Movatterモバイル変換

[Pg v]

PREFACE.

Some explanation is due to the reader of the form and scope of theseelaborations of the lectures which I have given at the John RylandsLibrary during the last three winters.

They deal with a wide range of topics, and the thread which binds themmore or less intimately into one connected story is only imperfectlyexpressed in the title "The Evolution of the Dragon".

The book has been written in rare moments of leisure snatched from avariety of arduous war-time occupations; and it reveals only too plainlythe traces of this disjointed process of composition. On 23 February,1915, I presented to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Societyan essay on the spread of certain customs and beliefs in ancient timesunder the title "On the Significance of the Geographical Distribution ofthe Practice of Mummification," and in my Rylands Lecture two weekslater I summed up the general conclusions.[1] In view of the livelycontroversies that followed the publication of the former of theseaddresses, I devoted my next Rylands Lecture (9 February, 1916) to thediscussion of "The Relationship of the Egyptian Practice ofMummification to the Development of Civilization". In preparing thisaddress for publication in theBulletin some months later so muchstress was laid upon the problems of "Incense and Libations" that Iadopted this more concise title for the elaboration of the lecture whichforms the first chapter of this book. This will explain why so manymatters are discussed in that chapter which have little or no connexioneither with "Incense and Libations" or with "The Evolution of theDragon".

The study of the development of the belief in water's life-giving[Pg vi]attributes, and their personification in the gods Osiris, Ea, Soma[Haoma] and Varuna, prepared the way for the elucidation of the historyof "Dragons and Rain Gods" in my next lecture (Chapter II). What playeda large part in directing my thoughts dragon-wards was the discussion ofcertain representations of the Indian Elephant upon Precolumbianmonuments in, and manuscripts from, Central America (Nature, 25 Nov.,1915; 16 Dec., 1915; and 27 Jan., 1916). For in the course ofinvestigating the meaning of these remarkable designs I discovered thatthe Elephant-headed rain-god of America had attributes identical withthose of the Indian Indra (and of Varuna and Soma) and the Chinesedragon. The investigation of these identities established the fact thatthe American rain-god was transmitted across the Pacific from India viaCambodia.

The intensive study of dragons impressed upon me the importance of thepart played by the Great Mother, especially in her Babylonianavataras Tiamat, in the evolution of the famous wonder-beast. Under thestimulus of Dr. Rendel Harris's Rylands Lecture on "The Cult ofAphrodite," I therefore devoted my next address (14 November, 1917) tothe "Birth of Aphrodite" and a general discussion of the problems ofOlympian obstetrics.

Each of these addresses was delivered as an informal demonstration oflarge series of lantern projections; and, as Mr. Guppy insisted upon thepublication of the lectures in theBulletin, it became necessary, as arule, many months after the delivery of each address, to rearrange mymaterial and put into the form of a written narrative the story whichhad previously been told mainly by pictures and verbal comments uponthem.

In making these elaborations additional facts were added and new pointsof view emerged, so that the printed statements bear little resemblanceto the lectures of which they pretend to be reports. Suchtransformations are inevitable when one attempts to make a writtenreport of what was essentially an ocular demonstration, unless every oneof the numerous pictures is reproduced.

Each of the first two lectures was printed before the succeeding lecturewas set up in type. For these reasons there is a good deal of[Pg vii]repetition, and in successive lectures a wider interpretation ofevidence mentioned in the preceding addresses. Had it been possible torevise the whole book at one time, and if the pressure of other dutieshad permitted me to devote more time to the work, these blemishes mighthave been eliminated and a coherent story made out of what is littlemore than a collection of data and tags of comment. No one is moreconscious than the writer of the inadequacy of this method of presentingan argument of such inherent complexity as the dragon story: but myobligation to the Rylands Library gave me no option in the matter: I hadto attempt the difficult task in spite of all the unpropitiouscircumstances. This book must be regarded, then, not as a coherentargument, but merely as some of the raw material for the study of thedragon's history. In my lecture (13 November, 1918) on "The Meaning ofMyths," which will be published in theBulletin of the John RylandsLibrary, I have expounded the general conclusions that emerge from thestudies embodied in these three lectures; and in my forthcoming book,"The Story of the Flood," I have submitted the whole mass of evidence toexamination in detail, and attempted to extract from it the real storyof mankind's age-long search for the elixir of life.

In the earliest records from Egypt and Babylonia it is customary toportray a king's beneficence by representing him initiating irrigationworks. In course of time he came to be regarded, not merely as the giverof the water which made the desert fertile, but as himself thepersonification and the giver of the vital powers of water. Thefertility of the land and the welfare of the people thus came to beregarded as dependent upon the king's vitality. Hence it was notillogical to kill him when his virility showed signs of failing and soimperilled the country's prosperity. But when the view developed thatthe dead king acquired a new grant of vitality in the other world hebecame the god Osiris, who was able to confer even greater boons oflife-giving to the land and people than was the case before. He was theNile, and he fertilized the land. The original dragon was a beneficentcreature, the personification of water, and was identified with kingsand gods.[Pg viii]

But the enemy of Osiris became an evil dragon, and was identified withSet.

The dragon-myth, however, did not really begin to develop until anageing king refused to be slain, and called upon the Great Mother, asthe giver of life, to rejuvenate him. Her only elixir was human blood;and to obtain it she was compelled to make a human sacrifice. Hermurderous act led to her being compared with and ultimately identifiedwith a man-slaying lioness or a cobra. The story of the slaying of thedragon is a much distorted rumour of this incident; and in the processof elaboration the incidents were subjected to every kind ofinterpretation and also confusion with the legendary account of theconflict between Horus and Set.

When a substitute was obtained to replace the blood the slaying of ahuman victim was no longer logically necessary: but an explanation hadto be found for the persistence of this incident in the story. Mankind(no longer a mere individual human sacrifice) had become sinful andrebellious (the act of rebellion being complaints that the king or godwas growing old) and had to be destroyed as a punishment for thistreason. The Great Mother continued to act as the avenger of the king orgod. But the enemies of the god were also punished by Horus in thelegend of Horus and Set. The two stories hence became confused the onewith the other. The king Horus took the place of the Great Mother as theavenger of the gods. As she was identified with the moon, he became theSun-god, and assumed many of the Great Mother's attributes, and alsobecame her son. In the further development of the myth, when the Sun-godhad completely usurped his mother's place, the infamy of her deeds ofdestruction seems to have led to her being confused with the rebelliousmen who were now called the followers of Set, Horus's enemy. Thus anevil dragon emerged from this blend of the attributes of the GreatMother and Set. This is the Babylonian Tiamat. From the amazinglycomplex jumble of this tissue of confusion all the incidents of thedragon-myth were derived.

When attributes of the Water-god or his enemy became assimilated withthose of the Great Mother and the Warrior Sun-god, the[Pg ix] animals withwhich these deities were identified came to be regarded individually andcollectively as concrete expressions of the Water-god's powers. Thus thecow and the gazelle, the falcon and the eagle, the lion and the serpent,the fish and the crocodile became symbols of the life-giving and thelife-destroying powers of water, and composite monsters or dragons wereinvented by combining parts of these various creatures to express thedifferent manifestations of the vital powers of water. The process ofelaboration of the attributes of these monsters led to the developmentof an amazingly complex myth: but the story became still furtherinvolved when the dragon's life-controlling powers became confused withman's vital spirit and identified with the good or evil genius which wasregarded as the guest, welcome or unwelcome, of every individual's body,and the arbiter of his destiny. In my remarks on theka and thefravashi I have merely hinted at the vast complexity of these elementsof confusion.

Had I been familiar with [Archbishop] Söderblom's importantmonograph,[2] when I was writing Chapters I and III, I might haveattempted to indicate how vital a part the confusion of the individualgenius with the mythical wonder-beast has played in the history of themyths relating to the latter. For the identification of the dragon withthe vital spirit of the individual explains why the stories of theformer appealed to the selfish interest of every human being. At thetime the lecture on "Incense and Libations" was written, I had no ideathat the problems of theka and thefravashi had any connexion withthose relating to the dragon. But in the third chapter a quotation fromProfessor Langdon's account of "A Ritual of Atonement for a BabylonianKing" indicates that the Babylonian equivalent of theka and thefravashi, "my god who walks at my side," presents many points ofaffinity to a dragon.

When in the lecture on "Incense and Libations" I ventured to make thedaring suggestion that the ideas underlying the Egyptian conception oftheka were substantially identical with those entertained by[Pg x] theIranians in reference to thefravashi, I was not aware of the factthat such a comparison had already been made. In [Archbishop]Söderblom's monograph, which contains a wealth of information incorroboration of the views set forth in Chapter I, the followingstatement occurs: "L'analyse, faite par M. Brede-Kristensen (Ægypternesforestillinger om livet efter döden, 14 ss. Kristiania, 1896) dukaégyptien, jette une vive lumière sur notre question, par la frappanteanalogie qui semble exister entre le sens originaire de ces deux termeska etfravashi" (p. 58, note 4). "La similitude entre leka et lafravashi a été signalée dejà par Nestor Lhote,Lettres écritesd'Égypte, note, selon Maspero,Études de mythologie et d'archéologieégyptiennes, I, 47, note 3."

In support of the view, which I have submitted in Chapter I, that theoriginal idea of thefravashi, like that of theka, was suggested bythe placenta and the fœtal membranes, I might refer to the specificstatement (Farvardin-Yasht, XXIII, 1) that "les fravashis tiennent enordre l'enfant dans le sein de sa mère et l'enveloppent de sorte qu'ilne meurt pas" (op. cit., Söderblom, p. 41, note 1). Thefravashi"nourishes and protects" (p. 57): it is "the nurse" (p. 58): it isalways feminine (p. 58). It is in fact the placenta, and is alsoassociated with the functions of the Great Mother. "Nous voyons dansfravashi une personification de la force vitale, conservée et exercéeaussi après la mort. La fravashi est le principe de vie, la faculté qu'al'homme de se soutenir par la nourriture, de manger, d'absorber et ainsid'exister et de se développer. Cette étymologie et le rôle attributé àla fravashi dans le développement de l'embryon, des animaux, des plantesrappellent en quelque sorte, comme le remarque M. Foucher, l'idéedirectrice de Claude Bernard. Seulement la fravashi n'a jamais été uneabstraction. La fravashi est une puissance vivante, unhomunculus inhomine, un être personnifié comme du reste toutes les sources de vie etde mouvement que l'homme non civilisé aperçoit dans son organisme.

"Il ne faut pas non plus considérer la fravashi comme un double del'homme, elle en est plutôt une partie, un hôte intime qui continue sonexistence après la mort aux mêmes conditions qu'avant, et[Pg xi] qui obligeles vivants à lui fournir les aliments nécessaires" (op. cit., p. 59).

Thus thefravashi has the same remarkable associations withnourishment and placental functions as theka. As a further suggestionof its connexion with the Great Mother as the inaugurator of the year,and in virtue of her physiological (uterine) functions themoon-controlled measurer of the month, it is important to note that "Le19^e jour de chaque mois est également consecré aux fravashis engénéral. Le premier mois porte aussi le nom de Farvardîn. Quant auxformes des fêtes mensuelles, elles semblent conformes à celles que nousallons rappeler [les fêtes célébrées en l'honneur des mortes]" (op.cit., p. 10).

But thefravashi was not only associated with the Great Mother, butalso with the Water-god or Good Dragon, for it controlled the waters ofirrigation and gave fertility to the soil (op. cit., p. 36). Thefravashi was also identified with the third member of the primitiveTrinity, the Warrior Sun-god, not merely in the general sense as theadversary of the powers of evil, but also in the more definite form ofthe Winged Disk (op. cit., pp. 67 and 68).

In all these respects thefravashi is brought into close associationwith the dragon, so that in addition to being "the divine and immortalelement" (op. cit., p. 51), it became the genius or spirit thatpossesses a man and shapes his conduct and regulates his behaviour. Itwas in fact the expression of a crude attempt on the part of the earlypsychologists of Iran to explain the working of the instinct ofself-preservation.

In the text of Chapters I and III I have referred to the Greek,Babylonian, Chinese, and Melanesian variants of essentially the sameconception. Söderblom refers to an interesting parallel among theKarens, whosekelah corresponds to the Iranianfravashi (p. 54, Note2: compare also A. E. Crawley, "The Idea of the Soul," 1909).

In the development of the dragon-myth astronomical factors played a veryobtrusive part: but I have deliberately refrained from entering into adetailed discussion of them, because they were not primarily the realcausal agents in the origin of the myth. When the conception of asky-world or a heaven became drawn into the dragon story it came[Pg xii] toplay so prominent a part as to convince most writers that the myth wasprimarily and essentially astronomical. But it is clear that originallythe myth was concerned solely with the regulation of irrigation systemsand the search upon earth for an elixir of life.

When I put forward the suggestion that the annual inundation of the Nileprovided the information for the first measurement of the year, I wasnot aware of the fact that Sir Norman Lockyer ("The Dawn of Astronomy,"1894, p. 209), had already made the same claim and substantiated it bymuch fuller evidence than I have brought together here.

In preparing these lectures I have received help from so large a numberof correspondents that it is difficult to enumerate all of them. But Iam under a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Alan Gardiner for calling myattention to the fact that the common rendering of the Egyptian worddidi as "mandrake" was unjustifiable, and to Mr. F. Ll. Griffith forexplaining its true meaning and for lending me the literature relatingto this matter. Miss Winifred M. Crompton, the Assistant Keeper of theEgyptian Department in the Manchester Museum, gave me very materialassistance by bringing to my attention some very important literaturewhich otherwise would have been overlooked; and both she and MissDorothy Davison helped me with the drawings that illustrate this volume.Mr. Wilfrid Jackson gave me much of the information concerning shellsand cephalopods which forms such an essential part of the argument, andhe also collected a good deal of the literature which I have made useof. Dr. A. C. Haddon, F.R.S., of Cambridge, lent me a number of booksand journals which I was unable to obtain in Manchester; and Mr. DonaldA. Mackenzie, of Edinburgh, has poured in upon me a stream ofinformation, especially upon the folk-lore of Scotland and India. Normust I forget to acknowledge the invaluable help and forbearance of Mr.Henry Guppy, of the John Rylands Library, and Mr. Charles W. E. Leigh,of the University Library. To all of these and to the still largernumber of correspondents who have helped me I offer my most gratefulthanks.

During the three years in which these lectures were compiled I[Pg xiii] havebeen associated with Dr. W. H. R. Rivers, F.R.S., and Mr. T. H. Pear intheir psychological work in the military hospitals, and the influence ofthis interesting experience is manifest upon every page of this volume.

But perhaps the most potent factor of all in shaping my views anddirecting my train of thought has been the stimulating influence of Mr.W. J. Perry's researches, which are converting ethnology into a realscience and shedding a brilliant light upon the early history ofcivilization.

G. ELLIOT SMITH.

9December, 1918.

CONTENTS.

• CHAPTER I.INCENSE AND LIBATIONS1
• CHAPTER II.DRAGONS AND RAIN GODS76
• CHAPTER III.THE BIRTH OF APHRODITE140

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FACING PAGE

• Fig. 1.—The conventional Egyptian representation of the burning of incense andthe pouring of libations2

• Fig. 2.—Water-colour sketch by Mrs. Cecil Firth, representing a restoration ofthe early mummy found at Medûm by Professor Flinders Petrie, now inthe Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in London16

• Fig. 3.—A mould taken from a life-mask found in the Pyramid of Teta by Mr.Quibell17

• Fig. 4.—Portrait statue of an Egyptian lady of the Pyramid Age18

• Fig. 5.—Statue of an Egyptian noble of the Pyramid Age to show the technicalskill in the representation of life-like eyes52

• Fig. 6.—Representation of the ancient Mexican worship of the Sun70

• Fig. 7.—A mediæval picture of a Chinese Dragon upon its cloud (after the lateProfessor W. Anderson)80

• Fig. 8.—A Chinese Dragon (after de Groot)80

• Fig. 9.—Dragon from the Ishtar Gate of Babylon81

• Fig. 10.—Babylonian Weather God81

• Fig. 11.—Reproduction of a picture in the Maya Codex Troano representing theRain-godChac treading upon the Serpent's head, which is interposedbetween the earth and the rain the god is pouring out of a bowl. ARain-goddess stands upon the Serpent's tail84

• Fig. 12.—Another representation of the elephant-headed Rain-god. He is holdingthunderbolts, conventionalized in a hund-like form. The serpent isconverted into a sac, holding up the rain-waters.84

• Fig. 13.—A page (the 36th) of the Dresden Maya Codex.86

• Fig. 14.—A. The so-called "sea-goat" of Babylonia, a creature compounded ofthe antelope and fish of Ea.—B. The "sea-goat" as the vehicle of Ea orMarduk.—C to K—a series of varieties of themakara from theBuddhist Rails at Buddha Gaya and Mathura, circa 70b.c.—70a.d., after Cunningham ("Archæological Survey of India," Vol.III, 1873, Plates IX and XXIX).—L. Themakara as the vehicle ofVaruna, after Sir George Birdwood. It is not difficult to understandhow, in the course of the easterly diffusion of culture, such a pictureshould develop into the Chinese Dragon or the American elephant-headedgod88

• Fig. 15.—Photograph of a Chinese embroidery in the Manchester School of Artrepresenting the Dragon and the Pearl-Moon Symbol98

• Fig. 16.—The God of Thunder (from a Chinese drawing (? 17th Century) in theJohn Rylands Library)136

• Fig. 17.—From Joannes de Turrecremata's "Meditationes seu Contemplationes".Rome: Ulrich Han, 1467137

• Fig. 18.—(a) The Archaic Egyptian slate palette of Narmer showing, perhaps, theearliest design of Hathor (at the upper corners of the palette) as a womanwith cow's horns and ears (compare Flinders Petrie "The Royal Tombs ofthe First Dynasty," Part I, 1900, Plate XXVII, Fig. 71). The pharaoh iswearing a belt from which are suspended four cow-headed Hathor figures inplace of the cowry-amulets of more primitive peoples. This affords corroborationof the view that Hathor assumed the functions originally attributed tothe cowry-shell. (b) The king'ssporran, where Hathor-heads (H) take theplace of the cowries of the primitive girdle150

• Fig. 19.—The front of Stela B (famous for the realistic representations of theIndian elephant at its upper corners), one of the ancient Maya monuments atCopan, Central America (after Maudslay's photograph and diagram). Thegirdle of the chief figure is decorated both with shells (Oliva orConus) andamulets representing human faces corresponding to the Hathor-heads on theNarmer palette (Fig. 18)151

• Fig. 20.—Diagrams illustrating the form of cowry-belts worn in (a) East Africaand (b) Oceania respectively. (c) Ancient Indian girdle (from the figure ofSirima Devata on the Bharat Tope), consisting of strings of pearls and preciousstones, and what seem to be (fourth row from the top) models ofcowries. (d) The Copan girdle (from Fig. 19) in which both shells and headsof deities are represented. The two objects suspended from the belt betweenthe heads recall Hathor's sistra153

• Fig. 21.—(a) A slate triad found by Professor G. A. Reisner in the temple of theThird Pyramid at Giza. It shows the Pharaoh Mycerinus supported on hisright side by the goddess Hathor, represented as a woman with the moon andthe cow's horns upon her head, and on the left side by a nome goddess, bearingupon her head the jackal-symbol of her nome. (b) The Ecuador Aphrodite.Bas-relief from Cerro-Jaboncillo (after Saville, "Antiquities of Manabi,Ecuador," Preliminary Report, 1907, Plate XXXVIII). A grotesque compositemonster intended to represent a woman (compare Saville's PlatesXXXV, XXXVI, and XXXIX), whose head is a conventionalized Octopus,whose body is aLolígo, and whose limbs are human164

• Fig. 22.—(a)Sepia officinalis, after Tryon, "Cephalopoda". (b)Loligo vulgaris,after Tryon. (c) The position usually adopted by the resting Octopus, afterTryon168

• Fig. 23.—A series of Mycenæan conventionalizations of the Argonaut and theOctopus (after Tümpel), which provided the basis for Houssay's theory of theorigin of the triskele (a,c, andd) and swastika (b ande), and Siret's theoryto explain the design of Bes's face (f andg)172

• Fig. 24.—(a) and (b) Two Mycenæan pots (after Schliemann). (a) The so-called"owl-shaped" vase is really a representation of the Mother-Pot in the formof a conventionalized Octopus (Houssay). (b) The other vase represents theOctopus Mother-Pot, with a jar upon her head and another in her hands—athree-fold representation of the Great Mother as a pot. (c) A Cretan vasefrom Gournia in which the Octopus-motive is represented as a decorationupon the pot instead of in its form, (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) A series of coinsfrom Central Greece (after Head) showing a series of conventionalizations ofthe Octopus, with its pot-like body and palm-tree-like arms (f). (i)Sepiaofficinalis (after Tryon). (h) and (l) The so-called "spouting vases" in thehands of the Babylonian god Ea, from a cylinder seal of the time of Gudea,Patesi of Tello, after Ward ("Seal Cylinders, etc.," p. 215)180

• Fig. 25.—(a) Winged Disk from the Temple of Thothmes I. (b) Persian designof Winged Disk above the Tree of Life (Ward, "Seal Cylinders of WesternAsia," Fig. 1109). (c) Assyrian or Syro-Hittite design of the Winged Diskand Tree of Life in an extremely conventionalized form (Ward, Fig. 1310).(d) Assyrian conventionalized Winged Disk and Tree of Life, from the designupon the dress of Assurnazipal (Ward, Fig. 670). (e) Part of the design froma tablet of the time of Dungi (Ward, Fig. 663). (f) Design on a Cretan sarcophagusfrom Hagia Triada (Blinkenberg, Fig. 9). (g) Double axe from agold signet from Acropolis Treasure, Mycenæ (after Sir Arthur Evans,"Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," p. 10). (h) Assyrian Winged Disk (Ward,Fig. 608). (i) "Primitive Chaldean Winged Gate" (Ward, Fig. 349). (k)Persian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 1144). (l) An Assyrian Tree of Life andWinged Disk crudely conventionalized (Ward, Fig. 691). (m) Assyrian Treeof Life and Winged Disk in which the god is riding in a crescent replacingthe Disk (Ward, Fig. 695)184

• Fig. 26.—(a) An Egyptian picture of Hathor between the mountains of the horizon(on which trees are growing) (after Budge, "Gods of the Egyptians," Vol. II,p. 101). (b) The mountains of the horizon supporting a cow's head as asurrogate of Hathor, from a stele found at Teima in Northern Arabia, now inthe Louvre (after Sir Arthur Evans,op. cit., p. 39). (c) The Mesopotamiansun-god Shamash rising between the Eastern Mountains, the Gates of Dawn(Ward,op. cit., p. 373). (d) The familiar Egyptian representation of the sunrising between the Eastern Mountains (the splitting of the mountain givingbirth to "the ridiculous mouse"—Smintheus). (e) Part of the design from aMycenæan vase from Old Salamis (after Evans, p. 9). (f) Part of the designfrom a lentoid gem from the Idæan Cave, now in the Candia Museum (afterEvans, Fig. 25). (g) The Eastern Mountains supporting the pillar-form ofthe goddess (after Evans, Fig. 66). (h) Another Mycenæan design comparablewith (e). (i) Design from a signet-ring from Mycenæ; (after Evans,Fig. 34). (k) The famous sculpture above the Lion Gate at Mycenæ188

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT.

PAGE

• Fig. 1.—Early representation of a "Dragon" compounded of the forepart of aneagle and the hindpart of a lion (from an Archaic Cylinder-seal from Susa,after Jequier)79

• Fig. 2.—The earliest Babylonian conception of the Dragon Tiamat (from aCylinder-seal in the British Museum, after L. W. King)79

• Fig. 3.—Wm. Dennis's drawing of the "Flying Dragon" depicted on the rocksat Piasa, Illinois94

• Fig. 4.—Two representations of Astarte (Qetesh)155

• Fig. 5.—Pterocera bryonia, the Red Sea spider-shell170

• Fig. 6.—(a) Picture of a bowl of water—the hieroglyphic sign equivalent tohm(the wordhmt means "woman"—Griffith, "Beni Hasan," Part III, PlateVI, Fig. 88 and p. 29). (b) "A basket of sycamore figs"—Wilkinson's"Ancient Egyptians," Vol. I, p. 323. (c) and (d) are said by Wilkinson to behieroglyphic signs meaning "wife" and are apparently taken from (b). But(c) is identical with (i), which, according to Griffith (p. 14), represents a bivalveshell (g, from Plate III, Fig. 3), more usually placed obliquely (h). The varyingconventionalizations of (a) or (b) are shown in (d), (e), and (f) (Griffith,"Hieroglyphics," p. 34). (k) The sign for a lotus leaf, which is a phoneticequivalent of the sign (h), and, according to Griffith ("Hieroglyphics," p. 26),"is probably derived from the same root, on account of its shell-like outline".(l) The hieroglyphic sign for a pot of water in such words asNu andNut.(m) A "pomegranate" (replacing a bust of Tanit) upon a sacred column atCarthage (Arthur J. Evans, "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," p. 46). (n)The form of the body of an octopus as conventionalized on the coins ofCentral Greece (compare Fig. 24 (d))179

• Fig. 7.—(a) An Egyptian design representing the sun-god Horus emerging from alotus, representing his mother Hathor (Isis). (b) Papyrus sceptre oftencarried by goddesses and animistically identified with them either as an instrumentof life-giving or destruction. (c) Conventionalized lily—the prototypeof the trident and the thunder-weapon. (d) A water-plant associatedwith the Nile-gods180

• Fig. 8.—(a) "Ceremonial forked object," or "magic wand," used in the ceremonyof "opening the mouth," possibly connected with (b) (a bicornuate uterus),according to Griffith ("Hieroglyphics," p. 60). (c) The Egyptian sign for akey. (d) The double axe of Crete and Egypt191

• Fig. 9.—The Egyptian emblem for gold, the signnub222

[Pg 1]

Chapter I.

INCENSE AND LIBATIONS.[3]

It is commonly assumed that many of the elementary practices ofcivilization, such as the erection of rough stone buildings, whetherhouses, tombs, or temples, the crafts of the carpenter and thestonemason, the carving of statues, the customs of pouring out libationsor burning incense, are such simple and obvious procedures that anypeople might adopt them without prompting or contact of any kind withother populations who do the same sort of things. But if such apparentlycommonplace acts be investigated they will be found to have a long andcomplex history. None of these things that seem so obvious to us wasattempted until a multitude of diverse circumstances became focussed insome particular community, and constrained some individual to make thediscovery. Nor did the quality of obviousness become apparent even whenthe enlightened discoverer had gathered up the threads of hispredecessor's ideas and woven them into the fabric of a new invention.For he had then to begin the strenuous fight against the opposition ofhis fellows before he could induce them to accept his discovery. He had,in fact, to contend against their preconceived ideas and their lack ofappreciation of the significance of the progress he had made before hecould persuade them of its "obviousness". That is the history of mostinventions since the world began. But it is begging the question topretend that because tradition has made such inventions seem simple andobvious to us it is unnecessary to inquire into their history or toassume that any people or any individual simply did these things withoutany instruction when the spirit moved it or him so to do.[Pg 2]

The customs of burning incense and making libations in religiousceremonies are so widespread and capable of being explained in suchplausible, though infinitely diverse, ways that it has seemedunnecessary to inquire more deeply into their real origin andsignificance. For example, Professor Toy[4] disposes of these questionsin relation to incense in a summary fashion. He claims that "when burntbefore the deity" it is "to be regarded as food, though in course oftime, when the recollection of this primitive character was lost, aconventional significance was attached to the act of burning. A morerefined period demanded more refined food for the gods, such as ambrosiaand nectar, but these also were finally given up."

This, of course, is a purely gratuitous assumption, or series ofassumptions, for which there is no real evidence. Moreover, even ifthere were any really early literature to justify such statements, theyexplain nothing. Incense-burning is just as mysterious if Prof. Toy'sclaim be granted as it was before.

But a bewildering variety of other explanations, for all of which themerit of being "simple and obvious" is claimed, have been suggested. Thereader who is curious about these things will find a luxurious crop ofspeculations by consulting a series of encyclopædias.[5] I shall contentmyself by quoting only one more. "Frankincense and other spices wereindispensable in temples where bloody sacrifices formed part of thereligion. The atmosphere of Solomon's temple must have been that of asickening slaughter-house, and the fumes of incense could alone enablethe priests and worshippers to support it. This would apply to thousandsof other temples through Asia, and doubtless the palaces of kings andnobles suffered from uncleanliness and insanitary arrangements andrequired an antidote to evil smells to make them endurable."[6]

It is an altogether delightful anachronism to imagine that religiousritual in the ancient and aromatic East was inspired by suchsqueamishness as a British sanitary inspector of the twentieth centurymight experience!

[Pg 3]

Fig. 1.—The conventional Egyptian representation ofthe Burning of Incense and the Pouring of Libations (Period of theNew Empire)—after Lepsius

But if there are these many diverse and mutually destructive reasons inexplanation of the origin of incense-burning, it follows that themeaning of the practice cannot be so "simple and obvious". For scholarsin the past have been unable to agree as to the sense in which theseadjectives should be applied.

But no useful purpose would be served by enumerating a collection oflearned fallacies and exposing their contradictions when the trueexplanation has been provided in the earliest body of literature thathas come down from antiquity. I refer to the Egyptian "Pyramid Texts".

Before this ancient testimony is examined certain general principlesinvolved in the discussion of such problems should be considered. Inthis connexion it is appropriate to quote the apt remarks made, inreference to the practice of totemism, by Professor Sollas.[7] "If it isdifficult to conceive how such ideas ... originated at all, it is stillmore difficult to understand how they should have arisen repeatedly andhave developed in much the same way among races evolving independentlyin different environments. It is at least simpler to suppose that all[of them] have a common source ... and may have been carried ... toremote parts of the world."

I do not think that anyone who conscientiously and without bias examinesthe evidence relating to incense-burning, the arbitrary details of theritual and the peculiar circumstances under which it is practised indifferent countries, can refuse to admit that so artificial a custommust have been dispersed throughout the world from some one centre whereit was devised.

The remarkable fact that emerges from an examination of these so-called"obvious explanations" of ethnological phenomena is the failure on thepart of those who are responsible for them to show any adequateappreciation of the nature of the problems to be solved. They know thatincense has been in use for a vast period of time, and that the practiceof burning it is very widespread. They have been so familiarized withthe custom and certain more or less vague excuses for its perpetuationthat they show no realization of how strangely irrational and devoid ofobvious meaning the procedure is. The reasons usually given inexplanation of its use are for the most part merely paraphrases of thetraditional meanings that in the course of[Pg 4] history have come to beattached to the ritual act or the words used to designate it. Neitherthe ethnologist nor the priestly apologist will, as a rule, admit thathe does not know why such ritual acts as pouring out water or burningincense are performed, and that they are wholly inexplicable andmeaningless to him. Nor will they confess that the real inspiration toperform such rites is the fact of their predecessors having handed themdown as sacred acts of devotion, the meaning of which has been entirelyforgotten during the process of transmission from antiquity. Instead ofthis they simply pretend that the significance of such acts is obvious.Stripped of the glamour which religious emotion and sophistry have wovenaround them, such pretended explanations become transparent subterfuges,none the less real because the apologists are quite innocent of anyconscious intention to deceive either themselves or their disciples. Itshould be sufficient for them that such ritual acts have been handeddown by tradition as right and proper things to do. But in response tothe instinctive impulse of all human beings, the mind seeks for reasonsin justification of actions of which the real inspiration is unknown.

It is a common fallacy to suppose that men's actions are inspired mainlyby reason. The most elementary investigation of the psychology ofeveryday life is sufficient to reveal the truth that man is not, as arule, the pre-eminently rational creature he is commonly supposed tobe.[8] He is impelled to most of his acts by his instincts, thecircumstances of his personal experience, and the conventions of thesociety in which he has grown up. But once he has acted or decided upona course of procedure he is ready with excuses in explanation andattempted justification of his motives. In most cases these are not thereal reasons, for few human beings attempt to analyse their motives orin fact are competent without help to understand their own feelings andthe real significance of their actions. There is implanted in man theinstinct to interpret for his own satisfaction his feelings andsensations, i.e. the meaning of his experience. But of necessity this ismostly of the nature of rationalizing, i.e. providing satisfyinginterpretations of thoughts and decisions the real meaning of which ishidden.

Now it must be patent that the nature of this process of rationalizationwill depend largely upon the mental make-up of the individual[Pg 5]—of thebody of knowledge and traditions with which his mind has become storedin the course of his personal experience. The influences to which he hasbeen exposed, daily and hourly, from the time of his birth onward,provide the specific determinants of most of his beliefs and views.Consciously and unconsciously he imbibes certain definite ideas, notmerely of religion, morals, and politics, but of what is the correct andwhat is the incorrect attitude to assume in most of the circumstances ofhis daily life. These form the staple currency of his beliefs and hisconversation. Reason plays a surprisingly small part in this process,for most human beings acquire from their fellows the traditions of theirsociety which relieves them of the necessity of undue thought. The verywords in which the accumulated traditions of his community are conveyedto each individual are themselves charged with the complex symbolismthat has slowly developed during the ages, and tinges the whole of histhoughts with their subtle and, to most men, vaguely appreciated shadesof meaning.[9] During this process of acquiring the fruits of hiscommunity's beliefs and experiences every individual accepts withoutquestion a vast number of apparently simple customs and ideas. He is aptto regard them as obvious, and to assume that reason led him to acceptthem or be guided by them, although when the specific question is put tohim he is unable to give their real history.

Before leaving these general considerations[10] I want to emphasizecertain elementary facts of psychology which are often ignored by thosewho investigate the early history of civilization.

First, the multitude and the complexity of the circumstances that arenecessary to lead men to make even the simplest invention render theconcatenation of all of these conditions wholly independently on asecond occasion in the highest degree improbable. Until very definiteand conclusive evidence is forthcoming in any individual case it cansafely be assumed that no ethnologically significant innovation incustoms or beliefs has ever been made twice.

Those critics who have recently attempted to dispose of this claim byreferring to the work of the Patent Office thereby display a singular[Pg 6]lack of appreciation of the real point at issue. For the ethnologicalproblem is concerned with different populations who are assumednot toshare any common heritage of acquired knowledge, nor to have had anycontact, direct or indirect, the one with the other. But the inventorswho resort to the Patent Office are all of them persons supplied withinformation from the storehouse of our common civilization; and theinventions which they seek to protect from imitation by others aremerely developments of the heritage of all civilized peoples. Even whensimilar inventions are made apparently independently under suchcircumstances, in most cases they can be explained by the fact that twoinvestigators have followed up a line of advance which has beendetermined by the development of the common body of knowledge.

This general discussion suggests another factor in the working of thehuman mind.

When certain vital needs or the force of circumstances compel a man toembark upon a certain train of reasoning or invention the results towhich his investigations lead depend upon a great many circumstances.Obviously the range of his knowledge and experience and the generalideas he has acquired from his fellows will play a large part in shapinghis inferences. It is quite certain that even in the simplest problem ofprimitive physics or biology his attention will be directed only to someof, and not all, the factors involved, and that the limitations of hisknowledge will permit him to form a wholly inadequate conception even ofthe few factors that have obtruded themselves upon his attention. But hemay frame a working hypothesis in explanation of the factors he hadappreciated, which may seem perfectly exhaustive and final, as well aslogical and rational to him, but to those who come after him, with awider knowledge of the properties of matter and the nature of livingbeings, and a wholly different attitude towards such problems, theprimitive man's solution may seem merely a ludicrous travesty.

But once a tentative explanation of one group of phenomena has been madeit is the method of science no less than the common tendency of thehuman mind to buttress this theory with analogies and fanciedhomologies. In other words the isolated facts are built up into ageneralisation. It is important to remember that in most cases thismental process begins very early; so that the analogies play a veryobtrusive part in the building up of theories. As a rule a multitude[Pg 7] ofsuch influences play a part consciously or unconsciously in shaping anybelief. Hence the historian is faced with the difficulty, often quiteinsuperable, of ascertaining (among scores of factors that definitelyplayed some part in the building up of a great generalization) the realfoundation upon which the vast edifice has been erected. I refer tothese elementary matters here for two reasons. First, because they areso often overlooked by ethnologists; and secondly, because in thesepages I shall have to discuss a series of historical events in which abewildering number of factors played their part. In sifting out acertain number of them, I want to make it clear that I do not pretend tohave discovered more than a small minority of the most conspicuousthreads in the complex texture of the fabric of early human thought.

Another fact that emerges from these elementary psychologicalconsiderations is the vital necessity of guarding against themisunderstandings necessarily involved in the use of words. In thecourse of long ages the originally simple connotation of the words usedto denote many of our ideas has become enormously enriched with ameaning which in some degree reflects the chequered history of theexpression of human aspirations. Many writers who in discussing ancientpeoples make use of such terms, for example, as "soul," "religion," and"gods," without stripping them of the accretions of complex symbolismthat have collected around them within more recent times, becomeinvolved in difficulty and misunderstanding.

For example, the use of the terms "soul" or "soul-substance" in much ofthe literature relating to early or relatively primitive people isfruitful of misunderstanding. For it is quite clear from the contextthat in many cases such people meant to imply nothing more than "life"or "vital principle," the absence of which from the body for anyprolonged period means death. But to translate such a word simply as"life" is inadequate because all of these people had some theoreticalviews as to its identity with the "breath" or to its being in the natureof a material substance or essence. It is naturally impossible to findany one word or phrase in our own language to express the exact idea,for among every people there are varying shades of meaning which cannotadequately express the symbolism distinctive of each place and society.To meet this insuperable difficulty perhaps the term "vital essence" isopen to least objection.[Pg 8]

In my last Rylands lecture[11] I sketched in rough outline a tentativeexplanation of the world-wide dispersal of the elements of thecivilization that is now the heritage of the world at large, andreferred to the part played by Ancient Egypt in the development ofcertain arts, customs, and beliefs. On the present occasion I propose toexamine certain aspects of this process of development in greaterdetail, and to study the far-reaching influence exerted by the Egyptianpractice of mummification, and the ideas that were suggested by it, instarting new trains of thought, in stimulating the invention of arts andcrafts that were unknown before then, and in shaping the complex body ofcustoms and beliefs that were the outcome of these potent intellectualferments.

In speaking of the relationship of the practice of mummification to thedevelopment of civilization, however, I have in mind not merely theinfluence it exerted upon the moulding of culture, but also the partplayed by the trend of philosophy in the world at large in determiningthe Egyptian's conceptions of the wider significance of embalming, andthe reaction of these effects upon the current doctrines of the meaningof natural phenomena.

No doubt it will be asked at the outset, what possible connexion canthere be between the practice of so fantastic and gruesome an art as theembalming of the dead and the building up of civilization? Is itconceivable that the course of the development of the arts and crafts,the customs and beliefs, and the social and political organizations—infact any of the essential elements of civilization—has been deflected ahair's breadth to the right or left as the outcome, directly orindirectly, of such a practice?

In previous essays and lectures[12] I have indicated how intimately thiscustom was related, not merely to the invention of the arts and craftsof the carpenter and stonemason and all that is implied in the buildingup of what Professor Lethaby has called the "matrix of civilization,"but also to the shaping of religious beliefs and ritual practices,[Pg 9]which developed in association with the evolution of the temple and theconception of a material resurrection. I have also suggested thefar-reaching significance of an indirect influence of the practice ofmummification in the history of civilization. It was mainly responsiblefor prompting the earliest great maritime expeditions of which thehistory has been preserved.[13] For many centuries the quest of resinsand balsams for embalming and for use in temple ritual, and wood forcoffin-making, continued to provide the chief motives which induced theEgyptians to undertake sea-trafficking in the Mediterranean and the RedSea. The knowledge and experience thus acquired ultimately made itpossible for the Egyptians and their pupils to push their adventuresfurther afield. It is impossible adequately to estimate the vastness ofthe influence of such intercourse, not merely in spreading abroadthroughout the world the germs of our common civilization, but also, bybringing into close contact peoples of varied histories and traditions,in stimulating progress. Even if the practice of mummification hadexerted no other noteworthy effect in the history of the world, thisfact alone would have given it a pre-eminent place.

Another aspect of the influence of mummification I have alreadydiscussed, and do not intend to consider further in this lecture. Irefer to the manifold ways in which it affected the history of medicineand pharmacy. By accustoming the Egyptians, through thirty centuries, tothe idea of cutting the human corpse, it made it possible for Greekphysicians of the Ptolemaic and later ages to initiate in Alexandria thesystematic dissection of the human body which popular prejudice forbadeelsewhere, and especially in Greece itself. Upon this foundation theknowledge of anatomy and the science of medicine has been built up.[14]But in many other ways the practice of mummification exertedfar-reaching effects, directly and indirectly, upon the development ofmedical and pharmaceutical knowledge and methods.[15][Pg 10]

There is then thisprima-facie evidence that the Egyptian practice ofmummification was closely related to the development of architecture,maritime trafficking, and medicine. But what I am chiefly concerned within the present lecture is the discussion of the much vaster part itplayed in shaping the innermost beliefs of mankind and directing thecourse of the religious aspirations and the scientific opinions, notmerely of the Egyptians themselves, but also of the world at large, formany centuries afterward.

It had a profound influence upon the history of human thought. The vagueand ill-defined ideas of physiology and psychology, which had probablybeen developing since Aurignacian times[16] in Europe, were suddenlycrystallized into a coherent structure and definite form by the musingsof the Egyptian embalmer. But at the same time, if the new philosophydid not find expression in the invention of the first deities, it gavethem a much more concrete form than they had previously presented, andplayed a large part in the establishment of the foundations upon whichall religious ritual was subsequently built up, and in the initiation ofa priesthood to administer the rites which were suggested by thepractice of mummification.

The Beginning of Stone-Working.

During the last few years I have repeatedly had occasion to point outthe fundamental fallacy underlying much of the modern speculation inethnology, and I have no intention of repeating these strictureshere.[17] But it is a significant fact that, when one leaves thewritings of professed ethnologists and turns to the histories of theirspecial subjects written by scholars in kindred fields of investigation,views such[Pg 11] as I have been setting forth will often be found to beaccepted without question or comment as the obvious truth.

There is an excellent little book entitled "Architecture," written byProfessor W. R. Lethaby for the Home University Library, that affords anadmirable illustration of this interesting fact. I refer to thisparticular work because it gives lucid expression to some of the ideasthat I wish to submit for consideration. "Two arts have changed thesurface of the world, Agriculture and Architecture" (p. 1). "To a largedegree architecture" [which he defines as "the matrix of civilization"]"is an Egyptian art" (p. 66): for in Egypt "we shall best find theorigins of architecture as a whole" (p. 21).

Nevertheless Professor Lethaby bows the knee to current tradition whenhe makes the wholly unwarranted assumption that Egypt probably learntits art from Babylonia. He puts forward this remarkable claim in spiteof his frank confession that "little or nothing is known of a primitiveage in Mesopotamia. At a remote time the art of Babylonia was that of acivilized people. As has been said, there is a great similarity betweenthis art and that of dynastic times in Egypt. Yet it appears that Egyptborrowed of Asia, rather than the reverse." [He gives no reasons forthis opinion, for which there is no evidence, except possibly theinvention of bricks for building.] "If the origins of art in Babyloniawere as fully known as those in Egypt, the story of architecture mighthave to begin in Asia instead of Egypt" (p. 67).

But later on he speaks in a more convincing manner of the known factswhen he says (p. 82):—

Elsewhere[18] I have pointed out that it was the importance which[Pg 12] theEgyptian came to attach to the preservation of the dead and to themaking of adequate provision for the deceased's welfare that graduallyled to the aggrandisement of the tomb. In course of time this impelledhim to cut into the rock,[19] and, later still, suggested thesubstitution of stone for brick in erecting the chapel of offeringsabove ground. The Egyptian burial customs were thus intimately relatedto the conceptions that grew up with the invention of embalming. Theevidence in confirmation of this is so precise that every one whoconscientiously examines it must be forced to the conclusion that mandid not instinctively select stone as a suitable material with which toerect temples and houses, and forthwith begin to quarry and shape it forsuch purposes.

There was an intimate connexion between the first use of stone forbuilding and the practice of mummification. It was probably for thisreason, and not from any abstract sense of "wonder at the magic of art,"as Professor Lethaby claims, that "ideas of sacredness, of ritualrightness, of magic stability and correspondence with the universe, andof perfection of form and proportion" came to be associated with stonebuildings.

At first stone was used only for such sacred purposes, and the pharaohalone was entitled to use it for his palaces, in virtue of the fact thathe was divine, the son and incarnation on earth of the sun-god. It wasonly when these Egyptian practices were transplanted to other countries,where these restrictions did not obtain, that the rigid wall ofconvention was broken down.

Even in Rome until well into the Christian era "the largest domestic andcivil buildings were of plastered brick". "Wrought masonry seems to havebeen demanded only for the great monuments, triumphal arches, theatres,temples and above all for the Coliseum." (Lethaby,op. cit. p. 120).

Nevertheless Rome was mainly responsible for breaking down the hieratictradition which forbade the use of stone for civil purposes. "In Romanarchitecture the engineering element became paramount. It was this whichbroke the moulds of tradition and recast construction into modern form,and made it free once more" (p. 130).[Pg 13]

But Egypt was not only responsible for inaugurating the use of stone forbuilding. For another forty centuries she continued to be the inventorof new devices in architecture. From time to time methods of buildingwhich developed in Egypt were adopted by her neighbours and spread farand wide. The shaft-tombs andmastabas of the Egyptian Pyramid Agewere adopted in various localities in the region of the EasternMediterranean,[20] with certain modifications in each place, and in turnbecame the models which were roughly copied in later ages by thewandering dolmen-builders. The round tombs of Crete and Mycenæ wereclearly only local modifications of their square prototypes, theEgyptian Pyramids of the Middle Kingdom. "While this Ægean art gatheredfrom, and perhaps gave to, Egypt, it passed on its ideals to the northand west of Europe, where the productions of the Bronze Age clearly showits influence" (Lethaby, p. 78) in the chambered mounds of the Iberianpeninsula and Brittany, of New Grange in Ireland and of Maes Howe in theOrkneys.[21] In the East the influence of these Ægean modifications maypossibly be seen in the Indianstupas and thedagabas of Ceylon,just as the stone stepped pyramids there reveal the effects of contactwith the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt.

Professor Lethaby sees the influence of Egypt in the orientation ofChristian churches (p. 133), as well as in many of their structuraldetails (p. 142); in the domed roofs, the iconography, the symbolism,and the decoration of Byzantine architecture (p. 138); and in Mohammedanbuildings wherever they are found.

For it was not only the architecture of Greece, Rome, and Christendomthat received its inspiration from Egypt, but that of Islâm also. Thesebuildings were not, like the religion itself, in the main Arabic inorigin. "Primitive Arabian art itself is quite negligible. When the newstrength of the followers of the Prophet was consoli[Pg 14]dated with greatrapidity into a rich and powerful empire, it took over the arts andartists of the conquered lands, extending from North Africa to Persia"(p. 158); and it is known how this influence spread as far west as Spainand as far east as Indonesia. "The Pharos at Alexandria, the greatlighthouse built about 280b.c., almost appears to have beenthe parent of all high and isolated towers.... Even on the coast ofBritain, at Dover, we had a Pharos which was in some degree an imitationof the Alexandrian one." The Pharos at Boulogne, the round towers ofRavenna, and the imitations of it elsewhere in Europe, even as far asIreland, are other examples of its influence. But in addition theAlexandrian Pharos had "as great an effect as the prototype of Easternminarets as it had for Western towers" (p. 115).

I have quoted so extensively from Professor Lethaby's brilliant littlebook to give this independent testimony of the vastness of the influenceexerted by Egypt during a span of nearly forty centuries in creating anddeveloping the "matrix of civilization". Most of this wider dispersalabroad was effected by alien peoples, who transformed their gifts fromEgypt before they handed on the composite product to some more distantpeoples. But the fact remains that the great centre of originalinspiration in architecture was Egypt.

The original incentive to the invention of this essentially Egyptian artwas the desire to protect and secure the welfare of the dead. Theimportance attached to this aim was intimately associated with thedevelopment of the practice of mummification.

With this tangible and persistent evidence of the general scheme ofspread of the arts of building I can now turn to the consideration ofsome of the other, more vital, manifestations of human thought andaspirations, which also, like the "matrix of civilization" itself, grewup in intimate association with the practice of embalming the dead.

I have already mentioned Professor Lethaby's reference to architectureand agriculture as the two arts that have changed the surface of theworld. It is interesting to note that the influence of these twoingredients of civilization was diffused abroad throughout the world inintimate association the one with the other. In most parts of the worldthe use of stone for building and Egyptian methods of architecture madetheir first appearance along with the peculiarly distinctive form[Pg 15] ofagriculture and irrigation so intimately associated with early Babyloniaand Egypt.[22]

But agriculture also exerted a most profound influence in shaping theearly Egyptian body of beliefs.

I shall now call attention to certain features of the earliest mummies,and then discuss how the ideas suggested by the practice of the art ofembalming the dead were affected by the early theories of agricultureand the mutual influence they exerted one upon the other.

The Origin of Embalming.

I have already explained[23] how the increased importance that came tobe attached to the corpse as the means of securing a continuance ofexistence led to the aggrandizement of the tomb. Special care was takento protect the dead and this led to the invention of coffins, and to themaking of a definite tomb, the size of which rapidly increased as moreand more ample supplies of food and other offerings were made. But thevery measures thus taken the more efficiently to protect and tend thedead defeated the primary object of all this care. For, when buried insuch an elaborate tomb, the body no longer became desiccated andpreserved by the forces of nature, as so often happened when it wasplaced in a simple grave directly in the hot dry sand.

It is of fundamental importance in the argument set forth here toremember that these factors came into operation before the time of theFirst Dynasty. They were responsible for impelling the Proto-Egyptiansnot only to invent the wooden coffin, the stone sarcophagus, therock-cut tomb, and to begin building in stone, but also to devisemeasures for the artificial preservation of the body.

But in addition to stimulating the development of the first realarchitecture and the art of mummification other equally far-reachingresults in the region of ideas and beliefs grew out of these practices.

From the outset the Egyptian embalmer was clearly inspired by twoideals: (a) to preserve the actual tissues of the body with a minimumdisturbance of its superficial appearance; and (b) to preserve alikeness of the deceased as he was in life. At first it[Pg 16] was naturallyattempted to make this simulacrum of the body itself if it werepossible, or alternatively, when this ideal was found to beunattainable, from its wrappings or by means of a portrait statue. Itwas soon recognized that it was beyond the powers of the early embalmerto succeed in mummifying the body itself so as to retain a recognizablelikeness to the man when alive: although from time to time such attemptswere repeatedly made,[24] until the period of the XXI Dynasty, when theoperator clearly was convinced that he had at last achieved what hispredecessors, for perhaps twenty-five centuries, had been trying in vainto do.

Early Mummies.

Fig. 2.—Water-colour sketch by Mrs. Cecil Firth,representing a restoration of the early mummy found at Medûm by Prof.Flinders Petrie, now in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons inLondon

In the earliest known (Second Dynasty) examples of Egyptian attempts atmummification[25] the corpse was swathed in a large series of bandages,which were moulded into shape to represent the form of the body. In alater (probably Fifth Dynasty) mummy, found in 1892 by ProfessorFlinders Petrie at Medûm, the superficial bandages had been impregnatedwith a resinous paste, which while still plastic was moulded into theform of the body, special care being bestowed upon the modelling of theface[26] and the organs of reproduction, so as to leave no room fordoubt as to the identity and the sex. Professor Junker has described[27]an interesting series of variations of these practices. In two gravesthe bodies were covered with a layer of stucco plaster. First the corpsewas covered with a fine linen cloth: then the plaster was put on, andmodelled into the form of the body (p. 252). But in two other cases itwas not the whole body that was[Pg 17] covered with this layer of stucco,but only the head. Professor Junker claims that this was done"apparently because the head was regarded as the most important part, asthe organs of taste, sight, smell, and hearing were contained in it".But surely there was the additional and more obtrusive reason that theface affords the means of identifying the individual! For this modellingof the features was intended primarily as a restoration of the form ofthe body which had been altered, if not actually destroyed. In othercases, where no attempt was made to restore the features in such durablematerials as resin or stucco, the linen-enveloped head was modelled, anda representation of the eyes painted upon it so as to enhance thelife-like appearance of the face.

