Part 10

IX. But this matter will be better explained, by reducing the applications which the before-cited authors have made of the history of Prometheus, to a comparative examination. And to begin with Father Tournemine; he fancies it alludes to the crime and punishment of Luzbel; because in the first place, according to the relation of Duris of Samos, Prometheus was thrown down from heaven by Jupiter, for having pretended to be betrothed to Minerva. I don’t know whether Duris of Samos, whose works are not at present in being, said any such thing; but if he did say it, it was as Natal Comite observes, a fable of his own inventing, and one that was not generally current among the Gentiles; as may be evinced, by examining the works of other profane authors; all of whom, almost universally agree, that Prometheus, having by the assistance of Minerva formed a man of clay, he by the favour of the same goddess, was enabled to ascend up to heaven, from whence he brought a portion of fire, with which he instill’d life into the statue he had formed; and that the punishment Jupiter inflicted on him for this sacrilegious theft, was chaining him to a rock of Mount Caucasus, and placing a vulture at his breast, which should continually gnaw his entrails. It is clear, this fable is not capable of any application whatever to the history of Luzbel; and much less can it be made to apply to it, if we add the remainder of the story, which is, that Hercules rescued him from the punishment, by first killing the vulture with arrows, and afterwards unchaining Prometheus; but the punishment of Luzbel is eternal, and not transitory.

X. The second application of Father Tournemine consists, in that, according to other authors, the crime of Prometheus was envying his brother Epimetheus; which may very well be made to apply to Luzbel, by supposing that in Epimetheus is represented the person of Adam; for Luzbel, when he was thrown down from heaven on account of the envy he bore to the happiness of man, excited or provoked his fall. But neither does Father Tournemine point out the authors who attribute this sin of envy to Prometheus, nor have I been able to discover one who has said any such thing; but it rather appears to me, that Epimetheus had much to envy in Prometheus, although this last had little to envy in him, because Prometheus is described as exceedingly penetrating and sensible, and Epimetheus as rude and stupid. Neither could any motive of envy arise from the marriage, which, according to some mythologists, took place between Pandora and him, because she was sent by Jupiter with the fatal box, in which was shut up or contained all sorts of calamities, and which she was to endeavour to prevail on Prometheus to open; this Jupiter, in order to be revenged on him, was desirous he should do; but Prometheus, like a wise man, withstood the intreaty; Epimetheus, on the contrary, was weak enough to entertain Pandora, and open the box, in consequence of which he filled himself with misfortunes. This transaction afforded rather motives of pity than envy; neither could Prometheus envy his brother the possession of Pandora, whom he had rejected.

XI. Father Tournemine, in his third application, says; that, according to other authors, Prometheus sinned, by suggesting to Epimetheus through Pandora, that he should open the box, which quadrates very opportunely with Luzbel’s tempting of Adam through Eve. I have never as yet met with any author who has mentioned such a suggestion; but on the contrary, have seen some, who say, that Prometheus warned Epimetheus against receiving any present which should be sent him from Jupiter.

XII. In his fourth application he observes, that according to the most general received opinion, the crime of Prometheus, was bringing the fire from heaven to earth, with which he instilled into man the passions that stimulated him to vice; and this corresponds with what Luzbel did, by inflaming with his persuasions, the keen appetite of Adam. It is certain, that the most common and generally received opinion is, that the crime of Prometheus consisted in his stealing the cœlestial fire; as it is also, that the use he purposed to make of this fire, was to animate with it the statue of clay, and not to instil into the statue the passions of man after it was animated.

XIII. In his fifth and last application, he tells us, the Poet Nicander says, that Jupiter having granted to man the blessing of eternal youth, he by the advice of Prometheus, sold it to the serpent; in which is insinuated, that Luzbel, by his temptation, was the cause of the death of Adam and all his descendants. I don’t know what Nicander, whose works I am not acquainted with but by quotation, says upon the subject; but I know, that in a matter of this sort, the fiction of a particular poet should not, nor ought it to be urged, in opposition to the common and general received opinion of the mythologists, who attribute all the misfortunes of man, to the fatal box in which they were contained, and among which, were those of diseases. To this we may add, that Mons. Huet, who quotes the same Nicander, tells the story very differently. He says, that man having received from the hands of Jupiter the gift of perpetual youth, laid it on the loins of an ass, which ass came thirsty to a fountain that was guarded by a serpent, who prevented him from drinking; but he agreed to give the serpent what he carried on his back, provided he would permit him to quench his thirst; the bargain being made, the ass obtained the water, and surrendered to the serpent perpetual youth. According to this relation, there is no sale on the part of the man, nor does there appear any persuasion on the part of Prometheus; but the whole blame is laid upon the ass.

