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

^[462]Fortunæ Primigeniæ Jovis Pueri D.D.
Ex SORTE compos factus
Nothus Ruficanæ
L. P. Plotilla.

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

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

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

OF

ETYMOLOGY,

AS IT HAS BEEN TOO GENERALLY HANDLED.

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

The Grecians were so prepossessed with a notion of their own excellence and antiquity, that they supposed every antient tradition to have proceeded from themselves. Hence their mythology is founded upon the grossest mistakes: as all extraneous history, and every foreign term, is supposed by them to have been of Grecian original. Many of their learned writers had been abroad; and knew how idle the pretensions of their countrymen were. Plato in particular saw the fallacy of their claim, he confesses it more than once: yet in this article nobody was more infatuated. His Cratylus is made up of a most absurd system of etymology. ^[465]Herodotus expressly says, that the Gods of Greece came in great measure from Egypt. Yet Socrates is by Plato in this treatise made to derive Artemis from το αρτεμες, integritas: Poseidon from ποσι δεσμον, fetters to the feet: Hestia from ουσια, substance and essence: Demeter, from διδουσα ὡς μητηρ, distributing as a mother: Pallas from παλλειν, to vibrate, or dance: Ares, Mars, from αῤῥεν, masculum, et virile: and the word Theos, God, undoubtedly the Theuth of Egypt, from θεειν, to run^[466]. Innumerable derivations of this nature are to be found in Aristotle, Plato, ^[467]Heraclides Ponticus, and other Greek writers. There is a maxim laid down by the scholiast upon Dionysius; which I shall have occasion often to mention. ^[468]Ει βαρβαρον το ονομα, ου χρη ζητειν Ἑλληνικην ετυμολογιαν αυτου. If the term be foreign, it is idle to have recourse to Greece for a solution. It is a plain and golden rule, posterior in time to the writers above, which, however, common sense might have led them to have anticipated, and followed: but it was not in their nature. The person who gave the advice was a Greek, and could not for his life abide by it. It is true, that Socrates is made to say something very like the above. ^[469]Εννοω γαρ, ὁτι πολλα ὁι Ἑλληνες ονοματα, αλλως τε και ὁι ὑπο τοις Βαρβαροις οικουντες, παρα των Βαρβαρων ειληφασι—ει τις ζητοι ταυτα κατα την Ἑλληνικην φωνην, ὡς εοικοτως κειται, αλλα μη κατ' εκεινην, εξ ἡς το ονομα τυγχανει ον, οισθα ὁτι αποροι αν. I am very sensible that the Grecians in general, and especially those who are subjects to foreigners, have received into their language many exotic terms: if any person should be led to seek for their analogy or meaning in the Greek tongue, and not in the language from whence they proceeded, he would be grievously puzzled. Who would think, when Plato attributed to Socrates this knowledge, that he would make him continually act in contradiction to it? Or that other ^[470]writers, when this plain truth was acknowledged, should deviate so shamefully? that we should in after times be told, that Tarsus, the antient city in Cilicia, was denominated from ταρτος, a foot: that the river Nile signified νε ιλυς: and that Gader in Spain was Γης δειρα.

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

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

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

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

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

DISSERTATION

UPON THE

HELLADIAN

AND OTHER

GRECIAN WRITERS.

Ενθα πυλαι νυκτος τε, και ηματος, εισι κελευθων.——Parmenides.

