THE GREEK GODS-APOLLO.

THE theory of Mr. Gladstone, that the deepest mysteries of the Greek religion were borrowed from Jehovistic sources, that the Greek Apollo was "derived "from traditions relating to the fall and the redemption of mankind," is, as was stated in our last paper, based upon false ideas in relation to the exclusiveness of the Trinity idea. But independent of that, there are sufficient reasons, in the evidence adduced by him in favour of the traditionary origin, to justify its rejection. And we are surprised that auch an acute reasoner should have been led so far astray by his theory. Certainly, in many instances, he must have remembered the sense of the passages he alludes to very imperfectly, or he would not have directed attention to so many which confute his arguments. For instance, he cites the case of Otus and Ephialtes, the twin grandchildren of Poseidón, to prove that Apollo was understood to be the deliverer-the redeemer, in the modern sense of that term. As Homer reports it, the case stands thus :

"Otus and Ephialtes far renowned,

Orion sole except, all bounteous Earth

Ne'er nourish'd forms for beauty or for size
To be admired as theirs; in his ninth year
Each measured, broad, nine cubits, and the height
Was found nine ells of each. Against the Gods
Themselves they threaten'd war, and to excite
The din of battle in the realms above.
To the Olympian summit they essay'd
To heave up Ossa, and to Ossa's crown
Branch-waving Pelion; so to climb the heavens.
Nor had they failed, maturer grown in might,
To accomplish that emprize, but them the son
Of radiant-hair'd Latona and of Jove

Slew both, ere yet the down of blooming youth

Thick-sprung, their cheek or chins had tufted o'er."

In this passage Apollo appears as the deliverer of Heaven, as the preserver of Zeus and Olympus; but what has that to do with what men call the redemption of Mankind? Mr. Gladstone says-" It is only when we expand "that mild conception [Apollo as the angel of death] into the character of the "avenger, partially exhibited in the first Iliad, that Apollo becomes the fitting destroyer of Otus and Ephialtes." Why so? Is it not on the contrary most natural that the Angel of Death, above all others, should slay them? Why was this God represented as sending the fiery darts-the pestilence upon the Greeks in the first Iliad? It was his priest, who threatened, unless his daughter, captured by Achilles, and then held by Agamemnon, were given up, that all the anger of the God should be poured upon the heads of the rebellious Greeks. They would not obey the command and hence came the plague. The arrows of Apollo smote them;

"Nine days throughout the camp his arrows flew,"

and the dead were piled in heaps. Surely he who could be represented as slaying so largely, instead of being an improper divinity to select for the purpose of slaying the rebellious ones, was of all else the most fitting.

But if Apollo must be treated as a traditional divinity, because of thuз delivering Heaven from its enemies-if because of this he is to be esteemed as the redeemer of mankind, then what shall we say of Brìareus, who saved

The

Zeus from bondage, when the inferior gods had risen against him? incident is related in Homer's first Iliad, in the address of Achilles to his mother, when pressing her to win for him the succour of the gods. He there says:

"Haste hence to Heaven, and if thy word or deed
Hath ever gratified the heart of Zeus,
With earnest suit press him on my behalf.
For I not seldom, in my father's hall

Have heard thee boasting, how, when once the gods,
With Juno, Neptune, Pallas at their head,

Conspired to bind the thunderer, thou didst loose
His bands, O Goddess! calling to his aid
The hundred-handed warrior, by the gods
Brìareus, but by men Ægeon named,
For he in prowess and in might surpassed
His father Neptune, who, enthroned sublime,
Sits second only to Saturnian Zeus

Elate with glory and joy. Him all the gods

Fearing, from that bold enterprise abstained."-Cowper's Trans. This delivery from evil was quite as complete as any attributed to Apollo, and at once it places his claim in a questionable light. We do not, however, say that there is no truth in Mr. Gladstone's idea. There is truth in it, but he completely misses it, and that because of being so completely enthralled by the Biblical theory; or rather by a theological theory, which men have managed to pass off as Biblical. We shall show what truth lies in his theory when we have assigned another reason for rejecting his Biblical assumptions.

One of Mr. Gladstone's reasons for the theory he maintains, is "the perfect "accord" that always exists between Apollo and Zeus. He says that all the other divinities differ occasionally in opinion, but these never, they are never even in thought alien to each other; and, consequently, we must suppose them to be nearer unto each other than are the other gods. It is quite clear that this idea exercises great influence upon Mr. Gladstone's mind; but it is equally clear that it is groundless. He says "The case of Apollo stands "alone as an exhibition of entire harmony with the will of Zeus. On no single occasion does he act or speak in a different sense from that of his "parent. This union of the will of Apollo, with that of Zeus, must "not be lightly passed by. It is, in truth, one of the very strongest arguments "to show the presence of traditionary elements in this great conception.' Again, he says "Among all the rest of the prominent divinities, there is no single instance of a positive harmony of will pervading the whole course of action, either as between any one of them and Zeus, or as among them"selves. I therefore take it as a very strong indication that materials were "brought for this tradition, so different in kind from what Olympus yielded, "out of a source higher than Olympus." Thus it is in the harmony that subsists between Apollo and Zeus, that Mr. Gladstone finds the strong indication that the Greek idea of Apollo was based upon some correct traditions of a revelation. It was not spontaneous, but was revealed, though probably afterwards disfigured. But what if there be no such harmony? What if these divinities do vary and oppose each other? The theory must then be abandoned, and the natural origin of the Apollo idea admitted.

