Home Site Menu Religion Menu Interesting Menu Humour Menu Guestbook Forum Email

Index

A New System; or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology. Volume I

By Jacob Bryant

OF ETYMOLOGY, AS IT HAS BEEN TOO GENERALLY HANDLED.

It may appear invidious to call to account men of learning, who have gone before me in inquiries of this nature, and to point out defects in their writings: but it is a task which I must, in some degree, take in hand, as the best writers have, in my opinion, failed fundamentally in these researches. Many, in the wantonness of their fancy, have yielded to the most idle surmises; and this to a degree of licentiousness, for which no learning nor ingenuity can atone. It is therefore so far from being injurious, that it appears absolutely necessary to point out the path they took, and the nature of their failure; and this, that their authority may not give a sanction to their mistakes; but, on the contrary, if my method should appear more plausible, or more certain, that the superiority may be seen upon comparing; and be proved from the contrast.

The Grecians were so prepossessed with a notion of their own excellence and antiquity, that they supposed every antient tradition to have proceeded from themselves. Hence their mythology is founded upon the grossest mistakes: as all extraneous history, and every foreign term, is supposed by them to have been of Grecian original. Many of their learned writers had been abroad; and knew how idle the pretensions of their countrymen were. Plato in particular saw the fallacy of their claim, he confesses it more than once: yet in this article nobody was more infatuated. His Cratylus is made up of a most absurd system of etymology. ^[465]Herodotus expressly says, that the Gods of Greece came in great measure from Egypt. Yet Socrates is by Plato in this treatise made to derive Artemis from το αρτεμες, integritas: Poseidon from ποσι δεσμον, fetters to the feet: Hestia from ουσια, substance and essence: Demeter, from διδουσα ὡς μητηρ, distributing as a mother: Pallas from παλλειν, to vibrate, or dance: Ares, Mars, from αῤῥεν, masculum, et virile: and the word Theos, God, undoubtedly the Theuth of Egypt, from θεειν, to run^[466]. Innumerable derivations of this nature are to be found in Aristotle, Plato, ^[467]Heraclides Ponticus, and other Greek writers. There is a maxim laid down by the scholiast upon Dionysius; which I shall have occasion often to mention. ^[468]Ει βαρβαρον το ονομα, ου χρη ζητειν Ἑλληνικην ετυμολογιαν αυτου. If the term be foreign, it is idle to have recourse to Greece for a solution. It is a plain and golden rule, posterior in time to the writers above, which, however, common sense might have led them to have anticipated, and followed: but it was not in their nature. The person who gave the advice was a Greek, and could not for his life abide by it. It is true, that Socrates is made to say something very like the above. ^[469]Εννοω γαρ, ὁτι πολλα ὁι Ἑλληνες ονοματα, αλλως τε και ὁι ὑπο τοις Βαρβαροις οικουντες, παρα των Βαρβαρων ειληφασι—ει τις ζητοι ταυτα κατα την Ἑλληνικην φωνην, ὡς εοικοτως κειται, αλλα μη κατ' εκεινην, εξ ἡς το ονομα τυγχανει ον, οισθα ὁτι αποροι αν. I am very sensible that the Grecians in general, and especially those who are subjects to foreigners, have received into their language many exotic terms: if any person should be led to seek for their analogy or meaning in the Greek tongue, and not in the language from whence they proceeded, he would be grievously puzzled. Who would think, when Plato attributed to Socrates this knowledge, that he would make him continually act in contradiction to it? Or that other ^[470]writers, when this plain truth was acknowledged, should deviate so shamefully? that we should in after times be told, that Tarsus, the antient city in Cilicia, was denominated from ταρτος, a foot: that the river Nile signified νε ιλυς: and that Gader in Spain was Γης δειρα.

