« PreviousContinue »
We must therefore, in all etymological inquiries, have recourse to the Doric manner of pronunciation, to obtain the truth. . The Author concludes his account of radicals with confidering the particles Al and Pi, which are to be found in the compofition of many ancient terms. We fhall just take notice, that the Sun being called Melech Pi-Adon, and Anac Pi-Adon, the Greeks out of Pi-Adon formed Пaidwv. Hence we read of παιδων Λητες, παιδων Ζηνος, παιδων Απολλωνος, and legends of παιδών αθανατών; and of παιδων, who were mere foundlings ; whofe fathers could never be ascertained, though divine honours were paid to the children.-From this mistake arofe so many Boy-Deities; among whom were even Jupiter and Dionufus.Phaethon alfo, a much mistaken perfon, was an ancient title of the Sun, a compound of Phi-Ath-On.
The terms which Mr. Bryant has treated of under the head of Radicals, feem continually to occur in the ancient Amonian Hiftory. Out of thefe, he thinks, moft names are compounded; and into thefe they are cafily refolvable. He could with that his learned readers would fo far afford him credit, as to defer paffing a general fentence, till they have perufed the whole. Many pofitions, which may appear doubtful, when they are first premifed, will, he hopes, be abundantly proved, before we come to the close. The chief proof will refult from an uniform series of evidence, fupported by a fair and uninterrupted analogy.
From the fubject of Radicals, our ingenious Writer proceeds to the confideration of Etymology, as it has been too generally handled; and juftly cenfures the Greeks, as being fo prepoffeffed with a notion of their own excellence and antiquity, that they fuppofed every ancient tradition to have proceeded from themfelves. Hence their Mythology is founded upon the groffeft mistakes: as all extraneous history, and every foreign term is imagined by them to have been of Grecian original. Many of their learned writers had been abroad; and knew how idle the pretenfions of their countrymen were. Plato, in particular, faw the fallacy of their claim. He confeffes it more than once: yet in this article nobody was more infatuated. His Catylus is made up of a moft abfurd fyftem of etymology. Herodotus expressly fays. that the gods of Grecce came in great meafure from Egypt. Yet Secrates is by Plato, in this treatife, made to derive Artemis from 70 apTues, integritas: Pofeidon from o decpov, fetters to the feet: Heftia from qucia, fubftance and effence: Demeter from didoura ws diftriμητες, buting as a mother: Pallas from waλλw, to vibrate, or dance: Ares, Mars, from appev, mafculum, et virile: and the word Theos, God, undoubtedly the Theuth of Egypt, from be, to Innumerable derivations of this nature are to be found in Ariftotle, Plato, Heraclides Pontus, and other Greek writers.'
There is a maxim laid down by the fcholiaft upon Dionyfius: If the term be foreign, it is idle to have recourfe to Greece for a folution. Mr. Bryant obferves that it is a plain and golden rule, pofterior in time to the writers above, which, however, common fenfe 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. Even Socrates is made to fay fomething very like the above. And yet Plato, who attributes this knowledge to Socrates, makes him continually act in contradiction to it.
The ancients in all their etymologies were guided folely by the ear; and in this they have been implicitly copied by the moderns. Herc cur Author paffes fome strictures upon Heinfius, Cumberland, Hyde, Huetius, and others; nor does the great Bochart escape his cenfure. It must be acknowledged, fays he, of Bochart, that the fyftem, upon which he has proceeded, is the most plausible of any and he has shewn infinite ingenuity and learning. He every where tries to fupport his etymologies by fome hiftory of the place, concerning which he treats. But the misfortune is, that the names of places, which feem to be original, and of high antiquity, are too often deduced by him from circumftances of later date; from events in after ages. The hiftories, to which he appeals, were probably not known, when the country, or ifland, received its name. He likewife 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 occafions require.-In short, Bochart, in most of his derivations, refers to circumftances too general.' How very cafual and indeterminate the references were by which this learned man was induced to form his etymologies, is pointed out, by Mr. Bryant, in feveral inftances.