It may be proper to take some previous notice of those writers, to whose assistance we must particularly have recourse; and whose evidence may be most depended upon, in disquisitions of this nature. All knowledge of Gentile antiquity must be derived to us through the hands of the Grecians: and there is not of them a single writer, to whom we may not be indebted for some advantage. The Helladians, however, from whom we might expect most light, are to be admitted with the greatest caution. They were a bigotted people, highly prejudiced in their own favour; and so devoted to idle tradition, that no arguments could wean them from their folly. Hence the surest resources are from Greeks of other countries. Among the Poets, Lycophron, Callimachus, and Apollonius Rhodius are principally to be esteemed. The last of these was a native of Egypt; and the other two lived there, and have continual allusions to the antiquities of that country. Homer likewise abounds with a deal of mysterious lore, borrowed from the antient Amonian theology; with which his commentators have been often embarrassed. To these may be added such Greek writers of later date, who were either not born in Hellas, or were not so deeply tinctured with the vanity of that country. Much light may be also obtained from those learned men, by whom the Scholia were written, which are annexed to the works of the Poets above-mentioned. Nonnus too, who wrote the Dionysiaca, is not to be neglected. He was a native of Panopolis in Egypt, ^[509]Εκ της Πανος της Αιγυπτου γεγενημενος; and had opportunity of collecting many antient traditions, and fragments of mysterious history, which never were known in Greece. To these may be added Porphyry, Proclus, and Jamblichus, who professedly treat of Egyptian learning. The Isis and Osiris of Plutarch may be admitted with proper circumspection. It may be said, that the whole is still an enigma: and I must confess that it is: but we receive it more copiously exemplified; and more clearly defined; and it must necessarily be more genuine, by being nearer the fountain head: so that by comparing, and adjusting the various parts, we are more likely to arrive at a solution of the hidden purport. But the great resource of all is to be found among the later antiquaries and historians. Many of these are writers of high rank; particularly Diodorus, Strabo, and Pausanias, on the Gentile part: and of the fathers, Theophilus, Tatianus Athenagoras, Clemens, Origenes, Eusebius, Theodoretus, Syncellus; and the compiler of the Fasti Siculi, otherwise called Chronicon Paschale. Most of these were either of Egypt or Asia. They had a real taste for antiquity; and lived at a time when some insight could be obtained: for till the Roman Empire was fully established, and every province in a state of tranquillity, little light could be procured from those countries, whence the mythology of Greece was derived. The native Helladians were very limited in their knowledge. They had taken in the gross whatever was handed down by tradition; and assumed to themselves every history, which was imported. They moreover held every nation but their own as barbarous; so that their insuperable vanity rendered it impossible for them to make any great advances in historical knowledge. But the writers whom I just now mentioned, either had not these prejudices; or lived at a time when they were greatly subsided. They condescended to quote innumerable authors, and some of great antiquity; to whom the pride of Greece would never have appealed. I had once much talk upon this subject with a learned friend, since lost to the world, who could ill brook that Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, should be discarded for Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius; and that Lysias and Demosthenes should give way to Libanius and Aristides. The name of Tzetzes, or Eustathius, he could not bear. To all which I repeatedly made answer; that it was by no means my intention to set aside any of the writers, he mentioned: whose merits, as far as they extended, I held in great veneration. On the contrary, I should have recourse to their assistance, as far as it would carry me: But I must at the same time take upon me to weigh those merits; and see wherein they consisted; and to what degree they were to be trusted. The Helladians were much to be admired for the smoothness of their periods, and a happy collocation of their terms. They shewed a great propriety of diction; and a beautiful arrangement of their ideas: and the whole was attended with a rhythm, and harmony, no where else to be found. But they were at the same time under violent prejudices: and the subject matter of which they treated, was in general so brief, and limited, that very little could be obtained from it towards the history of other countries, or a knowledge of antient times. Even in respect to their own affairs, whatever light had been derived to them, was so perverted, and came through so dim a medium, that it is difficult to make use of it to any determinate and salutary purpose. Yet the beauty of their composition has been attended with wonderful ^[510]influence. Many have been so far captivated by this magic, as to give an implicit credence to all that has been transmitted; and to sacrifice their judgment to the pleasures of the fancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME NECESSARY

RULES AND OBSERVATIONS

IN RESPECT TO

ETYMOLOGICAL INQUIRIES;

AND FOR

THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE MYTHOLOGY
OF GREECE.

We must never deduce the etymology of an Egyptian or oriental term from the Greek language. Eustathius well observes, Ει βαρβαρον το ονομα ου χρη ζητειν Ἑλληνικην ετυμολογιαν αυτου.

We should recur to the Doric manner of expression, as being nearest to the original.

The Greeks adopted all foreign history: and supposed it to have been of their own country.

They mistook temples for Deities, and places for persons.

They changed every foreign term to something similar in their own language; to something similar in sound, however remote in meaning; being led solely by the ear.

They constantly mistook titles for names; and from these titles multiplied their Deities and Heroes.

All terms of relation between the Deities to be disregarded.

As the Grecians were mistaken, it is worth our while to observe the mode of error and uniformity of mistake. By attending to this, we may bring things back to their primitive state, and descry in antient terms the original meaning.

We must have regard to the oblique cases, especially in nouns imparasyllabic, when we have an antient term transmitted to us either from the Greeks or Romans. The nominative, in both languages, is often abridged; so that, from the genitive of the word, or from the possessive, the original term is to be deduced. This will be found to obtain even in common names. From veteris we have veter for the true term; from sanguinis we have sanguen: and that this is right we may prove from Ennius, who says:

So mentis, and not mens, was the true nominative to mentis, menti, mentem; as we may learn from the same author:

In like manner Plebes was the nominative to Plebi and Plebem.

All the common departments of the Deities are to be set aside, as inconsistent and idle. Pollux will be found a judge; Ceres, a law-giver; Bacchus, the God of the year; Neptune, a physician; and Æsculapius, the God of thunder: and this not merely from the poets; but from the best mythologists of the Grecians, from those who wrote professedly upon the subject.

I have observed before, that the Grecians in foreign words often changed the Nu final to Sigma. For Keren, they wrote Κερας; for Cohen, Κωης; for Athon, Αθως; for Boun, Βους; for Sain, Σαϊς.