These facts prove quite conclusively that the earliest attempts toreproduce the features of the deceased and so preserve his likeness,were made upon the wrapped mummy itself. Thus the mummy was intended tobe the portrait as well as the actual bodily remains of the dead. Inview of certain differences of opinion as to the original significanceof the funerary ritual, which I shall have occasion to discuss later on(see p. 20), it is important to keep these facts clearly in mind.

A discovery made by Mr. J. E. Quibell in the course of his excavationsat Sakkara[28] suggests that, as an outcome of these practices a newprocedure may have been devised in the Pyramid Age—the making of adeath-mask. For he discovered what may be the mask taken directly fromthe face of the Pharaoh Teta (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.—A mould taken from a life-mask found in thePyramid of Teta by Mr. Quibell

About this time also the practice originated of making a life-sizeportrait statue of the dead man's head and placing it along with theactual body in the burial chamber. These "reserve heads," as they havebeen called, were usually made of fine limestone, but Junker found onemade of Nile mud.[29]

Junker believes that there was an intimate relationship between theplaster-covered heads and the reserve-heads. They were both expressionsof the same idea, to preserve a simulacrum of the deceased when hisactual body had lost all recognizable likeness to him as he[Pg 18] was whenalive. The one method aimed at combining in the same object the actualbody and the likeness; the other at making a more life-like portraitapart from the corpse, which could take the place of the latter when itdecayed.

Junker states further that "it is no chance that the substitute-heads... entirely, or at any rate chiefly, are found in the tombs that haveno statue-chamber and probably possessed no statues. The statues [of thewhole body] certainly were made, at any rate partly, with the intentionthat they should take the place of the decaying body, although later theidea was modified. The placing of the substitute-head in [the burialchamber of] the mastaba therefore became unnecessary at the moment whenthe complete figure of the dead [placed in a special hidden chamber, nowcommonly called theserdab] was introduced." The ancient Egyptiansthemselves called theserdab thepr-twt or "statue-house," and thegroup of chambers, forming the tomb-chapel in the mastaba, was known tothem as the "ka-house".[30]

It is important to remember that, even when the custom of making astatue of the deceased became fully established, the original idea ofrestoring the form of the mummy itself or its wrappings was neverabandoned. The attempts made in the XVIII, and XXI and XXII Dynasties topack the body of the mummy itself and by artificial means give it alife-like appearance afford evidence of this. In the New Empire and inRoman times the wrapped mummy was sometimes modelled into the form of astatue. But throughout Egyptian history it was a not uncommon practiceto provide a painted mask for the wrapped mummy, or in early Christiantimes simply a portrait of the deceased.

With this custom there also persisted a remembrance of its originalsignificance. Professor Garstang records the fact that in the XIIDynasty,[31] when a painted mask was placed upon the wrapped mummy, nostatue or statuette was found in the tomb. The under[Pg 19]takers apparentlyrealized that the mummy[32] which was provided with a life-like mask wastherefore fulfilling the purposes for which statues were devised. Soalso in the New Empire the packing and modelling of the actual mummy soas to restore its life-like appearance were regarded as obviating theneed for a statue.

Fig. 4.—Portrait Statue of an Egyptian Lady of thePyramid Age

I must now return to the further consideration of the Old Kingdomstatues. All these varied experiments were inspired by the same desire,to preserve the likeness of the deceased. But when the sculptorsattained their object, and created those marvellous life-like portraits,which must ever remain marvels of technical skill and artistic feeling(Fig. 4), the old ideas that surged through the minds of the PredynasticEgyptians, as they contemplated the desiccated remains of the dead, werestrongly reinforced. The earlier people's thoughts were turned morespecifically than heretofore to the contemplation of the nature of lifeand death by seeing the bodies of their dead preserved whole andincorruptible; and, if their actions can be regarded as an expression oftheir ideas, they began to wonder what was lacking in these physicallycomplete bodies to prevent them from feeling and acting like livingbeings. Such must have been the results of their puzzled contemplationof the great problems of life and death. Otherwise the impulse to makemore certain the preservation of the body by the invention ofmummification and to retain a life-like representation of the deceasedby means of a sculptured statue remains inexplicable. But when thecorpse had been rendered incorruptible and the deceased's portrait hadbeen fashioned with realistic perfection the old ideas would recur withrenewed strength. The belief then took more definite shape that if themissing elements of vitality could be restored to the statue, it mightbecome animated and the dead man would live again in his vitalizedstatue. This prompted a more intense and searching investigation of theproblems concerning the nature of the elements of vitality of which thecorpse was deprived at the time of death. Out of these inquiries incourse of time a highly complex system of philosophy developed.[33][Pg 20]

But in the earlier times with which I am now concerned it foundpractical expression in certain ritual procedures, invented to convey tothe statue the breath of life, the vitalising fluids, and the odour andsweat of the living body. The seat of knowledge and of feeling wasbelieved to be retained in the body when the heart was leftin situ:so that the only thing needed to awaken consciousness, and make itpossible for the dead man to take heed of his friends and to actvoluntarily, was to present offerings of blood to stimulate thephysiological functions of the heart. But the element of vitality whichleft the body at death had to be restored to the statue, whichrepresented the deceased in theka-house.[34]

In my earlier attempts[35] to interpret these problems, I adopted theview that the making of portrait statues was the direct outcome of thepractice of mummification. But Dr. Alan Gardiner, whose intimateknowledge of the early literature enables him to look at such problemsfrom the Egyptian's own point of view, has suggested a modification ofthis interpretation. Instead of regarding the custom of making statuesas an outcome of the practice of mummification, he thinks that the twocustoms developed simultaneously, in response to the two-fold desire topreserve both the actual body and a representation of the features ofthe dead. But I think this suggestion does not give adequate recognitionto the fact that the earliest attempts at funerary portraiture were madeupon the wrappings of the actual mummies.[36] This fact and the evidencewhich I have already[Pg 21] quoted from Junker make it quite clear that fromthe beginning the embalmer's aim was to preserve the body and to convertthe mummy itself into a simulacrum of the deceased. When he realizedthat his technical skill was not adequate to enable him to accomplishthis double aim, he fell back upon the device of making a more perfectand realistic portrait statue apart from the mummy. But, as I havealready pointed out, he never completely renounced his ambition oftransforming the mummy itself; and in the time of the New Empire heactually attained the result which he had kept in view for nearly twentycenturies.

In these remarks I have been referring only to funerary portraitstatues. Centuries before the attempt was made to fashion them modellershad been making of clay and stone representations of cattle and humanbeings, which have been found not only in Predynastic graves in Egyptbut also in so-called "Upper Palæolithic" deposits in Europe.

But the fashioning of realistic and life-size human portrait-statues forfunerary purposes was a new art, which gradually developed in the way Ihave tried to depict. No doubt the modellers made use of the skill theyhad acquired in the practice of the older art of rough impressionism.

Once the statue was made a stone-house (theserdab) was provided forit above ground[37]. As the dolmen is a crude copy of theserdab[38]it can be claimed as one of the ultimate results of the practice[Pg 22] ofmummification. It is clear that the conception of the possibility of alife beyond the grave assumed a more concrete form when it was realizedthat the body itself could be rendered incorruptible and its distinctivetraits could be kept alive by means of a portrait statue. There arereasons for supposing that primitive man did not realize or contemplatethe possibility of his own existence coming to an end.[39] Even when hewitnessed the death of his fellows he does not appear to haveappreciated the fact that it was really the end of life and not merely akind of sleep from which the dead might awake. But if the corpse weredestroyed or underwent a process of natural disintegration the fact wasbrought home to him that death had occurred. If these considerations,which early Egyptian literature seems to suggest, be borne in mind, theview that the preservation of the body from corruption implied acontinuation of existence becomes intelligible. At first thesubterranean chambers in which the actual body was housed were developedinto a many-roomed house for the deceased, complete in every detail.[40]But when the statue took over the function of representing the deceased,a dwelling was provided for it above ground. This developed into thetemple where the relatives and friends of the dead came and made theofferings of food which were regarded as essential for the maintenanceof existence.

The evolution of the temple was thus the direct outcome of the ideasthat grew up in connexion with the preservation of the dead. For atfirst it was nothing more than the dwelling place of the reanimateddead. But when, for reasons which I shall explain later (see p. 30), thedead king became deified, his temple of offerings became the buildingwhere food and drink were presented to the god, not merely to maintainhis existence, but also to restore his consciousness, and so afford anopportunity for his successor, the actual king, to consult him andobtain his advice and help. The presentation of offerings and the ritualprocedures for animating and restoring consciousness to the dead kingwere at first directed solely to these ends. But in course of time, astheir original purpose became obscured, these services in the templealtered in character, and their meaning became[Pg 23] rationalized into actsof homage and worship, and of prayer and supplication, and in much latertimes, acquired an ethical and moral significance that was wholly absentfrom the original conception of the temple services. The earliest ideaof the temple as a place of offering has not been lost sight of. Even inour times the offertory still finds a place in temple services.

The Significance of Libations.

The central idea of this lecture was suggested by Mr. Aylward M.Blackman's important discovery of the actual meaning of incense andlibations to the Egyptians themselves.[41] The earliest body ofliterature preserved from any of the peoples of antiquity is comprisedin the texts inscribed in the subterranean chambers of the SakkaraPyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. These documents, writtenforty-five centuries ago, were first brought to light in modern times in1880-81; and since the late Sir Gaston Maspero published the firsttranslation of them, many scholars have helped in the task ofelucidating their meaning. But it remained for Blackman to discover theexplanation they give of the origin and significance of the act ofpouring out libations. "The general meaning of these passages is quiteclear. The corpse of the deceased is dry and shrivelled. To revivify itthe vital fluids that have exuded from it [in the process ofmummification] must be restored, for not till then will life return andthe heart beat again. This, so the texts show us, was believed to beaccomplished by offering libations to the accompaniment of incantations"(op. cit. p. 70).

In the first three passages quoted by Blackman from the Pyramid Texts"the libations are said to be the actual fluids that have issued fromthe corpse". In the next four quotations "a different notion isintroduced. It is not the deceased's own exudations that are to revivehis shrunken frame but those of a divine body, the [god's fluid][42]that[Pg 24] came from the corpse of Osiris himself, the juices that dissolvedfrom his decaying flesh, which are communicated to the deadsacrament-wise under the form of these libations."

This dragging-in of Osiris is especially significant. For the analogy ofthe life-giving power of water that is specially associated with Osirisplayed a dominant part in suggesting the ritual of libations. Just aswater, when applied to the apparently dead seed, makes it germinate andcome to life, so libations can reanimate the corpse. These generalbiological theories of the potency of water were current at the time,and, as I shall explain later (see p. 28), had possibly receivedspecific application to man long before the idea of libations developed.For, in the development of the cult of Osiris[43] the generalfertilizing power[Pg 25] of water when applied to the soil found specificexemplification in the potency of the seminal fluid to fertilize humanbeings. Malinowski has pointed out that certain Papuan people, who areignorant of the fact that women are fertilized by sexual connexion,believe that they can be rendered pregnant by rain falling upon them(op. cit. infra). The study of folk-lore and early beliefs makes itabundantly clear that in the distant past which I am now discussing noclear distinction was made between fertilization and vitalization,between bringing new life into being and reanimating the body which hadonce been alive. The process of fertilization of the female andanimating a corpse or a statue were regarded as belonging to the samecategory of biological processes. The sculptor who carved theportrait-statues for the Egyptian's tomb was calledsa'nkh, "he whocauses to live," and "the word 'to fashion' (ms) a statue is to allappearances identical withms, 'to give birth'".[44]

Thus the Egyptians themselves expressed in words the ideas which anindependent study of the ethnological evidence showed many other peoplesto entertain, both in ancient and modern times.[45]

The interpretation of ancient texts and the study of the beliefs of lesscultured modern peoples indicate that our expressions: "to give birth,""to give life," "to maintain life," "to ward off death," "to insure goodluck," "to prolong life," "to give life to the dead," "to animate acorpse or a representation of the dead," "to give fertility," "toimpregnate," "to create," represent a series of specializations ofmeaning which were not clearly differentiated the one from the other inearly times or among relatively primitive modern people.[Pg 26]

The evidence brought together in Jackson's work clearly suggests that ata very early period in human history, long before the ideas that foundexpression in the Osiris story had materialized, men entertained in allits literal crudity the belief that the external organ of reproductionfrom which the child emerged at birth was the actual creator of thechild, not merely the giver of birth but also the source of life.

The widespread tendency of the human mind to identify similar objectsand attribute to them the powers of the things they mimic led primitivemen to assign to the cowry-shell all these life-giving and birth-givingvirtues. It became an amulet to give fertility, to assist at birth, tomaintain life, to ward off danger, to ensure the life hereafter, tobring luck of any sort. Now, as the giver of birth, the cowry-shell alsocame to be identified with, or regarded as, the mother and creator ofthe human family; and in course of time, as this belief becamerationalized, the shell's maternity received visible expression and itbecame personified as an actual woman, the Great Mother, at first namelessand with ill-defined features. But at a later period, when the dead kingOsiris gradually acquired his attributes of divinity, and a god emergedwith the form of a man, the vagueness of the Great Mother who had beenmerely the personified cowry-shell soon disappeared and the amuletassumed, as Hathor, the form of a real woman, or, for reasons to beexplained later, a cow.

The influence of these developments reacted upon the nascent conceptionof the water-controlling god, Osiris; and his powers of fertility wereenlarged to include many of the life-giving attributes of Hathor.

Early Biological Theories.

Before the full significance of these procedures can be appreciated itis essential to try to get at the back of the Proto-Egyptian's mind andto understand his general trend of thought. I specially want to make itclear that the ritual use of water for animating the corpse or thestatue was merely a specific application of the general principles ofbiology which were then current. It was no mere childish make-believe orpriestly subterfuge to regard the pouring out of water as a means ofanimating a block of stone. It was a conviction for which theProto-Egyptians considered there was a substantial scientific basis; andtheir faith in the efficacy of water to animate the dead is to be[Pg 27]regarded in the same light as any scientific inference which is made atthe present time to give a specific application of some general theoryconsidered to be well founded. The Proto-Egyptians clearly believed inthe validity of the general biological theory of the life-givingproperties of water. Many facts, no doubt quite convincing to them,testified to the soundness of their theory. They accepted the principlewith the same confidence that modern people have adopted Newton's Law ofGravitation, and Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species, and appliedit to explain many phenomena or to justify certain procedures, which inthe light of fuller knowledge seem to modern people puerile andludicrous. But the early people obviously took these proceduresseriously and regarded their actions as rational. The fact that theirearly biological theory was inadequate ought not to mislead modernscholars and encourage them to fall into the error of supposing that theritual of libations was not based upon a serious inference. Modernscientists do not accept the whole of Darwin's teaching, or possiblyeven Newton's "Law," but this does not mean that in the past innumerableinferences have been honestly and confidently made in specificapplication of these general principles.

It is important, then, that I should examine more closely theProto-Egyptian body of doctrine to elucidate the mutual influence of itand the ideas suggested by the practice of mummification. It is notknown where agriculture was first practised or the circumstances whichled men to appreciate the fact that plants could be cultivated. In manyparts of the world agriculture can be carried on without artificialirrigation, and even without any adequate appreciation on the part ofthe farmer of the importance of water. But when it came to be practisedunder such conditions as prevail in Egypt and Mesopotamia, thecultivator would soon be forced to realize that water was essential forthe growth of plants, and that it was imperative to devise artificialmeans by which the soil might be irrigated. It is not known where or bywhom this cardinal fact first came to be appreciated, whether by theSumerians or the Egyptians or by some other people. But it is known thatin the earliest records both of Egypt and Sumer the most significantmanifestations of a ruler's wisdom were the making of irrigation canalsand the controlling of water. Important as these facts are from theirbearing upon the material prospects of the people, they had aninfinitely more profound and far-reaching effect upon the[Pg 28] beliefs ofmankind. Groping after some explanation of the natural phenomenon thatthe earth became fertile when water was applied to it, and that seedburst into life under the same influence, the early biologist formulatedthe natural and not wholly illogical idea that water was the repositoryof life-giving powers. Water was equally necessary for the production oflife and for the maintenance of life.

At an early stage in the development of this biological theory man andother animals were brought within the scope of the generalization. Forthe drinking of water was a condition of existence in animals. The ideathat water played a part in reproduction was co-related with this fact.

Even at the present time many aboriginal peoples in Australia, NewGuinea, and elsewhere, are not aware of the fact that in the process ofanimal reproduction the male exercises the physiological rôle offertilization.[46]

There are widespread indications throughout the world that theappreciation of this elementary physiological knowledge was acquired ata relatively recent period in the history of mankind. It is difficult tobelieve that the fundamental facts of the physiology of fertilization inanimals could long have remained unknown when men became breeders ofcattle. The Egyptian hieroglyphs leave no doubt that the knowledge wasfully appreciated at the period when the earliest picture-symbols weredevised, for the verb "to beget" is represented by the male organs ofgeneration. But, as the domestication of animals may have been earlierthan the invention of agriculture, it is possible that the appreciationof the fertilizing powers of the male animal may have been definitelymore ancient than the earliest biological theory of the fertilizingpower of water.

I have discussed this question to suggest that the knowledge thatanimals could be fertilized by the seminal fluid was certainly broughtwithin the scope of the wider generalization that water itself wasendowed with fertilizing properties. Just as water fertilized the earth,so the semen fertilized the female. Water was[Pg 29] necessary for themaintenance of life in plants and was also essential in the form ofdrink for animals. As both the earth and women could be fertilized bywater they were homologized one with the other. The earth came to beregarded as a woman, the Great Mother.[47] When the fertilizing watercame to be personified in the person of Osiris his consort Isis wasidentified with the earth which was fertilized by water.[48]

One of the earliest pictures of an Egyptian king represents him usingthe hoe to inaugurate the making of an irrigation-canal.[49] This wasthe typical act of benevolence on the part of a wise ruler. It is notunlikely that the earliest organization of a community under a definiteleader may have been due to the need for some systematized control ofirrigation. In any case the earliest rulers of Egypt and Sumer wereessentially the controllers and regulators of the water supply and assuch the givers of fertility and prosperity.

Once men first consciously formulated the belief that death was not theend of all things,[50] that the body could be re-animated and[Pg 30]consciousness and the will restored, it was natural that a wise rulerwho, when alive, had rendered conspicuous services should after deathcontinue to be consulted. The fame of such a man would grow with age;his good deeds and his powers would become apotheosized; he would becomean oracle whose advice might be sought and whose help be obtained ingrave crises. In other words the dead king would be "deified," or at anyrate credited with the ability to confer even greater boons than he wasable to do when alive.

It is no mere coincidence that the first "god" should have been a deadking, Osiris, nor that he controlled the waters of irrigation and wasspecially interested in agriculture. Nor, for the reasons that I havealready suggested, is it surprising that he should have had phallicattributes, and in himself have personified the virile powers offertilization.[51]

In attempting to explain the origin of the ritual procedures of burningincense and offering libations it is essential to realize that thecreation of the first deities was not primarily an expression ofreligious belief, but rather an application of science to nationalaffairs. It was the logical interpretation of the dominant scientifictheory of the time for the practical benefit of the living; or in otherwords, the means devised for securing the advice and the active help ofwise rulers after their death. It was essentially a matter of practicalpolitics and applied science. It became "religion" only when theadvancement of knowledge superseded these primitive scientific theoriesand left them as soothing traditions for the thoughts and aspirations ofmankind to cherish. For by the time the adequacy of these theories ofknowledge began to be questioned they had made an insistent appeal, andhad come to be regarded as an essential prop to lend support to man'sconviction of the reality of a life beyond the grave. A web of moralprecept and the allurement of hope had been so woven around them that noforce was able to strip away this body of consolatory[Pg 31] beliefs; and theyhave persisted for all time, although the reasoning by which they wereoriginally built up has been demolished and forgotten several millenniaago.

It is not known where Osiris was born. In other countries there arehomologous deities, such as Ea, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis, which arecertainly manifestations of the same idea and sprung from the samesource. Certain recent writers assume that the germ of theOsiris-conception was introduced into Egypt from abroad. But if so,nothing is known for certain of its place of origin. In any case therecan be no doubt that the distinctive features of Osiris, his realpersonality and character, were developed in Egypt.

For reasons which I have suggested already it is probable that thesignificance of water in cultivation was not realized until cereals werecultivated in some such place as Babylonia or Egypt. But there are verydefinite legends of the Babylonian Ea coming from abroad by way of thePersian Gulf.[52] The early history of Tammuz is veiled in obscurity.

Somewhere in South Western Asia or North Eastern Africa, probably withina few years of the development of the art of agriculture, somescientific theorist, interpreting the body of empirical knowledgeacquired by cultivating cereals, propounded the view that water was thegreat life-giving element. This view eventually found expression in theOsiris-group of legends.

This theory found specific application in the invention of libations andincense. These practices in turn reacted upon the general body ofdoctrine and gave it a more sharply defined form. The dead king alsobecame more real when he was represented by an actual embalmed body anda life-like statue, sitting in state upon his throne and holding in hishands the emblems of his high office.

Thus while, in the present state of knowledge, it would be unjustifiableto claim that the Osiris-group of deities was invented in Egypt, andcertainly erroneous to attribute the general theory of the fertilizingproperties of water to the practice of embalming, it is true that thelatter was responsible for giving Osiris a much more concrete[Pg 32] andclearly-defined shape, of "making a god in the image of man", and forgiving to the water-theory a much richer and fuller significance than ithad before.

The symbolism so created has had a most profound influence upon thethoughts and aspirations of the human race. For Osiris was the prototypeof all the gods; his ritual was the basis of all religious ceremonial;his priests who conducted the animating ceremonies were the pioneers ofa long series of ministers who for more than fifty centuries, in spiteof the endless variety of details of their ritual and the character oftheir temples, have continued to perform ceremonies that have undergoneremarkably little essential change. Though the chief functions of thepriest as the animator of the god and the restorer of his consciousnesshave now fallen into the background in most religions, the ritual acts(the incense and libations, the offerings of food and blood and therest) still persist in many countries: the priest still appeals byprayer and supplication for those benefits, which the Proto-Egyptianaimed at securing when he created Osiris as a god to give advice andhelp. The prayer for rain is one of the earliest forms of religiousappeal, but the request for a plentiful inundation was earlier still.

I have already said that in using the terms "god" and "religion" withreference to the earliest form of Osiris and the beliefs that grew upwith reference to him a potent element of confusion is introduced.

During the last fifty centuries the meanings of those two words havebecome so complexly enriched with the glamour of a mystic symbolism thatthe Proto-Egyptian's conception of Osiris and the Osirian beliefs musthave been vastly different from those implied in the words "god" and"religion" at the present time. Osiris was regarded as an actual kingwho had died and been reanimated. In other words he was aman whocould bestow upon his former subjects the benefits of his advice andhelp, but could also display such human weaknesses as malice, envy, andall uncharitableness. Much modern discussion completely misses the markby the failure to recognize that these so-called "gods" were really men,equally capable of acts of beneficence and of outbursts of hatred, andas one or the other aspect became accentuated the same deity couldbecome a Vedicdeva or an Avestandæva, adeus or a devil, a godof kindness or a demon of wickedness.

The acts which the earliest "gods" were supposed to perform[Pg 33] were not atfirst regarded as supernatural. They were merely the boons which themortal ruler was supposed to be able to confer, by controlling thewaters of irrigation and rendering the land fertile. It was only whenhis powers became apotheosized with a halo of accumulated glory (and thegrowth of knowledge revealed the insecurity of the scientific basis uponwhich his fame was built up) that a priesthood reluctant to abandon anyof the attributes which had captured the popular imagination, made it anobligation of belief to accept these supernatural powers of the gods forwhich the student of natural phenomena refused any longer to be asponsor. This was the parting of the ways between science and religion;and thenceforth the attributes of the "gods" became definitely andadmittedly superhuman.

As I have already stated (p. 23) the original object of the offering oflibations was thus clearly for the purpose of animating the statue ofthe deceased and so enabling him to continue the existence which hadmerely been interrupted by the incident of death. In course of time,however, as definite gods gradually materialized and came to berepresented by statues, they also had to be vitalized by offerings ofwater from time to time. Thus the pouring out of libations came to be anact of worship of the deity; and in this form it has persisted until ourown times in many civilized countries.

But not only was water regarded as a means of animating the dead, orstatues representing the dead, and an appropriate act of worship, inthat it vitalized an idol and the god dwelling in it was thus able tohear and answer supplications. Water also became an essential part ofany act of ritual rebirth.[53] As a baptism it also symbolized thegiving of life. The initiate was re-born into a new communion of faith.In scores of other ways the same conception of the life-givingproperties of water was responsible for as many applications of the useof libations in inaugurating new enterprises, such as "baptising" shipsand blessing buildings. It is important to remember that, according toearly Egyptian beliefs, the continued existence of the dead was whollydependent upon the attentions of the living. Unless this animatingceremony was performed not merely at the time of the funeral, but alsoat stated periods afterwards, and unless the friends of the deceased[Pg 34]periodically supplied food and drink, such a continuation of existencewas impossible.

The development of these beliefs had far-reaching effects in otherdirections. The idea that a stone statue could be animated ultimatelybecame extended to mean that the dead man could enter into and dwell ina block of stone, which he could leave or return to at will. From thisarose the beliefs, which spread far and wide, that the dead ancestors,kings, or deified kings, dwelt in stones; and that they could beconsulted as oracles, who gave advice and counsel. The acceptance ofthis idea that the dead could be reanimated in a stone statue no doubtprepared the minds of the people to credit the further belief, whichother circumstances were responsible for creating, that men could beturned into stone. In the next chapter I shall explain how thesepetrifaction stories developed.[54]

All the rich crop of myths concerning men and animals dwelling in stoneswhich are to be found encircling the globe from Ireland to America, canbe referred back to these early Egyptian attempts to solve the mysteriesof death, and to acquire the means of circumventing fate.[55]

These beliefs at first may have concerned human beings only. But incourse of time, as the duty of revictualling an increasingly largenumber of tombs and temples tended to tax the resources of the people,the practice developed of substituting for the real things models, oreven pictures, of food-animals, vegetables, and other requisites of thedead. And these objects and pictures were restored to life or reality bymeans of a ritual which was essentially identical with that used foranimating the statue or the mummy of the deceased himself.

It is well worth considering whether this may not be one of the basalfactors in explanation of the phenomena which the late Sir Edward Tylorlabelled "animism".

So far from being a phase of culture through which many, if not all,peoples have passed in the course of their evolution, may it not havebeen merely an artificial conception of certain things, which was[Pg 35] givenso definite a form in Egypt, for the specific reasons at which I havejust hinted, and from there spread far and wide?

Against this view may be urged the fact that our own children talk in ananimistic fashion. But is not this due in some measure to theunconscious influence of their elders? Or at most is it not a vague andill-defined attitude of anthropomorphism necessarily involved in allspoken languages, which is vastly different from what the ethnologistunderstands by "animism"[56]?

But whether this be so or not, there can be no doubt that the "animism"of the early Egyptians assumed its precise and clear-cut distinctivefeatures as the result of the growth of ideas suggested by the attemptsto make mummies and statues of the dead and symbolic offerings of foodand other funerary requisites.

Thus incidentally there grew up the belief in a power of magic by meansof which these make-believe offerings could be transformed intorealities. But it is important to emphasize the fact that originally theconviction of the genuineness of this transubstantiation was a logicaland not unnatural inference based upon the attempt to interpret naturalphenomena, and then to influence them by imitating what were regarded asthe determining factors.[57]

In China these ideas still retain much of their primitive influence anddirectness of expression. Referring to the Chinese "belief in theidentity of pictures or images with the beings they represent" de Grootstates that thekwan shuh or "magic art" is a "main branch of Chinesewitchcraft". It consists essentially of "the infusion of a soul, life,and activity into likenesses of beings, to thus render them fit to workin some direction desired ... this infusion is effected by blowing orbreathing, or spurting water over the likeness: indeed breath orkhi,or water from the mouth imbued with breath, is identical withyangsubstance or life."[58]

[Pg 36]

Incense.

So far I have referred in detail only to the offering of libations. Butthis was only one of several procedures for animating statues, mummies,and food-offerings. I have still to consider the ritual procedures ofincense-burning and "opening the mouth".

From Mr. Blackman's translations of the Egyptian texts it is clear thatthe burning of incense was intended to restore to the statue (or themummy) the odour of the living body, and that this was part of theprocedure considered necessary to animate the statue. He says "thebelief about incense [which is explained by a later document, theRitual of Amon] apparently does not occur in the Old Kingdom religioustexts that are preserved to us, yet it may quite well be as ancient asthat period. That is certainly Erman's view" (op. cit. p. 75).

He gives the following translation of the relevant passage in theRitual of Amon (XII, 11): "The god comes with body adorned which hehas fumigated with the eye of his body, the incense of the god which hasissued from his flesh, the sweat of the god which has fallen to theground, which he has given to all the gods.... It is the Horus eye. Ifit lives, the people live, thy flesh lives, thy members are vigorous"(op. cit. p. 72). In his comments upon this passage Mr. Blackmanstates: "In the light of the Pyramid libation-formulæ the expressions inthis text are quite comprehensible. Like the libations the grains ofincense are the exudations of a divinity,[59] the fluid which issuedfrom his flesh, the god's sweat descending to the ground.... Hereincense is not merely the 'odour of the god,' but the grains of resinare said to be the god's sweat" (op. cit. p. 72). "Both rites, thepouring of libations and the burning of incense, are performed for thesame purpose—to revivify the body [or the statue] of god and man byrestoring to it its lost moisture" (p. 75).

In attempting to reconstitute the circumstances which led to the[Pg 37]invention of incense-burning as a ritual act, the nature of the problemto be solved must be recalled. Among the most obtrusive evidences ofdeath were the coldness of the skin, the lack of perspiration and of theodour of the living. It is important to realize what the phrase "odourof the living" would convey to the Proto-Egyptian. From the earliestPredynastic times in Egypt it had been the custom to make extensive useof resinous material as an essential ingredient (what a pharmacist wouldcall the adhesive "vehicle") of cosmetics. One of the results of thispractice in a hot climate must have been the association of a strongaroma of resin or balsam with a living person.[60] Whether or not it wasthe practice to burn incense to give pleasure to the living is notknown. The fact that such a procedure was customary among theirsuccessors may mean that it was really archaic; or on the other hand thepossibility must not be overlooked that it may be merely the latervulgarization of a practice which originally was devised for purelyritual purposes. The burning of incense before a corpse or statue wasintended to convey to it the warmth, the sweat, and the odour of life.

When the belief became well established that the burning of incense waspotent as an animating force, and especially a giver of life to thedead, it naturally came to be regarded as a divine substance in thesense that it had the power of resurrection. As the grains of incenseconsisted of the exudation of trees, or, as the ancient texts expressit, "their sweat," the divine power of animation in course of timebecame transferred to the trees. They were no longer merely the sourceof the life-giving incense, but were themselves animated by the deitywhose drops of sweat were the means of conveying life to the mummy.

The reason why the deity which dwelt in these trees was usuallyidentified with the Mother-Goddess will become clear in the course ofthe subsequent discussion (p. 38). It is probable that this was duemainly to the geographical circumstance that the chief source of incensewas Southern Arabia, which was also the home of the primitive goddessesof fertility. For they were originally nothing more thanpersonifications of the life-giving cowry amulets from the Red Sea.

Thus Robertson Smith's statement that "the value of the gum of theacacia as an amulet is connected with the idea that it is a clot of[Pg 38]menstruous blood, i.e., that the tree is a woman"[61] is probably aninversion of cause and effect. It was the value attached to the gum thatconferred animation upon the tree. The rest of the legend is merely arationalization based upon the idea that the tree was identified withthe mother-goddess. The same criticism applies to his further contention(p. 427) with reference to "the religious value of incense" which heclaims to be due to the fact that "like the gum of thesamora (acacia)tree, ... it was an animate or divine plant".

Many factors played a part in the development of tree-worship but it isprobable the origin of the sacredness of trees must be assigned to thefact that it was acquired from the incense and the aromatic woods whichwere credited with the power of animating the dead. But at a very earlyepoch many other considerations helped to confirm and extend theconception of deification. When Osiris was buried, a sacred sycamoregrew up as "the visible symbol of the imperishable life of Osiris".[62]But the sap of trees was brought into relationship with life-givingwater and thus constituted another link with Osiris. The sap was alsoregarded as the blood of trees and the incense that exuded as the sweat.Just as the water of libation was regarded as the fluid of the body ofOsiris, so also, by this process of rationalization, the incense came topossess a similar significance.

For reasons precisely analogous to those already explained in the caseof libations, the custom of burning incense, from being originally aritual act for animating the funerary statue, ultimately developed intoan act of homage to the deity.

But it also acquired a special significance when the cult of sky-godsdeveloped,[63] for the smoke of the burning incense then came to beregarded as the vehicle which wafted the deceased's soul to the sky orconveyed there the requests of the dwellers upon earth.[64]

"The soul of a human being is generally conceived [by the[Pg 39] Chinese] aspossessing the shape and characteristics of a human being, andoccasionally those of an animal; ... the spirit of an animal is the shapeof this animal or of some being with human attributes and speech. Butplant spirits are never conceived as plant-shaped, nor to haveplant-characters ... whenever forms are given them, they are mostlyrepresented as a man, a woman, or a child, and often also as an animal,dwelling in or near the plant, and emerging from it at times to do harm,or to dispense blessings.... Whether conceptions on the animation ofplants have never developed in Chinese thought and worship before ideasabout human ghosts ... had become predominant in mind and custom, wecannot say: but the matter seems probable" (De Groot,op. cit. pp.272, 273). Tales of trees that shed blood and that cry out when hurt arecommon in Chinese literature (p. 274) [as also in Southern Arabia]; alsoof trees that lodge or can change into maidens of transcendent beauty(p. 276).

It is further significant that amongst the stories of souls of mentaking up their residence in and animating trees and plants, the humanbeing is usually a woman, accompanied by "a fox, a dog, an old raven orthe like" (p. 276).

Thus in China are found all the elements out of which Dr. Rendel Harrisbelieves the Aphrodite cult was compounded in Cyprus,[65] the animationof the anthropoid plant, its human cry, its association with a beautifulmaiden and a dog.[66]

The immemorial custom of planting trees on graves in China is supposedby De Groot (p. 277) to be due to "the desire to strengthen the soul ofthe buried person, thus to save his body from corruption, for whichreason trees such as pines and cypresses, deemed to be bearers of greatvitality for being possessed of moreshen than other trees, were usedpreferably for such purposes". But may not such beliefs also be anexpression of the idea that a tree growing upon a grave is developedfrom and becomes the personification of the deceased? The significanceof the selection of pines and cypresses may be compared to thatassociated with the so-called "cedars" in Babylonia, Egypt, andPhœnicia, and the myrrh- and frankincense-producing trees in Arabiaand East Africa. They have come to be[Pg 40] accredited with "soul-substance,"since their use in mummification and as incense and for making coffins,has made them the means for attaining a future existence. Hence incourse of time they came to be regarded as charged with the spirit ofvitality, theshen or "soul-substance".

In China also it was because the woods of the pine or fir and the cypruswere used for making coffins and grave-vaults and that pine-resin wasregarded as a means of attaining immortality (De Groot,op. cit. pp.296 and 297) that such veneration was bestowed upon these trees. "At anearly date, Taoist seekers after immortality transplanted that animation[of the hardy long-lived fir and cypress[67]] into themselves byconsuming the resin of those trees, which, apparently, they looked uponas coagulated soul-substance, the counterpart of the blood in men andanimals" (p. 296).

In India theamrita, the god's food of immortality, was sometimesregarded as the sap exuded from the sacred trees of paradise.

Elsewhere in these pages it is explained how the vaguely defined Mother"Goddess" and the more distinctly anthropoid Water "God," whichoriginally developed quite independently the one of the other,ultimately came to exert a profound and mutual influence, so that manyof the attributes which originally belonged to one of them came to beshared with the other. Many factors played a part in this process ofblending and confusion of sex. As I shall explain later, when the mooncame to be regarded as the dwelling or the impersonation of Hathor, thesupposed influence of the moon over water led to a further assimilationof her attributes with those of Osiris as the controller of water, whichreceived definite expression in a lunar form of Osiris.

But the link that is most intimately related to the subject of thisaddress is provided by the personification of the Mother-Goddess inincense-trees. For incense thus became the sweat or the tears of theGreat Mother just as the water of libation was regarded as the fluid ofOsiris.

[Pg 41]

The Breath of Life.

Although the pouring of libations and the burning of incense played soprominent a part in the ritual of animating the statue or the mummy, themost important incident in the ceremony was the "opening of the mouth,"which was regarded as giving it the breath of life.

Elsewhere[68] I have suggested that the conception of the heart andblood as the vehicles of life, feeling, volition, and knowledge may havebeen extremely ancient. It is not known when or under what circumstancesthe idea of the breath being the "life" was first entertained. The factthat in certain primitive systems of philosophy the breath was supposedto have something to do with the heart suggests that these beliefs maybe a constituent element of the ancient heart-theory. In some of therock-pictures in America, Australia, and elsewhere the air-passages arerepresented leading to the heart. But there can be little doubt that thepractice of mummification gave greater definiteness to the ideasregarding the "heart" and "breath," which eventually led to adifferentiation between their supposed functions.[69] As the heart andthe blood were obviously present in the dead body they could no longerbe regarded as the "life". The breath was clearly the "element" the lackof which rendered the body inanimate. It was therefore regarded asnecessary to set the heart working. The heart then came to be lookedupon as the seat of knowledge, the organ that feels and wills duringwaking life. All the pulsating motions of the body seem to have beenregarded, like the act of respiration, as expressions of the vitalprinciple or "life," which Dutch ethnological writers refer to as "soulsubstance". The neighbourhood of certain joints where the pulse can befelt most readily, and the top of the head, where pulsation can be feltin the infant's fontanelle, were therefore regarded by some Asiaticpeoples as the places where the substance of life could leave or enterthe body.

It is possible that in ancient times this belief was more widespread[Pg 42]than it is now. It affords an explanation of the motive for trephiningthe skull among ancient peoples, to afford a more ready passage for the"vital essence" to and from the skull.

In his lecture on "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul,"[70] ProfessorJohn Burnet has expounded the meaning of early Greek conceptions of thesoul with rare insight and lucidity. Originally, the word ψυχήmeant "breath," but, by historical times, it had already beenspecialized in two distinct ways. It had come to meancourage in thefirst place, and secondly thebreath of life, the presence or absenceof which is the most obvious distinction between the animate and theinanimate, the "ghost" which a man "gives up" at death. But it may alsoquit the body temporarily, which explains the phenomenon of swooning(λιποψυχία). It seemed natural to suppose it was also thething that can roam at large when the body is asleep, and even appear toanother sleeping person in his dream. Moreover, since we can dream ofthe dead, what then appears to us must be just what leaves the body atthe moment of death. These considerations explain the world-wide beliefin the "soul" as a sort of double of the real bodily man, the Egyptianka,[71] the Italiangenius, and the Greek ψυχή.

Now this double is not identical with whatever it is in us that feelsand wills during our waking life. That is generally supposed to be bloodand not breath.

What we feel and perceive have their seat in the heart: they belong tothe body and perish with it.

It is only when the shades have been allowed to drink blood thatconsciousness returns to them for a while.

At one time the ψυχή was supposed to dwell with the body inthe grave, where it had to be supported by the offerings of thesurvivors, especially by libations (χοαί).

An Egyptian psychologist has carried the story back long before thetimes of which Professor Burnet writes. He has explained "his conceptionof the functions of the 'heart (mind) and tongue'. 'When[Pg 43] the eyes see,the ears hear, and the nose breathes, they transmit to the heart. It ishe (the heart) who brings forth every issue and it is the tongue whichrepeats the thought of the heart.'"[72]

"There came the saying that Atum, who created the gods, statedconcerning Ptah-Tatenen: 'He is the fashioner of the gods.... He madelikenesses of their bodies to the satisfaction of their hearts. Then thegods entered into their bodies of every wood and every stone and everymetal.'"[73]

That these ideas are really ancient is shown by the fact that in thePyramid Texts Isis is represented conveying the breath of life to Osirisby "causing a wind with her wings".[74] The ceremony of "opening themouth" which aimed at achieving this restoration of the breath of lifewas the principal part of the ritual procedure before the statue ormummy. As I have already mentioned (p. 25), the sculptor who modelledthe portrait statue was called "he who causes to live," and the word "tofashion" a statue is identical with that which means "to give birth".The god Ptah created man by modelling his form in clay. Similarly thelife-giving sculptor made the portrait which was to be the means ofsecuring a perpetuation of existence, when it was animated by the"opening of the mouth," by libations and incense.

As the outcome of this process of rationalization in Egypt a vast cropof creation-legends came into existence, which have persisted withremarkable completeness until the present day in India, Indonesia,China, America, and elsewhere. A statue of stone, wood, or clay isfashioned, and the ceremony of animation is performed to convey to itthe breath of life, which in many places is supposed to be brought downfrom the sky.[75]

In the Egyptian beliefs, as well as in most of the world-wide legendsthat were derived from them, the idea assumed a definite form that thevital principle (often referred to as the "soul," "soul-substance," or"double") could exist apart from the body. Whatever[Pg 44] the explanation, itis clear that the possibility of the existence of the vital principleapart from the body was entertained. It was supposed that it couldreturn to the body and temporarily reanimate it. It could enter into anddwell within the stone representation of the deceased. Sometimes thisso-called "soul" was identified[76] with the breath of life, which couldenter into the statue as the result of the ceremony of "opening themouth".

It has been commonly assumed by Sir Edward Tyler and those who accepthis theory of animism that the idea of the "soul" was based upon theattempts to interpret the phenomena of dreams and shadows, to whichBurnet has referred in the passage quoted above. The fact that when aperson is sleeping he may dream of seeing absent people and of having avariety of adventures is explained by many peoples by the hypothesisthat these are real experiences which befell the "soul" when it wanderedabroad during its owner's sleep. A man's shadow or his reflection inwater or a mirror has been interpreted as his double. But what thesespeculations leave out of account is the fact that these dream- andshadow-phenomena were probably merely the predisposing circumstanceswhich helped in the development of (or the corroborative details whichwere added to and, by rationalization, incorporated in) the"soul-theory," which other circumstances were responsible forcreating.[77]

I have already called attention (p. 5) to the fact that in many of thepsychological speculations in ethnology too little account is taken ofthe enormous complexity of the factors which determine even the simplestand apparently most obvious and rational actions of men. I must againremind the reader that a vast multitude of influences, many of them of asubconscious and emotional nature, affect men's decisions and opinions.But once some definite state of feeling inclines a man to a certainconclusion, he will call up a host of other circumstances to buttresshis decision, and weave them into a complex net of rationalization. Somesuch process undoubtedly took place in the development of "animism"; andthough it is not possible yet to[Pg 45] reconstruct the whole history of thegrowth of the idea, there can be no question that these early strivingsafter an understanding of the nature of life and death, and the attemptsto put the theories into practice to reanimate the dead, provided thefoundations upon which has been built up during the last fifty centuriesa vast and complex theory of the soul. In the creation of this edificethe thoughts and the aspirations of countless millions of peoples haveplayed a part: but the foundation was laid down when the Egyptian kingor priest claimed that he could restore to the dead the "breath of life"and, by means of the wand which he called "the great magician,"[78]could enable the dead to be born again. The wand is supposed by somescholars[79] to be a conventionalized representation of the uterus, sothat its power of giving birth is expressed with literal directness.Such beliefs and stories of the "magic wand" are found to-day inscattered localities from the Scottish Highlands to Indonesia andAmerica.

In this sketch I have referred merely to one or two aspects of aconception of vast complexity. But it must be remembered that, once themind of man began to play with the idea of a vital essence capable ofexisting apart from the body and to identify it with the breath of life,an illimitable field was opened up for speculation. The vital principlecould manifest itself in all the varied expressions of humanpersonality, as well as in all the physiological indications of life.Experience of dreams led men to believe that the "soul" could also leavethe body temporarily and enjoy varied experiences. But theconcrete-minded Egyptian demanded some physical evidence to buttressthese intangible ideas of the wandering abroad of his vital essence. Hemade a statue for it to dwell in after his death, because he was notable to make an adequately life-like reproduction of the dead man'sfeatures upon the mummy itself or its wrappings. Then he graduallypersuaded himself that the life-substance could exist apart from thebody as a "double" or "twin" which animated the statue.

Searching for material evidence to support his faith primitive man notunnaturally turned to the contemplation of the circumstances of hisbirth. All his beliefs concerning the nature of life can ultimately bereferred back to the story of his own origin, his birth or creation.

When an infant is born it is accompanied by the after-birth or[Pg 46] placentato which it is linked by the umbilical cord. The full comprehension ofthe significance of these structures is an achievement of modernscience. To primitive man they were an incomprehensible marvel. But oncehe began to play with the idea that he had a double, a vital essence inhis own shape which could leave the sleeping body and lead a separateexistence, the placenta obviously provided tangible evidence of itsreality. The considerations set forth by Blackman,[80] supplementingthose of Moret, Murray and Seligman and others, have been claimed aslinking the placenta with theka.

Much controversy has waged around the interpretation of the Egyptianwordka, especially during recent years. An excellent summary of thearguments brought forward by the various disputants up to 1912 will befound in Morel's "Mystères Égyptiens". Since then more or lesscontradictory views have been put forward by Alan Gardiner, Breasted,and Blackman. It is not my intention to intervene in a dispute as to themeaning of certain phrases in ancient literature; but there are certainaspects of the problems at issue which are so intimately related to mymain theme as to make some reference to them unavoidable.

The development of the custom of making statues of the dead necessarilyraised for solution the problem of explaining the deceased's two bodies,his actual mummy and his portrait statue. During life on earth his vitalprinciple dwelt in the former, except on those occasions when the manwas asleep. His actual body also gave expression to all the variedattributes of his personality. But after death the statue became thedwelling place of these manifestations of the spirit of vitality.

Whether or not the conception arose out of the necessities unavoidablycreated by the making of statues, it seems clear that this custom musthave given more concrete shape to the belief that all of those elementsof the dead man's individuality which left his body at the time of deathcould shift as a shadowy double into his statue.

At the birth of a king he is accompanied by a comrade or twin exactlyreproducing all his features. This double orka is intimatelyassociated throughout life and in the life to come with the king'swel[Pg 47]fare. In fact Breasted claims that theka "was a kind of superiorgenius intended to guide the fortunes of the individualin thehereafter" ... there "he had his abode and awaited the coming of hisearthly companion".[81] At death the deceased "goes to hiska, to thesky". Theka controls and protects the deceased: he brings him foodwhich they eat together.

It is important clearly to keep in mind the different factors involvedin the conception of theka:—

(a) The statue of the deceased is animated by restoring to it thebreath of life and all the other vital attributes of which the earlyEgyptian physiologist took cognisance.

(b) At the time of birth there came into being along with the child a"twin" whose destinies were closely linked with the child's.

(c) As the result of animating the statue the deceased also hasrestored to him his character, "the sum of his attributes," hisindividuality, later raised to the position of a protecting genius orgod, a Providence who watches over his well-being.[82]

Theka is not simply identical with the breath of life oranimus, asBurnet supposes (op. cit. supra), but has a wider significance. Theadoption of the conception of theka as a sort of guardian angel whichfinds its appropriate habitation in a statue that has been animated doesnot necessarily conflict with the view so concretely and unmistakablyrepresented in the tomb-pictures that theka is also a double who isborn along with the individual.

This material conception of theka as a double who is born with andclosely linked to the individual is, as Blackman has emphasized,[83]very suggestive of Baganda beliefs and rites connected with theplacenta. At death the circumstances of the act of birth arereconstituted, and for this rebirth the placenta which played anessential part in the original process is restored to the deceased. Maynot the original meaning of the expression "he goes to hiska" be aliteral description of this reunion with his placenta? Theidentification of theka with the moon, the guardian of the dead man'swelfare, may have enriched the symbolism.[Pg 48]

Blackman makes the suggestion that "on the analogy of the beliefsentertained by the Hamitic ruling caste in Uganda," according to Roscoe,"the placenta,[84] or rather its ghost, would have been supposed by theAncient Egyptians to be closely connected with the individual'spersonality, as" he maintains was also the case with the god orprotecting genius of the Babylonians.[85] "Unless united with his twin's[i.e. his placenta's] ghost the dead king was an imperfect deity, i.e.his directing intelligence was impaired or lacking," presumably becausethe placenta was composed of blood, which was regarded as the materialof consciousness and intelligence.

In China, as the quotations from de Groot (see footnote) show, theplacenta when placed under felicitous circumstances is able to ensurethe child a long life and to control his mental and physical welfare.

In view of the claims put forward by Blackman to associate the placentawith theka, it is of interest to note Moret's suggestion concerningthe fourteen forms of theka, to which von Bissing assigns[Pg 49] thegeneral significance "nourishment or offerings". He puts the questionwhether they do not "personify the elements of material and intellectualprosperity, all that is necessary for the health of body and spirit"(op. cit., p. 209).

The placenta is credited with all the varieties of life-giving potencythat are attributed to the Mother-Goddess. It therefore controls thewelfare of the individual and, like all maternal amulets (vide supra),ensures his good fortune. But, probably by virtue of its supposedderivation from and intimate association with blood, it also ministeredto his mental welfare.

In my last Rylands Lecture I referred to the probability that theessential elements of Chinese civilization were derived from the West. Ihad hoped that, before the present statement went to the printer, Iwould have found time to set forth in detail the evidence insubstantiation of the reality of that diffusion of culture.

Briefly the chain of proof is composed of the following links: (a) theintimate cultural contact between Egypt, Southern Arabia, Sumer, andElam from a period at least as early as the First Egyptian Dynasty;(b) the diffusion of Sumerian and Elamite culture in very early timesat least as far north as Russian Turkestan and as far east asBaluchistan; (c) at some later period the quest of gold, copper,turquoise, and jade led the Babylonians (and their neighbours) as farnorth as the Altai and as far east as Khotan and the Tarim Valley, wheretheir pathways were blazed with the distinctive methods of cultivationand irrigation; (d) at some subsequent period there was an easterlydiffusion of culture from Turkestan into the Shensi Province of Chinaproper; and (e) at least as early as the seventh centuryb.c.there was also a spread of Western culture to China by sea.[86]

I have already referred to some of the distinctively Egyptian traits inChinese beliefs concerning the dead. Mingled with them are other equallydefinitely Babylonian ideas concerning the liver.

It must be apparent that in the course of the spread of a complex systemof religious beliefs to so great a distance, only certain of theirfeatures would survive the journey. Handed on from people to people,each of whom would unavoidably transform them to some[Pg 50] extent, thetenets of the Western beliefs would become shorn of many of theirdetails and have many excrescences added to them before the Chinesereceived them. In the crucible of the local philosophy they would beassimilated with Chinese ideas until the resulting compound assumed aChinese appearance. When these inevitable circumstances are recalled thevalue of any positive evidence of Western influence is of specialsignificance.

According to the ancient Chinese, man has two souls, thekwei and theshen. The former, which according to de Groot is definitely the moreancient of the two (p. 8), is the material, substantial soul, whichemanates from the terrestrial part of the universe, and is formed ofyin substance. In living man it operates under the name ofp'oh, andon his death it returns to the earth and abides with the deceased in hisgrave.

Theshen or immaterial soul emanates from the ethereal celestial partof the cosmos and consists ofyang substance. When operating activelyin the living human body, it is calledkhi or "breath," andhwun;when separated from it after death it lives forth as a refulgent spirit,styledming.[87]

But theshen also, in spite of its sky-affinities, hovers about thegrave and may dwell in the inscribed grave-stone (p. 6). There may be amultitude ofshen in one body and many "soul-tablets" may be providedfor them (p. 74).

Just as in Egypt theka is said to "symbolize the force of life whichresides in nourishment" (Moret, p. 212), so the Chinese refer to theethereal part of the food as itskhi, i.e. the "breath" of itsshen.

The careful study of the mass of detailed evidence so lucidly set forthby de Groot in his great monograph reveals the fact that, in spite ofmany superficial differences and apparent contradictions, the earlyChinese conceptions of the soul and its functions are essentiallyidentical with the Egyptian, and must have been derived from the samesource.

