MYTHOLOGY. 
in due time delivered of that celebrated legiflator.. This 
perfonage, like the Athenian Cecrops, was half a man 
and half a ferpent. His intellectual powers were truly 
hyperbolical. In one day he difcovered fifty different 
fpecies of poifonous herbs. He taught his countrymen 
the whole art of agriculture in the fpace of a very few 
years. He inftrufted them how to fow five different forts 
of grain. He invented boats, and nets for fifhing, the 
art of fabricating porcelain, the management of filk- 
worms, the manufacturing of filk, &c. In a word, that 
wonderful perfonage was infpired by Heaven with know¬ 
ledge which qualified him for compofing that incom¬ 
parable body of laws which are even at this day the 
wonder of the world. Our readers will admit, that this 
whole detail is fabulous and chimerical. The moll learned 
part of them will readily obferve, that the Chinefe, in 
afcribing the invention of all the ufeful arts to their Fold, 
are perfectly agreed with almoft all the other nations of 
antiquity. The Indians afcribe every invention to Budha, 
or Vifhnu, or Fo; the Perfians to Zoroafter; the Chal¬ 
deans to their man of the fea, whom they call Oannes ; 
the F/gyptians to Thoth; the Phoenicians to Melicerta; 
the Greeks to the family of the Titans; and the Scan¬ 
dinavians to Odin, &c. 
About 551 years before the Chriftian era, appeared the 
famous Chinefe philofopher Con-fu-tfe, or Confucius. 
Concerning the birth of this prince of philofophers, the 
Chinefe have propagated the following legendary tale. 
His mother, walking in a folitary place, was impregnated 
by the vivifying influence of the heavens. The babe, 
thus produced, fpakeand reafonedas foon as it was born. 
Confucius, however, wrought no miracles, performed no 
romantic exploits, but lived an auftere afcetic life, taught 
and inculcated the doctrines of pure morality, and died, 
remarkable only for fuperior wifdom, religious, moral, 
and political. See Confucius, vol. v. 
About the year before Chrilt 601, flourilhed the feCt of 
Lao-kiun. This philofopher was the Epicurus of the 
Chinefe. His difciples, who were denominated tao-ffe, 
i. e. heavenly doCtors, were the firft who corrupted the 
religion of the Chinefe. They were addicted to magic, 
and introduced the worlhip of good and bad demons. 
Their doClrine was embraced by a long fucceflion of 
emperors. One of thefe princes, called You-ti, had been 
deprived by death of a favourite miftrefs, whom he loved 
w’ith the moil extravagant paflion. The emperor, by the 
magical (kill of one of thefe doctors, obtained an inter¬ 
view with his deceafed miftrefs, a circumftance which 
rivetted the whole order in the affection and efteem of 
the deluded prince. Here our readers will obferve the 
exaCt counterpart of the fable of Eurydice, fo famous in 
the mythology of the Greeks and Romans. That fuch a 
fyftem of religious principles mull have abounded with 
mythological adventures is highly probable; but, as the 
miflionaries, to whom we are chiefly indebted for our 
information relating to the religion of the Chinefe, have 
not taken the pains to record them, we find it impoffible 
to gratify the curiofity of our readers on that head. 
The worlhip of the idol Fo, or Foe, was tranfplanted 
from India into China about the 56th year of the Chrif¬ 
tian era. If the earlier ages of the Chinefe hiftory are 
barren of mythological incidents, the later periods, after 
the introduction of the worlhip of Fo, furnilh an inex- 
liauftible ftore of miracles, monfters, fables, intrigues, 
exploits, and adventures, of the moft villanous com¬ 
plexion. Indeed, moft of them are fo abfurd, fo ridicu¬ 
lous, and at the fame time fo impious and profane, that 
we are convinced our readers will eafily difpenfe with a 
detail from which they could reap neither entertainment 
nor inftruCtion. Some of them, however, are related 
under the article China, vol. iv. p. 457, 8, 9. 