SECT. V.

XIV. We will now proceed to the applications of the illustrious Huet, which are made in two ways, some directly, others indirectly. I call those to be made directly, in which he proposes some immediate likeness between Moses and Prometheus; and I look upon those as indirect, in which he seeks for the likeness, by introducing some third agent or property. For example, Mons. Huet pretends, and by the assistance of certain analogies, endeavours to prove, that Prometheus and Mercury are one and the same person; and afterwards strives to demonstrate by other analogies, that Mercury and Moses are the same. This kind of proof is very frequently introduced by Mons. Huet, who, by pursuing the system of confounding all, or very nearly all the heathen deities in one, whatever similitude he finds to Moses in any one of them, he applies to identify the persons of every one of the others. But as in our progress, we mean expressly to dispute and arraign this system, we shall confine ourselves for the present, to the direct applications which are made by this author of the history of Prometheus to that of Moses.

XV. In his first application, he begins by saying, that Herodotus calls Prometheus the husband of Asia, and that others call him the son. Moses was of Asiatic extraction, and all the Israelitish people when they returned from Egypt, came back with him into Asia. (Demonstr. Evang. prop. 4. cap. 8. numb. 7.) I have used the very words of the author in this quotation, that no one should think, I was guilty of the least imposition, in stating this strained and violent application. It is really astonishing, to see a man celebrated in the Republic of Letters, apply so trifling an allusion to so serious a business. Who does not perceive, that according to this mode of reasoning, Prometheus may be made to resemble every man who was born in Asia? and with more propriety than he could be likened to Moses? for he was not born in Asia, but in Africa, and was only of Asiatic descent. Besides this, what Herodotus says of Prometheus, his being the husband of Asia, and others that he was the son, should not be understood to allude to that vast extent of country, which is reputed one of the four quarters of the world, but to the nymph Asia, who the poets feigned to have been the daughter of Thetis and the Ocean, and from whom, it is said, that prodigious tract of land derived its name.

XVI. This second application begins thus: In the opinion of some authors, Prometheus was the brother of Deucalion, of whom Apollonius speaking, says, that he was the first who erected temples to the gods. This he thinks applies to Aaron, the brother of Moses, who was the first high priest of the Israelites. But this application is more extraordinary than the other; because, in order to adopt it, the illustrious Huet falls into two gross contradictions. The first is, that a little lower down, for the sake of another application, he supposes Deucalion not to be the brother, but the son of Prometheus; and this coincides with the general opinion; at least I have never seen any other adopted by any author whatever. The second contradiction is, that in the tenth chapter he affirms, and endeavours to prove, that Deucalion and Aaron mean the same person. But how can Deucalion and Aaron be supposed to mean the same person, when the character and description of Aaron, differ so widely from that of Noah? Who could imagine, that so learned a man could fall into such an absurdity? and it would be idle to insist, that the building of temples was peculiarly annexed to the office of high priests, as many more temples have been built by legitimate princes, than by high priests.

XVII. In his third application, he observes, that Diodorus says, Prometheus reigned in a part of Egypt. Moses was the leader or prince of the Hebrews, who inhabited a portion of Egypt, that is, the land of Gessen. Besides this, Thermutis, the daughter of Pharaoh, who adopted him for her son, destined him to reign over her paternal inheritance. This application, in the first place, proceeds upon a false supposition, because Moses, was neither king or prince of the Israelites during their abode in Egypt, nor can it be said with any propriety, that he ruled over any part of Egypt; as the contrary clearly appears from scripture. The second application is a strained one, because being destined to a kingdom, and enjoying it, are things as different, as possession and expectation. And besides all this, the scripture does not say one word of the destination of Moses to the crown of Egypt. It is Josephus only who relates it, and who, with respect to a matter of such remote antiquity, it is not credible should have been able to obtain any authentic instrument wherewith to corroborate his assertion.

XVIII. In the fourth application, he says that Prometheus found himself in great distress, on account of an exorbitant inundation of the Nile, which overflowed all the lands of his dominions; and that Hercules freed him from the difficulty. In this event, Monsieur Huet figures to himself the passage of the Israelites through, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea; but to make the allusion probable, he supposes Joshua, the military leader of the Israelites, and the constant companion of Moses and Hercules, to be one and the same person. The whole of this application goes lame. The making the Nile the Red Sea is a voluntary transformation; and this last must be supposed to have broke through a large tract of country, and to have inundated the land of Egypt; which is a circumstance that never happened. The ruin that was brought upon the Egyptians by the Red Sea, was so far from giving Moses anxiety, that it put him in safety. How then could the distresses of Prometheus, be made to apply to Moses? Joshua in no shape assisted Moses in the passage of the Red Sea? What relation then can the assistance which Hercules afforded to Prometheus bear to Joshua?