People, of old, were styled the children of the God whom they worshipped: hence they were, at last, thought to have been his real offspring; and he was looked up to as the true parent. On the contrary, Priests were represented as foster-fathers to the Deity before whom they ministered; and Priestesses were styled τιθηναι, or nurses.

Colonies always went out under the patronage and title of some Deity. This conducting-God was in after-times supposed to have been the real leader.

Sometimes the whole merit of a transaction was imputed to this Deity solely; who was represented under the character of Perseus, Dionusus, or Hercules. Hence, instead of one person, we must put a people; and the history will be found consonant to the truth.

As the Grecians made themselves principals in many great occurrences which were of another country, we must look abroad for the original, both of their rites and mythology; and apply to the nations from whence they were derived. Their original history was foreign, and ingrafted upon the history of the country where they settled. This is of great consequence, and repeatedly to be considered.

One great mistake frequently prevails among people who deal in these researches, which must be carefully avoided. We should never make use of a language which is modern, or comparatively modern, to deduce the etymology of antient and primitive terms. Pezron applies to the modern Teutonic, which he styles the Celtic, and says, was the language of Jupiter. But who was Jupiter, and what has the modern Celtic to do with the history of Egypt or Chaldea? There was an interval of two thousand years between the times of which he treats and any history of the Celtæ: and there is still an interval, not very much inferior to the former, before we arrive at the æra of the language to which he applies.

It has been the custom of those writers, who have been versed in the Oriental languages, to deduce their etymologies from roots; which are often some portion of a verb. But the names of places and of persons are generally an assemblage of qualities and titles; such as I have exhibited in the treatise above; and I believe were never formed by such evolutions. The terms were obvious, and in common use; taken from some well-known characteristics. Those who imposed such names never thought of a root; and, probably, did not know the purport of the term. Whoever, therefore, in etymology, has recourse to this method of investigation, seems to me to act like a person who should seek at the fountain-head for a city which stood at the mouth of a river.

A

SHORT ACCOUNT

OF THE

HELLADIANS,

AND THEIR ORIGIN;

In order to obviate some Objections.

As I have mentioned that the Helladians came from Egypt, and the east; it may be proper to obviate an objection which may be made, to the account I give; as if it were contradictory to the tenor of the scriptures, as they are in general understood. Greece, and the islands of Greece, are continually supposed, from the account given by Moses^[568], to have been peopled by the sons of Japhet; and there is scarce any body, either antient or modern, who has touched upon this subject, but has imagined Javan to have been the same as Ion, the son of Xuth, from whom the Ionians were descended. This latter point I shall not controvert at present. In respect to the former, the account given in the scriptures is undoubtedly most true. The sons of Japhet did people the isles of the Gentiles; by which is meant the regions of Greece and Europe, separated in great measure from the Asiatic continent by the intervention of the sea. They certainly were the first inhabitants of those countries. But the Helladians, though by family Ionians, were not of this race. They came afterwards; and all their best writers agree, that when their ancestors made their way into these provinces, they were possessed by a prior people. Who these were is no where uniformly said: only they agree to term them in general Βαρβαροι, or a rude, uncivilized people. As my system depends greatly upon this point; to take away every prejudice to my opinion, I will in some degree anticipate, what I shall hereafter more fully prove. I accordingly submit to the reader the following evidences; which are comparatively few, if we consider what might be brought to this purpose. These are to shew, that the Helladians were of a different race from the sons of Japhet: and that the country, when they came to it, was in the possession of another people: which people they distinguished from themselves by the title of Βαρβαροι.

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

Εισι δε ἡμων αρχαιοτεροι Βαρβαροι. Plato in Cratylo. vol. 1. p. 425.

Παλαι της νυν καλουμενης Ἑλλαδος Βαρβαροι τα πολλα ῳκησαν. Pausanias. l. 1. p. 100.

Αρκαδιαν Βαρβαροι ῳκησαν. Scholia Apollonii Rhod. l. 3. v. 461.

Diodorus mentions, Αθηναιους—αποικους Σαϊτων των εξ Αιγυπτου. l. 1. p. 24.

Again—Γενομεναι δε και των ἡγεμονων τινας Αιγυπτιους παρα τοις Αθηναιοις. ibidem.

Africanus having spoken of the Egyptian rites, says, Ὁτι τε Αθηναιους των αυτων Αιγυπτιοις απολαυειν εικος ην, αποικους εκεινων απονοουμενους, ὡς φασιν αλλοι τε, και εν τῳ Τρικαρηνῳ Θεοπομπος. Apud Euseb. Præp. Evan. l. x. c. x. p. 491.

Concerning persons from Egypt.

Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος ων, δυο γλωσσας ηπιστατο. Cedrenus p. 82.

Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος το γενος, ῳκισε τας Αθηνας. Scholia Aristoph. Pluti.

Κεκροψ, Αιγυπτιος το γενος, ῳκησε τας Αθηνας. Suidas.

