up of the evidence on both sides. As the results of my inquiries will sometimes depend upon the meaning of the words, the subjects of these discussions, I have found it necessary to enter, in several instances, into a close and critical examination of their meaning, as I have just said; in which, without care and patience, the reader unlearned in Hebrew will not be able to follow me. But yet I flatter myself that if he will pass over a very few examples of this kind, which he finds too difficult, and go to the conclusion drawn from them, he will, in almost every instance, be able to understand the argument. If, as I believe, the foundations of the ancient mythoses are only to be discovered in the most ancient roots of the languages of the world, it is not likely that such an inquiry into them could be dispensed with.
The letters of the old Synagogue Hebrew language are nearly the same as the English, only in a different form. They are so near that they almost all of them may be read as English, as any person may see in Sect. 46, p. 10, by a very little consideration of the table of letters, and the numbers which they denote. In order that an unlearned reader may understand the etymological conclusions, nearly throughout the whole work every Hebrew word is followed by correspondent letters in English italics, so that a person who does not understand the Hebrew may understand them almost as well as a person who does. Half an hour’s study of the table of letters, and attention to this observation, I am convinced is all that is necessary.
In great numbers of places, authors will be found quoted as authority, but whose authority my reader may be inclined to dispute. In every case, evidence of this kind must go for no more than it is worth. It is like interested evidence, which is worth something in every case, though, perhaps, very little. But in many cases, an author of little authority, quoted by me as evidence in favour of my hypothesis, will be found to have come to his conclusion, perhaps, when advocating doctrines directly in opposition to mine, or in absolute ignorance of my theory. In such cases, his evidence, from the circumstance, acquires credibility which it would not otherwise possess: and if numerous instances of evidence of this kind unite upon any one point, to the existence of any otherwise doubtful fact, the highest probability of its truth may be justly inferred. If a fact of the nature here treated of be found to be supported by other facts, and to dovetail into other parts of my system, or to remove its difficulties, its probability will be again increased. Thus it appears that there will be a very great variety in the evidence in favour of different parts of the system, which can only be correctly judged of by a consecutive perusal of the whole. And, above all things, my reader must always bear in mind, that he is in search of a system, the meaning of which its professors and those initiated into its mysteries have constantly endeavoured in all ages and nations to conceal, and the proofs of the existence of which, the most influential body of men in the world, the priests, have endeavoured, and yet endeavour, by every honest and dishonest means in their power, to destroy.
The following work will be said to be a theory: it is given as a theory. But what is a Theory? Darwin says, “To theorise is to think.” The peculiar nature of the subject
b 2