XIX. In the fifth application, he remarks, that the statues of Prometheus are carved holding a sceptre in the right hand, and that this alludes to the miraculous rod or wand of Moses. This puerile mode of straining for allusions, is terrible, and especially, when men descend to deduce them from such trifling and impertinent circumstances. At this rate, all the statues of princes with a sceptre in the right hand, are emblems of Moses; and by the same mode of reasoning, may be called so many statues of him. If Monsieur Huet was of opinion, that Prometheus was a king, why should he seek for any other symbol or figure of it, than his being carved with a sceptre in his hand, which is the proper and natural one; and is intended as an emblem of regal authority? Finally, the resemblance between a sceptre and a wand is so trifling, that we need not take the trouble of dwelling upon, or attending to other particulars, this alone being sufficient to reprobate the application.

XX. In his sixth application, he takes notice that Julius Africanus says, that the fable of Prometheus having formed a man, took its rise from his having by wise instructions, made those men penetrating and polished, who were before rustic and stupid. By giving this turn to, and viewing things in this light, we may, with more propriety, compare or identify Moses with Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Minos, Draco, Solon, Lycurgus, and the whole Areopagus.

XXI. In the seventh application, he tells us, that Prometheus held conversations with Jupiter; and that Moses held them with God. I have read in the scripture, of the conversation of Moses with God; but I never in any author, read of the conversations of Prometheus with Jupiter. But granting there were such, Jupiter is said to have conversed with many other mortals; and, according to this mode of reasoning, it should follow, that all those were so many Moseses. Truly, with respect to the frequency of conversations with Jupiter, I would bet Ganymede against Prometheus, and indeed against all others whatever.

XXII. In his eighth application, he tells us, that in a tragedy of Æschylus, Prometheus is introduced saying, that he was the inventor of divining by the inspection of the entrails of victims. Moses regulated all the forms of worship, and the rights of sacrifices practised by the Israelites. What analogy is there between these two things? Between offering victims to false deities, in order to divine by their entrails, and sacrificing to the true God, there is as great a difference, as there is between due worship and superstition. Besides, what stress should be laid upon what a poet, and a Greek one too, says in a theatrical piece? Don’t we know that fictions are essentially material to poems; and especially to those of this kind, as are likewise particular feigned incidents, whether the subject of the piece is taken from true events or common fables? The text of a tragedy, therefore, should never be quoted as authority, when the matter in question is an enquiry into truth.

XXIII. In the ninth application, he observes, that Prometheus is spoken of in a dialogue of Lucian, as one who knew future events. Moses was a prophet. The dialogues of Lucian may, without doubt, be as properly quoted in a matter of this sort, as the tragedy of Æschylus. No one is ignorant that Lucian in his dialogues, gives full scope and play to his imagination; and introduces into them, all the pleasing fictions that occur to him; and especially those, which are conducive to turning into ridicule the deities of Paganism. But I will admit, that the antients held Prometheus as a soothsayer: this being however a quality they acknowledged in an infinite number of others, either all those had a right to be called the representatives of Moses, or none of them had; although there is no more reason for identifying Prometheus with Moses on this account, than there is for comparing him with all the other prophets that are mentioned in holy writ.

XXIV. In the tenth application, he says, the fire which Prometheus brought from Heaven, may allude to the lightning mixed with hail, which Moses caused to descend from Heaven to terrify the Egyptians, to the fire with which he consumed two hundred and fifty seditious of those who rebelled at Coré, to the fire of the bush, to the celestial splendid rays on Mount Sinai, when Moses spoke with God, to the refulgent glare of the face of Moses when he came down from the mount, or the perpetual fire which God ordained should ever burn on the altar. Allusions between history and fable are very easy to be met with, if finding the word fire in each of them, is sufficient to establish the similitude, without having regard to union or conformity with respect to any other circumstance whatever. At this rate, all that we find written of water in fabulous histories, may be made applicable to all that is said of water in the scripture.

XXV. In the eleventh application, he observes, that Jupiter sent Pandora to Prometheus, to deceive him; but he, knowing the design, would not receive her. In the character of Pandora is represented that of Eve, whose history was written by Moses, although he abominated her crime. Let the reader now reflect, what relation the writer of an event bears to an actor in it.

