a fullness of argument, which, if carried out consistently, would have converted my proposed sketch into a series of elaborate papers, and thus, in fact, have very disadvantageously superseded the systematic work which I have been long preparing, and which is already considerably advanced. It has lately occurred to me, however, that, by throwing my remarks into the form of a letter, I might be able to keep myself within those bounds which time and circumstances absolutely require, as this form, while permitting a more rapid and popular exposition, is also calculated to moderate the over-anxious solicitude of the writer, as it does not call forth any undue expectations on the part of the reader. On the present occasion I have determined upon carrying this idea into practice, and, in doing so, I gladly avail myself of the facilities which have been kindly offered to me in the pages of the United States Review, while I naturally address myself to one who takes such a warm and practical interest in all branches of the subject-one to whom archæology is already so deeply indebted, while confidently looking forward for still higher services, and to whom I myself feel specially grateful for a friendly intercourse as instructive and profitable as it has been in every way agreeable.

The first announcement of such pretensions as mine must necessarily place a writer in a position any thing but pleasant. All attempts hitherto made to give mythology, as a whole, a consistent exposition, have been signal failures, whatever may have been the learning and talents of the expounders, or the value of the works which they have produced. System after system has successively arisen and perished, and, at the present moment, there is no theory before the world stamped by the recognition of science; mythology is still as vague, as mysterious, and as full of difficulties as ever it was. To announce a new theory under circumstances like these, must, in the eyes of all sober inquirers, be merely to add one failure more to a list already too long. What, then, will be thought of a theory which is not only in all respects new and strange, but which even professes to confer upon a subject like mythology the dignity and importance of a regularly-organized inductive science? Yet it is precisely such a theory as this which I have to announce in bringing under the notice of scientific men the views which I have been maturing during the last four years and a half. No one, then, can wonder that I have been in no hurry to give them publicity, or that I have not even attempted to press them upon the attention of my private friends. If I now bring them forward, in the present imperfect form, it is

because I believe they have been reduced to such order and evidence that even so brief an exposition, if it does not carry complete conviction to the mind of the unprejudiced reader, will at least so far impress him favorably as to induce him to suspend his judgment until the case is more fully before him. When I speak of bringing mythology into the condition of a science, it will probably be thought that I use the term science

in a very loose and vague sense. Such is not the case. I use it in its very strictest technical application. I mean that mythology, such as I shall have to present it, is a science, in precisely the same sense in which geology is one; in other words, that it is a regularly systematized body of facts and principles; the facts being such as can not be questioned by those acquainted with the subject, and such as may be at any moment verified by those who wish to examine them, while the principles deduced from the comparison of these facts admit of as clear and rigid a demonstration as those of any other inductive science. Many will probably ask, with surprise, what I can possibly mean by unquestionable facts in such a subject as mythology. The answer to this inquiry is perfectly simple. Every legend, however wild or absurd, is, when once written or uttered, as much a fact, as to its mere existence, as the sun and moon are facts. To this extent only does this new science recognize it as a fact. Its import and value are determined solely by an analysis of its nature, by a consideration of the circumstances under which it is found, and by its careful comparison with other facts of a similar kind. Nothing is conceded to mere authority, whatever its kind, beyond that proper deference and courtesy which, in the most rigid of sciences, are extended to the statements of conscientious writers, and to the opinions of men of genius.

The inquiry which has eventuated in the manner above alluded to owes its origin in a great measure to accident. In the spring of 1849, I was led to investigate with more minute attention than I had previously given to the subject, the mythological chronologies of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and other ancient nations, in order to see if it were possible to obtain some clue to their origin and real import, by submitting them to as careful an analysis and as extensive a comparison as the existing materials would permit. As I advanced in my reading, I found that more had been done in the case than I was prepared to expect-that not only had analogies which evinced a community of origin been detected in the structure of most of these chronologies, but also that particular numbers were

found to dominate in many of them to such a degree as to prove them systematic, and, to a certain extent, scientific creations, instead of the mere random extravagances which they appear at first sight. This much I found had been rendered evident by the inquiries of Le Gentil,* Bailly,† and Sir William Jones, while the learning, ingenuity, and enthusiasm of Dupuis had deduced results of a far more precise and important character, for in his masterly dissertation on the great cycles of the ancients, and the catastrophes which terminate them, he has shown that the principal numbers in question, with their elements and reduplications, have all reference to astronomical cycles, based upon the arrangements of the zodiac. In assuming, however, that these cycles, and arrangements, and the chronologies founded on them had been invented for astrological purposes, he took a position which, though countenanced by the opinions of the ancients, and quite in harmony with the general current of modern thought, is not only untenable, when rigidly investigated, but has the obvious inconvenience of leaving many of the leading facts of the case both unexplained and inexplicable. It takes no cognizance, for instance, of the long genealogies of gods, kings, or other rulers with which these chronologies are often inseparably mixed up, nor of the elaborate and imposing apparatus of myths with which they are conjoined in other cases. There is nothing in the nature of astrology calculated to suggest, still less to necessitate, these myths and dynasties, neither do the planetary movements bear any sort of natural relation to the dreams which astrology has associated with them. In fact, this portion of the theory merely inverts cause and effect, for it is now demonstrable that astrology, so far from having been the creator of the cyclical legends, is simply one of their numerous, and, in the form in question, one even of their latest developments. However, the argument of Dupuis is in every way ingenious and plausible, and so fully meets the requirements of existing opinions, that nothing of consequence has been added to it since his time. It is, in fact, in this direc

* Voyage dans les mers de l'Inde, vol. i., pp. 321-352; and Mem. de l'Acad. Royale des Sciences, for 1772, part 2d, pp. 169 and 190.

