in any Sanscrit work. It is also singular, that Professor Creuzer should have adopted it, when he had just before correctly observed, according to * Systema Brahmanicum, p. 313. I need scarcely observe that the first four works here mentioned are four ofthe eighteen Purans, that the Bala, Ayodhya, and Aranya Khands are the first three books of the Rarnayanam ; and that there are no such contents in the Ma- habharat. The books even of the Mahabharat are named Parvas, and not Khands. f Religions de l'Antiquite, torn. i. p. 151. note. a x PREFACE. M. Guigniaut's translation, " Cet etre eternel, pour creer le monde a sa propre image, se revela d'abord comme Brahma ou createur ; puis comme Vichnou, conservateur et sauveur; et enfin comme Siva, destructeur et renovateur." * The whole account, also, of Brahma's incarnations, given by Polier, rest on no authority whatever, and are therefore unentitled to the slightest degree of credit. It must, however, appear singular, that the Asiatic Society has contributed so little to the elucidation of Hindu mythology ; and that, in sixteen volumes of its Researches, the only papers which occur on this subject, with the exception of those of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford, should be the Essay on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India, by Sir W. Jones, and another one on the Origin ofthe Hindu Religion, by Mr. Paterson. But neither of these Essays is a safe guide ; because the latter is much too hypothetical, and the former was written shortly after Sir W. Jones had arrived in this country, and, consequently, before he had formed correct notions respecting the Hindu religion. Yet this Essay presents a correct and elegant description of those remarkable coincidences that seem to exist between ancient and Hindu mythology, which must attract the attention of every classical scholar. But had Sir W. Jones ever resumed this subject, and more fully investi gated it, he would have been convinced that these coincidences were in many instances merely apparent; for it would be as impossible to find in India the satyrs of Bacchus and the symbols of Rhea, as the castrated priests of that goddess. The remarks, however, which I am obliged to offer on the papers of Lieutenant- Colonel Wilford, would extend this Preface beyond the usual limits, and I have therefore placed them in the Appendix (A). But the correct and learned Essays of Mr. Colebrooke are of a very dissimilar character ; and it is hence much to be regretted that his attention was principally directed to the religious ceremonies and theology of the Brahmans : for I am inclined to think that, had he been better acquainted with the Purans, the view which he has given of the Hindu religion would have been very different. I am par- * Religions de l'Antiquite, torn. i. p. 150. PREFACE. xi ticularly at a loss to understand on what grounds these remarks have been made : — "I am myself," observes Mr. Colebrooke, " inclined to adopt an opinion supported by many learned Hindus, who consider the celebrated Shri Bhagavata as the work of a grammarian, supposed to have lived about six hundred years ago. * Vopadeva, the real author of the Shri Bhagavata, has endeavoured to reconcile all the sects of Hindus, by reviving the doctrine of Vyasa, He recognises all the deities, but as subordinate to the Supreme Being, or rather as attributes or manifestations of God : a new sect has thus been formed, and is deno minated from that modern Purana." j" The composition, however, of this Puran only six hundred years ago by a grammarian of Bengal, and its having notwithstanding in such a short period obtained, without the aid of typography, general celebrity thoughout a country which comprehends an area of more than a million of square miles, are such improbable circumstances, as to require, for entitling them to the least credit, the clearest and most unquestionable evidence. The conjecture, also, respecting Vopadeva's intention, is disproved by the simple perusal of the Bhagavat ; as the sole scope and object of that work are to evince that Vishnu is the Supreme Being. Nor have I ever heard of the new sect denominated from this Puran, the origin of which from this cause seems obviously impossible. Because the Bhagavat is universally acknowledged to be the principal authority on which the doctrines ofthe Vaishnava sect depend ; and these doctrines are in every respect essentially the same as those contained in the Upanishads, with this only exception, that Vishnu is every where introduced in the place of Brahma or Shiva. I have been, therefore, obliged, in the course of the following work, to differ in. opinion on some material points from Mr. Colebrooke ; but, for the freedom of my remarks, I trust that, in the investigation of truth, no apology can be requisite : and I can with sincerity observe that, had it not been for Mr. Colebrooke's invaluable writings, it is most probable that I should have been unable to detect the errors into which I think he has fallen, and which seem necessarily to proceed from his having merely dis- * Asiatic Researches, vol. viii. p. 467. t ll>id., vo1- vii- P- 280' a 2 xii PREFACE. cussed this subject in detached essays, and not in a connected and systematic work. Since the publication, also, of the Gita, two English authors only, who have resided in India, have treated of the Hindu religion ; Major Moor, in his Hindu Pantheon, and Mr. Ward, in his View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindus. Of these works, the first, and particularly the plates, exhibit an excellent view of the external appearance of Hindu mythology, and such as conveys all the information on the subject which a person not interested in its fuller investigation can require : but there is too much justice in these remarks contained in the Edinburgh Review (vol. xvii. p. 314.) : — " Mr. Moor would certainly have produced an amusing and instructive work, if he had contented himself with subjoining to each engraving a concise account of the mythological adventures, or of the character represented; with an explanation ofthe instruments and emblems exhibited. But, not satisfied with this merit (which we should have prized highly), he has thought it necessary to fill nearty 450 pages with extracts from the Asiatic Researches, a work of various merit and unequal claims to confidence : here we have the accuracy and erudition of Mr. Colebrooke, mixed with the often fanciful, but always ingenious, conjectures of Major Wilford ; and the brilliant, but some times uncertain, speculations of Sir W. Jones." But it is scarcely possible to characterise Mr. Ward's work ; for it is true in substance, and yet, from its being saturated with the erroneous and prejudiced notions of the writer, it is calculated to convey a most distorted and fallacious representation of the Hindu philosophy and religion. For instance, the account of the Hindu duties contained in the first volume is quite accurate; but, by the introduction of the author's own remarks, and by his selection of such quotations only from Sanscrit works as tended to expose the abomi nation of idolatry, he has given a most inaccurate view of the general nature of this mythology. The mistakes, however, which he has committed in treating of the Hindu philosophy and theology, may perhaps be justly ascribed to his not being accustomed to meta physical research and disquisition. But, notwithstanding these defects PREFACE. xm this work contains so much valuable information, that it must be of the greatest utility to every Sanscrit scholar ; and it seems, therefore, not to have met on the Continent with that attention to which it is so deservedly entitled. It is, however, far from my intention to induce the reader to conclude, from these remarks, that all which has been published re specting the Hindu religion is erroneous. On the contrary, the accounts already given of its leading principles, and ofthe characters and actions of its deities, are in general sufficiently correct; nor could it well be otherwise, since the Hindu mythology is of too simple and obvious a nature, and too devoid of mysteries or symbols, to oppose any diffi culty to its accurate investigation. But it is to the conclusions which have been deduced from these circumstances, and to the systems which have been erected upon them, that I object. For the accounts hitherto published consist entirely of detached extracts and isolated particulars, the bearing of which to each other has never been explained by any competent authority ; and, consequently, every hypothesis formed from them must necessarily be erroneous, because it rests on an incom plete induction from well-established facts. This, however, seems to be considered of little consequence, for M. Guigniaut has actually observed :' — " Nous avons fait et nous avons du, dans notre dessein, faire un emploi beaucoup plus etendu des ouvrages Allemands que des ouvrages Anglais, pour notre travail sur la religion de 1' Inde. Ces derniers sont cependant d'une haute importance, bien que composes la plupart dans un point de vue etroit et dansun esprit peu philosophique- La route tracee par W. Jones, par Robertson, par le savant Maurice, a ete abandonnee de bonne heure en Angleterre." * That is, in plain English, that hypothesis is preferable to fact. But I may presume that every person, who wishes to obtain information with respect to the religious opinions entertained by the Hindus, will be inclined to place greater confidence in the accounts given of them on the autho rity of well-informed natives and of Sanscrit works, than upon the speculations of even ingenious and learned men, who are personally * Religions de l'Antiquite, torn. i. p. 598. note. xiv PREFACE. unacquainted with India, and with the Sanscrit language and liter ature. In that part, therefore, of these Researches which relates to the Hindu religion, my remarks, however much they may differ from the opinions of former writers, rest almost entirely on the authority of Sanscrit works, particularly the Upanishads, the Purans, the Ramayan, and the Mahabharat ; and the few instances in which I have availed myself of oral information, are distinctly pointed out. I have neither proposed nor attempted to support any hypothesis on this subject ; and I have adduced, I believe, such a number of quotations from the Upanishads and Purans, as will render the correctness of my state ments unquestionable. These quotations, also, are faithfully * trans lated, and the reader is thus presented with the ipsissima verba, which are not only employed in the discussion of Hindu mythology and theology by Sanscrit writers, but even by every well-informed Hindu at the present day, and he is thus enabled to deduce from them his own conclusions. It may, however, be proper to observe that, if the translations from the Sanscrit of the numerous passages cited in the following pages be critically examined, it is requisite that the critic should recollect that Sanscrit manuscripts still remain in precisely the same state as that in which Greek and Latin manuscripts were found on the revival of letters ; and that, consequently, it is more than pro bable that what he may consider to be a mistranslation, an omission, or an interpolation, is merely a difference in the reading of the manu scripts which have been consulted. I must, likewise, request that Sanscrit words may be allowed to retain the signification which is given to them in this country, for in the Radices Sanscritse of M. Rosen, under the root SWl, I observe this strange explanation of this verb when compounded with the preposition RfcT " incedere, calcare : 3minT3ircT^K-q- ST^fS: mrffrfScf: Lapis quoque adipiscitur * By faithfully, however, I do not intend a perfectly literal translation ; for my object has been to convey the sense, and not the verbal meaning, of the original, which I have sometimes compressed very considerably, in order to avoid the repetitions which so frequently occur in Sanscrit works of a religious character. But I have inserted nothing extraneous, and all that is given as translated is actually contained in the original. PREFACE. xv divinitatem, a religiosis hominibus bene calcatus." And in a note, " Sic transtuli, jubente Boppio, originariam retinens vocis significationem. Wilkinsius : Even a stone, when set up and consecrated by the great, attaineth divinity. Jonesius : The stone, when consecrated by holy men, acquires divine honour. Ultimse interpretationis patrocinium nuper suscepit Bohlenius ; cui praeterea Wilsonus adstipulatur, radici nostras significationem tribuens ; to be erected for holy purposes, to be con secrated." But I can assure M. Bopp and M. Rosen that in India, as in all other countries, the being trampled upon is considered to be a mark of disrespect, and not respect ; and that, consequently, no stone could there acquire divinity (!) by being bene calcatus. * With respect to the reception which the present work may meet with, any remark seems unnecessary : for I may presume, that, if it at all tends to illustrate the subject discussed in it, its imperfections will be overlooked ; and that correctness or elegance of composition will not be expected from one who left school before he was sixteen years of age, and who has had since but few opportunities of reme dying a defective education. But I may be permitted to advert to a circumstance, which, though entirely of a personal nature, will in a great measure account for that indifference to literary pursuits with which the English residents in India are not unfrequently reproached. The late governor of Bombay, appreciating the zeal with which I had devoted myself to the study of Oriental languages and literature from my first arrival in this country, conferred upon me a civil situ ation f ; and that I was not altogether undeserving of the patronage of Mr. Elphinstone, is perhaps sufficiently evinced by my papers in the Transactions of the Bombay Literary Society, by my former work, and by the present one ; but, some months after he had resigned the government, I was deprived of this situation ; and, that such was the order of the Court of Directors, was the only reason officially assigned * This verse, also, ^HT^lf^ ^T^cfT ^ f |^^ W^ ^JTHJ* rj^ 5J7frr^"fWTr^frf 2JT must, according to this singular interpretation, be thus translated : Were one's sins as numerous as the hairs of his body, they 'would be all expiated by trampling upon a lingam. The absurdity of which must be too evident to require remark, f Maratha and Guzrati Translator ofthe Regulations of Government. xvi PREFACE. to me for its abolition. * The late Dr. Leyden, however, has very justly observed, in a letter to one of his correspondents, — <" You know, when I left Scotland, I had determined, at all events, to become a furious Orientalist, nemini secundus; but I was not aware of the diffi culty. I found the expense of native teachers would prove almost insurmountable to a mere assistant-surgeon, whose pay is seldom equal to his absolutely necessary expenses ; and, besides that, it was necessary to form a library of MSS. at a most terrible expense, in every language to which I should apply, if I intended to proceed beyond a mere smattering." f These difficulties, resulting from the res angusta domi, must be experienced by every military man in this country who under takes such pursuits, and by them have I too frequently found the researches which I contemplated impeded and obstructed. But the civil appointment, which I obtained in February 1822, relieved me from such embarrassments ; and that I did not omit to avail myself of the facilities which it afforded, is perhaps attested by the compilation of a Maratha Dictionary ; the revision, or rather composition, of a Maratha and Hindustani Grammar ; and the acquisition of a com petent knowledge of the Sanscrit language. Its abolition, however, has deprived me of these advantages ; and necessarily compels me, though I have finished this work, as I was then engaged in it, to relinquish a favourite pursuit, and to leave the antiquities, literature, philosophy, and religion of India to be in future illustrated by those whose constitutions have not been affected by a twenty-nine years' residence in this country, nor their minds depressed, and literary ardour abated, by disappointment and discouragement. * I have, however, understood that it was abolished in consequence of economical retrenchments. But the expense incurred by this situation was only 900/. per annum; and consequently, as its duties must still be performed in some manner or other, the saving effected was a mere trifle to government, though of much consequence to me. f Dr. Leyden's Life, in Scott's Miscellaneous Works, vol. iv. p. 201. Bombay, March 1. 1829. %* In the following pages, in the Sanscrit proper names and words written in the Roman character, the diphthongs and vowels are to be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English, with the exception of g, which is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. As a uniform mode of writing, in Roman characters, Sanscrit neuter nouns, which end in the singular in am and in the plural in ani, has not been yet adopted, it may also be proper to observe that I have in general omitted the final syllable ofthe singular, and that I have therefore written, for instance, puran, and not purana, which is incorrect, nor puranam, which would be in conformity to the Sanscrit. