the priests came the philosophers, who attempted to turn these poetic fictions into allegories. Anaxagoras found in the mythology of Homer a perfect system of ethics. Heraclides Ponticus made of the same fables a system of physics; Proclus regarded them as a collection of physical, ethical, and spiritual allegories. Other philosophers rejected them entirely, as mere creations of the poet, derogatory to the dignity and purity of celestial beings. On this account Plato excludes Homer from his ideal republic. He thinks that his exposure of the frailties of the inhabitants of Olympus, would give the youth low and unworthy ideas of the gods. In more recent times, men have turned from the fubles to the facts. Learned treatises have been written, not only to show that Troy and the war of Troy are fictions, but that "the blind old bard," who for ages was thought to have sung of these sublime themes, never had a being. Jacob Bryant and Le Bossu, with an array of erudition and authorities which might frighten an ordinary scholar from the field, have attempted to prove that the whole story of the Trojan war is a fable, without the least support from facts. Learned treatises have been written by Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Dallaway, and M. Chevalier, in reply. A second Trojan war has been waged, prosecuted, and ended. The sound of the contest has extended to the very ends of the earth. The heroes have been covered with "no inglorious dust," and the matter which caused the dispute, has been left precisely as it was. The plains of Ilium have not been identified, and yet men still cling to the notion, that "Troy was." In speaking of this controversy, Dr. Good remarks: "When a man of erudition once entertains an opinion different from that of the world at large, it is curious to observe, with what facility he can muster up the whole phalanx of his learning, in demonstration of the fancy for which he means to contend." Nothing could be more appropriate than this criticism to the learned Doctor's own favorite "fancy," in defending the character and doctrines of Epicurus. This he has done at large in his edition of Lucretius, and his Book of Nature.' In the 17th century, an eminent English scholar, Joshua Barnes, published an ed tion of Homer; and, as an appropriate accompaniment, a long English poem, in which he ascribes the Iliad and Odyssey to the pen of Solomon, with a view, it has been suspected, to induce his wife to assist the more willingly in defraying the expense of the publication." The identity of Homer and Solomon, is argued from وو the similarity of the letters composing the two names. Homeros read backwards is Soremo; exchanging r for 1, we have Solemo, which, by a slight creative effort of the imagination, becomes Solomon. Here we have the author's name in disguise prefixed to the poem. Whether this was a mere ruse, to impose upon the credulity of his wife, who admired both the wisdom of Soloinon and the learning of her husband, or the result of sober conviction, we cannot tell. But it is affirmed that a similar hypothesis has been recently propounded, with all sincerity and earnestness, by the Rev. John Williams, Archdeacon of Cardigan, England. He regards the Iliad and Odyssey as translations of Jewish works written by Moses. Agamemnon is made the representative of Joshua; Helen, of Rahab; Nestor, of Abraham; and Penelope, of Sarah. All the characters of Homer find their prototypes in the Pentateuch. Although the whole range of universal history does not furnish two nations so completely dissimilar as the Hebrews and Greeks, yet this scholar and divine attempts to draw a perfect parallel between them. Certainly, he must have confirmed his faith by the celebrated apothegm of one of the early fathers of the church: "Credo quia impossibile est." In proving the existence or non-existence of Homer, different theorists have referred to the significancy of name, for very different purposes. At one time it is an epithet descriptive of the man. "Oungos, in some connexions, means "blind;" hence the name of the poet: in other connexions, it means "joined together," or perhaps one who joins together; hence, "a compiler" or collector. In this sense it is used to prove the non-existence of the poet, though it might have been the appellation of a man. At another time, as we have seen above, it has been spelled backwards, like a wizard's incantation, to evoke some mighty spirit from the shades. If such interpretation of names be allowed, any absurdity may be proved. Shakspeare may have been only a skilful jouster at the tournament, whose chief glory it was to brandish the spear. The name of the Hebrew lawgiver may be made the symbol of the Nile's fertility, or the representative of an Egyptian deity; for both the slime which fertilizes their soil, and the crocodile which they worshipped, might, with the utmost propriety, be said to be "drawn out of the water." Occasionally we meet with a critic of a confiding temper, who uses such absurd illustrations and etymologies, as the Catholic priests do their pious frauds, to promote a good cause. They enter the his lists as the champions of orthodox opinions. They intend to support truth. Regarding divine revelation as the source of all truth, they seek to find all history as well as theology in the Bible. Every tradition, name, and fable, of the heathen world must be traced to its source. They are all mere corruptions or perversions of genuine truths and real names. With them, Noah and his descendants seem not only to have been lords of the land, but to have taken undisputed possession of the empire of fancy and fiction. Jacob Bryant is the great hierophant of this school of critics. The ark is made the centre and source of all the mythologies of the old world. The vocabularies of oriental and occidental nations, were enriched by numerous terms relating to the ark and the persons preserved in it. Noah and his sons are made the prototypes of all the most important deities of the whole idolatrous world. Noah was regarded as a god, and the ark as a goddess, the common parent of all things. Hence, says this sagacious critic, originated the fable of Venus rising from the flood; hence she acquired the name of Anuning, or, according to the Chaldeans, Da-Mater, "the