Pausanias mentions Λελεγα αφικομενον εξ Αιγυπτου. l. 1. p. 95.

Erectheus from Egypt. Και τον Ερεχθεα λεγουσι το γενος Αιγυπτιον οντα. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 25.

Triptolemus from thence, who had been the companion of Osiris. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 17. He gave the Athenians laws. Porphyry mentions Των Αθηνῃσι νομοθετων Τριπτολεμον. Abstinent. l. 4. p. 431.

It is said, that Danaus was a native of the city Chemmis; from whence he made his expedition to Greece. Δαναος Χεμμιτης. Herodotus. l. 2. c. 91.

Navem primus ex Ægypto Danaus advexit. Pliny. l. 7. c. 56. He brought a colony with him. Λεγουσι δε τους περι Δαναον ὁρμηθεντας ὁμοιως εκειθεν, scil. εξ Αιγυπτου. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 24.

All the heads of the Dorian race from Egypt. Φαινοιατο αν εοντες ὁι των Δωριεων ἡγεμονες Αιγυπτιοι ιθαγενεες. Herodotus. l. 6. c. 53.

The Lacedæmonians esteemed themselves of the same family as the Caphtorim of Palestine: hence they surmised, that they were related to the Jews, 1 Maccabees, c. 12. v. 20, 21. Josephus: A. J. l. 12. c. 4. p. 606. Perseus was supposed to have been a foreigner. Ὡς δε ὁ Περσεων λογος λεγεται, αυτος ὁ Περσευς εων Ασσυριος εγενετο Ἑλλην. Herodotus. l. 6. c. 54.

It is said of Cadmus, that he came originally from Egypt, in company with Phœnix. Καδμος και Φοινιξ απο Θηβων των Αιγυπτιων. Euseb. Chron. p. 15.

Eusebius in another place mentions the arrival of Cadmus with a company of Saïtæ. They founded Athens, the principal city of Greece: also Thebes in Bœotia. They were of Egypt; but he says, that they came last from Sidon. It is in a passage, where he speaks of a former race in Attica before those of Egypt called Saïtæ: Πλην των μετοικησαντων ὑστερον εκει Σαϊτων, και κατοικησαντων την της Ἑλλαδος μητροπολιν Αθηνας, και τας Θηβας. Σιδωνιων γαρ ὁυτοι αποικοι εκ Καδμου του Αγηνορος. Chron. p. 14. The antient Athenians worshipped Isis: and were in their looks, and in their manners particularly like the Egyptians. Και ταις ιδεαις, και τοις ηθεσιν ὁμοιοτατους ειναι τοις Αιγυπτιοις. The whole of their polity was plainly borrowed from that country. Diod. Sic. l. 1: p. 24, 25, 26.

It is said by Sanchoniathon, that Cronus, in his travels over the earth in company with his daughter Athena, came to Attica; which he bestowed upon her. Euseb. P. E. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 38.

This is not unlike the account given by the Scholiast upon Lycophron concerning Cecrops: from whence the legend may receive some light. Ελθων αρ' (ὁ Κεκροψ) απο Σαεως πολεως Αιγυπτου τας Αθηνας συνῳκισε. Σαϊς δε κατ' Αιγυπτιους ἡ Αθηνα λεγεται, ὡς φησιν Χαραξ. Lycoph. v. 111. Schol.

Hence it is, that almost the whole of the mythology of Greece is borrowed from Egypt. Καθολου δε, φησι, τους Ἑλληνας εξιδιασεσθαι τους επιφανεστατους Αιγυπτιων Ἡρωας τε, και Θεους. Diodorus. l. 1. p. 20. All their rites and ceremonies were from the same quarter.

Πανηγυριας δε αρα, και πομπας, και προσαγωγας πρωτοι ανθρωπων Αιγυπτιοι εισιν, ὁι ποιησαμενοι, και παρα τουτων Ἑλληνες μεμαθηκασι. Herod. l. 3. c. 58.

Επειτα χρονου πολλου διελθοντος, επυθοντο (ὁι Ἑλληνες) εκ της Αιγυπτου απικομενα τα ουνοματα των Θεων. Herod. l. 2. c. 52. See also l. 2. c. 4.

Και παντα τα ουνοματα των Θεων εξ Αιγυπτου εληλυθε ες την Ἑλλαδα. Herod. l. 2. c. 50. Hence it is said that the Corybantes, with their mother Comba, came and settled at Athens: Κομβης ἑπτατοκου μετα μητερος. Nonni Dionys. l. 13. And that the priests at Athens, styled Eumolpidæ, were from Egypt. Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 25. One of the Egyptians, who brought these rites to Greece, is mentioned under the name of Melampus: as the Egyptians are, in general, under the character of Melampodes. Ἑλλησι γαρ δη Μελαμπους εστιν, ὁ εξηγησαμενος του Διονυσου ονομα, και την Θυσιαν, και την πομπην του φαλλου. Herod. l. 2. c. 49. He is likewise said to have first introduced physic: by which this only is meant, that physic too came from Egypt.

