Greek and Roman Dioscuri. "Præsidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed Deos, interpretatione Romana, Castorem Pollucemque memorant." [c. 43.] But what greatly confirms our opinion is, that, when these people were converted from Paganism to the Christian faith, their Convertists, who had the best opportunities and fittest occasion to enquire thoroughly into the state of their superstition, found neither Greek nor Roman Gods amongst them; but Idols of their own growth only. And though, indeed, the vulgar herd of Antiquarians, misled by the Classic writers, are wont to speak after them, in this matter, yet the most learned investigators of the history of this people expressly affirm the contrary. Of whom I need only mention the celebrated Saxo Grammaticus, who says, "Eos qui a nostris colebantur non esse quos Romanorum vetustissimi Jovem Mercuriumque dixere, vel quibus Græci Latiumque plenum superstitionis obsequium exsolverunt, ex ipsa liquidò feriarum appellatione colligitur." Hist. Dan. 1. vi. But Tacitus has recorded a circumstance which fully evinces the mistake of this supposed identity. For when he had told us that the Germans worshiped Mercury, Hercules, Mars, &c. he immediately adds, that they did not worship their Gods in Temples, nor under a Human figure. "Ceterum nec cohibere parietibus deos, neque in ullam humani oris speciem assimilare ex magnitudine cœlestium arbitrantur." [c. ix.] I quote the words for the fact. The reason seems to be a conjecture of his own. Now if the Germans had borrowed their Mercury, Hercules, and Mars, from Greece and Rome, they probably would have worshiped them in Temples; most certainly, under a Human form. And, what is strangest of all, Tacitus himself afterwards, in the case of the Naharvali, seems to be sensible of this; for having told us that they worshiped two young Brother-Gods, which the Romans conjectured to be Castor and Pollux, he makes the following observation, as seeming to dissent from them. "Nulla SIMULACRA, nullum peregrina superstitionis vestigium," c. xliii. A celebrated French author, M. Freret, has borrowed and adopted this system. He holds with me, that the Gods of these Barbarians were not the same with the Greek and Roman Gods; and that the mistake arose from the resemblance between their attributes, which he shews, in the manner I have done (and I suppose from the observations I had made) must needs be alike. 66 Chaque Dieu dans toute religion Polytheiste avoit son district, ses occupations, son caractere, &c. Le partage avoit été réglé sur les passions et sur les besoins des hommes et comme leurs passions et leurs besoins sont les mêmes par tout, les départemens des Dieux barbares avoient necessairement du rapport avec ceux des divinités de la Grèce. Il falloit par tout une intelligence qui gouvernât le ciel, et qui lancât le tonnerre. Il en falloit d'autres pour gouverner les élémens, pour présider à la guerre, au commerce, à la paix, &c. La conformité des emplois entraînoit une ressemblance d'attributs: et c'étoit sur ce fondement, que les Grecs et les Romains donnoient les noms de leurs Dieux aux divinités des Barbares."-Voiez M. de la Bleterie, ses remarques sur la Germanie de Tacit. p. 135. In conclusion; the learned reader will remark, that this is a species of that general conformity which I had observed is commonly ascribed to imitation, when in truth its source is in our common nature, and the similar circumstances in which the partakers of it are generally found. Here again I have the pleasure of finding this M. Freret agree with me in this general principle, as before in the particular system of polytheism here advanced. "Il seroit utile, dit M. Freret, de rassembler les conformités qui se trouvent entre des nations qu'on sait n'avoir jamais eu de commerce ensemble. Ces exemples pourroient rendre les critiques un peu moins hardis à supposer qu'une nation a emprunté certains opinions et certains coûtumes d'une autre nation, dont elle étoit séparée par une très grande distance, et avec qui l'on ne voit point qu'elle ait jamais eu la moindre communication." See M. de la Bleterie, p. 168. and compare it with what I had said many years before at the end of the last section of this IVth Book. When I reflect upon the honours of this kind, which several writers of this humane nation have