The Hindoos, like the other nations of the Eaft, for a 
long time retained the worlhip of the true God. At 
length, however, idolatry broke in, and, like an impe¬ 
tuous torrent, overwhelmed the country. Firft of all, the 
479 
genuine hiftory of the origin of the univerfe was either 
utterly loft, or difguiled under a variety of fictions and 
allegories. And, at prefent, mythology is fo intimately 
blended in all their writings, that unlefs the Undent hath 
feme information on that point, he will be continually at a 
lofs in comprehending the allulions fo frequently recurring. 
The whole of this popular religion, their hiftory, and 
literature in general, even the l'ciences and mechanical 
arts, are buried in a mal's of mythological allegory. It is, 
indeed, all-pervading; and, if we deem it worth while, 
as it furely is, to examine the ftores of Indian learning, 
a knowledge of its mythology is no lefs necefl'ary than a 
knowledge of its languages. One cannot indeed be ac¬ 
quired, without acquiring, at the fame time, fame know¬ 
ledge of the other. This has been fo much felt, that our 
moft celebrated oriental fcbolars have profitably employed 
themfelves in the inveftigation of this curious and com- 
prehenfive fubjeCl. It affords alfo conliderable elucida¬ 
tions of the primeval traditions of the human race. It 
illuftrates what is extant, and fuggefts fome parts of what 
is loft in the hiftory of almoft every nation of antiquity. 
The analogy between the Hindoo and the Grecian and 
Roman mythology, has been copioully developed by fir 
W. Jones, Mr. Colebroke, major Wilford, and other wri¬ 
ters in the different volumes of the Afiatic Relearches. 
Coincidences too ftrong and numerous to be accidental 
may be tracedrin the fabulous hillories of India, Egypt, 
and Perfia: the two latter, probably, being the interme¬ 
diate countries through which the ftream of allegory 
flowed to Greece, Rome, and to the Gothic and other 
nations of Europe, among all of whom a fimilarity of 
tradition and popular luperftition is found to have pre¬ 
vailed. Even in Ireland, fome amufing inftances of re- 
lationlhip have been difcovered. Which is the parent 
country of thefe widely-fpread impreflions, is not alto¬ 
gether agreed on. India feems to have ftrong claims to 
this honour, fuch as it is, and it is accordingly ftrongly 
claimed for her. The mode and courfe of their propaga¬ 
tion ftill afford farther fcope for the induftry of refearch, 
and the exertion of analogical deduction. 
Among the many writers who have difeufled the fub- 
jeCt of this article, we may notice the Rev. Mr. Maurice; 
who, in his Indian Antiquities, and Ancient Hiftory of 
India, has brought together many coincidences of opinion 
in different nations, and difeufled them learnedly and at 
length. Sonnerat and Bartolemeo, not to mention Bal- 
daeus and other early Romifh travellers, have entered 
pretty fully into the popular legends of Indian mythology; 
and “ Moor’s Hindoo Pantheon,” recently publifhed, 
contains a great number of exaCt reprefentations of the 
deities, perlonifications, and fymbols, with deferiptive 
illuflrations, of this fuperftitious polytheifm. But it is 
in the Afiatic Refearches that we are llill to look for the 
moft fatisfaCtory and authentic developements of this in- 
terefting fubjeCt. The fyftem of the Hindoos feems a 
feries of endlefs perfonifications, and the invention rather 
of poets than of priefts; but in early ages the poet and 
the pried were, perhaps, generally combined. It has 
animated all nature. It has peopled the heavens, the- 
air, the earth, and waters, with innumerable tribes of 
imaginary beings, arrayed in tints correfponding with the 
fervid imagination of trbpical climes; and we are dif- 
pofed to contemplate Hindoo mythology as a well-ftored 
magazine, whence poets may fupply themfelves with an 
almoft infinity of imagery and incident. From the above, 
and other fources, we have collected, under the article 
Hindgostan, vol.x. p. 115-169, a pretty correct view of 
the mythology of this country. Yet the following fhort 
and compendious fketch, from Forbes’s Oriental Me¬ 
moirs, publifhed fince our account was written, will, we 
think, be ftill acceptable to the reader. 
“ The Hindoo religion admits of no profelytes; and 
is ; therefore a principal means of preferving the caftes 
pure and diftinCt: neither have the Mahomedan conquefts 
and oppreffions, nor the intercourfe of Europeans with 
the 