From the quotations which I have already given in the foregoing pages,it appears that the Chinese entertain views regarding the functions ofthe placenta which are identical with those of the Baganda, and aconception of the souls of man which presents unmistakable analogieswith Egyptian beliefs. Yet these Chinese references do[Pg 51] not shed anyclearer light than Egyptian literature does upon the problem of thepossible relationship between theka and theplacenta.

In the Iranian domain, however, right on the overland route from thePersian Gulf to China, there seems to be a ray of light. According tothe late Professor Moulton, "The later Parsi books tell us that theFravashi is a part of a good man's identity, living in heaven andreuniting with the soul at death. It is not exactly a guardian angel,for it shares in the development or deterioration of the rest of theman."[88]

In fact the Fravashi is not unlike the Egyptianka on the one side andthe Chineseshen on the other. "They are theManes, 'the good folk'"(p. 144): they are connected with the stars in their capacity as spiritsof the dead (p. 143), and they "showed their paths to the sun, the moon,the sun, and the endless lights," just as thekas guide the dead inthe hereafter.

The Fravashis play a part in the annual All Soul's feast (p. 144), forwhich Breasted has provided an almost exact parallel in Egypt during theMiddle Kingdom.[89] All the circumstances of the two ceremonies areessentially identical.

Now Professor Moulton suggests that the word Fravashi may be derivedfrom the Avestan rootvar, "to impregnate," andfravaši mean"birth-promotion" (p. 142). As he associates this with childbirth thepossibility suggests itself whether the "birth-promoter" may not besimply the placenta.

Loret (quoted by Moret, p. 202), however, derives the wordka from aroot signifying "to beget," so that the Fravashi may be nothing morethan the Iranian homologue of the Egyptianka.

The connecting link between the Iranian and Egyptian conceptions may bethe Sumerian instances given to Blackman[90] by Dr. Langdon.

The whole idea seems to have originated out of the belief that the sumof the individual attributes or vital expressions of a man's personalitycould exist apart from the physical body. The contemplation of thephenomena of sleep and death provided the evidence in corroboration ofthis.

At birth the newcomer came into the world physically connected with theplacenta, which was accredited with the attributes of the life-givingand birth-promoting Great Mother and intimately related[Pg 52] to the moon andthe earliest totem. It was obviously, also, closely concerned in thenutrition of the embryo, for was it not the stalk upon which the latterwas growing like some fruit on its stem? It was a not unnaturalinference to suppose that, as the elements of the personality were notindissolubly connected with the body, they were brought into existenceat the time of birth and that the placenta was their vehicle.

The Egyptians' own terms of reference to the sculptor of a statue showthat the ideas of birth were uppermost in their minds when the custom ofstatue-making was first devised. Moret has brought together (op. cit.supra) a good deal of evidence to suggest the far-reaching significanceof the conception of ritual rebirth in early Egyptian religiousceremonial. With these ideas in his mind the Egyptian would naturallyattach great importance to the placenta in any attempt to reconstructthe act of rebirth, which would be regarded in a literal sense. Theplacenta which played an essential part in the original act would havean equally important rôle in the ritual of rebirth. [For a furthercomment upon the problem discussed in the preceding ten pages, seeAppendix A, p. 73.]

The Power of the Eye.

In attempting to understand the peculiar functions attributed to the eyeit is essential that the inquirer should endeavour to look at theproblem from the early Egyptian's point of view. After moulding intoshape the wrappings of the mummy so as to restore as far as possible theform of the deceased the embalmer then painted eyes upon the face. Soalso when the sculptor had learned to make finished models in stone orwood, and by the addition of paint had enhanced the life-likeappearance, the statue was still merely a dead thing. What were neededabove all to enliven it, literally and actually, in other words, toanimate it, were the eyes; and the Egyptian artist set to work and withtruly marvellous skill reproduced the appearance of living eyes (Fig.5). How ample was the justification for this belief will be appreciatedby anyone who glances at the remarkable photographs recently publishedby Dr. Alan H. Gardiner.[91] The wonderful eyes will be seen to make thestatue sparkle and live. To the concrete mind of the Egyptian thistriumph of art was regarded[Pg 53] not as a mere technical success oræsthetic achievement. The artist was considered to have made the statuereally live; in fact, literally and actually converted it into a "livingimage". The eyes themselves were regarded as one of the chief sources ofthe vitality which had been conferred upon the statue.

Fig. 5—Statue of an Egyptian Noble of the PyramidAge to show the technical skill in the representation of life-likeeyes

This is the explanation of all the elaborate care and skill bestowedupon the making of artificial eyes. No doubt also it was largelyresponsible for giving definition to the remarkable belief in theanimating power of the eye. But so many other factors of most diversekinds played a part in building up the complex theory of the eye'sfertilizing potency that all the stages in the process ofrationalization cannot yet be arranged in orderly sequence.

I refer to the question here and suggest certain aspects of it that seemworthy of investigation merely for the purpose of stimulating somestudent of early Egyptian literature to look into the matterfurther.[92]

As death was regarded as a kind of sleep and the closing of the eyes wasthe distinctive sign of the latter condition the open eyes were notunnaturally regarded as clear evidence of wakefulness and life. In fact,to a matter-of-fact people the restoration of the eyes to the mummy orstatue was equivalent to an awakening to life.

At a time when a reflection in a mirror or in a sheet of water wassupposed to afford quite positive evidence of the reality of eachindividual's "double," and when the "soul," or more concretely, "life,"was imagined to be a minute image or homunculus, it is quite likely thatthe reflection in the eye may have been interpreted as the "soul"dwelling within it. The eye was certainly regarded as peculiarly rich in"soul substance". It was not until Osiris received from Horus the eyewhich had been wrenched out in the latter's combat with Set that he"became a soul".[93]

It is a remarkable fact that this belief in the animating power of theeye spread as far east as Polynesia and America, and as far west as theBritish Islands.[Pg 54]

Of course the obvious physiological functions of the eyes as means ofcommunication between their possessor and the world around him; thepowerful influence of the eyes for expressing feeling and emotionwithout speech; the analogy between the closing and opening of the eyesand the changes of day and night, are all hinted at in Egyptianliterature.

But there were certain specific factors that seem to have helped to givedefiniteness to these general ideas of the physiology of the eyes. Thetears, like all the body moisture, came to share the life-givingattributes of water in general. And when it is recalled that at funeralceremonies emotion found natural expression in the shedding of tears, itis not unlikely that this came to be assimilated with all the otherwater-symbolism of the funerary ritual. The early literature of Egypt,in fact, refers to the part played by Isis and Nephthys in thereanimation of Osiris, when the tears they shed as mourners brought lifeback to the god. But the fertilizing tears of Isis were life-giving inthe wider sense. They were said to cause the inundation which fertilizedthe soil of Egypt, meaning presumably that the "Eye of Re" sent therain.

There is the further possibility that the beliefs associated with thecowry may have played some part, if not in originating, at any rate inemphasizing the conception of the fertilizing powers of the eye. I havealready mentioned the outstanding features of the symbolism of thecowry. In many places in Africa and elsewhere the similarity of thisshell to the half-closed eyelids led to its use as an artificial "eye"in mummies. The use of the same objects to symbolize the femalereproductive organs and the eyes may have played some part intransferring to the latter the fertility of the former. The gods wereborn of the eyes of Ptah. Might not the confusion of the eye with thegenitalia have given a meaning to this statement? There is evidence ofthis double symbolism of these shells. Cowry shells have also beenemployed, both in the Persian Gulf and the Pacific, to decorate the bowsof boats, probably for the dual purpose of representing eyes andconferring vitality upon the vessel. These facts suggest that the beliefin the fertilizing power of the eyes may to some extent be due to thiscowry-association. Even if it be admitted that all the known cases ofthe use of cowries as eyes of mummies are relatively late, and that itis not known to have been employed for such a purpose in Egypt, the merefact that the likeness to the eyelids[Pg 55] so readily suggests itself mayhave linked together the attributes of the cowry and the eye even inPredynastic times, when cowries were placed with the dead in the grave.

Hathor's identification with the "Eye of Re" may possibly have been anexpression of the same idea. But the rôle of the "Eye of Re" was dueprimarily to her association with the moon (vide infra, p. 56).

The apparently hopeless tangle of contradictions involved in theseconceptions of Hathor will have to be unravelled. For "no eye is to befeared more than thine (Re's) when it attacketh in the form of Hathor"(Maspero,op. cit. p. 165). If it was the beneficent life-givingaspect of the eye which led to its identification with Hathor, in courseof time, when the reason for this connexion was lost sight of, it becameassociated with the malevolent, death-dealingavatar of the goddess,and became the expression of the god's anger and hatred toward hisenemies. It is not unlikely that such a confusion may have beenresponsible for giving concrete expression to the general psychologicalfact that the eyes are obviously among the chief means for expressinghatred for and intimidating and "brow-beating" one's fellows. [In mylecture on "The Birth of Aphrodite" I shall explain the explicitcircumstances that gave rise to these contradictions.]

It is significant that, in addition to the widespread belief in the"evil eye"—which in itself embodies the same confusion, the expressionof admiration that works evil—in a multitude of legends it is the eyethat produces petrifaction. The "stony stare" causes death and the deadbecome transformed into statues, which, however, usually lack theiroriginal attribute of animation. These stories have been collected byMr. E. S. Hartland in his "Legend of Perseus".

There is another possible link in the chain of associations between theeye and the idea of fertility. I have already referred to thedevelopment of the belief that incense, which plays so prominent a partin the ritual for conferring vitality upon the dead, is itself repletewith animating properties. "Glaser has already shown theanti incenseof the Egyptian Punt Reliefs to be an Arabian word,a-a-netc,'tree-eyes' (Punt und die Südarabischen Reiche, p. 7), and to refer tothe large lumps ... as distinguished from the small round drops, whichare supposed to be tree-tears or the tree-blood."[94]

[Pg 56]

The Moon and the Sky-World.

There are reasons for believing that the chief episodes in Aphrodite'spast point to the Red Sea for their inspiration, though many otherfactors, due partly to local circumstances and partly to contact withother civilizations, contributed to the determination of the traits ofthe Mediterranean goddess of love. In Babylonia and India there are verydefinite signs of borrowing from the same source. It is important,therefore, to look for further evidence to Arabia as the obvious bond ofunion both with Phœnicia and Babylonia.

The claim made in Roscher'sLexicon der Mythologie that the AssyrianIshtar, the Phœnician Ashtoreth (Astarte), the Syrian Atargatis(Derketo), the Babylonian Belit (Mylitta) and the Arabian Ilat (Al-ilat)were all moon-goddesses has given rise to much rather aimlessdiscussion, for there can be no question of their essential homologywith Hathor and Aphrodite. Moreover, from the beginning, allgoddesses—and especially this most primitive stratum of fertilitydeities—were for obvious reasons intimately associated with themoon.[95] But the cyclical periodicity of the moon which suggested theanalogy with the similar physiological periodicity of women merelyexplains the association of the moon with women. The influence of themoon upon dew and the tides, perhaps, suggested its controlling powerover water and emphasized the life-giving function which its associationwith women had already suggested. For reasons which have been explainedalready, water was associated more especially with fertilization by themale. Hence the symbolism of the moon came to include the control ofboth the male and the female processes of reproduction.[96]

The literature relating to the development of these ideas withrefer[Pg 57]ence to the moon has been summarized by Professor HuttonWebster.[97] He shows that "there is good reason for believing thatamong many primitive peoples the moon, rather than the sun, the planetsor any of the constellations, first excited the imagination and arousedfeelings of superstitious awe or of religious veneration".

Special attention was first devoted to the moon when agriculturalpursuits compelled men to measure time and determine the seasons. Theinfluence of the moon on water, both the tides and dew, brought itwithin the scope of the then current biological theory of fertilization.This conception was powerfully corroborated by the parallelism of themoon's cycles and those of womankind, which was interpreted by regardingthe moon as the controlling power of the female reproductive functions.Thus all of the earliest goddesses who were personifications of thepowers of fertility came to be associated, and in some cases identified,with the moon.

In this way the animation and deification of the moon was brought about:and the first sky deity assumed not only all the attributes of thecowry, i.e. the female reproductive functions, but also, as thecontroller of water, many of those which afterwards were associated withOsiris. The confusion of the male fertilizing powers of Osiris with thefemale reproductive functions of Hathor and Isis may explain how in someplaces the moon became a masculine deity, who, however, still retainedhis control over womankind, and caused the phenomena of menstruation bythe exercise of his virile powers.[98] But the moon-god was also ameasurer of time and in this aspect was specially personified in Thoth.

The assimilation of the moon with these earth-deities was probablyresponsible for the creation of the first sky-deity. For once theconception developed of identifying a deity with the moon, and theOsirian beliefs associated with the deification of a dead king grew up,the moon became the impersonation of the spirit of womankind, somemortal woman who by death had acquired divinity.

After the idea had developed of regarding the moon as the spirit[Pg 58] of adead person, it was only natural that, in course of time, the sun andstars should be brought within the scope of the same train of thought,and be regarded as the deified dead. When this happened the sun notunnaturally soon leapt into a position of pre-eminence. As the moonrepresented the deified female principle the sun became the dominantmale deity Re. The stars also became the spirits of the dead.

Once this new conception of a sky-world was adumbrated a luxuriant cropof beliefs grew up to assimilate the new beliefs with the old, and tobuttress the confused mixture of incompatible ideas with a complexscaffolding of rationalization.

The sun-god Horus was already the son of Osiris. Osiris controlled notonly the river and the irrigation canals, but also the rain-clouds. Thefumes of incense conveyed to the sky-gods the supplications of theworshippers on earth. Incense was not only "the perfume that deities,"but also the means by which the deities and the dead could pass to theirdoubles in the newly invented sky-heaven. The sun-god Re was representedin his temple not by an anthropoid statue, but by an obelisk,[99] thegilded apex of which pointed to heaven and "drew down" the dazzling raysof the sun, reflected from its polished surface, so that all theworshippers could see the manifestations of the god in his temple.

These events are important, not only for creating the sky-gods and thesky-heaven, but possibly also for suggesting the idea that even a merepillar of stone, whether carved or uncarved, upon which no attempt hadbeen made to model the human form, could represent the deity, or rathercould become the "body" to be animated by the god.[100] For once it wasadmitted, even in the home of these ancient ideas concerning theanimation of statues, that it was not essential for the idol to beshaped into human form, the way was opened for less cultured peoples,who had not acquired the technical skill to carve statues, simply toerect stone pillars or unshaped masses of stone or[Pg 59] wood for their godsto enter, when the appropriate ritual of animation was performed.[101]

This conception of the possibility of gods, men, or animals dwelling instones spread in course of time throughout the world, but in every placewhere it is found certain arbitrary details of the methods of animatingthe stone reveal the fact that all these legends must have been derivedfrom the same source.

The complementary belief in the possibility of the petrifaction of menand animals has a similarly extensive geographical distribution. Thehistory of this remarkable incident I shall explain in the lecture on"Dragons and Rain Gods" (Chapter II.).[102]

The Worship of the Cow.

Intimately linked with the subjects I have been discussing is theworship of the cow. It would lead me too far afield to enter into thedetails of the process by which the earliest Mother-Goddesses became soclosely associated or even identified with the cow, and why the cow'shorns became associated with the moon among the emblems[Pg 60] of Hathor. Butit is essential that reference should be made to certain aspects of thesubject.

I do not think there is any evidence to justify the common theory thatthe likeness of the crescent moon to a cow's horns was the reason forthe association. On the other hand, it is clear that both the moon andthe cow became identified with the Mother-Goddess quite independentlythe one of the other, and at a very remote period.

It is probable that the fundamental factor in the development of thisassociation of the cow and the Mother-Goddess was the fact of the use ofmilk as food for human beings. For if the cow could assume this maternalfunction she was in fact a sort of foster-mother of mankind; and incourse of time she came to be regarded as the actual mother of the humanrace and to be identified with the Great Mother.

Many other considerations helped in this process of assimilation. Theuse of cattle not merely as meat for the sustenance of the living but asthe usual and most characteristic life-giving food for the deadnaturally played a part in conferring divinity upon the cow, just as ananalogous relationship made incense a holy substance and was responsiblefor the personification of the incense-tree as a goddess. This influencewas still further emphasized in the case of cattle because they alsosupplied the blood which was used for the ritual purpose of bestowingconsciousness upon the dead, and in course of time upon the gods also,so that they might hear and attend to the prayers of supplicants.

Other circumstances emphasize the significance attached to the cow: butit is difficult to decide whether they contributed in any way to thedevelopment of these beliefs or were merely some of the practices whichwere the result of the divination of the cow. The custom of placingbutter in the mouths of the dead, in Egypt, Uganda, and India, thevarious ritual uses of milk, the employment of a cow's hide as awrapping for the dead in the grave, and also in certain mysteriousceremonies,[103] all indicate the intimate connexion between the cow andthe means of attaining a rebirth in the life to come.

I think there are definite reasons for believing that once the cowbecame identified with the Mother-Goddess as the parent of mankind[Pg 61] thefirst step was taken in the development of the curious system of ideasnow known as "totemism".

This, however, is a complex problem which I cannot stay to discuss here.

When the cow became identified with the Great Mother and the moon wasregarded as the dwelling or the personification of the same goddess, theDivine Cow by a process of confused syncretism came to be regarded asthe sky or the heavens, to which the dead were raised up on the cow'sback. When Re became the dominant deity, he was identified with the sky,and the sun and moon were then regarded as his eyes. Thus the moon, asthe Great Mother as well as the Eye of Re, was the bond ofidentification of the Great Mother with an eye. This was probably howthe eye acquired the animating powers of the Giver of Life.

A whole volume might be written upon the almost world-wide diffusion ofthese beliefs regarding the cow, as far as Scotland and Ireland in thewest, and in their easterly migration probably as far as America, to theconfusion alike of its ancient artists and its modern ethnologists.[104]

As an illustration of the identification of the cow's attributes withthose of the life-giving Great Mother, I might refer to the lateProfessor Moulton's commentary[105] on the ancient Iranian Gâthâs, wherecow's flesh is given to mortals by Yima to make them immortal. "May weconnect it with another legend whereby at the Regeneration Mithra is tomake men immortal by giving them to eat the fat of the ... primeval Cowfrom whose slain body, according to the Aryan legends adopted byMithraism, mankind was first created?"[106]

[Pg 62]

The Diffusion of Culture.

In these pages I have made no attempt to deal with the far-reaching andintricate problems of the diffusion abroad of the practices and beliefswhich I have been discussing. But the thoughts and the aspirations ofevery cultured people are permeated through and through with theirinfluence.

It is important to remember that in almost every stage of thedevelopment of these complex customs and ideas not merely the "finishedproduct" but also the ingredients out of which it was built up werebeing scattered abroad.

I shall briefly refer to certain evidence from Asia and America inillustration of this fact and in substantiation of the reality of thediffusion to the East of some of the beliefs I have been discussing.

The unity of Egyptian and Babylonian ideas is nowhere more strikinglydemonstrated than in the essential identity of the attributes of Osirisand Ea. It affords the most positive proof of the derivation of thebeliefs from some common source, and reveals the fact that Egyptian andSumerian civilizations must have been in intimate cultural contact atthe beginning of their developmental history. "In Babylonia, as inEgypt, there were differences of opinion regarding the origin of lifeand the particular natural element which represented the vitalprinciple." "One section of the people, who were represented by theworshippers of Ea, appear to have believed that the essence of life wascontained in water. The god of Eridu was the source of the 'water oflife'."[107]

"Offerings of water and food were made to the dead," not primarily sothat they might be "prevented from troubling the living,"[108] but tosupply them with the means of sustenance and to[Pg 63] reanimate them to helpthe suppliants. It is a common belief that these and other procedureswere inspired by fear of the dead. But such a statement does notaccurately represent the attitude of mind of the people who devisedthese funerary ceremonies. For it is not the enemies of the dead orthose against whom he had a grudge that run a risk at funerals, butrather his friends; and the more deeply he was attached to a particularperson the greater the danger for the latter. For among many people thebelief obtains that when a man dies he will endeavour to steal the"soul-substance" of those who are dearest to him so that they mayaccompany him to the other world. But as stealing the"soul-substance"[109] means death, it is easy to misunderstand such adisplay of affection. Hence most people who long for life and hate deathdo their utmost to evade such embarrassing tokens of love; and mostethnologists, misjudging such actions, write about "appeasing the dead".It was those whom the godsloved who died young.

Ea was not only the god of the deep, but also "lord of life," king ofthe river and god of creation. Like Osiris "he fertilized parched andsunburnt wastes through rivers and irrigating canals, and conferred uponman the sustaining 'food of life'.... The goddess of the dead commandedher servant to 'sprinkle the Lady Ishtar with the water of life'" (op.cit., p. 44).

In ChapterIII. of Mr. Mackenzie's book, from which I havejust[Pg 64] quoted, there is an interesting collection of quotations clearlyshowing that the conception of the vitalizing properties of the bodymoisture of gods is not restricted to Egypt, but is found also inBabylonia and India, in Western Asia and Greece, and also in WesternEurope.

It has been suggested that the name Ishtar has been derived from Semiticroots implying "she who waters," "she who makes fruitful".[110]

Barton claims that: "The beginnings of Semitic religion as they wereconceived by the Semites themselves go back to sexual relations ... theSemitic conception of deity ... embodies the truth—grossly indeed, butnevertheless embodies it—that 'God is love'" (op. cit. p. 107). [Thisstatement, however, is very misleading—see Appendix C, p. 75.]

Throughout the countries where Semitic[111] influence spread theprimitive Mother-Goddesses or some of their specialized variants arefound. But in every case the goddess is associated with many distinctivetraits which reveal her identity with her homologues in Cyprus,Babylonia, and Egypt.

Among the Sumerians "life comes on earth through the introduction ofwater and irrigation".[112] "Man also results from a union between thewater-gods."

The Akkadians held views which were almost the direct antithesis ofthese. To them "the watery deep is disorder, and the cosmos, the orderof the world, is due to the victory of a god of light and spring overthe monster of winter and water; man is directly made by the gods".[113]

"The Sumerian account of Beginnings centres around the production by thegods of water, Enki and his consort Nin-ella (or Dangal), of a greatnumber of canals bringing rain to the desolate fields of a drycontinent. Life both of vegetables and animals follows the profusion ofthe vivifying waters.... In the process of life's production besidesEnki, the personality of his consort is very conspicuous. She is called[Pg 65]Nin-Ella, 'the pure Lady,'Damgal-Nunna, the 'great Lady of theWaters,'Nin-Tu, 'the Lady of Birth'" (p. 301). The child of Enki andNin-ella was the ancestor of mankind.[114]

"In later traditions, the personality of that Great Lady seems to havebeen overshadowed by that of Ishtar, who absorbed several of herfunctions" (p. 301).

Professor Carnoy fully demonstrates the derivation of certain earlyso-called "Aryan" beliefs from Chaldea. In the Iranian account of thecreation "the great spring Ardvī Sūra Anāhita is thelife-increasing, the herd-increasing, the fold-increasing who makesprosperity for all countries (Yt. 5, 1) ... that precious spring isworshipped as a goddess ... and is personified as a handsome and statelywoman. She is a fair maid, most strong, tall of form, high-girded. Herarms are white and thick as a horse's shoulder or still thicker. She isfull of gracefulness" (Yt. 5, 7, 64, 78). "Professor Cumont thinks thatAnāhita is Ishtar ... she is a goddess of fecundation and birth.Moreover in Achæmenian inscriptions Anāhita is associated with AhuraMazdāh and Mithra, a triad corresponding to the Chaldean triad:Sin-Shamash-Ishtar. Ἀνάιτις in Strabo and other Greek writersis treated as Ἀφροδίτη" (p. 302).

But in Mesopotamia also the same views were entertained as in Egypt ofthe functions of statues.

"The statues hidden in the recesses of the temples or erected on thesummits of the 'Ziggurats' became imbued, by virtue of theirconsecration, with the actual body of the god whom they represented."Thus Marduk is said to "inhabit his image" (Maspero,op. cit. p. 64).

This is precisely the idea which the Egyptians had. Even at the presentday it survives among the Dravidian peoples of India.[115] They makeimages of their village deities, which may be permanent or onlytemporary, but in any case they are regarded not as actual deities butas the "bodies" so to speak into which these deities can enter. They aresacred only when they are so animated by the goddess. The[Pg 66] ritual ofanimation is essentially identical with that found in Ancient Egypt.Libations are poured out; incense is burnt; the bleeding right fore-legof a buffalo constitutes the blood-offering.[116] When the deity isreanimated by these procedures and its consciousness restored by theblood-offering it can hear appeals and speak.

The same attitude towards their idols was adopted by the Polynesians."The priest usually addressed the image, into which it was imagined thegod entered when anyone came to inquire his will."[117]

But there are certain other aspects of these Indian customs that are ofpeculiar interest. In my Ridgeway essay (op. cit. supra) I referred tothe means by which in Nubia the degradation of the oblong Egyptianmastaba gave rise to the simple stone circle. This type spread to thewest along the North African littoral, and also to the Eastern desertand Palestine. At some subsequent time mariners from the Red Seaintroduced this practice into India.

[It is important to bear in mind that two other classes of stone circleswere invented. One of them was derived, not from themastaba itself,but from the enclosing wall surrounding it (see my Ridgeway essay, Fig.13, p. 531, and compare with Figs. 3 and 4, p. 510, for illustrations ofthe transformedmastaba-type). This type of circle (enclosing adolmen) is found both in the Caucasus-Caspian area as well as in India.A highly developed form of this encircling type of structure is seen inthe famous rails surrounding the Buddhiststupas anddagabas. Athird and later form of circle, of which Stonehenge is an example, wasdeveloped out of the much later New Empire Egyptian conception of atemple.]

But at the same time, as in Nubia, and possibly in Libya, themastabawas being degraded into the first of the three main varieties of stonecircle, other, though less drastic, forms of simplification of the[Pg 67]mastaba were taking place, possibly in Egypt itself, but certainlyupon the neighbouring Mediterranean coasts. In some respects the leastaltered copies of themastaba are found in the so-called "giant'sgraves" of Sardinia and the "horned cairns" of the British Isles. Butthe real features of the Egyptianserdab, which was the essentialpart, the nucleus so to speak, of themastaba, are best preserved inthe so-called "holed dolmens" of the Levant, the Caucasus, and India.[They also occur sporadically in the West, as in France and Britain.]

Such dolmens and more simplified forms are scattered in Palestine,[118]but are seen to best advantage upon the Eastern Littoral of the BlackSea, the Caucasus, and the neighbourhood of the Caspian. They are foundonly in scattered localities between the Black and Caspian Seas. As deMorgan has pointed out,[119] their distribution is explained by theirassociation with ancient gold and copper mines. They were the tombs ofimmigrant mining colonies who had settled in these definite localitiesto exploit these minerals.

Now the same types of dolmens, also associated with ancient mines,[120]are found in India. There is some evidence to suggest that thesedegraded types of Egyptianmastabas were introduced into India at sometime after the adoption of the other, the Nubian modification of themastaba which is represented by the first variety of stonecircle.[121]

I have referred to these Indian dolmens for the specific purpose ofillustrating the complexities of the processes of diffusion of culture.For not only have several variously specialized degradation-products ofthe same original type of Egyptianmastaba reached India, possibly bydifferent routes and at different times, but also many of the ideas[Pg 68]that developed out of the funerary ritual in Egypt—of which themastaba was merely one of the manifestations—made their way to Indiaat various times and became secondarily blended with other expressionsof the same or associated ideas there. I have already referred to theessential elements of the Egyptian funerary ritual—the statues,incense, libations, and the rest—as still persisting among theDravidian peoples.

But in the Madras Presidency dolmens are found converted into Sivatemples.[122] Now in the inner chamber of the shrine—which representsthe homologue of theserdab—in place of the statue or bas-relief ofthe deceased or of the deity, which is found in some of them (see PlateI), there is the stonelinga-yoni emblem in the position correspondingto that in which, in the later temple in the same locality (Kambaduru),there is an image of Parvati, the consort of Siva.

The earliest deities in Egypt, both Osiris and Hathor, were reallyexpressions of the creative principle. In the case of Hathor, thegoddess was, in fact, the personification of the female organs ofreproduction.[123] In these early Siva temples in India these principlesof creation were given their literal interpretation, and representedfrankly as the organs of reproduction of the two sexes. The gods ofcreation were symbolized by models in stone of the creating organs.Further illustrations of the same principle are witnessed in theIndonesian megalithic monuments which Perry calls "dissoliths".[124]

The later Indian temples, both Buddhist and Hindu, were developed fromthese early dolmens, as Mr. Longhurst's reports so clearly demonstrate.But from time to time there was an influx of new ideas from the Westwhich found expression in a series of modifications of the architecture.Thus India provides an admirable illustration of this principle ofculture contact. A series of waves of megalithic culture introducedpurely Western ideas. These were developed by the local people in theirown way, constantly intermingling a variety of cultural influences toweave them into a dis[Pg 69]tinctive fabric, which was compounded partly ofimported, partly of local threads, woven locally into a truly Indianpattern. In this process of development one can detect the effects ofMycenæan accretions (see for example Longhurst's Plate XIII), probablymodified during its indirect transmission by Phœnician and laterinfluences; and also the more intimate part played by Babylonian,Egyptian, and, later, Greek and Persian art and architecture indirecting the course of development of Indian culture.

Incidentally, in the course of the discussions in the foregoing pages, Ihave referred to the profound influence of Egyptian, Babylonian andIndian ideas in Eastern Asia. Perry's important book (op. cit. supra)reveals their efforts in Indonesia. Thence they spread across thePacific to America.

In the "Migrations of Early Culture" (p. 114) I called attention to thefact that among the Aztecs water was poured upon the head of the mummy.This ritual procedure was inspired by the Egyptian idea of libations,for, according to Brasseur de Bourbourg, the pouring out of the waterwas accompanied by the remark "C'est cette eau que tu as reçue en venantan monde".

But incense-burning and blood-offering were also practised in America.In an interesting memoir[125] on the practice of blood-letting bypiercing the ears and tongue, Mrs. Zelia Nuttall reproduces a remarkablepicture from a "partly unpublished MS. of Sahagun's work preserved inFlorence". "The image of the sun is held up by a man whose body ispartly hidden, and two men, seated opposite to each other in theforeground, are in the act of piercing the helices or external bordersof their ears." But in addition to these blood-offerings to the sun, twopriests are burning incense in remarkably Egyptian-like censers, andanother pair are blowing conch-shell trumpets.

Fig. 6.—Representation of the ancient MexicanWorship of the Sun

The image of the sun is held up by a man in front of his face; two menblow conch-shell trumpets; another pair burn incense; and a third pairmake blood-offerings by piercing their ears—after Zelia Nuttall.

But it was not merely the use of incense and libations and theidentities in the wholly arbitrary attributes of the American pantheonthat reveal the sources of their derivation in the Old World. When theSpaniards first visited Yucatan they found traces of a Maya baptismalrite which the natives calledzihil, signifying "to be born again". Atthe ceremony also incense was burnt.[126][Pg 70]

The forehead, the face, the fingers and toes were moistened. "After theyhad been thus sprinkled with water, the priest arose and removed thecloths from the heads of the children, and then cut off with a stoneknife a certain bead that was attached to the head from childhood."[127]

[The custom of wearing such a bead during childhood is found in Egypt atthe present day.]

In the case of the girls, their mothers "divested them of a cord whichwas worn during their childhood, fastened round the loins, having asmall shell that hung in front ('una conchuela asida que les venia a darencima de la parte honesta'—Landa). The removal of this signified thatthey could marry."[128]

This use of shells is found in the Soudan and East Africa at the presentday.[129] The girdle upon which the shells were hung is the prototype ofthe cestus of Hathor, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Kali and all the goddesses offertility in the Old World. It is an admirable illustration of the factthat not only were the finished products, the goddesses and theirfantastic repertory of attributes, transmitted to the New World, butalso the earliest and most primitive ingredients out of which thecomplexities of their traits were compounded.

In Chapter III ("The Birth of Aphrodite") I shall explain what animportant part the invention of this girdle played in the development ofthe material side of civilization and the even vaster influence itexerted upon beliefs and ethics. It represents the first stage in theevolution of clothing; and it was responsible for originating the beliefin love-philtres and in the possibility of foretelling the future.

It would lead me too far from my main purpose in this book to discussthe widespread geographical distribution and historical associations ofthe customs of baptism and pouring libations among different peoples. Imay, however, refer the reader to an article by Mr. Elsdon Best,entitled "Ceremonial Performances Pertaining to Birth, as Performed bythe Maori of New Zealand in Past Times" (Journal of the RoyalAnthropological Institute, Vol. XLIV, 1914, p. 127), which sheds aclear light upon the general problem.

The whole subject of baptismal ceremonies is well worth detailed studyas a remarkable demonstration of the spread of culture in early times.

[Pg 71]

Summary.

In these pages I have ranged over a very wide field of speculation,groping in the dim shadows of the early history of civilization. I havebeen attempting to pick up a few of the threads which ultimately becamewoven into the texture of human beliefs and aspirations, and to suggestthat the practice of mummification was the woof around which the web ofcivilization was intimately intertwined.

I have already explained how closely that practice was related to theorigin and development of architecture, which Professor Lethaby hascalled the "matrix of civilization," and how nearly the ideas that grewup in explanation and in justification of the ritual of embalming wereaffected by the practice of agriculture, the second great pillar ofsupport for the edifice of civilization. It has also been shown howfar-reaching was the influence exerted by the needs of the embalmer,which impelled men, probably for the first time in history, to plan andcarry out great expeditions by sea and land to obtain the necessaryresins and the balsams, the wood and the spices. Incidentally also incourse of time the practice of mummification came to exert a profoundeffect upon the means for the acquisition of a knowledge of medicine andall the sciences ancillary to it.

But I have devoted chief attention to the bearing of the ideas whichdeveloped out of the practice and ritual of embalming upon the spirit ofman. It gave shape and substance to the belief in a future life; it wasperhaps the most important factor in the development of a definiteconception of the gods: it laid the foundation of the ideas whichsubsequently were built up into a theory of the soul: in fact, it wasintimately connected with the birth of all those ideals and aspirationswhich are now included in the conception of religious belief and ritual.A multitude of other trains of thought were started amidst theintellectual ferment of the formulation of the earliest concrete systemof biological theory. The idea of the properties and functions of waterwhich had previously sprung up in connexion with the development ofagriculture became crystallized into a more definite form as the resultof the development of mummification, and this has played an obtrusivepart in religion, in philosophy and in medicine ever since. Moreover itsinfluence has become embalmed for all time in many languages and in theritual of every religion.[Pg 72]

But it was a factor in the development not merely of religious beliefs,temples and ritual, but it was also very closely related to the originof much of the paraphernalia of the gods and of current popular beliefs.The swastika and the thunderbolt, dragons and demons, totemism and thesky-world are all of them conceptions that were more or less closelyconnected with the matters I have been discussing.

The ideas which grew up in association with the practice ofmummification were responsible for the development of the temple and itsritual and for a definite formulation of the conception of deities. Butthey were also responsible for originating a priesthood. For theresuscitation of the dead king, Osiris, and for the maintenance of hisexistence it was necessary for his successor, the reigning king, toperform the ritual of animation and the provision of food and drink. Theking, therefore, was the first priest, and his functions were notprimarily acts of worship but merely the necessary preliminaries forrestoring life and consciousness to the dead seer so that he couldconsult him and secure his advice and help.

It was only when the number of temples became so great and their ritualso complex and elaborate as to make it a physical impossibility for theking to act in this capacity in all of them and on every occasion thathe was compelled to delegate some of his priestly functions to others,either members of the royal family or high officials. In course of timecertain individuals devoted themselves exclusively to these duties andbecame professional priests; but it is important to remember that atfirst it was the exclusive privilege of Horus, the reigning king, tointercede with Osiris, the dead king, on behalf of men, and that theearliest priesthood consisted of those individuals to whom he haddelegated some of these duties.

In conclusion I should like to express in words what must be only tooapparent to every reader of this statement. It claims to be nothing morethan a contribution to the study of some of the most difficult problemsin the history of human thought. For one so ill-equipped for a task ofsuch a nature as I am to attempt it calls for a word of explanation. Theclear light that recent research has shed upon the earliest literaturein the world has done much to destroy the foundations upon which thetheories propounded by scholars have been built up. It seemed to beworth while to attempt to read afresh the volu[Pg 73]minous mass of olddocuments with the illumination of this new information.

The other reason for making such an attempt is that almost every modernscholar who has discussed the matters at issue has assumed that thefashionable doctrine of the independent development of human beliefs andpractices was a safe basis upon which to construct his theories. At bestit is an unproven and reckless speculation. I am convinced it is utterlyfalse. Holding such views I have attempted to read the evidence afresh.

APPENDIX A.

On re-reading the discussion of the significance of theka I realizethat, in striving after brevity and conciseness—to keep the size of mystatement within the limits of theBulletin of the John RylandsLibrary, generously elastic though it is—I have left the argument in arather nebulous form.

It must not be imagined that a concrete-minded people like the ancientEgyptians entertained highly abstract and ethereal ideas about "thesoul". They recognized that all the expressions of consciousness andpersonality could cease during sleep; and at the same time the phenomenaof dreams seemed to afford evidence that these absent elements of theindividual's being were enjoying real experiences elsewhere. Thus therewas analter ego, identified by this matter-of-fact people with thetwin (placenta) which was born with the child and was clearly concernedwith its physical and intellectual nourishment—for it was obviouslyconnected by its stalk to the embryo like a tree to its roots, and itseemed to be composed of blood, which was regarded as the vehicle ofmind. But this intellectual "twin" kept pace in its growth with thephysical body. When a statue was made to represent the latter thekacould dwell in the real body or the statue.

The identification of the placenta with the moon helped the growth ofthe conception that this "birth-promoter" could not only bring about are-birth in the life to come, but also facilitate a transference to thesky-world. The placenta had already been superintending the deceased'swelfare upon earth and would continue to do so when he rejoined hiskain the sky world.

The complexity of the conception is due to the fact that the simpleearly belief in "a double" was gradually elaborated, as one new ideaafter another became added to it, and rationalized to blend with theformer complex in an increasingly involved synthesis. It was only whenthe[Pg 74] elaborate scaffolding of material factors was cleared away that amore ethereal conception of "the soul" was sublimated.

APPENDIX B.

I should like to emphasize the fact that my protest (on p. 63) wasdirected against the claim that the custom of offering food and drink tothe dead was inspiredprimarily to prevent them from troubling theliving. Its original purpose was to sustain and reanimate the dead; but,of course, when its real meaning was forgotten, it was explained in agreat variety of ways by the people who made a practice of presentingofferings to the dead without really knowing why they did so.

Dr. Alan Gardiner himself has made a statement which casual readers(i.e., those who do not discriminate between the motive for theinvention of a procedure and the reasons subsequently given for itscontinuance) might regard as a contradiction of my quotation from hiswritings on p. 62. Thus he says: "Any god could doubtless attack humanbeings, but savage and malicious deities, like Seth [Set], the murdererof Osiris, or Sakhmet, [Sekhet], the 'lady of pestilence' (nb-t 'idw),were doubtless most to be feared." [This attitude of the malignantgoddesses is revealed in a most obtrusive form in the village deities ofthe Dravidians of Southern India.] "The dead were specially to befeared; nor was it only those dead who were unhappy or unburied thatmight torment the living, for the magician sometimes warns them thattheir tombs are endangered" (Article "Magic (Egyptian),"Hastings'Encycl. Ethics and Religion, p. 264).

But it is important to bear in mind, as the same scholar has explainedelsewhere ["Life and Death (Egyptian),"Hastings' Encycl., p. 23]:"Nothing could be farther from the truth [than the statement that 'thefunerary rites and practices of the Egyptians were in the mainprecautionary measures serving to protect the living against the dead'];it is of fundamental importance to realize that the vast stores ofwealth and thought expended by the Egyptians on their tombs—that wealthand that thought which created not only the pyramids, but also thepractice of mummification and a very extensive funerary literature—weredue to the anxiety of each member of the community with regard to hisown individual future welfare, and not to feelings of respect, or fear,or duty felt towards the other dead."

It was only in response to certain binding obligations that the livingobserved all those costly and troublesome rules which were believed toinsure the welfare of the deceased. But this recognition of the primaryand real purpose of the food offerings as sustenance for the dead or thegods[Pg 75] must not be allowed to blind us to the fact that there iswidespread throughout the world a real fear of the dead and ghosts, andthat in many places food-offerings are made for the specific purpose "ofappeasing the fairies".

Mr. Donald Mackenzie tells me that offerings of milk and porridge aremade at the stone monuments in Scotland, and children carry meal intheir pockets to protect themselves from the fairies. For the dead wentto Fairyland.

Beliefs of a similar kind can be collected from most parts of the world:but the point I specially want to emphasize is that they aresecondaryrationalizations of a custom which originally had an utterly differentsignificance.

APPENDIX C.

Prof. Barton's statement (supra, p. 64) is typical of a widespreadmisapprehension, resulting from the confusion between sexual relationsand the giving of life. At first primitive people did not realize thatthe manifestations of the sex instinct had anything whatever to do withreproduction. They were aware of the fact that women gave birth tochildren; and the organ concerned in this process was regarded as thegiver of life, the creator. The apotheosis of these powers led to theconception of the first deity. But it was only secondarily that theselife-giving attributes were brought into association with the sexual actand the masculine powers of fertilization. Much confusion has beencreated by those writers who see manifestations of the sexual factor andphallic ideas in every aspect of primitive religion, where in most casesonly the power of life-giving plays a part.[Pg 76]

Chapter II.

DRAGONS AND RAIN GODS.[130]

An adequate account of the development of the dragon-legend wouldrepresent the history of the expression of mankind's aspirations andfears during the past fifty centuries and more. For the dragon wasevolved along with civilization itself. The search for the elixir oflife, to turn back the years from old age and confer the boon ofimmortality, has been the great driving force that compelled men tobuild up the material and the intellectual fabric of civilization. Thedragon-legend is the history of that search which has been preserved bypopular tradition: it has grown up and kept pace with the constantstruggle to grasp the unattainable goal of men's desires; and the storyhas been constantly growing in complexity, as new incidents were drawnwithin its scope and confused with old incidents whose real meaning wasforgotten or distorted. It has passed through all the phases with whichthe study of the spreading of rumours or the development of dreams hasfamiliarized students of psychology. The simple original stories, whichbecome blended and confused, their meaning distorted and reinterpretedby the rationalizing of incoherent incidents, are given the dramaticform with which the human mind invests all stories that make a strongappeal to its emotions, and then secondarily elaborated with a wealth ofcircumstantial detail. This is the history of popular legends and thedevelopment of rumours. But these phenomena are displayed in their mostemphatic form in dreams.[131] In his waking state man restrains hisroving fancies and exercises what Freud has called a "censorship" overthe stream of his thoughts: but when he falls asleep, the "censor" dozesalso; and free rein is given to his un[Pg 77]restrained fancies to make ahotch-potch of the most varied and unrelated incidents, and to create afantastic mosaic built up from fragments of his actual experience, boundtogether by the cement of his aspirations and fears. The myth resemblesthe dream because it has developed without any consistent and effectivecensorship. The individual who tells one particular phase of the storymay exert the controlling influence of his mind over the version henarrates: but as it is handed on from man to man and generation togeneration the "censorship" also is constantly changing. This lack ofunity of control implies that the development of the myth is not unlikethe building-up of a dream-story. But the dragon-myth is vastly morecomplex than any dream, because mankind as a whole has taken a hand inthe process of shaping it; and the number of centuries devoted to thiswork of elaboration has been far greater than the years spent by theaverage individual in accumulating the stuff of which most of his dreamshave been made. But though the myth is enormously complex, so vast amass of detailed evidence concerning every phase and every detail of itshistory has been preserved, both in the literature and the folk-lore ofthe world, that we are able to submit it to psychological analysis anddetermine the course of its development and the significance of everyincident in its tortuous rambling.

In instituting these comparisons between the development of myths anddreams, I should like to emphasize the fact that the interpretation ofthemyth proposed in these pages is almost diametrically opposed tothat suggested by Freud, and pushed to areductio ad absurdum by hismore reckless followers, and especially by Yung.

The dragon has been described as "the most venerable symbol employed inornamental art and the favourite and most highly decorative motif inartistic design". It has been the inspiration of much, if not most, ofthe world's great literature in every age and clime, and the nucleusaround which a wealth of ethical symbolism has accumulated throughoutthe ages. The dragon-myth represents also the earliest doctrine orsystematic theory of astronomy and meteorology.

In the course of its romantic and chequered history the dragon has beenidentified with all of the gods and all of the demons of every religion.But it is most intimately associated with the earliest stratum ofdivinities, for it has been homologized with each of the members of theearliest Trinity, the Great Mother, the Water God, and the[Pg 78] Warrior SunGod, both individually and collectively. To add to the complexities ofthe story, the dragon-slayer is also represented by the same deities,either individually or collectively; and the weapon with which the heroslays the dragon is also homologous both with him and his victim, for itis animated by him who wields it, and its powers of destruction make ita symbol of the same power of evil which it itself destroys.

Such a fantastic paradox of contradictions has supplied the materialswith which the fancies of men of every race and land, and every stage ofknowledge and ignorance, have been playing for all these centuries. Itis not surprising, therefore, that an endless series of variations ofthe story has been evolved, each decked out with topical allusions anddistinctive embellishments. But throughout the complex tissue of thishighly embroidered fabric the essential threads of the web and woof ofits foundation can be detected with surprising constancy and regularity.

Within the limits of such an account as this it is obvious that I candeal only with the main threads of the argument and leave theinteresting details of the local embellishments until some other time.

The fundamental element in the dragon's powers is the control of water.Both in its beneficent and destructive aspects water was regarded asanimated by the dragon, who thus assumed the rôle of Osiris or his enemySet. But when the attributes of the Water God became confused with thoseof the Great Mother, and her evil avatar, the lioness (Sekhet) form ofHathor in Egypt, or in Babylonia the destructive Tiamat, became thesymbol of disorder and chaos, the dragon became identified with heralso.

Similarly the third member of the Earliest Trinity also became thedragon. As the son and successor of the dead king Osiris the living kingHorus became assimilated with him. When the belief became more and moreinsistent that the dead king had acquired the boon of immortality andwas really alive, the distinction between him and the actually livingking Horus became correspondingly minimized. This process ofassimilation was advanced a further stage when the king became a god andwas thus more closely identified with his father and predecessor. HenceHorus assumed many of the functions of Osiris; and amongst them thosewhich in foreign lands contributed to making a dragon of the Water God.But if the distinction be[Pg 79]tween Horus and Osiris became more and moreattenuated with the lapse of time, the identification with his motherHathor (Isis) was more complete still. For he took her place and assumedmany of her attributes in the later versions of the great saga which isthe nucleus of all the literature of mythology—I refer to the story of"The Destruction Of Mankind".

The attributes of these three members of the Trinity, Hathor, Osiris,and Horus, thus became intimately linked the one with the other; and inSusa, where the earliest pictorial representation of a real dragondeveloped, it received concrete form (Fig. 1) as a monster compounded ofthe lioness of Hathor (Sekhet) with the falcon (or eagle) of Horus, butwith the human attributes and water-controlling powers which originallybelonged to Osiris. In some parts of Africa the earliest "dragon" wasnothing more than Hathor's cow or the gazelle or antelope of Horus(Osiris) or of Set.

Fig. 1.—Early Representation of a "Dragon"Compounded of the Forepart of an Eagle and the Hindpart of aLion—(from an Archaic Cylinder-seal from Susa, after Jequier).

Fig. 2.—The Earliest Babylonian Conception of theDragon Tiamat—(from a Cylinder-seal in the British Museum, afterL. W. King).

But if the dragon was compounded of all three deities, who was theslayer of the evil dragon?

The story of the dragon-conflict is really a recital of Horus's vendettaagainst Set, intimately blended and confused with different versions of"The Destruction of Mankind".[132] The commonplace incidents of theoriginally prosaic stories were distorted into an almost unrecognizableform, then secondarily elaborated without any attention to theiroriginal meaning, but with a wealth of circumstantial embellishment, inaccordance with the usual methods of the human mind that I have alreadymentioned. The history of the legend is in fact the most complete,because it is the oldest and the most widespread, illustration of thoseinstinctive tendencies of the human spirit to bridge the[Pg 80] gaps in itsdisjointed experience, and to link together in a kind of mental mosaicthe otherwise isolated incidents in the facts of daily life and therumours and traditions that have been handed down from thestory-teller's predecessors.

In the "Destruction of Mankind," which I shall discuss more fully in thefollowing pages (p. 109et seq.), Hathor does the slaying: in thelater stories Horus takes his mother's place and earns his spurs as theWarrior Sun-god:[133] hence confusion was inevitably introduced betweenthe enemies of Re, the original victims in the legend, and Horus'straditional enemies, the followers of Set. Against the latter it wasOsiris himself who fought originally; and in many of the non-Egyptianvariants of the legend it is the rain-god himself who is the warrior.

Hence all three members of the Trinity were identified, not only withthe dragon, but also with the hero who was the dragon-slayer.

But the weapon used by the latter was also animated by the same Trinity,and in fact identified with them. In the Saga of the Winged Disk, Horusassumed the form of the sun equipped with the wings of his own falconand the fire-spitting uræus serpents. Flying down from heaven in thisform he was at the same time the god and the god's weapon. As a fierybolt from heaven he slew the enemies of Re, who were now identified withhis own personal foes, the followers of Set. But in the earlier versionsof the myth (i.e. the "Destruction of Mankind"), it was Hathor who wasthe "Eye of Re" and descended from heaven to destroy mankind with fire;she also was the vulture (Mut); and in the earliest version she did theslaughter with a knife or an axe with which she was animisticallyidentified.

But Osiris also was the weapon of destruction, both in the form of theflood (for he was the personification of the river) and the rain-stormsfrom heaven. But he was also an instrument for vanquishing the demon,when the intoxicating beer or the sedative drink (the potency of whichwas due to the indwelling spirit of the god) was the chosen means ofovercoming the dragon.

This, in brief, is the framework of the dragon-story. The early Trinityas the hero, armed with the Trinity as weapon, slays the[Pg 81] dragon,which again is the same Trinity. With its illimitable possibilities fordramatic development and fantastic embellishment with incident andethical symbolism, this theme has provided countless thousands ofstory-tellers with the skeleton which they clothed with the living fleshof their stories, representing not merely the earliest theories ofastronomy and meteorology, but all the emotional conflicts of dailylife, the struggle between light and darkness, heat and cold, right andwrong, justice and injustice, prosperity and adversity, wealth andpoverty. The whole gamut of human strivings and emotions was drawn intothe legend until it became the great epic of the human spirit and themain theme that has appealed to the interest of all mankind in everyage.

An ancient Chinese philosopher, Wang Fu, writing in the time of the HanDynasty, enumerates the "nine resemblances" of the dragon. "His hornsresemble those of a stag, his head that of a camel, his eyes those of ademon, his neck that of a snake, his belly that of a clam, his scalesthose of a carp, his claws those of an eagle, his soles those of atiger, his ears those of a cow."[134] But this list includes only asmall minority of the menagerie of diverse creatures which at one timeor another have contributed their quota to this truly astoundinghotchpotch.

This composite wonder-beast ranges from Western Europe to the Far Eastof Asia, and as we shall see, also even across the Pacific to America.Although in the different localities a great number of most variedingredients enter into its composition, in most places where the dragonoccurs the substratum of its anatomy consists of a serpent or acrocodile, usually with the scales of a fish for covering, and the feetand wings, and sometimes also the head, of an eagle, falcon, or hawk,and the forelimbs and sometimes the head of a lion. An association ofanatomical features of so unnatural and arbitrary a nature can only meanthat all dragons are the progeny of the same ultimate ancestors.

