« 이전계속 »
about his sixth year, as Eusebius computes.1 This will place him in the year above-mentioned; for iEgialeus the first king of Sicyon began his reign A.M. 1920; and from the first year otTEgjaleus to the first year of Thurimachus are 228 years.y Carry this account forward to the sixth year of the reign of Thurimachus, and you will place the first year of Inachus, A. M. 2154, as above; and this seems tobeajust and reasonable position of it. All writers agree in making Danaus the tenth king ofArgos,* and Pausanias * has given a very clear account of the several kings from Inachus to Danaus, so as to leave no room to doubt that there were so many. Now the time of Danaus coming into Greece,b being near the time when Moses visited the Israelites, A. M. 2494, Inachus must evidently be long before Moses, and most probably not earlier than the latter end of Abraham's life. Moses was the sixth in descent from Abraham, being the third from Levi,' and was contemporary with Danaus; and it is not improbable to suppose ten successions of kings in any country within the compass
* Ad Num. Euseb. 161.
7 This will appear by putting together the years of the reigns of the kings of Sicyon, from A2gialeus to Thurimachus.
•Tatian. Orat. ad Graec. p. 131. Euseb. in Chronic. Pausanias in Corinthiacis.
, Pausan. ibid. -#
k See vol. i. b. 5. and hereafter b. 8.
■ 1 Chron. vi. 1—3.
of the generations between Abraham and Moses. In like manner the accounts we have of the kings of Sicyon have no apparent inconsistency or improbability, to give any seeming colour of prejudice against theni. iEgialeus the first king of Sicyon, according to Castor began to reign A. M. 1920, that is, two hundred and thirty-four years before Inachus at Argos; and according to the same writer, the Sicyonians had Had six kings in that space of time, and the seventh had reigned a few years. Therefore these first kings . of Sicyon-must have reigned thirty-eight years each, one with another; which is no extravagant length of time for their reigns, considering the length of men's lives in those ages. Moses gives an account of eight successive kings of Edom, who reigned one with another much longer."1 Sir John Marsham' endeavours to set aside these ancient kings of Sicyon, but his arguments are very insufficient. His inference, that there could be no kings of Sicyon before Phoroneus reigned at Argos, because Acusilaus, Plato, or Syncellus, have occasionally spoken at large of the antiquity of Phoroneus, calling him the first man, or in the words of the poet cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, the father of mortal men,f can require no refutation. For these writers did not mean to assert that there
were no men before Phoroneus; but only that he was of great antiquity. Sir John Marsham from the following verse of Homer »
K'u Stxuuv, o9'«g' AS^ay^- irgwr f<x?«atXivfv'
would insinuate, that Adrastus was the first king of Sicyon. Scaliger had obviated this interpretation of Homer's expression, but our learned author rejects what Scaliger offers upon it; yet certainly no one can infer what he would have inferred from it. Had Homer used wg&crof instead of itpur, there would have seemed more colour for his interpretation; but trgut', which is the same as v» Irqut*, can signify no more than formerly, .heretofore, or in tkefrst or ancient days. Adrastus was according to Pausanias,'' (for Castor has misplaced him) the eighteenth king of Sicyon; and Homer did not mean to assert that he was the first king that ever reigned there, but only that Sicyon was a country of which Adrastus had anciently been king; and thus our English poet expresses Homer's meaning, calling Sicyon
Our learned writer makes objections against some par■ ticular kings in the Sicyonian roll: but it is observ
• II. 4. v. 572. h In Corinthiacis.
■ Pope's Homer.
able* that Castor ami Pausanias differ in some particular names; and if we suppose that both gave true accounts in general, but that each might make some small mistakes, misnaming or misplacing a king or two, his objections will all vanish; for they do not happen to lie against the particular names in which Castor and Pausanias agree. I was willing to mention the objections of this learned writer; because he himself seems to lay some stress upon them, though certainly it must appear unnecessary to confute objections of this nature. And it is surprisingly strange to see, what mere shadows of argumentation even great and learned men will embrace, if they seem to favour their particular notions. Castor's account of the Sicyonian kings will appear, when I shall hereafter further examine it, to be put together with good judgment and exactness: it has some faults, but is not therefore all error and mistake. When we shall come down to the Trojan war, and have seen how far he and Pausanias agree, and where they differ; and shall consider from them both, and from other writers, what kings of Sicyon we have reason to admit, before that country became subject to Agamemnon; we shall find abundant reason to extend their history thus far backwards, and to believe that ^Egialeus reigned as early as Castor supposes.
The ages in which these ancients lived were full of action. If we look into the several parts of the world, we find in all of them men of genius and contrivance, forming companies, and laying schemes to erect societies, and to get into the best method of teaching a multitude to lire together in community, to reap the benefits of social life. Nimrod formed a kingdom at Babel, and soon after him Ashur formed one in Assyria, Mizraim in Egypt, and there were kingdoms in Canaan, Philistia, and in divers other places. Abraham wa» under the direction of an extraordinary providence, which led him not to be king of any country ; but w* find that he got together under his direction a numerous family; so that he could at any time form a force of three or four hundred men, to defend himself, or offend his enemies. ^Egialeus raised a kingdom atSicyon, Inachus at Argos, and divers other persons in other different parts of the world ; but the most ancient polity was that, established by Noah, in the countries near to which he lived, and which his children planted about the time, or before the men who travelled to Shinaar left him.
Noah, as has been said,k came out of the ark in the parts near to India ; and the profane historians inform us, that a person, whom they call Bacchus, was the founder of the polity of these nations.' He came, they say, into India, before any cities were built in that country, or any armies or bodies of men sufficient to oppose him ;m a circumstance which duly considered will prove, that whoever this person was, he came into India before the days of Ninus. For when Ninus, and after him Semiramis, made attempts upon these countries, they found them so well disciplined
k Vol. i. b. ii. 'Diodor. Sic. lib. 2.
- Id. ibid. p. 133. Edit. Rhodoman.