A New System; or, an Analysis of Antient Mythology. Volume 2 (of 6)Bryant, Jacob
History
A New System; or, an Analysis of Antient Mythology. Volume 2 (of 6)
Bryant, Jacob
History, Ancient; Mythology
Bochart with wonderful ingenuity, and equal learning, tries to solve the
ænigmas, under which this history is represented. He supposes Cadmus to
have been a fugitive Canaanite, who fled from the face of Joshua: and that
he was called Cadmus from being a Cadmonite, which is a family mentioned by
Moses. In like manner he imagines, that Harmonia had her name from mount
Hermon, which was probably in the district of the Cadmonites. The story of
the dragon he deduces from the Hevæi, or Hivites; the same people as the
Cadmonites. He proceeds afterwards with great address to explain the rest
of the fable, concerning the teeth of the dragon, which were sown; and the
armed men, which from thence arose: and what he says is in many particulars
attended with a great shew of probability. Yet after all his ingenious
conjectures, I am obliged to dissent from him in some points; and
particularly in one, which is of the greatest moment. I cannot be induced
to think, that Cadmus was, as Bochart represents him, a Phenician. Indeed I
am persuaded, that no such person existed. If Cadmus brought letters from
Phenicia, how came he to bring but sixteen; when the people, from whom he
imported them, had undoubtedly more, as we may infer from their neighbours?
And if they were the current letters of Greece, as Herodotus intimates; how
came it to pass, that the tablet of Alcmena, the wife of Amphitryon, the
third in descent from Cadmus, could not be understood, as we are assured by
[1062]Plutarch? He says, that in the reign of Agesilaus of Sparta, a
written tablet was found in the tomb of Alcmena, to whom it was inscribed:
that the characters were obsolete, and unintelligible; on which account
they sent it to Conuphis of Memphis in Egypt, to be decyphered. If these
characters were Phenician, why were they sent to a priest of a different
country for interpretation? and why is their date and antiquity defined by
the reign of a king in Egypt? [1063]Τους τυπους ειναι της επι Πρωτει
βασιλευοντι γραμματικης. _The form of the letters was the same as was in
use when Proteus reigned in that country._ Herodotus, indeed, to prove that
the Cadmians brought letters into Greece, assures us, that he saw specimens
of their writing at Thebes, in the temple of Apollo [1064]Ismenius: that
there was a tripod as antient as the reign of Laius, the son of Labdacus;
with an inscription, which imported, that it had been there dedicated by
Amphitryon upon his victory over the Teleboæ. I make no doubt, but that
Herodotus saw tripods with antient inscriptions: and there might be one
with the name of Amphitryon: but how could he be sure that it was the
writing of that person, and of those times? We know what a pleasure there
is in enhancing the antiquity of things; and how often inscriptions are
forged for that purpose. Is it credible that the characters of Amphitryon
should be so easy to be apprehended, when those of his wife Alcmena could
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account