Page images
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


cheerless; where every thing was unsubstantial and shadowy. The Manes were neither body nor spirit; but something intermediate, not palpable to any of the senses, except to the sight and hearing; pursuing the mere shadows of their occupations on earth, and incapable of any plans, enjoyments, or satisfaction which were substantial.” Exeget. Essays, pp. 124–128. Such is the heathen Hades, and its Tartarus, as described by Mr. Stuart himself. This Tartarus he avers, Jesus sanctions as real in the passage in question. But, did Jesus convert a heathen fable into truth? Did the heathens invent a hell for him? But let us look at this Hades or hell ? If we ask where is Hades? It is answered in the above quotation—“it is a place deep in the earth.And if it is asked what is the use of this Hades ? It is answered, it is—the abode of departed souls.Again; if we ask how is it divided? It is answered—“it is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the upper part are the Elysian fields, the abode of the good ; and beneath these, i. e. in the deepest dungeon, in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus, the place of punishment for the wicked, answering in some respects, to the Gehenna of the Hebrews." But Mr. Stuart must have forgotten, that he told us above—“ a deep region beneath peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in.”

It is a great mistake, to say, Tartarus answers in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews, if by Hebrews he means the ancient Jews, or the sacred writers. Not a trace of Tartarus is to be found in the Old Testament, nor, do the writers ever use Gehenna in the sense of Tartarus, as all must allow,

But the principal question to be decided here, iswas Tartarus real or imaginary? Mr. Stuart, is confident it is a reality. The fact he considers so well known, as to save him all trouble, of giving proof or illustration of it. But here, he strangely forgot what he said, p. 126,4“ Virgil in his Æneid, book vi. has given


a vivid picture of Orcus or Hades. It is more adapted, however, to convey the fancies of his own poetic imagination, than it is to convey an exact idea of the more ancient and general opinions of the Greeks in respect to Hades. He loses sight in some meaşure of the views of Homer, and is more intent on making out a stricking picture, than on giving an exact account of tradition.”

But again, he says p. 128_“ Virgil describes the progress of Eneas in the region of Hades, in terms which show what a doleful place he thought it to be. However, when he brings his hero to Elysium, to the locus laetos et amoena vireta, sedesque, (vi. 637. seq). he seems to make something more substantial out of them, than can be found in any of the preceding heathen writers. But it is plainly the fancy of the poet which does this, and not the tradition of the Greek and Roman nations." On the same page he adds" of the Elysium of Virgil, Homer knows little or nothing; and it is sufficently plain, that it is principally the offspring of his own imagination.” But if all this be the fancy of the poet, the offspring of his own imagination, why did Mr. Stuart say above that in the heathen Hades

" was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suffering, is too well known to need illustration and proof on the present occasion ?" He would have said the truth, and maintained consistency in his statements, had he said “ that in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus which was the fancy of the poet, the offspring of his own imagination. But, he assumes the heathen Tartarus to be a reality, and declares that Jesus taught it in the parable before us.

I shall now proceed to show, from other writings, approved by Mr. Stuart, that this Tartarus was of heathen origen. It is well known Mr. Isaac Stuart, his son, lately translated from the French, J. M. Greppo's Essay on the Hieroglyphic system of M. Champollion

[ocr errors]

junior. He and his father, have added notes and illustrations to this work, which furnishes the following information on this subject. See all they have said, in notes M. and N. a part of which I shall quote. In note M. p. 232, it is thus written.

“Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins. It is sufficent for our purpose to know where his dominion was exercised. This was over the souls of men after their decease-a fact which is revealed by almost every legend and painting relating to the dead. The Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponding to the Hades of the Greeks and to the Tartarus of the Latins, was the place of the dead. It was governed by Osiris as chief, and by many subordinate divinities.” On this I remark

1st, It is confessed" the Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponded to the Hades of the Greeks, and to the Tartarus of the Latins.” But why not also confess, it corresponds to the hell of Christians ? Mr. Stuart identifies his hell with the heathen Tartarus, and of course with the Egyptian Amenti.

