troduction of the idea and name of Demeter also, at the same time and in the same way. But who can think of distinguishing between the Θεσμοφόρος and the Θεσμοφόρια of the Greeks, any more than between the Isis and the Isia of the Egyptians, or the Kybele and the Phrygia sacra of the Phrygians, or the Adonis and the Adonia of the Phoenicians? as if one of these could ever have been in existence, and not the other. In all such cases, the coexistence of such and such objects of worship and that of their proper rites and services are involved one in the other; and implied in their names themselves. It is impossible that either could have been older or younger than the other, except in the same sense and to the same extent, as the first idea of a particular object of worship, and the first institution of its proper rites and ceremonies, must precede and follow each other respectively. There was a time when the Egyptians had as yet no Isis, nor consequently any Isia. There never was a time when they had already their Isia, and yet not their Isis. In like manner, there was a time when the Greeks too as yet knew nothing of their coμopópos, nor consequently of her Oeoμopópia; but there was never a time when they had their Θεσμοφόρια, and yet not their Δημήτηρ Θεσμοφόρος. If then Herodotus (and by Herodotus we mean the Greek tradition in general) dated the rise of the Ocoμopópia with the coming of the daughters of Danaus, it dated the introduction of the Δημήτηρ Θεσμοφόρος with it also; and the date of the coming of the daughters of Danaus, into Greece, whatsover that was, was the traditionary epoch of both these things at once: beyond which even the Greeks, with all their proneness to exaggerate their own antiquity and that of their own institutions, did not venture to carry them.

SECTION II. On the true nature of the Oeopopópia introduced into Greece by the daughters of Danaus.

Admitting however the truth of the fact thus handed down, that the Thesmophoria were brought into Greece by the daughters of Danaus, still we may ask, What is to be understood by that fact? That the Greek observance of the Oeσμоpópia, and under that name, was introduced by them? That could not have been the meaning of Herodotus; unless

the eaμopópia and under that name existed in Egypt before the coming of Danaus into Greece. What then was his meaning? No doubt that the daughters of Danaus brought something with them into Greece, before proper and peculiar to their own country, which from that time forward, as adopted and naturalized in Greece, was known by the name of the Oeopopópia. And what could that be but the EgyptΘεσμοφόρια. ian Isia? The meaning of the statement of Herodotus on this point, and the matter of fact to which the testimony of tradition had been uniformly given, must have been this, That the daughters of Danaus brought with them from Egypt into Greece the Egyptian Isia; and the Egyptian Isia, as taught to the women of Greece by the daughters of Danaus, assumed the name of the Grecian Θεσμοφόρια.

It is evident therefore that, at this stage of our inquiries into the history of the Thesmophoria, and for the confirmation of the testimony of Hellenic tradition on this point, nothing would be necessary except to shew that the coming of Danaus and his daughters into Greece was a later event than the institution of the Egyptian Isia; and therefore that they both might and naturally would bring a knowledge of the Isia with them. The date of the institution of the Isia (as we think it has been abundantly proved in our Fasti Catholici), was B. C. 1350. With respect to the date of the coming of Danaus; it has been seen, that to judge from the conclusions of the most sagacious, as well as the best informed, of the chronologers of antiquity, it must have been comprehended, along with many other events closely connected with it, in the latter half of the fourteenth century before the Christian æra in general. It has been seen too P, that this was the time when the migratory movement, which led so many colonies from Egypt, and in such various directions, of which this of Danaus was one, was going on in that country. It appears too to have been a settled point with the chronologers of antiquity that the fable of the Raptus, and the Attic Thesmophoria in particular, took their rise in the reign of Lynkeus, the second of the kings of Argos next to Danaus; through whom and Hypermnestra, the daughter of Danaus, the line of these kings was derived in hereditary o Vol. iii. 73-198. p Supra, page 42.

succession to Acrisius, Perseus, Eurystheus, followed by Pelops and Atreus and Agamemnon.

There are various lists of these kings in Mr. Clinton's Fasti 9, to which the reader may refer if he thinks proper. It does not appear that the succession from Lynkeus to Agamemnon can be reduced to certainty; and though the number of reigns which is given in these lists is nine or ten, that is no necessary proof that the true number might not have been seven or eight. And if we may only assume the number of reigns between Danaus and Agamemnon, exclusive of that of both, at seven, and the average length of each, according to sir Isaac Newton's estimate, at 21 years, and the first of Agamemnon (18 years before Troja capta), B. C. 1199, we should get the beginning of the reign of Danaus 147 years before B. C. 1199, i. e. B. C. 1346-and even that would be four years later than the institution of the Isia, B. C. 1350.