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Page On the Origin of Idolatry - .... ] CHAPTER II. The Mythology of Egypt ... - - 24 CHAPTER III. The Mythology of Asia Minor, Greece, Etruria, and Latium - - - 57 CHAPTER IV. The Mythology of Thracia, Germany, and Scandinavia - - - 91 CHAPTER V. On the Authenticity and Antiquity of the Sacred Books of the Hindus - - 122 CHAPTER VI. General Remarks on the Hindu Religion - - - - - 165 CHAPTER VII. The Supreme Being. — The Theogony - - - - - 195 CHAPTER VIII. The Cosmogony - - - - - - -214 CHAPTER IX. Vishnu. — Buddha - - - - - - - 240 CHAPTER X. Brahma. — Further Remarks on the Hindu Religion - - - - 270 - 291 CHAPTER XI. Shiva - CHAPTER XII. Sarasvati — Savitri — Gayatri — Lakshmi - - 317 xx CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. Page Parvati, or Devi ------- 329 CHAPTER XIV. Surya (the Sun). — Ganesha ... - - . 344, CHAPTER XV. Indra, and the inferior Deities - _ 357 CHAPTER XVI. On the Affinity between Ancient and Hindu Mythology - - - 366 APPENDIX A. Remarks on the -Papers of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford contained in the Asiatic Researches - _ 405 APPENDIX B. The Legend of Divodasa and Buddha - 423 APPENDIX C. The Ten Avatars of Vishnu - - 4,32 The Narayana Upanishad _ . 4,4,2 APPENDIX D. Extracts illustrative of the Character of Shiva - - 4,4,3 The Rudra Upanishad - _ 44,0 ¦ The Ishwara Gita - .... 'The Legend of Jalandhara - 4,44 456 APPENDIX E. The Devi Upanishad _ . _ 40, APPENDIX F. The Ganapati Upanishad - 493 RESEARCHES INTO THE NATURE AND AFFINITY OF ANCIENT AND HINDU MYTHOLOGY. CHAPTER I. ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. Hume has remarked, that " it is a matter of fact incontestable, that about seventeen hundred years ago all mankind were polytheists. The doubtful or sceptical principles of a few philosophers, or the theism, and that not entirely pure, of one or two nations, form no objection worth regarding. Behold, then, the clear testimony of history : the farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find man kind plunged into polytheism ; no marks, no symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of the human race still present us with that system as the popular and established creed. The north, the south, the east, the west, give their unanimous testi mony to the same fact. What can be opposed to so full an evi dence ? " * But in opposition to this opinion it may be observed, that there are sufficient indications, both in tradition and history, to place it beyond a doubt, that all systems of religion were of a simpler and purer nature in their origin than in their subsequent progress; and * Hume's Essays, vol. ii. p. 408. B 2 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. that in all of them there are the evident traces of a primitive belief in the unity and omnipotence of one Supreme Being. * It is equally incontestable, that in all religious reformations the avowed object has been to remove all extraneous additions and innovations, and to restore the ancient faith to its pristine purity. Had, also, polytheism been the primitive religion of mankind, it would seem most probable that it would, under all changes, have pre served some unquestionable indications of its origin, which would have obviated every difference of opinion on the subject. But, on the con trary, all systems which have been proposed for the explanation of this point, are in the highest degree contradictory and unsatisfactory ; for they all rest, however they may differ in other respects, on a gratuitous assumption and a self-evident contradiction : because it is assumed that mankind remained without any knowledge of a Deity until they intuitively became acquainted with it ; or until some persons of influ ence arose and introduced amongst them the notion of divinity, and devised the adoration of one or more celestial and immortal beings. But, in the former of these cases, if such knowledge be intuitive, there can be no reason for delaying the necessary effect of this intuition, and for supposing that man remained for any period of time after his crea tion without some form of religion ; and, in the latter, in what manner did those, who first instructed mankind in the belief of God, them selves acquire the conviction of his existence and divine nature? Locke is of opinion, that " the existence of a God reason clearly makes » Cudworth remarks :— " And by this time we think it is sufficiently evident that the Pagans (at least after Christianity), though they asserted many gods, they calling all under standing beings superior to men by that name, yet they acknowledged one supreme, omni potent, and only unmade Deity. But because it is very possible that some may still suspect all this to have been nothing else but a refinement and interpolation of Paganism, after that Christianity had appeared upon the stage ; or a kind of mangonisation of it, to render it more vendible and plausible, the better able to defend itself and bear up against the assaults of Christianity, whilst, in the mean time, the genuine doctrine of the Pao-ans was far otherwise : although the contrary hereunto might sufficiently appear from what hath been already declared ; yet, however, for the fuller satisfaction ofthe more strongly prejudiced we shall, by an historical deduction, made from the most ancient time all along downwards' demonstrate that the doctrine ofthe greatest Pagan polytheists, as well before Christianity as after it, was always the same -that, besides their many gods, there was one supreme, omni potent, and only unmade God." — Intellectual System, book i. chap. 4. sect. 1 5, 1 6 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 3 known to us;"* and farther observes — " Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself ; though he has stamped no original characters on our minds wherein we may read his being ; yet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he hath not left him self without a witness, since we have sense, perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as we carry ourselves about us." But he admits, at the same time, that, " though this be the most obvious truth that reason discovers, and though its evidence be (if I mistake not) equal to mathematical certaint}r, yet it requires thought and attention, and the mind must apply itself to a regular deduction of it from some part of our intuitive knowledge, or else we shall be as uncertain and ignorant of this as of other propositions which are in themselves capable of clear demonstrations.''^ And, conse quently, it must be self-evident that it could not be by reason and deduction that the rude and uncivilised tribes, amongst whom such a belief has prevailed, could first acquire a knowledge ofthe existence of a God ; and that it is equally improbable that, in such a state of barba rism and ignorance, any individuals could have arisen who were capable of elaborating conceptions totally unknown to those with whom alone they were in the habit of associating. The deification, also, of any object necessarily presupposes some conception, however imperfect, of a Divine Being ; and the question, therefore, obviously regards not the object which may have been first selected for this purpose, but the manner in which such a conception could have originated. Yet all hypotheses respecting the origin of idolatry, except such as deduce it from the history of the Hebrews, overlook this essential question, and represent mankind as remaining for some time after their creation in a state of irreligion, until they were at length induced, by various considerations, to acknowledge the existence of a God. But, if all ideas originate from perception and reflection, it becomes impossible- to understand how man could ever form the slightest notion of spirit independent of matter ; or of self- existence, immutability, eternity, and the other attributes which are necessarily implied in the conception of a supreme and self-existent * Human Understanding, book iv. chap. 11. sect. 1. f Ibid., chap. 10. sect. 1. B 2 4 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. Being; because, arguing from his own formation, as Locke recom mends, or even from a contemplation of the universe, man must necessarily conclude that, admitting the existence of spirit, it cannot subsist unless united to matter ; and all that he beholds, as well as the ideas which arise in his own mind, convinces him that all which is must have had a beginning, that it is continually changing, and that it will at length cease to be. Whence, also, could man acquire, in this world of ignorance and misery, any conception of an all-good and an all-wise Being ? The most learned men have attempted to answer these objections, and to demonstrate the existence of God ; but the weakness of their arguments must be evident, from none of these alleged demon strations having ever been generally admitted, and the consequent endeavours of succeeding writers to render the requisite proof more clear and conclusive. * The hypotheses, therefore, respecting the commencement of ido latry all labour under the obvious defect of assigning inadequate reasons for its origin, or of merely describing the effects instead of explaining the cause which produced them. Eusebius, no doubt, is correct in ob- * Lucretius, however, in the following verses, seems to think that the origin of the belief in the existence of God, so universally prevalent amongst mankind, may be easily explained : Nunc quae causa deum per magnas numina genteis Pervolgarit, et ararum compleverit urbeis, * * * # # Non ita difficile 'st rationem reddere verbis. Quippe etenim jam turn divum mortalia ssecla Egregias animo facies vigilante videbant, Et magis in somnis mirando corporis auctu. Praeterea, cceli rationes ordine certo, * * * # * Et varia annorum cernebant tempora verti ; Non poterant quibus id fieret cognoscere causis : Ergo perfugium sibi habeba.nt omnia divis Tradere, et illorum nutu facere omnia flecti. In cceloque deum sedes, et templa locarunt, Per ccelum volvi quia sol et luna videntur. Lib. v. v. 1 160— 1 1 88. In another place he observes : Quippe ita formido mortaleis continet omneis, Quod multa in terris fieri, cceloque tuentur, Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre Possunt, ac fieri divino numine rentur. Lib. i. v. 152—155. ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 5 serving that " the first and most ancient of men neither constructed temples nor erected images, as they were unacquainted with painting, carving, and sculpture, and even architecture, as it might be easily proved. Nor was there amongst them the slightest memorial of those who were afterwards called gods and heroes ; neither of Jupiter, nor Saturn, nor Neptune, nor Apollo, nor Juno, nor Minerva, nor Bacchus, nor of those innumerable male and female deities, who were afterwards worshipped by the Greeks and Barbarians. Nor was there even a good or bad demon then acknowledged among mankind ; but the stars of heaven alone were considered and adored as gods."* For that the worship of the sun, the planets, and the elements, was the earliest form of idolatry, is sufficiently evident from the accounts of all ancient religions which, have been preserved : but the cause which led men to adopt this form still remains unexplained. These objections apply with peculiar force to the system which has received the approbation of the most eminent ancient and modern authors ; and which supposes that idolatry derived its origin from the deification of men, who had rendered themselves conspicuous by their actions and virtues, f L'Abbe Banier, indeed, judiciously concludes that some form of religion must have previously existed, for he remarks: — " Je scais que l'ordre queje viens de mettre dans le progres de l'idolatrie ne s'accorde pas avec Sanchoniathon, qui place Tapo- theose des hommes dans les premiers temps ; mais il y a beaucoup d'apparence qu'on ne se porta pas d'abord a cet exces de folie, et qu'on * Praeparatio Evangelica, lib. i. chap. 9. Eusebius had just before quoted these words of Plato in Cratylo : — (baivovrat /aoi ol wpcaroi rcov uv^pumcuv toov tap, tyjV 'EuWada., tovtov; povous Ssovc riyetoSat, ouo-irep vuv 7roAAoi tc/jv j3a.p§ctpcov, ri\tov, xut 0"eXrjvi)V, xai yrjv, xcci OKrrpa., xoli ovpctvov cn. T£ ouv opcovre; 7ravra aei iovtci lpoft.ta xtxi Ssovra, ccwo TauTtjf rr\c iputreca; tyj; tov Seiv, Seouj txvrov; e7rovO|U.ao"ai. It now appears that the nouns Sios, deus, and their adjectives S105, dims, are identical with the Sanscrit devah and diisoiah, derived from the root diiso, which, amongst other meanings, signifies to shine, to be splendid, to move, to go. f In Cicero's Treatise de Natura Deorum, the general admission in his time of this opinion is clearly demonstrated ; and I shall, therefore, merely quote the following passage towards the conclusion of the first book. " Quid ? qui aut fortes, aut claros, aut potentes viros tradunt post mortem ad deos pervenisse, eosque esse ipsos, quos nos colere, precari, venerarique soleamus, nonne expertes sunt religionum omnium ? quae ratio maxime tractata ab Euhemero est : quem noster et interpretatus et secutus est, praeter cseteros, Ennius. Ab Euhemero autem et mortes et sepulturae demonstrantur deorum." 6 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. adora les astres, et les differentes parties de l'univers, avant de rendre aucun culte a ses semblables." * But I cannot find, either in this author or in any other writer, the slightest evidence that the principal gods of the ancients were deified men ; and yet that, with respect to the Greeks, such an opinion was prevalent prior to the work of Euhemerus on this subject, seems evident from these words of He rodotus f in describing the religion ofthe Persians: — AyocXparx pev kcci vyjovg koli j3o[/,ovg oux bv vo[iu> iroiBvpBvovg ifyvetrQoti, ctXXct kui tokti Troieuiri JJLUI^IVIV iTTlQlQOVCTl' UC. fiBV SfjiOl &OXBEI OTI OVX UV^U7T0(pVBag BVOfJOKTKV TOVg BsOVg, KUTccTrep oi 'E/Wyvec, uvai.% It must, therefore, have originated during the four hundred years that elapsed between the times when Herodotus and Hesiod flourished, as not the slightest allusion to it occurs in the Theogony of the latter ; nor does it receive any support from these verses in the Epya *«; 'Hpspoci : — Aurap bitbi xev tovto yevog koctcx, ycttoc kcuXv^bv, Toi pev Sutpovsg ei aSscp Xeco xAitnaSa; avoiyovrcig xai Egav&ptmTtgoVTt ra Ssia, Xccp-n-pav Se toij Euvjjuvjpou tov Meo-osnov pevaxi-rjU-oij irappijaiav SiSov- tuc, be uuroc avnypatpa. trvvhig u-klo-tov xa. avv-xctpxTOV pvboXoyioLc, irao-av o.^oti)tcjl xaTacrxeSavyuo-i tujc o.xovpev*};, tov; vop.i£of/.ei/ooj Ssovc wavTctc bpuXooc Siaypa>v xui vavap-^wv xai (3oto~iJ\eu>v, wc Se -naXca yeyovoTcov, % Lib. i. chap. 131. § This passage is thus beautifully translated by Bryant, Anal. Ane. Myth., vol. iv. p. 210. " The immortals first a golden race produced : These lived when Saturn held the realms of heaven ; And pass'd their time like gods, without a care. No toil they knew, nor felt solicitude ; Not e'en the infirmities of age Soon as this race was sunk beneath the grave, Jove raised them to be demons ofthe air, Spirits benign, and guardians of mankind, Who sternly right maintain and sorely punish wrong." ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 7 For they merely intimate that this first race of men was raised to a certain degree of angelic power and dignity, but not that it was admitted to participate in the divine honours and attributes of the pre-existing gods. Nor does Homer appear to have been in any manner acquainted with this opinion*; and it may therefore be justly concluded, that it was altogether unknown to the earlier Greeks. If, however, this hypothesis has been admitted without sufficient proof, its general reception can afford no valid argument in its favour. Its groundlessness, also, is at once evinced by the equally general pre valence of the opinion which ascribed to Egypt the origin of the gods of Greece and Italy, and thus rendered it impossible that the human genealogies subsequently attributed to them could rest on any found ation whatever. For most writers appear to have acquiesced in the justness of this conclusion of Herodotus : — " The Egyptians first invented the names of the twelve gods, which the Greeks derived from them ; and they were also the first people who dedicated altars, images, and temples to the gods. " f But Eusebius has observed : — * As Homer mentions the mortal birth and subsequent apotheosis of Hercules and Bacchus, it must be evident that he could have no reason for refraining to ascribe a similar origin to the other gods, had such an opinion been prevalent in his time. But that even the deification of heroes by the Greeks had not then commenced, seems evident from his account ofthe Aioo-xovpoi, in the following verses: — Aoicu S" ov ivva.fj.ai iSeeiv xoo~\j.-i\Topz Xacav, Kao-Topa &' m-Koiafj.ov, xai itv% ayaftov TToXviivxza, A.VTOxao~iyvi)Tv>, too jxoi fj.ia yeiva-TO fj.-i\Ti\p. H ovy^ ko-7reo~$r\v Aaxsia.ifj.ovoc ef epaTsivt)c ; H Seupo [J.BV l-KOVTO vse, AvSpi xarafivi\Tw fj.iyb-nfj.evai, of pa raj^iara MijS' avTy (SpoTey; evvi); a-Koepyfj.evt\ etr], Kai itot' e-7t-ev%afj.evi\ ei-wi) fueTa -navi Seoio-iv, 'HSu yeXoirjo-aira, fiXofj.fx.eili); Af poiiTi], il; pa Seov; 0-vvefj.t^-e xaTaQvrjTyo-i yvvaij-iv, Kai ts xaTahi\rov; oieif Texov aiavaToiciv, il; ts $ea; o-vvefj.i%e xaTaforpoi; avSpw-xoi;. ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 19 characteristic attributes of divinity. The human figure, however, was not only the most familiar to the imaginations of men, but also the most perfect and dignified of which they could form any conception ; and hence, as immensity and infinity admitted not of worship and contemplation, they were led to concentre their ideas of godhead into some one defined and conceivable object. The investing, therefore, this object, under the firm belief that deity could assume whatever corporeal form it pleased, with, the human figure, must clearly be the only conclusion which could, under such circumstances, have presented itself to the human mind. It must also be evident, that in endeavour ing to obviate the difficulty of adoring a supreme but invisible Being, it never could have occurred to mankind to substitute in his place the equally abstract idea of unseen spirits presiding over the planets and elements. It was a sensible object that was required to excite and command the attention, and even the planet or element was of too vague and indistinct a nature to effect this purpose completely, until it was rendered perfectly defined and conceivable by attributing to it the form, the qualities, and the passions of man.