+ Astronomie Indienne, p. 77, etc.

Chronology of the Hindus, Asiatic Researches, vol. ii., p. 111.

§ Origine des Cultes, tom. v, (vol. ix,) p. 453, etc. Volney has also given a lucid statement of this argument in his Recherches Nouvelles, tom. i., ch. xv. and xvii; and De Bratonne has likewise reproduced it; Hist. de la Filiation et des Mierations des Peuples, tom. i., p. 236, etc.

tion, the culminating point of the old philosophers-a single step in advance presents the whole subject under an entirely different aspect, and opens out at once a new world of research.

The Chaldean history, as delivered by Berasus,* commences with a series of ten kings whose united reigns amount to the number of 120 sari, or 432,000 years. One of these monarchs reigned 3 sari, or 10,800 years, the sarus being equal to 3600 years; others reigned 10 sari, and others as many as 18. The argument of Dupuis demonstrates that this number 432,000, is neither accidental nor isolated, but one which meets us in various parallel cases, and is the result of a determinate system of calculations-being produced, in fact, by a particular mode of subdividing the zodiac; and the same may be said of the numbers 120, 1200, 360, and some others which are occasionally substituted for it. Now several important questions present themselves at this point of the discussion. Why, it may be asked, must we look solely to the sums of these various chronologies and cycles, and not also to the subordinate divisions which they occasionally present? or why neglect the personages and events connected with them, and which often have an interest and importance far greater than the numbers themselves? If, for instance, the sum of the Chaldean reigns be zodiacal, why not also the elements of that sum, the individual reigns? And if these be such, why not the kings, as well? And if the ten kings of Chaldea be simply zodiacal rulers, why should not all the kings and dynasties presented to us under precisely analogous circumstances in other histories be equally zodiacal? These were the questions which instantly suggested themselves, as soon as I perceived the tendency of the arguments of Dupuis. They opened out a wide and exciting range of thought: for if the principle involved in them were correct, the problem I had undertaken to investigate was solved, and these various kings and dynasties could be nothing more than mere personifications of zodiacal symbols, or of the names of months, and such like things, while the events of their reigns must be little better than allegories of the course of the seasons, or of the phenomena of cycles founded upon zodiacal models. This will doubtless appear to many not merely a daring, but even a wild speculation, yet, with all its seeming improbability, it impressed my mind so forcibly, and harmonized so readily

*Syncellus, Chronographia, 1752; p. 28-39; Eusebius, Chronicon, (Armenian,) p. 10-38; and Præparatio Evangelica, lib. 9.

with many of my actual opinions, that it was impossible for me to rest until I had put it to the test of experiment. For this purpose, I collected, from all accessible quarters, lists of ancient dynasties, of zodiacal signs, and of the names of months in different languages, together with a variety of legends involving cyclical revolutions-in fact, every thing which seemed to bear upon the subject directly or indirectly. These were carefully compared, name by name, and number by number, in all possible ways, nor was it long before it became evident that I was not pursuing a phantom. The results thus arrived at were numerous and varied in character, many of them unexpected and startling, and several of great historic importance. They are not, however, of the class to which I wish to call attention on the present occasion, and I shall, therefore, only make a few general remarks in reference to them. The numbers 432, 360, 120, and their equivalents, accompanied by collateral circumstances of a strictly mythological character, were found to dominate in ancient chronology to an extraordinary extent, even in cases hitherto deemed beyond all question historical. Numerous striking coïncidences and parallelisms were also found in the names of rulers, and in the durations of their reigns, as well as in the names and lengths of months and zodiacal signs. In some instances, the concurrence of facts was so precise as to leave no room for hesitation; in others, the evidence was more or less imperfect, but the general result was such as to make it manifest, that, instead of having to deal with actual personages and events in the lists in question, they really presented nothing but zodiacal rulers, first personified. into gods and heroes, and then converted into human kings, while the irregularities of the chronology resulted from the corrections of that spirit of pseudo-criticism which has been busy in every intellectual period in defacing the traditions of antiquity, and in converting beautiful and consistent myths into absurd and conflicting facts; a criticism which, gratuitously assuming a substratum of genuine history under every fable, thinks that substratum is to be obtained by simply striking out of the narrative all that appears supernatural or glaringly contradictory.

It was likewise proved, by the comparisons in question, that various systems of zodiacal division besides those in actual use, had existed in ancient times, for many of the lists implied zodiacs of 10, 9, 7, 5, 4, and even 3 divisions, and all the circumstances seemed to indicate that the simpler forms were, in general, the more ancient also. On the other hand, the man