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.
[[547]]Ωλην δ' ὁς γενετο πρωτος Φοιβοιο προφητες,
Πρωτος δ' αρχαιων επεων τεχνωσατ' αοιδαν.
These hymns grew, by length of time, obsolete; and scarce intelligible. They were, however, translated, or rather imitated, by Pamphos, Rhianus, Phemius, Homer, Bion Proconnesius, Onomacritus, and others. Many of the sacred terms could not be understood, nor interpreted; they were however [[548]]retained with great reverence: and many which they did attempt to decipher, were misconstrued and misapplied. Upon this basis was the theology of Greece founded: from hence were the names of Gods taken: and various departments attributed to the several Deities. Every poet had something different in his theogony: and every variety, however inconsistent, was admitted by the Greeks without the least hesitation: [[549]]Φυσει γαρ Ἑλληνες νεοτροποι—Ἑλλησιν αταλαιπωρος της αληθειας ζητησις. The Grecians, says Jamblichus, are naturally led by novelty: The investigation of truth is too fatiguing for a Grecian. From these antient hymns and misconstrued terms [[550]]Pherecydes of Syrus planned his history of the Gods: which, there is reason to think, was the source of much error.
Such were the principles which gave birth to the mythology of the Grecians; from whence their antient history was in great measure derived. As their traditions were obsolete, and filled with extraneous matter, it rendered it impossible for them to arrange properly the principal events of their country. They did not separate and distinguish; but often took to themselves the merit of transactions, which were of a prior date, and of another clime. These they adopted, and made their own. Hence, when they came to digest their history, it was all confused: and they were embarrassed with numberless contradictions, and absurdities, which it was impossible to [[551]]remedy. For their vanity, as I have shewn, would not suffer them to rectify their mistakes by the authority of more antient and more learned nations. It is well observed by Tatianus [[552]]Assyrius, that where the history of times past has not been duly adjusted, it is impossible to arrive at the truth: and there has been no greater cause of error in writing, than the endeavouring to adopt what is groundless and inconsistent. Sir Isaac Newton somewhere lays it down for a rule, never to admit for history what is antecedent to letters. For traditionary truths cannot be long preserved without some change in themselves, and some addition of foreign circumstances. This accretion will be in every age enlarged; till there will at last remain some few outlines only of the original occurrence. It has been maintained by many, that the Grecians had letters very early: but it will appear upon inquiry to have been a groundless notion. Those of the antients, who considered the matter more carefully, have made no scruple to set aside their [[553]]pretensions. Josephus in particular takes notice of their early claim; but cannot allow it: [[554]]They, says this learned historian, who would carry the introduction of letters among the Greeks the highest, very gravely tell us, that they were brought over by the Phenicians, and Cadmus. Yet, after all, they cannot produce a single specimen either from their sacred writings, or from their popular records, which savours of that antiquity. Theophilus takes notice of these difficulties; and shews that all the obscurity, with which the history of Hellas is clouded, arose from this deficiency of letters. He complains, that the [[555]]Hellenes had lost sight of the truth; and could not recollect any genuine history. The reason of this is obvious: for they came late to the knowledge of letters in comparison of other nations. This they confess, by attributing the invention of them to people prior to themselves; either to the Chaldeans, or the Egyptians: or else to the Phenicians. Another cause of failure, which relates to their theology, and still greatly prevails, is owing to their not making a proper disquisition about the true object of worship: but amusing themselves with idle, and unprofitable speculations.