* But since such diversity of opinion prevails with respect to the origin of idolatry, it may be presumed that an enquiry into the real principles of the Hindu religion cannot fail of exciting considerable interest. For it seems highly probable that this system has continued unchanged for a period of nearly three thousand years, and it must, therefore, be excellently adapted for determining the manner in which mankind originally acquired their notions of religion, and of deciding the much agitated question whether monotheism or polytheism first prevailed. The result, however, of this investigation will, if I be not much mistaken, clearly evince that every hypothesis on this subject, hitherto proposed, is erroneous, and that these two systems were not * Gibbon justly remarks: — "The idea of pure and absolute spirit is a refinement of modern philosophy; the incorporeal essence, ascribed by the ancients to human souls, celestial beings, and even the deity himself, does not exclude the notion of extended space ; and their imagination was satisfied with a subtle nature of air, or fire, or aether incom parably more perfect than the grossness of the material world. If we define the place, we must describe the figure, of the deity. Our experience, perhaps our vanity, represents the powers of reason and virtue under a human form." — Decline and Fall, &c, vol. viii. p. 268. D 2 20 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. only coeval in origin, but that they have also coexisted from the first creation of man until the present day. Such, at least, is the conclusion which irresistibly presents itself from a consideration of the Hindu religion : because it represents the one self-existent and supreme Being as producing ex nihilo* the elementary atoms of this universe, and then originating from his own essence in an ineffable manner three hypostases for the purpose of creating or rather arranging and orga nising, of preserving, and of destroying it -f ; and after having thus given the first impulse to creation, and having impressed upon this system certain laws from which it never will deviate until its final dissolution, after it has endured for an inconceivable period of time, withdrawing himself from all further care of his work, and returning to that state of quiescence in which divine happiness is supposed to consist. Omnis enim per se divum natura necesse 'st Immortali sevo summa cum pace fruatur, Semota ab nostris rebus, sejunctaque longe ; Nam privata dolore omni, privata perielis, Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri, Nee bene promeritis capiLur, nee tangitur ira. X Amongst the Hindus, therefore, the Supreme Being never became the object of external worship, but his existence was most carefully * The words invariably used on the occasion clearly describe a creation ex nihilo : but, even in the Vedas, the Hindus are decidedly pantheists, as will be fully explained in Chapter VI. Has this difference, therefore, originated in the imperfection of language, or did the ancestors of the authors of the Vedas distinguish the efficient Cause from the universe which he has formed ? f This tenet is such an essential principle of the Hindu religion, that it must have been coeval with its very origin. Yet it is so difficult to understand how this singular opinion could possibly have originated in the human mind, that it also might be with the greatest probability ascribed to an immediate revelation from God, of a much more explicit nature than the word Elohim, which has given rise to so much discussion. Cudworth also remarks : — " Now since it cannot well be conceived, how such a trinity of divine hypostases should be first discovered merely by human wit and reason, though there be nothing in it (if rightly understood) that is repugnant to reason : and since there are in the ancient writings of the Old Testament certain significations of a plurality in the Deity, or of more than one hypostasis, we may reasonably conclude that which Proclus asserteth of this trinity, as it was contained in the Chaldean oracles, to be true, that it was at first Sso-jtapaioTo; SeoXoyia, a theology of divine tradition or revelation, viz. among the Hebrews first, and from them afterwards communicated to the Egyptians and other nations." — Intellectual System, book i. chap. iv. sect. 36. X Lucretius de Rerum Natura, lib. i. v. 57 — 62. ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 21 inculcated, and Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were invariably represented as entirely dependent upon him, and equally subject to production and final dissolution as the meanest atom. The highest act of devotion, also, has immemorially been considered to be internal contemplation on the Supreme Being, with a mind completely abstracted from all other objects, and the ultimate state of beatitude to be identification with his divine essence. It will hence be evident that the belief in one sole God must have been by these means as effectually preserved as if temples and altars had been erected for his adoration ; and that it must have made a much deeper impression on the minds of the Hindus, to whom it was, and still is, communicated as a sacred and mysterious truth essential for salvation, than ifit had been permitted to become a topic of customary and inconsiderate discussion. But, while this has always been unquestionably the esoteric doctrine ofthe Hindu religion, the exoteric has presented to the people, for their veneration and wor ship, an infinite number of angelic and divine beings. * On examining, however, this celestial hierarchy, which Mr. Ward has stated to consist of three hundred and thirty million gods\, it will be immediately observed that it remarkably confirms the origin which I have ascribed to idolatry. Because, amongst this multitude of im mortals, temples and images are erected and adoration addressed only to Vishnu and Shiva, the representatives of the Supreme Being ; the * It may be proper to observe, that I have no intention of exposing the total erro- neousness of almost every thing which has been hitherto written respecting the Hindu religion, as such a discussion would be long, tedious, and uninteresting. But I shall quote, in the course of this work, a sufficient number of passages from the Upanishads and Purans, to place it beyond a doubt, that the view which I have taken of it, is in strict conformity to the opinion which the Hindus themselves have invariably entertained on the subject. I cannot, however, avoid observing that Mr. Faber is the author who has most grossly misrepresented and perverted the accounts of it hitherto published, for the purpose of supporting a hypothesis the most absurd and untenable that ever was imagined. For the errors of Professors Goerres and Creuzer seem evidently to have proceeded from their following such very inadequate guides as Bartholomaeus, Polier, and Wilford, and from that indulgence in aerial speculation to which the learned men of Germany seem so much addicted. f Mr. Ward in several places of his work repeats this number, with the evident intention of throwing ridicule on the Hindu religion; but he knew perfectly well that for this purpose he was availing himself of the equivocal meaning of the Sanscrit word deva, which signifies both a god and an angel. 22 ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. sun ; the moon ; Indra, the deified impersonification of the heaven ; Agni, of fire; Vaiu, of air; Varuna, of water; and Bhumi, the o-oddess ofthe earth; the other planets also receive a certain degree of veneration. To these deities have been only added a god, who is the causer of death and the judge of the dead ; Ganisha, the remover of difficulties * ; Skanda, the generalissimo ofthe celestial armies ; and Kama, god of love. The others are merely angels who are honoured with no worship, but are considered to be merely distinguished by their immortality, and their enjoying uninterrupted happiness in para dise. In this system, consequently, there is not the slightest appear ance of deified men ; or of the earlier distinguished characters of the Hebrew history ; or of the sun's progress through the twelve signs of the zodiac ; or of heaven having been indebted for its inhabitants to either symbols or allegories. The doctrine, also, ofthe two principles of good and evil is equally foreign to this religion ; for evil is supposed to be an inherent property in matter, or in that illusion which assumes its appearance, inseparable from its existence even by the Supreme Being himself; but it is at the same time held that man is endowed with the capability of liberating himself from it, and of obtaining, by identification with the divine essence, the cessation of all worldly misery. The extreme simplicity, therefore, of this system of polytheism, and its perfect consonancy with the principles which would lead man kind to their selection of sensible objects as media to facilitate devotion to an invisible God, must be hence obvious. In which case it will scarcely be denied that it affords strong presumptions, that the reli gions of all ancient people must in their origin have been equally simple and unsophisticated ; and that a consideration of the Hindu religion may greatly assist in elucidating many a dubious point which occurs in ancient authors. But, before it can be employed for this purpose, it seems evidently indispensable to ascertain in the first place the precise nature of the information which has been preserved respecting the different mythologies of antiquity ; and to extricate the subject from that mass of extraneous erudition under which it has been * I have never, in any Sanscrit work, found him characterised as the god of wisdom. ON THE ORIGIN OF IDOLATRY. 23 so completely buried by many an ingenious and learned writer. This difficult task I have attempted to execute in the following three chapters ; and though I can hardly flatter myself that I have altogether succeeded, it may be found that I have, at least, carefully collected together all the authorities, from which a just conclusion on the sub ject, according to the principles of historical evidence, can be deduced, and that I have thus enabled the reader to form his own judgment on the observations with which I have presented him. 24 CHAP. II. THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. I he slightest consideration of the Egyptian religion at once evinces the extreme difficulty that there must exist in forming any correct opinion respecting it. For the earliest ancient historian now extant has made this formal declaration : — " But such accounts of divine mat ters as I have heard, except the mere names of the gods, I am unwilling to disclose, and shall, therefore, refrain from touching upon this subject, unless when my narrative renders it indispensable ; " * and, in consequence, he mentions in more than one place of his history that religious scruples prevented his fully explaining the circumstances to which he adverts. The only other historian, anterior to the birth of Christ, who has treated at any length of the Egyptian religion, and whose work has been partially preserved, is Diodorus Siculus ; but, from his having unfortunately adopted the system of Euhemerus, his account of it becomes extremely questionable."}" With regard, also, to the writers who flourished after the birth of Christ, Mr. Payne Knight has observed : " As early as the second century of Christianity, we find that an entirely new system had been adopted by the Egyptian priest hood, partly drawn from the writings of Plato and other Greek and Oriental sophists, and partly invented amongst themselves. This they contrived to impose, in many instances, upon Plutarch, Apuleius, and * Ta fi.ev vuv 3eia tcuv a-n-f\y-t\fj.aTUJV ola yjxouov, ovx eifj.i •npobvfj.o; efciyyezo-bai, etjcu i) Ta ovvofj.ara avTwv fj.ovvov vofj.igcuv -navTa; avbpomov; iv irepi Ta Upa. — Lib. xvii. p. 806. X See Champollion, Systeme Hieroglyphique, p. 84. et seq. f and Salt's Essay on Hiero glyphics, p. 33. et seq. § Bib. Hist., lib. i. c. 25. E 26 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. fore, that is known with any degree of certainty, respecting this system of polytheism, is the names of the principal gods, and the figures by which they were represented ; but their origin, their actions, and the peculiar character of each have not yet been satisfactorily ascertained. But, if this be the case, it must necessarily follow that all the ex planations of it which have been hitherto proposed rest almost entirely on gratuitous assumptions, and are therefore entitled to very little credit. It is, indeed, probable that they may be all in some degree founded in truth, but they are much too complex and elaborate to admit of its being believed that the supposed form of idolatry could possibly have originated and prevailed amongst the Egyptians, when they were still a rude and uncivilised people ;. because it seems un questionable that, in the first ages of mankind, sensible objects may have given rise to metaphors and allegories, but perfectly inconceivable how allegories could have been then invented, or how they could ever produce a belief in the existence of a divine and invisible Being. Yet Plutarch, in his treatise de Iside et Osiride, gravely states as follows : — " There are persons who say that, in the same manner as among the Greeks Chronos is understood to signify time, Juno air, and the origin of Vulcan the change of air into fire ; so amongst the Egyptians the Nile is held to be Osiris, that embraces Isis or the earth, and Typhon to be the sea into which the Nile is drawn by different channels, and thus becomes divided into several parts and lost." In another place of the same treatise he adds : — " As Osiris is the Nile, so is Isis the earth, but not the whole earth, only the land which is fertilised by the Nile ; and from their union was produced Orus, or the conservative and nutritive atmosphere, who was said to have been brought up by Latona in the marshes near Butus, because moisture tends greatly to produce those exhalations by which heat and dryness are attempered. The margins, also, of the land in contact with the sea were called Nephthys, who was hence supposed to be married to Typhon. Whenever, there fore, the Nile overflowed and extended so far, Osiris was said to have intercourse with Nephthys ; and hence Isis bore Orus in a legitimate, but Nephthys Anubis in a clandestine, manner." It appears equally im probable that any system of polytheism could have originated in the THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 27 manner supposed by Jablonski, who has remarked : — " Osiridem intel- leximus Egyptiis significasse auctorem temporis, et temporum mode- ratorem, sive solem, qui permeando zodiacum, diversas temporum in anno vicissitudines producit, et tandem ad principium, unde digressus erat, redit. Quoniam vero unus Osiris, unus idemque sol, dum cursum annuum absolvit, turn diversas temporum vicissitudines efficit, eoque naturae rerum in mundo faciem toties vehementer immutat ; ideo so lem ipsum quoque, sive Osirin mutari, id est, pro diversis temporum vicissitudinibus, alium aliumque vultum habitumque induere, modo juvenem, modo virum robore florentem, modo senem, modo laetum alacremque, modo mcestum ac segnem, fingebant."