The antients, in all their etymologies, were guided solely by the ear: in this they have been implicitly copied by the moderns. Inquire of Heinsius, whence Thebes, that antient city in upper Egypt, was named; and he will tell you from תבא, Teba, ^[471]stetit: or ask the good bishop Cumberland why Nineve was so called? and he will answer, from Schindler, that it was a compound of ^[472]Nin-Nau, נין נוה, a son inhabited. But is it credible, or indeed possible, for these cities to have been named from terms so vague, casual, and indeterminate; which seem to have so little relation to the places to which they are appropriated, or to any places at all? The history of the Chaldeans is of great consequence; and one would be glad to know their original. They are properly called Chasdim; and are, very justly, thought to have been the first constituted nation upon earth. It is said of the patriarch Abraham, that he came from the city Ur of the Chasdim. Whence had they their name? The learned Hyde will ^[473]answer, that it was from Chesed, their ancestor. Who was Chesed? He was the fourth son of Nahor, who lived in Aram, the upper region of Mesopotamia. Is it said in history that he was the father of this people? There is no mention made of it. Is it said that he was ever in Chaldea? No. Is there the least reason to think that he had any acquaintance with that country? We have no grounds to suppose it. Is there any reason to think that this people, mentioned repeatedly as prior to him by ages, were in reality constituted after him? None. What, then, has induced writers to suppose that he was the father of this people? Because Chesed and Chasdim have a remote similitude in sound. And is this the whole? Absolutely all that is or can be alleged for this notion. And as the Chasdim are mentioned some ages before the birth of Chesed, some would have the passage to be introduced proleptically; others suppose it an interpolation, and would strike it out of the sacred text: so far does whim get the better of judgment, that even the written word is not safe. The whole history of Chesed is this: About fifty years after the patriarch Abraham had left his brother Nahor at Haran in Aramea, he received intelligence that Nahor had in that interval been blessed with children. ^[474]It was told Abraham, behold Milcah, she also hath borne children to thy brother Nahor; Huz, Buz, Kemuel, and Chesed: of these Chesed was the fourth. There occurs not a word more concerning him.

It is moreover to be observed, that these etymologists differ greatly from one another in their conceptions; so that an unexperienced reader knows not whom to follow. Some deduce all from the Hebrew; others call in to their assistance the Arabic and the Coptic, or whatever tongue or dialect makes most for their purpose. The author of the Universal History, speaking of the Moabitish Idol Chemosh, tells us, ^[475]that many make it come from the verb משש, mashash, to feel: but Dr. Hyde derives it from the Arabic, Khamûsh, which signifies gnats, (though in the particular dialect of the tribe Hodail) supposing it to have been an astronomical talisman in the figure of a gnat:—and Le Clerc, who takes this idol for the Sun, from Comosha, a root, in the same tongue, signifying to be swift. There is the same variety of sentiment about Silenus, the companion of Bacchus. ^[476]Bochart derives his name from Silan, שילן, and supposes him to have been the same as Shiloh, the Messias. Sandford makes him to be Balaam, the false prophet. ^[477]Huetius maintains that he was assuredly Moses. It is not uncommon to find even in the same writer great uncertainty: we have sometimes two, sometimes three, etymologies presented together of the same word: two out of the three must be groundless, and the third not a whit better: otherwise, the author would have given it the preference, and set the other two aside. An example to this purpose we have in the etymology of Ramesses, as it is explained in the ^[478]Hebrew Onomasticum. Ramesses, tonitruum vel exprobratio tineæ; aut malum delens sive dissolvens; vel contractionem dissolvens, aut confractus a tineâ—civitas in extremis finibus Ægypti. A similar interpretation is given of Berodach, a king of Babylon. Berodach: creans contritionem, vel electio interitus, aut filius interitus, vel vaporis tui; sive frumentum; vel puritas nubis, vel vaporis tui. Rex Babyloniæ.

It must be acknowledged of Bochart, that the system upon which he has proceeded is the most plausible of any; and he has shewn infinite ingenuity and learning. He every where tries to support his etymologies by some history of the place concerning which he treats. But the misfortune is, that the names of places which seem to be original, and of high antiquity, are too often deduced by him from circumstances of later date; from events in after ages. The histories to which he appeals were probably not known when the country, or island, received its name. He likewise allows himself a great latitude in forming his derivations: for, to make his terms accord, he has recourse, not only to the Phenician language, which he supposes to have been a dialect of the Hebrew; but to the Arabian, Chaldaic, and Syriac, according as his occasions require. It happens to him often to make use of a verb for a radix, which has many variations and different significations: but, at this rate, we may form a similitude between terms the most dissimilar. For, take a word in any language, which admits of many inflexions and variations, and, after we have made it undergo all its evolutions, it will be hard if it does not in some degree approximate. But, to say the truth, he many times does not seem to arrive even at this: for, after he has analysed the premises with great labour, we often find the supposed resemblance too vague and remote to be admitted; and the whole is effected with a great strain and force upon history before he brings matters to a seeming coincidence. The Cyclops are by the best writers placed in Sicily, near Mount ^[479]Ætna, in the country of the Leontini, called of old Xuthia; but Bochart removes them to the south-west point of the island. This he supposes to have been called Lelub, Λιλυβαιον, from being opposite to Libya; and, as the promontory was so named, it is, he thinks, probable that the sea below was styled Chec Lelub, or Sinus Lebub: and, as the Cyclops lived hereabouts, they were from hence denominated Chec-lelub, and Chec-lub, out of which the Greeks formed ^[480]Κυκλωπες. He derives the Siculi first from ^[481]seclul, perfection; and afterwards from אשכול, Escol, pronounced, according to the Syriac, Sigol, a bunch of grapes. He deduces the Sicani from שכן, Sacan^[482], near, because they were near their next neighbours; in other words, on account of their being next to the Pœni. Sicani, qui Siculorum Pœnis proximi. But, according to the best accounts, the Sicani were the most antient people of any in these parts. They settled in Sicily before the foundation of Carthage; and could not have been named from any such vicinity. In short, Bochart, in most of his derivations, refers to circumstances too general; which might be adapted to one place as well as to another. He looks upon the names of places, and of people, rather as by-names, and chance appellations, than original marks of distinction; and supposes them to have been founded upon some subsequent history. Whereas they were, most of them, original terms of high antiquity, imported and assumed by the people themselves, and not imposed by others.