Fig. 7.—A Mediæval Picture of a Chinese Dragon uponits cloud (After the late Professor W. Anderson)

Fig. 8.—A Chinese Dragon (After de Groot)

Fig. 9.—Dragon from the Ishtar Gate of Babylon

Fig. 10.—Babylonian Weather God

But it is not merely a case of structural or anatomical similarity, butalso of physiological identity, that clinches the proof of thederivation of this fantastic brood from the same parents. Wherever thedragon is found, it displays a special partiality for water. It controlsthe rivers or seas, dwells in pools or wells, or in the clouds on thetops[Pg 82] of mountains, regulates the tides, the flow of streams, or therainfall, and is associated with thunder and lightning. Its home is amansion at the bottom of the sea, where it guards vast treasures,usually pearls, but also gold and precious stones. In other instancesthe dwelling is upon the top of a high mountain; and the dragon's breathforms the rain-clouds. It emits thunder and lightning. Eating thedragon's heart enables the diner to acquire the knowledge stored in this"organ of the mind" so that he can understand the language of birds, andin fact of all the creatures that have contributed to the making of adragon.

It should not be necessary to rebut the numerous attempts that have beenmade to explain the dragon-myth as a story relating to extinct monsters.Such fantastic claims can be made only by writers devoid of anyknowledge of palæontology or of the distinctive features of the dragonand its history. But when the Keeper of the Egyptian and AssyrianAntiquities in the British Museum, in a book that is not intended to behumorous,[135] seriously claims Dr. Andrews' discovery of a giganticfossil snake as "proof" of the former existence of "the greatserpent-devil Āpep," it is time to protest.

Those who attempt to derive the dragon from such living creatures aslizards likeDraco volans orMoloch horridus[136] ignore theevidence of the composite and unnatural features of the monsters.

"Whatever be the origin of the Northern dragon, the myths, when theyfirst became articulate for us, show him to be in all essentials thesame as that of the South and East. He is a power of evil, guardian ofhoards, the greedy withholder of good things from men; and the slayingof a dragon is the crowning achievement of heroes—of Siegmund, ofBeowulf, of Sigurd, of Arthur, of Tristam—even of Lancelot, thebeauideal of mediæval chivalry" (Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. viii., p.467). But if in the West the dragon is usually a "power of evil," in thefar East he is equally emphatically a symbol of beneficence. He isidentified with emperors and kings; he is the son of heaven the bestowerof all bounties, not merely to mankind directly, but also to the earthas well.

Even in our country his symbolism is not always wholly malevolent,[Pg 83]otherwise—if for the moment we shut our eyes to the history of thedevelopment of heraldic ornament—dragons would hardly figure as thesupporters of the arms of the City of London, and as the symbol of manyof our aristocratic families, among which the Royal House of Tudor isincluded. It is only a few years since the Red Dragon of Cadwallader wasadded as an additional badge to the achievement of the Prince of Wales.But, "though a common ensign in war, both in the East and the West, asan ecclesiastical emblem his opposite qualities have remainedconsistently until the present day. Whenever the dragon is represented,it symbolizes the power of evil, the devil and his works. Hell inmediæval art is a dragon with gaping jaws, belching fire."

And in the East the dragon's reputation is not always blameless. For itfigures in some disreputable incidents and does not escape the sort ofpunishment that tradition metes out to his European cousins.

The Dragon in America and Eastern Asia.

In the early centuries of the Christian era, and probably also even fortwo or three hundred years earlier still, the leaven of the ancientcivilizations of the Old World was at work in Mexico, Central Americaand Peru. The most obtrusive influences that were brought to bear,especially in the area from Yucatan to Mexico, were inspired by theCambodian and Indonesian modifications of Indian beliefs and practices.The god who was most often depicted upon the ancient Maya and Azteccodices was the Indian rain-god Indra, who in America was provided withthe head of the Indian elephant[137] (i.e. seems to have been confusedwith the Indian Ganesa) and given other attributes more suggestive ofthe Dravidian Nâga than his enemy, the Aryan deity. In other words thecharacter of the American god, known asChac by the Maya people and asTlaloc by the Aztecs, is an interesting illustration of the effects ofsuch a mixture of cultures as Dr. Rivers has studied in Melanesia.[138]Not only does the elephant-headed god in America represent a blend ofthe two great Indian rain-gods which in the Old World are mortalenemies, the one of the other (partly for[Pg 84] the political reason that theDravidians and Aryans were rival and hostile peoples), but all thetraits of each deity, even those depicting the old Aryan conception oftheir deadly combat, are reproduced in America under circumstances whichreveal an ignorance on the part of the artists of the significance ofthe paradoxical contradictions they are representing. But even manyincidents in the early history of the Vedic gods, which were due toarbitrary circumstances in the growth of the legends, reappear inAmerica. To cite one instance (out of scores which might be quoted), inthe Vedic story Indra assumed many of the attributes of the god Soma. InAmerica the name of the god of rain and thunder, the Mexican Indra, isTlaloc, which is generally translated "pulque of the earth," fromtlal[l]i, "earth," andoc[tli], "pulque, a fermented drink (like theIndian drinksoma) made from the juice of the agave".[139]

The so-called "long-nosed god" (the elephant-headed rain-god) has beengiven the non-committal designation "god B," by Schellhas.[140]

Fig. 11.—Reproduction of a Picture in the Maya CodexTroano representing the Rain-god Chac treading upon the Serpent'shead, which is interposed between the earth and the rain the god ispouring out of a bowl. A Rain-goddess stands upon the Serpent'stail.

I reproduce here a remarkable drawing (Fig. 11) from the Codex Troano,in which this god, whom the Maya people calledChac, is shown pouringthe rain out of a water-jar (just as the deities of Babylonia and Indiaare often represented), and putting his foot upon the head of a serpent,who is preventing the rain from reaching the earth. Here we finddepicted with childlike simplicity and directness the Vedic conceptionof Indra overcoming the demon Vritra. Stempell describes this scene as"the elephant-headed god B standing upon the head of a serpent";[141]while Seler, who claims that god B is a tortoise, explains it as theserpent forming a footstool for the rain-god.[142] In the[Pg 85]Codex Cortes the same theme is depicted in another way, which is truerto the Indian conception of Vritra, as "the restrainer"[143] (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12.—Another representation of theElephant-headed Rain god. He is holding thunderbolts, conventionalisedin a hand-like form. The Serpent is converted into a sac, holding up therain-waters.

The serpent (the American rattlesnake) restrains the water by coilingitself into a sac to hold up the rain and so prevent it from reachingthe earth. In the various American codices this episode is depicted inas great a variety of forms as the Vedic poets of India described whenthey sang of the exploits of Indra. The Maya Chac is, in fact, Indratransferred to the other side of the Pacific and there only thinlydisguised by a veneer of American stylistic design.

But the Aztec god Tlaloc is merely the Chac of the Maya peopletransferred to Mexico. Schellhas declares that the "god B," the "mostcommon figure in the codices," is a "universal deity to whom the mostvaried elements, natural phenomena, and activities are subject". "Manyauthorities consider God B to represent Kukulkan, the Feathered Serpent,whose Aztec equivalent is Quetzalcoatl. Others identify him withItzamna, the Serpent God of the East, or with Chac, the Rain God of thefour quarters and the equivalent of Tlaloc of the Mexicans."[144]

From the point of view of its Indian analogies these confusions arepeculiarly significant, for the same phenomena are found in India. Thesnake and the dragon can be either the rain-god of the East or the enemyof the rain-god; either the dragon-slayer or the evil dragon who has tobe slain. The Indian wordNâga, which is applied to the beneficent godor king identified with the cobra, can also mean "elephant," and thisdouble significance probably played a part in the confusion of thedeities in America.

In the Dresden Codex the elephant-headed god is represented in one placegrasping a serpent, in another issuing from a serpent's mouth, and againas an actual serpent (Fig. 13). Turning next to the attributes of theseAmerican gods we find that they reproduce with amazing precision thoseof Indra. Not only were they the divinities who controlled rain,thunder, lightning, and vegetation, but they also carried axes andthunderbolts (Fig. 13) like their homologues in the Old World. LikeIndra, Tlaloc was intimately associated with the East and with the topsof mountains, where he had a special heaven, reserved for[Pg 86] warriors whofell in battle and women who died in childbirth. As a water-god also hepresided over the souls of the drowned and those who in life sufferedfrom dropsical affections. Indra also specialized in the same branch ofmedicine.

In fact, if one compares the account of Tlaloc's attributes andachievements, such as is given in Mr. Joyce's "Mexican Archæology" orProfessor Seler's monograph on the "Codex Vaticanus," with ProfessorHopkins's summary of Indra's character ("Religions of India") theidentity is so exact, even in the most arbitrary traits and confusionswith other deities' peculiarities, that it becomes impossible for anyserious investigator to refuse to admit that Tlaloc and Chac are merelyAmerican forms of Indra. Even so fantastic a practice as therepresentation of the American rain-god's face as composed of contortedsnakes[145] finds its analogy in Siam, where in relatively recent timesthis curious device was still being used by artists.[146]

"As the god of fertility maize belonged to him [Tlaloc], though notaltogether by right, for according to one legend he stole it after ithad been discovered by other gods concealed in the heart of amountain."[147] Indra also obtained soma from the mountain by similarmeans.[148]

In the ancient civilization of America one of the most prominent deitieswas called the "Feathered Serpent," in the Maya language, Kukulkan,Quiché Gukumatz, Aztec Quetzalcoatl, the Pueblo "Mother of Waters".Throughout a very extensive part of America the snake, like the IndianNâga, is the emblem of rain, clouds, thunder and lightning. But it isessentially and pre-eminently the symbol of rain; and the god whocontrols the rain, Chac of the Mayas, Tlaloc of the Aztecs, carried theaxe and the thunderbolt like his homologues and prototypes in the OldWorld. In America also we find reproduced in full, not only the legendsof the antagonism between the[Pg 87] thunder-bird and the serpent, but alsothe identification of these two rivals in one composite monster, which,as I have already mentioned, is seen in the winged disks, both in theOld World and the New.[149] Hardly any incident in the history of theEgyptian falcon or the thunder-birds of Babylonia, Greece or India,fails to reappear in America and find pictorial expression in the Mayaand Aztec codices.

Fig. 13.

A photographic reproduction of the 36th page of the Dresden Maya Codex.

Of the three pictures in the top row one represents the elephant-headedgod Chac with a snake's body. He is pouring out rain. The centralpicture represents the lightning animal carrying fire down from heavento earth. On the right Chac is shown in human guise carryingthunder-weapons in the form of burning torches.

In the second row a goddess sits in the rain: her head is prolonged intothat of a bird, holding a fish in its beak. The central picture showsChac in his boat ferrying a woman across the water from the East. Thethird illustration depicts the familiar conflict between the vulture andserpent.

In the third row Chac is seen with his axe: in the central picture heis standing in the water looking up towards a rain-cloud; and on theright he is shown sitting in a hut resting from his labours.

What makes America such a rich storehouse of historical data is the factthat it is stretched across the world almost from pole to pole; and formany centuries the jetsam and flotsam swept on to this vast strand hasmade it a museum of the cultural history of the Old World, much of whichwould have been lost for ever if America had not saved it. But a recordpreserved in this manner is necessarily in a highly confused state. Foressentially the same materials reached America in manifold forms. Theoriginal immigrants into America brought from North-Eastern Asia suchcultural equipment as had reached the area east of the Yenesei at thetime when Europe was in the Neolithic phase of culture. Then whenancient mariners began to coast along the Eastern Asiatic littoral andmake their way to America by the Aleutian route there was a furtherinfiltration of new ideas. But when more venturesome sailors began tonavigate the open seas and exploit Polynesia, for centuries[150] therewas a more or less constant influx of customs and beliefs, which weredrawn from Egypt and Babylonia, from the Mediterranean and East Africa,from India and Indonesia, China and Japan, Cambodia and Oceania. One andthe same fundamental idea, such as the attributes of the serpent as awater-god, reached America in an infinite variety of guises, Egyptian,Babylonian, Indian, Indonesian, Chinese and Japanese, and from thisamazing jumble of confusion the local priesthood of Central Americabuilt up a system of beliefs which is distinctively American, thoughmost of the ingredients and the principles of synthetic composition wereborrowed from the Old World.

Every possible phase of the early history of the dragon-story and allthe ingredients which in the Old World went to the making[Pg 88] of it havebeen preserved in American pictures and legends in a bewildering varietyof forms and with an amazing luxuriance of complicated symbolism andpicturesque ingenuity. In America, as in India and Eastern Asia, thepower controlling water was identified both with a serpent (which in theNew World, as in the Old, was often equipped with such inappropriate andarbitrary appendages, as wings, horns and crests) and a god, who waseither associated or confused with an elephant. Now many of theattributes of these gods, as personifications of the life-giving powersof water, are identical with those of the Babylonian god Ea and theEgyptian Osiris, and their reputations as warriors with the respectivesons and representatives, Marduk and Horus. The composite animal ofEa-Marduk, the "sea-goat" (the Capricornus of the Zodiac), was also thevehicle of Varuna in India whose relationship to Indra was in somerespects analogous to that of Ea to Marduk in Babylonia.[151] The Indian"sea-goat" orMakara was in fact intimately associated both withVaruna and with Indra. This monster assumed a great variety of forms,such as the crocodile, the dolphin, the sea-serpent or dragon, orcombinations of the heads of different animals with a fish's body (Fig.14). Amongst these we find an elephant-headed form of themakara,which was adopted as far east as Indonesia and as far west as Scotland.

Fig. 14.

A. The so-called "sea-goat" of Babylonia, a creature compounded of theantelope and fish of Ea.

B. The "sea-goat" as the vehicle of Ea or Marduk.

C to K—a series of varieties of the makara from the Buddhist Rails atBuddha Gaya and Mathura, circa 70 b.c.-70 a.d., afterCunningham ("Archæological Survey of India," Vol. III, 1873, Plates IXand XXIX).

L. The makara as the vehicle of Varuna, after Sir George Birdwood. Itis not difficult to understand how, in the course of the easterlydiffusion of culture, such a picture should develop into the ChineseDragon or the American Elephant-headed God.

I have already called attention[152] to the part played by themakarain determining the development of the form of the elephant-headed god inAmerica. Another form of themakara is described in the followingAmerican legend, which is interesting also as a mutilated version of theoriginal dragon-story of the Old World.

In 1912 Hernández translated and published a Maya manuscript[153] whichhad been written out in Spanish characters in the early days[Pg 89] of theconquest of the Americas, but had been overlooked until six years ago.It is an account of the creation, and includes the following passages:"All at once came the water [? rain] after the dragon was carried away.The heaven was broken up; it fell upon the earth; and they say thatCantul-ti-ku (four gods), the four Baccab, were those who destroyedit.... 'The whole world', saidAh-uuc-chek-nale (he who seven timesmakes fruitful), 'proceeded from the seven bosoms of the earth.' And hedescended to make fruitfulItzam-kab-uin (the female whale withalligator-feet), when he came down from the central angle of theheavenly region" (p. 171).

Hernández adds that "the old fishermen of Yucatan still call the whaleItzam: this explains the name ofItzaes, by which the Mayas wereknown before the founding of Mayapan".

The close analogy to the Indra-story is suggested by the phrasedescribing the coming of the water "after the dragon was carried away".Moreover, the Indian sea-elephantmakara, which was confused in theOld World with the dolphin of Aphrodite, and was sometimes also regardedas a crocodile, naturally suggests that the "female whale with thealligator-feet" was only an American version of the old Indian legend.

All this serves, not only to corroborate the inferences drawn from theother sources of information which I have already indicated, but also tosuggest that, in addition to borrowing the chief divinities of theirpantheon from India, the Maya people's original name was derived fromthe same mythology.[154]

It is of considerable interest and importance to note that in theearliest dated example of Maya workmanship (from Tuxtla, in the VeraCruz State of Mexico), for which Spinden assigns a tentative date of 235b.c., an unmistakable elephant figures among the fourhieroglyphs which Spinden reproduces (op. cit., p. 171). A similarhieroglyphic sign is found in the Chinese records of the Early ChowDynasty (John Ross, "The Origin of the Chinese People," 1916, P. 152).

The use of the numerals four and seven in the narrative translated[Pg 90] byHernández, as in so many other American documents, is itself, as Mrs.Zelia Nuttall has so conclusively demonstrated,[155] a most striking andconclusive demonstration of the link with the Old World.

Indra was not the only Indian god who was transferred to America, forall the associated deities, with the characteristic stories of theirexploits,[156] are also found depicted with childlike directness ofincident, but amazingly luxuriant artistic phantasy, in the Maya andAztec codices.

We find scattered throughout the islands of the Pacific the familiarstories of the dragon. One mentioned by the Bishop of Wellington refersto a New Zealand dragon with jaws like a crocodile's, which spoutedwater like a whale. It lived in a fresh-water lake.[157] In the samenumber of the sameJournal Sir George Grey gives extracts from a Maorilegend of the dragon, which he compares with corresponding passages fromSpenser's "Faery Queen". "Their strict verbal and poetical conformitywith the New Zealand legends are such as at first to lead to theimpression either that Spenser must have stolen his images and languagefrom the New Zealand poets, or that they must have acted unfairly by theEnglish bard" (p. 362). The Maori legend describes the dragon as "insize large as a monstrous whale, in shape like a hideous lizard; for inits huge head, its limbs, its tail, its scales, its tough skin, itssharp spines, yes, in all these it resembled a lizard" (p. 364).

Now the attributes of the Chinese and Japanese dragon as the controllerof rain, thunder and lightning are identical with those of the Americanelephant-headed god. It also is associated with the East and with thetops of mountains. It is identified with the Indian Nâga, but theconflict involved in this identification is less obtrusive than it iseither in America or in India. In Dravidian India the rulers and thegods are identified with the serpent: but among the Aryans, who werehostile to the Dravidians, the rain-god is the enemy of the Nâga. InAmerica the confusion becomes more pronounced because Tlaloc (Chac)represents both Indra and his enemy the serpent. The representation inthe codices of his conflict with the serpent is merely a tra[Pg 91]ditionwhich the Maya and Aztec scribes followed, apparently withoutunderstanding its meaning.

In China and Japan the Indra-episode plays a much less prominent part,for the dragon is, like the Indian Nâga, a beneficent creature, whichapproximates more nearly to the Babylonian Ea or the Egyptian Osiris. Itis not only the controller of water, but the impersonation of water andits life-giving powers: it is identified with the emperor, with hisstandard, with the sky, and with all the powers that give, maintain, andprolong life and guard against all kinds of danger to life. In otherwords, it is the bringer of good luck, the rejuvenator of mankind, thegiver of immortality.

But if the physiological functions of the dragon of the Far East canthus be assimilated to those of the Indian Nâga and the Babylonian andEgyptian Water God, who is also the king, anatomically he is usuallyrepresented in a form which can only be regarded as the Babyloniancomposite monster, as a rule stripped of his wings, though not of hisavian feet.

In America we find preserved in the legends of the Indians an accurateand unmistakable description of the Japanese dragon (which is mainlyChinese in origin). Even Spinden, who "does not care to dignify byrefutation the numerous empty theories of ethnic connections betweenCentral America" [and in fact America as a whole] "and the Old World,"makes the following statement (in the course of a discussion of themyths relating to horned snakes in California): "a similar monster,possessing antlers, and sometimes wings, is also very common in Algonkinand Iroquois legends, although rare in art. As a rule the horned serpentis a water spirit and an enemy of the thunder bird. Among the PuebloIndians the horned snake seems to have considerable prestige inreligious belief.... It lives in the water or in the sky and isconnected with rain or lightning."[158]

Thus we find stories of a dragon equipped with those distinctive tokensof Chinese origin, the deer's antlers; and along with it a snake withless specialized horns suggesting the Cerastes of Egypt and Babylonia. Ahorned viper distantly akin to the Cerastes of the Old World does occurin California; but its "horns" are so insignificant as to make it highlyimprobable that they could have been in any way responsible for theobtrusive rôle played by horns in these widespread[Pg 92] American stories.But the proof of the foreign origin of these stories is established bythe horned serpent's achievements.

It "lives in the water or the sky" like its homologue in the Old World,and it is "a water spirit". Now neither the Cobra nor the Cerastes isactually a water serpent. Their achievements in the myths therefore haveno possible relationship with the natural habits of the real snakes.They are purely arbitrary attributes which they have acquired as theresult of a peculiar and fortuitous series of historical incidents.

It is therefore utterly inconceivable and in the highest degreeimprobable that this long chain of chance circumstances should havehappened a second time in America, and have been responsible for thecreation of the same bizarre story in reference to one of the rarerAmerican snakes of a localized distribution, whose horns are merevestiges, which no one but a trained morphologist is likely to havenoticed or recognized as such.

But the American horned serpent, like its Babylonian and Indianhomologues, is also the enemy of the thunder bird. Here is a furthercorroboration of the transmission to America of ideas which were thechance result of certain historical events in the Old World, which Ihave mentioned in this lecture.

In the figure on page 94 I reproduce a remarkable drawing of an Americandragon. If the Algonkin Indians had not preserved legends of a wingedserpent equipped with deer's antlers, no value could be assigned to thissketch: but as we know that this particular tribe retains the legend ofjust such a wonder-beast, we are justified in treating this drawing assomething more than a jest.

"Petroglyphs are reported by Mr. John Criley as occurring near Ava,Jackson County, Illinois. The outlines of the characters observed by himwere drawn from memory and submitted to Mr. Charles S. Mason, of Toledo,Ohio, through whom they were furnished to the Bureau of Ethnology.Little reliance can be placed upon the accuracy of such drawing, butfrom the general appearance of the sketches the originals of which theyare copies were probably made by one of the middle Algonquin tribes ofIndians.[159][Pg 93]

"The 'Piasa' rock, as it is generally designated, was referred to by themissionary explorer Marquette in 1675. Its situation was immediatelyabove the city of Alton, Illinois."

Marquette's remarks are translated by Dr. Francis Parkman as follows:—

"On the flat face of a high rock were painted, in red, black, and green,a pair of monsters, each 'as large as a calf, with horns like a deer,red eyes, a beard like a tiger, and a frightful expression ofcountenance. The face is something like that of a man, the body coveredwith scales; and the tail so long that it passes entirely round thebody, over the head, and between the legs, ending like that of a fish.'"

Another version, by Davidson and Struve, of the discovery of thepetroglyph is as follows:—

"Again they (Joliet and Marquette) were floating on the broad bosom ofthe unknown stream. Passing the mouth of the Illinois, they soon fellinto the shadow of a tall promontory, and with great astonishment beheldthe representation of two monsters painted on its lofty limestone front.According to Marquette, each of these frightful figures had the face ofa man, the horns of a deer, the beard of a tiger, and the tail of a fishso long that it passed around the body, over the head, and between thelegs. It was an object of Indian worship and greatly impressed the mindof the pious missionary with the necessity of substituting for thismonstrous idolatry the worship of the true God."

A footnote connected with the foregoing quotation gives the followingdescription of the same rock:—

"Near the mouth of the Piasa creek, on the bluff, there is a smooth rockin a cavernous cleft, under an overhanging cliff, on whose face 50 feetfrom the base, are painted some ancient pictures or hieroglyphics, ofgreat interest to the curious. They are placed in a horizontal line fromeast to west, representing men, plants and animals. The paintings,though protected from dampness and storms, are in great part destroyed,marred by portions of the rock becoming detached and falling down."

Mr. McAdams, of Alton, Illinois, says, "The name Piasa is Indian andsignifies, in the Illini, the bird which devours men". He furnishes aspirited pen-and-ink sketch, 12 by 15 inches in size and purporting torepresent the ancient painting described by Marquette.[Pg 94] On the pictureis inscribed the following in ink: "Made by Wm. Dennis, April 3rd,1825". The date is in both letters and figures. On the top of thepicture in large letters are the two words, "FLYING DRAGON". Thispicture, which has been kept in the old Gilham family of Madison countyand bears the evidence of its age, is reproduced as Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.—Wm. Dennis's Drawing of the "Flying Dragon"Depicted on the Rocks at Piasa, Illinois.

He also publishes another representation with the following remarks:—

"One of the most satisfactory pictures of the Piasa we have ever seen isin an old German publication entitled 'The Valley of the MississippiIllustrated. Eighty illustrations from Nature, by H. Lewis, from theFalls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of Mexico,' published about the year1839 by Arenz & Co., Dusseldorf, Germany. One of the large full-pageplates in this work gives a fine view of the bluff at Alton, with thefigure of the Piasa on the face of the rock. It is represented to havebeen taken on the spot by artists from Germany.... In the German picturethere is shown just behind the rather dim outlines of the second face aragged crevice, as though of a fracture. Part of the bluff's face mighthave fallen and thus nearly destroyed one of the monsters, for in lateryears writers speak of but one figure. The whole face of the bluff wasquarried away in 1846-47."

The close agreement of this account with that of the Chinese andJapanese dragon at once arrests attention. The anatomical peculiaritiesare so extraordinary that if Père Marquette's account is trustworthythere is no longer any room for doubt of the Chinese or Japanesederivation of this composite creature. If the account is not accepted wewill be driven, not only to attribute to the pious seventeenth-centurymissionary serious dishonesty or culpable gullibility, but also tocredit him with[Pg 95] a remarkably precise knowledge of Mongolian archæology.When Algonkin legends are recalled, however, I think we are bound toaccept the missionary's account as substantially accurate.

Minns claims that representations of the dragon are unknown in Chinabefore the Han dynasty. But the legend of the dragon is much moreancient. The evidence has been given in full by de Visser.[160]

He tells us that the earliest reference is found in theYih King, andshows that the dragon was "a water animal akin to the snake, which[used] to sleep in pools during winter and arises in the spring." "It isthe god of thunder, who brings good crops when he appears in the ricefields (as rain) or in the sky (as dark and yellow clouds), in otherwords when he makes the rain fertilize the ground" (p. 38).

In theShu King there is a reference to the dragon as one of thesymbolic figures painted on the upper garment of the emperor Hwang Ti(who according to the Chinese legends, which of course are not abovereproach, reigned in the twenty-seventh centuryb.c.). In thisancient literature there are numerous references to the dragon, and notmerely to the legends,but also to representations of the benignmonster on garments, banners and metal tablets.[161] "The ancient texts... are short, but sufficient to give us the main conceptions of OldChina with regard to the dragon. In those early days [just as atpresent] he was the god of water, thunder, clouds, and rain, theharbinger of blessings, and the symbol of holy men. As the emperors arethe holy beings on earth, the idea of the dragon being the symbol ofImperial power is based upon this ancient conception" (op. cit., p.42).

In the fifth appendix to theYih King, which has been ascribed toConfucius, (i.e. three centuries earlier than the Han dynasty mentionedby Mr. Minns), it is stated that "K'ien (Heaven) is a horse,Kw'un(Earth) is a cow,Chen (Thunder) is a dragon." (op. cit., p.37).[162]

The philosopher Hwai Nan Tsze (who died 122b.c.) declared thatthe dragon is the origin of all creatures, winged, hairy, scaly, and[Pg 96]mailed; and he propounded a scheme of evolution (de Visser, p. 65). Heseems to have tried to explain away the fact that he had never actuallywitnessed the dragon performing some of the remarkable feats attributedto it: "Mankind cannot see the dragons rise: wind and rain assist themto ascend to a great height" (op. cit., p. 65). Confucius also iscredited with the frankness of a similar confession: "As to the dragon,we cannot understand his riding on the wind and clouds and his ascendingto the sky. To-day I saw Lao Tsze; is he not like the dragon?" (p. 65).

This does not necessarily mean that these learned men were sceptical ofthe beliefs which tradition had forged in their minds, but that thedragon had the power of hiding itself in a cloak of invisibility, justas clouds (in which the Chinese saw dragons) could be dissipated in thesky. The belief in these powers of the dragon was as sincere as that oflearned men of other countries in the beneficent attributes whichtradition had taught them to assign to their particular deities. In thepassages I have quoted the Chinese scholars were presumably attemptingto bridge the gap between the ideas inculcated by faith and the evidenceof their senses, in much the same sort of spirit as, for instance,actuated Dean Buckland last century, when he claimed that the glacialdeposits of this country afforded evidence in confirmation of the Delugedescribed in the Book of Genesis.

The tiger and the dragon, the gods of wind and water, are the keystonesof the doctrine calledfung shui, which Professor de Groot hasdescribed in detail.[163]

He describes it "as a quasi-scientific system, supposed to teach menwhere and how to build graves, temples, and dwellings, in order that thedead, the gods, and the living may be located therein exclusively, or asfar as possible, under the auspicious influences of Nature". The dragonplays a most important part in this system, being "the chief spirit ofwater and rain, and at the same time representing one of the fourquarters of heaven (i.e. the East, called the Azure Dragon, and thefirst of the seasons, spring)." The word Dragon comprises the highgrounds in general, and the water streams which have their sourcestherein or wind their way through them.[164][Pg 97]

The attributes thus assigned to the Blue Dragon, his control of waterand streams, his dwelling on high mountains whence they spring, and hisassociation with the East, will be seen to reveal his identity with theso-called "god B" of American archæologists, the elephant-headed godTlaloc of the Aztecs,Chac of the Mayas, whose more direct parentwas Indra.

It is of interest to note that, according to Gerini,[165] the wordNâga denotes not only a snake but also an elephant. Both the Chinesedragon and the Mexican elephant-god are thus linked with the Nâga, whois identified both with Indra himself and Indra's enemy Vritra. This isanother instance of those remarkable contradictions that one meets atevery step in pursuing the dragon. In the confusion resulting from theblending of hostile tribes and diverse cultures the Aryan deity who,both for religious and political reasons, is the enemy of the Nâgasbecomes himself identified with a Nâga!

I have already called attention (Nature, Jan. 27, 1916) to the factthat the graphic form of representation of the American elephant-headedgod was derived from Indonesian pictures of themakara. In Indiaitself themakara (see Fig. 14) is represented in a great variety offorms, most of which are prototypes of different kinds of dragons. Hencethe homology of the elephant-headed god with the other dragons isfurther established and shown to be genetically related to the evolutionof the protean manifestations of the dragon's form.

The dragon in China is "the heavenly giver of fertilizing rain" (op.cit., p. 36). In theShu King "the emblematic figures of the ancientsare given as the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountain, thedragon,and the variegated animals (pheasants) which are depicted on the uppersacrificial garment of the Emperor" (p. 39). In theLi Ki the unicorn,the phœnix, the tortoise, and the dragon are called the fourling(p. 39), which de Visser translates "spiritual beings," creatures withenormously strong vital spirit. The dragon possesses the mostling ofall creatures (p. 64). The tiger is the deadly enemy of the dragon (p.42).

The dragon sheds a brilliant light at night (p. 44), usually from hisglittering eyes. He is the giver of omens (p. 45), good and bad,[Pg 98] rainsand floods. The dragon-horse is a vital spirit of Heaven and Earth (p.58) and also of river water: it has the tail of a huge serpent.

The ecclesiastical vestments of the Wu-ist priests are endowed withmagical properties which are considered to enable the wearer to controlthe order of the world, to avert unseasonable and calamitous events,such as drought, untimely and superabundant rainfall, and eclipses.These powers are conferred by the decoration upon the dress. Upon theback of the chief vestment the representation of a range of mountains isembroidered as a symbol of the world: on each side (the right and left)of it a large dragon arises above the billows to represent thefertilizing rain. They are surrounded by gold-thread figuresrepresenting clouds and spirals typifying rolling thunder.[166]

A ball, sometimes with a spiral decoration, is commonly represented infront of the Chinese dragon. The Chinese writer Koh Hung tells us that"a spiral denotes the rolling of thunder from which issues a flash oflightning".[167] De Visser discusses this question at some length andrefers to Hirth's claim that the Chinese triquetrum, i.e., thewell-known three-comma shaped figure, the Japanesemitsu-tomoe, theancient spiral, represents thunder also.[168] Before discussing thisquestion, which involves the consideration of the almost world-widebelief in a thunder-weapon and its relationship to the spiral ornament,the octopus,[Pg 99] the pearl, the swastika and triskele, let us examinefurther the problem of the dragon's ball (see Fig. 15).

Fig. 15.—Photograph of a Chinese Embroidery in theManchester School of Art representing the Dragon and the Pearl-MoonSymbol.

De Groot regards the dragon as a thunder-god and therefore, like Hirth,assumes that the supposed thunder-ball is beingbelched forth and notbeingswallowed by the dragon. But de Visser, as the result of aconversation with Mr. Kramp and the study of a Chinese picture inBlacker's "Chats on Oriental China" (1908, p. 54), puts forward thesuggestion that the ball is the moon or the pearl-moon which the dragonis swallowing, thereby causing the fertilizing rain. The Chinesethemselves refer to the ball as the "precious pearl," which, under theinfluence of Buddhism in China, was identified with "the pearl thatgrants all desires" and is under the special protection of the Nâga,i.e., the dragon. Arising out of this de Visser puts the conundrum: "Wasthe ball originally also a pearl, not of Buddhism but of Taoism?"

In reply to this question I may call attention to the fact that thegerms of civilization were first planted in China by people stronglyimbued with the belief that the pearl was the quintessence oflife-giving and prosperity-conferring powers:[169] it was not onlyidentified with the moon, but also was itself a particle ofmoon-substance which fell as dew into the gaping oyster. It was the verypeople who held such views about pearls and gold who, when searching foralluvial gold and fresh-water pearls in Turkestan, were responsible fortransferring these same life-giving properties to jade; and the magicalvalue thus attached to jade was the nucleus, so to speak, around whichthe earliest civilization of China was crystallized.

As we shall see, in the discussion of the thunder-weapon (p. 121), theluminous pearl, which was believed to have fallen from the sky, washomologized with the thunderbolt, with the functions of which its ownmagical properties were assimilated.

Kramp called de Visser's attention to the fact that the Chinesehieroglyphic character for the dragon's ball is compounded of the signsforjewel andmoon, which is also given in a Japanese lexicon asdivine pearl, the pearl of the bright moon.

"When the clouds approached and covered the moon, the ancient[Pg 100] Chinesemay have thought that the dragons had seized and swallowed this pearl,more brilliant than all the pearls of the sea" (de Visser, p. 108).

The difficulty de Visser finds in regarding his own theory as whollysatisfactory is, first, the red colour of the ball, and secondly, thespiral pattern upon it. He explains the colour as possibly an attempt torepresent the pearl's lustre. But de Visser seems to have overlooked thefact that red and rose-coloured pearls obtained from the conch-shellwere used in China and Japan.[170]

"The spiral is much used in delineating the sacred pearls of Buddhism,so that it might have served also to design those of Taoism; although Imust acknowledge that the spiral of the Buddhist pearl goes upward,while the spiral of the dragon is flat" (p. 103).

De Visser sums up the whole argument in these words:—

"These are, however, all mere suppositions. The only facts we know are:the eager attitude of the dragons, ready to grasp and swallow the ball;the ideas of the Chinese themselves as to the ball being the moon or apearl; the existence of a kind of sacred "moon-pearl"; the red colour ofthe ball, its emitting flames and its spiral-like form. As the threelast facts are in favour of the thunder theory, I should be inclined toprefer the latter. Yet I am convinced that the dragons do notbelchout the thunder. If their trying tograsp orswallow the thundercould be explained, I should immediately accept the theory concerningthe thunder-spiral, especially on account of the flames it emits. But Ido not see the reason why the god of thunder should persecute thunderitself. Therefore, after having given the above facts that the readermay take them into consideration, I feel obliged to say: 'non liquet'"(p. 108).

It does not seem to have occurred to the distinguished Dutch scholar,who has so lucidly put the issue before us, that his demonstration ofthe fact of the ball being the pearl-moon about to be swallowed by thedragon does not preclude it being also confused with the thunder.Elsewhere in this volume I have referred to the origin of the spiralsymbolism and have shown that it became associated with the pearlbefore it became the symbol of thunder. The pearl-association in factwas[Pg 101] one of the links in the chain of events which made the pearl andthe spirally-coiled arm of the octopus the sign of thunder.[171]

It seems quite clear to me that de Visser's pearl-moon theory is thetrue interpretation. But when the pearl-ball was provided with thespiral, painted red, and given flames to represent its power of emittinglight and shining by night, the fact of the spiral ornamentation and ofthe pearl being one of the surrogates of the thunder-weapon wasrationalized into an identification of the ball with thunder and thelight it was emitting as lightning. It is, of course, quite irrationalfor a thunder-god to swallow his own thunder: but popularinterpretations of subtle symbolism, the true explanation of which isdeeply buried in the history of the distant past, are rarely logical andalmost invariably irrelevant.

In his account of the state of Brahmanism in India after the times ofthe two earlier Vedas, Professor Hopkins[172] throws light upon the realsignificance of the ball in the dragon-symbolism. "Old legends arevaried. The victory over Vritra is now expounded thus: Indra, who slaysVritra, is the sun. Vritra is the moon, who swims into the sun's mouthon the night of the new moon. The sun rises after swallowing him, andthe moon is invisible because he is swallowed. The sun vomits out themoon, and the latter is then seen in the west, and increases again, toserve the sun as food. In another passage it is said that when the moonis invisible he is hiding in plants and waters."

This seems to clear away any doubt as to the significance of the ball.It is the pearl-moon, which is both swallowed and vomited by the dragon.

The snake takes a more obtrusive part in the Japanese than in theChinese dragon and it frequently manifests itself as a god of the sea.The old Japanese sea-gods were often female water-snakes. The culturalinfluences which reached Japan from the south by way of Indonesia—manycenturies before the coming of Buddhism—naturally emphasized theserpent form of the dragon and its connexion with the ocean.

But the river-gods, or "water-fathers," were real four-footed dragonsidentified with the dragon-kings of Chinese myth, but at the[Pg 102] same timewere strictly homologous with the Nâga Rajas or cobra-kings of India.

The Japanese "Sea Lord" or "Sea Snake" was also called"Abundant-Pearl-Prince," who had a magnificent palace at the bottom ofthe sea. His daughter ("Abundant-Pearl-Princess") married a youth whomshe observed, reflected in the well, sitting on a cassia tree near thecastle gate. Ashamed at his presence at her lying-in she was changedinto awani or crocodile (de Visser, p. 139), elsewhere described as adragon (makara). De Visser gives it as his opinion that thewani is"an old Japanese dragon, or serpent-shaped sea-god, and the legend is anancient Japanese tale, dressed in an Indian garb by later generations"(p. 140). He is arguing that the Japanese dragon existed long beforeJapan came under Indian influence. But he ignores the fact that at avery early date both India and China were diversely influenced byBabylonia, the great breeding place of dragons; and, secondly, thatJapan was influenced by Indonesia, and through it by the West, for manycenturies before the arrival of such later Indian legends as thoserelating to the palace under the sea, the castle gate and the cassiatree. As Aston (quoted by de Visser) remarks, all these incidents andalso the well that serves as a mirror, "form a combination not unknownto European folk-lore".

After de Visser had given his own views, he modified them (on p. 141)when he learned that essentially the same dragon-stories had beenrecorded in the Kei Islands and Minahassa (Celebes). In the light ofthis new information he frankly admits that "the resemblance of severalfeatures of this myth with the Japanese one is so striking, that we maybe sure that the latter is of Indonesian origin." He goes further whenhe recognizes that "probably the foreign invaders, who in prehistorictimes conquered Japan, came from Indonesia, and brought the myth withthem" (p. 141). The evidence recently brought together by W. J. Perry inhis book "The Megalithic Culture of Indonesia" makes it certain that thepeople of Indonesia in turn got it from the West.

An old painting reproduced by F. W. K. Müller,[173] who called deVisser's attention to these interesting stories, shows Hohodemi (the[Pg 103]youth on the cassia tree who married the princess) returning homemounted on the back of a crocodile, like the Indian Varuna upon themakara in a drawing reproduced by the late Sir George Birdwood.[174]

Thewani or crocodile thus introduced from India,via Indonesia, isreally the Chinese and Japanese dragon, as Aston has claimed. Astonrefers to Japanese pictures in which the Abundant-Pearl-Prince and hisdaughter are represented with dragon's heads appearing over their humanones, but in the old Indonesian version they maintain their forms aswani or crocodiles.

The dragon's head appearing over a human one is quite an Indian motive,transferred to China and from there to Korea and Japan (de Visser, p.142), and, I may add, also to America.

[Since the foregoing paragraphs have been printed, the Curator of theLiverpool Museum has kindly called my attention to a remarkable seriesof Maya remains in the collection under his care, which were obtained inthe course of excavations made by Mr. T. W. F. Gann, M.R.C.S., anofficer in the Medical Service of British Honduras (see his account ofthe excavations in Part II. of the 19th Annual Report of the Bureau ofEthnology, Smithsonian Institution of Washington). Among them is apottery figure of awani ormakara in the form of an alligator,equipped with diminutive deer's horns (like the dragon of Eastern Asia);and its skin is studded with circular elevations, presumably meant torepresent the spots upon the star-spangled "Celestial Stag" of theAryans (p. 130). As in the Japanese pictures mentioned by Aston, a humanhead is seen emerging from the creature's throat. It affords a mostdefinite and convincing demonstration of the sources of Americanculture.]

The jewels of flood and ebb in the Japanese legends consist of thepearls of flood and ebb obtained from the dragon's palace at the bottomof the sea. By their aid storms and floods could be created to destroyenemies or calm to secure safety for friends. Such stories are thelogical result of the identification of pearls with the moon, theinfluence of which upon the tides was probably one of the circumstanceswhich was responsible for bringing the moon into the circle of the greatscientific theory of the life-giving powers of water. This in turnplayed a great, if not decisive, part in originating the earliest beliefin a sky world, or heaven.

[Pg 104]

The Evolution of the Dragon.

The American and Indonesian dragons can be referred back primarily toIndia, the Chinese and Japanese varieties to India and Babylonia. Thedragons of Europe can be traced through Greek channels to the sameultimate source. But the cruder dragons of Africa are derived eitherfrom Egypt, from the Ægean, or from India. All dragons that strictlyconform to the conventional idea of what such a wonder-beast should becan be shown to be sprung from the fertile imagination of ancient Sumer,the "great breeding place of monsters" (Minns).

But the history of the dragon's evolution and transmission to othercountries is full of complexities; and the dragon-myth is made up ofmany episodes, some of which were not derived from Babylonia.

In Egypt we do not find the characteristic dragon and dragon-story. Yetall of the ingredients out of which both the monster and the legends arecompounded have been preserved in Egypt, and in perhaps a more primitiveand less altered form than elsewhere. Hence, if Egypt does not providedragons for us to dissect, it does supply us with the evidence withoutwhich the dragon's evolution would be quite unintelligible.

Egyptian literature affords a clearer insight into the development ofthe Great Mother, the Water God, and the Warrior Sun God than we canobtain from any other writings of the origin of this fundamental stratumof deities. And in the three legends: The Destruction of Mankind, TheStory of the Winged Disk, and The Conflict between Horus and Set, it haspreserved the germs of the great Dragon Saga. Babylonian literature hasshown us how this raw material was worked up into the definite andfamiliar story, as well as how the features of a variety of animals wereblended to form the composite monster. India and Greece, as well as moredistant parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia, and even America havepreserved many details that have been lost in the real home of themonster.

In the earliest literature that has come down to us from antiquity aclear account is given of the original attributes of Osiris. "Horuscomes, he recognizes his father in thee [Osiris], youthful in thy nameof 'Fresh Water'." "Thou art indeed the Nile, great on the fields at thebeginning of the seasons; gods and men live by the moisture that is[Pg 105] inthee." He is also identified with the inundation of the river. "It isUnis [the dead king identified with Osiris] who inundates the land." Healso brings the wind and guides it. It is the breath of life whichraises the king from the dead as an Osiris. The wine-press god comes toOsiris bearing wine-juice and the great god becomes "Lord of theoverflowing wine": he is also identified with barley and with the beermade from it. Certain trees also are personifications of the god.

But Osiris was regarded not only as the waters upon earth, the riversand streams, the moisture in the soil and in the bodies of animals andplants, but also as "the waters of life that are in the sky".

"As Osiris was identified with the waters of earth and sky, he may evenbecome the sea and the ocean itself. We find him addressed thus: 'Thouart great, thou art green, in thy name of Great Green (Sea); lo, thouart round as the Great Circle (Okeanos); lo, thou art turned about, thouart round as the circle that encircles the Haunebu (Ægeans)."

This series of interesting extracts from Professor Breasted's "Religionand Thought in Ancient Egypt" (pp. 18-26) gives the earliest Egyptians'own ideas of the attributes of Osiris. The Babylonians regarded Ea inalmost precisely the same light and endowed him with identical powers.But there is an important and significant difference between Osiris andEa. The former was usually represented as a man, that is, as a deadking, whereas Ea was represented as a man wearing a fish-skin, as afish, or as the composite monster with a fish's body and tail, which wasthe prototype of the Indianmakara and "the father of dragons".

In attempting to understand the creation of the dragon it is importantto remember that, although Osiris and Ea were regarded primarily aspersonifications of the beneficent life-giving powers of water, as thebringers of fertility to the soil and the givers of life and immortalityto living creatures, they were also identified with the destructiveforces of water, by which men were drowned or their welfare affected invarious ways by storms of sea and wind.

Thus Osiris or the fish-god Ea could destroy mankind. In other words thefish-dragon, or the composite monster formed of a fish and an antelope,could represent the destructive forces of wind and water. Thus even themalignant dragon can be the homologue of the usually[Pg 106] beneficent godsOsiris and Ea, and their Aryan surrogates Mazdah and Varuna.

By a somewhat analogous process of archaic rationalization the sonsrespectively of Osiris and Ea, the sun-gods Horus and Marduk, acquired asimilarly confused reputation. Although their outstanding achievementswere the overcoming of the powers of evil, and, as the givers of light,conquering darkness, their character as warriors made them also powersof destruction. The falcon of Horus thus became also a symbol of chaos,and as the thunder-bird became the most obtrusive feature in the weirdanatomy of the composite Mesopotamian dragon and his more modernbird-footed brood, which ranges from Western Europe to the Far East ofAsia and America.

That the sun-god derived his functions directly or indirectly fromOsiris and Hathor is shown by his most primitive attributes, for in "theearliest sun-temples at Abusir, he appears as the source of life andincrease". "Men said of him: 'Thou hast driven away the storm, and hastexpelled the rain, and hast broken up the clouds'." Horus was in factthe son of Osiris and Hathor, from whom he derived his attributes. Theinvention of the sun-god was not, as most scholars pretend, an attemptto give direct expression to the fact that the sun is the source offertility. That is a discovery of modern science. The sun-god acquiredhis attributes secondarily (and for definite historical reasons) fromhis parents, who were responsible for his birth.

The quotation from the Pyramid Texts is of special interest as anillustration of one of the results of the assimilation of the idea ofOsiris as the controller of water with that of a sky-heaven and asun-god. The sun-god's powers are rationalized so as to bring them intoconformity with the earliest conception of a god as a power controllingwater.

Breasted attempts to interpret the statements concerning the storm andrain-clouds as references to the enemies of the sun, who steal thesky-god's eye, i.e., obscure the sun or moon.[175] The incident ofHorus's loss of an eye, which looms so large in Egyptian legends, ispossibly more closely related to the earliest attempts at explainingeclipses of the sun and moon, the "eyes" of the sky. The obscuring ofthe sun and moon by clouds is a matter of little significance to theEgyptian: but the modern Egyptianfellah, and no doubt hispredecessors also,[Pg 107] regard eclipses with much concern. Such eventsexcite great alarm, for the peasants consider them as actual combatsbetween the powers of good and evil.

In other countries where rain is a blessing and not, as in Egypt, merelyan unwelcome inconvenience, the clouds play a much more prominent partin the popular beliefs. In the Rig-Veda the power that holds up theclouds is evil: as an elaboration of the ancient Egyptian conception ofthe sky as a Divine Cow, the Great Mother, the Aryan Indians regardedthe clouds as a herd of cattle which the Vedic warrior-god Indra (who inthis respect is the homologue of the Egyptian warrior Horus) stole fromthe powers of evil and bestowed upon mankind. In other words, likeHorus, he broke up the clouds and brought rain.

The antithesis between the two aspects of the character of these ancientdeities is most pronounced in the case of the other member of this mostprimitive Trinity, the Great Mother. She was the great beneficent giverof life, but also the controller of life, which implies that she was thedeath-dealer. But this evil aspect of her character developed only underthe stress of a peculiar dilemma in which she was placed. On a famousoccasion in the very remote past the great Giver of Life was summoned torejuvenate the ageing king. The only elixir of life that was known tothe pharmacopœia of the times was human blood: but to obtain thislife-blood the Giver of Life was compelled to slaughter mankind. Shethus became the destroyer of mankind in her lionessavatar as Sekhet.

The earliest known pictorial representation of the dragon (Fig. 1)consists of the forepart of the sun-god's falcon or eagle united withthe hindpart of the mother-goddess's lioness. The student of modernheraldry would not regard this as a dragon at all, but merely a gryphonor griffin. A recent writer on heraldry has complained that, "in spiteof frequent corrections, this creature is persistently confused in thepopular mind with thedragon, which is even more purelyimaginary."[176] But the investigator of the early history of thesewonder-beasts is compelled, even at the risk of incurring the herald'scensure, to regard the gryphon as one of the earliest known tentativeefforts at dragon-making. But though the fish, the falcon or eagle, andthe composite eagle-lion[Pg 108] monster are early known pictorialrepresentations of the dragon, good or bad, the serpent is probably moreancient still (Fig. 2).

The earliest form assumed by the power of evil was the serpent: but itis important to remember that, as each of the primary deities can be apower of either good or evil, any of the animals representing them cansymbolize either aspect. Though Hathor in her cow manifestation isusually benevolent and as a lioness a power of destruction, the cow maybecome a demon in certain cases and the lioness a kindly creature. Thefalcon of Horus (or its representatives, eagle, hawk, woodpecker, dove,redbreast, etc) may be either good or bad: so also the gazelle (antelopeor deer), the crocodile, the fish, or any of the menagerie of creaturesthat enter into the composition of good or bad demons.

"The Nâgas are semi-divine serpents which very often assume human shapesand whose kings live with their retinues in the utmost luxury in theirmagnificent abodes at the bottom of the sea or in rivers or lakes. Whenleaving the Nâga world they are in constant danger of being grasped andkilled by the gigantic semi-divine birds, the Garudas, which also changethemselves into men" (de Visser, p. 7).

"The Nâgas are depicted in three forms: common snakes, guarding jewels;human beings with four snakes in their necks; and winged sea-dragons,the upper part of the body human, but with a horned, ox-like head, thelower part of the body that of a coiling-dragon. Here we find a linkbetween the snake of ancient India and the four-legged Chinese dragon"(p. 6), hidden in the clouds, which the dragon himself emitted, like amodern battleship, for the purpose of rendering himself invisible. Inother words, the rain clouds were the dragon's breath. The fertilizingrain was thus in fact the vital essence of the dragon, being both waterand the breath of life.

"We find the Nâga king not only in the possession of numberless jewelsand beautiful girls, but also of mighty charms, bestowing supernaturalvision and hearing. The palaces of the Nâga kings are always describedas extremely splendid, abounding with gold and silver and preciousstones, and the Nâga women, when appearing in human shape, werebeautiful beyond description" (p. 9).

De Visser records the story of an evil Nâga protecting a big tree thatgrew in a pond, who failed to emit clouds and thunder when the tree wascut down, because he was neither despised nor wounded: for[Pg 109] his bodybecame the support of the stūpa and the tree became a beam of thestūpa (p. 16). This aspect of the Nâga as a tree-demon is rare inIndia, but common in China and Japan. It seems to be identical with theMediterranean conception of the pillar of wood or stone, which is both arepresentative of the Great Mother and the chief support of atemple.[177]

In the magnificent city that king Yaçaḥketu saw, when he dived intothe sea, "wishing trees that granted every desire" were among theobjects that met his vision. There were also palaces of precious stonesand gardens and tanks, and, of course, beautiful maidens (de Visser, p.20).

In the Far Eastern stories it is interesting to note the antagonism ofthe dragon to the tiger, when we recall that the lioness-form of Hathorwas the prototype of the earliest malevolent dragon.

There are five sorts of dragons: serpent-dragons; lizard-dragons;fish-dragons; elephant-dragons; and toad-dragons (de Visser, p. 23).

"According to de Groot, the blue colour is chosen in China because thisis the colour of the East, from where the rain must come; this quarteris represented by the Azure Dragon, the highest in rank among all thedragons. We have seen, however, that the original sūtra alreadyprescribed to use the blue colour and to face the East.... Indra, therain-god, is the patron of the East, and Indra-colour isnila, darkblue or rather blue-black, the regular epithet of the rain clouds. Ifthe priest had not to face the East but the West, this would agree withthe fact that the Nâgas were said to live in the western quarter andthat in India the West corresponds with the blue colour. Facing theEast, however, seems to point to an old rain ceremony in which Indra wasinvoked to raise the blue-black clouds" (de Visser, pp. 30 and 31).