XXVI. He says, in the twelfth application, that Jupiter, because the men had revealed to him the theft of Prometheus, granted them the boon of perpetual youth; and observes, that this alludes to the privilege which God conceded to the Israelites, that their cloaths should not wear out in the desert. Such conceits ought more properly to be termed illusions than allusions; and as the extravagance of them is self-evident, I shall not waste time in exploding them.

XXVII. In the thirteenth application, he says, that Jupiter chained Prometheus to a rock, in a cave of Mount Caucasus, and appointed a vulture to gnaw his entrails. God placed Moses in a cavern of Mount Sinai, in order to manifest his glory to him there. This confounding of Mount Caucasus with Mount Sinai, and a delinquent abhorred by Jupiter, with a just man beloved by God, is a strange mode of making applications; as is, to compleat the whole, comparing the most cruel torment of a continual gnawing of the entrails, to the greatest blessing that ever was enjoyed by a mortal.

XXVIII. In the last application, he says, Hercules relieved Prometheus from that punishment. This circumstance, Monsieur Huet is desirous of making allude to Joshua, whom he supposes to have been meant by Hercules; and also to the battle Joshua fought with the Amalakites, in the midst of which, Moses was on the top of an adjacent hill, with his hands lifted up to Heaven, and imploring success to the Israelites till such time as they obtained the victory; and he likens the delivery of Moses, whom he supposes to have been in a sort of imprisonment on the mount, to that of Prometheus. This is all a compound of incoherences and contradiction; for, in order to accommodate the application to the circumstances, he compares the confinement of Prometheus in the cavern of Mount Caucasus, to the situation of Moses in the cave of Mount Sinai, and to his situation on the Hill of Amalec. The fable of Prometheus, supposes no battle of Hercules with any nation whatever. Finally, and not to dwell upon many other objections, this application of the fable, is contradictory to the whole tenor of history; as, according to the fable, Moses the benefactor of Joshua, should be considered as the person on whom the benefit was conferred. When Moses lifted his hands to Heaven, then Joshua conquered; so that the success of Joshua depended on the action of Moses. How then can you reconcile this with the fable, where Hercules, who is the representative of Joshua, confers all the favour; and Prometheus, who is supposed to mean Moses, does no act whatever, but is a mere passive agent who receives favours.

SECT. VI.

XXIX. I believe, that with these examples, I have evinced to the reader, that the attempting to discover the truths of the scripture in the errors of gentilism, is a chimerical undertaking. The two before-quoted authors, abounded as much as any others whatever in learning and ingenuity. Notwithstanding this, they, by applying these talents with the greatest exertion possible to this undertaking, could attain nothing by their labours, but some applications that were so forced and violent, that they seemed as if they were dragged in by the hair of the head; which, together with their being partly founded on uncertain suppositions, proclaims the ill success of the endeavours of those authors. I am persuaded, that by permitting premises to be drawn from such flimsy allusions as those I have enumerated, there is no man of middling capacity, who would not be able to make any sort of fable the symbol of any sort of history, and every sort of profane tale, to resemble canonical relation, as this is what we see practised every day from the pulpits. Every preacher of but ordinary ingenuity, and moderate erudition, likens the saint of whom he is preaching, to some one or other of the scripture heroes; availing himself of versions, glosses, and comments, to multiply the allusions, in the same manner, that Monsieur Huet avails himself of the various expressions of particular authors. By using such sort of means, it is easy to find out, or pretend to find out, the vestiges of sacred history in the fables of paganism, and indeed it is every day’s practice. He must be but a heavy preacher, who, if he is desirous of doing it, can’t among the festivals of the Gentiles, find out some one or other, from the circumstances of which, may not be drawn various particulars, applicable to the solemnity which is the subject of his discourses; and, without doubt, a man of ingenuity, may be happy enough to hit upon some, that are more opportune, than those we have seen made use of by the illustrious Huet; but we should not from hence conclude, nor do the preachers themselves draw any such inference, that God, at the time he permitted these things to be done, and was offended with those superstitious practices, intended by some occult Providence, that they should be types of Christian solemnities.

SECT. VII.

XXX. The illustrious Huet, is not more happy in the other parts of his undertaking, than in those we have given the examples of; but to go thro’ them all, would be very tedious, as the scope of his plan, comprehends nearly the whole group of the fabulous gods and heroes, who he pretends, were all descriptive of, and meant one and the same person, which was Moses. I have said gods and heroes, because he reserved the goddesses and the heroines, to be the representatives of Moses’s wife Zephora, and his sister Maria. A magnificient system this truly, if it can be supported; but its own magnitude exposes its weakness, and it fares with it as it does with great buildings, which the bigger they are, if they are built upon slender foundations, the sooner they fall to the ground.