Ætatis breve ver, et primos carpere flores.

Those of the community, who survived the disaster, fled down the Hebrus to Lesbos; where they either found, or erected, a temple similar to that which they had quitted. Here the same worship was instituted; and the place grew into great reputation. They likewise settled at Lenmos. This island lay at no great distance from the former; and was particularly devoted to the Deity of fire. It is said by Hecatæus, that it received the name of Lemnos from the Magna Dea, Cybele. She was styled by the natives Λημνος, and at her shrine they used to sacrifice young persons. [[1050]]Απο μεγαλης λεγομενης Θεου· ταυτῃ δε και παρθενους εθυον. They seem to have named the temple at Lesbos Orphi, and Orpheï caput: and it appears to have been very famous on account of its oracle. Philostratus says, that the Ionians, and Æolians, of old universally consulted it: and, what is extraordinary, that it was held in high estimation by the people of [[1051]]Babylonia. He calls the place the head of Orpheus: and mentions, that the oracle proceeded from a cavity in the earth; and that it was consulted by Cyrus, the Persian. That the Babylonians had a great veneration for a temple named Orphi, I make no doubt: but it certainly could not be the temple at Lesbos. During the Babylonish empire, Greece, and its islands, were scarcely known to people of that country. And when the Persians succeeded, it is not credible, that they should apply to an oracle at Lesbos, or to an oracle of Greece. They were too refined in their religious notions to make any such application. It is notorious, that, when Cambyses, and Ochus, invaded Egypt, and when Xerxes made his inroad into Greece, they burnt and ruined the temples in each nation, out of abomination to the worship. It was another place of this name, an oracle of their own, to which the Babylonians, and Persians, applied. For it cannot be supposed, in the times spoken of, that they had a correspondence with the western world. It was Ur, in Chaldea, the seat of the antient Magi, which was styled Urphi, and Orphi, on account of its being the seat of an oracle. That there was such a temple is plain from Stephanus Byzantinus, who tells us, [[1052]]Μαντειον εχειν αυτους (Χαλδαιους) παρα βαρβαροις, ὡς Δελφοι παρ' Ἑλλησι. The Chaldeans had an oracle as famous among the people of those parts, as Delphi was among the Grecians. This temple was undoubtedly styled Urphi. I do not mean, that this was necessarily a proper name; but an appellative, by which oracular places were in general distinguished. The city Edessa in Mesopotamia seems likewise to have had the name of Urphi, which was given on account of the like rites, and worship. That it was so named, we may fairly presume from its being by the natives called [[1053]]Urpha, at this day. It was the former temple, to which the Babylonians, and Persians had recourse: and it was from the Magi of these parts, that the Orphic rites and mysteries were originally derived. They came from Babylonia to Egypt, and from thence to Greece. We accordingly find this particular in the character of Orpheus, [[1054]]ειναι δε τον Ορφεα μαγευσαι δεινον, that he was great in all the mysteries of the Magi. We moreover learn from Stephanus Monachius, that Orphon, a term of the same purport as Orpheus, was one of the appellations, by which the Magi were called. [[1055]]Orphon, quod Arabibus Magum sonat. In short, under the character of Orpheus, we have the history both of the Deity, and of his votaries. The head of Orpheus was said to have been carried to Lemnos, just as the head of Osiris used to be wafted to Byblus. He is described as going to the shades below, and afterwards returning to upper air. This is similar to the history of Osiris, who was supposed to have been in a state of death, and after a time to have come to life. There was moreover something mysterious in the death of Orpheus; for it seems to have been celebrated with the same frantic acts of grief, as people practised in their lamentations for Thamuz and Osiris, and at the rites of Baal. The Bistonian women, who were the same as the Thyades, and Mænades, used to gash their arms with knives, and besmear themselves with [[1056]]blood, and cover their heads with ashes. By this display of sorrow we are to understand a religious rite; for Orpheus was a title, under which the Deity of the place was worshipped. He was the same as Orus of Egypt, whom the Greeks esteemed both as Apollo, and Hephaistus. That he was a deity is plain from his temple and oracle abovementioned: which, we find, were of great repute, and resorted to by various people from the opposite coast.

