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 t.i.tles for names; and from these t.i.tles 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:

[565]O! pater, O! genitor, O! sanguen diis oriundum.

[566]c.u.m veter occubuit Priamus sub marte Pelasgo.

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

[567]Istic est de sole sumptus ignis, isque mentis est.

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

Deficit alma Ceres, nec plebes pane pot.i.tur.

Lucilius.

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 G.o.d of the year; Neptune, a physician; and aesculapius, the G.o.d 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 ?e?a?; for Cohen, ????; for Athon, ????; for Boun, ????; for Sain, Sa??.

People, of old, were styled the children of the G.o.d 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 t????a?, or nurses.

Colonies always went out under the patronage and t.i.tle of some Deity. This conducting-G.o.d 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 princ.i.p.als 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 Celtae: and there is still an interval, not very much inferior to the former, before we arrive at the aera 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 a.s.semblage of qualities and t.i.tles; 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

h.e.l.lADIANS,

AND THEIR ORIGIN;

_In order to obviate some Objections._

As I have mentioned that the h.e.l.ladians 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 j.a.phet; 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 j.a.phet 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 h.e.l.ladians, 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 ?a?a???, 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 antic.i.p.ate, 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 h.e.l.ladians were of a different race from the sons of j.a.phet: and that the country, when they came to it, was in the possession of another people: which people they distinguished from themselves by the t.i.tle of ?a?a???.

??ata??? e? ??? ? ????s??? pe?? t?? ?e??p????s?? f?s??, ?t? p?? t??

??????? ???sa? a?t?? ?a?a???? s?ed?? de t? ?a? ? s?pasa ???a? ?at????a ?a?a??? ?p???at? t? pa?a???. Strabo. l. 7. p. 321.

??s? de ??? a??a??te??? ?a?a???. Plato in Cratylo. vol. 1. p. 425.

?a?a? t?? ??? ?a???e??? ???ad?? ?a?a??? ta p???a ???sa?. Pausanias. l. 1.

p. 100.

???ad?a? ?a?a??? ???sa?. Scholia Apollonii Rhod. l. 3. v. 461.

Diodorus mentions, ????a????--ap?????? Sa?t?? t?? e? ????pt??. l. 1. p. 24.

Again--Ge??e?a? de ?a? t?? ??e???? t??a? ????pt???? pa?a t??? ????a????.

ibidem.

Africa.n.u.s having spoken of the Egyptian rites, says, ?t? te ????a???? t??

a?t?? ????pt???? ap??a?e?? e???? ??, ap?????? e?e???? ap?????e????, ??

fas?? a???? te, ?a? e? t? ????a???? Te?p?p??. Apud Euseb. Praep. Evan. l.

x. c. x. p. 491.

Concerning persons from Egypt.

?e????, ????pt??? ??, d?? ???ssa? ?p?stat?. Cedrenus p. 82.

?e????, ????pt??? t? ?e???, ???se ta? ????a?. Scholia Aristoph. Pluti.

?sde ap? Sae?? p??e?? ????pt?a?, ?eta t?? ?ata O????? ?ata???s?? e?e????, ? ?e???? pa?e?e???e? ????a?? t?? ???ad??. J. Tzetzes. Chil. v. hist. 18.

?e????, ????pt??? t? ?e???, ???se ta? ????a?. Suidas.

Pausanias mentions ?e?e?a af???e??? e? ????pt??. l. 1. p. 95.

Erectheus from Egypt. ?a? t?? ??e??ea ?e???s? t? ?e??? ????pt??? ??ta.

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 ??? ?????s?

????et?? ???pt??e??. Abstinent. l. 4. p. 431.