Note 397 — TAPH, TUPH, TAPHOS.

It may be said, that I run counter to the opinions of all antiquity: that all the fathers who treated of this subject, and many other learned men, supposed the Gods of the heathen to have been deified mortals, who were worshipped in the countries, where they died. It was the opinion of Clemens, Eusebius, Cyril, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Epiphanius, Lactantius, Arnobius, Julius Firmicus, and many others. What is more to the purpose, it was the opinion of the heathen themselves; the very people, by whom these gods were honoured: yet still it is a mistake. In respect to the fathers, the whole of their argument turns upon this point, the concessions of the Gentiles. The more early writers of the church were not making a strict chronological inquiry: but were labouring to convert the heathen. They therefore argue with them upon their own principles; and confute them from their own testimony. The Romans had their Dii Immortales; the Greeks their Θεοι Αθανατοι: yet acknowledged that they had been men; that they died, and were buried. Cicero owns; [397]ab Euhemero et mortes, et sepulturæ demonstrantur deorum. It matters not whether the notion were true; the fathers very fairly make use of it. They avail themselves of these concessions; and prove from them the absurdity of the Gentile worship, and the inconsistency of their opinions. Even Maximus Tyrius, the Platonic, could not but smile, at being shewn in the same place the temple, and tomb of the deity[398]; ἱερον Θεου, και ταφον Θεου. These supposed places of sepulture were so numerous, that Clemens Alexandrinus tells us, they were not to be counted. [399]Αλλα γαρ επιοντι μοι τους προσκυνουμενους ὑμιν ταφους, εμοι μεν ουδ' ὁ πας αν αρκεσῃ χρονος. But, after all, these Ταφοι were not tombs, but λοφοι μαστοειδεις, conical mounds of earth; on which in the first ages offerings were made by fire. Hence τυφω, tupho, signified to make a smoke, such as arose from incense upon these Tupha, or eminences. Besides, if these were deified men, who were buried under these hills; how can we explain the difficulty of the same person being buried in different places, and at different times? To this it is answered, that it was another Bacchus, and another Jupiter. Yet this still adds to the difficulty: for it is hard to conceive, that whoever in any country had the name of Jupiter, should be made a God. Add to this, that Homer and Hesiod, and the authors of the Orphic poetry, knew of no such duplicates. There is no hint of this sort among the antient writers of their nation. It was a refinement in after ages; introduced to obviate the difficulties, which arose from the absurdities in the pagan system. Arnobius justly ridicules the idle expedients, made use of to render a base theology plausible. Gods, of the same name and character, were multiplied to make their fables consistent; that there might be always one ready at hand upon any chronological emergency. Hence no difficulty could arise about a Deity, but there might be one produced, adapted to all climes, and to every age. [400]Aiunt Theologi vestri, et vetustatis absconditæ conditores, tres in rerum naturâ Joves esse—quinque Soles, et Mercurios quinque. Aiunt iidem Theologi quatuor esse Vulcanos, et tres Dianas; Æsculapios totidem, et Dionysos quinque; ter binos Hercules, et quatuor Veneres; tria genera Castorum, totidemque Musarum. But Arnobius is too modest. Other writers insist upon a greater variety. In respect to Jupiters, Varro according to Tertullian makes them in number three hundred. [401]Varro trecentos Joves, sive Jupiteres, dicendum, —— introducit. The same writer mentions forty heroes of the name of Hercules; all which variety arose from the causes above assigned: and the like multiplicity may be found both of kings and heroes; of kings, who did not reign; of heroes, who never existed. The same may be observed in the accounts transmitted of their most early prophets, and poets: scarce any of them stand single: there are duplicates of every denomination. On this account it is highly requisite for those, who suppose these personages to have been men, and make inferences from the circumstances of their history, to declare explicitly which they mean; and to give good reasons for their determination. It is said of Jupiter, that he was the son of Saturn; and that he carried away Europa, before the arrival of Cadmus. He had afterwards an amour with Semele, the supposed daughter of Cadmus: and they mention his having a like intimacy with Alcmena an age or two later. After this he got acquainted with Leda, the wife of Tyndarus: and he had children at the siege of Troy. If we may believe the poets, and all our intelligence comes originally from the poets, Jupiter was personally interested in that war. But this interval contains little less than two hundred years. These therefore could not be the actions of one man: on which account I want to know, why Sir Isaac Newton [402]in his chronological interpretations chooses to be determined by the story of Jupiter and Europa, rather than by that of Jupiter and Leda. The learned [403]Pezron has pitched upon a Jupiter above one thousand years earlier, who was in like manner the son of Saturn. But Saturn, according to some of the best mythologists, was but four generations inclusive before the æra of Troy. Latinus, the son of Faunus, was alive some years after that city had been taken; when Æneas was supposed to have arrived in Italy. The poet tells us, [404]Fauno Picus pater: isque parentem Te, Saturne, refert; Tu sanguinis ultimus auctor. The series amounts only to four, Latinus, Faunus, Picus, Saturn. What authority has Pezron for the anticipation of which he is guilty in determining the reign of Jupiter? and how can he reconcile these contradictory histories? He ought to have given some good reason for setting aside the more common and accepted accounts; and placing these events so [405]early. Shall we suppose with the critics and commentators that this was a prior Jupiter? If it were a different person, the circumstances of his life should be different: but the person, of whom he treats, is in all respects similar to the Jupiter of Greece and Rome. He has a father Saturn; and his mother was Rhea. He was nursed in Crete; and had wars with the Titans. He dethrones his father, who flies to Italy; where he introduces an age of gold. The mythology concerning him we find to be in all respects uniform. It is therefore to little purpose to substitute another person of the same name by way of reconciling matters, unless we can suppose that every person so denominated had the same relations and connexions, and the same occurrences in life reiterated: which is impossible. It is therefore, I think, plain, that the Grecian Deities were not the persons [406]supposed: and that their imputed names were titles. It is true, a very antient and respectable writer, [407]Euhemerus, of whom I have before made mention, thought otherwise. It is said, that he could point out precisely, where each god departed: and could particularly shew the burying-place of Jupiter. Lactantius, who copied from him, says, that it was at Cnossus in [408]Crete. Jupiter, ætate pessum actâ, in Cretâ vitam commutavit.—Sepulchrum ejus est in Cretâ, et in oppido Cnosso: et dicitur Vesta hanc urbem creavisse: inque sepulchro ejus est inscriptio antiquis literis Græcis, Ζαν Κρονου. If Jupiter had been buried in Crete, as these writers would persuade us, the accounts would be uniform about the place where he was deposited. Lactantius, we find, and some others, say, that it was in the city Cnossus. There are writers who mention it to have been in a cavern upon [409]Mount Ida: others upon Mount [410]Jasius. Had the Cretans been authors of the notion, they would certainly have been more consistent in their accounts: but we find no more certainty about the place of his burial, than of his birth; concerning which Callimachus could not determine.