The Dragon Myth.

The most important and fundamental legend in the whole history ofmythology is the story of the "Destruction of Mankind". "It wasdiscovered, translated, and commented upon by Naville ("La Destructiondes hommes par les Dieux," in theTransactions of the Society ofBiblical Archæology, vol. iv., pp. 1-19, reproducing Hay's copies madeat the beginning of [the nineteenth] century; and[Pg 110] "L'Inscription de laDestruction des hommes dans le tombeau de Ramsés III," in theTransactions, vol. viii., pp. 412-20); afterwards published anew byHerr von Bergmann (Hieroglyphische Inscriften, pls. lxxv.-lxxxii., andpp. 55, 56); completely translated by Brugsch (Die neue Weltordnungnach Vernichtung des sündigen Menschengeschlechts nach einerAltägyptischen Ueberlieferung, 1881); and partly translated by Lauth(Aus Ægyptens Vorzeit, pp. 70-81) and by Lefèbure ("Une chapitre de lachronique solaire," in theZeitschrift für Ægyptische Sprache, 1883,pp 32, 33)".[178]

Important commentaries upon this story have been published also byBrugsch and Gauthier.[179]

As the really important features of the story consist of the incoherentand contradictory details, and it would take up too much space toreproduce the whole legend here, I must refer the reader to Maspero'saccount of it (op. cit.), or to the versions given by Erman in his"Life in Ancient Egypt" (p. 267, from which I quote) or Budge in "TheGods of the Egyptians," vol. i., p. 388.

Although the story as we know it was not written down until the time ofSeti I (circa 1300b.c.), it is very old and had beencirculating as a popular legend for more than twenty centuries beforethat time. The narrative itself tells its own story because it iscomposed of many contradictory interpretations of the same incidentsflung together in a highly confused and incoherent form.

The other legends to which I shall have constantly to refer are "TheSaga of the Winged Disk," "The Feud between Horus and Set," "TheStealing of Re's Name by Isis," and a series of later variants andconfusions of these stories.[180][Pg 111]

The Egyptian legends cannot be fully appreciated unless they are inconjunction with those of Babylonia and Assyria,[181] the mythology ofGreece,[182] Persia,[183] India,[184] China,[185] Indonesia,[186] andAmerica.[187]

For it will be found that essentially the same stream of legends wasflowing in all these countries, and that the scribes and painters havecaught and preserved certain definite phases of this verbal currency.The legends which have thus been preserved are not to be regarded ashaving been directly derived the one from the other but as collateralphases of a variety of waves of story spreading out from one centre.Thus the comparison of the whole range of homologous legends ispeculiarly instructive and useful; because the gaps in the Egyptianseries, for example, can be filled in by necessary phases which aremissing in Egypt itself, but are preserved in Babylonia or Greece,Persia or India, China or Britain, or even Oceania and America.

The incidents in the Destruction of Mankind may be briefly summarized:

As Re grows old "the men who were begotten of his eye"[188] show signsof rebellion. Re calls a council of the gods and they advise him[Pg 112] to"shoot forth his Eye[189] that it may slay the evil conspirators.... Letthe goddess Hathor descend [from heaven] and slay the men on themountains [to which they had fled in fear]." As the goddess complied sheremarked: "it will be good for me when I subject mankind," and Rereplied, "I shall subject them and slay them". Hence the goddessreceived the additional name ofSekhmet from the word "to subject".The destructive Sekhmet[190]avatar of Hathor is represented as afierce lion-headed goddess of war wading in blood. For the goddess setto work slaughtering mankind and the land was flooded with blood[191].Re became alarmed and determined to save at least some remnant ofmankind. For this purpose he sent messengers to Elephantine to obtain asubstance calledd'd' in the Egyptian text, which he gave to the godSektet of Heliopolis to grind up in a mortar. When the slaves hadcrushed barley to make beer the powderedd'd' was mixed with it so asto make it red like human blood. Enough of this blood-coloured beer wasmade to fill 7000 jars. At nighttime this was poured out upon thefields, so that when the goddess came to resume her task of destructionin the morning she found the fields inundated and her face was mirroredin the fluid. She drank of the fluid and became intoxicated so that sheno longer recognized mankind.[192]

Thus Re saved a remnant of mankind from the bloodthirsty, terribleHathor. But the god was weary of life on earth and withdrew to heavenupon the back of the Divine Cow.

There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this legend, highly confusedas it is. The king who was responsible for introducing irriga[Pg 113]tion cameto be himself identified with the life-giving power of water. He was theriver: his own vitality was the source of all fertility and prosperity.Hence when he showed signs that his vital powers were failing it becamea logical necessity that he should be killed to safeguard the welfare ofhis country and people.[193]

The time came when a king, rich in power and the enjoyment of life,refused to comply with this custom. When he realized that his virilitywas failing he consulted the Great Mother, as the source and giver oflife, to obtain an elixir which would rejuvenate him and obviate thenecessity of being killed. The only medicine in the pharmacopœia ofthose times that was believed to be useful in minimizing danger to lifewas human blood. Wounds that gave rise to severe hæmorrhage were knownto produce unconsciousness and death. If the escape of[Pg 114] the blood oflife could produce these results it was not altogether illogical toassume that the exhibition of human blood could also add to the vitalityof living men and so "turn back the years from their old age," as thePyramid Texts express it.

Thus the Great Mother, the giver of life to all mankind, was faced withthe dilemma that, to provide the king with the elixir to restore hisyouth, she had to slay mankind, to take the life she herself had givento her own children. Thus she acquired an evil reputation which was tostick to her throughout her career. She was not only the beneficentcreator of all things and the bestower of all blessings: but she wasalso a demon of destruction who did not hesitate to slaughter even herown children.

In course of time the practice of human sacrifice was abandoned andsubstitutes were adopted in place of the blood of mankind. Either theblood of cattle,[194] who by means of appropriate ceremonies could betransformed into human beings (for the Great Mother herself was theDivine Cow and her offspring cattle), was employed in its stead; or redochre was used to colour a liquid which was used ritually to replace theblood of sacrifice. When this phase of culture was reached the goddessprovided for the king an elixir of life consisting of beer stained redby means of red ochre, so as to simulate human blood.

But such a mixture was doubly potent, for the barley from which the beerwas made and the drink itself was supposed to be imbued with thelife-giving powers of Osiris, and the blood-colour reinforced itstherapeutic usefulness. The legend now begins to become involved andconfused. For the goddess is making the rejuvenator for the king, who inthe meantime has died and become deified as Osiris; and the beer, whichis the vehicle of the life-giving powers of Osiris, is now being used torejuvenate his son and successor, the living king Horus, who in theversion that has come down to us is replaced by the sun-god Re.[Pg 115]

It is Re who is king and is growing old: he asks Hathor, the GreatMother, to provide him with the elixir of life. But comparison with someof the legends of other countries suggests that Re has usurped the placepreviously occupied by Horus and originally by Osiris, who as the realpersonification of the life-giving power of water is obviously theappropriate person to be slain when his virility begins to fail. Dr.C. G. Seligman's account of the Dinka rain-maker Lerpiu, which I havealready quoted (p. 113) from Sir James Frazer's "Dying God," suggeststhat the slain king or god was originally Osiris.

The introduction of Re into the story marks the beginning of the beliefin the sky-world or heaven. Hathor was originally nothing more than anamulet to enhance fertility and vitality. Then she was personified as awoman and identified with a cow. But when the view developed that themoon controlled the powers of life-giving in women and exercised adirect influence upon their life-blood, the Great Mother was identifiedwith the moon. But how was such a conception to be brought into harmonywith the view that she was also a cow? The human mind displays anirresistible tendency to unify its experience and to bridge the gapsthat necessarily exist in its broken series of scraps of knowledge andideas. No break is too great to be bridged by this instinctive impulseto rationalize the products of diverse experience. Hence, early man,having identified the Great Mother both with a cow and the moon, had nocompunction in making "the cow jump over the moon" to become the sky.The moon then became the "Eye" of the sky and the sun necessarily becameits other "Eye". But, as the sun was clearly the more important "Eye,"seeing that it determined the day and gave warmth and light for man'sdaily work, it was the more important deity. Therefore Re, at first theBrother-Eye of Hathor, and afterwards her husband, became the supremesky-deity, and Hathor merely one of his Eyes.

When this stage of theological evolution was reached, the story of the"Destruction of Mankind" was re-edited, and Hathor was called the "Eyeof Re". In the earlier versions she was called into consultation solelyas the giver of life and, to obtain the life-blood, she cut men'sthroats with a knife.

But as the Eye of Re she was identified with the fire-spittinguræus-serpent which the king or god wore on his forehead. She was boththe moon and the fiery bolt which shot down from the sky to slay[Pg 116] theenemies of Re. For the men who were originally slaughtered to providethe blood for an elixir now became the enemies of Re. The reason forthis was that, human sacrifice having been abandoned and substitutesprovided to replace the human blood, the story-teller was at a loss toknow why the goddess killed mankind. A reason had to be found—and therationalization adopted was that men had rebelled against the gods andhad to be killed. This interpretation was probably the result of aconfusion with the old legend of the fight between Horus and Set, therulers of the two kingdoms of Egypt. The possibility also suggestsitself that a pun made by some priestly jester may have been the realfactor that led to this mingling of two originally separate stories. Inthe "Destruction of Mankind" the story runs, according to Budge,[195]that Re, referring to his enemies, said:mā-ten set uār er set,"Behold ye them (set) fleeing into the mountain (set)". The enemieswere thus identified with the mountain or stone and with Set, the enemyof the gods.[196]

In Egyptian hieroglyphics the symbol for stone is used as thedeterminative for Set. When the "Eye of Re" destroyed mankind and therebels were thus identified with the followers of Set, they wereregarded as creatures of "stone". In other words the Medusa-eyepetrified the enemies. From this feeble pun on the part of some ancientEgyptian scribe has arisen the world-wide stories of the influence ofthe "Evil Eye" and the petrification of the enemies of the gods.[197] Asthe name for Isis in Egyptian is "Set" it is possible that theconfusion of the Power of Evil with the Great Mother may also have beenfacilitated by an extension of the same pun.

It is important to recognize that the legend of Hathor descending fromthe moon or the sky in the form of destroying fire had nothing whateverto do, in the first instance, with the phenomena of lightning[Pg 117] andmeteorites. It was the result of verbal quibbling after the destructivegoddess came to be identified with the moon, the sky and the "Eye ofRe". But once the evolution of the story on these lines prepared theway, it was inevitable that in later times the powers of destructionexerted by the fire from the sky should have been identified with thelightning and meteorites.

When the destructive force of the heavens was attributed to the "Eye ofRe" and the god's enemies were identified with the followers of Set, itwas natural that the traditional enemy of Set who was also the morepotent other "Eye of Re" should assume his mother's rôle of punishingrebellious mankind. That Horus did in fact take the place at firstoccupied by Hathor in the story is revealed by the series of trivialepisodes from the "Destruction of Mankind" that reappear in the "Saga ofthe Winged Disk". The king of Lower Egypt (Horus) was identified with afalcon, as Hathor was with the vulture (Mut): like her, he entered thesun-god's boat[198] and sailed up the river with him: he then mounted upto heaven as a winged disk, i.e. the sun of Re equipped with his ownfalcon's wings. The destructive force displayed by Hathor as the Eye ofRe was symbolized by her identification with Tefnut, the fire-spittinguræus-snake. When Horus assumed the form of the winged disk he added tohis insignia two fire-spitting serpents to destroy Re's enemies. Thewinged disk was at once the instrument of destruction and the godhimself. It swooped (or flew) down from heaven like a bolt of destroyingfire and killed the enemies of Re. By a confusion with Horus's otherfight against the[Pg 118] followers of Set, the enemies of Re become identifiedwith Set's army and they are transformed into crocodiles, hippopotamiand all the other kinds of creatures whose shapes the enemies of Osirisassume.

In the course of the development of these legends a multitude of otherfactors played a part and gave rise to transformations of the meaning ofthe incidents.

The goddess originally slaughtered mankind, or perhaps it would be truerto say, madea human sacrifice, to obtain blood to rejuvenate theking. But, as we have seen already, when the sacrifice was no longer anecessary part of the programme, the incident of the slaughter was notdropped out of the story, but a new explanation of it was framed.Instead of simply making a human sacrifice, mankind as a whole wasdestroyed for rebelling against the gods, the act of rebellion beingmurmuring about the king's old age and loss of virility. The elixir soonbecame something more than a rejuvenator: it was transformed into thefood of the gods, the ambrosia that gave them their immortality, anddistinguished them from mere mortals. Now when the development of thestory led to the replacement of the single victim by the whole ofmankind, the blood produced by the wholesale slaughter was so abundantthat the fields were flooded by the life-giving elixir. By the sacrificeof men the soil was renewed and refertilized. When the blood-colouredbeer was substituted for the actual blood the conception was broughtinto still closer harmony with Egyptian ideas, because the beer wasanimated with the life-giving powers of Osiris. But Osiris was the Nile.The blood-coloured fertilizing fluid was then identified with the annualinundation of the red-coloured waters of the Nile. Now the Nile waterswere supposed to come from the First Cataract at Elephantine. Hence by afamiliar psychological process the previous phase of the legend wasrecast, and by confusion the red ochre (which was used to colour thebeer red) was said to have come from Elephantine.[199][Pg 119]

Thus we have arrived at the stage where, by a distortion of a series ofphases, the new incident emerges that by means of a human sacrifice theNile flood can be produced. By a further confusion the goddess, whooriginally did the slaughter, becomes the victim. Hence the storyassumed the form that by means of the sacrifice of a beautiful andattractive maiden the annual inundation can be produced. As the mostpotent symbol of life-giving it is essential that the victim should besexually attractive, i.e. that she should be a virgin and the mostbeautiful and desirable in the land. When the practice of humansacrifice was abandoned a figure or an animal was substituted for themaiden in ritual practice, and in legends the hero rescued the maiden,as Andromeda was saved from the dragon.[200] The dragon is thepersonification of the monsters that dwell in the waters as well as thedestructive forces of the flood itself. But the monsters were no otherthan the followers of Set; they were the victims of the slaughter whobecame identified with the god's other traditional enemies, thefollowers of Set. Thus the monster from whom Andromeda is rescued ismerely another representative of herself!

But the destructive forces of the flood now enter into the programme. Inthe phases we have so far discussed it was the slaughter of mankindwhich caused the inundation: but in the next phase it is the flooditself which causes the destruction, as in the later Egyptian and theborrowed Sumerian, Babylonian, Hebrew—and in fact theworld-wide—versions. Re's boat becomes the ark; the winged disk whichwas despatched by Re from the boat becomes the dove and the other birdssent out to spy the land, as the winged Horus spied the enemies of Re.

Thus the new weapon of the gods—we have already noted Hathor's knifeand Horus's winged disk, which is the fire from heaven, the lightningand the thunderbolt—is the flood. Like the others it can be either abeneficent giver of life or a force of destruction.

But the flood also becomes a weapon of another kind. One of the earlierincidents of the story represents Hathor in opposition to Re. Thegoddess becomes so maddened with the zest of killing that the godbecomes alarmed and asks her to desist and spare some representatives ofthe race. But she is deaf to entreaties. Hence the god is[Pg 120] said to havesent to Elephantine for the red ochre to make a sedative draught toovercome her destructive zeal. We have already seen that this incidenthad an entirely different meaning—it was merely intended to explain theobtaining of the colouring matter wherewith to redden the sacred beer soas to make it resemble blood as an elixir for the god. It was broughtfrom Elephantine, because the red waters of inundation of the Nile weresupposed by the Egyptians to come from Elephantine.

But according to the story inscribed in Seti I^st's tomb, the redochre was an essential ingredient of the sedative mixture (preparedunder the direction of Re by the Sekti[201] of Heliopolis) to calmHathor's murderous spirit.

It has been claimed that the story simply means that the goddess becameintoxicated with beer and that she became genially inoffensive solely asthe effect of such inebriation. But the incident in the Egyptian storyclosely resembles the legends of other countries in which some herb isused specifically as a sedative. In most books on Egyptian mythology theword (d'd') for the substance put into the drink to colour it istranslated "mandragora," from its resemblance to the Hebrew worddudaim in the Old Testament, which is often translated "mandrakes" or"love-apples". But Gauthier has clearly demonstrated that the Egyptianword does not refer to a vegetable but to a mineral substance, which hetranslates "red clay".[202] Mr. F. Ll. Griffith tells me, however, thatit is "red ochre". In any case, mandrake is not found at Elephantine(which, however, for the reasons I have already given, is a point of noimportance so far as the identification of the substance is concerned),nor in fact anywhere in Egypt.

But if some foreign story of the action of a sedative drug had becomeblended with and incorporated in the highly complex and compositeEgyptian legend the narrative would be more intelligible. The mandrakeis such a sedative as might have been employed to calm the murderousfrenzy of a maniacal woman. In fact it is closely allied to hyoscyamus,whose active principle, hyoscin, is used in modern medicine preciselyfor such purposes. I venture to suggest that a folk-tale describing theeffect of opium or some other "drowsy syrup" has been absorbed into thelegend of the Destruction of Mankind, and has provided the startingpoint of all those incidents in the dragon-story in which poison orsome[Pg 121] sleep-producing drug plays a part. For when Hathor defies Re andcontinues the destruction, she is playing the part of her Babylonianrepresentative Tiamat, and is a dragon who has to be vanquished by thedrink which the god provides.

The red earth which was pounded in the mortar to make the elixir of lifeand the fertilizer of the soil also came to be regarded as the materialout of which the new race of men was made to replace those who weredestroyed.

The god fashioned mankind of this earth and, instead of the red ochrebeing merely the material to give the blood-colour to the draught ofimmortality, the story became confused: actual blood was presented tothe clay images to give them life and consciousness.

In a later elaboration the remains of the former race of mankind wereground up to provide the material out of which their successors werecreated. This version is a favourite story in Northern Europe, and hasobviously been influenced by an intermediate variant which findsexpression in the Indian legend of the Churning of the Ocean of Milk.Instead of the material for the elixir of the gods being pounded by theSekti of Heliopolis and incidentally becoming a sedative for Hathor, itis the milk of the Divine Cow herself which is churned to provide theamrita.

The Thunder-Weapon.[203]

In the development of the dragon-story we have seen that the instrumentsof destruction were of a most varied kind. Each of the three primarydeities, Hathor, Osiris and Horus can be a destructive power as well asa giver of life and of all kinds of boons. Every homologue or surrogateof these three deities can become a weapon for dragon-destroying, suchas the moon or the lotus of Hathor, the water[Pg 122] or the beer of Osiris,the sun or the falcon of Horus. Originally Hathor used a flint knife oraxe: then she did the execution as "the Eye of Re," the moon, the fierybolt from heaven: Osiris sent the destroying flood and the intoxicatingbeer, each of which, like the knife, axe and moon of Hathor, wereanimated by the deity. Then Horus came as the winged disk, the falcon,the sun, the lightning and the thunderbolt. As the dragon-story wasspread abroad in the world any one of these "weapons" was confused withany of (or all) the rest. The Eye of Re was the fire-spittinguræus-serpent; and foreign people, like the Greeks, Indians and others,gave the Egyptian verbal simile literal expression and converted it intoan actual Cyclopean eye planted in the forehead, which shot out thedestroying fire.

The warrior god of Babylonia is called the bright one,[204] the sword orlightning of Ishtar, who was herself called both the sword or lightningof heaven.

In the Ægean area also the sons of Zeus and the progeny of heaven may beaxes, stone implements, meteoric stones and thunderbolts. In a Swahilitale the hero's weapon is "a sword like a flash of lightning".

According to Bergaigne,[205] the myth of the celestial drinksoma,brought down from heaven by a bird ordinarily calledcyena, "eagle,"is parallel to that of Agni, the celestial fire brought by Mâtariçvan.This parallelism is even expressly stated in the Rig Veda, verse 6 ofhymn 1 to Agni and Soma. Mâtariçvan brought the one from heaven, theeagle brought the other from the celestial mountain.

Kuhn admits that the eagle represents Indra; and Lehmann regards theeagle who takes the fire as Agni himself. It is patent that both Indraand Agni are in fact merely specialized forms of Horus of the WingedDisk Saga, in one of which the warrior sun-god is represented, in theother the living fire. The elixir of life of the Egyptian story isrepresented by thesoma, which by confusion is associated with theeagle: in other words, the god Soma is the homologue not only of Osiris,but also of Horus.

Other incidents in the same original version are confused in the Greekstory of Prometheus. He stole the fire from heaven and brought[Pg 123] it toearth: but, in place of the episode of the elixir, which is adopted inthe Indian story just mentioned, the creation of men from clay isaccredited by the Greeks to the "flaming one," the "fire eagle"Prometheus.

The double axe was the homologue of the winged disk which fell, orrather flew, from heaven as the tangible form of the god. This fire fromheaven inevitably came to be identified with the lightning. According toBlinkenberg (op. cit., p. 19) "many points go to prove that thedouble-axe is a representation of the lightning (see Usener, p. 20)". Herefers to the design on the famous gold ring from Mycenæ where "the sun,the moon, a double curved line presumably representing the rainbow, andthe double-axe, i.e. the lightning": but "the latter is placed lowerthan the others, probably because it descends from heaven to earth,"like Horus when he assumed the form of the winged disk and flew down toearth as a fiery bolt to destroy the enemies of Re.

The recognition of the homology of the winged disk with the double axesolves a host of problems which have puzzled classical scholars withinrecent years. The form of the double axe on the Mycenæan ring[206] andthe painted sarcophagus from Hagia Triada in Crete (and especially theoblique markings upon the axe) is probably a suggestion of the doubleseries of feathers and the outlines of the individual feathersrespectively on the wings. The position of the axe upon a symbolic treeis not intended, as Blinkenberg claims (op. cit., p. 21), as "a ritualrepresentation of the trees struck by lightning": but is the familiarscene of Mesopotamian culture-area, the tree of life surmounted by thewinged disk.[207]

The bird poised upon the axe in the Cretan picture is the homologue ofthe falcon of Horus: it is in fact a second representation of the wingeddisk itself. This interpretation is not affected by the considerationthat the falcon may be replaced by the eagle, pigeon, woodpecker orraven, for these substitutions were repeatedly made by the ancientpriesthoods in flagrant defiance of the properties of ornithologicalhomologies. The same phenomenon is displayed even more obtrusively inCentral America and Mexico, where the ancient sculptors[Pg 124] and paintersrepresented the bird perched upon the tree of life as a falcon, aneagle, a vulture, a macaw or even a turkey.[208]

The incident of the winged disk descending to effect the sun-god'spurposes upon earth probably represents the earliest record of therecognition of thunder and lightning and the phenomena of rain asmanifestations of the god's powers. All gods of thunder, lightning, rainand clouds derive their attributes, and the arbitrary graphicrepresentation of them, from the legend which the Egyptian scribe haspreserved for us in the Saga of the Winged Disk.

The sacred axe of Crete is represented elsewhere as a sword which becamethe visible impersonation of the deity.[209] There is a Hittite story ofa sword-handle coming to life. Hose and McDougall refer to the sameincident in certain Sarawak legends; and the story is true to theoriginal in the fact that the sword fell from the sun.[210]

Sir Arthur Evans describes as "the aniconic image of the god" a stonepillar on which crude pictures of a double axe have been scratched.These representations of the axe in fact serve the same purpose as thewinged disk in Egypt, and, as we shall see subsequently, there was anactual confusion between the Egyptian symbol and the Cretan axe.

The obelisk at Abusir was the aniconic representative of the sun-god Re,or rather, the support of the pyramidal apex, the gilded surface ofwhich reflected the sun's rays and so made manifest the god's presencein the stone.

The Hittites seem to have substituted the winged disk as arepresentation of the sun: for in a design copied from a seal[211] wefind the Egyptian symbol borne upon the apex of a cone.

The transition from this to the great double axe from Hagia Triada inthe Candia Museum[212] is a relatively easy one, which was materiallyhelped, as we shall see, by the fact that the winged disk was actuallyhomologized with an axe or knife as alternative weapons used by thesun-god for the destruction of mankind.

In Dr. Seligman's account of the Dinka rain-maker (supra, p. 113)[Pg 125] wehave already seen that the Soudanese Osiris was identified with a spearand falling stars.

According to Dr. Budge[213] the Egyptian hieroglyph used as thedeterminative of the wordneter, meaning god or spirit, is the axewith a handle. Mr. Griffith, however, interprets it as a roll of yellowcloth ("Hieroglyphics," p. 46). On Hittite seals the axe sometimes takesthe place of the god Teshub.[214]

Sir Arthur Evans endeavours to explain these conceptions by a vagueappeal to certain natural phenomena (op. cit., pp. 20 and 21); but theidentical traditions of widespread peoples are much too arbitrary andspecific to be interpreted by any such speculations.

Sanchoniathon's story of Baetylos being the son of Ouranos is merely apoetical way of saying that the sun-god fell to earth in the form of astone or a weapon, as a Zeus Kappôtas or a Horus in the form of a wingeddisk, flying down from heaven to destroy the enemies of Re.

"The idea of their [the weapons] flying through the air or falling fromheaven, and their supposed power of burning with inner fire or shiningin the nighttime," was not primarily suggested, as Sir Arthur Evansclaims (op. cit., p. 21), "by the phenomena associated with meteoricstones," but was a rationalization of the events described in the earlyEgyptian and Babylonian stories.

They "shine at night" because the original weapon of destruction was themoon as the Eye of Re. They "burn with inward fire," like the BabylonianMarduk, when in the fight with the dragon Tiamat "he filled his bodywith burning flame" (King,op. cit., p. 71), because theywere fire,the fire of the sun and of lightning, the fire spat out by the Eye ofRe.

Further evidence in corroboration of these views is provided by the factthat in the Ægean area the double-axe replaces the moon between thecow's horns (Evans,op. cit., Fig. 3, p. 9).

In King's "Babylonian Religion" (pp. 70 and 71) we are told how the godsprovided Marduk with an invincible weapon in preparation for the combatwith the dragon: and the ancient scribe himself sets forth a series ofits homologues:[Pg 126]—

An ancient Egyptian writer has put on record further identifications ofweapons. In the 95th Chapter of the Book of the Dead, the deceased isreported to have said: "I am he who sendeth forth terror into the powersof rain and thunder.... I have made to flourish my knife which is in thehand of Thoth in the powers of rain and thunder" (Budge, "Gods of theEgyptians," vol. i., p. 414).

The identification of the winged disk with the thunderbolt which emergesso definitely from these homologies is not altogether new, for it wassuggested some years ago by Count d'Alviella[215] in these words:—

"On seeing some representations of the Thunderbolt which recall in aremarkable manner the outlines of the Winged Globe, it may be asked ifit was not owing to this latter symbol that the Greeks transformed intoa winged spindle the Double Trident derived from Assyria. At any ratethe transition, or, if it be preferred, the combination of the twosymbols is met with in those coins from Northern Africa where Greek artwas most deeply impregnated with Phœnician types. Thus on coins ofBocchus II, King of Mauretania, figures are found which M. Lajardconnected with the Winged Globe, and M. L. Müller calls Thunderbolts,but which are really the result of crossing between these two emblems".

The thunderbolt, however, is not always, or even commonly, the directrepresentative of the winged disk. It is more often derived fromlightning or some floral design.[216]

According to Count d'Alviella[217] "the Trident of Siva at timesexhibits the form of a lotus calyx depicted in the Egyptian manner".

"Perhaps other transformations of thetrisula might still be found atBoro-Budur [in Java].... The same Disk which, when transformed into amost complicated ornament, is sometimes crowned by a Trident, is alsomet with between two serpents—which brings us back to the origin of theWinged Circle—the Globe of Egypt with the[Pg 127] uræi" (see d'Alviella's Fig.158). "Moreover this ornament, between which and certain forms of thetrisula the transition is easily traced, commonly surmounts theentrance to the pagodas depicted in the bas-reliefs—in exactly the samemanner as the Winged Globe adorns the lintel of the temples in Egypt andPhœnicia."

Thus we find traces of a blending of the two homologous designs, derivedindependently from the lotus and the winged disk, which acquired thesame symbolic significance.

The weapon of Poseidon, the so-called "Trident of Neptune," is"sometimes crowned with a trilobate lotus flower, or with three lotusbuds; in other cases it is depicted in a shape that may well represent afishing spear" (Blinkenberg,op. cit., pp. 53 and 54).

"Even if Jacobsthal's interpretation of the flower as a common Greeksymbol for fire be not accepted, the conventionalization of the tridentas a lotus blossom is quite analogous to the change, on Greek soil, ofthe Assyrian thunderweapon to two flowers pointing in oppositedirections" (p. 54).

But the conception of a flower as a symbol of fire cannot thus summarilybe dismissed. For Sir Arthur Evans has collected all the stages in thetransformation of Egyptian palmette pillars into the rayed pillars ofCyprus, in which the leaflets of the palmette become converted (in theCypro-Mycenæan derivatives) into the rays which he calls "the naturalconcomitant of divinities of light".[218]

The underlying motive which makes such a transference easy is theEgyptian conception of Hathor as a sacred lotus from which the sun-godHorus is born. The god of light is identified with the water-plant,whether lotus, iris or lily; and the lotus form of Horus can becorrelated with its Hellenic surrogate, Apollo Hyakinthos. "Thefleur-de-lys type now takes its place beside the sacred lotus" (op.cit., p. 50). The trident and the fleur-de-lys are thunderweaponsbecause they represent forms of Horus or his mother.

The classical keraunos is still preserved in Tibet as thedorje, whichis identified with Indra's thunderbolt, thevajra.[219] This word isalso applied to the diamond, the "king of stones," which in turnacquired many of the attributes of the pearl, another of the Great[Pg 128]Mother's surrogates, which is reputed to have fallen from heaven likethe thunderbolt.[220]

The Tibetandorje, like its Greek original, is obviously aconventionalized flower, the leaf-design about the base of the coronabeing quite clearly defined.

The influence of the Winged-Disk Saga is clearly revealed in such Greekmyths as that relating to Ixion. "Euripides is represented byAristophanes as declaring thatAithér the creation devised

When we read of Zeus in anger binding Ixion to a winged wheel made offire, and sending him spinning through the air, we are merely dealingwith a Greek variant of the Egyptian myth in which Re despatched Horusas a winged disk to slay his enemies. In the Hellenic version thesky-god is angry with the father of the centaurs for his ill-treatmentof his father-in-law and his behaviour towards Hera and hercloud-manifestation: but though distorted all the incidents reveal theiroriginal inspiration in the Egyptian story and its early Aryan variants.

It is remarkable that Mr. A. B. Cook, who compared the wheel of Ixionwith the Egyptian winged disk (pp. 205-10), did not look deeper for acommon origin of the two myths, especially when he got so far as toidentify Ixion with the sun-god (p. 211).

Blinkenberg sums up the development of the thunder-weapon thus: "Fromthe old Babylonian representation of the lightning, i.e. two or threezigzag lines representing flames, a tripartite thunder-weapon wasevolved and earned east and west from the ancient seat of civilization.[Pg 129]Together with the axe (in Western Asia Minor the double-edged, andtowards the centre of Asia the single-edged, axe) it became a regularattribute of the Asiatic thunder-gods.... The Indian trisula and theGreek triaina are both its descendants" (p. 57).

Discussing the relationship of the sun-god to thunder, Dr. Rendel Harrisrefers to the fact that Apollo's "arrows are said to be lightnings," andhe quotes Pausanias, Apollodorus and Mr. A. B. Cook in substantiation ofhis statements.[222] Both sons of Zeus, Dionysus and Apollo, are"concerned with the production of fire".

According to Hyginus, Typhon was the son of Tartarus and the Earth: hemade war against Jupiter for dominion, and, being struck by lightning,was thrown flaming to the earth, where Mount Ætna was placed uponhim.[223]

In this curious variant of the story of the winged disk, the conflict ofHorus with Set is merged with the Destruction, for the son of Tartarus[Osiris] and the Earth [Isis] here is not Horus but his hostile brotherSet. Instead of fighting for Jupiter (Re) as Horus did, he is againsthim. The lightning (which is Horus in the form of the winged disk)strikes Typhon and throws him flaming to earth. The episode of MountÆtna is the antithesis of the incident in the Indian legend of thechurning of the ocean: Mount Meru is placed in the sea upon the tortoiseavatar of Vishnu and is used to churn the food of immortality for thegods. In the Egyptian story the red ochre brought from Elephantine ispounded with the barley.

The story told by Hyginus leads up to the vision in Revelations (xii., 7et seq.): "There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels foughtagainst the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels, and prevailednot, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the greatdragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, whichdeceiveth the whole world: he was cast into the earth, and his angelswere cast out with him."[Pg 130]

In the later variants the original significance of the Destruction ofMankind seems to have been lost sight of. The life-giving Great Mothertends to drop out of the story and her son Horus takes her place. Hebecomes the warrior-god, but he not only assumes his mother's rôle buthe also adopts her tactics. Just as she attacked Re's enemies in thecapacity of the sky-god's "Eye," so Horus as the other "Eye," the sun,to which he gave his own falcon's wings, attacked in the form of thewinged disk. The winged disk, like the other "Eye of Re," was not merelythe sky weapon which shot down to destroy mankind, but also was the godHorus himself. This early conception involved the belief that thethunderbolt and lightning represented not merely the fiery weapon butthe actual god.

The winged disk thus exhibits the same confusion of attributes as wehave already noticed in Osiris and Hathor. It is the commonest symbol oflife-giving and beneficent protective power: yet it is the weapon usedto slaughter mankind. It is in fact the healing caduceus as well as thebaneful thunder-weapon.

The Deer.

One of the most surprising features of the dragon in China, Japan andAmerica, is the equipment of deer's horns.

In Babylonia both Ea and Marduk are intimately associated with theantelope or gazelle, and the combination of the head of the antelope (orin other cases the goat) with the body of a fish is the mostcharacteristic manifestation of either god. In Egypt both Osiris andHorus are at times brought into relationship with the gazelle orantelope, but more often it represents their enemy Set. Hence, in someparts of Africa, especially in the west, the antelope plays the part ofthe dragon in Asiatic stories.[224] The cow[225] of Hathor (Tiamat) mayrepresent the dragon also. In East Africa the antelope assumes the rôleof the hero,[226] and is the representative of Horus. In the Ægean area,Asia Minor[Pg 131] and Europe the antelope, gazelle or the deer, may beassociated with the Great Mother.[227]

In India the god Soma's chariot is drawn by an antelope. I have alreadysuggested that Soma is only a specialized form of the Babylonian Ea,whose evilavatar is the dragon: there is thus suggested another linkbetween the antelope and the latter. The Ea-element explains thefish-scales and the antelope provides the horns. I shall return to thediscussion of this point later.

Vayu or Pavana, the Indian god of the winds, who afterwards becamemerged with Indra, rides upon an antelope like the Egyptian Horus.Soma's attributes also were in large measure taken over by Indra. Hencein this complex tissue of contradictions we once more find thedragon-slayer acquiring the insignia, in this case the antelope, of hismortal enemy.

I have already referred to the fact that the early Babylonian deitiescould also be demons. Tiamat, the dragon whom Marduk fought, was merelythe malevolentavatar of the Great Mother. The dragon acquired hiscovering of fish-scales from an evil form of Ea.

In his Hibbert Lectures Professor Sayce claimed that the name of Ea wasexpressed by an ideograph which signifies literally "the antelope" (p.280). "Ea was called 'the antelope of the deep,' 'the antelope thecreator,' 'the lusty antelope'. We should have expected the animal of Eato have been the fish: the fact that it is not so points to theconclusion that the culture-god of Southern Babylonia was anamalgamation of two earlier deities, one the divine antelope and theother the divine fish." Ea was "originally the god of the river and wasalso associated with the snake". Nina was also both the fish-goddess andthe divinity whose name is interchanged with that of the deep. ProfessorSayce then refers to "the curious process of development whichtransformed the old serpent-goddess, 'the lady Nina,' into theembodiment of all that was hostile to the powers of heaven; but afterall, Nina had sprung from the fish-god of the deep [who also was[Pg 132] bothantelope and serpent as well, see p. 282], and Tiamat is herself 'thedeep' in Semitic dress" (p. 283).

"At times Ea was regarded as a gazelle rather than as an antelope." Theposition of the name in the list of animals shows what species of animalmust be meant.Lulim, "a stag," seems to be a re-duplicated form ofthe same word. Bothlulim andelim are said to be equivalent tosarru, king (p. 284).

Certain Assyriologists, from whom I asked for enlightenment upon thesephilological matters, express some doubt as to the antiquity or to thereality of the association of the names of Ea and the word for anantelope, gazelle or stag. But whatever the value of the linguisticevidence, the archæological, at any rate as early as the time ofNebuchadnezzar I, brings both Ea and Marduk into close association witha strange creature equipped with the horns of an antelope or gazelle.The association with the antelope of the homologous deities in India andEgypt leaves the reality of the connexion in no doubt. I had hoped thatProfessor Sayce's evidence would have provided some explanation of thestrange association of the antelope. But whether or not the philologicaldata justify the inferences which Professor Sayce drew from them, therecan be no doubt concerning the correctness of his statement that Ea wasrepresented both by fish and antelope, for in the course of hisexcavations at Susa M. J. de Morgan brought to light representations ofEa's animal consisting of an antelope's head on the body of a fish.[228]He also makes the statement that the ideogram of Ea,turahu-apsu,means "antelope of the sea". I have already (p. 88) referred to the factthat this "antelope of the sea," the so-called "goat-fish," is identicalwith the prototype of the dragon.

If his claim that the names of Ea meant both a "fish" and an "antelope"were well founded, the pun would have solved this problem, as it hasdone in the case of many other puzzles in the history of earlycivilization. But if this is not the case, the question is still openfor solution. As Set was held to be personified in all the desertanimals, the gazelle was identified with the demon of evil for thisreason. In her important treatise on "The Asiatic Dionysos" Miss GladysDavis tells us that "in his aspect of Moon 'the lord of stars'[Pg 133] Soma hasin this character the antelope as his symbol. In fact, one of the namesgiven to the moon by the early Indians was 'mṛiga-piplu' or markedlike an antelope" (p. 202). Further she adds: "The Sanskrit name for thelunar mansion over which Soma presides is 'mṛiga-śiras' or thedeer-headed." If it be admitted that Soma is merely the Aryanspecialization of Ea and Osiris, as I have claimed, Sayce's associationof Ea with the antelope is corroborated, even if it is not explained.

In China the dragon was sometimes called "the celestial stag" (de Groot,op. cit., p. 1143). In Mexico the deer has the same intimate celestialrelations as it has in the Old World (see Seler,Zeit. f. Ethnologie,Bd. 41, p. 414). I have already referred to the remarkable Mayadeer-crocodilemakara in the Liverpool Museum (p. 103).

The systematic zoology of the ancients was lacking in the precision ofmodern times; and there are reasons for supposing that the antelope andgazelle could exchange places the one with the other in their divinerôles; the deer and the rabbit were also their surrogates. In India aspotted rabbit can take the place of the antelope in playing the part ofwhat we call "the man in the moon". This interpretation is common, notonly in India, but also in China, and is repeatedly found in the ancientMexican codices (Seler,op. cit.). In the spread of the ideas we havejust been considering from Babylonia towards the north we find that thedeer takes the place of the antelope.

In view of the close resemblance between the Indian god Soma and thePhrygian Dionysus, which has been demonstrated by Miss Gladys Davis, itis of interest to note that in the service of the Greek god a man wasdisguised as a stag, slain and eaten.[229]

Artemis also, one of the manyavatars of the Great Mother, who wasalso related to the moon, was closely associated with the deer.

I have already referred to the fact that in Africa the dragon rôle ofthe female antelope may be assumed by the cow or buffalo. In the case ofthe gods Soma and Dionysus their association with the antelope or deermay be extended to the bull. Miss Davis (op. cit.) states that in theHoma Yasht the deer-headed lunar mansion over which the god presides isspoken of as "leading the Paurvas," i.e. Pleiades: "Mazda brought tothee (Homa) the star-studded spirit-fashioned girdle (the belt of Orion)leading the Paurvas. Now the Bull-Dionysus[Pg 134] was especially associatedwith the Pleiades on ancient gems and in classical mythology—which formpart of the sign Taurus." The bull is a sign of Haoma (Homa) or Soma.The belt of the thunder-god Thor corroborates the fact of the diffusionof these Babylonian ideas as far as Northern Europe.

The Ram.

The close association of the ram with the thunder-god is probablyrelated with the fact that the sun-god Amon in Egypt was represented bythe ram with a distinctive spiral horn. This spiral became a distinctivefeature of the god of thunder throughout the Hellenic and Phœnicianworlds and in those parts of Africa which were affected by theirinfluence or directly by Egypt.

An account of the widespread influence of the ram-headed god of thunderin the Soudan and West Africa has been given by Frobenius.[230]

But the ram also became associated with Agni, the Indian fire-god, andthe spiral as a head-appendage became the symbol of thunder throughoutChina and Japan, and from Asia spread to America where such deities asTlaloc still retain this distinctive token of their origin from the OldWorld.

In Europe this association of the ram and its spiral horn played an evenmore obtrusive part.

The octopus as a surrogate of the Great Mother was primarily responsiblefor the development of the life-giving attributes of the spiral motif.But the close connexion of the Great Mother with the dragon and thethunder-weapon prepared the way for the special association of thespiral with thunder, which was confirmed when the ram with its spiralhorn became the God of Thunder.

[Pg 135]

The Pig.

The relationship of the pig to the dragon is on the whole analogous tothat of the cow and the stag, for it can play either a beneficent or amalevolent part. But the nature of the special circumstances which gavethe pig a peculiar notoriety as an unclean animal are so intimatelyassociated with the "Birth of Aphrodite" that I shall defer thediscussion of them for my lecture on the history of the goddess.

Certain Incidents in the Dragon Myth.

Throughout the greater part of the area which tradition has peopled withdragons, iron is regarded as peculiarly lethal to the monsters. Thisseems to be due to the part played by the "smiths" who forged ironweapons with which Horus overcame Set and his followers,[231] or in theearlier versions of the legend the metal weapons by means of which thepeople of Upper Egypt secured their historic victory over the LowerEgyptians. But the association of meteoric iron with the thunderbolt,the traditional weapon for destroying dragons, gave added force to theancient legend and made it peculiarly apt as an incident in the story.

But though the dragon is afraid of iron, he likes precious gems andk'ung-ts'ing ("The Stone of Darkness") and is fond of roastedswallows.

The partiality of dragons for swallows was due to the transmission of avery ancient story of the Great Mother, who in the form of Isis wasidentified with the swallow. In China, so ravenous is the monster forthis delicacy, that anyone who has eaten of swallows should avoidcrossing the water, lest the dragon whose home is in the deep shoulddevour the traveller to secure the dainty morsel of swallow. But thosewho pray for rain use swallows to attract the beneficent deity. Even inEngland swallows flying low are believed to be omens of coming rain—atale which is about as reliable as the Chinese variant of the sameancient legend.

"The beautiful gems remind us of the Indian dragons; the pearls of thesea were, of course, in India as well as China and Japan, considered tobe in the special possession of the dragon-shaped sea-gods" (de Visser,p. 69). The cultural drift from West to East along the southern coast ofIndia was effected mainly by sailors who were searching for pearls.Sharks constituted the special dangers the divers had to incur inexploiting pearl-beds to obtain the precious "giver of life". But at thetime these great enterprises were first undertaken in the Indian Oceanthe people dwelling in the neighbourhood of the chief pearl-bedsregarded the sea as the great source of all life-giving virtues and thegod who exercised these powers was incarnated in a fish. The sharkstherefore had to be brought into harmony with this scheme, and[Pg 136] theywere rationalized as the guardians of the storehouse of life-givingpearls at the bottom of the sea.

I do not propose to discuss at present the diffusion to the East of thebeliefs concerning the shark and the modifications which they underwentin the course of these migrations in Melanesia and elsewhere; but in mylecture upon "the Birth of Aphrodite" I shall have occasion to refer toits spread to the West and explain how the shark's rôle was transferredto the dog-fish in the Mediterranean. The dog-fish then assumed aterrestrial form and became simply the dog who plays such a strange partin the magical ceremony of digging up the mandrake.

At present we are concerned merely with the shark as the guardian of thestores of pearls at the bottom of the sea. He became identified with theNâga and the dragon, and the store of pearls became a vasttreasure-house which it became one of the chief functions of the dragonto guard. This episode in the wonder-beast's varied career has a placein most of the legends ranging from Western Europe to Farthest Asia.Sometimes the dragon carries a pearl under his tongue or in his chin asa reserve of life-giving substance.

Mr. Donald Mackenzie has called attention[232] to the remarkableinfluence upon the development of the Dragon Myth of the familiarEgyptian representation of the child Horus with a finger touching hislips. On some pretence or other, many of the European dragon-slayingheroes, such as Sigurd and the Highland Finn, place their fingers intheir mouths. This action is usually rationalized by the statement thatthe hero burnt his fingers while cooking the slain monster.

The Ethical Aspect.

So far in this discussion I have been dealing mainly with the problemsof the dragon's evolution, the attainment of his or her distinctiveanatomical features and physiological attributes. But during thisprocess of development a moral and ethical aspect of the dragon'scharacter was also emerging.

Now that we have realized the fact of the dragon's homology with themoon-god it is important to remember that one of the primary functionsof this deity, which later became specialized in the Egyptian[Pg 137] godThoth, was the measuring of time and the keeping of records. The moon,in fact, was the controller of accuracy, of truth, and order, andtherefore the enemy of falsehood and chaos. The identification of themoon with Osiris, who from a dead king eventually developed into a kingof the dead, conferred upon the great Father of Waters the power toexact from men respect for truth and order. For even if at first theseideas were only vaguely adumbrated and not expressed in set phrases, itmust have been an incentive to good discipline when men remembered thatthe record-keeper and the guardian of law and order was also the deityupon whose tender mercies they would have to rely in the life afterdeath. Set, the enemy of Osiris, who is the real prototype of the evildragon, was the antithesis of the god of justice: he was the father offalsehood and the symbol of chaos. He was the prototype of Satan, asOsiris was the first definite representative of the Deity of which anyrecord has been preserved.

The history of the evil dragon is not merely the evolution of the devil,but it also affords the explanation of his traditional peculiarities,his bird-like features, his horns, his red colour, his wings and clovenhoofs, and his tail. They are all of them the dragon's distinctivefeatures; and from time to time in the history of past ages we catchglimpses of the reality of these identifications. In one of the earliestwoodcuts (Fig. 17) found in a printed book Satan is depicted as a monkwith the bird's feet of the dragon. A most interesting intermediatephase is seen in a Chinese water-colour in the John Rylands Library, inwhich the thunder-dragon is represented in a form almost exactlyreproducing that of the devil of European tradition (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16.—The God Of Thunder

(From a Chinese drawing (? 17th Century) in the John Rylands Library)

Fig. 17.—From Joannes de Turrecremata's"Meditationes seu Contemplationes". Romæ: Ulrich Hau. 1467

Early in the Christian era, when ancient beliefs in Egypt becamedisguised under a thin veneer of Christianity, the story of the conflictbetween Horus and Set was converted into a conflict between Christ andSatan. M. Clermont-Ganneau has described an interesting bas-relief inthe Louvre in which a hawk-headed St. George, clad in Roman militaryuniform and mounted on a horse, is slaying a dragon which is representedby Set's crocodile.[233] But the Biblical references to Satan leave nodoubt as to his identity with the dragon, who is[Pg 138] specifically mentionedin the Book of Revelations as "the old serpent which is the Devil andSatan" (xx. 2).

The devil Set was symbolic of disorder and darkness, while the godOsiris was the maintainer of order and the giver of light. Although themoon-god, in the form of Osiris, Thoth and other deities, thus came toacquire the moral attributes of a just judge, who regulated themovements of the celestial bodies, controlled the waters upon the earth,and was responsible for the maintenance of order in the Universe, theethical aspect of his functions was in large measure disguised by thematerial importance of his duties. In Babylonia similar views were heldwith respect to the beneficent water-god Ea, who was the giver ofcivilization, order and justice, and Sin, the moon-god, who "hadattained a high position in the Babylonian pantheon," as "the guide ofthe stars and the planets, the overseer of the world at night". "Fromthat conception a god of high moral character soon developed." "He is anextremely beneficent deity, he is a king, he is the ruler of men, heproduces order and stability, like Shamash and like the Indian Varuṇaand Mitra, but besides that, he is also a judge, he loosens the bonds ofthe imprisoned, like Varuṇa. His light, like that of Varuṇa, isthe symbol of righteousness.... Like the Indian Varuṇa and theIranian Mazdâh, he is a god of wisdom."

When these Egyptian and Babylonian ideas were borrowed by the Aryans,and the Iranian Mazdâh and the Indian Varuṇa assumed the rôle of thebeneficent deity of the former more ancient civilizations, the materialaspect of the functions of the moon-god became less obtrusive; and theregradually emerged the conception, to which Zarathushtra first gaveconcrete expression, of the beneficent god Ahura Mazdâh as "anomniscient protector of morality and creator of marvellous power andknowledge". "He is the most-knowing one, and the most-seeing one. No onecan deceive him. He watches with radiant eyes everything that is done inopen or in secret." "Although he has a strong personality he has noanthropomorphic features." He has shed the material aspects which loomedso large in his Egyptian, Babylonian and earlier Aryan prototypes, and amore ethereal conception of a God of the highest ethical qualities hasemerged.

The whole of this process of transformation has been described with deepinsight and lucid exposition by Professor Cumont, from whose im[Pg 139]portantand convincing memoir I have quoted so freely in the foregoingparagraphs.[234]

The creation of a beneficent Deity of such moral grandeur inevitablyemphasized the baseness and the malevolence of the "Power of Evil". Nolonger are the gods merely glorified human beings who can work good orevil as they will; but there is now an all-powerful God controlling themorals of the universe, and in opposition to Him "the dragon, the oldserpent, which is the Devil and Satan".

[Pg 140]

Chapter III.

THE BIRTH OF APHRODITE.[235]

It may seem ungallant to discuss the birth of Aphrodite as part of thestory of the evolution of the dragon. But the other chapters of thisbook, in which frequent references have been made to the early historyof the Great Mother, have revealed how vital a part she played in thedevelopment of the dragon. The earliest real dragon was Tiamat, one ofthe forms assumed by the Great Mother; and an even earlier prototype wasthe lioness (Sekhet) manifestation of Hathor.

Thus it becomes necessary to enquire more fully (than has been done inthe other chapters) into the circumstances of the Great Mother's birthand development, and to investigate certain aspects of her ontogeny towhich only scant attention has been paid in the preceding pages.

Several reasons have led me to select Aphrodite from the vast legion ofGreat Mothers for special consideration. In spite of her highspecialization in certain directions the Greek goddess of love retainsin greater measure than any of her sisters some of the most primitiveassociations of her original parent. Like vestigial structures inbiology, these traits afford invaluable evidence, not only ofAphrodite's own ancestry and early history, but also of that of thewhole family of goddesses of which she is only a specialized type. ForAphrodite's connexion with shells is a survival of the circumstanceswhich called into existence the first Great Mother and made her not onlythe Creator of mankind and the universe, but also the parent of alldeities, as she was historically the first to be created by humaninventiveness. In this lecture I propose to deal with the more generalaspects of the evolution of all these daughters of the Great Mother:[Pg 141]but I have used Aphrodite's name in the title because hershell-associations can be demonstrated more clearly and definitely thanthose of any of her sisters.

In the past a vast array of learning has been brought to bear upon theproblems of Aphrodite's origin; but this effort has, for the most part,been characterized by a narrowness of vision and a lack of adequateappreciation of the more vital factors in her embryological history. Inthe search for the deep human motives that found specific expression inthe great goddess of love, too little attention has been paid toprimitive man's psychology, and his persistent striving for an elixir oflife to avert the risk of death, to renew youth and secure a continuanceof existence after death. On the other hand, the possibility ofobtaining any real explanation has been dashed aside by most scholars,who have been content simply to juggle with certain stereotypedcatchphrases and baseless assumptions, simply because the traditions ofclassical scholarship have made these devices the pawns in a ratheraimless game.