To the same purpose may be consulted Lucian de Suriâ Deâ. Πρωτοι μην ανθρωπων Αιγυπτιοι κτλ. Eusebius. P. Evan. lib. 10. c. 4. p. 469. and c. 5. p. 473. Clemens Alexand. l. 1. p. 361, 381. Diodorus Siculus. l. 1. p. 20. p. 62, 63. and p. 86, 87. Tatianus Assyrius. p. 243, 274. Thucydides. l. 1. c. 2, 3.

A

NEW SYSTEM

OR AN

ANALYSIS

OF

ANTIENT MYTHOLOGY.

OF

ANTIENT WORSHIP,

AND OF

ETYMOLOGICAL TRUTHS

THENCE DEDUCIBLE:

EXEMPLIFIED IN THE NAMES OF CITIES, LAKES, AND RIVERS.

Εστι που και ποταμοις τιμη, η κατ' ωφελειαν, ὡσπερ Αιγυπτιοις προς τον Νειλον, η κατα καλλος, ὡς Θετταλοις προς Πηνειον, η κατα μεγεθος, ὡς Σκυθαις προς τον Ιστρον, η κατα μυθον, ὡς Αιτωλοις προς τον Αχελωον.——Max. Tyrius. Dissert. viii. p. 81.

As the divine honours paid to the Sun, and the adoration of fire, were at one time almost universal, there will be found in most places a similitude in the terms of worship. And though this mode of idolatry took its rise in one particular part of the world, yet, as it was propagated to others far remote, the stream, however widely diffused, will still savour of the fountain. Moreover, as people were determined in the choice of their holy places by those preternatural phænomena, of which I have before taken notice; if there be any truth in my system, there will be uniformly found some analogy between the name of the temple, and its rites and situation: so that the etymology may be ascertained by the history of the place. The like will appear in respect to rivers and mountains; especially to those which were esteemed at all sacred, and which were denominated from the Sun and fire. I therefore flatter myself that the etymologies which I shall lay before the reader will not stand single and unsupported; but there will be an apparent analogy throughout the whole. The allusion will not be casual and remote, nor be obtained by undue inflexions and distortions: but, however complicated the name may appear, it will resolve itself easily into the original terms; and, when resolved, the truth of the etymology will be ascertained by the concomitant history. If it be a Deity, or other personage, the truth will appear from his office and department; or with the attributes imputed to him. To begin, then, with antient Latium. If I should have occasion to speak of the Goddess Feronia, and of the city denominated from her, I should deduce the from Fer-On, ignis Dei Solis; and suppose the place to have been addicted to the worship of the Sun, and the rites of fire. I accordingly find, from Strabo and Pliny, that rites of this sort were practised here: and one custom, which remained even to the time of Augustus, consisted in a ceremony of the priests, who used to walk barefoot over burning coals: ^[569]Γυμνοις γαρ ποσι διεξιασιν ανθρακιαν, και σποδιαν μεγαλην. The priests, with their feet naked, walked over a large quantity of live coals and cinders. The town stood at the bottom of Mount Soracte, sacred to Apollo; and the priests were styled Hirpi. Aruns, in Virgil, in his address to Apollo, takes notice of this custom:

The temple is said to have been founded on account of a pestilential ^[571]vapour, which arose from a cavern; and to which some shepherds were conducted by (Λυκος) a wolf. Were I to attempt the decyphering of Ferentum, I should proceed in a manner analogous to that above. I should suppose it to have been named Fer-En, ignis, vel Solis fons, from something peculiar either in its rites or situation. I accordingly find, that there was a sacred fountain, whose waters were styled Aquæ Ferentinæ,—cui numen etiam, et divinus cultus tributus ^[572]fuit. Here was a grove, equally sacred, mentioned by ^[573] Livy, and others; where the antient Latines used to hold their chief assemblies. As this grand meeting used to be in a place denominated from fire, it was the cause of those councils being called Feriæ Latinæ. The fountain, which ran through the grove, arose at the foot of mount ^[574]Albanus, and afterwards formed many ^[575]pools.

The antient Cuthites, and the Persians after them, had a great veneration for fountains and streams; which also prevailed among other nations, so as to have been at one time almost universal. Of this regard among the Persians Herodotus takes notice: ^[576]Σεβονται ποταμους των παντων μαλιστα: Of all things in nature they reverence rivers most. But if these rivers were attended with any nitrous or saline quality, or with any fiery eruption, they were adjudged to be still more sacred, and ever distinguished with some title of the Deity. The natives of Egypt had the like veneration. Other nations, says ^[577]Athanasius, reverenced rivers and fountains; but, above all people in the world, the Egyptians held them in the highest honour, and esteemed them as divine. Julius Firmicus gives the same account of them. ^[578]Ægyptii aquæ beneficium percipientes aquam colunt, aquis supplicant. From hence the custom passed westward to Greece, Italy, and the extremities of Europe. In proof of which the following inscription is to be found in Gruter:

^[579]Vascaniæ in Hispaniâ
FONTI DIVINO.