Mother" of gods and men; hence, again, the worship of Isis and Osiris, and the ceremony among the Egyptians of the mystic enshrinement of the latter, a mere personification of Noah, in an ark or vessel, which was carried in solemn procession through the streets, amid the adorations of the multitude; hence, too, the Xuth or Zuth of the Babylonians, and the Dagon of the Canaanites, were represented with the body of a man and the tail of a fish. The form of the ark was also reverenced. Every crescent-shaped object was sacred. Hence the worship of the moon, of cows and bulls, from the crescent curvature of their horns. The element also, on which the ark floated, became an object of worship. Hence, the worship of the Nile and Ganges, and the river-gods of Greece and Rome. In a word, this critic can find the ark any where he chooses. The same is true of Noah and his sons. The Greek word, Navs, the proper name "Da-Naus," and the Latin Navis, is but the name of the patriarch misspelled. The existence of one or two letters in the name of a place or a god, in common with one of the names of the survivors of the deluge, is sufficient to determine its etymological descent, and prove its legitimate origin. If the name of a particular god do not correspond with that of the deified restorer of our race, the true relationship may be discovered in his offices. "Noah, among the Chaldeans, passes under the appellation of Thoth, Theut, or Theuth; or, as written by Herodotus, Xuth. Hence, Theut, or Tuisto, is a father or progenitor in old German to the present day; hence, the Taautus of Phoenicia, and the Tentates of the Celts. Noah, thus deified, became the chief divinity of Greece and Rome: from Theuth or Xuth, they obtained Zeus, or Jupiter; from Thoth, Theos, Dios and Deus: from Zeus, Zea, which was a title of Venus, or Aphrodite Demeter, under the character of Diana." Noah is also made the prototype of Chronos or Saturn, Prometheus, Deucalion, and many others. But it is in vain to pursue this subject further. We cannot enumerate all the wonderful discoveries of this profound critic, without copying his entire work. It is full of learning, and full of absurdities. No attempt to systematize the various mythologies of different ages and nations ever has or ever will prove successful. They cannot be traced to a single source. They are as heterogeneous and diverse as lawless fancy could make them. We might as well attempt to reduce the ravings of bedlam to a system, or extract the principles of universal grammar from the confused voices of Babel, as to seek for the golden thread of unity which will combine, in one harmonious whole, the various systems of idolatry which men, who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge," have invented. Some of these fables or myths are undoubtedly perverted truths, detached from the real history of the human race. Some of them are perhaps the distorted representatives of the truths of a primitive revelation, or of Scripture history, exaggerated by tradition, embellished by poetry, or altered by designing priests. In mythological traditions, where there are no settled principles of interpretation, and where certain knowledge is impossible, it matters little what theories are proposed, or what opinions advocated. The same questions are ever recurring, but the answers must always vary with the tastes and opinions of authors. In history it is not so. He who corrects the errors of history, is the world's benefactor; but he who disturbs these fountains of human be→ lief, from motives of vanity, or love of learned display, commits a grievous wrong. When a distinguished scholar has re-written the history of a particular period or nation, after a careful examination of existing records and monuments, the presumption is, that he has corrected the errors of his predecessors, and presented to the world plain facts, upon which they may rely. But if he has covertly inserted his own opinions, instead of facts, or colored by his prejudices or partisan views, what would otherwise be a plain and simple narrative, who shall arraign the critic, convict him of misrepresentation, and expose him to the public scorn? Who will dare to impugn his motives, or charge him with treason to truth? Not one in a thousand, perhaps, possesses the same means of investigation, or the accurate knowledge and habits of research, which the writer possessed. He may have devoted a whole life of labor to the work. How can one decide upon its merits, upon a cursory examination? Most men would prefer to seem learned and agree with the author rather than hazard their reputation by ill-timed objections. History cannot be learned without great labor. It requires extended research and profound study. It is easier to take the dicta of learned men than to attempt criginal investigation ourselves; for "there are secrets which who knows not now Thucydides complained that "the search after truth was considered by many people as an intolerable labor, and that, therefore, they adopted such accounts as were at hand, merely to save themselves trouble." If a writer is reputed honest, the presumption is always in his favor. If he makes marked alterations in received traditions, and gives an entirely new account. of old institutions, he is supposed to have good reasons for so doing. The public will tolerate his innovations, if his talents and research command their respect. They see no motives for his falsifying old records; of course they admit his conclusions. It becomes a grave question, therefore, how much indulgence shall be granted to learned men in these matters. They certainly are not infallible. They are not free from the common sympathies and antipathies to which other men are subject. The inference is plain. They must be watched. When love of novelty is the passion of the age, it will not answer to take any man's opinions on trust. Every new theory must be subjected to careful criticism; truth is not safe without it. But it will be asked, Who is competent to the task? Who will presume to speak, authoritatively, of the conclusions of Niebuhr, who devoted all the energies of his gigantic intellect, for a whole life, to history? No man can fully appreciate his emendations of the received traditions unless he resorts to the original |