The difcourfe on Etymology is fucceeded by a differtation upon the Helladian and other Grecian writers, in which our Author informs us of the fources from whence his materials are drawn. All knowledge of Gentile antiquity must be derived to us through the hands of the Grecians: and there is not of them a fingle writer, to whom we may not be indebted for fome advantage. The Helladians however, from whom we might expect moft light, are to be admitted with the greatest caution. Hence the fureft refources are from Greeks of other countries. Among the poets, Lycophron, Callimachus, and Apollenius Rhodius are principally to be efteemed.-Homer likewife abounds with a deal of myfterious lore, borrowed from the ancient Amonian theology.-To thefe may be added fuch Greek writers of later date, who were either not born in Hellas,
or were not fo deeply tinctured with the vanity of that country. Much light may be alfo obtained from thofe learned men by whom the Scholia were written.-Nonnus too, who wrote the Dionyfiaca, is not to be neglected.-Porphyry, Proclus, and Jamblichus may be added, who profeffedly treat of Egyptian learning. But the great refource of all is to be found among the later antiquaries and hiftorians. Many of thefe are writers of high rank; particularly Diodorus, Strabo, and Paufanias, on the Gentile part; and of the Fathers Theophilus, Tatianus Athenagoras, Clemens, Origenes, Eufebius, Theodoretus, Syncellus; and the compiler of the Fafti Siculi, otherwife called Chronicon Pafchale. Most of thefe were either of Egypt or Afia. They had a real tafte for antiquity; and lived at a time when fome infight could be obtained for till the Roman empire was fully established, and every province in a state of tranquillity, little light could be procured from those countries whence the Mythology of Greece was derived.-In the course of the differtation, Mr. Bryant mentions the other helps to which he has been indebted.
With regard to the native Helladians, he reprefents them as very limited in their knowledge; as taking in the gross whatever was handed down by tradition; and as affuming to themfelves every history which was imported and in these respects he gives a fevere character of their writers, while he does juftice to the beauty of their compofition. Our Author acknowledges that it may appear ungracious, and that it is far from a pleafing talk to point out blemishes in a people of fo refined a turn as the Grecians, whofe ingenuity and elegance have been admired for ages. But he finds it abfolutely neceffary to fhew their prejudices and mistakes, in order to remedy their failures. Accordingly he fupports his charge against them at full length, and in a very convincing manner. At the fame time, he proposes to make no fmall ufe of them in the progrefs of his undertaking.
We are next prefented with fome neceffary rules and obfervations in refpect to etymological inquiries; and for the better understanding the mythology of Greece. Among other remarks, Mr. Bryant expreffes his difapprobation of deducing etymologies from roots. Thofe who impofed the ancient names of places and perfons, never thought of a root; and probably did not know the purport of the term. Whoever, therefore, in etymology has recourfe to this method of inveftigation, feems to act like a perfon, who fhould feek at the fountain-head for a city, which food at the mouth of a river.
This article is followed by a fhort account of the Helladians, and their origin, in order to obviate fome objections. Author's Syftem depends greatly upon this point, he in some degree anticipates his fubject, to fhew, that the Helladians
were of a different race from the fons of Japhet; and that the country, when they came to it, was in the poffeffion of another people; which people they diftinguished from themselves by the title of Bagbago.
[To be continued.]
ART. II. The Hiftory of ancient Egypt, as extant in the Greek Hiftorians, Poets, and others: Together with the State of the Religion, Laws, Arts, Sciences, and Government: From the first Settlement under Mifraim, in the Year before Chrift, 2118, to the final Subverfion of the Empire, by Cambyfes. Containing a Space of 1664 Years. By George Laughton, D. D. of Richmond in Surry. 8vo. 5 s. fewed. Cadell. 1774.