How much it prevailed among the Romans we learn from Seneca. ^[580]Magnorum fluviorum capita veneramur—coluntur aquarum calentium fontes; et quædam stagna, quæ vel opacitas, vel immensa altitudo sacravit. It mattered not what the nature of the water might be, if it had a peculiar quality. At Thebes, in Ammonia, was a fountain, which was said to have been cold by day, and warm at night. Ἡ κρηνη ^[581]καλειται του ἡλιου. It was named the fountain of the Sun. In Campania was a fountain Virena; which I should judge to be a compound of Vir-En, and to signify ignis fons, from being dedicated to the Deity of fire, on account of some particular quality. I accordingly find in ^[582]Vitruvius, that it was a medicinal spring, and of a strong vitriolic nature. The Corinthians had in their Acropolis a ^[583]Pirene, of the same purport as Virena, just mentioned. It was a beautiful fountain sacred to Apollo, whose ^[584]image was at the head of the water within a sacred inclosure.

We read of a Pyrene, which was a fountain of another nature; yet of the same etymology, however differently expressed. It was a mountain, and gave name to the vast ridge called Saltus Pyrenæi. It is undoubtedly a compound of ^[585]Pur-ain, and signifies a fountain of fire. I should imagine, without knowing the history of the country, that this mountain once flamed; and that the name was given from this circumstance. Agreeably to this, I find, from Aristotle de Mirabilibus, that here was formerly an eruption of fire. The same is mentioned by Posidonius in Strabo; and also by Diodorus, who adds, ^[586]Τα μεν ορη δια το συμβεβηκος κληθηναι Πυρηναια. That the mountains from hence had the name of Pyrenæi. Mount Ætna is derived very truly by Bochart from Aituna, fornax; as being a reservoir of molten matter. There was another very antient name, Inessus; by which the natives called the hill, as well as the city, which was towards the bottom of it. The name is a compound of Ain-Es, like Hanes in Egypt; and signifies a fountain of fire. It is called Ennesia by Diodorus, who says that this name was afterwards changed to Ætna. He speaks of the city; but the name was undoubtedly borrowed from the mountain, to which it was primarily applicable, and upon which it was originally conferred: ^[587]Και την νυν ουσαν Αιτνην εκτησαντο, προ τουτου καλουμενην Εννησιαν. Strabo expresses the name Innesa, and informs us, more precisely, that the upper part of the mountain was so called, Οι δε ^[588]Αιτναιοι παραχωρησαντες την Ιννησαν καλουμενην, της Αιτνης ορεινην, ᾡκησαν. Upon this, the people, withdrawing themselves, went and occupied the upper part of Mount Ætna, which was called Innesa. The city Hanes, in Egypt, was of the same etymology; being denominated from the Sun, who was styled Hanes. Ain-Es, fons ignis sive lucis. It was the same as the Arab Heliopolis, called now Mataiea. Stephanas Byzantinus calls the city Inys: for that is manifestly the name he gives it, if we take away the Greek termination, ^[589]Ινυσσος, πολις Αιγυπτου: but Herodotus, ^[590]from whom he borrows, renders it Iënis. It would have been more truly rendered Doricè Iänis; for that was nearer to the real name. The historian, however, points it out plainly, by saying, that it was three days journey from Mount ^[591]Casius; and that the whole way was through the Arabian desert. This is a situation which agrees with no other city in all Egypt, except that which was the Onium of the later Jews. With this it accords precisely. There seem to have been two cities named On, from the worship of the Sun. One was called Zan, Zon, and Zoan, in the land of Go-zan, the ^[592]Goshen of the scriptures. The other was the city On in Arabia; called also Hanes. They were within eight or nine miles of each other, and are both mentioned together by the prophet ^[593]Isaiah. For his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes. The name of each of these cities, on account of the similarity of worship, has by the Greeks been translated ^[594]Heliopolis; which has caused great confusion in the history of Egypt. The latter of the two was the Iänis, or Ιανισος, of the Greeks; so called from Hanes, the great fountain of light, the Sun; who was worshipped under that title by the Egyptians and Arabians. It lies now quite in ruins, close to the village Matarea, which has risen from it. The situation is so pointed out, that we cannot be mistaken: and we find, moreover, which is a circumstance very remarkable, that it is at this day called by the Arabians Ain El Sham, the fountain of the Sun; a name precisely of the same purport as Hanes. Of this we are informed by the learned geographer, D'Anville, and others; though the name, by different travellers, is expressed with some variation. ^[595]Cette ville presque ensévelie sous des ruines, et voisine, dit Abulfeda, d'un petit lieu nommé Matarea, conserve dans les géographies Arabes le nom d'Ainsiems ou du fontain du Soleil. A like account is given by Egmont and ^[596]Hayman; though they express the name Ain El Cham; a variation of little consequence. The reason why the antient name has been laid aside, by those who reside there, is undoubtedly this. Bochart tells us, that, since the religion of Mahomet has taken place, the Arabs look upon Hanes as the devil: ^[597]proinde ab ipsis ipse Dæmon הנאס vocatur. Hence they have abolished Hanes: but the name Ain El Cham, of the same purport, they have suffered to remain.

