stance which duly confidered will prove to us, that whoever this Perfon was, he came into India before the Days of Ninus: For when Ninus, and after him Semiramis, made Attempts upon these Countries, they found them fo well difciplined and fettled, as to be abundantly able to defend themselves, and to repel all Attacks that could be made upon them (d). I am fenfible, that fome Writers have imagined the Time of Bacchus's coming to India to be much later than Ninus; but then it must be obferved, that they cannot mean by their Bacchus, the Perfon here spoken of, who came into India before there were any Cities built, or Kingdoms established in it; because from the Time of Ninus downwards, all Writers agree, that the Indians were in a well-ordered State and Condition, and did not want to be taught the Arts, which this Bacchus is faid to have spread amongst them; nor were they liable to be overrun by an Army, in the Way and Manner, in which he is faid to have fubdued all before him. And further; if we look over all the famous Kings and Heroes celebrated by the Heathen Hiftorians, we can find no one between the Times of Ninus and Sefoftris, who can with any fhew of Reafon be imagined to have travelled into these Eastern Nations, and performed any very remarkable Actions in them. Ninus, and after him Semiramis, attempted to penetrate these Countries, but they met with great Repulfes and Obftructions; and .

(d) See Vol. I. Book 4. Diodor. Sic. Lib. 2. Juftin, Lib. 1.

we

we do not read, that the Affyrian or Perfian Empires were ever extended farther Eaft than Bactria; fo that none of the Kings of this Empire can be the Bacchus fo famous in the fe Eaftern Kingdoms. If we look into Egypt, they had no famous Warriors before Sefoftris (e). Mizraim and his Sons peopled Egypt, Libya, Philiftia, and the bordering Countries, and they might probably be known in Canaan and Phenicia; but we have no Reason to imagine, that any of them made any Expedition into India. The Affyrian Empire lay a Barrier between Egypt and India, and we have no Hints either that the Affyrians conquered India, or that the Egyptians before Sefoftris made any Conquefts in Afia, or paffed through Affyria into the more Eaftern Nations.

It may perhaps be here faid, that Sefoftris was Bacchus, who conquered the Eaft, and founded the Indian Polity: But to this I anfwer; 1. India was not in fo low and unfettled a State in the Time of Sefoftris, as it is defcribed to have been in, when this Bacchus came into it; for, as I before remarked, thefe Nations were powerful in the Days of Ninus, and fo they continued until Alexander the Great; and it is remarkable, that even he met a more confiderable Oppofition from Porus a King of this Country, than any that had been made to his victorious Arms by the whole Perfian Empire. 2. All the Writers, that have offered any thing about Bacchus and Sefoftris, are ex

(e) Diodor. Lib. 1.

prefs

prefs in fuppofing them to be different Perfons. Diodorus Siculus (f) refutes at large a Mistake of the Greeks, who imagined the famous Bacchus to be the Son of Jupiter and Semele; and intimates how and upon what Foundation Orpheus and the Poets that followed him, led them into this Error. And though there were Perfons in After-Ages called Bacchus, Hercules, and by other celebrated Names, he justly obferves, that the Heroes firft called fo, lived in the firft Ages of the World (g). As to Sefoftris, the fame Writer, after he has brought down the Hiftory of Egypt from Menis to Myris (b), then he fuppofes Sefoftris to be seven Generations later than Myris, which makes him by far too modern to be conceived to be the Bacchus, who lived according to his Opinion in the firft Ages of the World.. But, 3. Sefoftris cannot be the Indian Bacchus, because Sefoftris never came into India at all. Diodorus (i) indeed fays, that Sefoftris paffed over the Ganges, and conquered all India as far as to the Ocean; but he must have been miftaken in this Particular. Herodotus has given a very particular Account of Sefoftris's Expeditions (k), and it does not appear from him, that he went further Eaft than Bactria; there he turned afide to the Scythians, and extending his Conquests over their Dominions, he returned into Afia at the River Phafis, a River which runs into

(Lib. 1. p. 20. Edit. Rhodoman. ἀρχῆς γένεσιν ̓Ανθρώπων. Id. ibid. P. 35. (*) Lib. 2. c. 103,

(g) Κατὰ τω (b) Id. p. 34. (i) Id.

the

the Euxine Sea. And this Account agrees perfectly well with the Reafon, which the Prieft of Vulcan gave for not admitting the Statue of Darius to take Place of the Statue of Sefoftris (); because, he said, Sefoftris had been Master of more Nations than Darius, having fubdued not only all the Kingdoms fubject to Darius, but the Scythians befides. India was no Part of the Perfian Empire, and therefore had Sefoftris conquered India, here would have been another confiderable Addition to his Glory, and the Priest of Vulcan would have mentioned this as well as Scythia, as an Inftance of his exceeding the Power and Dominion of Darius; but the Truth was, neither Darius nor Sefoftris had ever fubjugated India: For, as Justin remarks, Semiramis and Alexander the Great were the only two Persons that entered this Country (m). The Accounts of the Victories of Sefoftris given by Manetho, both in the Chronicon of Eufebius (n), and in Jofephus (0), agree very well with Herodotus, and confine his Expeditions to Europe and Asia, and make no mention of his entring India; and to this agree all the Accounts we have of the feveral Pillars erected by him in Memory of his Conquefts; they were found in every Country where he had been (p), but we have no Account of any fuch Monuments of him in India. Ctefias perhaps might imagine he had been in this Country,

() Herodot. Lib. 2. 110. (m) Juftin. Lib. 1. c. 2. Indie Bellum intulit; quò præter illam & Alexandrum nemo intravit.

(2) Chronic. p. 15. (0) Contra Apion. I. 1. (p) Herodot

ubi fupra.

and

and from him Diodorus might have it; but tho' Ctefias's Affyrian Hiftory has by the best Writers been thought worthy of Credit, yet his Accounts of India were not fo well wrote, but were full of Fiction and Mistakes (q). It appears from what all other Writers have offered about Sefoftris (r), that he never was in India, and therefore he cannot be the Perfon that first fettled the Polity of thefe Kingdoms.

It may perhaps be thought more difficult to fay who this Indian Bacchus was, than to prove that Sefoftris was not the Perfon. The Ancient Writers have made almost an endless Confufion, by the Variety of Names which they fometimes give to one Perfon, and by fometimes calling various Perfons by one and the fame Name. Diodorus Siculus was fenfible of the many Difficulties occafioned hereby, when he was to treat of the Egyptian Gods (s). There have been feveral Perfons called by the Name of Bacchus, at least one in India, one in Egypt, and one in Greece; but we must not confound them one with the other, efpecially when we have remarkable Hints by which we may fufficiently diftinguish them. For, 1. The Indian Bacchus was the first and moft ancient of all that bore that Name (). 2. He was the first that preffed the Grape and made Wine (u). 3. He lived in these Parts

(9) Hen. Steph. de Ctefiâ Difquifit. (r) I have followed the common Accounts that are given of Sefoftris, tho' I shall have occafion hereafter to remark how far they go beyond what is true: Sofoftris was not fo great a Conqueror as he is reprefented. (s) Lib. 1. p. 21. (1) Id. Lib. 3. p. 197. Edit. Rhodoman. VOL. II.

H

(z) Id. Lib. 4.

before