according to a critical notice in Josephus, who calls it (evidently the same book) TρiToiTikos, but was probably a rhetorical fabrication. Anaximenes of Lampsacus lived at the same time, or somewhat later. In his universal history, which commenced from the beginning of the world, he followed, in all likelihood, as regards the mythus, the principles which prevailed in his day. Euhemerus of Messenia, a contemporary of the Macedonian Cassander, did so, and exhibited them in a very peculiar manner. He set out from the principle that all the gods had lived somewhere as men ; and as the legends of Greece did not furnish sufficient proof of this, he wrote imaginary travels to a place nowhere existing, which he called Panchæa, and in which, it was pretended, monuments of all the gods were to be seen. His work bore the imposing title of iepà ȧvaypapǹ; but it was, in fact, nothing more than a romance, in which that idea was carried out. Dionysius of Samos also embraced the same theory. He bore a strong mental affinity to Euhemerus, and probably lived at the same period. What Diodorus quotes from him regarding Bacchus, the Argonauts, and the history of the great Amazonian state at Mount Atlas, gives evidence of extreme arbitrariness, and of a romantic tendency in the treatment of mythi. Dionysius, however, gave it as if it had been extracted from the ancient mythologists and poets, “rapatileis τὰ ποιήματα τῶν ἀρχαίων τῶν τε μυθολόγων καὶ των TOINTŵv," and thereby blinded the Agyrian, a most uncritical author; so that the latter, with the most perfect faith, gave these dreams, as well as the pre tended discoveries of Euhemerus, a place in his historical dictionary. It The PHILOSOPHERS had from the very beginning occupied themselves with the mythus, and that in two different ways. First, they employed the mythic style as a peculiar mode of expressing thoughts and feelings. The more ancient did so rather from internal impulse than spontaneous reflection. It appeared to them the most suitable and dignified form, and, perhaps in many cases too, something more than mere form. Afterwards there was more design evinced, and the mythic expression was chosen, because it was picturesque and popular. was adopted for this reason by Plato and the sophists, who applied it with no little skill: witness the beautiful story of Hercules at the crossway, by Prodicus; and that of Prometheus and Epimetheus by Protagoras, which is even called uos by Plato.1 Hippius, too, earned great applause from the Lacedemonians, when he related to them how Neoptolemus asked Nestor, what a youth ought to do in order to become a famous hero.2 But still more must we, in considering the interpretation of mythi by the philosophers, distinguish the deliberate design of the latter, from that internal necessity which prompted the earlier philosophers, who were no less filled with religious faith than influenced by their ideas, and were therefore obliged to blend them both in reciprocal union, if they did not wish to be at variance with themselves. In this way are we to understand the interpretations of the ancient Pythagoreans, which were meant to reconcile religious notions with philosophi2 Pl. Hipp. maj., 286. 1 Protag., 320 sq. cal ideas, and therefore always contain some degree of truth. Religious feeling afterwards died gradually away; and it became more an exercise of ingenuity to bring mythi and the names of the gods into harmony with some particular philosophy. Physical interpretation already prevailed in the time of Socrates. It was employed by Prodicus,1 and Metrodorus, the pupil of Anaxagoras. The Stoics carried it farther, and applied it to the allegorical elucidation of Homer.2 Other philosophers adhered to Euhemerism; those, for instance, from whom Cicero, who calls them theologers, borrowed the passage concerning the multiplicity of persons who were called Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, &c.3 We do not know, however, to what sect they belonged. The Neo-Platonists, loftier in their views than their predecessors, interpreted according to ideas of an orientalized Platonism. It is less necessary to dwell on these than any other class of writers: for their interpretations, whether ingenious or absurd, were scarcely ever founded on historical investigation, but always sprang from the endeavour to recognise a certain system of philosophy. Hence, even Cicero said of Chrysippus, that he transformed the most ancient poets into Stoics.* They, therefore, tend to perplex rather than to guide the inquiry of the mythologist. A later tribe of allegorical writers also, entirely destitute of acumen and judgment, brought the whole subject into such disrepute, that some have on this account abandoned all interpretation, which is nearly saying all investi 1 Davis ad Cic. de Nat. Deo., i. 42. 2 See Heyne, de allegoria, Homer Exc. ad II. xxiii. gation of mythi: thus flinging away the kernel with the husk. Of so much the more importance to us are the laborious and industrious authors who merely compiled and related mythi; for to them are we chiefly indebted for the treasure of ancient mythology. Apollodorus, as the extract from his mythological dictionary shows, did nothing more to the materials than arrange them, nearly in the same manner with the logographers, except that he also availed himself of the drama, perhaps, too, of some later materials, and aimed at a comprehensive whole. At the same period were written learned commentaries on the poets; and of these there were some, those of Didymus for instance, in which mythological elucidation predominated; and any mythus which threw light on a passage, was drawn from the best and most genuine source, and placed beside it. Among these learned men there were fewer allegorical interpreters, such as Crates. The opinion of Aristarchus was perhaps generally entertained, that researches as to the origin of mythi are not essential to the explanation of a poet. The Scholia which have been preserved, must supply to us the want of those copious sources, and we may well be satisfied with the mass of materials they furnish. Particular mention is here due to a writer who flourished at a time when mythi were almost regarded as mere sophisto-rhetorical exercises. We allude to Pausanias the Lydian, who wrote a book of travels through Greece, in the reigns of Hadrian and the Antonines. Although he made use of, and cited a great number of poets and prose writers, he repeats, however, and it is for this that he deserves especial remark, still more frequently what he had heard on the very spot to which his relation refers, whether he received it from priests, servants of the temple, or others. It might often happen, therefore, that traditions which had lived for many centuries in the mouths of the people, were first committed by him to writing. He relates what he had heard, and how he had heard it, even when he is himself doubtful of its truth;1 the more so as he believed he had gradually attained the knowledge that much had been concealed in riddles by the ancient sages of Greece.2 CHAPTER IV. Of the Sources or Origin of the Mythus itself. IF we take a glance at the various writers here brought under review, it will be obvious that we have not, in any of them, arrived at the real original source of the mythus. We have seen, indeed, that mythi are frequently modified by poetical and philosophical treatment; but these modifications, however, always found a preëxistent nucleus, and allowed it to remain. Pure inventions, like those of the philosophers, rhetoricians, and sophists, never became mythi, in the proper sense, although the Greeks em1 II. 17. 4. VI. 3. 4. 2 VIII. 8. 2. |