I have before taken notice of an objection liable to be made from a supposition, that if Hanes signified the fountain of light, as I have presumed, it would have been differently expressed in the Hebrew. This is a strange fallacy; but yet very predominant. Without doubt those learned men, who have preceded in these researches, would have bid fair for noble discoveries, had they not been too limited, and biassed, in their notions. But as far as I am able to judge, most of those, who have engaged in inquiries of this nature, have ruined the purport of their labours through some prevailing prejudice. They have not considered, that every other nation, to which we can possibly gain access, or from whom we have any history derived, appears to have expressed foreign terms differently from the natives, in whose language they were found. And without a miracle the Hebrews must have done the same. We pronounce all French names differently from the people of that country: and they do the same in respect to us. What we call London, they express Londres: England they style Angleterre. What some call Bazil, they pronounce Bal: Munchen, Munich: Mentz, Mayence: Ravenspurg, Ratisbon. The like variation was observable of old. Carthago of the Romans was Carchedon among the Greeks. Hannibal was rendered Annibas: Asdrubal, Asdroubas: and probably neither was consonant to the Punic mode of expression. If then a prophet were to rise from the dead, and preach to any nation, he would make use of terms adapted to their idiom and usage; without any retrospect to the original of the terms, whether they were domestic, or foreign. The sacred writers undoubtedly observed this rule towards the people, for whom they wrote; and varied in their expressing of foreign terms; as the usage of the people varied. For the Jewish nation at times differed from its neighbours, and from itself. We may be morally certain, that the place, rendered by them Ekron, was by the natives called Achoron; the Accaron, Ακκαρων, of Josephus, and the Seventy. What they termed Philistim, was Pelestin: Eleazar, in their own language, they changed to Lazar, and Lazarus: and of the Greek συνεδριον they formed Sanhedrim. Hence we may be certified, that the Jews, and their ancestors, as well as all nations upon earth, were liable to express foreign terms with a variation, being led by a natural peculiarity in their mode of speech. They therefore are surely to be blamed, who would deduce the orthography of all antient words from the Hebrew; and bring every extraneous term to that test. It requires no great insight into that language to see the impropriety of such procedure. Yet no prejudice has been more ^[598]common. The learned Michaelis has taken notice of this ^[599]fatal attachment, and speaks of it as a strange illusion. He says, that it is the reigning influenza, to which all are liable, who make the Hebrew their principal study. The only way to obtain the latent purport of antient terms is by a fair analysis. This must be discovered by an apparent analogy; and supported by the history of the place, or person, to whom the terms relate. If such helps can be obtained, we may determine very truly the etymology of an Egyptian or Syriac name; however it may appear repugnant to the orthography of the Hebrews. The term Hanes is not so uncommon as may be imagined. Zeus was worshipped under this title in Greece, and styled Ζευς Αινησιος. The Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius mentions his temple, and terms it ^[600]Διος Αινησιου ἱερον ου μνημονευει και Λεων εν περιπλῳ, και Δημοσθενης εν λιμεσι. It is also taken notice of by Strabo, who speaks of a mountain Hanes, where the temple stood. ^[601]Μεγιστον δε ορος εν αυτῃ Αινος (lege Αινης) εν ᾡ το του Διος Αινησιου ἱερον. The mountain of Zeus Ainesius must have been Aines, and not Ainos; though it occurs so in our present copies of Strabo. The Scholiast above quotes a verse from Hesiod, where the Poet styles the Deity Αινηιος.

Aineïus, and Ainesius are both alike from Hanes, the Deity of Egypt, whose rites may be traced in various parts. There were places named Aineas, and Ainesia in Thrace; which are of the same original. This title occurs sometimes with the prefix Ph'anes: and the Deity so called was by the early theologists thought to have been of the highest antiquity. They esteemed him the same as ^[602]Ouranus, and Dionusus: and went so far as to give him a creative ^[603]power, and to deduce all things from him. The Grecians from Phanes formed Φαναιος, which they gave as a title both to ^[604]Zeus, and Apollo. In this there was nothing extraordinary, for they were both the same God. In the north of Italy was a district called Ager ^[605]Pisanus. The etymology of this name is the same as that of Hanes, and Phanes; only the terms are reversed. It signifies ignis fons: and in confirmation of this etymology I have found the place to have been famous for its hot streams, which are mentioned by Pliny under the name of Aquæ Pisanæ. Cuma in Campania was certainly denominated from Chum, heat, on account of its soil, and situation. Its medicinal ^[606]waters are well known; which were called Aquæ Cumanæ. The term Cumana is not formed merely by a Latine inflection; but consists of the terms Cumain, and signifies a hot fountain; or a fountain of Chum, or Cham, the Sun. The country about it was called Phlegra; and its waters are mentioned by Lucretius.