Now this year, or B. C. 1347, as we have already intimated, appears to have been the true year of his coming. And the reign of Danaus at Argos being assumed as B. C. 1346, that of Lynkeus and Hypermnestra might be assumed either 20 years after, B. C. 1326, or 30 years after, B. C. 1316, according to the circumstances of the case; and on either supposition Lynkeus might actually be reigning at the time of the institution of the Thesmophoria, if that took place any time between B. C. 1326 and B. C. 1300-much more if it happened critically B. C. 1310.

SECTION III.-On the identity of the rule of the Thesmophoria at first with that of the Isia; and on the approximation to the date of the institution thence deducible.

It is manifest however that this is a question which nothing but the Primitive Calendar can ultimately decide; and in order to prepare the way for the appeal to this final authority, we observe, i. That if the Grecian Demeter was really intended for the Egyptian Isis, and the Grecian Thesmophoria for the Egyptian Isia, and those who introduced both the former among the Greeks were themselves Egyptians; the rule of the Thesmophoria at their first institution must have

q i. 8, 9, 10. cf. 30. 73, 74: 100.

been that of the Isia. And the rule of the Egyptian Isia, from the time of their institution, as long as they continued to be observed in Egypt, having always been the same; viz. to begin to be celebrated on the 17th of the third month in the Egyptian calendar, the 17th of the month which in their calendar was called Athyr, (and probably for the first time when the Isia themselves were instituted ",) it follows that the original rule of the Greek Thesmophoria, as borrowed from this of the Isia, must have been that they too began to be celebrated on the 17th of the third month of the Egyptian calendar and if there was no difference at this time between the Grecian calendar and the Egyptian, on the 17th of the third month in the Grecian calendar also. And that there was no difference between them at this time, follows from the fact that both were the same with the Equable Calendar of our Fasti Catholici, and through that with the Primitive Calendar of all mankind, both at that time and long after: a fact which has been abundantly proved in the case of the Egyptian calendar, both of this æra and before and after it, in the first Part of these Origines, and in that of the Grecian, of the age of Solon and long after the Correction of Solon, in the first Division of this present work. And if of the æra and epoch of Solon, so long after this time, a fortiori of the æra and epoch of the Thesmophoria, so long before that of Solon.

ii. We observe, that if the Greek calendar at this time was the same with the Egyptian, and the original rule of the Thesmophoria the same with that of the Isia; the question of the primary date of the Thesmophoria is reduced to that of the 17th of Athyr at the time of their institution. And if we may assume that time to have been the time of Danaus in general, then the question of the original date of the Thesmophoria will be that of the 17th of Athyr in the time of Danaus. And in order to the decision of that question, nothing would be more important a priori than to know whether the Greek Thesmophoria in general, or the Attic in particular, stood from the first in any definite relation to the natural year; for then the question of their original date will be reduced to this issue, whether the 17th of Athyr, in the

Cf. our F. Catholici, ii. 503, 504: iv. 183 sqq.

time of Danaus, was falling in that season of the natural year or not.

Our meaning will be better understood, if we may be allowed to assume that the state of the case, with respect to the relation of the Mysteries or the Thesmophoria to the natural or the Julian year, was always this, That they were attached at first to the winter solstice, and ever after, within certain variable limits, confined to the winter solstice. What would follow, from this hypothesis, of the site of the 17th of Athyr, their proper and original date? what but that, at the time of their institution, the 17th of Athyr was falling on the winter solstice? And what would follow, from that fact, of the time of Danaus, if he was contemporary with the institution? what but that he also must have been living and flourishing when the 17th of the primitive Athyr was coinciding with the winter solstice? And how would that consist with the time which we have seen reason to assign him, from testimony, and other considerations, B. C. 1346? Our Calendar will shew that the 17th of the primitive Athyr could not have been coinciding with the winter solstice less than three or four hundred years before B. C. 1346. So much older then, on this principle, must Danaus have been than his true time.

It is therefore of the greatest importance to the determination of such questions of fact as these, which concern the dates of institutions and observances, taken in the first instance from the Primitive Calendar, (a given term of which was liable a priori to recede perpetually on any fixed point in the natural or the Julian year,) to inquire first of all into the relations of such institutions to the natural or the Julian year. Let us then proceed to the investigation of that point, with reference to these two institutions, the Mysteries and the Thesmophoria.

SECTION IV.-On the relation of the Mysteries and the Thesmophoria to one season of the natural year.

i. In the first place, an observance like either of these, which, according to its own profession, commemorated the gift of the fruits of the ground as communicated first to the Greeks, and afterwards through them to the rest of the world, and, according to its real meaning, was a mystical representation