* Jablonski, at the same time, admits what cannot be controverted, that, according to ancient authors, Isis was considered to be both the moon and the earth, in the same manner as Osiris was held to be both the Nile and the sun. f But even OZdipus himself would find it impossible to discover the slightest conceivable connection between two such completely opposite ideas. Learned men, may, indeed, attempt to reconcile them ; but the simple question is, whether, if they were proposed to a man living in the rude and uncultivated state in which the first men undoubtedly existed, he could possibly understand that the same object was actually the earth and the moon, or a river and the sun ; and if not, it is clear that such ideas could never have originated in his own mind. In all speculations, however, respecting the origin of idolatry, this essential consideration appears to be totally overlooked; and the writer, instead of ascribing it to modes of thinking obviously inherent in the human mind, or at least therein arising with out the assistance of civilisation, deduces it from a process of reasoning which is often puerile, sometimes subtle, and always inapplicable. But Cudworth has observed: — " Having now made it undeniably manifest that the Egyptians had an acknowledgment amongst them of * Pantheon Egyptiorum, vol. i. p. 157. Hence Jablonski's singular system which iden tifies the sun with Osiris, Horus, Harpocrates, Serapis, Ammon, and Hercules, at different periods of its progress through the zodiac ; but religion most assuredly preceded astronomy, and the existence of one or more Divine Beings was unquestionably the subject of popular belief long before the zodiac was invented. t Ibid., vol. ii. p. 17. E 2 28 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. one supreme, universal, and unmade Deity, we shall conclude this whole discourse with the two following observations : first, that a great part of the Egyptian polytheism was really nothing else but the worshipping of one and the same supreme God, under many different names and notions ; as of Hammon, Neith, Isis, Osiris, Serapis, Kneph; to which may be added Ptha, and those other names in Jamblichus, of Eicton and Emeph. And that the Pagans universally over the whole world did the like, was affirmed also by Apuleius in that fore-cited passage of his, Numen unicum, multiformi specie, ritu vario, nomine multijugo, totus veneratur orbis ; — ihe whole world worshippeth one only Supreme Numen in a multiform manner, under different names, and with different rites; which different names for one and the same Supreme God might therefore be mistaken by some of the sottish vulgar amongst the Pagans, as well as they have been by learned men of later times, for so many distinct unmade and self-existent deities." * A similar opinion is thus expressed by Sir William Jones : — ¦ " We must not be surprised at finding, on a close examination, that the characters of all the Pagan deities, male and female, melt into each other, and at last into one or two ; for it seems a well-founded opinion, that the whole crowd of gods and goddesses in ancient Rome, and modern Varanes (Benares), mean only the powers of Nature, and principally those of the sun, expressed in a variety of ways and by a multitude of fanciful names, "f But this opinion has evidently proceeded from not distinguishing between two circumstances of a perfectly different nature; for there can be no doubt but that the same God had various names, and that temples were erected, and divine rites addressed, to him in different places under some particular one only. But it appears equally un questionable, that his other names would at the same time continue to be celebrated in all prayers and hymns in which he was invoked ; for the hymns ascribed to Homer and Orpheus sufficiently attest the justness of this conclusion ; and Sir William Jones must have observed that, amongst the Hindus, the litanies and laudatory addresses to the gods consist of scarcely any other topic than a simple enu- Intellectual System, book i. chap. 4. sect. 18. f Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 273. THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 29 meration oftheir names and epithets.* It is not, however, improbable that in migrations from one country to another, the emigrants might gradually forget that the different names denoted only one and the same God ; and thus be led, as these names or rather epithets were no doubt significant, to consider them as distinct deities. But that such a consequence should ever result from this polyonomy in the country where the God had been uninterruptedly worshipped from remote antiquity, is not only improbable in itself, but clearly refuted by the evidence of the Hindu religion ; and therefore, before this alleged reason can be admitted as the cause whence idolatry originated amongst any people, it must necessarily be first proved that its religion was not indigenous, but that it had been introduced by foreign emigrants. Having premised these observations, I shall now proceed to col lect together such notices ofthe Egyptian mythology as are preserved in ancient authors ; but these are, unfortunately, much too unconnected and defective to afford any assistance in reducing it to a complete and regular system, or even in ascertaining the relation which the different deities bear to each other ; for the genealogy ascribed to Osiris, Horus, Typhon, Isis, and Nephthys must evidently depend upon the authen ticity of the fable relating to them, which appears so questionable as to deprive it of the requisite credit. Yet, notwithstanding the obscurity in which the subject is involved, it seems not improbable that the Egyptians at first acknowledged only one self-existent supreme Being, manifested in three divine hypostases; and that, as in other countries, when the worship of an invisible God became too abstract for an ignorant people, occupied in the daily concerns of life, their adoration was gradually directed to the sun, the * Sir W. Jones himself imitated this very form in the beautiful hymns to the Hindu deities which he subsequently composed ; and it is sufficiently conspicuous in the odes of Pindar, of which he was so great an admirer. Mr. Payne Knight, however, has observed in his Inquiry into the Symbolical Lan guage, &c, that the form of worshipping or glorifying the Deity by repeating adulatory titles was not in use in the Homeric times, though afterwards common. But are there any other poems of those times extant except the Iliad and Odyssey ? and if not, can any just conclu sion respecting the form of the hymns then in use be drawn from these works alone ? 30 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. planets, and the elements.* But, since it never seems to have been customary to represent the one Supreme Being by any kind of image, it would necessarily follow that the figures of Cneph, still existing in paintings and sculptures, cannot have been intended to represent him. There appears, however, to be no sufficient reason for rejecting the authority of Jamblichus on this point, who has thus written, according to the Books of Hermes: — "Before all existing things and their elements there was one God, anterior to the first [produced] God and Ruler, immovable, dwelling in the unity of his own sole-existent entity, affected by neither mental nor any other passion, the sole exemplar of deity originating from himself alone, essentially good, the first, the greatest, the fountain of all, and the base ofthe primary ideas of entities." f But it appears, also, that it was considered that this Supreme Being was not the actual creator of the universe, but that he had produced in some ineffable manner, from his own essence, a second divine power, by whom this great work was effected. With respect, however, to this last deity, there seems to have been some difference of opinion; for Jamblichus, after merely stating in one place that he manifested himself (9^X0,^1), adds in a following one: — " According to another arrangement, Hermes places the god Emeph as the ruler of the celestial gods, whom he describes as an intelligent * Banier remarks : — " Je suis tres persuade que l'idolatrie fut moins grossiere et moins charg e de ceremonies dans ses commencemens qu'elle ne fut dans la suite, et que le peuple dont je parle (les Egyptiens) n'admit d'abord qu'un petit nombre des dieux, c'est- a-dire, les astres et les elemens. Si nous en croyons meme Plutarque, il ne faut pas con- fondre avec le reste de l'Egypte les Thebains, dont la religion etait beaucoup plus pure que celle des autres Egyptiens. Les habitans de la Thebaide, dit cet auteur, suivant la correc tion de Vossius, sont exempts de ces superstitions, puisqu'ils ne reconnaissent aucun dieu mortel, liadmettant pour premier principe que le dieu Cneph, qui n'a point de commencement et qui n'est pas sujet a la mort." — La Mythologie, &c, torn. i. p. 456. f Jamblichus de Mysteriis, sect. viii. c. 2. The following passage, as translated by Cudworth, from the second chapter of the seventh section of this work is deserving of attention : — " That God, who is the cause of generation and the whole nature, and of all the powers in the elements themselves, is separate, exempt, elevated above, and expanded over, all the powers and elements in the world. For being above the world and transcending the same, immaterial and incorporeal, supernatural, unmade, indivisible, manifested wholly from himself and in himself, he ruleth over all things, and in himself containeth all things, and because he virtually comprehends all things, therefore does he impart and display the same from himself." THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 31 mind absorbed in its own contemplations. But anterior to this god he places one that is indivisible, whom he considers as the first occult power, and names Eicton ; and, as he is the first intellectual principle of intellect, he is worshipped only in silence."* The authenticity, however, as an ancient Egyptian dogma, of the following part of this passage seems more questionable ; as Jamblichus adds, that, besides these two gods, there is a third divine power, who, when he exerts his creative energy, is in consequence named in the Egyptian language Amoun ; when he displays his skill in perfecting and harmoniously arranging, he is named Ptha ; and when he dispenses blessings he is termed Osiris. " In this passage of Jamblichus, " observes Cudworth, " we have plainly three divine hypostases, or universal principles subordinate, according to the Hermaick theology : first, an indivisible unity, called Eicton ; secondly, a perfect mind converting its intellec tions into itself, called Emeph ; and thirdly, the immediate principle of generation, called by several names, according to its several powers, as Ptha, Ammon, Osiris, and the like : so that these three names with others, according to Jamblichus, did in the Egyptian theology signify one and the same divine hypostasis. How will these three divine hypo stases ofthe Egyptians agree with the Pythagoric or Platonic trinity of, first, to bv or Tolyocdov, unity and goodness itself; secondly, vovg, mind; and thirdly, ijw^ij, soul, I need not here declare. Only we shall call to mind what hath been already intimated, that that reason or wisdom which was the Demiurgus of the world, and is properly the second of the fore-mentioned hypostases, was called also amongst the Egyp tians by another name, Cneph ; from whom was said to have been produced or begotten the god Ptha, the third hypostasis of the Egyptian trinity ; so that Cneph and Emeph are all one. Wherefore, we have here plainly an Egyptian trinity of divine hypostases subordinate, Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Ptha."-)- The credit, however, due to this statement of Jamblichus may seem doubtful ; because, had such an opinion prevailed amongst the Egyp tians, it may be supposed that the three divine hypostases must have * Jamblichus de Mysteriis, sect. viii. cap. 3. f Intellectual System, booki. chap. 4. sect. 18. 32 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. been as obvious in their mythology as the Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto ofthe Greeks, or the Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva ofthe Hindus. But Cudworth remarks, that " since Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, who all of them asserted a trinity of divine hypostases, unquestionably derived much of their doctrine from the Egyptians, it may reasonably be suspected that these Egyptians did the like before them." It might, therefore, be no improbable supposition, that, previously to the time of Herodotus, the worship of some one of these manifestations of the Supreme Being under three distinct forms, might have acquired such a predominance in Egypt as to render the existence and peculiar attributes of the other two powers of too little importance to attract the attention of even an inquisitive traveller. Nor can it be denied, that the accounts of the Egyptian religion given by ancient writers are obviously much too defective to admit of their silence on any point being considered as even negative proof of the non-existence of the deity or the religious tenet that may be in question ; as it is clearly evinced by both Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus having omitted to mention Cneph, of whose existence as an Egyptian god there can be no doubt. It may, consequently, seem probable that the Egyptians did acknowledge that the Supreme Being had, for purposes connected with the creation and government of this universe, multiplied himself into three principal gods ; but the specification of Jamblichus and Cudworth must be incorrect, as it includes the sole self-existino- God, and therefore these hypostases must be sought for in some others of the Egyptian deities. Nor can I discover any authority for this assertion of Jablonski, and he himself does not produce any proof in support of it: — " Quam vis vero ex consensu veterum in Egypto philosophorum, Vulcanus, sive Pthas, deorum omnium esset supremus et maximus, cujusque imperio omnes, ipsique adeo reliqui dei obedirent ; labentibus tamen annis, honos ejus et cultus, ut videtur, frigescere ac etiam vilescere coepit."* On the contrary, all ancient writers identify this god with fre, and in consequence with Hephaistos or Vulcan, as Jablonski himself admits. * Pantheon Egypt, lib. i. c. 2. sect. 14. THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 83 But, if any credit is to be given to these authors, it must necessarily follow that, however vague and imperfect this identification may have been, it still must have rested on some grounds ; and that it is highly improbable, that either their observation or their comprehension of the information which they received should have been so extremely defective, as to lead them to suppose that the god worshipped by the Egyptians as either the Supreme Being, or as one of the three divine hypostases, could possibly be the same as the blacksmith of Lemnos. According, also, to both Eusebius and Jamblichus, Ptha was the thh'd and not the first divine power ; but even this opinion seems incon sistent with any character that can justly be ascribed to fire, either as the material fire which is adapted to the purposes of man, or as that ethereal color which pervades all nature. There seems, consequently, to be no sufficient reason for rejecting the interpretation of ancient writers, or for concluding that this god was other than a divine impersonification of fire ; in which case it will no doubt appear most unlikely that he should have been one of the hypostases of the Egyptian triad, as stated by Jamblichus. But this character seems more properly attributable to the Emeph of that author, who, as all writers concur in supposing, is the same as Cneph, Cnuph, or Chnuphis. This deity is thus described by Euse bius : — " The Creator, whom they name Cneph, the Egyptians represent under a human figure of a dark blue colour, holding a zone and a sceptre ; from whose mouth they say an egg proceeded, from which' was produced another god, whom they name Ptha, but the Greeks Vulcan. This egg they interpret to signify the universe."* Jablonski, however, contends that Cneph and Ptha were one and the same god, for he thus concludes his remarks on the subject :— " Egyptii eundem etiam vocare consueverunt Pthan, quod dicere possis dei hujus nomen proprium ; cui tamen adjunxerunt cognomen Cnuphis, ab immensa illius bonitate deduc- tum."-|" But he adduces no proof in support of this opinion, which is in evident contradiction to all that is contained respecting these two deities in ancient writers. Cneph, also, is not mentioned, at least * Eus. Praep. Evan., lib. iii. chap. 2. f Pantheon Egypt,, lib. iv. chap. 4. sect. 8. F 34 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. under this name, by either Herodotus or Diodorus Siculus ; but his existence as an ancient god of the Egyptians is sufficiently attested at this day, both by hieroglyphics and images exactly corresponding with those described by Eusebius.* Comparing together, therefore, the accounts of this god given by Jamblichus and Eusebius, it may be concluded, with much probability, that he is, in fact, the first divine hypostasis by whom this universe was actually created ; and that he ought, consequently, to find a distinguished place in the Egyptian triad. If, however, as Cudworth himself admits, Cneph be " that reason or wisdom which was the demiurgus of the world, and is properly the second of the forementioned hypostases," it must necessarily follow that the opinion of Jamblichus, as elsewhere adopted by Cudworth, that " the demiurgical intellect, and president of truth, as with wisdom it proceedeth to generation, and produceth into light the secret and invi sible powers of the hidden reasons, is according to the Egyptian language called Hammon," must be incorrect. But, from the Greeks having universally identified this deity with Jupiter, it will be evident that he must have been one of the principal gods of Egypt ; and per haps, therefore, his real character is accurately described in these words of Diodorus Siculus: — "The ether was distinguished in the Egyptian language by a term which, being interpreted, signifies Jupiter; and, as this is the vital principle of animated beings, he was supposed to be, as it were, the father of all : thus coinciding with the Greek poets, who describe Jupiter as the father of men and gods."