Now it happens that there are several instances of Apollo acting in direct

* Homer and the Homeric Age, Vol. II., p. 7.

+ Ibid, Vol. II., p. 72.

opposition to Zeus, and it is very hard to account for their having escaped our author's notice. Instance the reason why he was banished from Olympus. His mortal son Asclepios (Esculapius), became such an adept in curing diseases, that, tired of success in that way, he sought for some superior practice, and then it was, in defiance of the higher laws, he commenced to restore the dead. He succeeded in restoring several, amongst whom were Glaucos, Hypolytos, and others, all of whom he brought back from the regions of darkness and death. The God of the nether world complained of this to Zeus, as an infringement of his rights, and Zeus immediately struck him with the Olympian thunder. Apollo was so much enraged at this, that he slew the Cyclópes, who forged the bolts; and, for this act of rebellion, he was very nearly being plunged into Tartaros, for, from this "eternal ruin," he was only preserved by the intercession of Leto, and then only upon condition that he should descend to earth, and in the form of a man become the servant of a monarch.

The ethical meaning of this story is plain enough, and, as generally admitted, it is exceedingly beautiful; but, in the external form, in which alone it is of value for Mr. Gladstone's argument, it exhibits clearly enough that his assumption to the effect of Apollo never opposing Zeus is untenable. This story, however, brings us to the fact that Apollo became the servant of man, and, as we learn, he was most unjustly treated. In conjunction with another divinity-Poseidón-he is represented as performing the herculean labour of building the walls of Troy, and when the work was done he was threatened with punishment for daring to ask after his reward of wages.

The history of this is given by Homer in his 21st Iliad. It occurs in the memorable description of the gods taking part in the contest then waging before the walls of Troy.

"Next Neptune and Apollo stood upon the point of field,

And thus spake Neptune: Phoebus! Come, why at the lance's end
Stand we two thus? "Twill be a shame for us to re-ascend

Zeus' golden house, being thus in field and not to fight. Begin
For 'tis no graceful work for me; thou hast the younger chin,
I older and know more. O fool, what a forgetful heart

Thou bear'st about thee, to stand here, press'd to take th' Ilian part,
And fight with me! Forget'st thou then, what we two, we alone
Of all the Gods, have suffer'd here, when proud Laomedon
Enjoy'd our service a whole year for our agreed reward?
Zeus in his sway would have it so, and in that year I rear'd

This broad brave wall about his town, that, being a work of mine,
It might be inexpugnable. This service then was thine

In Ida, that so many hills and curl'd-head forests crown

To feed his oxen, crooked-shank'd, and headed like the moon.

But when the much-joy-bringing Hours brought term for our reward,
The terrible Laomedon dismiss'd us both, and scar'd

Our high deservings, not alone to hold our promis'd fee,

But give us threats too. Hand and feet he swore to fetter thee,

And sell thee as a slave, dismiss'd far hence to foreign isles.

Nay more, he would have both our ears. His vow's breach, and reviles,
Made us part angry with him then, and dost thou gratulate now
Such a king's subjects?" "

The consequences which followed this rude treatment, were fatal to the unjust
Laomedon. According to the Greek theory no man could escape unpunished
who dared to offer insult, or act unjustly towards the gods, but the
which Laomedon learnt this, must be reserved for our next number.

way

P. W. P.

in

THE HEBREW PROPHETS AND PROPHECY.-I.

Ir is, without doubt, a remarkable feature in human character that there is an universal desire to pry into the secrets of futurity. Men who do not trouble themselves about the past, to learn what it was, what it produced; who do not comprehend the present either in its condition or its tendencies, are ready enough to devote time and mental labour, in order to solve the problem of what shall be hereafter. The future, like a blank sheet, like an unprinted page, lies before them, and they would read it as though it were a thing of to-day; it is unborn, and yet they would be familiar with its form and features, for in that knowledge, they vainly suppose, lies what will be of value unto them as citizens, and as religious men of infinite worth.