done me in silence, it puts me in mind of what Muret says of Macrobius on the like occasion,-"ut appareat eum factitasse eandem artem, quam plerique hoc sæculo faciunt, qui ita humani a se nihil alienum putant, ut alienis æquè utantur ac suis." P. 264. CCCC. It is remarkable, that though Herodotus tells us, these Pelasgians, before their knowledge or admission of the Egyptian names, sacrificed to their Gods, [Εθνον δὲ πάντα πρότερον οἵδε Πελασγοὶ], yet when they had admitted these names, he gives the matter of sacrificing as one change which this admission had introduced; from that time, says he, they sacrificed [ἀπὸ μὲν δὴ τούτου τοῦ χρόνου ἔθυον]. A passage in Julius Caesar will explain this difficulty: After he had given an account of the Gods of the Gauls, who, living under a civil policy, worshiped Hero-gods; he goes on to those of the uncivilized Germans, which, he tells us, were only the celestial Luminaries and Elements. Deorum numero eos solos ducunt, quos cernunt, et quorum opibus apertè juvantur; Solem et Vulcanum et Lunam. Reliquos ne fama quidem acceperunt. De Bell. Gall. 1. vi. sect. 19. The very Gods, as we observed, of all the uncivilized idolaters upon earth. Now of these Barbarians he adds, Neque Druides habent, qui rebus divinis præsint; neque SACRIFICIIS STUDENT. They were not nice and exact in the matter of sacrificing: and no wonder, for he tells us, they had no Priests. Now Herodotus, speaking of his Barbarians, informs us of the same thing, though in other words, and on a different occasion. They sacrificed, says he, every thing without distinction; this was the neque sacrificiis student of Cæsar. But when they came to use the names of the Egyptian Gods, then Ovov, they sacrificed, i. e. made a study of it, had a large Ritual concerning it, and no longer sacrificed without distinction. For these names being expressive of each God's peculiar nature, qualities, and dispositions, soon introduced a distinction of sacrifices, according to the imaginary agreement or disagreement between the subject and the object. P. 265. DDDD. This communication of names (from whence the men we are arguing against inferred, that the Grecian Gods were originally Egyptian) made another party, such as Bochart, Huet, and Fourmont, conclude they were originally Jewish. Thus the last of these writers in one place says, Par tout ce discours il est clair, que les Romains, les Grecs, les Phrygiens, les Thraces, les Getes, les autres Scythes, et en general tous les peuples Guerriers ont adoré MARS sans le connoître, et que c'etoit un Dieu originairement Phenicien, comme les autres grands Dieux. [Refl. Crit. vol. i. p. 103.] And in another place, Mais en voilà assez sur ce Dieu ou Heros, qui, comme l'on voit, avoit été fort illustre SANS ETRE CONNU. [p. 156.] For, according to these Critics, a pagan Hero was never known till his pedigree had been traced up into the Holy family. P. 269. EEEE. But, besides the Greek and Egyptian, there was certainly an Indian BACCHUS: whose existence and history the learned Mr. Shuckford has well disembarrassed. I shall quote his words, and this with more pleasure than I have yet done on most occasions. "There have been several persons called by the name of Bacchus; at least one in India, one in Egypt, and one in Greece; but we must not confound them one with the other, especially when we have remarkable hints by which we may sufficiently distinguish them. For, 1. The Indian Bacchus was the first and most ancient of all that bore that name. 2. He was the first that pressed the grape and made wine. 3. He lived in these parts before there were any cities in India. 4. They say he was twice born, and that he was nourished in the thigh of Jupiter. These are the particulars which the Heathen writers give us of the Indian Bacchus; and from all these hints it must unquestionably appear that he was NOAH, and no other. Noah being the first man in the post-diluvian world, lived early enough to be the most ancient Bacchus; and Noah, according to Moses, was the first that made wine. Noah lived in those parts as soon as he came out of the ark, earlier than there were any cities built in India; and as to the last circumstance of Bacchus being twice born, and brought forth out of the thigh of Jupiter, Diodorus gives us an unexpected light into the true meaning of this