\ -It seems obvious that Diodorus here alludes to the opinion which is thus expressed by Balbus, in the second book of Cicero's treatise de Natura Deorum: — "Sed ipse Jupiter, id est, juvans pater, quern conversis casi- bus appellamus a juvando Jovem, a poetis pater divumque hominumque dicitur : a majoribus autem nostris optimus, maximus ; et quidem ante optimus, id est, beneficentissimus, quam maximus, quia majus est, cer- teque gratius, prodesse omnibus, quam opes magnas habere Euripides autem, ut multa praeclare, sic hoc breviter, * Salt's Essay on Hieroglyphics, p. 34. f Bib. Hist., lib. i. chap. 12. THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 35 Vides sublime fusum, immoderatum sethera, Qui tenero terram circumjectu amplectitur : Hunc summum habeto divum : hunc perhibeto Jovem." Plutarch, also, in his treatise de Iside et Osiride, remarks, " Many are of opinion that the proper Egyptian name of Jupiter is Amoun (which we pronounce Ammon) ; and Man ethos, the Sebennite, thinks that this word signifies concealment, or that which is concealed. But Hecataeus, the Abderite, says that it is the term used by the Egyptians when they call to any one ; and on this account the first god, whom they consider to be invisible and concealed, they address and invoke by the name of Ammon, inviting him, as it were, to render himself manifest and visible." If, therefore, it be admitted, on the authority of Jamblichus, that this god was not, in fact, the Supreme Being, but one of the divine hypostases which had proceeded from him in some ineffable manner, and that Cneph was the creative power, it might be concluded, from the character attributed to him, that Ammon was the all-pervading and preservative energy ofthe one self-existent God. But it is much more difficult to form any reasonable opinion respecting Osiris ; for the whole fable concerning this god, Isis, Horus, Typhon, and Nephthys, is related by all writers as a mere historical occurrence, in which it is impossible to discover the slightest appear ance of that supernatural power, by which the legends of all countries are distinguished. But it is, at the same time, equally incontrovertible that these personages were worshipped as deities in Egypt. Can it, therefore, be supposed that the Egyptians differed so entirely from all other people as to acknowledge for gods mere mortals, with whose birth, life, and death they were well acquainted, without their having performed while on earth any act which demonstrated their divine origin ? The miraculous is undoubtedly indispensable for producing such a belief ; and as it is entirely wanting in this fable, it must be con cluded that the accounts given of it by ancient writers * have proceeded * It seems clearly to have been known to Herodotus, as appears from these words : Ajjtcu, eova-a tcuv oxtui Sewv tcdv irpwTWV yevofj.evwv, oixeovo~a Se ev ~Bovtoi -itoXi, \va Se oi to xpri vjepi faivofj-evo i were it not that to neither of these gods are ever ascribed any of the symbols or attributes of their reputed father, Shiva. If, however, Horus be really an ancient Egyptian word, it coincides singularly in the accu sative case Horum with Haram, a name of Shiva, or Harim, a name of Vishnu. * The Decline and Fall, &c, vol. v. p. 108. + Kai ti -irepi TavTaliaTpiSw, e%ov tov avTOV fj.eya.Xotaifj.ova vfJ.iv t-Kileii-ai, oo-ti; i)v; bv 8e xaT' e\\o-yi)V irpo; navTwv aeSao-fj.ov xaTi)^iwfj.evov axovofj.ev tolvtov ayeipo-noifiTov emetv eToXfj.yxa.ai \\jocmvtx. Tr\g Bs.Xcc7o--yig- that the Egyptians called the maritime parts of land, or such as border on the sea, Nephthus; which conjecture may be farther confirmed from what the same Plutarch elsewhere writes, that as Isis was the wife of Osiris, so the wife of Typhon was called Nephthus. From whence one might collect, that as Isis was taken sometimes for the earth, or the goddess presiding over it, so Nephthus was the goddess ofthe sea.":): But if Nephthys be not the same as Venus, it may not seem im probable that the Egyptian goddess intended by this appellation, not indeed the popular, but the celestial § Venus of the Greeks, may have been the wedded companion of the preservative power of the Egyptian * Pantheon Egypt., lib. i. cap. 1. sect. 15. \ The character of Night is well described in these verses of one of the hymns ascribed to Orpheus : — KAufli fj.axaipa $)ea, xvavavyt);, ao~TEpofeyyi);' 'Htru^ij) yaipowa xai r\pEfJ.ir\ -KoXvvnvw, Evfpoo-WY), Tep-nvf], fiXo-navvvye, fJ.t\Ti\p oveipwv' Arfiofj.epifj.v' ayaQr) te, itovwv ava-navo-iv eyovcra. X Intellectual System, booki. chap. 4. sect. 18. § In Platonis Convivio this passage occurs : — YIw; S'ou Suo ra Sea ; i) fuev ye -kov wpeoSvTepa, xai au.i]TWp, Ovpavov §vyuTi)p, yv Se Kai ovpaviav ETtovofJ.aZpft.ev- i) Se vewTEpa, Aio; xai Aiwvr);, i)v Se xav^pjov xaXovfuev. Pausanias, also, mentions the celestial Venus in several passages of his work, but such allusions are not sufficient to explain her real character. 54 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. triad. Her attributes, however, are not distinctly known ; and it is not, therefore, unlikely that they are too much restricted in the beautiful lines with which Lucretius commences his poem, and that they in reality bore much resemblance to the divine qualities ascribed to Lakshmi, the beloved wife of Vishnu, in the following passage of the Vishnu Puran*:— " Praise be to thee, O mother of all things, source of prosperity, dweller in the bosom of Vishnu ! Thou art the efficient cause of existence, the fiery power which purifies this world, the mani- fester of twilight, night, and day ! Thou art understanding, faith, and wisdom, the fount of learning, the giver of beatitude ; and by thee, O goddess, is this universe filled with various forms, beautiful and unbeau- tiful ! Deserted by thee the three worlds sink into annihilation, and supported by thee they enjoy prosperity ! Blessed by thy presence, men are rendered happy by wives, children, friends, houses, and riches ; by health, power, victory over enemies, and contentedness ! Thou, O be loved of Vishnu, art the mother of all creation, and thy fostering care pervadeth all things movable and immovable ; but without thy pre sence, nor wives, nor children, nor friends, nor riches, would gladden men ; nor animals, nor verdure, nor fertility adorn the earth. But what tongue, even ofthe most learned, can adequately eulogise thy wondrous and mysterious qualities ? " It will hence no doubt be admitted, that the goddess of prosperity and abundance, emphatically named the mother and the mother of the universe, is a most appropriate conjugal com panion for the preservative power of the Egyptian triad ; and that there is a sufficient resemblance between the Lakshmi of the Hindus and the celestial Venus of the Greeks, to render it not improbable that the Egyptian goddess, intended by the latter appellation, was actually distinguished by attributes similar to those which are at this day in India ascribed to the beloved and inseparable companion of Vishnu. * It is a laudatory address to her by Indra, and occurs towards the conclusion of the ninth chapter, first section ; in which also will be found at the commencement a description of Lakshmi, precisely similar to that of Gauri given in a preceding note ; which, to be per fectly applicable, merely requires the names of Vishnu and Lakshmi to be substituted for those of Shiva and Gauri. THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. 55 There still remain two Egyptian goddesses not yet adverted to, Bubastis or Diana, and Buto or Latona, who are noticed by ancient writers ; but, except this identification, nothing whatever is known respecting them. It would, therefore, be useless to enter into an ex amination of the different opinions of modern authors as to their attri butes and real character, as it would not lead to any rational conclusion on the subject. Such are the notices relating to the Egyptian religion which occur in ancient writers, and their total inadequacy to convey any complete and satisfactory knowledge of it must be self-evident. Arguing, how ever, from these imperfect indications, and from the principles in which polytheism most likely originated, it may not seem improbable that in its primitive state the Egyptian bore a strong resemblance to that form of idolatry which even at this day prevails in India. It cannot, therefore, be unreasonable to conclude that the Egyptians acknowledged one supreme self-existent Being ; and that this belief did not attract the attention of foreign enquirers, in consequence of its not being mani fested by the erection of temples and images or any other mode of external worship. That the Egyptians held that, in all operations connected with the creation and existence of this universe, the one God, being without form and quality, acted not directly, but through the intervention of three divine powers which had proceeded from his essence in an ineffable manner, and were named Cneph, Ammon, and Osiris. That under some notion of a union of the male and female principles being indispensable for producing action, the Egyptians had assigned, as conjugal companions to these gods, the goddesses Neith, Athar or Venus, and Isis. So far the conclusion may seem to rest on admissible grounds, but the slightest inspection of the plates of Denon's Voyage en Egypte, or even of the Mensis Isiaca, will at once evince that, were this conclusion even granted, it would be of scarcely any assistance in explaining the singularly complicated system of Egyptian polytheism. Must it not, therefore, be more conducive to the promotion of real knowledge to admit this ignorance unreservedly, than to construct hypotheses on mere gratuitous assumptions, for the purpose of elucidating that which is clearly unsusceptible of elucida- 56 THE MYTHOLOGY OF EGYPT. tion ? * Were these hypotheses, however, confined entirely to Egypt, they would be of little importance, but unfortunately they extend their influence to all subjects of antiquarian and historical research ; and thus materially contribute to impede the rectification of error, and to prevent just views being taken of the civilisation, religion, and history of the nations of antiquity. * Should it even be found possible to explain, by means of the phonetic system, hiero- glyphical inscriptions, it cannot be supposed that these contain any information which would tend to discover the hidden meaning, which is, no doubt, concealed under the positions and figures of the Egyptian deities, their symbols, head-dresses, and all the other accessaries by which they are invariably accompanied ; and, until this be ascertained, the Egyptian religion must evidently remain an enigma that admits not of solution. 57 CHAP. III. THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. It cannot be disputed that, according to the prevalent opinion of antiquity, Greece was indebted for the principal part of its religion to Egypt ; and, as far as I am aware, this opinion has been adopted by every modern writer who has touched upon this subject. To contro vert, therefore, an admitted fact may seem presumptuous, yet it may be allowable to examine the grounds on which its existence has been so universally assumed ; and, should these clearly appear to be insufficient, it must necessarily follow that the real origin of the Grecian system of polytheism has been hitherto misunderstood. Nor will it, perhaps, be denied, that, in historical researches, the only guide which can lead to the ascertainment of truth, is a strict application of those principles of evidence that induce men to give their assent to human testimony in the common affairs of life. For, in such researches, probability and certainty should be always clearly distinguished ; and, though the writer may present his inferences for the consideration of the reader, he ought not to ascribe to them that importance which belongs alone to circum stances supported by the requisite proof But it is too much the cus tom to found an elaborate system on authorities either questionable or inapplicable, or on conclusions deduced from a few isolated facts, too obviously tortured into a construction which was never intended by the author who may have mentioned them. On this occasion, however, the received opinion rests principally, if not entirely, on the testimony of a single witness contained in these often-quoted words of Herodotus : — " Almost all the names ofthe gods have come from Egypt into Greece : for, on enquiry, I have found that they were received from Barbarians, and I think principally from Egypt ; because, with the exception of those of Neptune, the Tynda- ridas, Juno, Vesta, Themis, the Graces, and the Nereids, the names of 58 THE MYTHOLOGY QF ASIA MINOR, all the other gods have been known in Egypt from time immemorial. I merely repeat what the Egyptians themselves say." * It must be here particularly recollected, that this opinion relates to an occurrence which, according to the received system of chronology, must have taken place about eleven hundred years previously to Herodotus's visiting Egypt ; and that it depends entirely on verbal information, wad on the resemblance, the particulars of which he does not explain, which Herodotus supposed to exist between certain deities of Egypt and Greece. But so obviously liable to error are such premises, that any conclusion deduced from them must be extremely questionable. If, also, the premises themselves be obviously inconsistent and inaccu rate, and the judgment of the writer be at the same time vacillating and illogical, what degree of credit can be due to any opinion which he may have formed ? But the numerous circumstances which so obviously invalidate this testimony seem to have been entirely disregarded, as not the slightest attempt has ever been made to reconcile it with the accounts given of the Grecian system of polytheism by other writers ; for Herodotus expressly excludes from the number of Egyptian deities Neptune and Juno, and he nowhere identifies any one of them with Pluto. It must, however, be evident that these three deities have formed, from the time of Homer and Hesiod, so essential and constituent a part of Gre cian mythology, that it is utterly improbable that they could have been introduced into it after its first establishment. Herodotus, at the same time, enters into no explanation of the causes that had occasioned the remarkable difference which is observable in the relative importance and dignity ascribed by him to the gods of Greece, and Egypt ; for he unequivocally admits that Isis and Osiris were the principal deities of the latter country, and yet he identifies them with Ceres and Dionusos, who most certainly never enjoyed that pre-eminence in * 2xs^ov Se xai itaVTa Ta ovvofj-ara twv Secov eg AtyinrTOU eXY)Xv&e e; ti)v 'EXXaSa. Sioti fj.evyup ex tcov (3ap§apwv rjxsi, -itvv§avoft.evo; oxitw supio-xw eov. Soxeco S' cov fnaXio-Ta an' Aiyv-mov a-iTiy^ai. oti yap Svj fj.i) Hocreilewvo;, xai Aiotrxovpwv, xai 'Hpy;, xai 'Iitthjc, xai ®efj.io;, xai XuptTW, xai t\t)pr)tdwv, tuiv aXXwv Sewv AiyvwTioio-i aiei xoTe Ta ovvofi-aTa eo~Ti ev t>) XMP]1- Xsyto It) Ta Xeyowi avToi AiyviTTioi. — Lib. ii. cap. 50. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 59 Greece.* The Egyptian gods, too, whom he assimilates to Pan, Dionusos, and Hercules, he describes as in every respect different from them ; and he affords his reader no means of judging whether his identification of certain Egyptian deities with Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Minerva, Venus, Latona, and Diana, is well founded or otherwise. There appears, also, to be the strongest evidence that the paintings and sculptures still extant in Egypt existed at the time when it was visited by Herodotus ; and it must hence necessarily follow, that not a single god of Egypt could, in outward appearance, have then borne the slightest resemblance to any god of Greece. The names, too, he admits, were different ; and, consequently, the grounds which led him to affirm that the deities of the two countries, with a few exceptions, were the same, must have rested on the knowledge which he possessed of his own religion, and on the information which he received concerning the origin, actions, and attributes of the Egyptian gods. Had he, there fore, stated the circumstances on which his opinion was founded, a judgment might be formed with respect to its justness ; but as he has carefully refrained from explaining the nature of the Egyptian religion, and even from describing the figures of the gods, and their remarkable symbols, nothing appears from which it can be reasonably concluded that this opinion, invalidated as it is by various considerations, is entitled to that implicit deference which it has so universally received.f But, even of his own religion, Herodotus clearly possessed no accurate knowledge ; and his account of it is so improbable and irra tional, as to destroy all confidence in his ability to draw a just con clusion from well-established premises. I must, therefore, be allowed, in order to place this point in its proper light, to quote a rather long passage from so well-known an author. — "The Pelasgi, as I heard at Dodona, at first, in worshipping the gods, sacrificed all things to them; but they did not distinguish any one of them by either name or * I mean, of course, in its popular and most ancient mythology; for the rank assigned to these deities in the mysteries is not sufficiently ascertained. f Josephus, also, has remarked: — MavsSwv S' >jv to ysvo; avi)p Aiyv-uTio;, ti); 'EXXrivixnc fj.n-eo-yrlxw; ita&eia;, w; SrjXoj eorr ytypafe yap 'EMaSi fwvri ty)v iraTpiov icrropiav, ex te tiov lepcuv, ch; ftjO-iv avTo;, fUETafpaca;, xai itoXXa tov 'HpoSorov eXey/ei tojv AiywTiaxcuv m' ayvoia; e-\iev- o-fj.evov. — Contra Apionem, lib. i. cap. 1 4. i 2 60 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, epithet, as they never had heard any. But they called them gods, on account of their harmoniously ordering and arranging all things.