As there was an Orpheus in Thrace, so there appears to have been an Orpha in [[1057]]Laconia, of whose history we have but few remains. They represent her as a Nymph, the daughter of Dion, and greatly beloved by Dionusus. She was said, at the close of her life, to have been changed to a tree. The fable probably relates to the Dionusiaca, and other Orphic rites, which had been in early times introduced into the part of the world abovementioned, where they were celebrated at a place called Orpha. But the rites grew into disuse, and the history of the place became obsolete: hence Orpha has been converted to a nymph, favoured of the God there worshipped; and was afterwards supposed to have been changed to one of the trees, which grew within its precincts.

Many undertook to write the history of Orpheus; the principal of whom were Zopurus of Heraclea, Prodicus Chius, Epigenes, and Herodorus. They seem all to have run into that general mistake of forming a new personage from a title, and making the Deity a native, where he was inshrined. The writings, which were transmitted under the name of Orpheus, were innumerable: and are justly ridiculed by Lucian, both for their quantity, and matter. There were however some curious hymns, which used to be of old sung in Pieria, and Samothracia; and which Onomacritus copied. They contain indeed little more than a list of titles, by which the Deity in different places was addressed. But these titles are of great antiquity: and though the hymns are transmitted in a modern garb, the person, through whom we receive them, being as late as [[1058]]Pisistratus, yet they deserve our notice. They must necessarily be of consequence, as they refer to the worship of the first ages, and afford us a great insight into the Theology of the antients. Those specimens also, which have been preserved by Proclus, in his dissertations upon Plato, afford matter of great curiosity. They are all imitations, rather than translations of the antient Orphic poetry, accompanied with a short comment. This poetry was in the original Amonian language, which grew obsolete among the Helladians, and was no longer intelligible: but was for a long time preserved in [[1059]]Samothracia, and used in their sacred rites.

CADMUS.

Although I have said so much about Dionusus, Sesostris, and other great travellers, I cannot quit the subject till I have taken notice of Cadmus: for his expeditions, though not so extensive as some, which I have been mentioning, are yet esteemed of great consequence in the histories of antient nations. The time of his arrival in Greece is looked up to as a fixed æra: and many circumstances in chronology are thereby determined. He is commonly reputed to have been a Phenician by birth; the son of Agenor, who was the king of that country. He was sent by his father's order in quest of his sister Europa; and after wandering about a long time to little purpose, he at last settled in Greece. In this country were many traditions concerning him; especially in Attica, and Bœotia. The particular spot, where he is supposed to have taken up his residence, was in the latter province at Tanagra upon the river Ismenus. He afterwards built Thebes: and wherever he came, he introduced the religion of his country. This consisted in the worship of [[1060]]Dionusus; and in the rites, which by the later Greeks were termed the Dionusiaca. They seem to have been much the same as the Cabyritic mysteries, which he is said to have established in Samothracia. He fought with a mighty dragon; whose teeth he afterwards sowed, and produced an army of men. To him Greece is supposed to have been indebted for the first introduction of [[1061]]letters; which are said to have been the letters of his country Phenicia, and in number sixteen. He married Harmonia, the daughter of Mars and Venus: and his nuptials were graced with the presence of all the Gods, and Goddesses; each of whom conferred some gift upon the bride. He had several children; among whom was a daughter Semele, esteemed the mother of Bacchus. After having experienced great vicissitudes in life, he is said to have retired with his wife Harmonia to the coast of Illyria, where they were both changed to serpents. He was succeeded at Thebes by his son Polydorus, the father of Labdacus, the father of Laius. This last was the husband of Jocasta, by whom he had Œdipus.