tradition; he says, that Bacchus was said to be twice born, because in Deucalion's flood he was thought to have perished with the rest of the world, but God brought him again as by a second nativity into the sight of men, and they say, mythologically, that he came out of the thigh of Jupiter." Connection, vol. ii. p. 49, 50. P. 273. FFFF. Τὴν δὴ μετεξέτεροι φασὶ Ἑλλήνων Ροδώπιος ἑταίρης yvvaikòs eivai. Herod. l. ii. c. 134. Their handle for this was a story the Egyptian priests told of their king Cheops, the great builder of Pyramids, That, having exhausted his revenues, he raised a new fund for his expences by the prostitution of his DAUGHTER: By which the priests, in their figurative way of recording matters, only meant, as I suppose, that he prostituted JUSTICE. This interpretation is much confirmed by the character they give of his son Mycerinus, δίκας δέ σφι πάντων βασιλήων δικαιоTáTая KрiVELV. [See Herod. 1. ii. c. 126, 129.] However the Greeks took it literally. P. 274. GGGG. Plutarch, in Theseus, tells us, that when the daughter of Pitheus bore Theseus of Ægeus, her father gave out that the infant was begot by Neptune. P. 280. HHHH. That Homer collected his materials from the old Songs and Poems of his predecessors, I conclude from this circumstance; In those things wherein he might be instructed by the records of poesy, we find him calling upon the MUSES to inform him: But when he relates what happened amongst the Gods, which he could only learn by poetical inspiration, he goes boldly into his story, without invoking the Muses, at all. Thus when he speaks of the squabbles between Jupiter, and his wife Juno, he tells them with as little preparation as if they had been his next door neighbours. But when he comes to give a catalogue of the Grecian forces which went to the siege of Troy, the likeliest of all subjects to be found in the old poems of his Ancestors, he invocates the Muses in the most solemn and pompous manner: which therefore I understand as only a more figurative intimation (to give the greater authority to what followed), that he took his account from authentic records, and not from uncertain tradition. And these old poems being, in his time, held sacred, as supposed to be written by a kind of divine impulse, an invocation to them, under the name of the Goddesses, who were said to have inspired them, was an extreme natural and easy figure: Εσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι, ὀλύμπια δώματ ̓ ἔχουσαι· "Say, Virgins, seated round the throne divine, Since Earth's wide regions, Heaven's unmeasured height, We wretched mortals lost in doubt below, But guess by rumour, and but boast we know, Oh, say what Heroes."-Mr. POPE. Which, put into a plain dress, is no more than this, That as the old records of the poets had preserved a very circumstantial account of the forces warring before Troy, he chose rather to fetch his accounts from thence than from uncertain and confused tradition. This observation will help to explain another particular in Homer, and as remarkable; namely, his so frequently telling us, as he is describing persons or things, that they bore one name amongst the Gods, and another amongst Mortals. Which, we may now collect, means no more than that, in those old poems, they were called differently from what they were in the time of Homer. Thus speaking of Titan he says, So again, And again, Ωχ. Εκατόγχειρον καλέσασ ̓ ἐς μακρὸν Ολυμπον, "Then call'd by thee, the monster Titan came, Whom Gods, Briareus, men Ægeon name."-Mr. POPE. Ἔστι δέ τις προπάροιθε πόλεως αἰπεῖα κολώνη, ̓Αθάνατοι δέ τε σῆμα πολυσκάρθμοιο Μυρίννης. Ιλ. β. ver. 811. A rising mount, the work of human hands, This for Myrinnè's Tomb th' immortals know, Tho' called Bateia in the world below.”—Mr. POPE. Αντα δ ̓ ἄρ ̓ Ηφαίστοιο μέγας ποταμὸς βαθυδίνης, Ὃν Ξάνθον καλέουσι θεοί, ἄνδρες δὲ Σκάμανδρον. Ιλ. ύ. ver. 73. "With fiery Vulcan last in battle stands The sacred flood that rolls on golden sands; Xanthus his name with those of heav'nly birth, But call'd Scamander by the sons of earth."-Mr. POPE. Now supposing these names were not taken by Homer from the old poems, no reasonable account can be given for his so particular an information of this circumstance. But allow them to be taken thence, and the reason is evident. It was to remind the reader, from time to time, that he still kept their own venerable records in his eye; which would give weight and authority to what he delivered. The old names are called by Homer, the Names used by the immortals, on these three accounts: 1. As they were the names employed in the old sacred poems. 