COSMOGONY. 



ving thus obtained a kind of tangiole agent, who has 

 great efficiency in all the systems of ancient mythology, 

 the work of creation proceeded with great ease and 

 expedition. We do not pretend to understand this ; 

 we only profess to translate ; and our learned readers 

 may ascertain the accuracy of our comment, by compa- 

 ring it with the original ; art & r\^«.o-&n to Trnvpa tm ilmt 



HOYjUV xeti 6-/SVET0 (rvyy.f>xo-is, y wAokd exeivo ekAijS)) ttojos, ctvnt 



Si u^xv, «Tirt»; «x«vr«v. As far as this system can be 

 understood, it appears to be atheistical, at least its ob- 

 ject seems to be, to show that the gods, as well as every 

 thing else, had a beginning from some necessity of na- 

 ture. In this respect it is directly, and in all probabi- 

 lity, purposely opposed to that of Moses ; in other re- 

 spects, there is a striking resemblance, and it seems to 

 have bean copied from the Hebrew prophet, with such 

 modifications as suited the pagan notions of the author. 

 We have, however, a dark chaos, and a spirit, which, 

 by a certain operation, affected this mass, and gave birth 

 to creation. It would be needless to point out the re- 

 semblance between this idea, and that which is ex- 

 pressed in the second verse of the first chapter of Ge- 

 nesis. " The earth was without form and void, and 

 darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of 

 God moved upon the face of the waters," The nonsense 

 which is spoken about ttoSo? or Desire being produced 

 by some mysterious agency of the spirit, has, in all pro- 

 bability, arisen from the Hebrew word translated moved 

 in the verse now quoted; and which strictly signifies the 

 affectionate fluttering of a bird over its young ; or the 

 incubation of a pigeon on its eggs : and hence also, the 

 origin of the mundane egg, which makes such a conspi- 

 cuous figure in various cosmogonies. 



The notions detailed by Sanchoniatho are almost 

 translated by Hesiod, in Theogon. who mentions the 

 primeval chaos, and states s|»s or Love to be its first 

 offspring. 



Anaxagoras was the first among the Greeks who en- 

 tertained tolerably accurate notions on the subject of 

 creation : he assumed the agency of an intelligent mind 

 in the arrangement of the chaotic materials. ■na.not, 



X^ftxrec. nv ofia irttpv^fiiva o vb; % aura Joj^s kxi (i nx.o<rp.v)<rs, xcti 



ix. rvti «Te|"*s 85 T«|t» nyayi. These sentiments gradually 

 prevailed among the Greeks ; from whom they passed to 

 the Romans, and were generally adopted, notwithstand- 

 ing the efforts which were made to establish the doctrines 

 of Epicurus by the nervous poetry of Lucretius. Ovid 

 lias collected the orthodox doctrines which prevailed 

 on the subject, both among Greeks and Romans ; and 

 lias expressed them with uncommon elegance and per- 

 spicuity in the first chapter of his Metamorphoses. 

 There is the most striking coincidence between his ac- 

 count and that of Moses : one would almost think that 

 he was translating from the first chapter of Genesis ; 

 and there can be no doubt that the Mosaic writings 

 were well known at that time, both among the Greeks 

 and Romans. Megasthenes, who lived in the time of 

 Seleucus Nicator, affirms, that all the doctrines of the 

 Greeks respecting the creation, and the constitution of 

 nature, were current among the Rramins in India, and 

 the Jews in Syria. Clemens. Alex. Strom. 1. i. He must, 

 of course, have been acquainted with the writings of 

 the latter, before he could make the comparison. Ju- 

 venal talks of the writings of Moses as well known. 



Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Muses. 

 We are therefore inclined to think that Ovid actually 

 copied from the Bible ; for he adopts the very order de- 



259 



tailed by Moses. We call the attention of our readers to Cosm»g»- 

 this curious subject. Moses mentions the works of crea- n J % 

 tion in the following order ; the separation of the sea """"V""""' 

 from the dry land — the creation of the heavenly bodies 

 — of marine animals — of fowls and land animals — of 

 man. Observe now the order of the Roman poet. 



Ante mare et terras, et quod tegit omnia caitum 

 (Inns era toto naturte vultus in orbe, 

 Quern, dixere chaos, rudis, indigestaque moles.-— 

 Mane Dens, et melior litem natura diremiU 

 A'«»i ccrlo terras, et terras abscidit undis ; 

 Et liquidum spisso secrcvit ab aere ccelum.—* 

 iVeu regio foret utta suis animalibus orba, 

 Astra tenent cceleste solum, formaique deorum ; 

 Cesserunt nitidis habitandee piscibvs ■undee : 

 Terra Jeras cepit, volucrcs agitabilis aer. 

 Sanctius his animal, mentisquc captLcius altcc 

 Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in ccetera posset : 

 Natus homo est. 



Here we see all the principal objects of creation men- 

 tioned exactly in the same order which Moses had 

 assigned to them in his writings : and when we consi- 

 der what follows ; the war of the giants ; the general 

 corruption of the world ; the universal deluge ; the pre- 

 servation of Deucalion and Pyrrha ; their sacrifice t» 

 the gods on leaving the vessel in which they had been 

 preserved; there can scarcely remain a doubt that Ovid 

 borrowed, either directly or at second hand, from 

 Moses. What he says too, is perfectly consistent with 

 the received notions on the subject, though it is pro- 

 bable that they had never before been so regularly me- 

 thodised. This train of reasoning would lead us to 

 conclude that Ovid, and indeed the whole heathen 

 world, derived their notions respecting the creation, 

 and the early history of mankind, from the sacred scrip- 

 tures ; and it shows how deficient their own resources 

 were, when the pride of philosophy was forced to bor- 

 row from those whom it affected to despise. 



With regard to the Western mythologists, then, there 

 can be little doubt that their cosmogonies, at least 

 such of them as profess to be historical, and not theo- 

 retical, are derived from Moses : and the same may be 

 affirmed with regard to the traditions of the East ; as 

 they were the same with those of Greece, in the time 

 of Megasthenes, whose testimony to this effect is quo- 

 ted both by Clemens Alex, and Slrabo, 1. xv. we may 

 naturally conclude that they had the same origin. The 

 Hindoo mythology has grown, in the natural uninter- 

 rupted progress of corruption, to such monstrous and 

 complicated absurdity, that in many cases it stands 

 unique in extravagance. In the more ancient Hindoo 

 writings, however, many sublime sentiments occur ; and 

 in the Institutes < : f Menu, many passages are found re- 

 lating to the creation, which bear a strong resemblance 

 to the account given by Moses. A writer in the Asia- 

 tic researches has been at the pains to collect these 

 passages; and, deceived by the imagined antiquity of 

 the work, he takes, leave of the subject in a very ex- 

 traordinary manner, by saying, that it is not his busi- 

 ness to decide whether the Hindoos borrowed from 

 Moses, or Moses from the Hindoos. There is yet ano- 

 ther alternative : it is evident that the history of crea- 

 tion could only be communicated by revelation from 

 heaven; for no man was present to see it; but it 

 may justly be doubted whether Moses was the only 

 person to whom this revelation was imparted. There 

 is every reason to suppose that Adam, and all the ante- 

 diluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs, had the know- 

 ledge of this event, acquired either by inspiration, #r 