Here was a cavern, which of old was a place of prophecy. It was the seat of the Sibylla Cumana, who was supposed to have come from ^[608]Babylonia. As Cuma was properly Cuman; so Baiæ was Baian; and Alba near mount Albanus^[609], Alban: for the Romans often dropped the n final. Pisa, so celebrated in Elis, was originally Pisan, of the same purport as the Aquæ Pisanæ above. It was so called from a sacred fountain, to which only the name can be primarily applicable: and we are assured by Strabo ^[610]Την κρηνην Πισαν ειρησθαι, that the fountain had certainly the name of Pisan. I have mentioned that Mount Pyrene was so called from being a fountain of fire: such mountains often have hot streams in their vicinity, which are generally of great utility. Such we find to have been in Aquitania at the foot of this mountain, which were called Thermæ Onesæ; and are mentioned by Strabo, as ^[611]Θερμα καλλιστα ποτιμωτατου ὑδατος. What in one part of the world was termed Cumana, was in another rendered Comana. There was a grand city of this name in Cappadocia, where stood one of the noblest Puratheia in Asia. The Deity worshipped was represented as a feminine, and styled Anait, and Anaïs; which latter is the same as Hanes. She was well known also in Persis, Mesopotamia, and at Egbatana in Media. Both An-ait, and An-ais, signifies a fountain of fire. Generally near her temples, there was an eruption of that element; particularly at Egbatana, and Arbela. Of the latter Strabo gives an account, and of the fiery matter which was near it. ^[612]Περι Αρβηλα δε εστι και Δημητριας πολις· ειθ' ἡ του ναφθα πηγη, και τα πυρα (or πυρεια) και το της Αναιας ἱερον.

I should take the town of Egnatia in Italy to have been of the same purport as Hanes above mentioned: for Hanes was sometimes expressed with a guttural, Hagnes; from whence came the ignis of the Romans. In Arcadia near mount Lyceus was a sacred fountain; into which one of the nymphs, which nursed Jupiter, was supposed to have been changed. It was called Hagnon, the same as Ain-On, the fount of the Sun. From Ain of the Amonians, expressed Agn, came the ἁγνος of the Greeks, which signified any thing pure and clean; purus sive castus. Hence was derived ἁγνειον, πηγαιον· ἁγναιον, καθαρον· ἁγνη, καθαρα: as we may learn from Hesychius. Pausanias styles the fountain ^[613]Hagno: but it was originally Hagnon, the fountain of the Sun: hence we learn in another place of Hesychius, ἁγνοπολεισθαι, το ὑπο ἡλιου θερεσθαι. The town Egnatia, which I mentioned above, stood in campis Salentinii, and at this day is called Anazo, and Anazzo. It was so named from the rites of fire: and that those customs were here practised, we may learn from some remains of them among the natives in the times of Horace and Pliny. The former calls the place by contraction ^[614]Gnatia:

Horace speaks as if they had no fire: but according to Pliny they boasted of having a sacred and spontaneous appearance of it in their temple. ^[615]Reperitur apud auctores in Salentino oppido Egnatiâ, imposito ligno in saxum quoddam ibi sacram protinus flammam existere. From hence, undoubtedly, came also the name of Salentum, which is a compound of Sal-En, Solis fons; and arose from this sacred fire to which the Salentini pretended. They were Amonians, who settled here, and who came last from Crete ^[616]Τους δε Σαλεντινους Κρητων αποικους φασι. Innumerable instances of this sort might be brought from Sicily: for this island abounded with places, which were of Amonian original. Thucydides and other Greek writers, call them Phenicians^[617]: Ωκουν δε και Φοινικες περι πασαν μεν Σικελιαν. But they were a different people from those, which he supposes. Besides, the term Phenician was not a name, but a title: which was assumed by people of different parts; as I shall shew. The district, upon which the Grecians conferred it, could not have supplied people sufficient to occupy the many regions, which the Phenicians were supposed to have possessed. It was an appellation, by which no part of Canaan was called by the antient and true inhabitants: nor was it ever admitted, and in use, till the Grecians got possession of the coast. It was even then limited to a small tract; to the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

If so many instances may be obtained from the west, many more will be found, as we proceed towards the east; from whence these terms were originally derived. Almost all the places in Greece were of oriental etymology; or at least from Egypt. I should suppose that the name of Methane in the Peloponnesus had some relation to a fountain, being compounded of Meth-an, the fountain of the Egyptian Deity, Meth, whom the Greeks called Μητις, Meetis.