It is unnecessary to cite specific illustrations in support of thisstatement. Reference to any of the standard works on classicalarchæology, such as Roscher's "Lexikon," will testify to the truth of myaccusation. In her "Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion" MissJane Harrison devotes a chapter (VI) to "The Making of a Goddess," anddiscusses "The Birth of Aphrodite". But she strictly observes thetraditions of the classical method; and assumes that the meaning of themyth of Aphrodite's birth from the sea—the germs of which are at leastfifty centuries old—can be decided by the omission of anyrepresentation of the sea in the decoration of a pot made in the fifthcenturyb.c.!

But apart from this general criticism, the lack of resourcefulness andopen mindedness, certain more specific factors have deflected classicalscholars from the true path. In the search for the ancestry ofAphrodite, they have concentrated their attention too exclusively uponthe Mediterranean area and Western Asia, and so ignored the most ancientof the historic Great Mothers, the African Hathor, with whom (as SirArthur Evans[236] clearly demonstrated more than fifteen years ago) theCypriote goddess has much closer affinities than with[Pg 142] any of herAsiatic sisters. Yet no scholar, either on the Greek or Egyptian side,has seriously attempted to follow up this clue and really investigatethe nature of the connexions between Aphrodite and Hathor, and thehistory of the development of their respective specializations offunctions.[237]

But some explanation must be given for my temerity in venturing toinvade the intensively cultivated domains of Aphrodite "with a mindundebauched by classical learning". I have already explained how thestudy of Libations and Dragons brought me face to face with the problemsof the Great Mother's attributes. At that stage of the enquiry twocircumstances directed my attention specifically to Aphrodite. Mr.Wilfrid Jackson was collecting the data relating to the cultural uses ofshells, which he has since incorporated in a book.[238] As the resultsof his search accumulated, the fact soon emerged that[Pg 143] the originalGreat Mother was nothing more than a cowry-shell used as a life-givingamulet; and that Aphrodite's shell-associations were a survival of theearliest phase in the Great Mother's history. At this psychologicalmoment Dr. Rendel Harris[239] claimed that Aphrodite was apersonification of the mandrake. But the magical attributes of themandrake, which he claimed to have been responsible for converting theamulet into a goddess, were identical with those which Jackson'sinvestigations had previously led me to regard as the reasons forderiving Aphrodite from the cowry. The mandrake was clearly a surrogateof the shell or vice versa.[240] The problem to be solved was to decidewhich amulet was responsible for suggesting the process of life-giving.The goddess Aphrodite was closely related to Cyprus; the mandrake was amagical plant there; and the cowry is so intimately associated with theisland as to be calledCypræa. So far as is known, however, theshell-amulet is vastly more ancient than the magical reputation of theplant. Moreover, we know why the cowry was regarded as feminine andaccredited with life-giving attributes. There are no such reasons forassigning life-giving powers or the female sex to the mandrake. Theclaim that its magical properties are due to the fancied resemblance ofits root to a human being is wholly untenable.[241] The roots of manyplants are at least as manlike; and, even if this character was theexclusive property of the mandrake, how does it help to explain theremarkable repetory of quite arbitrary and fantastic properties and thefemale sex assigned to the plant? Sir James Frazer's claim[242] that"such beliefs and practices illustrate the primitive tendency topersonify nature" is a gratuitous and quite irrelevant assumption, whichoffers no explanation whatsoever of the specific and arbitrary nature ofthe form assumed by the personification. But when we investigate thehistorical development of the peculiar[Pg 144] attributes of the cowry-shell,and appreciate why and how they were acquired, any doubt as to thesource from which the mandrake obtained its "magic" is removed; and withit the fallacy of Sir James Frazer's wholly unwarranted claims is alsoexposed.

If we ignore Sir James Frazer's naïve speculations we can make use ofthe compilations of evidence which he makes with such remarkableassiduity. But it is more profitable to turn to the study of theremarkable lectures which Dr. Rendel Harris has been delivering in thisroom[243] during the last few years. Our genial friend has beencultivating his garden on the slopes of Olympus,[244] and has beenplucking the rich fruits of his ripe scholarship and nimble wit. At thesame time, with rougher implements and cruder methods, I have beenburrowing in the depths of the earth, trying to recover informationconcerning the habits and thoughts of mankind many centuries beforeDionysus and Apollo, and Artemis and Aphrodite, were dreamt of.

In the course of these subterranean gropings no one was more surprisedthan I was to discover that I was getting entangled in the roots of thesame plants whose golden fruit Dr. Rendel Harris was gathering from hisOlympian heights. But the contrast in our respective points of view wasperhaps responsible for the different appearance the growths assumed.

To drop the metaphor, while he was searching for the origins of thedeities a few centuries before the Christian era began, I was findingtheir more or less larval forms flourishing more than twenty centuriesbefore the commencement of his story. For the gods and goddesses of hisnarrative were only the thinly disguised representatives of much moreancient deities decked out in the sumptuous habiliments of Greekculture.

In his lecture on Aphrodite, Dr. Rendel Harris claimed that the goddesswas a personification of the mandrake; and I think he made out a goodprima facie case in support of his thesis. But other scholars have setforth equally valid reasons for associating Aphrodite with the argonaut,the octopus, the purpura, and a variety of other shells, both univalvesand bivalves.[245]

The goddess has also been regarded as a personification of water,[Pg 145] theocean, or its foam.[246] Then again she is closely linked with pigs,cows, lions, deer, goats, rams, dolphins, and a host of other creatures,not forgetting the dove, the swallow, the partridge, the sparling, thegoose, and the swan.[247]

The mandrake theory does not explain, or give adequate recognition to,any of these facts. Nor does Dr. Rendel Harris suggest why it is sodangerous an operation to dig up the mandrake which he identifies withthe goddess, or why it is essential to secure the assistance of adog[248] in the process. The explanation of this fantastic fable givesan important clue to Aphrodite's antecedents.

The Search for the Elixir of Life. Blood as Life.

In delving into the remotely distant history of our species we cannotfail to be impressed with the persistence with which, throughout thewhole of his career, man (of the speciessapiens) has beenseeking[249] for an elixir of life, to give added "vitality" to the dead(whose existence was not consciously regarded as ended), to prolong thedays of active life to the living, to restore youth, and to protect hisown life from all assaults, not merely of time, but also ofcircumstance. In other words, the elixir he sought was something thatwould bring "good luck" in all the events of his life and itscontinuation. Most of the amulets, even of modern times, the luckytrinkets, the averters of the "Evil Eye," the practices and devices forsecuring good luck in love and sport, in curing bodily ills or mentaldistress, in attaining material prosperity, or a continuation ofexistence after death, are survivals of this ancient and persistentstriving after those objects which our earliest forefathers calledcollectively the "givers of life".

From statements in the earliest literature[250] that has come down to usfrom antiquity, no less than from the views that still prevail among[Pg 146]the relatively more primitive peoples of the present day, it is clearthat originally man did not consciously formulate a belief inimmortality.

It was rather the result of a defect of thinking, or as the modernpsychologist would express it, an instinctive repression of theunpleasant idea that death would come to him personally, that primitiveman refused to contemplate or to entertain the possibility of lifecoming to an end. So intense was his instinctive love of life and dreadof such physical damage as would destroy his body that man unconsciouslyavoided thinking of the chance of his own death: hence his belief in thecontinuance of life cannot be regarded as the outcome of an activeprocess of constructive thought.

This may seem altogether paradoxical and incredible.

How, it may be asked, can man be said to repress the idea of death, ifhe instinctively refused to admit its possibility? How did he escape theinevitable process of applying to himself the analogy he might have beensupposed to make from other men's experience and recognize that he mustdie?

Man appreciated the fact that he could kill an animal or another man byinflicting certain physical injuries on him. But at first he seems tohave believed that if he could avoid such direct assaults upon himself,his life would flow on unchecked. When death does occur and theonlookers recognize the reality, it is still the practice among certainrelatively primitive people to search for the man who has inflicteddeath on his fellow.

It would, of course, be absurd to pretend that any people could fail torecognize the reality of death in the great majority of cases. The merefact of burial is an indication of this. But the point of differencebetween the views of these early men and ourselves, was the tacitassumption on the part of the former, that in spite of the obviouschanges in his body (which made inhumation or some other procedurenecessary) the deceased was still continuing an existence not unlikethat which he enjoyed previously, only somewhat duller, less eventfuland more precarious. He still needed food and drink, as he did before,and all the paraphernalia of his mortal life, but he was dependent uponhis relatives for the maintenance of his existence.

Such views were difficult of acceptance by a thoughtful people, oncethey appreciated the fact of the disintegration of the corpse in thegrave; and in course of time it was regarded as essential for continued[Pg 147]existence that the body should be preserved. The idea developed, that solong as the body of the deceased was preserved and there were restoredto it all the elements of vitality which it had lost at death, thecontinuance of existence was theoretically possible and worthy ofacceptance as an article of faith.

Let us consider for a moment what were considered to be elements ofvitality by the earliest members of our species.[251]

From the remotest times man seems to have been aware of the fact that hecould kill animals or his fellow men by means of certain physicalinjuries. He associated these results with the effusion of blood. Theloss of blood could cause unconsciousness and death. Blood, therefore,must be the vehicle of consciousness and life, the material whose escapefrom the body could bring life to an end.[252]

The first pictures painted by man, with which we are at presentacquainted, are found upon the walls and roofs of certain caves inSouthern France and Spain. They were the work of the earliest knownrepresentatives of our own species,Homo sapiens, in the phase ofculture now distinguished by the name "Aurignacian".

The animals man was in the habit of hunting for food are depicted.[253]In some of them arrows are shown implanted in the animal's flank nearthe region of the heart; and in others the heart itself is represented.

This implies that at this distant time in the history of our species, itwas already realized how vital a spot in the animal's anatomy the heartwas. But even long before man began to speculate about the functions ofthe heart, he must have learned to associate the loss of blood on thepart of man or animals with death, and to regard the pouring out ofblood as the escape of its vitality. Many factors must have contributedto the new advance in physiology which made the heart the centre or thechief habitation of vitality, volition, feeling, and knowledge.

Not merely the empirical fact, acquired by experience in hunting, of thepeculiarly vulnerable nature of the heart, but perhaps also theknowledge that the heart contained life-giving blood, helped in[Pg 148]developing the ideas about its functions as the bestower of life andconsciousness.

The palpitation of the heart after severe exertion or under theinfluence of intense emotion would impress the early physiologist withthe relationship of the heart to the feelings, and afford confirmationof his earlier ideas of its functions.

But whatever the explanation, it is known from the folk-lore of even themost unsophisticated peoples that the heart was originally regarded asthe seat of life, feeling, volition, and knowledge, and that the bloodwas the life-stream. The Aurignacian pictures in the caves of WesternEurope suggest that these beliefs were extremely ancient.

The evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that not only were suchideas of physiology current in Aurignacian times, but also certaincultural applications of them had been inaugurated even then. Theremarkable method of blood-letting by chopping off part of a fingerseems to have been practised even in Aurignacian times.[254]

If it is legitimate to attempt to guess at the meaning these earlypeople attached to so singular a procedure, we may be guided by theideas associated with this act in outlying corners of the world at thepresent time. On these grounds we may surmise that the motive underlyingthis, and other later methods of blood-letting, such as circumcision,piercing the ears, lips, and tongue, gashing the limbs and body, etcetera, was the offering of the life-giving fluid.

Once it was recognized that the state of unconsciousness or death wasdue to the loss of blood it was a not illogical or irrational procedureto imagine that offerings of blood might restore consciousness and lifeto the dead.[255] If the blood was seriously believed to be the vehicleof feeling and knowledge, the exchange of blood or the offering of bloodto the community was a reasonable method for initiating anyone into thewider knowledge of and sympathy with his fellow-men.

Blood-letting, therefore, played a part in a great variety ofceremonies, of burial and of initiation, and also those of atherapeutic[256] and, later, of a religious significance.[Pg 149]

But from Aurignacian times onwards, it seems to have been admitted thatsubstitutes for blood might be endowed with a similar potency.

The extensive use of red ochre or other red materials for packing aroundthe bodies of the dead was presumably inspired by the idea thatmaterials simulating blood-stained earth, were endowed with the samelife-giving properties as actual blood poured out upon the ground insimilar vitalizing ceremonies.

As the shedding of blood produced unconsciousness, the offering of bloodor red ochre was, therefore, a logical and practical means of restoringconsciousness and reinforcing the element of vitality which wasdiminished or lost in the corpse.

The common statement that primitive man was a fantastically irrationalchild is based upon a fallacy. He was probably as well endowed mentallyas his modern successors; and was as logical and rational as they are;but many of his premises were wrong, and he hadn't the necessary body ofaccumulated wisdom to help him to correct his false assumptions.

If primitive man regarded the dead as still existing, but with a reducedvitality, it was a not irrational procedure on the part of the people ofthe Reindeer Epoch in Europe to pack the dead in red ochre (which theyregarded as a surrogate of the life-giving fluid) to make good the lackof vitality in the corpse.

If blood was the vehicle of consciousness and knowledge, the exchange ofblood was clearly a logical procedure for establishing communion ofthought and feeling and so enabling an initiate to assimilate thetraditions of his people.

If red carnelian was a surrogate of blood the wearing of bracelets ornecklaces of this life-giving material was a proper means of warding offdanger to life and of securing good luck.

If red paint or the colour red brought these magical results, it wasclearly justifiable to resort to its use.

All these procedures are logical. It is only the premises that wereerroneous.

The persistence of such customs in Ancient Egypt makes it possible forus to obtain literary evidence to support the inferences drawn fromarchæological data of a more remote age. For instance, the red jasperamulet sometimes called the "girdle-tie of Isis," was supposed tore[Pg 150]present the blood of the goddess and was applied to the mummy "tostimulate the functions of his blood";[257] or perhaps it would be moreaccurate to say that it was intended to add to the vital substance whichwas so obviously lacking in the corpse.

The Cowry as a Giver of Life.

Blood and its substitutes, however, were not the only materials that hadacquired a reputation for vitalizing qualities in the Reindeer Epoch.For there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that shells also wereregarded, even in that remote time, as life-giving amulets.

If the loss of blood was at first the only recognized cause of death,the act of birth was clearly the only process of life-giving. The portalby which a child entered the world was regarded, therefore, not only asthe channel of birth, but also as the actual giver of life.[258] Thelarge Red Sea cowry-shell, which closely simulates this "giver of life,"then came to be endowed by popular imagination with the same powers.Hence the shell was used in the same way as red ochre or carnelian: itwas placed in the grave to confer vitality on the dead, and worn onbracelets and necklaces to secure good luck by using the "giver of life"to avert the risk of danger to life. Thus the general life-givingproperties of blood, blood substitutes, and shells, came to beassimilated the one with the other.[259]

At first it was probably its more general power of averting death orgiving vitality to the dead that played the more obtrusive part in themagical use of the shell. But the circumstances which led to the[Pg 151]development of the shell's symbolism naturally and inevitably conferredupon the cowry special power over women. It was the surrogate of thelife-giving organ. It became an amulet to increase the fertility ofwomen and to help them in childbirth. It was, therefore, worn by girlssuspended from a girdle, so as to be as near as possible to the organ itwas supposed to simulate and whose potency it was believed to be able toreinforce and intensify. Just as bracelets and necklaces of carnelianwere used to confer on either sex the vitalizing virtues of blood, whichit was supposed to simulate, so also cowries, or imitations of them madeof metal or stone, were worn as bracelets, necklaces, or hair-ornaments,to confer health and good luck in both sexes. But these ideas received amuch further extension.

As the giver of life, the cowry came to have attributed to it by somepeople definite powers of creation. It was not merely an amulet toincrease fertility: it was itself the actual parent of mankind, thecreator of all living things; and the next step was to give thesematernal functions material expression, and personify the cowry as anactual woman in the form of a statuette with the distinctly femininecharacters grossly exaggerated;[260] and in the domain of belief tocreate the image of a Great Mother, who was the parent of the universe.

Fig. 18 (a) The Archaic Egyptian slatepalette of Narmer showing, perhaps, the earliest design of Hathor (atthe upper corners of the palette) as a woman with cow's horns and ears(compare Flinders Petrie, "The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty," PartI, 1900, Plate XXVII, Fig. 71). The pharaoh is wearing a belt from whichare suspended four cow-headed Hathor figures in place of thecowry-amulets of more primitive peoples. This affords corroboration ofthe view that Hathor assumed the functions originally attributed to thecowry-shell.

(b) The king's sporran, where Hathor-heads (h) take the placeof the cowries of the primitive girdle.

Fig. 19.—The front of Stela B (famous for therealistic representations of the Indian elephant at its upper corners),one of the ancient Maya monuments at Copan, Central America (afterMaudslay's photograph and diagram).

The girdle of the chief figure is decorated both with shells (Oliva orConus) and amulets representing human faces corresponding to theHathor-heads on the Narmer palette (Fig. 18).

Thus gradually there developed out of the cowry-amulet the conception ofa creator, the giver of life, health, and good luck. This Great Mother,at first with only vaguely defined traits, was probably the first deitythat the wit of man devised to console him with her watchful care overhis welfare in this life and to give him assurance as to his fate in thefuture.

At this stage I should like to emphasize the fact that these beliefs hadtaken shape long before any definite ideas had been formulated as to thephysiology of animal reproduction and before agriculture was practised.

Man had not yet come to appreciate the importance of vegetablefertility, nor had he yet begun to frame theories of the fertilizingpowers of water, or give specific expression to them by creating the godOsiris in his own image.

Nor had he begun to take anything more than the most casual[Pg 152] interest inthe sun, the moon, and the stars. He had not yet devised a sky-world norcreated a heaven. When, for reasons that I have already discussed,[261]the theory of the fertilizing and the animating power of water wasformulated, the beliefs concerning this element were assimilated withthose which many ages previously had grown up in explanation of thepotency of blood and shells. In addition to fertilizing the earth, watercould also animate the dead. The rivers and the seas were in fact a vastreservoir of this animating substance. The powers of the cowry, as aproduct of the sea, were rationalized into an expression of the greatcreative force of the water.

A bowl of water became the symbol of the fruitfulness of woman. Suchsymbolism implied that woman, or her uterus, was a receptacle into whichthe seminal fluid was poured and from which a new being emerged in aflood of amniotic fluid.

The burial of shells with the dead is an extremely ancient practice, forcowries have been found upon human skeletons of the so-called "UpperPalæolithic Age" of Southern Europe.

At Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne) Mediterranean cowries were found arrangedin pairs upon the body; two pairs on the forehead, one near each arm,four in the region of the thighs and knees, and two upon each foot.Others were found in the Mentone caves, and are peculiarly important,because, upon the same stratum as the skeleton with which they wereassociated, was found part of aCassis rufa, a shell whose habitatdoes not extend any nearer than the Indian Ocean.[262]

Fig. 20.—Diagrams illustrating the form ofcowry-belts worn in (a) East Africa and (b)Oceania respectively.

(c) Ancient Indian girdle (from the figure of Sirima Devata on theBharat Tope), consisting of strings of pearls and precious stones, andwhat seem to be (fourth row from the top) models of cowries.

(d) The Copan girdle (from Fig. 19) in which both shells and headsof deities are represented. The two objects suspended from the beltbetween the heads recall Hathor's sistra.

These facts are very important. In the first place they reveal the greatantiquity of the practice of burying shells with the dead, presumablyfor the purpose of "life-giving". Secondly, they suggest the possibilitythat their magical value as givers of life may be more ancient thantheir specific use as intensifiers of the fertility of women. Thirdly,the association of these practices with the use of the shellCassisrufa indicates a very early cultural contact between the people livingupon the North-Western shores of the Mediterranean in the Reindeer Ageand the dwellers on the coasts of the Indian Ocean; and theproba[Pg 153]bility that these special uses of shells by the former wereinspired by the latter.

This hint assumes a special significance when we first get a clear viewof the more fully-developed shell-cults of the Eastern Mediterraneanmany centuries later.[263] For then we find definite indications thatthe cultural uses of shells were obviously borrowed from the Erythræanarea.

Long before the shell-amulet became personified as a woman theMediterranean people had definitely adopted the belief in the cowry'sability to give life and birth.

The Origin of Clothing.

The cowry and its surrogates were supposed to be potent to conferfertility on maidens; and it became the practice for growing girls towear a girdle on which to suspend the shells as near as possible to theorgan their magic was supposed to stimulate. Among many peoples[264]this girdle was discarded as soon as the girls reached maturity.

This practice probably represents the beginning of the history ofclothing; but it had other far-reaching effects in the domain of belief.

It has often been claimed that the feeling of modesty was not the reasonfor the invention of clothing, but that the clothes begat modesty.[265]This doctrine contains a certain element of truth, but is by no meansthe whole explanation. For true modesty is displayed by people who havenever worn clothes.

Before mankind could appreciate the psychological fact that the wearingof clothing might add to an individual's allurement and enhance hersexual attractiveness, some other circumstances must have beenresponsible for suggesting the experiments out of which this empiricalknowledge emerged. The use of a girdle (a) as a protection againstdanger to life, and (b) as a means of conferring fecundity on[Pg 154]girls[266] provided the circumstances which enabled men to discover thatthe sexual attractiveness of maidens, which in a state of nature wasoriginally associated with modesty and coyness, was profoundlyintensified by the artifices of clothing and adornment.

Among people (such as those of East Africa and Southern Arabia) in whichit was customary for unmarried girls to adorn themselves with a girdle,it is easy to understand how the meaning of the practice underwent achange, and developed into a device for enhancing their charms andstimulating the imaginations of their suitors.

Out of such experience developed the idea of the magical girdle as anallurement and a love-provoking charm or philtre. Thus Aphrodite'sgirdle acquired the reputation of being able tocompel love. WhenIshtar removed her girdle in the under-world reproduction ceased in theworld. The Teutonic Brunhild's great strength lay in her girdle. In factmagic virtues were conferred upon most goddesses in every part of theworld by means of a cestus of some sort.[267] But the outstanding[Pg 155]feature of Aphrodite's character as a goddess of love is intimatelybound up with these conceptions which developed from the wearing of agirdle of cowries.

Fig. 4.—Two representations of Astarte(Qetesh).

(a) The mother-goddess standing upon a lioness (which is her Sekhetform): she is wearing her girdle, and upon her head is the moon and thecow's horns, conventionalized so as to simulate the crescent moon. Herhair is represented in the conventional form which is sometimes used asHathor's symbol. In her hands are the serpent and the lotus, which againare merely forms of the goddess herself.

(b) Another picture of Astarte (from Roscher's "Lexikon") holding thepapyrus sceptre which at times is regarded as an animate form of themother-goddess herself and as such a thunder weapon.

In the Biblical narrative, after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbiddenfruit, "the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they werenaked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons,"or, as the Revised Version expresses it, "girdles". The girdle offig-leaves, however, was originally a surrogate of the girdle ofcowries: it was an amulet to give fertility. The consciousness ofnakedness was part of the knowledge acquired asthe result of thewearing of such girdles (and the clothing into which they developed),and was not originally the motive that impelled our remote ancestors toclothe themselves.

The use of fig-leaves for the girdle in Palestine is an interestingconnecting link between the employment of the cowry and the mandrake forsimilar purposes in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea and in Cyprus andSyria respectively (vide infra).

In Greece and Italy, the sweet basil has a reputation for magical[Pg 156]properties analogous to those of the cowry. Maidens collect the plantand wear bunches of it upon their body or upon their girdles; whilemarried women fix basil upon their heads.[268] It is believed that theodour of the plant will attract admirers: hence in Italy it is calledBacia-nicola. "Kiss me, Nicholas".[269]

In Crete it is a sign of mourning presumably because its life-prolongingattributes, as a means of conferring continued existence to the dead,have been so rationalized in explanation of its use at funerals.

On New Year's day in Athens boys carry a boat and people remark, "St.Basil is come from Cæsarea".

Pearls.

During the chequered history of the Great Mother the attributes of theoriginal shell-amulet from which the goddess was sprung were alsochanging and being elaborated to fit into a more complex scheme. Themagical properties of the cowry came to be acquired by other Red Seashells, such asPterocera, the pearl oyster, conch shells, and others.Each of these became intimately associated with the moon.[270] Thepearls found in the oysters were supposed to be little moons, drops ofthe moon-substance (or dew) which fell from the sky into the gapingoyster. Hence pearls acquired the reputation of "shining by night," likethe moon from which they were believed to have come: and every surrogateof the Great Mother, whether plant, animal, mineral or mythicalinstrument, came to be endowed with the power of "shining by night". Butpearls were also regarded as the quintessence of the shell's life-givingproperties, which were considered to be all the more potent because theywere sky-given emanations of the moon-goddess herself. Hence pearlsacquired the reputation of[Pg 157] being the "givers of life"par excellence,an idea which found literal expression in the ancient Persian wordmargan (frommar, "giver" andgan, "life"). This word has beenborrowed in all the Turanian languages (ranging from Hungary toKamskatckha), but also in the non-Turanian speech of Western Asia,thence through Greek and Latin (margarita) to European languages.[271]The same life-giving attributes were also acquired by the otherpearl-bearing shells; and at some subsequent period, when it wasdiscovered that some of these shells could be used as trumpets, thesound produced was also believed to be life-giving or the voice of thegreat Giver of Life. The blast of the trumpet was also supposed to beable to animate the deity and restore his consciousness, so that hecould attend to the appeals of supplicants. In other words the noisewoke up the god from his sleep. Hence the shell-trumpet attained animportant significance in early religious ceremonials for the ritualpurpose of summoning the deity, especially in Crete and India, andultimately in widely distant parts of the world.[272] Long before theseshells are known to have been used as trumpets, they were employed likethe other Red Sea shells as "givers of life" to the dead in Egypt. Theiruse as trumpets was secondary.

And when it was discovered that purple dye could be obtained fromcertain of the trumpet-shells, the colouring-matter acquired the samelife-giving powers as had already been conferred upon the trumpet andthe pearls: thus it became regarded as a divine substance and as theexclusive property of gods and kings.

Long before, the colour red had acquired magic potency as a surrogate oflife-giving blood; and this colour-symbolism undoubtedly helped in thedevelopment of the similar beliefs concerning purple.

Sharks and Dragons.

When the life-giving attributes of water were confused with the sameproperties with which shells had independently been credited[Pg 158] longbefore, the shell's reputation was rationalized as an expression of thevital powers of the ocean in which the mollusc was born. But the sameexplanation was also extended to include fishes, and other denizens ofthe water, as manifestations of similar divine powers. In the lecture on"Dragons and Rain Gods" I referred to the identification of Ea, theBabylonian Osiris, with a fish (p. 105). When the value of the pearl asthe giver of life impelled men to incur any risks to obtain so preciousan amulet, the chief dangers that threatened pearl-fishers were due tosharks. These came to be regarded as demons guarding the treasure-housesat the bottom of the sea. Out of these crude materials the imaginationsof the early pearl-fishers created the picture of wonderful submarinepalaces of Nâga kings in which vast wealth, not merely of pearls, butalso of gold, precious stones, and beautiful maidens (all of them"givers of life,"vide infra, p. 224), were placed under theprotection of shark-dragons.[273] The conception of the pearl (which isa surrogate of the life-giving Great Mother) guarded by dragons islinked by many bonds of affinity with early Erythræan and Mediterraneanbeliefs. The more usual form of the story, both in Southern Arabianlegend and in Minoan and Mycenæan art, represents the Mother Goddessincarnate in a sacred tree or pillar with its protecting dragons in theform of serpents or lions, or a variety of dragon-surrogates, eitherreal animals, such as deer or cattle, or composite monsters (Fig.26).[274][Pg 159]

There are reasons for believing that these stories were first inventedsomewhere on the shores of the Erythræan Sea, probably in SouthernArabia. The animation of the incense-tree by the Great Mother, for thereasons which I have already expounded,[275] formed the link of heridentification with the pearl, which probably acquired its magicalreputation in the same region.

"In the Persian myth, the white Haoma is a divine tree, growing in thelake Vourukasha: the fish Khar-mâhi circles protectingly around it anddefends it against the toad Ahriman. It gives eternal life, children towomen, husbands to girls, and horses to men. In the Minôkhired the treeis called 'the preparer of the corpse'" (Spiegel, "Eran. Altertumskunde,"II, 115—quoted by Jung, "Psychology of the Unconscious," p. 532). Theidea of guarding the divine tree[276] by dragons was probably the resultof the transference to that particular surrogate of the Great Mother ofthe shark-stories which originated from the experiences of the seekersafter pearls, her other representatives.

There are many other bits of corroborative evidence to suggest[Pg 160] thatthese shell-cults and the legends derived from them were actuallytransmitted from the Red Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean. Nor is itsurprising that this should have happened, when it is recalled thatEgyptian sailors were trafficking in both seas long before the PyramidAge, and no doubt carried the beliefs and the legends of one region tothe other. I have already referred to the adoption in the Mediterraneanarea of the idea of the dragon-protectors of the tree- and pillar-formsof the Great Mother, and suggested that this was merely a garbledversion of the pearl-fisher's experience of the dangers of attacks bysharks. But the same legends also reached the Levant in a less modifiedform, and then underwent another kind of transformation (and confusionwith the tree-version) in Cyprus or Syria.

As the shark would be a not wholly appropriate actor in theMediterranean, its rôle is taken by its smaller Selachian relative, thedog-fish. In the notes on Pliny's Natural History, Dr. Bostock and Mr.H. T. Riley[277] refer to the habits of dog-fishes ("Canes marini"), andquote from Procopius ("De Bell. Pers." B. I, c. 4) the following"wonderful story in relation to this subject": "Sea-dogs are wonderfuladmirers of the pearl-fish, and follow them out to sea.... A certainfisherman, having watched for the moment when the shell-fish wasdeprived of the attention of its attendant sea-dog, ... seized theshell-fish and made for the shore. The sea-dog, however, was soon awareof the theft, and making straight for the fisherman, seized him. Findinghimself thus caught, he made a last effort, and threw the pearl-fish onshore, immediately on which he was torn to pieces by itsprotector."[278]

Though the written record of this story is relatively modern theincident thus described probably goes back to much more ancient times.It is only a very slightly modified version of an ancient narrative of ashark's attack upon a pearl-diver.

For reasons which I shall discuss in the following pages, the rôle ofthe cowry and pearl as representatives of the Great Mother was in theLevant assumed by the mandrake, just as we have already seen theSouthern Arabian conception of her as a tree adopted in Mycenæan lands.Having replaced the sea-shell by a land plant it became neces[Pg 161]sary, inadapting the legend, to substitute for the "sea-dog" some land animal.Not unnaturally it became a dog. Thus the story of the dangers incurredin the process of digging up a mandrake assumed the well-knownform.[279] The attempt to dig up the mandrake was said to be fraughtwith great danger. The traditional means of circumventing these riskshas been described by many writers, ancient and modern, and preserved inthe folk-lore of most European and western Asiatic countries. The storyas told by Josephus is as follows: "They dig a trench round it till thehidden part of the root is very small, then they tie a dog to it, andwhen the dog tries hard to follow him that tied him, this root is easilyplucked up, but the dog dies immediately, as it were, instead of the manthat would take the plant away."[280] Thus the dog takes the place ofthe dog-fish when the mandrake becomes the pearl's surrogate. The onlydiscrepancy between the two stories is the point to which Josephus callsspecific attention. For instead of the dog killing the thief, as theshark (dog-fish) kills the stealer of pearls, the dog becomes the victimas a substitute for the man. As Josephus remarks, "the dog diesimmediately, as it were, instead of the man that would take the plantaway". This distortion of the story is true to the traditions oflegend-making. The dog-incident is so twisted as to be transformed intoa device for plucking the dangerous plant without risk.

It is quite possible that earlier associations of the dog with the GreatMother may have played some part in this transference of meaning, ifonly by creating confusion which made such rationalization necessary. Irefer to the part played by Anubis in helping Isis to collect thefragments of Osiris; and the rôle played by Anubis, and his Greekavatar Cerberus, in the world of the dead. Whether the association ofthe dog-star Sirius with Hathor had anything to do with the confusion isuncertain.[281]

There was an intimate association of the dog with the goddess of[Pg 162] theunder-world (Hecate) and the ritual of rebirth of the dead.[282] Perhapsthe development of the story of the underworld-goddess Aphrodite's dogand the mandrake may have been helped by this survival of theassociation of Isis with Anubis, even if there is not a more definitecausal relationship between the dog-incidents in the various legends.

The divine dog Anubis is frequently represented in connexion with theritual of rebirth,[283] where it is shown upon a standard in associationwith the placenta. The hieroglyphic sign for the Egyptian wordmes,"to give birth," consists of the skins of three dogs (or jackals, orfoxes). The three-headed dog Cerberus that guarded the portal of Hadesmay possibly be a distorted survival of this ancient symbolism of thethree-fold dog-skin as the graphic sign for the act of emergence fromthe portal of birth. Elsewhere (p. 223) in this lecture I have referredto Charon'sobolus as a surrogate of the life-giving pearl or cowryplaced in the mouth of the dead to provide "vital substance". Rohde[284]regards Charon as the second Cerberus, corresponding to the Egyptiandog-faced god Anubis: just as Charon received hisobolus, so in Atticcustom the dead were provided with μελιτοῦτια the object ofwhich is usually said to be to pacify the dog of hell.

What seems to link all these fantastic beliefs and customs with thestory of the dog and the mandrake is the fact that they are closelybound up with the conception of the dog as the guardian of hiddentreasure.

The mandrake story may have arisen out of a mingling of these twostreams of legend—the shark (dog-fish) protecting the treasures at thebottom of the sea, and the ancient Egyptian beliefs concerning thedog-headed god who presides at the embalmer's operations andsuperintends the process of rebirth.

The dog of the story is a representative of the dragon guarding thegoddess in the form of the mandrake, just as the lions over the gate atMycenæ heraldically support her pillar-form, or the serpents in SouthernArabia protect her as an incense tree. Dog, Lion, and[Pg 163] Serpent in theselegends are all representatives of the goddess herself, i.e. merely herownavatars (Fig. 26).

At one time I imagined that the rôle of Anubis as a god of embalming andthe restorer of the dead was merely an ingenuous device on the part ofthe early Egyptians to console themselves for the depredations ofjackals in their cemeteries. For if the jackal were converted into alife-giving god it would be a comforting thought to believe that thedead man, even though devoured, was "in the bosom of his god" andthereby had attained a rebirth in the hereafter. In ancient Persiacorpses were thrown out for the dogs to devour. There was also thecustom of leading a dog to the bed of a dying man who presented him withfood, just as Cerberus was given honey-cakes by Hercules in his journeyto hell. But I have not been able to obtain any corroboration of thissupposition. It is a remarkable coincidence that the Great Mother hasbeen identified with the necrophilic vulture as Mut; and it has beenclaimed by some writers[285] that, just as the jackal was regarded as asymbol of rebirth in Egypt and the dead were exposed for dogs to devourin Persia, so the vulture's corpse-devouring habits may have beenprimarily responsible for suggesting its identification with the GreatMother and for the motive behind the Indian practice of leaving thecorpses of the dead for the vultures to dispose of.[286] It is notuncommon to find, even in English cathedrals, recumbent statues ofbishops with dogs as footstools. Petronius ("Sat.," c. 71) makes thefollowing statement: "valde te rogo, ut secundum pedes statuae meaecatellam pingas—ut mihi contingat tuo beneficio post mortemvivere".[287] The belief in the dog's service as a guide to the deadranges from Western Europe to Peru.

To return to the story of the dog and the mandrake: no doubt the demandwill be made for further evidence that the mandrake actually assumed therôle of the pearl in these stories. If the remark[Pg 164]able repertory ofmagical properties assigned to the mandrake[288] be compared with thosewhich developed in connexion with the cowry and the pearl,[289] it willbe found that the two series are identical. The mandrake also is thegiver of life, of fertility to women, of safety in childbirth; and likethe cowry and the pearl it exerts these magical influences only if it beworn in contact with the wearer's skin.[290] But the most definiteindication of the mandrake's homology with the pearl is provided by thelegend that "it shines by night". Some scholars,[291] both ancient andmodern, have attempted to rationalize this tradition by interpreting itas a reference to the glow-worms that settle on the plant! But it isonly one of many attributes borrowed by the mandrake from the pearl,which was credited with this remarkable reputation only when earlyscientists conceived the hypothesis that the gem was a bit of moonsubstance.

As the memory of the real history of these beliefs grew dim, confusionwas rapidly introduced into the stories. I have already explained howthe diving for pearls started the story of the great palace of treasuresunder the waters which was guarded by dragons. As the pearl had thereputation of shining by night, it is not surprising that it or some ofits surrogates should in course of time come to be credited with thepower of "revealing hidden treasures," the treasures which in theoriginal story were the pearls themselves. Thus the magic fern-seed andother treasure-disclosing vegetables[292] are surrogates of themandrake, and like it derive their magical properties directly orindirectly from the pearl.[Pg 165]

The fantastic story of the dog and the mandrake provides the mostdefinite evidence of the derivation of the mandrake-beliefs from theshell-cults of the Erythræan Sea. There are many other scraps ofevidence to corroborate this. I shall refer here only to one of these."The discovery of the art of purple-dyeing has been attributed to theTyrian tutelary deity Melkart, who is identified with Baal by manywriters. According to Julius Pollux ('Onomasticon,' I, iv.) and Nonnus('Dionys.,' XL, 306) Hercules (Melkart) was walking on the seashoreaccompanied by his dog and a Tyrian nymph, of whom he was enamoured. Thedog having found aMurex with its head protruding from its shell,devoured it, and thus its mouth became stained with purple. The nymph,on seeing the beautiful colour, bargained with Hercules to provide herwith a robe of like splendour."[293] This seems to be another variant ofthe same story.

The Octopus.

Aphrodite was associated not only with the cowry, the pearl, and themandrake, but also with the octopus, the argonaut, and othercephalopods. Tümpel seems to imagine that the identification of thegoddess with the argonaut and the octopus necessarily excludes herassociation with molluscs; and Dr. Rendel Harris attributes an equallyexclusive importance to the mandrake. But in such methods of argumentdue recognition is not given to the outstanding fact in the history ofprimitive beliefs. The early philosophers built up their greatgeneralizations in the same way as their modern successors. They weresearching for some explanation of, or a working hypothesis to include,most diverse natural phenomena within a concise scheme. The very essenceof such attempts was the institution of a series of homologies andfancied analogies between dissimilar objects. Aphrodite was at one andthe same time the personification of the cowry, the conch shell, thepurple shell, the pearl, the lotus, and the lily, the mandrake and thebryony, the incense tree and the cedar, the octopus and the argonaut,the pig, and the cow.

Fig. 21.

(a) A slate triad found byProfessor G. A. Reisner in the temple of the Third Pyramid at Giza. Itshows the Pharaoh Mycerinus supported on his right side by the goddessHathor, represented as a woman with the moon and the cow's horns uponher head, and on the left side by a nome goddess, bearing upon her headthe jackal-symbol of her nome.

(b) The Ecuador Aphrodite. Bas-relief from Cerro Jaboncillo (afterSaville, "Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador," Preliminary Report, 1907,Plate XXXVIII).

A grotesque composite monster intended to represent a woman (compareSaville's Plates XXXV, XXXVI, and XXXIX), whose head is aconventionalized Octopus, whose body is a Loligo, and whose limbs arehuman.

Every one of these identifications is the result of a long and chequeredhistory, in which fancied resemblances and confusion of meaning play avery large part. But I cannot too strongly repudiate the claim made bySir James Frazer that such events are merely so[Pg 166] many evidences of theinnate human tendency to personify nature. The history of the arbitrarycircumstances that were responsible for the development of each one ofthese homologies is entirely fatal to this wholly unwarrantedspeculation.[294] Tümpel claims[295] the Aphrodite was associated moreespecially with "a species ofSepia". He refers to the attempts toassociate the goddess of love with amulets of univalvular shells "invirtue of a certain peculiar and obscene symbolism".[296] Naturalists,however, designate with the termVenus Cytherea certain gaping bivalvemolluscs.

But, according to Tümpel (p. 386), neither univalvular nor bivalveshells can be regarded as a real part of the goddess's culturalequipment. There is no representation of Aphrodite coming in a shellfrom across the sea.[297] The truly sacred Aphrodite-shell was entirelydifferent, so Tümpel believes: it was obviously difficult to preserve,but for that reason more worthy of notice, for the small χοίριναι(pectines), virginalia marina (Apuleius de mag. 34, 35, andin reference thereto, Isidor. origg. 9, 5, 24) or spuria (σπόρια)were only the commoner and more readily obtained surrogates:the univalvular shells.[Pg 167] (μονόθυρα of Aristotle), such as those just mentioned, and theother ὄστρεα of Aphrodite, the Nerites (periwinkles, etc.), thepurple shell and the Echineïs were also real Veneriae conchae. Among theNerites Aelian enumerates (N.A. 14, 28): Ἀφροδίτην δὲ συνδιαιτωμένην έν τῂ θάλαττη ἡσθὴναι τε τῷ Νηρίτη τῷδε καὶ ἔχειν ἀυτον φίλον.On account of their supposed medicinal value in cases ofabortion and especially as a prophylactic for pregnant women the Ἐχενηΐς(pure Latin re[mi]mora) was called ὠδινολύτη[298](Pliny, 32, 1, 5: pisciculus!). According to Mutianus (Pliny, 9, 25(41), 79 f.), it was a species of purple shell, but larger than the trueMurex purpura. From this the sanctity of the Echineïs to the CnidianAphrodite is demonstrated: "quibus (conchis) inhaerentibus plenam ventisstetisse navem portantem Periandro, ut castrarentur nobilis pueros,conchasque, quae id praestiterint, apud Cnidiorum Venerem coli" (Pliny).

Tümpel then (p. 387) accuses Stephani of being mistaken in hisinterpretation of Martial's Cytheriacae (Epign. II, 47, 1 = purpleshells) as the amulets of Aphrodite, and claims that Jahn has given thecorrect solution of the following passages from Pliny (N.H., 9, 33 [52],103, compare 32, 11 [53]): "navigant ex his (conchis) veneriae,praebentesque concavam sui partem et aurae opponentes per summa aequorumvelificant"; and further (9, 30[49], 94): "in Propontide concham esseacatii modo carinatam inflexa puppe, prora rostrata, in hac condinauplium animal saepiae simile ludendi societate sola, duobus hoc fierigeneribus: tranquillum enim vectorem demissis palmulis ferire ut remis;si vero flatus invitet, easdem in usu gubernaculi porrigi pandiquebuccarum sinus aurae".

Tümpel claims (pp. 387 and 388) that this quotation settles thequestion. Aphrodite's "shell," according to him, is theNauplius(depicted as a shell-fish, with its sail-like palmulæ spread out to thewind, but with the same sails flattened into plate-like arms forsteering), clearly "a species ofSepia," wholly like Aphroditeherself, a ship-like shell-fish sailing over the surface of the water,the concha veneria. [The analogy to a ship bearing the Great Mother isextremely ancient and originally referred to the crescent moon carryingthe moon-goddess across the heavenly ocean.][Pg 168]

Elsewhere (p. 399) he discusses the reasons for the connexion ofAphrodite with the "nautilus," by which is meant the argonaut ofzoologists.

But if Jahn and Tümpel have thus clearly established the proof of theintimate association of Aphrodite with certain cephalopods, they arewholly unjustified in the assumption that their quotations fromrelatively modern authors disprove the reality of the equally close(though more ancient) relationship of the goddess to the cowry, thepearl-shell, the trumpet-shell, and the purple-shell.

It must not be forgotten that, as we have already seen, the primitiveshell-cults of the Erythræan Sea had been diffused throughout theMediterranean area long before Aphrodite was born upon the shores of theLevant, and possibly before Hathor came into existence in the south. Theuse of the cowry and gold models of the cowry goes back to an early timein Ægean history.[299] And the influence of Aphrodite's earlyassociations had become blurred and confused by the development of newlinks with other shells and their surrogates.

But the connexion of Aphrodite with the octopus and its kindred played avery obtrusive part in Minoan and Mycenæan art; and its influence wasspread abroad as far as Western Europe[300] and towards the East as faras America. In many ways it was a factor in the development of suchartistic designs as the spiral and the volute, and not improbably alsoof the swastika.

Fig. 22.

(a) Sepia officinalis, afterTryon, "Cephalopoda".

(b) Loligo vulgaris, after Tryon.

(c) The position usually adopted by the resting Octopus, afterTryon.

Starting from the researches of Tümpel, a distinguished Frenchzoologist, Dr. Frédéric Houssay,[301] sought to demonstrate that thecult of Aphrodite was "based upon a pre-existing zoological philosophy".The argument in support of his claim that Aphrodite was apersonification of the octopus must be sharply differentiated into twoparts: first, the reality of the association of the octopus with thegoddess, of which there can be no doubt; and secondly, his explanationof it, which (however popular it may be with classical writers andmodern scholars)[302] is not only a gratuitous assumption, but also,even if it were[Pg 169] based upon more valid evidence than the speculationsof such recent writers as Pliny, would not really carry the explanationvery far.

I refer to his claim that "les premiers conquérants de la mer furentinduits en vénération du poulpe nageur (octopus) parce qu'ils crurentque quelque-uns de ces céphalopodes, les poulpes sacrés (argonauta)avaient, comme eux et avant eux, inventé la navigation" (op. cit., p.15). Idle fancies of this sort do not help us to understand thearbitrary beliefs concerning the magical powers of the octopus.

The real problem we have to solve is to discover why, among all themultitude of bizarre creatures to be found in the Mediterranean Sea, theoctopus and its allies should thus have been singled out for distinctiveappreciation, and also acquired the same remarkable attributes as thecowry.

I believe that the Red Sea "Spider shell,"Pterocera,[303] was thelink between the cowry and the octopus. This shell was used, like thecowry, for funerary purposes in Egypt and as a trumpet in India.[304]But it was also depicted upon a series of remarkable primitive statuesof the god Min, which were found at Coptos during the winter 1893-4 byProfessor Flinders Petrie.[305] Some of these objects are now in theCairo Museum and the others in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. They aresupposed to be late predynastic representations of the god Min. If thissupposition is correct they are the earliest idols (apart from mereamulets) that have been preserved from antiquity.

Upon these statues, representations of the Red Sea shellPterocerabryonia are sculptured in low relief. Mr. F. Ll. Griffith isdisinclined to accept my suggestion that the object of these pictures ofthe shell was to animate the statues. But whether this was their purposeor not, it is probably not without some significance that theselife-giving shells were associated with so obtrusively phallic a deityas Min. In any case they afford concrete evidence of cultural contactbetween Coptos and the Red Sea, and indicate that these particularshells were chosen as symbols of that sea or its coast.

Fig. 5—Pterocera Bryonia. the Red SeaSpider-shell. Col.—the columella 1-7—the "claws".

The distinctive feature of thePterocera is that the mantle in theadult expands into a series of long finger-like processes each of which[Pg 170]secretes a calcareous process or "claw". There are seven[306] of theseclaws as well as the long columella (Fig. 5). Hence, when theshell-cults were diffused from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean (wherethePterocera is not found), it is quite likely that the people of theLevant may have confused with the octopus some sailor's account of theeight-rayed shell (or perhaps representations of it on some amulet orstatue). Whether this is the explanation of the confusion or not, it iscertain that the beliefs associated with the cowry and the octopus inthe Ægean area are identical with those linked up with the cowry and thePterocera in the Red Sea.

I have already mentioned that the mandrake is believed to possess thesame magical powers. Sir James Frazer has called attention to the factthat in Armenia the bryony (Bryonia alba) is a surrogate of themandrake and is credited with the same attributes.[307] Lovell Reeve("Conchologia Iconica," VI, 1851) refers to the Red SeaPterocera asthe "Wild Vine Root" species, previously known asStrombus radixbryoniae; and Chemnitz ("Conch. Cab.," 1788, Vol. X, p. 227) says theFrench call it "Racine de brione femelle imparfaite," and refer to it as"the maiden". Here then is further evidence that this shell (a) wasassociated in some way with a surrogate of the mandrake (Aphrodite), and(b) was regarded as a maiden. Thus clearly it has a place in thechequered history of Aphrodite. I have suggested the possibility of itsconfusion with the octopus, which may have led to the inclusion of thelatter within the scope of the marine creatures in Aphrodite's culturalequipment. According to Matthioli (Lib. 2, p. 135),[Pg 171] another ofAphrodite's creatures, the purple shell-fish, was also known as "themaiden". By Pliny it is called Pelogia, in Greek πορφύρα; andπορφυρώματα was the term applied to the flesh of swine thathad been sacrificed to Ceres and Proserpine (Hesych.). In fact, thepurple-shell was "the maiden" and also "the sow": in other words it wasAphrodite. The use of the term "maiden" for thePterocera suggests asimilar identification. To complete this web of proof it may be notedthat an old writer has called the mandrake the plant of Circe, thesorceress who turned men into swine by a magic draught.[308] Thus wehave a series of shells, plants, and marine creatures accredited withidentical magical properties, and each of them known in populartradition as "the maiden". They are all culturally associated withAphrodite.

I shall have occasion (infra, p. 177) to refer to M. Siret's accountof the discovery of the Ægean octopus-motif upon Æneolithic objects inSpain, and of the widespread use in Western Europe of certainconventional designs derived from the octopus. M. Siret also (see thetable, Fig. 6, on p. 34 of his book) makes the remarkable claim that theconventional form of the Egyptian Bes, which, according to Quibell,[309]is the god whose function it is to preside over sexual intercourse inits purely physical aspect, is derived from the octopus. If this istrue—and I am bound to admit that it is far from being proved—itsuggests that the Red Sea littoral may have been the place of origin ofthe cultural use of the octopus and an association with Hathor, for Besand Hathor are said to have been introduced into Egypt from there.[310]

That the octopus was actually identified with the Great Mother and alsowith the dragon is revealed by the fact of the latter assuming anoctopus-form in Eastern Asia and Oceania, and by the occurrence ofoctopus-motifs in the representation of the goddess in America. One ofthe most remarkable series of pictures depicting the Great Mother isfound sculptured in low relief upon a number of stone slabs from Manabiin Central America,[311] one of which I reproduce here[Pg 172] (Fig. 21b).The head of the goddess is a conventionalized octopus; to that was addeda body consisting of aLoligo; and, to give greater definiteness tothis remarkable process of building up the form of the goddess,conventional representations of her arms and legs (and in some of thesculptures also thepudendum muliebre) were added. Thus there can beno doubt of the identification of this American Aphrodite and theoctopus.

In the Polynesian Rata-myth there is a very instructive series ofmanifestations of the dragon.[312] The first form assumed by the monsterin this story was a gaping shell-fish of enormous size; then it appearedas a mighty octopus; and lastly, as a whale, into whose jaws the heroNganaoa sprang, as his representatives are said to have done elsewherethroughout the world (Frobenius,op. cit., pp. 59-219).

Houssay (op. cit. infra) calls attention to the fact that at timesAstarte was shown carrying an octopus as her emblem,[313] and hassuggested that it was mistaken for a hand, just as in America thethunderbolt of Chac was given a hand-like form in the Dresden Codex(vide supra. Fig. 13), and elsewhere (e.g. Fig. 12).

If this suggestion should prove to be well founded it would provide amore convincing explanation of the girdle of hands worn by the Indiangoddess Kali[314] than that usually given. If the "hands" reallyrepresent surrogates of the cowry, the wearing of such a girdle bringsthe Indian goddess into line, not only with Astarte and Aphrodite, butalso with the East African maidens who still wear the girdle of cowries.Kali's exploits were in many respects identical with those of thebloodthirsty Sekhet-manifestation of the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Justas Sekhet had to be restrained by Re for her excess of zeal in murderinghis foes, so Siva had to intervene with Kali upon the battle[Pg 173]fieldflooded with gore (as also in the Egyptian story) to spare the remnantof his enemies.[315]

The Swastika.

Houssay (op. cit. supra) has made the interesting suggestion that theswastika may have been derived from such conventionalizedrepresentations of the octopus as are shown in Fig. 23. This series ofsketches is taken from Tümpel's memoir, which provided the foundationfor Houssay's hypothesis.