How very casual and indeterminate the references were by which this learned man was induced to form his etymologies, let the reader judge from the samples below. These were taken, for the most part, from his accounts of the Grecian islands; not industriously picked out; but as they casually presented themselves upon turning over the book. He derives ^[483]Delos from דהל, Dahal timor. ^[484]Cynthus, from חנט, Chanat, in lucem edere. ^[485]Naxos, from nicsa, sacrificium; or else from nicsa, opes. ^[486]Gyarus, from acbar, softened to acuar, a mouse; for the island was once infested with mice. ^[487]Pontus, in Asia Minor, from בטנא, botno, a pistachio nut. ^[488]Icaria, from icar, pastures: but he adds, tamen alia etymologia occurrit, quam huic præfero אי כורי, Icaure, sive insula piscium. ^[489]Chalcis, in Eubea, from Chelca, divisio. ^[490]Seriphus, from resiph, and resipho, lapidibus stratum. ^[491]Patmos, from בטמוס, batmos, terebinthus; for trees of this sort, he says, grew in the Cyclades. But Patmos was not one of the Cyclades: it was an Asiatic island, at a considerable distance. ^[492]Tenedos is deduced from Tin Edom, red earth: for there were potters in the island, and the earth was probably red. ^[493]Cythnus, from katnuth, parvitas; or else from גובנא, gubna, or guphno, cheese; because the next island was famous for that commodity: Ut ut enim Cythnius caseus proprie non dicatur, qui e Cythno non est, tamen receptâ καταχρησει Cythnius dici potuit caseus a vicinâ Ceo. He supposes Egypt to have been denominated from ^[494]Mazor, an artificial fortress; and the reason he gives, is, because it was naturally secure. Whatever may have been the purport of the term, Mizraim was a very antient and original name, and could have no reference to these after-considerations. The author of the Onomasticum, therefore, differs from him, and has tried to mend the matter. He allows that the people, and country, were denominated from Mazor, but in a different acceptation: from Mazor, which signified, the double pressure of a mother on each side^[495], pressionem matris geminam, i. e. ab utrâque parte. Upon which the learned Michaelis observes—^[496]quo etymo vix aliud veri dissimilius fingi potest.