* After a long time, however, they became acquainted with the names of the gods which had come from Egypt, with the exception of that of Dionusos, which they learned much later ; and some time after they consulted the oracle at Dodona, respecting whether they should make use of the names introduced by the Barbarians, and the oracle advised them to adopt them. From that period the Pelasgi wor shipped the gods by these names, and from the Pelasgi the Hellenes received them. But whence each of these deities derived his origin, and whether they have all eternally existed, and what their particular forms may be, these are questions which remained unknown from ancient times even until yesterday, if I may so express myself; for Hesiod and Homer, who lived not more than four hundred years before me, were the first who composed a theogony for the Greeks, and ascribed to the gods distinct epithets, and dignities, and functions, and figures. The first part of what I have just mentioned is the result of information which I received from the priests of Dodona, the latter is my own opinion." -f It will be at once obvious, that the latter part of this passage is in consistent with the former ; for, if Homer and Hesiod were the persons who first gave a fixed form to the Grecian mythology, the account given to Herodotus by the priests of Dodona must be incorrect, because, as the mere names only of the gods were introduced from Egypt into Greece, it must follow that their attributes, characters, and relations to each other, must have been previously known to the inhabitants of the latter country. It does not appear, however, to have been observed, that, according to this account, the gods previously existed in Greece, and that it was their names only which were derived from Egypt ; and, consequently, the correctness of this last opinion depends simply on the probability or improbability of any people having ever worshipped a number of divine beings under the general term gods, Qeov; Se ->Tpoo-covofj.ao-av trfea; a%o tov toiovtov, oti xoo-fj.co SevTe; to. -rravTx trp-f)yu.tt.Ta xai ¦nao-a; vofj.a; eiypv. f Herod., lib. ii. cap. 52, 53. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LAT1UM. 61 without appropriating to each of them a distinct appellation. This cir cumstance Mr. Mitford thus ingeniously explains : — " Herodotus, after giving an account of the origin of the names of the principal Grecian divinities, proceeds to tell us that, being at Dodona, he was there assured (apparently by the priests of the faivfamed temple of Jupiter) that anciently the Pelasgian ancestors of the Grecian people sacrificed and prayed to gods to whom they gave no name or distinguishing appellation ; for, he adds, they had never heard of any : but they called them gods as the disposers and rulers of all things. It is hence evident that the Pelasgians can have acknowledged but one god ; for where many gods are believed, distinguishing appellations will and must be given ; but the unity of the deity precludes the necessity of names." * But the prevalence of idolatry, at the period here assumed, is too unquestionable a fact to admit of its being supposed that the Pelasgi were the only people then exempt from it ; and as most assuredly no instance can be adduced of gods having ever been worshipped undis tinguished by any names by which they might be invoked or even spoken of, it must necessarily follow that the information given to Herodotus by the priests of Dodona is undeserving of any attention whatever. Before, also, it can be received as an established fact that Greece was indebted to Egypt for the names of its gods, or for any part of its religion, it is indispensable to prove the particular manner in which this introduction was effected, and on this essential point all ancient authors are entirely silent. Modern writers, however, have, without any sufficient data, constructed various hypotheses for the explanation of this circumstance; but the general opinion respecting it seems to be accurately and concisely stated in these words of Mr. Mitford : — " It ap pears that, in a very remote period, some revolution in Egypt, whose early transactions are otherwise little known to us, compelled a large proportion ofthe inhabitants to seek foreign settlements. To this event Crete probably owed its early civilisation. Some ofthe best supported of ancient Grecian traditions relate the establishment of Egyptian colo- * History of Greece, vol. i. p. 70. 62 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, nies in Greece ; traditions so little accommodated to national prejudice, yet so very generally received, and so perfectly consonant to all known history, that for their most essential circumstances they seem unques tionable." * But I am not aware of a single writer who has stated in express terms that Egyptian colonies were established in Greece ; though from the following passages of Diodorus Siculus and Strabo such a conclusion might perhaps be admissible. For the former has observed : — " The Egyptians say, that after this many emigrations from Egypt to different parts of the world took place ; for Belus led a band of emigrants to Babylon ; . . . . and those who proceeded with Danaus occupied Argos, almost the most ancient city of Greece. Egyptian emigrants, also, founded the Colchic and Jewish nations." f And Strabo says, " Pelops led people from Phrygia into the country denominated from him Peloponnesus ; and also Danaus from Egypt." X But all preceding authors have distinctly intimated that Danaus arrived at Argos in a single ship : and that this was the generally received tradition seems evident from this entry in the Arundel marbles : " Ep. 9. A quo navis prima ex Egypto solvens in Graeciam appulit, et vocata est Pen- tecontorus, et Danai filias," &c. § ; and from Apollodorus likewise adopting it, as he states, " Egyptus had by many wives fifty sons, and Danaus fifty daughters. A disagreement subsequently taking place * History of Greece, vol. i. p. 20. In a note, Mr. Mitford, in support of this statement, refers generally to Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, iEschylus, and Euripides, but without citing any particular passages from their works. This mode of quotation is alone a strong presumption that these authors contain nothing which would establish the correctness of this opinion. A remarkable instance, also, ofthe mistakes into which prevention will lead an author, occurs in. this immediately following passage : — " Argos, according to all accounts, was an Egyptian colony ;" and in support of this statement is cited Thucyd. lib. i. cap. 3. But in this chapter neither Argos nor an Egyptian colony is mentioned, nor is there even the slightest allusion made to such a subject. f Oi Se ovv Aiyv%Tioi fa)V apXaiOTaTr,v (TX^ov twv wap' 'EXXy)tXwv efoo; ev tw Uovtw, xai to twv lovtaiwv ava peaov ApaSia; xai ^vpia;, oixktIi Tiva; bpfj.vfieVTa; -nap' eavTwv. — Lib. i. cap. 28. X IleXo-KO; fj.ev ex ti); 4>puyia; e-rrayofJ-evov Xaov ei5 xrjv a*' avTOV xX^eicrav UeXo-jovv^ov, Aavaov Se ef Aiywmov. — Lib. vii. p. 321. § Marmora Oxon., ed. Oxon. 1676. p. 160. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 63 between them, and Danaus fearing the sons of Egyptus, by the inspir ation of Minerva, prepared the first fifty-oared vessel, and embarking with his daughters fled from Egypt.'' * So far, also, is iEschylus from considering Danaus to be the leader of a colony, that he describes him as a suppliant; and his daughters, in the commencement of the tragedy ofthe Supplicants, thus express themselves : — " Protector of the suppliant ! gracious Jove ! Look with an eye of pity on this train, Which from the gentle depths of Nile have sped Their naval enterprise. Those sacred fields, That border on the Syrian wastes, we leave, Not by the voice of public justice doom'd For blood, but willing fugitives from youths Too near allied, whose impious love would raise Perforce the nuptial bed by us abhorr'd ; Sons of Egyptus they. Our father Danaus, On whose authority we build our counsels, And strengthen our abhorrence, plann'd these measures, And wrought us to this honourable toil, To wing our swift flight o'er the billowy main, And reach the shores of Argos." And in another place : — " The dashing oar, the swelling sail, That caught the favourable gale, Safe from the storm, nor I complain, Wafted our frail bark o'er the main." f * Apollodori Bib., lib. ii. cap. 1. f I have availed myself of Potter's translation. The last four verses, however, seem so strangely translated, that I add the original : — TIXaTa fj-ev ovv Xivopbafi); te Aofj.o;, aXa o-Tsywv, dopo; AXeifj.aTOV fj.' ene^e o~vv itvoaic- OuSe ft.Efj.foft.ai TeXeVTag. V. 133 — 136. It hence seems very improbable, that, in the following lines of Euripides, in Archelao (the only ones of this poet in which the name of Danaus occurs), the term wxio-e could have been intended to signify either the establishment of a colony, or the founding of a city : — Aavaoc, b mevTexovTa SuyaTepwv -jraTYjp, NeiAou Xi-iiwv xaXXio-TOV ex yaii); uScop" 'O; ex fueXaft-SpoTOio %Xi)povTai boa; Ai8i07riBo; yr);, Y)Vix' av Tax-t) %icov, Tefjpnnrov ovto; i)Xiov Si' a&epa" Exflwv e; Apyo; wxkt' \vaypv woXiv, YleXao-yiWTa; 8' wvofj.ao-ft.EVOv; to ispiv Aavaov; xaXEioSai vou.ov E&r)x' av' 'EXXafia. Eurip. Opera, ed. Musg. Lips. 1779, torn. ii. p. 428. 64 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, Mr. Mitford has farther stated: " With Ogyges, however, even rumour of events in Attica ceases till Cecrops became prince of the province, leading thither, according to the most received and probable accounts, a colony from Egypt." But for this assertion Mr. Mitford quotes no authority, nor can I discover any* ; and, on the contrary, Apollodorus affirms, Ks^po-^ auTG%(W, a-vpQveg £%&v (TUfAa avclpog kcu fyaxovTog, tu\v Attik-^v egxo-tXBVTB irpuTog. f According, also, to the received system of chronology, Cecrops flourished about the year 1556 B. C, and Danaus arrived in Greece in 1511 B. C. ; and it must, therefore, be evident, that any traditions relating to such remote times must be extremely dubious. But, comparing together all the indications of such events that occur in ancient writers, it cannot be denied, that the utmost which can be justly concluded from them is, that some distinguished foreigners, with a few followers, may have migrated into Greece, and as far as individual in fluence extended may have contributed to its civilisation $ ; but there is not the slightest proof that Egyptian colonies had formed any esta blishments in that country in the sixteenth century before the Christian era. The modus operandi being thus not only disproved, but it being established on the authority of Herodotus himself, that the gods existed in Greece previously to the introduction of their names § from Egypt, it * In Wesseling's edition, however, of Diodorus Siculus, this note occurs in torn. i. p. 33. : — "A Palmerii sententia nihil admodum recedit Jo. Marsham, Canon. Chron. p.l 1 1. : Tres, inquit, memorat Diodorus, Petem Menesthei patrem, Cecropem, et Erechtheum : desideratur Cecropis nomen ; locus enim mutilus est : sed res indicat, tov yap HeTi)v tov ntaTepa MeveoSeo; tov o-TpaTEvo-avTo; ei; Tpoiav * * (desunt nonnulla) * * favepw; AiyvitTiov wtap^avTa, TVXeiv va-Tepov Abypiyri voXneia; Te xai f3atriXeia;. difvi); S' uvtov yeyovoTo;. Ista in edilis male conjuncta sunt, Peteus enim Ornei filius, Erechthei regis uepos, ab JEgeo Athenis pulsus in Phocide consenuit : Cecrops autem et hfvt); et rex Athenarum. Cui et ego adstipulor," adds Wesseling. f Bib. lib. iii. c. 14. X For instance, the establishment of the Phoenician Cadmus at Thebes seems to have been a tradition so generally credited in antiquity, as to render it probable that this simple circumstance really occurred. But that he either led a colony there, or was despatched by his father in search ot his sister, who had been carried away by Jupiter in the form of a bull, are events which cannot certainly command belief. § But it is universally admitted by anc!ent writers themselves, and seems fully proved by modern researches, that the names of the Egyptian and Grecian deities are totally dissimilar. Even on this point, therefore, not the slightest credit is due to the information given by Herodotus. L'Abbe Foucher, however, makes these very singular remarks : — "II seroit a souhaiter qu'Herodote nous eut appris comment il avoit fait cette verification ; on voit, il GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 65 must necessarily follow, that there are no grounds whatever for suppos ing that the deities of Homer and Hesiod differed in any respect from those which had been adored in ancient times by the Pelasgi. But Eusebius has affirmed, that " the mythology of Greece consisted of nothing but excerptions and misconstructions of more ancient systems, as it was evinced not only by the opinions of the different historians whom he had cited, but by the very nature of the theology of the' Greeks ; since there was nothing whatever domestic in their accounts of the gods, as these were derived entirely from the fables of foreign nations." * No authority, however, quoted by Eusebius, justifies this unqualified conclusion ; nor has even Diodorus Siculus, on whom he principally relies, stated that Greece derived its religion from Egypt or from any other country. It is, at the same time, singular that, in ascribing this origin to Grecian mythology, Eusebius did not support his opinion by adducing instances of similarity or identity between it and other systems of polytheism. For it must be evident that the mere affirming that a certain god of one country was the same as a cer tain god of another country, conveys no information whatever ; and, on the contrary, in cases of such dissimilarity as exists between the names, figures, and symbols ofthe deities of Greece, Egypt, and Phoe nicia, this dissimilarity must be prima facie strong presumption that such affirmation is unfounded. Nothing, consequently, could satisfac torily establish the alleged identity, except sufficient proof that, not withstanding this external difference, there still was such a resemblance between the actions, attributes, and characters ofthe two deities com- est vrai, de la conformite entre les noms E'gyptiens et Grecs de quelques-unes de ces divinites. Pan est un nom qui peut-e"tre passe" sans alteration de l'E'gyptien dans le Grec : Hephaistos est probablement le dieu E'gyptien Pthas ; on donne les memes noms a Latone et a Hercule (Leto, H6rakles), soit qu'on en parle comme de divinites Greques ou comme de divinites E'gyptiennes ; mais quel rapport entre Amoun et Zeus, Osiris et Dionusos, Isis et Demeter, Horus et Apollon, Boubastis et Artemis, Taouth et Hermes ? II seroit neanmoins temeraire de donner un de?nenti a notre historien. QuoiquJil sut, aussi bien que nous, que ces noms de dieux n'avoient aucune ressemblance sensible, il ne laisse pas d 'assurer, apres un mur evamen, que les noms des dieux Strangers so/it venus aux Grecs plutot de VE'gypte que de toute autre nation" ! ! — Mejnoires de l'Acad. des Insc, torn, xxxiv. p. 481. * Praep. Evan., lib. ii. cap. 1. 66 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, pared together, as could leave no doubt but they were one and the same. With regard, however, to these essential circumstances, Eusebius in the Praeparatio Evangelica is totally silent, nor, judging from that work, does he appear to have possessed any accurate acquaintance with the religions of Egypt and Phoenicia ; and, consequently, his opinion rests on too insufficient grounds to admit of its being received as any evidence that the mythology of Greece was of a foreign, and not of a domestic, origin. Had not, however, almost all writers, ancient and modern, united in a general conspiracy to dispossess the Pelasgi of that pre-eminence amongst the people of antiquity, to which they are so justly entitled, no doubt respecting the real origin ofthe Grecian system of polytheism could ever have existed : for Mr. Mitford has stated with the greatest accuracy, that " among the uncertain traditions of various hordes, who in early times overran this country *, the Pelasgian name is eminent. The name may be traced back into Asia : it is found in the islands ; and the people who bore it appear to have spread far on the continent of Europe, since they are reckoned among the earliest inhabitants of Italy. It was very generally acknowledged, as the accurate and judicious Strabo assures us, that the Pelasgians were established all over Greece, and that they were the first people who became powerful there. Consonant to this, we find every mention of the Pelasgians by Herodotus and Thucydides ; from the former of whom we learn, that Pelasgia was once a general name for the country. But a passage of the poet iEschylus concerning this people, for its antiquity, evident honesty, its probability, and its consistency with all other remaining evidence of best authority, appears to deserve particular notice. The Pelasgian princes, he says, extended their dominion over all the north ern parts of Greece, together with Macedonia and Epirus, as far as the river Strymon eastward, and the sea beyond the Dodonean mountains westward." f Mr. Mitford farther states, that « it appears * To the expressions, however, hordes and overrunning the country I object ; as, even from Mr. Mitford's own showing, the Pelasgi could not have been a rude and barbarous people, nor the mere temporary occupants of Greece. f History of Greece, vol. i. p. 20. And yet Mr. Mitford maintains that the Greek nation derived its origin from a mixture of the Pelasgian, and possibly some other barbarous hordes, GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 67 from a strong concurrence of circumstances recorded by ancient writers, that the early inhabitants of Asia Minor, Thrace, and Greece were the same people. ... In the Grecian mythology we find continual references to Asiatic and Thracian stories ; and even in the heroic ages, which followed the mystic, the Greeks and Asiatics appear to have communicated as kindred people. Pelops, a fugitive Asiatic prince, acquired a kingdom by marriage in Peloponnesus ; and Bellero phon, a prince of Corinth, in the same manner acquired the kingdom of Lycia in Asia,, Herodotus remarks, that the Lydian laws and manners, even in his time, very nearly resembled the Grecian ; and the Lycians and Pamphylians were so evidently of the same race with the Greeks, that he supposed them to be emigrants from Crete, from Athens, and other parts of Greece. The inhabitants of Thrace are not distinguished by Homer for that peculiar barbarism which afterwards characterised them ; apparently they were upon a level