Fig. 23.—A series of Mycenæan conventionalizationsof the Argonaut and the Octopus (after Tümpel), which provided the basisfor Houssay's theory of the origin of the triskele (a, c,and d) and swastika (b and e), andSiret's theory to explain the design of Bes's face (fand g)

A vast amount of attention has been devoted to this lucky symbol,[316]which still enjoys a widespread vogue at the present day, after ahistory of several thousand years. Although so much has been written inattempted explanation of the swastika since Houssay made his suggestion,so far as I am aware no one has paid the slightest attention to hishypothesis or made even a passing reference to his memoir.[317]Fantastic and far-fetched though it may seem at first sight (thoughsurely not more so than the strictly orthodox solar theory advocated byMr. Cook or Mrs. Nuttall's astral speculations) Houssay's suggestionoffers an explanation of some of the salient attributes of the swastikaon which the alternative hypotheses shed little or no light.

Among the earliest known examples of the symbol are those[Pg 174] engraved uponthe so-called "owl-shaped" (but, as Houssay has conclusivelydemonstrated, really octopus-shaped) vases and a metal figurine found bySchliemann in his excavations of the hill at Hissarlik.[318] Theswastika is represented upon themons Veneris of these figures, whichrepresent the Great Mother in her form as a woman or as a pot, which isan anthropomorphized octopus, one of the avatars of the Great Mother.The symbol seems to have been intended as a fertility amulet like thecowry, either suspended from a girdle or depicted upon a pubic shield orconventionalized fig-leaf.

Wherever it is found the swastika is supposed to be an amulet to confer"good luck" and long life. Both this reputation and the association withthe female organs of reproduction link up the symbol with the cowry, thePterocera, and the octopus. It is clear then that the swastika has thesame reputation for magic and the same attributes and associations asthe octopus; and it may be a conventionalized representation of it, asHoussay has suggested.

It must not be assumed that the identification of the swastika with theGreat Mother and her powers of giving life and resurrectionnecessarily invalidates the solar and astral theories recentlychampioned by Mr. Cook and Mrs. Nuttall respectively. I have alreadycalled attention to the fact that the Sun-god derived his existence andall his attributes from his mother. The whole symbolism of the WingedDisk and the Wheel of the Sun and their reputation for life-giving anddestruction were adopted from the Great Mother. These well-establishedfacts should prepare us to recognize that the admission of the truth ofHoussay's suggestion would not necessarily invalidate the more widelyaccepted solar significance of the swastika.

Tümpel called attention to the fact that, when they set aboutconventionalizing the octopus, the Mycenæan artists often resorted tothe practice of representing pairs of "arms" as units and so makingfour-limbed and three-limbed forms (Fig. 23), which Houssay regards asthe prototypes of the swastika and the triskele respectively. That sucha process may have played a part in the development of the symbol isfurther suggested by the form of a Transcaucasian swastika found byRössler,[319] who assigns it to the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age. Each[Pg 175]of the four limbs is bifurcated at its extremity. Moreover they exhibitthe series of spots, so often found upon or alongside the limbs of thesymbol, which suggest the conventional way of representing the suckersof the octopus in the Mycenæan designs (Fig. 23).

Another remarkable picture of a swastika-like emblem has been found inAmerica.[320] The elephant-headed god sits in the centre and four pairsof arms radiate from him, each of them equipped with definite suckers.

Another possible way in which the design of a four-limbed swastika mayhave been derived from an octopus is suggested by the gypsum weightfound in 1901 by Sir Arthur Evans[321] in the West Magazine of thepalace at Knossos (circa 1500b.c.). Upon the surface of thisweight the form of an octopus has been depicted, four of the arms ofwhich stand out in much stronger relief than the others.

The number four has a peculiar mystical significance (vide infra, p.206) and is especially associated with the Sun-god Horus. This fact mayhave played some part in the process of reduction of the number of limbsof the octopus to four; or alternatively it may have helped to emphasizethe solar associations of the symbol, which other considerations wereresponsible for suggesting. The designs upon the pots from Hissarlikshow that at a relatively early epoch the swastika was confused with thesun's disc represented as a wheel with four spokes.[322] But the solarattributes of the swastika are secondary to those of life-giving andluck-bringing, with which it was originally endowed as a form of theGreat Mother.

The only serious fact which arouses some doubt as to the validity ofHoussay's theory is the discovery of an early painted vase at Susadecorated with an unmistakable swastika. Edmond Pottier, who hasdescribed the ceramic ware from Susa,[323] regards this pot asProto-Elamite of the earliest period. If Pottier's claim is justified wehave in this isolated specimen from Susa the earliest example of theswastika. Moreover, it comes from a region in which the symbol wassupposed to be wholly absent.[Pg 176]

This raises a difficult problem for solution. Is the Proto-Elamiteswastika the prototype of the symbol whose world-wide migrations havebeen studied by Wilson (op. cit. supra)? Or is it an instance ofindependent evolution? If it falls within the first category and isreally the parent of the early Anatolian swastikas, how is it to beexplained? Was the conventionalization of the octopus design much moreancient than the earliest Trojan examples of the symbol? Or was theSusian design adopted in the West and given a symbolic meaning which itdid not have before then?

These are questions which we are unable to answer at present because thenecessary information is lacking. I have enumerated them merely tosuggest that any hasty inferences regarding the bearing of the Susiandesign upon the general problem are apt to be misleading. Vincent[324]claims that the fact of the swastika having been in use by ceramicartists in Crete and Susiana many centuries before the appearance ofMycenæan art is fatal to Houssay's hypothesis. But I think it is toosoon to make such an assumption. The swastika was already a rigidlyconventionalized symbol when we first know it both in the Mediterraneanand in Susiana. It may therefore have a long history behind it. Theoctopus may possibly have begun to play a part in the development ofthis symbolism before the Egyptian Bes (vide supra, p. 171) wasevolved, perhaps even before the time of the Coptos statues of Min(supra, p. 169), or in the early days of Sumerian history when theconventional form of the water-pot was being determined (infra, p.179). These are mere conjectures, which I mention merely for the purposeof suggesting that the time is not yet ripe for using such arguments asVincent's finally to dispose of Houssay's octopus-theory.

There can be no doubt that the symbolism of the Mycenæan spiral and thevolute is closely related to the octopus. In fact, the evidence providedby Minoan paintings and Mycenæan decorative art demonstrates that thespiral as a symbol of life-giving was definitely derived from theoctopus. The use of the volute on Egyptian scarabs[325] and also in thedecoration of an early Thracian statuette of a nude god[Pg 177]dess[326]indicate that it was employed like the spiral and octopus as alife-symbol.

In Spanish graves of the Early and Middle Neolithic types M. Siret foundcowry-shells in association with a series of flint implements, crudeidols, and pottery almost precisely reproducing the forms of similarobjects found with cowries and pecten shells at Hissarlik.[327] But whenthe Æneolithic phase of culture dawned in Spain, and the Ægeanoctopus-motif made its appearance there, the culture as a whole revealsunmistakable evidence of a predominantly Egyptian inspiration.

M. Siret claims, however, that, even in the Neolithic phase in Spain,the crude idols represent forms derived from the octopus in the EasternMediterranean (p. 59et seq.). He regards the octopus as "aconventional symbol of the ocean, or, more precisely, of the fertilizingwatery principle" (p. 19). He elucidates a very interesting feature ofthe Æneolithic representation of the octopus in Spain. The spiral-motifof the Ægean gives place to an angular design, which he claims to be dueto the influence of the conventional Egyptian way of representing water(p. 40). If this interpretation is correct—and, in spite of theslenderness of the evidence, I am inclined to accept it—it affords aremarkable illustration of the effects of culture-contact in theconventionalization of designs, to which Dr. Rivers has calledattention.[328] Whatever explanation may be provided of this method ofrepresenting the arms of the octopus with its angularly bentextremities, it seems to have an important bearing on Houssay'shypothesis of the swastika's origin. For it would reveal the means bywhich the spiral or volute shape of the limbs of the swastika becametransformed into the angular form, which is so characteristic of theconventional symbol.[329]

The significance of the spiral as a form of the Great Mother inevitablyled to its identification with the thunder weapon, like all her[Pg 178] othersurrogates. I have already referred (Chapter II, p. 98) to theassociation of the spiral with thunder and lightning in Eastern Asia.But other factors played a significant part in determining thisspecialization. In Egypt the god Amen was identified with the ram; andthis creature's spirally curved horn became the symbol of thethunder-god throughout the Mediterranean area,[330] and then furtherafield in Europe, Africa, and Asia, where, for instance, we see Agni'sram with the characteristic horn. This blending of the influence of theoctopus- and the ram's-horn-motifs made the spiral a conventionalrepresentation of thunder. This is displayed in its most definite formin China, Japan, Indonesia, and America, where we find the separatespiral used as a thunder-symbol, and the spiral appendage on the side ofthe head as a token of the god of thunder.[331]

The Mother Pot

In the lecture on "Incense and Libations" (Chapter I) I referred to theenrichment of the conception of water's life-giving properties which theinclusion of the idea of human fertilization by water involved. Whenthis event happened a new view developed in explanation of the partplayed by woman in reproduction. She was no longer regarded as the realparent of mankind, but as the matrix in which the seed was planted andnurtured during the course of its growth and development. Hence in theearliest Egyptian hieroglyphic writing the picture of a pot of water wastaken as the symbol of womanhood, the "vessel" which received the seed.A globular water-pot, the common phonetic value of which isNw orNu, was the symbol of the cosmic waters, the godNw (Nu), whosefemale counterpart was the goddessNut.

In his report, "A Collection of Hieroglyphs,"[332] Mr. F.L Ll.Griffithdiscusses the bowl of water (a) and says that it stands for the femaleprinciple in the words forvulva and woman. When it is recalled thatthe cowry (and other shells) had the same double significance, thepossibility suggests itself whether at times confusion may[Pg 179] not havearisen between the not very dissimilar hieroglyphic signs for "a shell"(h) and "the bowl of water" (woman) (f).[333]

Fig. 6.

(a) Picture of a bowl of water—the hieroglyphic sign equivalent tohm (the word hmt means "woman")—Griffith, "Beni Hasan," Part III,Plate VI, Fig. 88 and p. 29.

(b) "A basket of sycamore figs"—Wilkinson's "Ancient Egyptians," Vol.I, p. 323.

(c) and (d) are said by Wilkinson to be hieroglyphic signs meaning"wife" and are apparently taken from (b). But (c) is identical with(i), which, according to Griffith (p. 14), represents a bivalve shell(g, from Plate III, Fig. 3), more usually placed obliquely (h). Thevarying conventionalizations of (a) or (b) are shown in (d),(e), and (f) (Griffith, "Hieroglyphics," p. 34).

(k) The sign for a lotus leaf, which is a phonetic equivalent of thesign (h), and, according to Griffith ("Hieroglyphics," p. 26), "isprobably derived from the same root, on account of its shell-likeoutline".

(l) The hieroglyphic sign for a pot of water in such words as Nu andNut.

(m) A "pomegranate" (replacing a bust of Tanit) upon a sacred columnat Carthage (Arthur J. Evans, "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," p. 46).

(n) The form of the body of an octopus as conventionalized on thecoins of Central Greece (compare Fig. 24 (d)). Its similarity to theEgyptian pot-sign (l) (which also has the significance ofmother-goddess) is worthy of note.

Referring to the sign (g andh) for "a shell," Mr. Griffith says (p.25): "It is regularly found at all periods in the wordḫaw·t=altar,[334] and perhaps only in this word: but it is apeculiarity of the Pyramid Texts that the sign shown in the text-figuresc,h, andi is in them used very commonly, not as a word-sign, butalso as a phonetic equivalent to the sign labelledk (in thetext-figure) forḫ' (kha), or apparently forḫ alone in manywords.

"The name of the lotus leaf is probably derived from the same root, onaccount of its shell-like outline orvice versa."[Pg 180]

Fig. 7.

(a) An Egyptian design representing the sun-god Horus emerging from alotus, representing his mother Hathor (Isis).

(b) Papyrus sceptre often carried by goddesses and animisticallyidentified with them either as an instrument of life-giving ordestruction.

(c) Conventionalized lily—the prototype of the trident and thethunder-weapon.

(d) A water-plant associated with the Nile-gods.

The familiar representation of Horus (and his homologues in India andelsewhere) being born from the lotus suggests that the flower representshis mother Hathor. But as the argument in these pages has led us towardsthe inference that the original form of Hathor was a shell-amulet,[335]it seems not unlikely that her identification with the lotus[Pg 181] may havearisen from the confusion between the latter and the cowry, which nodoubt was also in part due to the belief that both the shell and theplant were expressions of the vital powers of the water in which theydeveloped.

The identification of the Great Mother with a pot was one of the factorsthat played a part in the assimilation of her attributes with those ofthe Water God, who in early Sumerian pictures was usually representedpouring the life-giving waters from his pot (Fig. 24,h andl).

Fig. 24.

(a) and (b) Two Mycenæan pots (after Schliemann).

(a) The so-called "owl-shaped" vase is really a representation of theMother-Pot in the form of a conventionalized Octopus (Houssay).

(b) The other vase represents the Octopus Mother-Pot, with a jar uponher head and another in her hands—a three-fold representation of theGreat Mother as a pot.

(c) A Cretan vase from Gournia in which the Octopus-motive isrepresented as a decoration upon the pot instead of in its form.

(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) A series of coins from CentralGreece (after Head) showing a series of conventionalizations of theOctopus, with its pot-like body and palm-tree-like arms (f).

(i) Sepia officinalis (after Tryon).

(k) and (l) The so-called "spouting vases" in the hands of theBabylonian god Ea, from a cylinder seal of the time of Gudea, Patesi ofTello, after Ward ("Seal Cylinders, etc.," p. 215).

The "spouting vases" have been placed in conjunction with the Sepia tosuggest the possibility of confusion with a conventionalized drawing ofthe latter in the blending of the symbolism of the water-jar andcephalopods in Western Asia and the Mediterranean.

This idea of the Mother Pot is found not only in Babylonia, Egypt,India,[336] and the Eastern Mediterranean, but wherever the influence ofthese ancient civilizations made itself felt. It is widespread among theCeltic-speaking peoples. In Wales the pot's life-giving powers areenhanced by making its rim of pearls. But as the idea spread, itsmeaning also became extended. At first it was merely a jug of water or abasket of figs, but elsewhere it became also a witch's cauldron, themagic cup, the Holy Grail, the font in which a child is reborn into thefaith, the vessel of water here being interpreted in the earliest senseas the uterus or the organ of birth. The Celtic pot, so Mr. DonaldMackenzie tells me, is closely associated with cows, serpents, frogs,dragons, birds, pearls, and "nine maidens that blow the fire under thecauldron"; and, if the nature of these relationships be examined, eachof them will be found to be a link between the pot and the Great Mother.

The witch's cauldron and the maidens who assist in the preparation ofthe witch's medicine seem to be the descendants respectively of Hathor'spots (in the story of the Destruction of Mankind) and the Sekti whochurn up thedidi and the barley with which to make the elixir ofimmortality and the sedative draught for the destructive goddessherself.

Mr. Donald Mackenzie has given me a number of additional references fromCeltic and Indian literature in corroboration of these widespreadassociations of the pot with the Great Mother; and he reminds me that inOceania the coco-nut has the same reputation as the pot in the IndianMahābhārata. It is the source of food and anything else that iswanted, and its supply can never be exhausted. [On some future occasionI hope to make use of the wonderful legends of the[Pg 182] pot's life-givingpowers, to which Mr. Mackenzie has directed my attention. At present,however, I must content myself with the statement that the pot'sidentity with the Great Mother is deeply rooted in ancient beliefthroughout the greater part of the world.[337]]

The diverse conceptions of the Great Mother as a pot and as an octopusseem to have been blended in Mycenæan lands, where the so-called"owl-shaped" pots were clearly intended to represent the goddess in boththese aspects united in one symbol. When the diffusion of these ideasinto more remote parts of the world took place syntheses with othermotives produced a great variety of most complex forms. In Honduraspottery vessels have been found[338] which give tangible expression tothe blending of the ideas of the Mother Pot, the crocodile-likeMakara, star-spangled like Hathor's cow, Aphrodite's[Pg 183] pig, and Soma'sdeer, and provided with the deer's antlers of the Eastern Asiatic dragon(see Chapter II, p. 103).

The New Testament sets forth the ancient conception of birth andrebirth. When Nicodemus asks: "How can a man be born again when he isold? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" heis told: "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannotenter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh:and that which is born of the spirit is spirit" (John iii. 4, 5, and 6).

The phrase "born of water" refers to the birth "of the flesh"; and themother's womb is the vessel containing "the water" from which the newlife emerges. Plutarch states, with reference to the birth of Isis:"τετάρτη δε την Ἴσιν ἐν πανυγροις γενέσθαι". The great waterswhich produced all living things, the Egyptian god Nun and the goddessNut, were expressed in hieroglyphic as pots of water. The goddess wasidentified with Hathor's celestial star-spangled cow, the originalmother of the sun-god; and the word "Nun" was a symbol of all that wasnew, young, and fresh, and the fertilizing and life-giving waters of theannual inundation of the Nile. Hathor was the daughter of these waters,as Aphrodite was sprung from the sea-foam.

Artemis and the Guardian of the Portal.

Sir Gardner Wilkinson states (see text-figure, p. 179,b) that "abasket of sycamore figs" was originally the hieroglyphic sign for awoman, a goddess, or a mother. Later on (p. 199) I shall refer to thepossible bearing of this Egyptian idea upon the origin of the Hebrewword for mandrakes and the allusion to "a basket of figs" in the Book ofJeremiah.

The life-giving powers attributed to "love-apples" and the associationof these ideas with the fig-tree may have facilitated the transferenceof these attributes of "apples" to those actually growing upon a tree.

We know that Aphrodite was intimately associated, not only with"love-apples," but also with real apples. The sun-god Apollo's connexionwith the apple-tree, which Dr. Rendel Harris, with great daring, wantsto convert into an identity of name, was probably only one of theresults of that long series of confusions between the Great[Pg 184] Mother(Hathor) and the Sun-god (Horus), to which I have referred in mydiscussion of the dragon-story.

But when Apollo's form emerges more clearly he is associated not withAphrodite but with Artemis, whom Dr. Rendel Harris has shown to beidentified with the mugwort,Artemisia. The association of the goddesswith this plant is probably related to the identification of Sekhet withthe marsh-plants of the Egyptian Delta and of Hathor and Isis with thelotus and other water plants. Any doubt as to the reality of theseassociations and Egyptian connexions is banished by the evidence ofArtemis's male counterpart Apollo Hyakinthos and his relations to thesacred lily and other water plants.[339] Artemis was a gynæcologicalspecialist: for she assisted women not only in childbirth and theexpulsion of the placenta, but also in cases of amenorrhœa andaffections of the uterus. She was regarded as the goddess of the portal,not merely of birth,[340] but also of gold and treasure, of which shepossessed the key, and of the year (January).

This brings us back to the guardianship of gold and treasures whichplays so vital a part in the evolution of the Mediterranean goddesses.For, like the story of the dog and the mandrake, it emphasizes theconchological ancestry of these deities and their connexion with theguardians of the subterranean palaces where pearls are found. ButArtemis was not only the opener of the treasure-houses, but she alsopossessed the secret of the philosopher's stone: she could transmutebase substances into gold,[341] for was she not the offspring of theGolden Hathor? To open the portal either of birth or wealth she used hermagic wand or key. AsNūb, the lady of gold, the Great Mother couldnot only change other substances into gold, but she was also theguardian of the treasure house of gold, pearls, and precious stones.Hence she could grant riches. Elsewhere in this chapter (p. 221) I shallexplain how the goddess came to be identified with gold.

Just as Hathor, the Eye of Re, descended to provide the elixir of youthfor the king who was the sun-god, so Artemis is described as[Pg 185]travelling through the air in a car drawn by two serpents[342] seekingthe most pious of kings in order that she might establish her cult withhim and bless him with renewed youth.[343]

Artemis was a moon-goddess closely related to Britomartis and Diktynna,the Cretan prototype of Aphrodite. These goddesses afforded help towomen in childbirth and were regarded as guardians of the portal. Thegoddess of streams and marshes was identified with the mugwort(Artemisia), which was hung above the door in the place occupied atother times by the winged disk, the thunder-stone, or a crocodile(dragon). As the guardian of portals Artemis's magic plant could openlocks and doors. As the giver of life she could also withhold the vitalessence and so cause disease or death; but she possessed the means ofcuring the ills she inflicted. Artemis, in fact, like all the othergoddesses, was a witch.

In former lectures[344] I have often discussed the remarkable feature ofEgyptian architecture, which is displayed in the tendency to exaggeratethe door-posts and lintels, until in the New Empire the great templesbecome transformed into little more than monstrously overgrown doorwaysor pylons. I need not emphasize again the profound influence exerted bythis line of development upon the Dravidian temples of India and thesymbolic gateways of China and Japan.

Fig. 25.

(a) Winged Disk from the Temple of Thothmes I.

(b) Persian design of Winged Disk above the Tree of Life (Ward, "SealCylinders of Western Asia," Fig. 1109).

(c) Assyrian or Syro-Hittite design of the Winged Disk and Tree ofLife in an extremely conventionalized form (Ward, Fig. 1310).

(d) Assyrian conventionalized Winged Disk and Tree of Life, from thedesign upon the dress of Assurnazipal (Ward, Fig. 670).

(e) Part of the design from a tablet of the time of Dungi (Ward, Fig.663). The Tree of Life (or the Great Mother) between the two mountains:alongside the tree is the heraldic eagle.

(f) Design on a Cretan sarcophagus from Hagia Triada (Blinkenberg,Fig. 9). The Tree of Life has now become the handle of the Double Axe,into which the Winged Disk has been transformed. But the bird which wasthe prototype of the Winged Disk has been added.

(g) Double axe from a gold signet from Acropolis Treasure, Mycenæ(after Sir Arthur Evans, "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," p. 10).

(h) Assyrian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 608) showing reduplication of thewing-pattern, possibly suggesting the doubling of each axe-blade in g.

(i) "Primitive Chaldean Winged Gate" (Ward, Fig. 349). The Gate as theGoddess of the Portal.

(k) Persian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 1144) above a fire-altar in theform suggestive of the mountains of dawn (compare Fig. 26, c).

(l) An Assyrian Tree of Life and Winged Disk crudely conventionalized(Ward, Fig. 695).

(m) Assyrian Tree of Life and "Winged Disk" in which the god is ridingin a crescent replacing the Disk (Ward, Fig. 695).

This significance of gates was no doubt suggested by the idea that theyrepresented the means of communication between the living and the dead,and, symbolically, the portal by which the dead acquired a rebirth intoa new form of existence. It was presumably for this reason that thewinged disk as a symbol of life-giving, was placed above the lintels ofthese doors, not merely in Egypt, Phœnicia, the Mediterranean Area,and Western Asia, but also in America,[345] and in modified forms inIndia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Cambodia, China, and Japan.

The discussion (Chapter II) of the means by which the winged disk cameto acquire the power of life-giving, "the healing in its wings," willhave made it clear that the sun became accredited with these virtuesonly when it assumed the place of the other "Eye of Re," the GreatMother. In fact, it was a not uncommon practice in Egypt[Pg 186] to representthe eyes of Re or of Horus himself in place of the more usual wingeddisk. In the Ægean area the original practice of representing the GreatMother was retained long after it was superseded in Egypt by the use ofthe winged disk (the sun-god).

Over the lintel of the famous "Lion Gate" at Mycenæ, instead of thewinged disk, we find a vertical pillar to represent the Mother Goddess,flanked by two lions which are nothing more than other representativesof herself (Fig. 26).

Fig. 26.

(a) An Egyptian picture of Hathor between the mountains of the horizon(on which trees are growing) (after Budge, "Gods of the Egyptians," Vol.II, p. 101). [This is a part only of a scene in which the goddess Nut isgiving birth to the sun, whose rays illuminate Hathor on the horizon, asSothis, the "Opener of the Way" for the sun.

(b) The mountains of the horizon supporting a cow's head as asurrogate of Hathor, from a stele found at Teima in Northern Arabia, nowin the Louvre (after Sir Arthur Evans,op. cit., p. 39). Thisindicates the identity of what Evans calls "the horns of consecration"and the "mountains of the horizon," and also suggests how confusion mayhave arisen between the mountains and the cow's horns.

(c) The Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash rising between the EasternMountains, the Gates of Dawn (Ward,op. cit., p. 373).

(d) The familiar Egyptian representation of the sun rising between theEastern Mountains (the splitting of the mountain giving birth to "theridiculous mouse"—Smintheus). Theankh (life-sign) below the sun isthe determinative of the act of giving birth or life. The design isheraldically supported by the Great Mother's lionesses.

(e) Part of the design from a Mycenæan vase from Old Salamis (afterEvans, p. 9). The cow's head and the Eastern Mountains are shownalongside one another, each of them supporting the Double Axerepresenting the god.

(f) Part of the design from a lentoid gem from the Idæan Cave, now inthe Candia Museum (after Evans, Fig. 25). If this design be comparedwith the Egyptian picture (a), it will be seen that Hathor's place istaken by the tree-form of the Great Mother, and the trees which in theformer (a) are growing upon the Eastern Mountains are now placedalongside the "horns". In the complete design (vide Evans,op. cit.,p. 44) a votary is represented blowing a conch-shell trumpet to animatethe deity in the sacred tree.

(g) The Eastern Mountains supporting the pillar-form of the goddess(after Evans, Fig. 66).

(h) Another Mycenæan design comparable with (e).

(i) Design from a signet-ring from Mycenæ (after Evans, Fig. 34). Ifthis be compared with the Egyptian picture (a) it will be noted thatthe Great Mother is now replaced by a tree: the Eastern Mountains bybulls, from whose backs the trees of the Eastern Mountains aresprouting. This design affords interesting corroboration of thesuggestion that the Eastern Mountains may be confused with the cow'shead (seeb andc) or with the cow itself. Newberry (Annals ofArchæology and Anthropology, Liverpool, Vol. I, p. 28) has calledattention to the intimate association (in Protodynastic Egypt) of theEastern Mountains, the Bull and the Double Axe—a certain token ofcultural contact with Crete.

(k) The famous sculpture above the Lion Gate at Mycenæ. The pillarform of the Great Mother heraldically supported by her lioness-avatars,which correspond to the cattle of the design (i) and the EasternMountains of (a). The use of this design above the lintel of the gatebrings it into homology with the Winged Disk. The Pillar represents theGoddess, as the Disk represents her Egyptianlocum tenens, Horus; herdestructive representatives (the lionesses) correspond to the two uræiof the Winged Disk design.

In his "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," Sir Arthur Evans has shown thatall possible transitional forms can be found (in Crete and the Ægeanarea) between the representation of the actual goddess and her pillar-and tree-manifestations, until the stage is reached where the sun itselfappears above the pillar between the lions.[346] In the large series ofseals from Mesopotamia and Western Asia which have been described in Mr.William Hayes Ward's monograph,[347] we find manifold links between boththe Egyptian and the Minoan cults.

The tree-form of the Great Mother there becomes transformed into the"tree of life" and the winged disk is perched upon its summit. Thus wehave a duplication of the life-giving deities. The "tree of life" of theGreat Mother surmounted by the winged disk which is really her surrogateor that of the sun-god, who took over from her the power of life-giving(Figs. 25 and 26).

In an interesting Cretan sarcophagus from Hagia Triada[348] thelife-giving power istripled. There is not only the tree representingthe Great Mother herself; but also the double axe (the winged-diskhomologue of the sun-god); and the more direct representation of him asa bird perched upon the axe (Fig. 25,f).

The identification of the Great Mother with the tree or pillar seemsalso to have led to her confusion with the pestle with which thematerials for her draught of immortality was pounded. She was also thebowl or mortar in which the pestle worked.[349][Pg 187]

As the Great Mother became confused with the pestle, so, "theSoma-plant, whose stalks are crushed by the priests to make theSoma-libation, becomes in theVedas itself the Crusher or Smiter, by avery characteristic and frequent Oriental conceit in accordance withwhich the agent and the person or thing acted on are identified".[350]

"The pressing-stones by means of which Soma is crushed typifythunderbolts." "In theRig-Veda, we read of him [Soma] asjyotihrathah,i.e. 'mounted on a car of light' (IX, 5, 86, verse43); or again: 'Like a hero he holds weapons in his hand ... mounted ona chariot' (IX, 4, 76, verse 2)"—(p. 171).

"Soma was the giver of power, of riches and treasures, flocks and herds,but above all, the giver of immortality" (p. 140).

Sir Arthur Evans is of opinion "that in the case of the Cypriotecylinders the attendant monsters and, to a certain extent, the symboliccolumn itself, are taken from an Egyptian solar cycle, and the inferencehas been drawn that the aniconic pillars among the Mycenæans of Cypruswere identified with divinities having some points in common with thesun-gods Ra, or Horus, and Hathor, the Great Mother" (op. cit., pp. 63and 64).

In attempting to find some explanation of how the tree or pillar of thegoddess came to be replaced in the Indian legend by Mount Meru, thepossibility suggests itself whether the aniconic form of the GreatMother placed between two relatively diminutive hills may not havehelped, by confusion, to convert the cone itself into a yet bigger hill,which was identified with Mount Meru, the summit of which in otherlegends produced theamrita of the gods, either in the form of thesoma plant that grew upon its heights, or the rain clouds whichcollected there. But, as the subsequent argument will make clear, thereal reason for the identification of the Great Mother with a mountainwas the belief that the sun was born from the splitting of the easternmountain, which thus assumed the function of the sun-god's mother.Possibly the association of the tops of mountains with cloud- andrain-phenomena and the gods that controlled them played some part inthe[Pg 188] development of the symbolism of mountains. [When I referred (inChapter II, p. 98) to the fact that what Sir Arthur Evans calls "thehorns of consecration" was primarily the split mountain of the dawn, Iwas not aware that Professor Newberry ("Two Cults of the Old Kingdom,"Annals of Archæology and Anthropology, Liverpool, Vol. I, 1908, p. 28)had already suggested this identification.]

In the Egyptian story the god Re instructed the Sekti of Heliopolis topound the materials for the food of immortality. In the Indian version,the gods, aware of their mortality, desired to discover some elixirwhich would make them immortal. To this end, Mount Meru [the GreatMother] was cast into the sea [of milk]. Vishnu, in his second avatar asa tortoise[351] supported the mountain on his back; and the Nâga serpentVasuki was then twisted around the mountain, the gods seizing its headand the demons his tail twirled the mountain until they had churned theamrita or water of life. Wilfrid Jackson has called attention to thefact that this scene has been depicted, not only in India and Japan, butalso in the PrecolumbianCodex Cortes drawn by some Maya artist inCentral America.[352]

The horizon is the birthplace of the gods; and the birth of the deity isdepicted with literal crudity as an emergence from the portal betweenits two mountains. The mountain splits to give birth to the sun-god,just as in the later fable the parturient mountain produced the"ridiculous mouse" (Apollo Smintheus). The Great Mother is described asgiving birth—"the gates of the firmament are undone for Teti himself atbreak of day" [that is when the sun-god is born on the horizon]. "Hecomes forth from the Field of Earu" (Egyptian Pyramid Texts—Breasted'stranslation).

In the domain of Olympian obstetrics the analogy between birth and theemergence from the door of a house or the gateway of a temple is acommon theme of veiled reference. Artemis, for instance, is a goddess ofthe portal, and is not only a helper in childbirth, but also grows inher garden a magical herb which is capable of opening locks. Thisreputation, however, was acquired not merely by reason of her skill inmidwifery, but also as an outcome of the legend[353] of thetreasure-house of pearls which was under the guardianship of the great"giver[Pg 189] of life" and of which she kept the magic key. She was in factthe feminine form of Janus, the doorkeeper who presided over allbeginnings, whether of birth, or of any kind of enterprise or newventure, or the commencement of the year (like Hathor). Janus was theguardian of the door of Olympus itself, the gate of rebirth into theimmortality of the gods.

The ideas underlying these conceptions found expression in an endlessvariety of forms, material, intellectual, and moral, wherever theinfluence of civilization made itself felt. I shall refer only to onegroup of these expressions that is directly relevant to thesubject-matter of this book. I mean the custom of suspending orrepresenting the life-giving symbol above the portal of temples andhouses. Thus the plant peculiar to Artemis herself, the mugwort orArtemisia, was hung above the door,[354] just as the winged disk wassculptured upon the lintel, or the thunder-stone was placed above thedoor of the cowhouse[355] to afford the protection of the Great Mother'spowers of life-giving to her own cattle.

In the Pyramid Texts the rebirth of a dead pharaoh is described withvivid realism and directness. "The waters of life which are in the skycome. The waters of life which are in the earth come. The sky burns forthee, the earth trembles for thee, before the birth of the god. The twohills are divided, the god comes into being, the god takes possession ofhis body. The two hills are divided, this Neferkere comes into being,this Neferkere takes possession of his body. Behold this Neferkere—hisfeet are kissed by the pure waters which are from Atum, which thephallus of Shu made, which the vulva of Tefnut brought into being. Theyhave come, they have brought for thee the pure waters from theirfather."[356][Pg 190]

The Egyptians entertained the belief[357] that the sun-god was born ofthe celestial cow Mehetwēret, a name which means "Great Flood," andis the equivalent of the primeval ocean Nun. In other words thecelestial cow Hathor, the embodiment of the life-giving waters of heavenand earth, is the mother of Horus. So also Aphrodite was born of the"Great Flood" which is the ocean.

In his report upon the hieroglyphs of Beni Hasan,[358] Mr. Griffithrefers to the picture of "a woman of the marshes," which is readsekht, and is "used to denote the goddess Sekhet, the goddess of themarshes, who presided over the occupations of the dwellers there. Chiefamong these occupations must have been the capture of fish and fowl andthe culture and gathering of water-plants, especially the papyrus andthe lotus". Sekhet was in fact a rude prototype of Artemis in thecharacter depicted by Dr. Rendel Harris.[359]

It is perhaps not without significance that the root of a marsh plant,theIris pseudacorus[360] is regarded in Germany as a luck-bringerwhich can take the place of the mandrake.[361]

The Great Mother wields a magic wand which the ancient Egyptian scribescalled the "Great Magician". It was endowed with the two-fold powers oflife-giving and opening, which from the beginning were intimatelyassociated the one with the other from the analogy of the act of birth,which was both an opening and a giving of life. Hence the "magic wand"was a key or "opener of the ways," wherewith, at the ceremonies ofresurrection, the mouth was opened for speech and the taking of food, aswell as for the passage of the breath of life, the eyes were opened forsight, and the ears for hearing. Both the physical act of opening (the"key" aspect) as well as the vital aspect of life-giving (which we maycall the "uterine" aspect) were implied in this symbolism. Mr. Griffithsuggests that the form of the magic wand may have been derived from thatof a con[Pg 191]ventionalized picture of the uterus,[362] in its aspect as agiver of life. But it is possible also that its other significance as an"opener of the ways" may have helped in the confusion of thehieroglyphic uterus-symbol with the key-symbol, and possibly also withdouble-axe symbol which the vaguely defined early Cretan Mother-Goddesswielded. For, as we have already seen (supra, p. 122), the axe alsowas a life-giving divinity and a magic wand (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8.

(a) "Ceremonial forked object," or "magic wand," used in the ceremonyof "opening the mouth," possibly connected with (b) (a bicornuateuterus), according to Griffith ("Hieroglyphics," p. 60).

(c) The Egyptian sign for a key.

(d) The double axe of Crete and Egypt.

In his chapter on "the Origin of the Cult of Artemis," Dr. Rendel Harrisrefers to the reputation of Artemis as the patron of travellers, and toParkinson's statement: "It is said of Pliny that if a traveller bindesome of the hearbe [Artemisia] with him, he shall feele no weariness atall in his journey" (p. 72). Hence the high Dutch nameBeifuss isapplied to it.

The left foot of the dead was called "the staff of Hathor" by theEgyptians; and the goddess was said "to make the deceased's legs towalk".[363]

It was a common practice to tie flowers to a mummy's feet, as Idiscovered in unwrapping the royal mummies. According to Moret (op.cit.) the flowers of Upper and Lower Egypt were tied under the king'sfeet at the celebration of the Sed festival.

Mr. Battiscombe Gunn (quoted by Dr. Alan Gardiner) states that thefamiliar symbol of life known as theankh represents the string of asandal.[364]

It seems to be worth considering whether the symbolism of thesandal-string may not have been derived from the life-girdle, which in[Pg 192]ancient Indian medical treatises was linked in name with the femaleorgans of reproduction and the pubic bones. According to Moret (op.cit., p. 91) a girdle furnished with a tail was used as a sign ofconsecration or attainment of the divine life after death. Jung (op.cit., p. 270), who, however, tries to find a phallic meaning in allsymbolism, claims that reference to the foot has such a significance.

The Mandrake.

We have now given reasons for believing that the personification of themandrake was in some way brought about by the transference to the plantof the magical virtues that originally belonged to the cowry shell.

The problem that still awaits solution is the nature of the process bywhich the transference was effected.

When I began this investigation the story of the Destruction of Mankind(see Chapter II) seemed to offer an explanation of the confusion.Brugsch, Naville, Maspero, Erman, and in fact most Egyptologists, seemedto be agreed that the magical substance from which the Egyptian elixirof life was made was the mandrake. As there was no hint[365] in theEgyptian story of the derivation of its reputation from the fanciedlikeness to the human form, its identification with Hathor seemed to bemerely another instance of those confusions with which the pathway ofmythology is so thickly strewn. In other words, the plant seemed to havebeen used merely to soothe the excited goddess: then the otherproperties of "the food of the gods," of which it was an ingredient,became transferred to the mandrake, so that it acquired the reputationof being a "giver of life" as well as a sedative. If this had been trueit would have been a simple process to identify this "giver of life"with the goddess herself in her rôle as the "giver of life," and hercowry-ancestor which was credited with the same reputation.

But this hypothesis is no longer tenable, because the wordd'd'(variously transliterateddoudou ordidi), which Brugsch[366] andhis followers interpreted as "mandragora," is now believed to haveanother meaning.[Pg 193]

In a closely reasoned memoir, Henri Gauthier[367] has completelydemolished Brugsch's interpretation of this word. He says there arenumerous instances of the use ofd'd' (which he transliteratesdoudouiou) in the medical papyri. In the Ebers papyrus "doudoud'Eléphantine broyé" is prescribed as a remedy for external applicationin diseases of the heart, and as an astringent and emollient dressingfor ulcers. He says the substance was brought to Elephantine from theinterior of Africa and the coasts of Arabia.

Mr. F. Ll. Griffith informs me that Gauthier's criticism of thetranslation "mandrakes" is undoubtedly just: but that the substancereferred to was most probably "red ochre" or "hæmatite".[368]

The relevant passage in the Story of the Destruction of Mankind (in SetiI's tomb) will then read as follows: "When they had brought the redochre, the Sekti of Heliopolis pounded it, and the priestesses mixed thepulverized substance with the beer, so that the mixture resembled humanblood".

I would call special attention to Gauthier's comment that theblood-coloured beer "hadsome magical and marvellous property which isunknown to us".[369]

In his dictionary Brugsch considered the determinative torefer to the fruits of a tree which he called "apple tree," on thesupposed analogy with the Coptic ϫιϫι,fructus autumnalis,pomus, the Greek ὀπώρα; and he proposed to identify thesupposed fruit, then transliterateddoudou, with the Hebrewdoudaïm,and translate itpoma amatoria, mandragora, or in German,Alraune.This interpretation was adopted by most scholars until Gauthier raisedobjections to it.

As Loret and Schweinfurth have pointed out, the mandrake is not found inEgypt, nor in fact in any part of the Nile Valley.[370]

But what is more significant, the Greeks translated the Hebrew[Pg 194]dūdā'im by μανδράγορας and the Copts did not use theword ϫιϫι in their translations, but either the Greek word or aterm referring to its sedative and soporific properties. Steindorff hasshown (Zeitsch. f. Ægypt. Sprache, Bd. XXVII, 1890, p. 60) that theword in dispute would be more correctly transliterated "didi" insteadof "doudou".

Finally, in a letter Mr. Griffith tells me the identification ofdidiwith the Coptic ϫιϫι, "apple (?)" is philologically impossible.

Although this red colouring matter is thus definitely proved not to bethe fruit of a plant, there are reasons to suggest that when the storyof the Destruction of Mankind spread abroad—and the whole argument ofthis book establishes the fact that it did spread abroad—the substancedidi was actually confused in the Levant with the mandrake. We havealready seen that in the Delta a prototype of Artemis was alreadyidentified with certain plants.

In all probabilitydidi was originally brought into the Egyptianlegend merely as a surrogate of the life-blood, and the mixture of whichit was an ingredient was simply a restorer of youth to the king. But thedeterminative (in the tomb of Seti I)—a little yellow disc with a redborder, which misled Naville into believing the substance to be yellowberries—may also have created confusion in the minds of ancientLevantine visitors to Egypt, and led them to believe that reference wasbeing made to their own yellow-berried drug, the mandrake. Such anincident might have had a two-fold effect. It would explain theintroduction into the Egyptian story of the sedative effects ofdidi,which would easily be rationalized as a means of soothing the maniacalgoddess; and in the Levant it would have added to the real properties ofmandrake[371] the magical virtues which originally belonged todidi(and blood, the cowry, and water).

In my lecture on "Dragons and Rain Gods" (Chapter II) I explained thatthe Egyptian story of the Destruction of Mankind is merely one versionof a saga of almost world-wide currency. In many of the non-Egyptianversions[372] the rôle ofdidi in the Egyptian story is taken[Pg 195] by somevegetable product of ared colour; and many of these versions reveala definite confusion between the red fruit and the red clay, thusproving that the confusion ofdidi with the mandrake is no merehypothetical device to evade a difficulty on my part, but did actuallyoccur.

In the course of the development of the Egyptian story the red clay fromElephantine became the colouring matter of the Nile flood, and this inturn was rationalized as the blood or red clay into which the bodies ofthe slaughtered enemies of Re were transformed,[373] and the materialout of which the new race of mankind was created.[374] In other words,the new race was formed ofdidi. There is a widespread legend that themandrake also is formed from the substance of dead bodies[375][Pg 196] oftenrepresented as innocent or chaste men wrongly killed, just as the redclay was the substance of mankind killed to appease Re's wrath, "theblood of the slaughtered saints".[376]

But the original belief is found in a more definite form in the ancientstory that "the mandrake was fashioned out of the same earth whereof Godformed Adam".[377] In other words the mandrake was part of the samesubstance as the earthdidi.[378]

Further corroboration of this confusion is afforded by a story fromLittle Russia, quoted by de Gubernatis.[379] If bryony (a widelyrecognized surrogate of mandrake) be suspended from the girdle all thedead Cossacks (who, like the enemies of Re in the Egyptian story, hadbeen killed and broken to pieces in the earth) will come to life again.Thus we have positive evidence of the homology of the mandrake with redclay or hæmatite.

The transference to the mandrake of the properties of the cowry (and thegoddesses who were personifications of the shell) and blood (and itssurrogates) was facilitated by the manifold homologies of the GreatMother with plants. We have already seen that the goddess was identifiedwith: (a) incense-trees and other trees, such as the sycamore, whichplayed some definite part in the burial ceremonies, either by providingthe divine incense, the materials for preserving the body, or for makingcoffins to ensure the protection of the dead, and so make it possiblefor them to continue their existence; and (b) the[Pg 197] lotus, the lily,the iris, and other marsh plants,[380] for reasons that I have alreadymentioned (p. 184).

The Babylonian poem of Gilgamesh represents one of the innumerableversions of the great theme which has engaged the attention of writersin every age and country attempting to express the deepest longings ofthe human spirit. It is the search for the elixir of life. The object ofGilgamesh's search is a magicplant to prolong life and restore youth.The hero of the story went on a voyage by water in order to obtain whatappears to have been a marsh plant calleddittu.[381] The questionnaturally arises whether this Babylonian story and the name of the plantplayed any part in Palestine in blending the Egyptian and Babylonianstories and confusing the Egyptian elixir of life, the red earthdidi,with the Babylonian elixir, the plantdittu?

In the Babylonian story a serpent-demon steals the magic plant, just asin Indiasoma, the food of immortality, is stolen. In Egypt Isissteals Re's name,[382] and in Babylonia the Zu bird steals the tabletsof[Pg 198] destiny, thelogos. In Greek legend apples are stolen from thegarden of Hesperides. Apples are surrogates of the mandrake anddidi.

We have now seen that the mandrake is definitely a surrogate (a) ofthe cowry and a series of its shell-homologues, and (b) of the redsubstance in the Story of the Destruction of Mankind.

There still remain to be determined (i) the means by which the mandrakebecame identified with the goddess, (ii) the significance of the Hebrewworddūdā-īm, and (iii) the origin of the Greek wordmandragora.

The answer to the first of these three queries should now be obviousenough. As the result of the confusion of the life-giving magicalsubstancedidi with the sedative drug, mandrake, the latter acquiredthe reputation of being a "giver of life" and became identified withthe "giver of life," the Great Mother, the story of whose exploits wasresponsible for the confusion.

The erroneous identification ofdidi with the mandrake was originallysuggested by Brugsch from the likeness of the word (then transliterateddoudou) with the Hebrew worddūdā-īm in Genesis, usuallytranslated "mandrakes". I have already quoted the opinion of Gauthierand Griffith as to the error of such identification. But the evidencenow at our disposal seems to me to leave no doubt as to the reality ofthe confusion of the Egyptian red substance with the mandrake. Thisnaturally suggests the possibility that the similarity of the sounds ofthe wordsmay have played some part in creating the confusion: but itis impossible to admit this as a factor in the development of the story,because the Hebrew word probably arose out of the identification of themandrake with the Great Mother and not by any confusion of names. Inother words the similarity of the names of these homologous substancesis a mere coincidence.

Dr. Rendel Harris claims (and Sir James Frazer seems to approve of thesuggestion) that the Hebrew worddūdā-īm was derived fromdōdīm, "love"; and, on the strength of this derivation, he soarsinto a lofty flight of philological conjecture to transmutedōdīm, intoAphro[Pg 199]dite, "love" into the "goddess of love". Itwould be an impertinence on my part to attempt to follow theseexcursions into unknown heights of cloudland.

But my colleagues Professor Canney and Principal Bennett tell me thatthe derivation ofdūdā-īm fromdōdīm is improbable;and the former authority suggests thatdūdā-īm may be merelythe plural ofdūd, a "pot".[383] Now I have already explained how apot came to symbolize a woman or a goddess, not merely in Egypt, butalso in Southern India, and in Mycenæan Greece, and, in fact, theMediterranean generally.[384] Hence the use of the termdūd for themandrake implies either (a) an identification of the plant with thegoddess who is the giver of life, or (b) an analogy between the formof the mandrake-fruit and a pot, which in turn led to it being called apot, and from that being identified with the goddess.[385]

I should explain that when Professor Canney gave me this state[Pg 200]ment hewas not aware of the fact that I had already arrived at the conclusionthat the Great Mother was identified with a pot and also with themandrake; but in ignorance of the meaning of the Hebrew words I hadhesitated to equate the pot with the mandrake. As soon as I received hisnote, and especially when I read his reference to the second meaning,"basket of figs," in Jeremiah, I recalled Mr. Griffith's discussion ofthe Egyptian hieroglyphic ("a pot of water") for woman, wife, orgoddess, and the claim made by Sir Gardner Wilkinson that this manner ofrepresenting the word for "wife" was apparently taken from aconventionalized picture of "a basket of sycamore figs".[386] Theinterpretation has now clearly emerged that the mandrake was calleddūdā'īm by the Hebrews because it was identified with theMother Pot. The symbolism involved in the use of the Hebrew word alsosuggests that the inspiration may have come from Egypt, where a womanwas called "a pot of water" or "a basket of figs".

When the mandrake acquired the definite significance as a symbol of theGreat Mother and the power of life-giving, its fruit, "the love apple,"became the quintessence of vitality and fertility. The apple and thepomegranate became surrogates of the "love apple," and were graphicallyrepresented in forms hardly distinguishable from pots, occupying placeswhich mark them out clearly as homologues of the Great Motherherself.[387]

But once the mandrake was identified with the Great Mother in the Levantthe attributes of the plant were naturally acquired from her localreputation there. This explains the pre-eminently conchological aspectof the magical properties of the mandrake and the bryony.

I shall not attempt to refer in detail to the innumerable stories of redand brown apples, of rowan berries, and a variety of other red fruitsthat play a part in the folk-lore of so many peoples, such asdidiplayed in the Egyptian myth. These fruits can be either elixirs of lifeand food of the gods, or weapons for overcoming the dragon as Hathor(Sekhet) was conquered by her sedative draught.[388][Pg 201]

In his account of the peony, Pliny ("Nat. Hist.," Book XXVIII, Chap. LX)says it has "a stem two cubits in length, accompanied by two or threeothers, and of a reddish colour, with a bark like that of the laurel ...the seed is enclosed in capsules,some being red and some black ... ithas anastringent taste. The leaves of the female plantsmell likemyrrh". Bostock and Riley, from whose translation I have made thisquotation, add that in reality the plant is destitute of smell. In theEbers papyrusdidi was mixed with incense in one of theprescriptions;[389] and in the Berlin medical papyrus it was one of theingredients of a fumigation used for treating heart disease. If mycontention is justified, it may provide the explanation of how theconfusion arose by which the peony came to have attributed to it a"smell like myrrh".

Pliny proceeds: "Both plants [i.e. male and female] grow in the woods,and they should always be taken up at night, it is said; as it would bedangerous to do so in the day-time, the woodpecker of Mars being sure toattack the person so engaged.[390] It is stated also that the person,while taking up the root, runs great risk of being attacked with[prolapsus ani].... Both plants are used[391] for various purposes: thered seed, taken in red wine, about fifteen in number, arrestmenstruation; while the black seed, taken in the same proportion, ineither raisin or other wine, are curative of diseases of the uterus." Irefer to these red-coloured beverages and their therapeutic use inwomen's complaints to suggest the analogy with that other red drinkadministered to the Great Mother, Hathor.

In his essay, "Jacob and the Mandrakes,"[392] Sir James Frazer hascalled attention to the homologies between the attributes of the peonyand the mandrake and to the reasons for regarding the former as Aelian'saglaophotis.

Pliny states ("Nat. Hist.," Book XXIV, Chap. CII) that theaglao[Pg 202]photis "is found growing among the marble quarries of Arabia, onthe side of Persia," just as the Egyptiandidi was obtained near thegranite quarries at Aswan. "By means of this plant [aglaophotis],according to Democritus, the Magi can summon the deities into theirpresence when they please, "just as the users of the conch-shell trumpetbelieved they could do with this instrument. I have already (p. 196)emphasized the fact that all of these plants, mandrake, bryony, peony,and the rest, were really surrogates of the cowry, the pearl, and theconch-shell. The first is the ultimate source of their influence onwomankind, the second the origin of their attribute ofaglaophotis,and the third of their supposed power of summoning the deity. Theattributes of some of the plants which Pliny discusses along with thepeony are suggestive. Pieces of the root of theachaemenis (? perhapsEuphorbia antiquorum or else a night-shade) taken in wine, torment theguilty to such an extent in their dreams as to extort from them aconfession of their crimes. He gives it the name also of "hippophobas,"it being an especial object of terror to mares. The complementary storyis told of the mandrake in mediæval Europe. The decomposing tissues ofthe body of an innocent victim on the gallows when they fall upon theearth can become reincarnated in a mandrake—themain de gloire of oldFrench writers.

Then there is the plantadamantis, grown in Armenia and Cappadocia,which whenpresented to a lion makes the beast fall upon its back, anddrop its jaws. Is this a distorted reminiscence of thelion-manifestation of Hathor who was calmed by the substancedidi? Amore direct link with the story of the destruction of mankind issuggested by the account of theophiusa, "which is found inElephantine, an island of Ethiopia". This plant is of a livid colour,and hideous to the sight. Taken by a person in drink, it inspires such ahorror of serpents, which his imagination continually represents asmenacing him that he commits suicide at last: hence it is that personsguilty of sacrilege are compelled to drink an infusion of it (Pliny,"Nat. Hist.," XXIV, 102). I am inclined to regard this as a variant ofthe myth of the Destruction of Mankind in which the "snake-plant" fromElephantine takes the place of the uræi of the Winged Disk Saga, andpunishes the act of sacrilege by driving the delinquent into a state ofdelirium tremens.