Unhappily, this tendency to know the unknown-to read the unseen, when unwisely developed, is productive of an immense amount of evil and error. It engenders thoughts that irritate and wound the better sides of our nature, and too frequently converts us into the dupes of bigoted or dishonest men. It is because of this tendency that we have so many charlatans, both of the pulpit and the press, who descend to the vilest of arts, and adopt the most unworthy means, in order to fill their purses, while deluding their unfortunate victims. But, as a rule, these are "all very pious men, great students of the prophecies,' and devoted to the "discovery of what God meant in giving the mystical books to mankind." They preach and write that which creates feelings of alarm, and strips us of power to make the future noble. When men are impressed with the idea that God has definitely settled the course of events, they are not likely to adopt means through which to bring about the opposite to what they are informed has been settled. Hence they are cunningly deprived of their power to accomplish good, and left to bewail the existing misery without endeavouring to remove it. They study prophecy, and labour after an insight into the future, until they are blinded to the actual verities of the present. They live as though all things around them were unreal; and although so loudly professing to believe in God-to believe in nothing but God-they do not believe in any God at all, but only in some terrible Necessity, which rises superior to humanity, and moulds the order of events.

And yet, why trouble ourselves to advise men that they should not surrender their time to such empty pursuits, when we know that, as by a law of life, they cannot escape from this strange desire to unveil what is hidden. Many have urged the rising generations to adhere strictly to what now is, and to take no thought for what will be on the morrow; but as well may they urge that we should not allow ourselves to be impressed by beautiful sounds, or pleased with glorious scenes. They have argued that, ponder as we may, still we cannot know what shall be after us; but humanity, faithful to a deeper monition-while mistaking its real value and meaning-feels the inner certainty that something may be discovered, and consequently adheres to its faith with martyr firmness.

Does this appear to be unwarranted by the facts? Does it appear that this inner monition is unfaithful-that it is only an idle dream? To many it must appear so, for it is only those who are in the habit of thinking out the verities of life for themselves that can adequately estimate the truth in this assumption. Probably there will occur some opportunity favourable for touching this matter, so as to unveil at least a few glimpses of the truth which we intuitively perceive, but at first we shall invite the attention of our readers to the modes employed by men, through which they have hoped to

win this knowledge. We will take the errors first, for only in proportion as we see clearly into these are we enabled to perceive the truth which lies beyond.

And have we not, even at this day, and in our own land, plenty of evidence to show what, throughout the past, these errors have been? What are all those stories of fortune-telling which find their way into the columns of our newspapers? Laughed at by thousands, the theory is still believed by its thousands, and we see no reason why it should not be as readily believed as the other theory men are now harping upon from their pulpits, about the great year, 1867. Time was when prophets abounded in England-when even the Parliament consulted astrologers-Lilly, for example-and then all through the land prophets were believed quite as readily as they were who related what they had seen. The fortune-tellers of the olden times were a respectable body of men, but somewhat damaged by the Reformation. Still they flourished, and although their numbers have decreased, yet every large city in England, even at this day, can boast of having some of their descendants who can inform all who consult them what will happen in relation to the various changes of their lives.

Such systems, however, are scornfully repudiated by the great majority of Englishmen, and by them it is argued that only the lowest of the low place any confidence in such miserable impostors. This may be true, and we hope it is so, but firmly believe that it is not. Still, however, if this system be generally repudiated-if it be true that the great majority of intelligent men of modern times do not believe in this sort of prophecy, is it not a matter for consideration whether they should believe in the prophecy of the past ages? Were the men who are said to have "revealed the future," in the days of Hebrew power, in any way superior to the charlatans of modern times? Or-even if they took wider views of life, and worked to higher ends-were they endowed in any superior way than are the modern pretenders? Taking into consideration the known beauty of much they have written, their patriotism, their self-sacrifice, and their moral heroism, conjoined with the idea popularly entertained of their character and authority, we feel that, to many minds, this way of proposing the question will appear both insulting and immoral, as well as uncritical. But offering any insult to the memories of those men is farthest from our thoughts. It is, as will be shown, necessity which compels us to put the question in this form.

The great majority of persons commence with the unwarranted assumption that the Hebrew prophets must be viewed as men who stand apart from all others; and, as a very natural consequence of this error, they never properly understand them: they begin with assuming that other nations had no "prophets," but only petty astrologers and magicians, which history proves to be untrue; and then they go on to speak as though the Hebrew prophets, in all their dealings with the people, acted and "prophesied " in a manner widely different from that of the modern charlatans, which is also and utterly untrue; nay, it is even contradicted by the facts recorded in the Bible. The plain truth is, that the popular notion of the Hebrew prophets has no foundation in the Scriptures when these are taken as a whole; and the men who have painted the "prophets' portraits" have carefully omitted to notice many of their leading characteristics. There is not a single book to be found wherein this matter is both fully and honestly dealt with, and it follows, therefore, that, to form any correct ideas, we have nothing save the Bible to go to.

In the books it contains we have a great variety of minute details, scattered