Notwithstanding this deficiency, they pretended to give a list of Argive princes, of which twenty preceded the war of [[556]]Troy. But what is more extraordinary, they boasted of a series of twenty-six Kings at Sicyon, comprehending a space of one thousand years, all which kings were before the time of [[557]]Theseus and the Argonauts. Among those, who have given the list of the Argive kings, is [[558]]Tatianus Assyrius, who advises every person of sense, when he meets with these high pretensions, to consider attentively, that there was not a single voucher, not even a tradition of any record, to authenticate these histories: for even Cadmus was many ages after. It is certain, that the Helladians had no tendency to learning, till they were awakened by the Asiatic Greeks: and it was even then some time before letters were in general use; or any histories, or even records attempted. For if letters had been current, and the materials for writing obvious, and in common use, how comes it that we have not one specimen older than the reign of Cyrus? And how is it possible, if the Grecians had any records, that they should be so ignorant about some of their most famous men? Of Homer how little is known! and of what is transmitted, how little, upon which we may depend! Seven places in Greece contend for his birth: while many doubt whether he was of Grecian original. It is said of Pythagoras, [[559]]that according to Hippobotrus he was of Samos: but Aristoxenus, who wrote his life, as well as Aristarchus, and Theopompus, makes him a Tyrrhenian. According to Neanthes he was of Syria, or else a native of Tyre. In like manner Thales was said by Herodotus, Leander, and Duris, to have been a Phenician: but he was by others referred to Miletus in Ionia. It is reported of Pythagoras, that he visited Egypt in the time of Cambyses. From thence he betook himself to Croton in Italy: where he is supposed to have resided till the last year of the seventieth Olympiad: consequently he could not be above thirty or forty years prior to the birth of Æschylus and Pindar. What credit can we give to people for histories many ages backward; who were so ignorant in matters of importance, which happened in the days of their fathers? The like difficulties occur about Pherecydes Syrius; whom Suidas styles Babylonius: neither the time, when he lived, nor the place of his birth, have been ever satisfactorily proved. Till Eudoxus had been in Egypt the Grecians did not know the space of which the true year consisted. [[560]]Αλλ' ηγνοειτο τεως ὁ ενιαυτος παρα τοις Ἑλλησιν, ὡς και αλλα πλειω.
Another reason may be given for the obscurity in the Grecian history, even when letters had been introduced among them. They had a childish antipathy to every foreign language: and were equally prejudiced in favour of their own. This has passed unnoticed; yet was attended with the most fatal consequences. They were misled by the too great delicacy of their ear; and could not bear any term which appeared to them barbarous and uncouth. On this account they either rejected foreign [[561]]appellations; or so modelled and changed them, that they became, in sound and meaning, essentially different. And as they were attached to their own country, and its customs, they presumed that every thing was to be looked for among themselves. They did not consider, that the titles of their Gods, the names of cities, and their terms of worship, were imported: that their ancient hymns were grown obsolete: and that time had wrought a great change. They explained every thing by the language in use, without the least retrospect or allowance: and all names and titles from other countries were liable to the same rule. If the name were dissonant, and disagreeable to their ear, it was rejected as barbarous: but if it were at all similar in sound to any word in their language, they changed it to that word; though the name were of Syriac original; or introduced from Egypt, or Babylonia. The purport of the term was by these means changed: and the history, which depended upon it, either perverted or effaced. When the title Melech, which signified a King, was rendered Μειλιχος and Μειλιχιος, sweet and gentle, it referred to an idea quite different from the original. But this gave them no concern: they still blindly pursued their purpose. Some legend was immediately invented in consequence of this misprision, some story about bees and honey, and the mistake was rendered in some degree plausible. This is a circumstance of much consequence; and deserves our attention greatly. I shall have occasion to speak of it repeatedly; and to lay before the reader some entire treatises upon the subject. For this failure is of such a nature, as, when detected. and fairly explained, will lead us to the solution of many dark and enigmatical histories, with which the mythology of Greece abounds. The only author, who seems to have taken any notice of this unhappy turn in the Grecians, is Philo Biblius. [[562]]He speaks of it as a circumstance of very bad consequence, and says, that it was the chief cause of error and obscurity: hence, when he met in Sanchoniathon with antient names, he did not indulge himself in whimsical solutions; but gave the true meaning, which was the result of some event or quality whence the name was imposed. This being a secret to the Greeks, they always took things in a wrong acceptation; being misled by a twofold sense of the terms which occurred to them: one was the genuine and original meaning, which was retained in the language whence they were taken: the other was a forced sense, which the Greeks unnaturally deduced from their own language, though there was no relation between them. The same term in different languages conveyed different and opposite ideas: and as they attended only to the meaning in their own tongue, they were constantly [[563]]mistaken.
It may appear strange to make use of the mistakes of any people for a foundation to build upon: yet through these failures my system will be in some degree supported: at least from a detection of these errors, I hope to obtain much light. For, as the Grecian writers have preserved a kind of uniformity in their mistakes, and there appears plainly a rule and method of deviation, it will be very possible, when this method is well known, to decypher what is covertly alluded to; and by these means arrive at the truth. If the openings in the wood or labyrinth are only as chance allotted, we may be for ever bewildered: but if they are made with design, and some method be discernible, this circumstance, if attended to, will serve for a clue, and lead us through the maze. If we once know that what the Greeks, in their mythology, styled a wolf, was the Sun; that by a dog was meant a prince, or Deity; that by bees was signified an order of priests; these terms, however misapplied, can no more mislead us in writing, than their resemblances in sculpture would a native of Egypt, if they were used for emblems on stone.