In the theology of the Greeks are many antient terms, which learned men have tried to analyse, and define. But they seem to have failed here too by proceeding upon those fallacious principles, of which I have above complained. In short, they seldom go deep enough in their inquiries; nor consider the true character of the personage, which they would decypher. It is said of the God Vulcan, that he was the same as Tubalcain, mentioned Genesis. c. 4. v. 22: and it is a notion followed by many writers: and among others by Gale. ^[497]First as to the name (says this learned man) Vossius, de Idolat. l. 1. c. 36, shews us, that Vulcanus is the same as Tubalcainus, only by a wonted, and easy mutation of B into V, and casting away a syllable. And he afterwards affects to prove from Diodorus Siculus, that the art and office of Vulcan exactly corresponded to the character of Tubalcain, ^[498]who was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. Upon the same principles Philo Biblius speaking of Chrusor, a person of great antiquity, who first built a ship, and navigated the seas; who also first taught husbandry, and hunting, supposes him to have been Vulcan; because it is farther said of him, ^[499]that he first manufactured iron. From this partial resemblance to Vulcan or Hephastus, Bochart is induced to derive his name from כרש אור, Chores Ur, an artificer in ^[500]fire. These learned men do not consider, that though the name, to which they refer, be antient, and oriental, yet the character, and attributes, are comparatively modern, having been introduced from another quarter. Vulcan the blacksmith, who was the master of the Cyclops, and forged iron in Mount Ætna, was a character familiar to the Greeks, and Romans. But this Deity among the Egyptians, and Babylonians, had nothing similar to this description. They esteemed Vulcan as the chief of the Gods the same as the Sun: and his name is a sacred title, compounded of Baal-Cahen, Belus sanctus, vel Princeps; equivalent to Orus, or Osiris. If the name were of a different original, yet it would be idle to seek for an etymology founded on later conceptions, and deduced from properties not originally inherent in the personage. According to ^[501]Hermapion he was looked upon as the source of all divinity, and in consequence of it the inscription upon the portal of the temple at Heliopolis was Ἡφαιστῳ τῳ Θεων Πατρι. To Vulcan the Father of the Gods. In short, they who first appropriated the name of Vulcan to their Deity, had no notion of his being an artificer in brass or iron: or an artificer in any degree. Hence we must be cautious in forming ideas of the antient theology of nations from the current notions of the Greeks, and Romans; and more especially from the descriptions of their poets. Polytheism, originally vile, and unwarrantable, was rendered ten times more base by coming through their hands. To instance in one particular: among all the dæmon herd what one is there of a form, and character, so odious, and contemptible as Priapus? an obscure ill-formed Deity, who was ridiculed and dishonoured by his very votaries. His hideous figure was made use of only as a bugbear to frighten children; and to drive the birds from fruit trees; with whose filth he was generally besmeared. Yet this contemptible God, this scarecrow in a garden, was held in high repute at Lampsacus, and esteemed the same as ^[502]Dionusus. He was likewise by the Egyptians reverenced as the principal God; no other than the Chaldaic ^[503]Aur, the same as Orus and Apis: whose rites were particularly solemn. It was from hence that he had his name: for Priapus of Greece is only a compound of Peor-Apis among the Egyptians. He was sometimes styled Peor singly; also Baal Peor; the same with whose rites the Israelites are so often ^[504]upbraided. His temples likewise are mentioned, which are styled Beth Peor. In short, this wretched divinity of the Romans was looked upon by others as the soul of the world: the first principle, which brought all things into light, and being. ^[505]Πριηπος ὁ κοσμος, η ὁ προεστως αυτου Λογος. The author of the Orphic hymns styles him ^[506]Πρωτογονον—γενεσιν μακαρων, θνητων τ' ανθρωπων. The first born of the world, from whom all the immortals, and mortals were descended. This is a character, which will hereafter be found to agree well with Dionusus. Phurnutus supposes Priapus to have been the same as Pan, the shepherd God: who was equally degraded, and misrepresented on one hand, and as highly reverenced on the other. ^[507]Ισως δ' αν ὁυτος και ὁ Πριηπος ειη, καθ' ὁν προεισιν εις φως τα παντα· των αρχαιων δ' εισι Δαιμονων. Probably Pan is no other than the God Priapus, by whose means all things were brought into light. They are both Deities of high ^[508]antiquity. Yet the one was degraded to a filthy monster; and of the other they made a scarecrow.

Footnotes

[465] Herodotus. l. 2. c. 4. and l. 2. c. 52.

Επειτα δε Χρονου Πολλου διελθοντος επυθοντο (ὁι Ἑλληνες) εκ της Αιγυπτου απικομενα τα ουνοματα των Θεων.

[466] So δαιμων from δαημων; Απολλων from ἡ ὁμου πολησις· Διονυσος quasi διδουνυσος from διδοι and οινος, and οινος from οιεσθαι. Κρονος, quasi χρονου κορος. Τηθυν, το ηθουμενον—with many more. Plato in Cratylo.

Ægyptus παρα το αιγας πιαινειν. Eustath. in Odyss. l. 4. p. 1499.

[467] Poseidon, ποιουντα ειδην. Tisiphone, Τουτων φωνη, Athene quasi αθανατος. Hecate from ἑκατον centum. Saturnus, quasi sacer, νους. See Heraclides Ponticus, and Fulgentii-Mythologia.

See the Etymologies also of Macrobius. Saturnalia. l. 1. c. 17. P. 189.

Μουσαι· quasi ὁμου ουσαι. Plutarch de Fraterno Amore. v. 2. P. 480. Δι' ευνοιαν και Φιλαδελφιαν.