WHEN the appearance of a diftinct hiftory of Egypt was announced to the Public, we flattered ourselves that it might particularly deferve the attention of the learned. We were very fenfible that the subject was an interefting one, on many accounts. Egypt is undoubtedly to be reckoned among the first of the great kingdoms which were formed after the difperfion of mankind. Perhaps it arofe earlier than any other country, not only to confiderable power, but to a comparatively high degree of knowledge, learning, and refinement. The colonies from Egypt were the means of civilizing no fmall part of the world; and it was certainly the fource from which Greece derived its philofophy, how much foever the Grecian Sages may be fuppofed to have improved upon the intelligence they received. The opinions which have been advanced concerning the accuracy and extent of the fcience and literature of the Egyptians, are exceedingly different. Some Writers have, in this refpect, represented them in a very exalted point of view, while others have been as much inclined to depreciate them; probably, in both cafes, without fufficient reafon. However, if we regard the early period in which the Egyptians flourished, their knowledge will be found to have been confiderable, and they introduced their worship, rites, cuftoms, and improvements into Europe; though not, indeed, exclufively of the Phoenicians, and the reft of the defcendants of Ham, who fent out colonies from the Eaft to the West.
In a variety of other inftances, Egypt furnishes fubjects of literary inquiry. Its high pretenfions to antiquity, and the reducing of its early accounts of things to true chronology, have afforded fome trouble to the learned. To adjust the Dynafties of its Princes, and to determine whether they ought to be deemed fucceffive or collateral, are likewife matters of no little difficulty. If there was fuch a mighty Conqueror as Sefoftris, the fettling of the age in which he lived, and the bringing his exploits to the ftandard of truth and reafon, certainly merit
peculiar notice. The origin and nature of the hieroglyphics of Egypt are, alfo, curious objects, as well as the origin of alphabetical writing, which feveral ancients have afcribed to Thoth an Egyptian, and which many moderns have fapposed to have been derived from that country. How far the Egyptians were the first inventers of fcience, or were indebted for it to the Babylonians and Chaldæans, is another queftion among men of learning. Who the Shepherd Kings were, has, moreover, been an affair of no fmall difcuffion and debate. To all which may be added, that the controverfy, lately started, whether the Chinese be a colony from the Egyptians, is not wholly undeferving of attention.
A history of Egypt, in which these subjects, and others of a fimilar kind, were to be accurately examined, and judiciously determined, would be a very acceptable prefent to the Public. But if the Reader expects these matters to be fatisfactorily adjufted in the prefent work, he will be greatly disappointed. Several of the circumftances we have mentioned, are entirely unnoticed, and the rest of them are treated in a flight and fuperficial manner, without any apparent fenfibility of the difficulties in which they are involved.
In fact, Dr. Laughton's hiftory of Egypt, is a mere compilation; nor is it executed, even in this view, with fuch a degree of fagacity, or judgment, as entitles it to much applause. His chronology, from whomfoever it is taken, is given without hefitation, as if it were a point that had never been difputed. With the fame confidence, he places the Dynafties in the fucceffive order, though he ought to have known, and obferved, that Sir John Marfham contends for their being collateral; and that herein he is followed by fome of the ableft Chronologers. In refpect to Sefoftris, Dr. Laughton fixes the commencement of his reign a very few years after the departure of the Ifraelites, without taking notice of the opinion of Marsham, Sir Ifaac Newton, and other eminent men, that Sefoftris and the Sefac of Scripture were the fame perfon; and without confidering how unlikely it is that fuch a mighty Conqueror fhould arife in Egypt, and fuch prodigious exploits be performed by him, in fo fhort a time after the kingdom muft have been reduced to the lowest ebb, by the deftruction in the Red Sea. None of thefe difficulties feem to have occurred to our Author, who carries on his ftory with as much eafe and affurance, as if he were writing the events of yesterday.
Unless, therefore, Dr. Laughton had performed more than he has actually done, we cannot perceive what neceffity there. was for the prefent publication. A far better account of Egypt is to be met with in the Ancient Univerfal History; and if only a fchool-book was intended, we fhould prefer the fhorter rel