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.