2. As they were in use in the first heroic ages. And 3. As they were of barbarous and Egyptian original; from whence came the mythologic history of the Gods. Two lines of the pretended Chaldaic oracles, collected by Patricius, explain this whole matter well, as they shew the great reverence of the Ancients for the Religion of Names: Ονόματα βάρβαρα μήποτ' ἀλλάξῃς, Εἰσὶ γὰρ ὀνόματα παρ' ἑκάστοις θεόσδοτα. Never change barbarous Names; for every nation hath Names which it received from God. P. 283. IIII. The late bishop Sherlock supposed, that "the divine original of the Law might be inferred from this prohibition of the use of : Cavalry for that nothing but a divine command could have prevailed with Moses to forbid the princes of his country the uses of Horses and Chariots for their defence." [4th Dissert. p. 329. Ed. 4.] But I chuse not to insist on this, as the use of Cavalry could not be necessary for their defence after they were in possession of the country. P. 288. KKKK. It is true Diodorus supposes, the principal reason was to cover and secure the flat country from hostile incursions: Tò dè péywTOV, πρὸς τὰς τῶν πολεμίων ἐφόδους ὀχυρὰν καὶ δυσέμβολον ἐποίησε τὴν χώραν, p. 36. But sure he hath chosen a very unlikely time for such a provision. The return of Sesostris from the conquest of the habitable world would hardly have been attended with apprehensions of any evil of this kind. P. 291. LLLL. The reader may not be displeased to see Homer's ideas of this matter: who supposes the science of architecture to be arrived at great perfection in the time of the Trojan war. For speaking of the habitation of Paris (whom, as his great translator rightly observes, Homer makes to be a bel-esprit and a fine genius) he describes it in this manner : Εκτωρ δὲ πρὸς δώματ' ̓Αλεξάνδροιο βεβήκει ΚΑΛΑ, τά δ' αὐτὸς ἔτευξε σὺν ἀνδράσιν, οἱ τότ' ΑΡΙΣΤΟΙ Οἱ οἱ ἐποίησαν ΘΑΛΑΜΟΝ, καὶ ΔΩΜΑ, καὶ ΑΥΛΗΝ. - Ιλ. ζ. 313. Here, we see a magnificent palace, built by profest architects, with all its suits of apartments; as different from the description of Hector's dwelling, as the character of the masters from one another; of which last he only says, it was a commodious habitation. Αἶψα δ ̓ ἔπειθ ̓ ἵκανε δόμους ΕΥ ΝΑΙΕΤΑΟΝΤΑΣ P. 299. MMMM. In the history of the acts of Hezekiah, king of Judah, it is said, that, "He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it NEHUSHTAN." [2 Kings xviii. 4.] The historian's care to record the name which the king gave to the brasen serpent, when he passed sentence upon it, will appear odd to those who do not reflect upon what hath been said, about the superstition of NAMES. But that will shew us the propriety of the observation. This idol, like the rest, had doubtless its name of honour, alluding to its sanative attributes. Good Hezekiah, therefore, in contempt of its title of deification, called it NEHUSHTAN, which signifies A THING OF BRASS. And it was not out of season either to nickname it then, or to convey the mockery to posterity: For the NAME of a demolished God, like the shade of a deceased Hero, still walked about, and was ready to prompt men to mischief. P. 302. NNNN. A learned writer [Mr. Fourmont-Reflexions Critiques sur les Histoires des anciens Peuples] hath followed a system which very well accounts for this unconquerable propensity to Egyptian superstitions. He supposeth that the Egyptian, and consequently the Jewish idolatry, consisted in the worship of the dead Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c. The mischief is, that this should have the common luck of so many other learned Systems, to have all Antiquity obstinately bent against it. Not more so, however, than its Author is against Antiquity, as the reader may see by the instance I am about to give him. Mr. Fourmont, in consequence of his system, having taken it into his head, that Cronos, in Sanchoniatho, was ABRAHAM; notwithstanding that fragment tells us, that Cronos rebelled against his father, and cut off his privities; buried his brother alive, and murdered his own son and daughter; that he was an |