Πασιφαη, δια το πασι φαινειν τα μαντεια. Plutarch. Agis and Cleomenes. v. 2. p. 799.

[468] Eustathius on Dionysius: περιηγησις.

Ut Josephus recte observat, Græcis scriptoribus id in more est, ut peregrina, et barbara nomina, quantum licet, ad Græcam formam emolliant: sic illis Ar Moabitarum est Αρεοπολις; Botsra, Βυρσα; Akis, Αγχους; Astarte, Αστροαρχη; torrens Kison, Χειμαῤῥος των Κισσων; torrens Kedron, Χειμαῤῥος των Κεδρων; et talia ὡσει κονις. Bochart. Geog. Sacra. l. 2. c. 15. p. 111.

We are much indebted to the learned father Theophilus of Antioch: he had great knowledge; yet could not help giving way to this epidemical weakness. He mentions Noah as the same as Deucalion, which name was given him from calling people to righteousness: he used to say, δευτε καλει ὑμας ὁ θεος; and from hence, it seems, he was called Deucalion. Ad Antol. l. 3.

[469] Plato in Cratylo. p. 409.

[470] Suidas, Stephanus, Etymolog. Eustathius, &c.

So Coptus in Egypt, from κοπτειν.

[471] See Callimachus. vol. 2. Spanheim's not. in Hymn. in Del. v. 87. p. 438.

[472] Cumberland's Origines. p. 165. so he derives Goshen in the land of Egypt from a shower of rain. See Sanchon. p. 364.

[473] Hyde de Religione veterum Persarum. c. 2. p. 75.

[474] Genesis. c. 22. v. 20.

[475] Universal History, vol. 1. b. 1. p. 286. notes.

[476] Bochart. Geograph. Sacra. l. 1. c. 18. p. 443.

Sandford de descensu Christi. l. 1. §. 21.

See Gale's Court of the Gentiles, vol. 1. b. 2. c. 6. p. 68.

[477] Huetius. Demonst. p. 138.

[478] Hebræa, Chaldæa, &c. nomina virorum, mulierum, populorum—Antverpiæ, 1565, Plantin.

[479] Pliny. l. 3. c. 8.

Ætna, quæ Cyclopas olim tulit. Mela. l. 2. c. 7.

[480] Bochart. Geog. Sacra. l. 1. c. 30. p. 560.

[481] Ibidem. p. 565, 566.

[482] Ibidem. p. 565, 566.

[483] Bochart. Geog. Sacra. l. 1. p. 406.

[484] Ibidem.

[485] P. 412.

[486] P. 415.

[487] P. 388.

[488] P. 381.

[489] P. 435.

[490] P. 414.

[491] Bochart. Geog. Sacra. l. 1. p. 381.

[492] P. 385.

[493] P. 408. or from Mazor, angustiæ.

[494] Ibidem. p. 258.

[495] Simonis Onomasticon.

[496] Michaelis Spicilegium Geographiæ Hebræor. Exteræ. p. 158.

[497] Gale's Court of the Gentiles. vol. 1. b. 2. p. 66.

[498] Genesis. c. 4. v. 22.

[499] Philo apud Eusebium. Præp. Evan. l. 1. c. 10.

[500] Bochart. Geograph. Sacra. l. 2. c. 2. p. 706.

[501] Marcellinus. l. 22. c. 15. He was also called Eloüs. Ελωος, Ἡφαιστος παρα Δωριευσιν. Hesych. The Latine title of Mulciber was a compound of Melech Aber, Rex, Parens lucis.

[502] Τιμᾳται δε παρα Λαμψακηνοις ὁ Πριαπος, ὁ αυτος ων τῳ Διονυσῳ. Athenæus. l. 1. p. 30.

[503] Το αγαλμα Πριηπου, του και Ωρου παρ' Αιγυπτιοις. Suidas.

[504] Numbers. c. 25. v. 3. Deuteronomy. c. 4. v. 3. Joshua. c. 22. v. 17.

Kircher derives Priapus from פעור פה, Pehorpeh, os nuditatis.

[505] Phurnutus de naturâ Deorum. c. 17. p. 205.

[506] Orphic Hymn 5. to Protogonus, the same as Phanes, and Priapus. See verse 10.

[507] Phurnutus. c. 17. p. 204.

[508] Παρ' Αιγυπτιοισι δε Παν μεν αρχαιοτατος, και των οκτω των πρωτων λεγομενων Θεων. Herodotus. l. 2. c. 145.