The next problem to be considered is the derivation of the word[Pg 203]mandragora. Dr. Mingana tells me it is a great puzzle to discover anyadequate meaning. The attempt to explain it through the Sanskritmand,"joy," "intoxication," ormantasana, "sleep," "life," ormandra,"pleasure," ormantara, "paradise tree," andagru, "unmarried,violently passionate," is hazardous and possibly far-fetched.

The Persian ismardumgiah, "man-like plant".

The Syro-Arabic word for it isYabrouh, AramaicYahb-kouh, "giver oflife". This is possibly the source of the ChineseYah-puh-lu (Syriacya-bru-ha) andYah-puh-lu-Yak. The terminationYak is merely theTuranian termination meaning "diminutive".

The interest of the Levantine terms for the mandrake lies in the factthat they have the same significance as the word for pearl,i.e."giver of life". This adds another argument (to those which I havealready given) for regarding the mandrake as a surrogate of the pearl.But they also reveal the essential fact that led to the identificationof the plant with the Mother-Goddess, which I have already discussed.

In Arabic the mandrake is calledabou ruhr, "father of life,"i.e."giver of life".[393]

In Arabicmargan means "coral" as well as "pearl". In theMediterranean area coral is explained as a new and marvellous plantsprung from the petrified blood-stained branches on which Perseus hungthe bleeding head of Medusa. Eustathius ("Comment. ad Dionys. Perieget."1097) derives κοράλιον from κόρη, personifying themonstrous virgin: but Chæroboscos claims that it comes from κόρηand ἄλιον, because it is a maritime product used to makeornaments for maidens. In any case coral is a "giver of life" and assuch identified with a maiden,[394] as the most potential embodiment oflife-giving force. But this specific application of the word for "giverof life" was due to the fact that in all the Semitic languages, as wellas in literary references in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, this phrase wasunderstood as a reference to the female organs of reproduction. The[Pg 204]samedouble entendre is implied in the use of the Greek word for "pig"and "cowry," these two surrogates of the Great Mother, each of which canbe taken to mean the "giver of life" or the "pudendum muliebre".

Perhaps the most plausible suggestion that has been made as to thederivation of the word "mandragora" is Delâtre's claim[395] that it iscompounded of the wordsmandros, "sleep," andagora, "object orsubstance," and that mandragora means "the sleep-producing substance".

This derivation is in harmony with my suggestion as to the means bywhich the plant acquired its magical properties. The sedative substancethat, in the Egyptian hieroglyphs (of the Story of the Destruction ofMankind), was represented by yellow spheres with a red covering wasconfused in Western Asia with the yellow-berried plant which was knownto have sedative properties. Hence the plant was confused with themineral and so acquired all the magical properties of the Great Mother'selixir. But the Indian name is descriptive of the actual properties ofthe plant and is possibly the origin of the Greek word.

Another suggestion that has been made deserves some notice. It has beenclaimed that the first syllable of the name is derived from the Sanskritmandara, one of the trees in the Indian paradise, and the instrumentwith which the churning of the ocean was accomplished.[396] The mandrakehas been claimed to be the tree of the Hebrew paradise; and a connexionhas thus been instituted between it and themandara. This hypothesis,however, does not offer any explanation of how either the mandrake orthemandara acquired its magical attributes. The Indian tree of lifewas supposed to "sweat"amrita just as the incense trees of Arabiaproduce the divine life-giving incense.

But there are reasons[397] for the belief that the Indian story of thechurning of the sea of milk is a much modified version of the oldEgyptian story of the pounding of the materials for the elixir of life.Themandara churn-stick, which is often supposed to represent the[Pg 205]phallus,[398] was originally the tree of life, the tree or pillar whichwas animated by the Great Mother herself.[399] So that themandara ishomologous with themandragora. But so far as I am aware, there is noadequate reason for deriving the latter word from the former.

The derivation from the Sanskrit wordsmandros andagora seems tofit naturally into the scheme of explanation which I have beenformulating.

In the Egyptian story the Sekti of Heliopolis pounded thedidi in amortar to make "the giver of life," which by a simple confusion might beidentified with the goddess herself in her capacity as "the giver oflife". This seems to have occurred in the Indian legend. Lakshmi, orSri, was born at the churning of the ocean. Like Aphrodite, who was bornfrom the sea-foam churned from the ocean, Lakshmi was the goddess ofbeauty, love, and prosperity.

Before leaving the problems of mandrake and the homologous plants andsubstances, it is important that I should emphasize the rôle of bloodand blood-substitutes, red-stained beer, red wine, red earth, and redberries in the various legends. These life-giving and death-dealingsubstances were all associated with the colour red, and the destructivedemons Sekhet and Set were given red forms, which in turn weretransmitted to the dragon, and to that specialized form of the dragonwhich has become the conventional way of representing Satan.

[The whole of the mandrake legend spread to China and became attached tothe plantsginseng andshang-luh—see de Groot, Vol. II, p. 316etseq.; also Kumagusu Minakata,Nature, Vol. LI, April 25, 1895, p.608, and Vol. LIV, Aug. 13, 1896, p. 343. The[Pg 206] fact that the Chinesemake use of the Syriac wordyabruha (vide supra) suggests the sourceof these Chinese legends.]

The Measurement of Time.

It was the similarity of the periodic phases of the moon and ofwomankind that originally suggested the identification of the GreatMother with the moon, and originated the belief that the moon was theregulator of human beings.[400] This was the starting-point of thesystem of astrology and the belief in Fates. The goddess of birth anddeath controlled and measured the lives of mankind.

But incidentally the moon determined the earliest subdivision of timeinto months; and the moon-goddess lent the sanctity of her divineattributes to the number twenty-eight.

The sun was obviously the determiner of day and night, and its risingand setting directed men's attention to the east and the west ascardinal points intimately associated with the daily birth and death ofthe sun. We have no certain clue as to the factors which first broughtthe north and the south into prominence. But it seems probable that thedirection of the river Nile,[401] which was the guide to the orientationof the corpse in its grave, may have been responsible for giving specialsanctity to these other cardinal points. The association of thedirection of the deceased's head with the position of the originalhomeland and the eventual home of the dead would have made the south a"divine" region in Predynastic times. For similar reasons the north mayhave acquired special significance in the Early Dynastic period.[402]

When the north and the south were added to the other two cardinal pointsthe intimate association of the east and the west with the measurementof time would be extended to include all the four cardinal points.[403]Four became a sacred number associated with time-measurement, andespecially with the sun.[404]

Many other factors played a part in the establishment of the[Pg 207] sanctityof the number four. Professor Lethaby has suggested[405] that thefour-sided building was determined by certain practical factors, such asthe desirability of fashioning a room to accommodate a woven mat, whichwas necessarily of a square or oblong form. But the study of theevolution of the early Egyptian grave and tomb-superstructures suggeststhat the early use of slabs of stone, wooden boards, and mud-brickshelped in the process of determining the four-sided form of house androom.

When, out of these rude beginnings, the vast four-sided pyramid wasdeveloped, the direction of its sides was brought into relationship withthe four cardinal points; and there was a corresponding development andenrichment of the symbolism of the number four. The form of the divinehouse of the dead king, who was the god, was thus assimilated to theform of the universe, which was conceived as an oblong area at the fourcorners of which pillars supported the sky, as the four legs supportedthe Celestial Cow.

Having invested the numbers four and twenty-eight with special sanctityand brought them into association with the measurement of time, it was anot unnatural proceeding to subdivide the month into four parts and sobring the number seven into the sacred scheme. Once this was done themoon's phases were used to justify and rationalize this procedure, andthe length of the week was incidentally brought into association withthe moon-goddess, who had sevenavatars, perhaps originally one foreach day of the week. At a later period the number seven was arbitrarilybrought into relationship with the Pleiades.

The seven Hathors were not only mothers but fates also. Aphrodite waschief of the fates.

The number seven is associated with the pots used by Hathor'spriestesses at the celebration inaugurating the new year; and it plays aprominent part in the Story of the Flood. In Babylonia the sanctity ofthe number received special recognition. When the goddess became thedestroyer of mankind, the device seems to have been adopted ofintensifying her powers of destruction by representing her at times asseven demons.[406][Pg 208]

But the Great Mother was associated not only with the week and month butalso with the year. The evidence at our disposal seems to suggest thatthe earliest year-count was determined by the annual inundation of theriver. The annual recurrence of the alternation of winter and summerwould naturally suggest in a vague way such a subdivision of time as theyear; but the exact measurement of that period and the fixing of anarbitrary commencement, a New Year's day, were due to other reasons. Inthe Story of the Destruction of Mankind it is recorded that the incidentof the soothing of Hathor by means of the blood-coloured beer (which, asI have explained elsewhere,[407] is a reference to the annual Nileflood) was celebrated annually on New Year's day.

Hathor was regarded in tradition as the cause of the inundation. Sheslaughtered mankind and so caused the original "flood": in the nextphase she was associated with the 7000 jars of red beer; and in theultimate version with the red-coloured river flood, which in anotherstory was reputed to be "the tears of Isis".

Hathor's day was in fact the date of the commencement of the inundationand of the year; and the former event marked the beginning of the yearand enabled men for the first time to measure its duration. ThusHathor[408] was the measurer of the year, the month, and the week; whileher son Horus (Chronus) was the day-measurer.[Pg 209]

In Tylor's "Early History of Mankind" (pp. 352et seq.) there is aconcise summary of some of the widespread stories of the Fountain ofYouth which restores youthfulness to the aged who drank of it or bathedin it. He cites instances from India, Ethiopia, Europe, Indonesia,Polynesia, and America. "The Moslem geographer, Ibn-el-Wardi, places theFountain of Life in the dark south-western regions of the earth" (p.353).

The star Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of the Egyptian NewYear.[409] Hence it became "the second sun in heaven," and wasidentified with the goddess of the New Year's Day. The identification ofHathor with this "second sun"[410] may explain why the goddess is saidto have entered Re's boat. She took her place as a crown upon hisforehead, which afterwards was assumed by her surrogate, thefire-spitting uræus-serpent. When Horus took his mother's place in themyth, he also entered the sun-god's boat, and became the prototype ofNoah seeking refuge from the Flood in the ship the Almighty instructedhim to make.

In memory of the beer-drinking episode in the Destruction of Mankind,New Year's Day was celebrated by Hathor's priestesses in wild orgies ofbeer drinking.

This event was necessarily the earliest celebration of an anniversary,and the prototype of all the incidents associated with some special dayin the year which have been so many milestones in the historicalprogress of civilization.

The first measurement of the year also naturally forms thestarting-point in the framing of a calendar.

Similar celebrations took place to inaugurate the commencement of theyear in all countries which came, either directly or indirectly, underEgyptian influence.

The month Ἀφροδίσια (so-called from the festival of thegoddess) began the calendar of Bithynia, Cyprus, and Iasos, just asHathor's feast was a New Year's celebration in Egypt.[Pg 210]

In the celebration of these anniversaries the priestesses of Aphroditeworked themselves up in a wild state of frenzy; and the term ὑστήρια[411]became identified with the state of emotional derangementassociated with such orgies. The common belief that the term "hysteria"is derived directly from the Greek word for uterus is certainlyerroneous. The word ὑστήρια was used in the same sense asἈφροδίσια, that is as a synonym for the festivals of thegoddess. The "hysteria" was the name for the orgy in celebration of thegoddess on New Year's day: then it was applied to the condition producedby these excesses; and ultimately it was adopted in medicine to apply tosimilar emotional disturbances. Thus both the terms "hysteria" and"lunacy"[412] are intimately associated with the earliest phases in themoon-goddess's history; and their survival in modern medicine is astriking tribute to the strong hold of effete superstition in thisbranch of the diagnosis and treatment of disease.[413]

I have already referred to the association of Artemis with the portal ofbirth and rebirth. As the guardian of the door her Roman representativeDiana and her masculineavatar Dianus or Janus gave the name to thecommencement of the year. The Great Mother not only initiated themeasurement of the year, but she (or her representative) lent her nameto the opening of the year in various countries.

But the story of the Destruction of Mankind has preserved the record notonly of the circumstances which were responsible for originating themeasurement of the year and the making of a calendar, but also of thematerials out of which were formed the mythical epochs pre[Pg 211]served in thelegends of Greece and India and many other countries further removedfrom the original centre of civilization. When the elaboration of theearly story involved the destruction of mankind, it became necessary toprovide some explanation of the continued existence of man upon theearth. This difficulty was got rid of by creating a new race of men fromthe fragments of the old or from the clay into which they had beentransformed (supra, p. 196). In course of time thissecondarycreation became the basis of the familiar story of theoriginalcreation of mankind. But the story also became transformed in otherways. Different versions of the process of destruction were blended intoone narrative, and made into a series of catastrophes and a successionof acts of creation. I shall quote (from Mr. T. A. Joyce's "MexicanArchæology," p. 50) one example of these series of mythical epochs orworld ages to illustrate the method of synthesis:—

When all was dark Tezcatlipoca transformed himself into the sun to givelight to men.

1. This sun terminated in the destruction of mankind, including a raceof giants, byjaguars.

2. The second sun was Quetzalcoatl, and his age terminated in a terriblehurricane, during which mankind was transformed into monkeys.

3. The third sun was Tlaloc, and the destruction came by arain offire.

4. The fourth was Chalchintlicue, and mankind was finally destroyed by adeluge, during which they became fishes.

The first episode is clearly based upon the story of the lioness-form ofHathor destroying mankind: the second is the Babylonian story of Tiamat,modified by such Indian influences as are revealed in theRamayana:the third is inspired by the Saga of the Winged Disk; and the fourth bythe story of the Deluge.

Similar stories of world ages have been preserved in the mythologies ofEastern Asia, India, Western Asia, and Greece, and no doubt were derivedfrom the same original source.

The Seven-headed Dragon.

I have already referred to the magical significance attached to thenumber seven and the widespread references to the seven Hathors, theseven winds to destroy Tiamat, the seven demons, and the seven fates.[Pg 212]In the story of the Flood there is a similar insistence on theseven-fold nature of many incidents of good and ill meaning in thenarrative. But the dragon with this seven-fold power of wreakingvengeance came to be symbolized by a creature with seven heads.

A Japanese story told in Henderson's notes to Campbell's "Celtic DragonMyth"[414] will serve as an introduction to the seven-headed monster:—

"A man came to a house where all were weeping, and learned that the lastdaughter of the house was to be given to a dragon withseven oreight[415] heads who came to the sea-shore yearly to claim a victim. Hewent with her, enticed the dragon to drinksake from pots set out onthe shore, and then he slew the monster. From the end of his tail hetook out a sword, which is supposed to be the Mikado's state sword. Hemarried the maiden, and with her got a jewel or talisman which ispreserved with the regalia. A third thing of price so preserved is amirror."

The seven-headed dragon is found also in the Scottish dragon-myth, andthe legends of Cambodia, India, Persia, Western Asia, East Africa, andthe Mediterranean area.

The seven-headed dragon probably originated from the seven Hathors. InSouthern India the Dravidian people seem to have borrowed the Egyptianidea of the seven Hathors. "There are seven Mari deities, all sisters,who are worshipped in Mysore. All the seven sisters are regarded vaguelyas wives or sisters of Siva."[416] At one village in the Trichinopolydistrict Bishop Whitehead found that the goddess Kālīamma wasrepresented by seven brass pots, and adds: "It is possible that theseven brass pots represent seven sisters or the seven virgins sometimesfound in Tamil shrines" (p. 36). But the goddess who animates sevenpots, who is also the seven Hathors, is probably well on the way tobecoming a dragon with seven heads.

There is a close analogy between the Swahili and the Gaelic stories thatreveals their ultimate derivation from Babylonia. In the Scottish[Pg 213] storythe seven-headed dragon comes in a storm of wind and spray. The EastAfrican serpent comes in a storm of wind and dust.[417] In theBabylonian story seven winds destroy Tiamat.

"The famous legend of the seven devils current in antiquity was ofBabylonian origin, and belief in these evil spirits, who fought againstthe gods for the possession of the souls and bodies of men, waswidespread throughout the lands of the Mediterranean basin. Here is oneof the descriptions of the seven demons:—

"Of the seven the first is the south wind....

"The second is a dragon whose open mouth....

"The third is a panther whose mouth spares not.

"The fourth is a frightful python....

"The fifth is a wrathful ... who knows no turning back.

"The sixth is an on-rushing ... who against god and king [attacks].

"The seventh is a hurricane, an evil wind which [has no mercy].

"The Babylonians were inconsistent in their description of the sevendevils, describing them in various passages in different ways. In factthey actually conceived of a very large number of these demons, andtheir visions of the other evil spirits are innumerable. According tothe incantation of Shamash-shum-ukin fifteen evil spirits had come intohis body and

"'My God who walks at my side they drove away.'

"The king calls himself 'the son of his God'. We have here the mostfundamental doctrines of Babylonian theology, borrowed originally fromthe religious beliefs of the Sumerians. For them man in his naturalcondition, at peace with the gods and in a state of atonement, isprotected by a divine spirit whom they conceived of as dwelling in theirbodies along with their souls or 'the breath of life'. In many ways theEgyptians held the same doctrine, in their belief concerning theka[418] or the soul's double. According to the beliefs of theSumerians and Babylonians these devils, evil spirits, and all evilpowers stand for ever waiting to attach (sic) (? attack) the divinegenius with each man. By means of insinuating snares they entrap mankindin the meshes of their magic. They secure possession of his soul andbody by leading him into sin, or bringing him into contact with tabooedthings, or by overcoming his divine protector with sympatheticmagic....[Pg 214] These adversaries of humanity thus expel a man's god, orgenius, or occupy his body. These rituals of atonement have as theirprimary object the ejection of the demons and the restoration of thedivine protector. Many of the prayers end with the petition, 'Into thekind hands of his god and goddess restore him'.

"Representations of the seven devils are somewhat rare.... The Brit.Mus. figurine represents the demon of the winds with body of a dog,scorpion tail, bird legs and feet" (S. Langdon, "A Ritual of Atonementfor a Babylonian King,"The Museum Journal [University ofPennsylvania], Vol. VIII, No. 1, March, 1917, pp. 39-44).

But the Babylonians not only adopted the Egyptian conception of thepower of evil as being seven demons, but they also seem to have fusedthese seven into one, or rather given the real dragon seven-foldattributes.[419]

In "The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia"[420] (British Museum),Marduk's weapon is compared to "the fish with seven wings".

The god himself is represented as addressing it in these words: "Thetempest of battle, my weapon of fifty heads, which like the greatserpent of seven heads is yoked with seven heads, which like the strongserpent of the sea (sweeps away) the foe".

In the Japanese story which I have quoted, the number of the dragon'sheads is given asseven oreight; and de Visser is at a loss to knowwhy "the number eight should be stereotyped in these stories of[Japanese] dragons".[421]

I have already emphasized the world-wide association of theseven-headed[Pg 215] dragon with storms. The Argonaut (usually called"Nautilus" by classical scholars) was the prophet of ill-luck and thestorm-bringer: but, true to the paradox that runs through the wholetissue of mythology, this form of the Great Mother is also a benevolentwarner against storms. This seems to be another link between theseven-headed dragon and these cephalopoda.

I would suggest, merely as a tentative working hypothesis, that theprocess of blending the sevenavatars of the dragon into aseven-headed dragon may have been facilitated by its identification withthePterocera and the octopus. We know that the octopus and theshell-fish were forms assumed by the dragon (see p. 172): the confusionbetween the numbers seven and eight is such as might have been createdduring the transference of thePterocera's attributes to the octopus(vide supra, p. 170); and the Babylonian reference to "the fish withseven wings," which was afterwards rationalized into "a great serpentwith seven heads," seems to provide the clue which explains the originof the seven-headed dragon. If Hathor was a seven-fold goddess and atthe same time was identified with the seven-spiked spider-shell(Pterocera), the process of converting the shell-fish's seven "wings"into seven heads would be a very simple one for an ancient story-teller.If this hypothesis has any basis in fact, the circumstance that thebeliefs concerning thePterocera must (from the habitat of theshell-fish) have come into existence upon the shores of Southern Arabiawould explain the appearance of the derived myth of the seven-headeddragon in Babylonia.

My attention was first called to the possibility of the octopus beingthe parent of the seven-headed dragon, and one of the forms assumed bythe thunderbolt, by the design upon a krater from Apulia.[422] Theweapon seemed to be a conventionalization of the octopus. Though furtherresearch has led me to distrust this interpretation, it has convinced meof the intimate association of the octopus and the derived spiralornament with thunder and the dragon, and has suggested that the processof blending the seven demons into a seven-headed demon has been assistedby the symbolism of the octopus and thePterocera.

[Pg 216]

The Pig.

I have already referred to the circumstances that were responsible forthe identification of the cow with the Great Mother, the sky, and themoon. Once this had happened, the process seems to have been extended toinclude other animals which were used as food, such as the sheep, goat,pig, and antelope (or gazelle and deer). In Egypt the cow continued tooccupy the pre-eminent place as a divine animal; and the cow-cultextended from the Mediterreanean to equatorial Africa, to WesternEurope, and as far East as India. But in the Mediterranean area the pigplayed a more prominent part than it did in Egypt.[423] In the lattercountry Osiris, Isis, and especially Set, were identified with the pig;and in Syria the place of Set as the enemy of Osiris (Adonis) was takenby an actual pig. But throughout the Eastern Mediterranean the pig wasalso identified with the Great Mother and associated with lunar and skyphenomena. In fact at Troy the pig was represented[424] with thestar-shaped decorations with which Hathor's divine cow (in her rôle as asky-goddess) was embellished in Egypt. To complete the identificationwith the cow-mother Cretan fable represents a sow suckling the infantMinos or the youthful Zeus-Dionysus as his Egyptian prototype wassuckled by the divine cow.

Now the cowry-shell was called χοῖρος by the Greeks. The pig,in fact, was identified both with the Great Mother and the shell; and itis clear from what has been said already in these pages that the reasonfor this strange homology was the fact that originally the Great Motherwas nothing more than the cowry-shell.

But it was not only with the shell itself that the pig was identifiedbut also with what the shell symbolized. Thus the term χοῖροςhad an obscene significance in addition to its usual meaning "pig" andits acquired meaning "cowry". This fact seems to have played some partin fixing upon the pig the notoriety of being "an unclean animal".[425]But it was mainly for other reasons of a very different kind that theeating of swine-flesh was forbidden. The tabu seems to have arisen[Pg 217]originally because the pig was a sacred animal identified with the GreatMother and the Water God, and especially associated with both thesedeities in their lunar aspects.

According to a Cretan legend the youthful god Zeus-Dionysus was suckledby a sow. For this reason "the Cretans consider this animal sacred, andwill not taste of its flesh; and the men of Præsos perform sacred riteswith the sow, making her the first offering at the sacrifice".[426]

But when the pig also assumed the rôle of Set, as the enemy of Osiris,and became the prototype of the devil, an active aversion took the placeof the sacred tabu, and inspired the belief in the unwholesomeness ofpig flesh. To this was added the unpleasant reputation as a dirty animalwhich the pig itself acquired, for the reasons which I have alreadystated.

I have already referred to the irrelevance of Miss Jane Harrison'sdenial of the birth of Aphrodite from the sea (p. 141). Miss Harrisondoes not seem to have realized that in her book[427] she has collectedevidence which is much more relevant to the point at issue. For, in theinteresting account of the Eleusinian Mysteries (pp. 150et seq.), shehas called attention to the important rite upon the day "called inpopular parlance 'ἄλαδε μύσται,' 'to the sea ye mystics'" (p.152), which, I think, has a direct bearing upon the myth of Aphrodite'sbirth from the sea.

The Mysteries were celebrated at full moon; and each of the candidatesfor admission "took with him his own pharmakos,[428] a young pig".

"Arrived at the sea, each man bathed with his pig" (p. 152). On oneoccasion, so it is said, "when a mystic was bathing his pig, asea-monster ate off the lower part of his body" (p. 153). So importantwas the pig in this ritual "that when Eleusis was permitted(b.c. 350-327) to issue her autonomous coinage it is the pigshe chooses as the sign and symbol of her mysteries" (p. 153).

"On the final day of the Mysteries, according to Athenæus, two vesselscalledplemochoæ are emptied, one towards the East and the othertowards the West, and at the moment of outpouring a mystic[Pg 218] formularywas pronounced.... What the mystic formulary was we cannot certainlysay, but it is tempting to connect the libation of theplemochoæ witha formulary recorded by Proclos. He says 'In the Eleusinian mysteries,looking up to the sky they cried aloud "Rain," and looking down to earththey cried "Be fruitful"'" (p. 161).

In these latter incidents we see, perhaps, a distant echo of Hathor'spots of blood-coloured beer that were poured out upon the soil, which ina later version of the story became the symbol of the inundation of theriver and the token of the earth's fruitfulness. The personification inthe Great Mother of these life-giving powers of the river occurred atabout the same time; and this was rationalized by the myth that she wasborn of the sea. She was also identified with the moon and a sow. Hencethese Mysteries were celebrated, both in Egypt and in the Mediterranean,at full moon, and the pig played a prominent part in them. Thecandidates washed the sacrificial pig in the sea, not primarily as arite of purification,[429] as is commonly claimed, but because thesacrificial animal was merely a surrogate of the cowry, which lived inthe sea, and of the Great Mother,[430] who was sprung from the cowry andhence born of the sea. In the story of the man carrying the pig beingattacked by a sea-monster, perhaps we have an incident of thatwidespread story of the shark guarding the pearls. We have already seenhow it was distorted into the fantastic legend of the dog's rôle in thedigging up of mandrakes. In the version we are now considering thepearl's place is taken by the pig, both of them surrogates of the cowry.

The object of the ceremony of carrying the pig into the sea was not thecleansing of "the unclean animal," nor was itprimarily a rite ofpurification in any sense of the term: it was simply a ritual procedurefor identifying the sacrifice with the goddess by putting it in her ownmedium, and so transforming the surrogate of the sea-shell, theprototype of the sea-born goddess, into the actual Great Mother.

The question naturally arises: what was the real purpose of thesacrifice of the pig?[Pg 219]

In the story of the Destruction of Mankind we have seen that originallya human victim was slain for the purpose of obtaining the life-givinghuman blood to rejuvenate the ageing king. Two circumstances wereresponsible for the modification of this procedure. In the first place,there was the abandonment of human sacrifice and the substitution ofeither beer coloured red with ochre to resemble blood (or in other casesred wine) or the actual blood of an animal sacrifice in place of thehuman blood. Secondly, the blood of the Great Mother herself(personified in the specialavatar that was recognized in a particularlocality, the cow in one place, the pig in another, and so on) wasregarded as more potent as a life-giving force than that of a meremortal human being. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that this wasthe real reason for the abandoning of human sacrifice and thesubstitution of an animal for a human being. For it is unlikely that, inthe rude state of society which had become familiarized with andbrutalized by the practice of these bloody rites of homicide, ethicalmotives alone would have prompted the abolition of the custom of humansacrifice, to which such deep significance was attached. Thesubstitution of the animal was prompted rather by the idea of obtaininga more potent elixir from the life-blood of the Great Mother herself inher cow- or sow-forms.

In the transitional stage of the process of substitution of an animalfor a human being some confusion seems to have arisen as to the ritualmeaning of the new procedure. If Moret's account of the EgyptianMysteries[431] is correct—and without a knowledge of Egyptian philologyI am not competent to express an opinion upon this matter—the attemptwas made to identify the animal victim of sacrifice with the human beingwhose place it had taken. In the procession a human being wore the skinof an animal; and, according to Moret, there was a ceremony of passing ahuman being through the skin as a ritual procedure for transforming themock victim into the animal which was to be sacrificed in his place. Ifthere is any truth in this interpretation, such a ceremony must havebeen prompted by a misunderstanding of the meaning of the sacrifice,unless the identification of the sacrificial animal with the goddess wasmerely a secondary rationalization of the substitution which had beenmade for ethical or some other reasons.

We know that the dead were often buried in the skins of sacrificial[Pg 220]animals, and so identified with the life-giving deities and givenrebirth. We know also that in certain ceremonies the appropriate skinswere worn by those who were impersonating particular gods or goddesses.The wearing of these skins of divine animals seems to have been promptednot so much by the idea of a reincarnation in animal form as by thedesire for identification and communion with the particular deity whichthe animal represented. The whole question, however, is one of greatcomplexity, which can only be settled by a critical study of the textsby some scholar who keeps clearly before his mind the real issues, andrefuses to take refuge in the stereotyped evasions of conventionalmethods of interpretation.

The sacrifice of the sow to Demeter is merely a late variant of Hathor'ssacrifice of a human being to rejuvenate the king Re. How the realmeaning of the story became distorted I have already explained inChapter II ("Dragons and Rain Gods"). The killing of the sow to obtain agood harvest is homologous with the sacrifice of a maiden to obtain agood inundation of the river. The sow is the surrogate of the beautifulprincess of the fairy tale. Instead of the maiden being slain, in onecase, as Andromeda, she is rescued by the hero, in the other her placeis taken by a sow. These late rationalizations are merely glosses of thedeep motives which more than fifty centuries ago seem to have promptedearly pharmacologists to obtain a more potent elixir than human blood bystealing from the heights of Olympus the divine blood of the life-givingdeities themselves.

The pig was identified not only with the Great Mother, but with Osirisand Set also. With the pig's lunar and astral associations I do notpropose to deal in these pages, as the astronomical aspects of theproblems are so vast as to need much more space than the limits imposedin this statement. But it is important to note that the identificationof Set with a pig was perhaps the main factor in riveting upon thiscreature the fetters of a reputation for evil. The evil dragon was therepresentative of both Set and the Great Mother (Sekhet or Tiamat); andboth of them were identified with the pig. Just as Set killed Osiris, sothe pig gave Adonis his mortal injury.[432] When these earthly incidentswere embellished with a celestial significance, the con[Pg 221]flict of Horuswith Set was interpreted as the struggle between the forces of light andorder and the powers of darkness and chaos. When worshipped as atempest-god the Mesopotamian Rimmon was known as "the pig"[433] and, as"the wild boar of the desert," was a form of Set.

I have discussed the pig at this length because the use of the wordsχοῖρος by the Greeks, andporcus andporculus by theRomans, reveals the fact that the terms had the double significance of"pig" and "cowry-shell". As it is manifestly impossible to derive theword "cowry" from the Greek word for "pig," the only explanation thatwill stand examination is that the two meanings must have been acquiredfrom the identification of both the cowry and the pig with the GreatMother and the female reproductive organs. In other words, thepig-associations of Aphrodite afford clear evidence that the goddess wasoriginally a personification of the cowry.[434]

The fundamental nature of the identification of the cowry, the pig, andthe Great Mother, the one with the other, is revealed not merely in thearchæology of the Ægean, but also in the modern customs and ancientpictures of the most distant peoples. For example, in New Guinea theplace of the sacrificial pig may be taken by the cowry-shell;[435] andupon the chief façade of the east wing of the ancient American monument,known as the Casa de las Monjas at Chichen Itza, the hieroglyph of theplanet Venus is placed in conjunction with a picture of a wild pig.[436]

Gold and the Golden Aphrodite.

The evidence which has been collected by Mr. Wilfrid Jackson seems tosuggest that the shell-cults originated in the neighbourhood of the RedSea.

With the introduction of the practice of wearing shells on girdles[Pg 222] andnecklaces and as hair ornaments the time arrived when people living somedistance from the sea experienced difficulty in obtaining these amuletsin quantities sufficient to meet their demands. Hence they resorted tothe manufacture of imitations of these shells in clay and stone. But atan early period in their history the inhabitants of the deserts betweenthe Nile and the Red Sea (Hathor's special province) discovered thatthey could make more durable and attractive models of cowries and othershells by using the plastic yellow metal which was lying about in thesedeserts unused and unappreciated. This practice first gave to the metalgold an arbitrary value which it did not possess before. For thepeculiar life-giving attributes of the shells modelled in the yellowmetal came to be transferred to the gold itself. No doubt the lightnessand especially the beauty of such gold models appealed to the earlyEgyptians, and were in large measure responsible for the hold goldacquired over mankind. But this was an outcome of the empiricalknowledge gained from a practice that originally was inspired purely bycultural and not æsthetic motives. The earliest Egyptian hieroglyphicsign for gold was a picture of a necklace of such amulets; and thisemblem became the determinative of the Great Mother Hathor, not onlybecause she was originally the personification of the life-givingshells, but also because she was the guardian deity both of the Easternwadys where the gold was found and of the Red Sea coasts where thecowries were obtained. Hence she became the "Golden Hathor," theprototype of the "Golden Aphrodite".

Fig. 9.—The Egyptian emblem for gold, the signnub. It represents a collar from which golden amulets, probablyrepresenting cowries, are suspended.

It is a significant token of the influence of these Egyptian incidentsupon the history of the Ægean that among the earliest gold ornamentsfound by Schliemann at Troy were a series of crude representations ofcowries worn as pendants to a hair ornament.[437]

It is hardly necessary to insist upon the vast influence upon thehistory of civilization which this arbitrary value of gold has beenresponsible for exerting. For more than fifty centuries men have been[Pg 223]searching for the precious metal, and have been spreading abroadthroughout the world the elements of our civilization. It has been notonly the chief factor in bringing about the contact of peoples[438] andincidentally in building up our culture, but it has been the cause,directly or indirectly, of most of the warfare which has afflictedmankind. Yet these mighty forces were let loose upon the world as theresult of the circumstance that early searchers for an elixir of lifeused the valueless metal to make imitations of their shell amulets!

The identification of gold with cowries may not have been the primaryreason for the invention of gold currency. In fact, Professor Ridgewayhas called attention to certain historical events which in his opinionforced men to convert their jewellery into coinage. But the fact thatcowries were the earliest form of currency may have prepared the way forthe recognition of the use of gold for a similar purpose. Moreover, weknow that long before a real gold currency came into being rings of goldwere in Egypt a form of tribute and a sign of wealth. Cowries acquiredtheir significance as currency as the result of incidents in somerespects analogous to those which impelled the early Egyptians to makegold models of the shells. In places in Africa far removed from the seawhere the practice has grown up of offering vast numbers of cowries tobrides on the occasion of their marriage (as fertility amulets) or ofputting the shells in the grave (to secure for the dead fresh vitalenergy), the people offered their most treasured possessions, such astheir cattle, in exchange for the amulets which were believed to confersuch priceless social and religious boons. Cattle were therefore givenin exchange for cowries, or the shells were used for the purchase ofwives. When the new significance as currency developed a remarkableconfusion occurred. In many places cowries were placed in the mouth ofthe dead to confer the breath of life: but when the cowries acquired thenew meaning as currency, the people who had lost all knowledge of theoriginal significance of this practice explained the cowries as moneywith which to pay Charon's fare to the other world. Then, in manyplaces, the cowry was replaced by an actual metallic coin. Most scholarsfall into the same error as these ancient rationalists,[Pg 224] and accepttheir explanation of theobolus as though it were the real meaning ofthe act.

Another result of the use of gold models of shells as life-givingamulets was that the metal also acquired the reputation of being a giverof life,[439] which originally belonged merely to the shell or theimitation of its form, whatever the substance used for making the model.

Thus gold came to share the same magical reputation as the cowry and thepearl. It was also put to the same use: it was buried with the dead toconfer a continuation of existence.

Not only was Hathor calledNūb,i.e. "gold" or the golden Hathor:but the place where the funerary statue was made ("born") in Egypt wascalled the "House of Gold" and personified as a goddess who gave rebirthto the dead (Alan Gardiner, "The Tomb of Amenemhēt," p. 95; and A. M.Blackman,Journal of Egyptian Archæology, Vol. IV, p. 127).

When ancient prospectors from the South exploited the rivers ofTurkestan for alluvial gold and fresh water pearls, incidentally theyalso collected pebbles of jade for the purpose of making seals. Thelocal inhabitants confused the properties of the stone with the magicalreputation of the gold and the pearls. One outcome of this jade-fishingin Turkestan was the transference of the credit of life-giving to jade.Prospectors searching for these precious materials gradually made theirway east past Lob Nor, and eventually discovered the deposits of goldand jade in the Shensi province. Thus jade became the nucleus aroundwhich the distinctive civilization of China became crystallized. Itplayed an obtrusive part not only in attracting men from the West and indetermining the locality where the germs of Western civilization wereplanted in China, but also in giving Chinese culture its distinctiveshape.

"The ancient Chinese, wishing to facilitate the resurrection of thedead, surrounded them with jade, gold, pearls, timber, and other thingsimbued with influences emitted from the heavens, or, in other words,with such objects as are pervaded with vital energy derived from theYang matter of which the heavens are the principal depository." (DeGroot,op. cit., p. 316).

By a similar process diamonds acquired the same reputation in India whensearchers after gold discovered the precious metal in Hyderabad,[Pg 225] andthe diamonds of Golconda came to be accredited with life-givingpowers.[440]

According to the beliefs of the Indians "the Nâga owns riches, the waterof life, and a jewel that restores the dead to life".

Thus gold, pearls, jade, and diamonds in course of time acquired thereputation of elixirs of life, but the hold they established uponmankind was due to the fact (a) that the amulets made of thesematerials made a strong appeal to the æsthetic sense, and (b) thearbitrary value assigned to them made them desirable objects to searchfor.

In his "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult" (1901) Sir Arthur Evans givescogent reasons for the view that at the time when Mycenæan influence waspowerful in Cyprus "the 'golden Aphroditê' of the Egyptians seems toplay a much more important part than any form of Astarte or Mylitta" (p.52). "The Cypriote parallels will be found to have a fundamentalimportance as demonstrating in detail that these ['a simple form of thepalmette pillar, approaching a fleur-de-lys in outline,' in associationwith its guardian monsters] are in fact taken over from the cult ofMentu-Ra, the Warrior Sun-god of Egypt, of Hathor, and of Horus" (p.52).

Aphrodite as the Thunder-stone.

As a surrogate of the Great Mother, the Eye of Re, the thunder-weaponwas also identified with any of her varied manifestations.

The thunderbolt is one of the manifestations of the life-giving anddeath-dealing Divine Cow, and therefore is able specially to protectmundane cows.[441]

There are numerous hints in the ancient literature of other countries inconfirmation of the association of the Great Mother with "fallingstars". "In a fragment of Sanchoniathon, Astarte, travelling about thehabitable world, is said to have found a star falling through the air,which she took up and consecrated."[442]

Aphrodite also was looked upon as a meteoric stone that fell from[Pg 226] themoon. In the "Iliad," Zeus is said to have sent Athena as a meteoritefrom heaven to earth.[443]

The association of Aphrodite with meteoric stones and the ancient beliefthat they fell from the moon serve to confirm the identification ofthese life-giving and death-dealing objects with the pearl and thethunderbolt. In Southern India the goddesses may be represented eitherby small stones or by pots of water, usually seven in number. During theceremony around the stone-form of the goddess thekappukaran runsthrice around the stone, as the mandrake-digger does around the plant.Thepujari who represents the goddess is painted like a leopard(Hathor's lioness) and kills the sacrificial sheep. The goddess (likeHathor) is supposed to drink the blood of the sacrificial victims(Whitehead,op. cit., pp. 164-8).

Many factors played a part in the development of the beliefs about theorigin of mankind from stones, with which the identification of thethunderbolt with the winged disk plays a part.

The idea that the cowry was the giver of life and the parent of men wasalso transferred to crude stone imitations of the shell. Perhaps thebelief in such stones as creators of human beings may have beenreinforced by finding actual fossilized shells within pebbles.[444]

A further corroboration of this theory was provided when the pearl cameto be regarded as the quintessence of the life-giving substance ofshells and as a little particle of moon-substance which fell as a dropof dew into the gaping oyster. Perry (op. cit., p. 78) refers to anIndonesian belief among the Tsalisen that their ancestors came out ofthe moon; and the chief of this people has a spherical stone which issaid to represent the moon.

This association of the moon with round stones may be connected with theidentification of the sun (as the winged disk) with a stone axe,[Pg 227] whenthey came to be regarded as alternative weapons for the destruction orthe creation of men. Perry records a story of a rock being lowered downfrom the sun, from which it was born, and out of a cleft in it man andwoman emerged, as they were believed to have been born from the cleft inthe cowry.

Then there are the Egyptian beliefs concerning stone statues, obelisks,or even unshaped blocks of stone which could be animated by human beingsor gods.[445]

The cycle of these stories was completed when the "Eye of Re"slaughtered the enemies of the god and they became identified with thefollowers of Set, "creatures of stone". Thus the evil eye petrifiedrebellious men: and so was launched upon its course the peculiar groupof legends which in time encircled the world.

It is particularly significant that in Indonesia, in association withthese ideas about stone-origins and petrifaction, Perry (p. 133) foundalso the clear-cut belief that the thunder-weapon was a stone, or thetooth of a cloud-dragon in the sky.

In Indonesia also petrifaction, thunder-stones, rain, floods, lightning,and an arrow shot to the accompaniment of thunder and lightning were thepunishments traditionally assigned for certain offences, such as incestand laughing at animals.

The same people who introduced into the Malay Archipelago thesecharacteristic fragments of the dragon-myth also believed that certainanimals were impersonations of their gods: they also brought stories ofincestuous unions on the part of their deities and rulers. To laugh attheir sacred animals, or to imitate privileged customs permitted totheir deities, but not to ordinary mortals, merited the same sort ofpunishments as were meted out to those other rebels against the rulingclass and the gods in the home of these beliefs.[446][Pg 228]

To laugh at the divine animals, or to commit incest, which was a divineprerogative, was analogous to "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,"which in the New Testament is proclaimed an unpardonable offence, and inpagan legend was punished by the divine wrath, thunder, lightning, rain,floods, or petrifaction being the avenging instruments. Œdipus putout his own eyes to forestall the traditional wrath of the gods.

The Serpent and the Lioness.

When the development of the story of the Destruction of Mankindnecessitated the finding of a human sacrifice and drove the Great Motherto homicide, this side of her character was symbolized by identifyingher with a man-slaying lion and the venomous uræus-serpent.

She had previously been represented by such beneficent food-providingand life-sustaining creatures as the cow, the sow, and the gazelle(antelope or deer): but when she developed into a malevolent creatureand became the destroyer of mankind it was appropriate that she shouldassume the form of such man-destroyers as the lion and the cobra.

Once the reason for such identifications grew dim, the uræus-form of theGreat Mother became her symbol in either of her aspects, good or bad,although the legend of her poison-spitting, man-destroying powerspersisted.[447] The identification of the destroying-goddess with themoon, "the Eye of the Sun-god," prepared the way for the rationalizationof her character as a uræus-serpent spitting venom and the sun's Eyespitting fire at the Sun-god's enemies. Such was the[Pg 229] goddess of Buto inLower Egypt, whose uræus-symbol was worn on the king's forehead, and wasmisinterpreted by the Greeks as not merely a symbolic "eye," but anactual median eye upon the king's or the god's forehead.

It is not without special significance that in the ancient legend (seeSethe,op. cit.) the lioness-goddess Tefnut was reputed to have comefrom Elephantine (or at any rate the region of Sehêl and Biga, which hasthe same significance), which serves to demonstrate her connexion withthe story of the Destruction of Mankind and to corroborate the inferenceas to its remote antiquity. She was identified with Hathor, Sekhet,Bast, and other goddesses.

But the uræus was not merely the goddess who destroyed the king'senemies and the emblem of his kingship: in course of time the cobrabecame identified with the ruler himself and the dead king, who was thegod Osiris. When this happened the snake acquired the god's reputationof being the controller of water.

The fashionable speculation of modern scholars that the movements of thesnake naturally suggest rippling water[448] and provide "the obviousreason" which led many people quite independently the one of the otherto associate the snake with water, is thus shown to have no foundationin fact.

One would have imagined that, if any natural association between snakesand water was the reason for this association, a water-snake would havebeen chosen to express the symbolism; or, if it was the mere ripplingmotion of the reptile, that all snakes or any snake would have beendrawn into the analogy. But primarily only one kind of snake, a cobra,was selected[449]; and it is not a water snake, and cannot live in orunder water. It was selectedbecause it was venomous and theappropriate symbol of man-slaying.

The circumstances which led to the identification of this particularserpent with water were the result of a process of legend-making of soarbitrary and eccentric a nature as to make it impossible seriously topretend that so tortuous a ratiocination should have been exactlyfollowed to the same unexpected destination also in Crete and Western[Pg 230]

Europe, in Babylonia and India, in Eastern Asia, and in America, withoutprompting the one of the other. No serious investigator who is capableof estimating the value of evidence can honestly deny that the belief inthe serpent's control over water was diffused abroad from one centrewhere a concatenation of peculiar circumstances and beliefs led to theidentification of the ruler with the cobra and the control of water.

We are surely on safe ground in assuming the improbability of such awholly fortuitous set of events happening a second time and producingthe same result elsewhere. Thus when we find in India the Nâga rajasidentified with the cobra, and credited with the ability to control thewaters, we can confidently assume that in some way the influence ofthese early Egyptian events made itself felt in India. As we compare thedetails of the Nâga worship in India[450] with early Egyptian beliefs,all doubt as to their common origin disappears.

The Nâga rulers were closely associated with springs, streams, andlakes. "To this day the rulers of the Hindu Kush states, Hunza andNagar, though now Mohammedans, are believed, by their subjects, to beable to command the elements."

Oldham adds: "This power is still ascribed to the serpent-gods of thesun-worshipping countries of China, Manchuria, and Korea, and was so,until the introduction of Christianity, in Mexico and Peru". This is putforward in support of his argument that the Nâga kings' "supposedability to control the elements, and especially the waters," arose "fromtheir connexion with the sun". But this is not so.[451] The belief inthe Egyptian king's power over water was certainly older thansun-worship, which did not begin until Osirian beliefs and thepersonification of the moon as the Great Mother brought the sky-deitiesand the control of water into correlation the one with the other. Theassociation of the sun and the serpent in the royal insignia was a laterdevelopment.

The early Egyptian goddess was identified with the uræus-serpent in thatvitally important nodal point of primitive civilization, Buto, in LowerEgypt. The earliest deity in Crete and the Eastern Mediter[Pg 231]ranean seemsto have been a goddess who was also closely associated with the serpent.According to Langdon "the ophidian nature of the earliest Sumerianmother-goddessInnini is unmistakable.... She carries the caduceus inher hand, two serpents twining about a staff."[452]

The earliest Indian deities also were goddesses, and the first rulers ofwhom any record has been preserved were regarded as divine cobras, towhom was attributed the power of controlling water. These Nâgas, whetherkings or queens, gods or goddesses, were the prototypes of the EasternAsiatic dragon, whose origin is discussed in Chapter II.

In Japan the earliest sun-deity was a goddess who was identified with asnake. Elsewhere in this volume (Chapter II) I have referred to thecompleteness of the transference to America of these Old World ideas ofthe serpent. Right on the route taken by the main stream of culturaldiffusion across the Pacific we still find in their fully-developed formthe old beliefs concerning the good Mother Serpent of the ancientcivilizations (C. E. Fox and F. H. Drew,op. cit. supra, p. 139). Shecould be re-incarnated as a coconut: she controlled crops; she wasassociated with the coming of death into the world, with theintroduction of agriculture and the discovery of fire. Like herpredecessors in the West she was also a Mother Pot or Basket that neveremptied.

All thehiona orfigona (i.e. spirits) of San Cristoval have aserpent incarnation from Agunua the creator, worshipped by every one, toOharimae and others, only known to particular persons. Other spirits,calledataro, might be incarnate in almost any animal. Agunua, whotook the form of a serpent, was good, not evil (p. 134). Very manypools, rocks, water-falls, or large trees were thought to be the abodeoffigona. These serpent spirits could take the form of a stone, orretire within a stone, and sacred stones seem to be connected withfigona rather than withataro (p. 135). Almost all the localfigona are represented as female snakes, but Agunua is a male snake(p. 137).

As the real significance of the snake's symbolism originated from itsidentification with the Great Mother in her destructive aspect, it isnot surprising that the snake is the most primitive form of the evil[Pg 232]dragon. The Babylonian Tiamat was originally represented as a hugeserpent,[453] and throughout the world the serpent is pre-eminently asymbol of the evil dragon and the powers of evil.

The serpent that tempted Eve was the homologue both of the mother ofmankind herself and also of the tree of paradise. It was therepresentative of the dragon-protector of pearls and of other kinds oftreasure: it was also the goddess who animated the sacred tree as wellas the protector who attacked all who approached it. It was the evildragon that tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit which brought hermortality.

The identification of the Great Mother with the lioness (and thesecondary association of her husband and son with the lion) wasresponsible for a widespread relationship of these creatures with thegods and goddesses in Egypt and the Mediterranean, in Western Asia, inBabylonia and India, in Eastern Asia [tiger] and America [ocelot, andforms borrowed from the conventionalized lions and tigers of the OldWorld].

The account of the Great Mother's attributes and associations throwsinto clear relief certain aspects of the evolution of the dragon whichwere left in a somewhat nebulous state in Chapter II. The earliest formassumed by the power of evil was the serpent or the lion, because thesedeath-dealing creatures were adopted as symbols of the Great Mother inher rôle as the Destroyer of Mankind. When Horus was differentiated fromthe Great Mother and became herlocum tenens, his falcon (or eagle)was blended with Hathor's lioness to make the composite monster which isrepresented on Elamite and Babylonian monuments (see p. 79). But whenthe rôle of water as the instrument of destruction became prominent,Ea's antelope and fish were blended to make a monster, usually known asthe "goat-fish," which in India and elsewhere assumed a great variety offorms. Some of the varieties ofmakara were sufficiently like acrocodile to be confused or identified with this representative of thefollowers of Set.

The real dragon was created when all three larval types—serpent,eagle-lion, and antelope-fish—were blended to form a monster withbird's feet and wings, a lion's forelimbs and head, the fish's scales,the antelope's horns, and a more or less serpentine form of trunk andtail,[Pg 233] and sometimes also of head. Repeated substitution of parts ofother animals, such as the spiral horn of Amen's ram, a deer's antlers,and the elephant's head, led to endless variation in the dragon'straits.

The essential unity of the motives and incidents of the myths of allpeoples and of every age is a token, not of independent origin or theresult of "the similarity of the working of the human mind," but oftheir derivation from the same ultimate source.

The question naturally arises: what is a myth? The dragon-myth of theWest is the religion of China. The literature of every religion issaturated with the influence of the myth. In what respect does religiondiffer from myth? In Chapter I, I attempted to explain how originallyscience and religion were not differentiated. Both were the outcome ofman's attempt to peer into the meaning of natural phenomena, and toextract from such knowledge practical measures for circumventing fate.His ever-insistent aim was to combat danger to life.

Religion was differentiated from science when the measures forcontrolling fate became invested with the assurance of supernaturalhelp, for which the growth of a knowledge of natural phenomena made itimpossible for the mere scientist to be the sponsor. It became aquestion of faith rather than knowledge; and man's instinctive struggleagainst the risk of extinction impelled him to cling to this larger hopeof salvation, and to embellish it with an ethical and moral significancewhich at first was lacking in the eternal search for the elixir of life.

If religion can be regarded as archaic science enriched with the beliefin supernatural control, the myth can be regarded as effete religionwhich has been superseded by the growth of a loftier ethical purpose.The myth is to religion what alchemy is to chemistry or astrology is toastronomy. Like these sciences, religion retains much of the material ofthe cruder phase of thought that is displayed in myth, alchemy, andastrology, but it has been refined and elaborated. The dross has been toa large extent eliminated, and the pure metal has been moulded into amore beautiful and attractive form. In searching for the elixir of life,the makers of religion have discovered the philosopher's stone, and withits aid have transmuted the base materials of myth into the gold ofreligion.

If we seek for the deep motives which have prompted men in all ages sopersistently to search for the elixir of life, for some means ofaverting the dangers to which their existence is exposed, it will be[Pg 234]found in the instinct of self-preservation, which is the fundamentalfactor in the behaviour of all living beings, the means of preservationof the life which is their distinctive attribute and the very essence oftheir being.

The dragon was originally a concrete expression of the divine powers oflife-giving; but with the development of a higher conception ofreligious ideals it became relegated to a baser rôle, and eventuallybecame the symbol of the powers of evil.

Transcriber's Note: Numerous obvious printing errors have been corrected.However, inconsistent hyphenation in the original has been retained.