Note 1062 — ANTIENT HEROES.

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 not be understood? and which of the two are we in this case to believe, Herodotus or Plutarch? I do not mean that I give any credence to the story of Alcmena and her tablet: nor do I believe that there was a tripod with characters as antient as Amphitryon. I only argue from the principles of the Greeks to prove their inconsistency. The Pheneatæ in Arcadia shewed to Pausanias an inscription upon the basis of a brazen statue, which was dedicated to [1065]Poseidon Hippius. It was said to have been written by Ulysses, and contained a treaty made between him and some shepherds. But Pausanias acknowledges that it was an imposition; for neither statues of brass, nor statues of any sort, were in use at the time alluded to.