nearly in civilisa tion with the other people around the iEgean." * Bishop Marsh, also, remarks, " By means of the data, collected in this chapter, we may trace the Pelasgi throughout the whole of Greece, and onward through Thrace to the Hellespont. The Greek writers, as we have seen, repre sent either Achaia or Arcadia as the original seat of the Pelasgi : whence they are supposed to have migrated to Thessaly, and from Thessaly to Thrace. The question how the Pelasgi came to be the first inhabitants of Peloponnesus was easily resolved by making them wuto- X^ovsg. But as we know that Europe was peopled from Asia, either the first settlers in Peloponnesus traversed the iEgean Sea, in which case Greece might have been peopled from south to north ; or the first migration from Asia Minor to Europe was across either the Hellespont with colonies from Phoenicia and Egypt ; that amidst continual migrations, expulsions, mix tures of various hordes, and revolutions of every kind, was formed the most perfect, copious, and harmonious language that ever existed ; and that, previously to Homer and Hesiod, the religious tenets of the Greeks were totally vague, floating about partially as they happened to arise, or to be imported by foreigners, particularly Egyptians. All which circumstances are clearly incompatible with the power and predominance which Mr. Mitford himself ascribes to the Pelasgi. * History of Greece, vol. i. p. 52, 53. K 2 68 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, or the Thracian Bosphorus, in which case Greece was peopled from north to south. Now it is infinitely more probable that the first settlers in Thrace should have crossed the Hellespont, where the land on one side is visible from the land on the other, and that Greece should have been peopled from Thrace, than that the first settlers in Greece should have come immediately across the iEgean Sea, and have consequently embarked in Asia, without knowing that an opposite coast was in exist ence. We may, therefore, fairly presume that Thrace was the first European settlement of the Pelasgi, and that they gradually spread themselves southward till they had occupied the whole of Greece. Indeed, Thrace was the original seat of Grecian song, and Grecian fable. Thamyris, who is said to have challenged the Muses, was a Thracian. So was Orpheus ; so was Musasus. And the mysteries of the Cabiri were celebrated in Samothrace, before the temple of Delphi existed." * But with these indisputable facts before them, it seems most surpris ing that any writers could have sought for the origin of the people, lan guage, and religion of Greece in any other country than Asia Minor. Still more singular, if possible, must it appear, that so able and learned a historian as Mr. Mitford should, after impartially stating these facts, still adhere to a preconceived opinion which they so evidently contro verted ; and that, instead of abandoning it, he should attempt to recon cile the manifest contradiction that existed between the obvious Asiatic and the supposed Egyptian origin of Grecian mythology, by conjectur-, ing that, among the early troubles of Egypt, some expelled nobles founded settlements for themselves and their followers of other classes, perhaps first in Asia Minor and Thrace, and afterward, as Danaus and Cecrops, in Greece.f No authority, of course, is quoted in support of the alleged establishment of Egyptian settlements in Asia Minor and Thrace, nor any circumstances adduced in order to render such a supposition either probable or even plausible. But Mr. Mitford seems to have enter- * Horae Pelasgicae, p. 12. To which very learned work, and, I maybe permitted to add, to my own work on the Affinity of Languages, I beg to refer for further illustration of this point. f History of Greece, vol. i. p. 73. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 69 tained most extraordinary opinions with respect to the early peopling ofthe world; for in another place he observes, " But we find strong reason to suppose that, in the early ages, the difference of language over Asia, Africa, and Europe, as far as their inhabitants of those ages are known to us, was but a difference of dialect ; and that the people of Greece, Phoenicia, and Egypt mutually understood each other." * Here clearly appears that singular prejudice in favour of Hebrew being the primitive language of mankind, which necessarily involves the con clusion that the world was peopled by the Hebrews, that has exerted such a pernicious influence over ancient history, and rendered the ascertainment of truth of far min«r importance than the compelling all events related by ancient writers to accord not only with the accounts contained in the Old Testament, but also with the inferences which have been deduced from them.f Chronology and history have been thus unnecessarily perverted under some mistaken notion that such perversion strengthened the evidences of the Christian religion ; and hence, in tracing the origin ofthe people, the languages, and religions of ancient nations, an importance is given to Phoenicia and Egypt, which rests on mere gratuitous assumptions unsupported by any proof whatever. | * History of Greece, vol. i. p. 93. f Bishop Stillingfleet, in Origines Sacrae, vol. i. p. 42., openly avows this system ; for he remarks : — " Far be it from me to derogate any thing even from profane histories, where they do not interfere with the sacred history of Scripture ; and it is certainly the best improvement of these to make them draw water to the sanctuary, and to serve as smaller stars to conduct us in our way, when we cannot enjoy the benefit of the greater light of sacred history." X- As an instance of the strange application to ancient history of the circumstances recorded in the Old Testament, I may here quote the following passages which occur in a Memoire of M. Gibert read at the Academie des Inscriptions on the 16th of January, 1753 ; but several late works prove that the same system has still many advocates : — " Je ne crois done pas qu'on puisse raisonnablement refuser de reconnoitre que le Japet aieul de Deucalion est Japhet fils de Noe". Or il s'ensuivra de la necessairement qu'Ocean, frere de Japet et auteur des Inachides, etoit un des freres de Japhet, soit Sem, soit Cham. ... On sent aisement que l'origine des Pelasges, qui reconnoissoient les Inachides pour leurs auteurs et leurs chefs, doit etre la meme que celle des Inachides, puisqu'il est naturel que des colonies, que les Inachides amenerent avec eux, et avec lesquelles iis s'etablirent et se maintinrent au milieu des sauvages de la Grece, fussent tirees de meme pays d'ou iis sortoient. Les Pelasges etoient done, comme eux, Syriens, ou Pheniciens, ou E'gyptiens." — Tom. xxv. p. 5—6. 70 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, It must, at the same time, be admitted, that the disappearance, in ancient history, of the Pelasgi, as a distinct people, is a most unaccount able circumstance. But no writer, I believe, has ever ventured to assert that it was occasioned by their being expelled from Greece or exterminated by foreign colonists, or incorporated with them ; and the common opinion ascribes it, though evidently erroneously, to some internal occurrences in Greece itself. Their existence, however, their power and predominance, are most fully attested by ancient writers ; and had, consequently, their extinction been effected by violent means, it must have produced such a revolution that it is impossible to sup pose that all memory of it could have become so obliterated as not to retain a place in ancient tradition. It must seem, therefore, most pro bable that the name alone became, in some manner, superseded, and that the Pelasgi still continued, under some other appellation, to form the principal part of the Grecian people. It is at least evident, that in no ancient writer is there any explicit account of colonists having arrived in Greece * after it had been occupied by the Pelasgi, nor of any events which could possibly have subverted their dominion. But ifit be admitted, on the authority of iEschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Strabo, that the Pelasgi once held the whole of Greece, it cannot seem an improbable supposition that this country may have, at one time, formed but a single kingdomf, and that it subsequently became, * I have before quoted, from Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, the only two passages that can bear such a construction, which I can discover. But the first of these passages depends merely on the assertion of the Egyptians, and, being unsupported by any proof, cannot be considered as deserving of the slightest credit ; and with regard to the other, the term Xaov, used by Strabo, is too indefinite and equivocal to admit of its being understood to signify a colony. f This is affirmed by iEschylus in these verses : — Tov yrjyevov; yap eifj.' eyw UaXaix$ovo; \vi; YleXao-yo;, tyj; Se yt); apXr)ysTY);. Eft.ov S' avaxTo; evXoyw; sirwvvft.ov Tevo; YleXao-ywv Ti)V Se xapwovTai yftova' Kai irao-av aiav, r<; Si' AXyo; epysTai, ATpvfj.wv Te, -wpo; Zvvovto; rjAiou xpaTW. 'Opityft-at Se Ti)v Te YleppatSwv x®ovtx> TiivOov ts Ta-Kexeiva, Tlaiovwv wsXa;, Opr) te Awlovaia- ^, EpeSof tb fjLBXuv tt^utov, x.ai Taprapof Bvpvg' V-y; o, ovS' aya, ouJ' ovpuvog y\v' EpsScu? a bv a7tB^ocn y.oXirotg Tl'iTSI TT^UTIO'TOV VnVjVBjUWV Nu,? JJ piXoLVOTTTB^Og uov, Eg ov 7TtptT£XXof/,t:V0iig upc&ig bQ,Xoco~tbv Epw? o 7ro9eivog, £tiX£mv vutcv 7TT£pvyoiv x^vcrociv, inccog ocvB^utiBtrt oivocig. in Cedrenus and Eusebii Chronica, and imperfectly set down by Suidas (upon the word Orpheus) as his own, or without mentioning the author's name: — E£ apxi); aveSeip^fljj tco xoo-fj.w b atQrjp, biro tov Seov $r)fj.iovpyr)(lei;. First of all the Ether was made by God, and after the Ether a Chaos ; a dark and dreadful night then covering all under the whole Ether. %r)fj.aivt»v Tt)v vvxTa -npoTepsvEiv. Orpheus hereby signifying, saith Timotheus, that night was senior to day, or that the world had a beginning. Eipi)xw; ev t>] avrov ex8eo~ei, axaTaX-iymov Tiva xai -xav-iwv v-xepTaTov eivai, 7rpoyEveo~Tepov Te xai dyft-iovpyov amaVTWV, xai aVTOv tov aiQepo;, xai -naVTwv vtt' avTov tov aiSepa. He having declared, also, in his explication, that there was a certain incom prehensible Being, which was the highest and oldest of all things, and the maker of every thine, even of the Ether itself, and of all things under the Ether. But the earth being then invisible by reason of the darkness, a light breaking out through the Ether, illuminated the whole creation. This light being said by him to be that highest of all Beings (before mentioned), which is called also counsel and life. TavTa Ta Tpta ovofj.aTa (to use Suidas his words here) fJ.iav tvvap.iv a-jrefr)vaT0, xai ev xpaTo; tov hi)u.iovpyov -waVTWv Seov, tov waVTa ex tov a» ovto; -jrapayayovTo; ei; to eivai. These three names in Orpheus (light, counsel, and life) declaring one and the same force and power of that God, who is the maker of all, and who produceth all things out of nothing into being, whether visible or invisible. To conclude with Timotheus, 'O Se avTO; Opfev; ev tyj aVTOv /3i§Aai crvVETal-sv, oti Sia twv aVTWV Tpiwv ovou.aTWV u.ia; Seotyjto;, Ta -uaVTa eyeveTo, xai Avto; eari ra -navTa. And the same Orpheus in his book declared, that all things were made by one Godhead in three names, and that this God is all things. — Intellectual System, book i. chap. 4. sect. 17. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 81 OvTog de XctBt tttb^osvti fUtysig vvx'oj, kxtx ToiQTotoov svpvv, EvBOTTtvcnv yBvog TjfA.BTifiOv, Kai tt^utov av^yocyBU eg (bug. TIpoTBfov o ouk vjv yBvog otdoivxT&iv, tt^v Epug £weu,i£ev oliravTot' aVfU.y.iyvVfy.evoDV S btb^uv btb^oic, yever ovpccvog, wKsavog tb, Kai yvf, -7Ta.vTcav tb 9-ewv poMxpuv yivog a.(f)9iTov. Aves, V. 695 — 703. At first there was naught but chaos and night, sable darkness and the deep abyss ; nor earth, nor ether, nor heaven existed then. At length the black-winged Night produced in the unbounded expanse of darkness a wondrous egg, from which, after the stated time was run, issued Love, the desired by all, resplendent, and adorned with golden wings, which he fluttered gladly o'er the deep profound. This Love uniting with nocturnal Chaos in the wide abyss produced our race, and first brought all things to light. For, until Love had exerted his power, nor gods nor men existed ; but then, the elements of things combining together, were produced the heaven, the earth, the ocean, and the immortal race of the blessed gods. This description Cudworth considers as an " atheistic creation of the world, gods and all, out of senseless and stupid matter, or dark chaos ; as the only original numen ; the perfectly inverted order of the universe." But, in adverting to the Hindu mythology, it will perhaps appear that the Love here described was intended to represent a hypostasis of the supreme Being ; and that, to render this account complete, the first part of that of Orpheus ought to be added to it. Thus the belief in the creation ofthe universe by one self-existent God, either directly or through the medium of another divine power proceeding from himself, will remain unaffected. In the theogony, however, of Hesiod, no mention occurs either of the mundane egg, or of a supreme Being ; and whether or not he ascribed the origin of the universe to a first cause must depend entirely on the meaning given to the equivocal word ysveTo. For, if it cannot here signify was produced, and if the construction restricts its meaning to was (of which I am not a sufficient judge), it must be evident that Hesiod derives the production of all things from four independent principles, Chaos, the Earth, Tartarus, and Love. But, as he invokes the muses in a preceding verse to -inform him how the gods and the M 82 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, earth originated, it may seem more consistent with the sense of the verses quoted in the note *, to suppose that Hesiod intended to intimate that Chaos, the Earth, Tartarus, and Love, were successively created by a supreme Being, whom he has not thought it requisite to mention. Such an omission as this, however, either in these or in any other verses, is certainly not a sufficient ground for inferring that the poet denied the existence of God f; but, as Cudworth remarks, "it was a most ancient and in a manner universally received tradition amongst the Pagans, that the cosmogonia, or generation of the world, took its first beginning from a chaos ; this tradition having been delivered down from Orpheus and Linus by Hesiod and Homer ; acknowledged by Epicharmus ; and embraced by Thales, Anaxagoras, Plato, and other philosophers who were theists." £ It has, however, been seen that Orpheus ascribed the origin of chaos to the supreme Being ; but perhaps according to the more prevalent opinion chaos was considered to have been self-existent and uncreated. Ovid, at least, considers it as such in the following verses : — Ante mare et tellus, et, quod tegit omnia, ccelum, Unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe, Quem dixe're Chaos ; rudis indigestaque moles ; Nee quicquam, nisi pondus iners ; congestaque eodem Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum. * Htoi jk.sk -irpWTiO'Ta "Kao; yeve-r', auTap e-aena Tai' evpucTTepvo;, -naVTWV kio; aafaXe; aiei ASavaTWV, oi eXovv itaKTiv awKTTeiv, M 2 84 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, which the Heaven and the Earth were the parents of the Ocean and Tethys, from whom were born Phorcys, Kronos, and Rhea, and from the last two Zeus and Hera, and their cognate gods. Nor do the poems of Homer and Hesiod contain any indications from which the real origin, attributes, and characters of the Grecian deities could be justly inferred ; for in these poems it is obvious that not one of them is distinguished by a reference to those peculiar actions and functions by which the gods of other countries have been always characterised. But, if the origin ascribed to the gods be so incongruous, the man ner in which man was supposed to have been created is, if possible, still more ridiculous. Because, according to the popular opinion as stated by Apollodorus, it was not to the supreme Being, or to Jupiter, that man kind were indebted for their existence ; but to Prometheus, one of the Titans, who formed the first man from a mixture of clay and water. On this point, however, Ovid expresses his doubts : — Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alta? Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in caetera posset. Natus homo est. Sive hunc divino semine fecit Ille opifex rerum, mundi melioris origo : Sive recens tellus, seductaque nuper ab alto Mthere, cognati retinebat semina cceli. Quam satus Iapeto, mistam fluvialibus undis Finxit in efngiem moderantum cuncta deorum. But Pausanias, about A. D. 170, saw, near the town of Panopeus in Phocis, the remains of the clay from which the whole race of man had been formed by Prometheus* the smell of which was still very like that of a human body. * This subject, however, is not, I believe, touched upon in the works of Homer, Hesiod, or the tragic poets ; but a grave historian, Diodorus Siculus, thus explains the origin of things : — " At xamep avev Te iixotwv xai avayxaiwv airoSei^ewv Xeyovviv, aXX' w; oixeta fao~xovo~iv aizayyeXXeiv, e-nofj.evov; tco vop.w wio-TevTeov. — Plat. Opera, torn. ix. p. 324. ed. Bipont. Aifloi xiiVTai o-fio-iv e-m Tf) Xapadpa, fj.eyebo; ft,ev hxao-To; w; fopTov a-woXpwvTa afj.a$-r); eivai, Xpa>fj.a Se eari irriXov o-ficrtv, ov yecuSov;, aXX' 010; av Xapa$pa; yevoiTO r) XEift.appov ^jajj.ft.wSr);' nrapE- X0VTai Se xai oo-fj.i)v syyvTaTa XpwTi avOptmov TavTa sti XeiirecrOai tov -itijXov Xeyovo-iv, e£ ov xai a-trav v-no tov Hpoft.EVewc to ysvo; -nXao-^vai twv avftpw-irwv. — Phocica, cap. iv. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 85 first the heaven and earth and the elements of all things being mingled together had but one form. Afterwards, the different substances separating from each other, the world acquired the complete arrange ment which is visible in it ; and the air becoming endued with con tinual motion, its igneous particles, on account oftheir levity, ascended on high ; whence has originated the unceasing revolution of the sun and the other stars : but that which was slimy and watery subsided, on account of its weight, into one uniform mass, which, acquiring motion, and being continually agitated, became separated into the sea and into the earth. The last was thus soft and merely mud, but being heated by the fire of the sun it began to harden. During which process its surface, becoming fermented by the heat, produced small pustular excrescences covered with membranous pellicles ; in the same manner as we observe to happen in marshy and muddy places, which, after having been subjected to cold, are suddenly heated by the sun. These excrescences becoming pregnant with animals, the embryos received nourishment from the mists of night and conformation from the heat of day. At length, having acquired their perfect growth, the membranous coverings became burnt and broken, and the embryos issued forth in all the different forms of animals. Those which possessed most heat ascended on high, and became birds ; those in which the earthy particles predominated became reptiles ; and those in which these were more tempered became animals [including men] ; while those in which watery particles predominated became fishes, and sought the place adapted for their abode. But the earth, having been rendered com pletely hard by the heat of the sun, could no longer produce living things ; and their different races, therefore, continued to be propagated by generation. It appears, also, that Euripides, the disciple of Anax- agoras, the natural philosopher, did not dissent from the account just o-iven of the origin of things; for he has inserted these verses in his Menalippus. Thus the earth and the heaven were one form. But when they separated from each other, then were generated and produced to light trees, birds, beasts, those which the sea nourishes, and the race of mortal men." * But were even the extreme absurdity of this description not * Diod. Bib. Hist., lib. i. cap. vii. 86 THE MYTHOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR, taken into consideration, it must be at once obvious that it is entirely inconsistent with such opinions as could have possibly originated in those remote and pious times when polytheism first began to prevail. With respect, therefore, to the opinions entertained by the Greeks, on the first establishment of the Grecian system of polytheism, relative to the origin of this universe and the real nature of the gods, it must be admitted that no data have been preserved in ancient authors from which any positive conclusion on the subject can be justly deduced. To enter, therefore, into any discussion of so trite a topic as the actual state of Grecian mythology, as described by Homer, Hesiod, and other writers, must be evidently unnecessary ; and whether or not it can re ceive any illustration from that form of idolatry which still prevails in India, will be best ascertained after the nature of the Hindu religion has been fully considered. From the poems, however, of Homer and Hesiod, a knowledge at least ofthe Grecian mythology, as it existed about 900 or 1000 years before the Christian era, may be derived ; but neither traditions nor writings have been preserved from which any information might be obtained with respect to the religion which originally prevailed in Etruria and Latium. But, if the religion of Asia Minor were pre cisely the same as that of Greece, as the Iliad so incontrovertibly attests ; and if those parts of Italy derived their language and civilisation from colonists who had migrated from Asia Minor ; it would necessarily follow that they also received from them their system of polytheism, and that thus no difference ought to exist between the mythologies of Greece, Etruria, and Latium. It will, however, be evident that the justness of this conclusion must depend on the circumstances under which the Pelasgi occupied Greece, and the colonists from Asia Minor established themselves in Etruria and Latium, being exactly similar ; and this essential point it is obvious that there is now no means of ascertaining. Yet that the language and religion of the Pelaso-i were in no manner affected by their migration into Greece is fully proved by the poems of Homer ; but the colonists from Asia Minor may have not been able to establish their power with the same facility in Etruria and Latium, and may have, in consequence, been obliged to reconcile GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 87 the Aborigines to it by adopting some of their gods and religious rites. Gorius, however, in his Museum Etruscum, has not been able to throw much light on this subject, but his researches would seem to prove that, though the Etrurians may have worshipped some gods peculiar to themselves, their mythology was still essentially the same as that of the Greeks. The only one, indeed, of these gods who possessed any celebrity in later times was Janus, whom Ovid has thus mentioned : — Quern tamen esse deum te dicam, Jane biformis ? Nam tibi par nullum Graecia nomen habet. * An ancient tradition, also, respecting Saturn, is thus noticed by Ovid : — Caussa ratis superest : Thuscum rate venit in amnem Ante pererrato falcifer orbe deus. Hae ego Saturnum meinini tellure receptum. Coelitibus regnis ab Jove pulsus erat. Inde diu genti mansit Saturnia nomen : Dicta quoque est Latium terra, latente deo.f From which it might be concluded that the Latin differed considerably from the Grecian theogony, but unfortunately no accounts remain of the opinions respecting the generation of the gods which were originally entertained by the Latins and Etruscans. $ * Fast., lib. i. v. 89. In the same book of his Fasti, Ovid gives this singular account of Janus : — Me Chaos antiqui (nam res sum prisca) vocabant. Adspice, quam longi temporis acta canam. Lucidus hie aer, et, quae tria corpora restant, Ignis, aqua, tellus, unus acervus erant. Ut semel haec rerum recessit lite suarum, Inque novas abiit massa soluta domos ; Flamma petit altum ; propior locus aera cepit : Sederunt medio terra fretumque solo. Tunc ego, qui fueram globus, et sine imagine moles, In faciem redii dignaque membra deo. V. 103 — 112. f Fast., lib. i. v. 233—238. X Dionysius Halicarnasseus has remarked, in speaking of Romulus : — Tov; Se TraoaSeSoae- vov; irepi Sewv ft.v$a;, ev oi; jBXa Te ef avTWv s-mSjeo-ew;- 0VTe Zev; xaraXvwv Tf\V Kpovou SvvacTEiav, xai xaTaxXeiwv ev tw deo"fj.OTr)piw tov TapTapov tov eavTOV iraTepa. I. Antiq. Rom., lib. ii. cap. 18.) But is it to be concluded from these remarks, that such fables were prevalent in Latium previously to Romulus ? * I must, however, still contend that, if Etruria received colonies from Asia Minor, it was also from the same country that it received its mythology in the first instance. But the original identity of the Grecian and Etruscan mythologies being so very probable, it is equally probable that the Etruscans subsequently maintained that intimate religious com munication with Greece which is pointed out by Lanzi ; and thus there will be no real difference between his and my opinion on this subject. GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. 89 Hera was surpassed in beauty by Venus, in wisdom by Minerva ; in Persia Mitra was the principal god, while in Greece Apollo was a herdsman and an exile; in Egypt and elsewhere the gods were believed to be of distinct races, but in Greece a single family formed the princi pal object of religious worship. In Jupiter, his parents, his brothers, his sisters, and children, was there divided the province of presiding over all things natural and human; and each of them is distinguished from another by peculiar characteristics of age, symbols, names, and actions. There are besides other inferior gods, genii, and heroes, but dependent and subordinate to the first : these remained restricted to their original number ; the others were multiplied to infinity, as the superstition ofthe simple, or the caprices of poets, suggested. This is the Grecian system ; so peculiar to Greece, that Socrates was con demned as if he professed a different one " But the very same mythology I find adopted in substance by the whole of ancient Italy. Rome itself did not deny it, and derived its origin either from the Pelasgi and other Greeks who had inhabited Latium ; or from Romulus, who had acquired a knowledge of Grecian literature in Gabium; or from Numa, who, being born in the country of the Sabines, must have been acquainted with the Pelasgic deities which they had received. The ancient Etruscans acknowledge it to a certain degree by their acts. Nor do the few notices of them which have been preserved diverge from the same system ; for, if we did not know the ties of relationship which bound them to the Greeks, it would be suffi cient to reflect upon the respect which they paid to the gods of Greece, as to gods common to both people. The Etruscans sent not offerings to Belenus, or Esus, or Osiris, but to the Olympian Jupiter, and to the Delphic Apollo : fi^y erected not temples to Isis and Astarte, but to the Argive Juno in Faleria ; and to the same goddess, without that epithet, in Perugia, in Veii, and Cupra We have seen (on the Etruscan medals, gems, and vases) many of the deities of Greece ; and whoever wishes to augment the number, may add from figures in bronze and sarcophagi the names of Ceres, Neptune, Pluto, Proserpine, 'Cupid, Psyche, &c. We have found that the Greek names ofthe gods were better preserved by the Etruscans than by the Latins; N 90 ASIA MINOR, GREECE, ETRURIA, AND LATIUM. as, for instance, it is known that one god was named in Etruria, accord ing to the common dialect of the Greeks, Turmes, i. e. Eppyg, and according to the Boeotic dialect Camillus, i. e. KufyiXog. What farther, therefore, is necessary to evince that the Etruscan mythology was neither Celtic, nor Phoenician, nor Egyptian, but solely Grecian ? " * The reason, however, assigned by Lanzi, in explanation of the total dissimilarity that exists between the Greek and Latin names of the gods, is by no means satisfactory ; for he remarks, that " Spanheim (in Hymn, in Dian. v. 7.) has proved that in Greece it was considered very honourable for a deity to have many names ; and on this account Diana requested as a favour from Jupiter a number of names, itoXv^v- fjuxv ; and in Orpheus, she is invoked as ttoXvuvvjub Saifuuv. From this custom is derived that difference which is observable in the Greek and Latin names of some ofthe gods : ifit ought not rather to be said that the peculiar character and functions of each deity had penetrated into Italy ; and that the Etruscans had from them devised and adopted names for the gods, which being taken from some different attribute, characteristic, or function, the name necessarily became different." f For the appellations of the deities constitute so inseparable a part of all mythologies, that it is inconceivable how the gods of one people could have been adopted by another without their names having been at the same time received into general use ; and equally so how any colonists, who introduced their native gods into another country, could have been induced to change the sacred names invoked in their hymns and rituals into strange and barbarous appellations. The identity, how ever, of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin mythologies seems unques tionable ; and the cause, therefore, which has occasioned the Kronos of the Greeks to be denominated by the Latins Saturnus ; Zeus, Jupiter ; Poseidon, Neptunus ; Hera, Juno ; Aphrodite, Venus ; &c, must remain one of those unaccountable anomalies and difficulties which too fre quently impede all satisfactory investigation ofthe languages, history, and religion of ancient nations. * Lanzi, Saggio de Lingua Etrusca, torn. ii. pp. 237 — 240. t Ibid., p.. 241. note. 91 CHAP. IV. THE MYTHOLOGY OF THRACIA, GERMANY, AND SCANDINAVIA. In tracing the origin of nations, it is obvious that similarity of religion would be one of the most convincing proofs of the affinity of the people amongst whom the same system of polytheism was found to prevail: but the converse of this proposition is not equally true; for many causes might conduce to alter or to change entirely the religion of their ancestors, as different tribes branched off from the parent stem, and grew up independently into populous nations. It is, at the same time, undeniable, that, in order to determine whether any similarity existed between the mythologies of any two people of antiquity, full and accurate accounts of the systems compared together are indispens able. When, therefore, no such accounts are available, it might seem that researches of this nature could never lead to any satisfactory result. But the origin of the Teutonic people is so interesting a historical problem, and so completely involved in obscurity, that no means of elucidating it, however unpromising, ought to be disregarded ; and, consequently, it becomes of importance to ascertain precisely what is actually known respecting the mythologies which formerly prevailed in Thracia, Germany, and Scandinavia. On this subject the prevailing opinion seems to be, that as Germany and Scandinavia were peopled by Scythians, it is in Scythia that the origin of the German and Scandinavian religion must be sought for. Hence, in a late work, Professor Mone expresses this opinion : — " But, in order to judge of the correctness and importance of Herodotus's accounts of the Scythians, it is necessary to illustrate the true and valuable information which he has given, by means of the language and religion of the Fins ; and then, however little one may learn, it will at least evince the accuracy of Herodotus. I am, therefore, convinced that the cradle of the religion of northern Europe is to be sought for n 2 92 THE MYTHOLOGY OF THRACIA, in Scythia on the banks of the Borysthenes ; and if the Germans and Slavonians will recur to this country, they will find such an agreement between the popular faith of these two people and that of the Scythians as cannot be mistaken."* But Herodotus has not stated that any migrations of the western Scythians into northern Europe ever took place ; nor is such a circumstance mentioned by any ancient writer. Such an event, however, is not in itself improbable, and might there fore be admitted, were it not disproved by the indisputable testimony of language ; for, if Ulphilas's translation of the Gospels be written in the language ofthe Goths, it must necessarily follow that the Goths, Germans, and Scandinavians must have descended from the same ancestors, as the intimate affinity between their languages is self- evident. The question, therefore, is simply, Were the Getse and Goths the same people ? and, if so, were the Getae Scythians or not ? Much has been written upon these points, but they remain still undecided; because authors, instead of admitting the plain and obvious meaning of such passages relating to them as occur in ancient writers, either pervert it in order to support some favourite hypothesis, or boldly misquote the passage itself which they adduce.f The production, therefore, ofthe opinions of ancient authors on this subject, expressed * Geschichte des Heidenthums in Nordlichen Europa, vol.i. p. 113., annexed to the second edition of Creuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie. f Of such misquotation a singular instance occurs in an article on the Vindication of the Celts, &c, contained in the second volume ofthe Edinburgh Review, which the writer pre faces with this remark: — " In forming our opinion as to the merits of this controversy, we have not confined our remarks to those authorities only which are cited by our author and by Mr. Pinkerton, but have carefully consulted every ancient author who was likely to elucidate the subject in dispute'' In page 258., however, the writer says: — " We shall lay those passages, so unaccountably overlooked by Mr. Pinkerton, before our readers : — ' The Scythians, few and despised, dwelt at first near the Araxes ; and afterwards, increasing in numbers, conquered many countries beyond the Tanais, even as far as Thrace.' — ' It is impossible to conjecture the date of these conquests ; they must, however, have been effected at a very remote period, since, according to the same author and Herodotus, Sesostris found and attacked them in their settlements beyond the Tanais, and on the borders 'of Thrace.' " But in neither of these passages of Diodorus Siculus, lib. ii. p. 89, 90., and lib. i. p. 35. ed. Wesseling, is the word Thrace to be found; and the words of Herodotus respecting Sesostris are, Ef 6 ex Ti); Actdjj e; ti)V Evpw-niyi diaSa;, tov; Te ~%xvf)a; xaTeor pefaTO xai tov; Qprjixa;. — Lib. ii. cap. 103. ed. Wesseling. GERMANY, AND SCANDINAVIA. 93 in their own words, may perhaps tend to its elucidation. To com mence, then, with Herodotus, who distinctly says, — O* Se Veron, tr^og oiyvu^ocrvvyjv t^utto^bvoi, avrnca bSovXu^tjO'oi.v, ©pvjiKCdv eoweg ctvSpeioTctTOi xai Smuiotoitoi* : and no quotation can be necessary to show that Herodotus considered the Thracians and Scythians to be distinct people. On this point Diodorus Siculus affords no information, but in Strabo occur these passages: — O* toivvv 'EXX-yfveg Tovg TsTctg ©pxx,ag v-jTeXctp£) tok \o~Tpov e%i tov; ^