Bochart with wonderful ingenuity, and equal learning, tries to solve the ænigmas, under which this history is represented. He supposes Cadmus to have been a fugitive Canaanite, who fled from the face of Joshua: and that he was called Cadmus from being a Cadmonite, which is a family mentioned by Moses. In like manner he imagines, that Harmonia had her name from mount Hermon, which was probably in the district of the Cadmonites. The story of the dragon he deduces from the Hevæi, or Hivites; the same people as the Cadmonites. He proceeds afterwards with great address to explain the rest of the fable, concerning the teeth of the dragon, which were sown; and the armed men, which from thence arose: and what he says is in many particulars attended with a great shew of probability. Yet after all his ingenious conjectures, I am obliged to dissent from him in some points; and particularly in one, which is of the greatest moment. I cannot be induced to think, that Cadmus was, as Bochart represents him, a Phenician. Indeed I am persuaded, that no such person existed. If Cadmus brought letters from Phenicia, how came he to bring but sixteen; when the people, from whom he imported them, had undoubtedly more, as we may infer from their neighbours? And if they were the current letters of Greece, as Herodotus intimates; how came it to pass, that the tablet of Alcmena, the wife of Amphitryon, the third in descent from Cadmus, could not be understood, as we are assured by [[1062]]Plutarch? He says, that in the reign of Agesilaus of Sparta, a written tablet was found in the tomb of Alcmena, to whom it was inscribed: that the characters were obsolete, and unintelligible; on which account they sent it to Conuphis of Memphis in Egypt, to be decyphered. If these characters were Phenician, why were they sent to a priest of a different country for interpretation? and why is their date and antiquity defined by the reign of a king in Egypt? [[1063]]Τους τυπους ειναι της επι Πρωτει βασιλευοντι γραμματικης. The form of the letters was the same as was in use when Proteus reigned in that country. Herodotus, indeed, to prove that the Cadmians brought letters into Greece, assures us, that he saw specimens of their writing at Thebes, in the temple of Apollo [[1064]]Ismenius: that there was a tripod as antient as the reign of Laius, the son of Labdacus; with an inscription, which imported, that it had been there dedicated by Amphitryon upon his victory over the Teleboæ. I make no doubt, but that Herodotus saw tripods with antient inscriptions: and there might be one with the name of Amphitryon: but how could he be sure that it was the writing of that person, and of those times? We know what a pleasure there is in enhancing the antiquity of things; and how often inscriptions are forged for that purpose. Is it credible that the characters of Amphitryon should be so easy to be apprehended, when those of his wife Alcmena could not be understood? and which of the two are we in this case to believe, Herodotus or Plutarch? I do not mean that I give any credence to the story of Alcmena and her tablet: nor do I believe that there was a tripod with characters as antient as Amphitryon. I only argue from the principles of the Greeks to prove their inconsistency. The Pheneatæ in Arcadia shewed to Pausanias an inscription upon the basis of a brazen statue, which was dedicated to [[1065]]Poseidon Hippius. It was said to have been written by Ulysses, and contained a treaty made between him and some shepherds. But Pausanias acknowledges that it was an imposition; for neither statues of brass, nor statues of any sort, were in use at the time alluded to.

It is said of Cadmus, that he introduced the rites of [[1066]]Bacchus into Greece. But how is this possible, if Bacchus was his descendant, the son of his daughter Semele? To remedy this, the latter mythologists suppose, that there was a prior Bacchus, who was worshipped by Cadmus. This is their usual recourse, when they are hard pressed with inconsistencies. They then create other personages, to help them out of their difficulties. They form, with great facility, a new Semiramis, or Ninus; another Belus, Perseus, Minos, Hermes, Phoroneus, Apis, though to little purpose: for the mistake being fundamental, the inconveniencies cannot be remedied by such substitutes. We are told that Cadmus was a Phenician: but Diodorus Siculus speaks of him as assuredly of Egypt; and mentions moreover, that he was a native of the Thebaïs: [[1067]]Καδμον εκ Θηβων οντα των Αιγυπτιων. Pherecydes Syrus also, from whom most of the mythology of Greece was borrowed, makes Cadmus an [[1068]]Egyptian, the son of Agenor and Argiope, who was the daughter of Nilus. By others he is said to have been the son of Antiope, the daughter of Belus: consequently he must originally have been of Babylonish extraction. His father Agenor, from whom he is supposed to have been instructed in the sciences, is represented by Nonnus as residing at Thebes.

[[1069]]Πατρια θεσπεσιης δεδαημενος οργια τεχνης,

Αιγυπτιης σοφιης μεταναστιος, ημος Αγηνωρ