2d, If “ Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian Amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins," is not the Devil the chief God in the hell of Christians ? Let us ask—where was the dominion of Osiris and Pluto exercised? It is answered in the above quotation—this was over the souls of men after their decease.” And is not this the very dominion, which Christians assign to their Devil ? Is not his dominion over the souls of men after their decease? Is not he represented, as the chief God, or ruler in their hell ? And if it be, “a fact, which is revealed by almost every legend and painting relating to the dead," among the Egyptians, that this was the proper dominion of their Osiris, does not almost every tract and sermon among Christians, reveal, that heil is the proper dominion of the Devil? In a word—who can well de

[ocr errors]

ny, that the Devil among Christians, answers the same purposes to them, that Osiris did to the Egyptians, and Pluto to the Greeks and Latins ?

But again, in pp. 235, 236, the following account of an Egyptian burial, is quoted from Spineto. Mr. Stuart assigns this reason for the quotation. “We quote

the whole, as it shows from whence an important part of the Greek mythology was derived.” It runs thus“the common place of burial was beyond the lake Acherjsia, or Acharejish which meant the last state, the last condition of man, and from which the poets have imagined the fabulous lake of Acheron. On the borders of this lake Acherjsia sat a tribunal, composed of fortytwo judges, whose office, previous to the dead being permitted to be carried to the cemetry beyond the lake, was to inquire into the whole conduct of his life.

If the deceased had died insolvent, they adjudged the corpse to his creditors, which was considered as a mark of dishonor, in order to oblige his relations and friends to redeem it, by raising the necessary sums among themselves. If he had led a wicked life, they ordered that he should be deprived of solemn burial, and he was consequently carried and thrown into a large ditch made for the purpose, to which they gave the appellation of Tartar, on account of the lamentations that this sentence produced among his surviving friends and relations.

This is also the origin of the fabulous Tartarus, in which the poets have transferred the lamentations made by the living to the dead themselves who were thrown into it.

If no accuser appeared, or if the accusation had proved groundless, the judges decreed that the deceased was entitled to his burial, and his eulogium was pronounced amidst the applauses of the bystanders, in which they praised his education, his religion, his

justice, in short, all his virtues, without, however, mention


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ing any thing about his riches or nobility, both of which
were considered as mere gifts of fortune.


to the cemetry, it was necessary to cross the lake, and this was done by means of a boat, in which no one could be admitted without the express order of the judges, and without paying a small sum for the conveyance. this regulation was so strictly enforced, that the kings themselves were not exempt from its severity.

The cemetry was a large plain surrounded by trees, and intersected by canals, to which they had given the appellation of elisout, or elisiæns, which means nothing else but rest. And such again is the origin of the poetical Charon and his boat, as well as of the fabulous description of the Elysian Fields."

But again, pp. 241, 242, it is said—“ in comparing the Egyptian Amenti with the Hades of the Greeks and with the Tartarus of the Latins, Spineto briefly adverts to some points of assimilation, as follows; “Upon the whole, the first seems to have been the prototype and the origin of the two last. Orpheus, who had been initiated into all the secrets of the mysteries of Egypt, carried into Greece these mysteries ;* and the Greeks soon so altered the whole, as to render them no longer cognizable. Osiris became Pluto; Sme, Persephone (or rather Themis simply]; Oms, Cerberus ; Thoth, Mercurius Psychopompos ; Horus, Apis, and Anubis, the three infernal judges, Minos, Æacus, and Rhadamanthus. To conclude the whole, the symbolical heads of the different animals under which the forty-two judges were represented, being deprived of their primitive and symbolical meaning, were changed into real monsters, the Chimeras, the Harpies, and the Gorgons, and other

[ocr errors]

* Any one who will take the trouble to compare the mysteries of Isis and Osiris with those of Ceres and Proserpine, with those of Venus and Adonis, and with those of Bacchus, will discover many striking resemblances.-TR.

« PreviousContinue »