rapidly becoming obsolete. But, as it is generally admitted that to call Athênê Minerva, is erroneous; so, similarly, it must be conceded that the divinities of Kaldea, Phoenicia, or Egypt, should not be obscured under the names of Hellenik gods supposed to be their equivalents; or even under Hellenik forms of their own original appellations. Osiris and Isis are household words. in mythology, but they must be made to give way to the more correct forms Uasar and Uasi. The same rule is applied to other names, and as these, when Hellenik are now generally and properly written in an Hellenik, instead of in a Latin form, so, in turn, Xerxes must yield to its original Khshayarsha, and Nebuchadnezzar reappear as Nabu-kudur-uzur. This, at first, may seem somewhat strange alike to ear and eye, but time will soon familiarise us with the change, which, being correct in principle, will gradually prevail. Its early supporters must expect to have the groundless charge of pedantry and affectation brought against them-a hardship which, however, they will probably be able to endure.

In the present age, so distinguished for mental activity in connection with religion, the importance of early religious-mythology and archaic belief is being rapidly recognised. Works long and learned have recently appeared, in which attempts have been made to resolve all religious systems into phallicism, ancestor-worship, or sun-worship in connection with the signs of the zodiac. These are dreams, as baseless as the long-exploded efforts of those investigators who regarded all mythology as merely an echo of the Noachian deluge. But both those who accept any particular creed, and those who do not, may alike find ample food for reflection in studying the human mind in past ages. The enquiry may be found to give some assistance on the important discussions respecting the foundations of belief, basis of a creed, super

natural religion, government of the world, and the like, which are at present so widely agitated amongst the thoughtful. There are certain questions of primary importance which will constantly recur throughout all time, although various ages impress their special characteristics upon particular aspects of them; such are enquiries respecting the nature of God and the world, time and space, good and evil, the relations between God and man, and the destiny of the latter. At present, the champions of orthodoxy and the contrary (I use these terms as best fitted to express my meaning, although in themselves far from unobjectionable), confront each other like Hector and Aias fairly matched, and it is impossible for an unenlightened spectator to decide which will ultimately prevail. There is, however, widely prevalent, a sort of spurious unorthodoxy which thinks it fashionable to profess to be a thinker, as the term is; to doubt this and deny that, and yet which at the end is sure to be found voting tamely with the orthodox majority, simply because they at present compose the larger crowd; a state of mind which dreads above all things expulsion from the social synagogue. Whilst every sympathy should be extended to honest doubt or disbelief, and its fearless expression in becoming language merits respectful attention, all earnest advocates of either side should unite in exposing the hypocritical religionist and the hypocritical unbeliever. Again, a narrow-minded and ignorant orthodoxy clinging to erroneous and obsolete interpretation and untrustworthy tradition, constantly makes itself ridiculous by crying out when in no way really injured. All truth, religious and scientific, must be harmonious; no truly honest mind will shrink from any amount of test or investigation being applied to its beliefs. An age or an individual may have a faulty concept of astronomy or of Christianity, yet these may in reality be perfect, for man's

errors affect himself, not the truth at which he aims. A calm investigation of facts is almost always distasteful to an ardent partisan, but will commend itself to the judgment of that large moderate majority whose consistently steady action preserves the balance of things.

15

CHAPTER II.

THE DIONYSOS OF THE THEOLOGERS.

SECTION I.

THE HOMERIK DIONYSOS.

Subsection I.-The Episode of Lykourgos.

THE first direct, and indeed the most important, notice of Dionysos in the Homerik Poems1 occurs in the speech of Diomedes to Glaukos.2 Who art thou?' enquires the former, and continues :

But if really one of the Immortals thou hast come from heaven
I would not fight with the heavenly gods.

For neither did even the son of Dryas, strong Lykourgos
Live long, who truly strove with the heavenly gods,

He who once the attendants of Raving Dionysos

Pursued down the most-holy Nyseïan [Mount]. But they together all

Their sacred-implements cast on the ground, by man-slaying Lykourgos

Smitten with an ox-goad. But Dionysos being-terrified

Sunk under the wave of the sea, and Thetis received him to her bosom

Frightened; for strong trembling seized him at-the-angry-tone of the man.

1 The belief that an actual historic individual, Homeros, composed the two great epic poems which have come down to us, is now again decidedly gaining ground. In this view, after considering the arguments of Wolf and his followers, and of

Thirlwall, Grote, Mure, Gladstone, F. A. Paley, Cox, Köchly, and others, I respectfully concur. The question, however, does not directly concern the present enquiry.

2 Il. vi. 123 et seq.

With him [Lykourgos] the gods who live in ease were afterwards enraged,

And the Son of Kronos made him blind: nor truly much longer Did he live, since he was hated by all the immortal gods. Neither should I wish to fight with the blessed gods.

Chapman translates:-

If heav'n be thy divine abode,

And thou a Deity thus inform'd, no more with any God
Will I change lances. The strong son of Dryus did not live
Long after such a conflict dar'd, who godlessly did drive
Nysaeus' nurses through the hill made sacred to his name,
And called Nysseius; with a goad he punch'd each furious
dame,

And made them ev'ry one cast down their green and leavy spears.

This th' homicide Lycurgus did; and those ungodly fears,

He put the froes in, seiz'd their God. Ev'n Bacchus he did

drive

From his Nysseius; who was fain, with huge exclaims, to dive
Into the ocean. Thetis there in her bright bosom took
The flying Deity; who so fear'd Lycurgus' threats, he shook.
For which the freely-living Gods so highly were incens'd,
That Saturn's great Son strook him blind, and with his life
dispens'd

But small time after; all because th' Immortals lov'd him not,
Nor lov'd him since he striv'd with them; and his end hath

begot

Fear in my pow'rs to fight with heav'n.

The first question which arises on this very remarkable legend is, Whether it should be treated as an addition to the original poem, an interpolation of a much later date? There appears to be nothing special in the phraseology to point to such a conclusion, nor have these lines generally been included amongst the more doubtful passages of the Ilias. But to the view of their genuineness, it has been objected that the whole speech and its senti