{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22038/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22038","id":"gutenberg_22038","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22038","summary":null,"tags":["Aphrodite (Greek deity)","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Dragons","Incense","Mythology","Mythology, Egyptian","Rain gods -- Egypt"],"text":"Produced by Colin Bell, Dave Maddock and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile made using scans of public domain works at the\nUniversity of Georgia.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE DRAGON\n\nBY G. ELLIOT SMITH, M.A., M.D., F.R.S.\n\nPROFESSOR OF ANATOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER\n\n\n_ILLUSTRATED_\n\n\nManchester: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN & COMPANY\n\nLondon, New York, Chicago, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras\n\n1919\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nSome explanation is due to the reader of the form and scope of these\nelaborations of the lectures which I have given at the John Rylands\nLibrary during the last three winters.\n\nThey deal with a wide range of topics, and the thread which binds them\nmore or less intimately into one connected story is only imperfectly\nexpressed in the title \"The Evolution of the Dragon\".\n\nThe book has been written in rare moments of leisure snatched from a\nvariety of arduous war-time occupations; and it reveals only too plainly\nthe traces of this disjointed process of composition. On 23 February,\n1915, I presented to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society\nan essay on the spread of certain customs and beliefs in ancient times\nunder the title \"On the Significance of the Geographical Distribution of\nthe Practice of Mummification,\" and in my Rylands Lecture two weeks\nlater I summed up the general conclusions.[1] In view of the lively\ncontroversies that followed the publication of the former of these\naddresses, I devoted my next Rylands Lecture (9 February, 1916) to the\ndiscussion of \"The Relationship of the Egyptian Practice of\nMummification to the Development of Civilization\". In preparing this\naddress for publication in the _Bulletin_ some months later so much\nstress was laid upon the problems of \"Incense and Libations\" that I\nadopted this more concise title for the elaboration of the lecture which\nforms the first chapter of this book. This will explain why so many\nmatters are discussed in that chapter which have little or no\nconnexion either with \"Incense and Libations\" or with \"The Evolution\nof the Dragon\".\n\nThe study of the development of the belief in water's life-giving\nattributes, and their personification in the gods Osiris, Ea, Soma\n[Haoma] and Varuna, prepared the way for the elucidation of the history\nof \"Dragons and Rain Gods\" in my next lecture (Chapter II). What played\na large part in directing my thoughts dragon-wards was the discussion of\ncertain representations of the Indian Elephant upon Precolumbian\nmonuments in, and manuscripts from, Central America (_Nature_, 25 Nov.,\n1915; 16 Dec., 1915; and 27 Jan., 1916). For in the course of\ninvestigating the meaning of these remarkable designs I discovered that\nthe Elephant-headed rain-god of America had attributes identical with\nthose of the Indian Indra (and of Varuna and Soma) and the Chinese\ndragon. The investigation of these identities established the fact\nthat the American rain-god was transmitted across the Pacific from India\nvia Cambodia.\n\nThe intensive study of dragons impressed upon me the importance of the\npart played by the Great Mother, especially in her Babylonian _avatar_\nas Tiamat, in the evolution of the famous wonder-beast. Under the\nstimulus of Dr. Rendel Harris's Rylands Lecture on \"The Cult of\nAphrodite,\" I therefore devoted my next address (14 November, 1917) to\nthe \"Birth of Aphrodite\" and a general discussion of the problems of\nOlympian obstetrics.\n\nEach of these addresses was delivered as an informal demonstration of\nlarge series of lantern projections; and, as Mr. Guppy insisted upon the\npublication of the lectures in the _Bulletin_, it became necessary,\nas a rule, many months after the delivery of each address, to rearrange\nmy material and put into the form of a written narrative the story\nwhich had previously been told mainly by pictures and verbal comments\nupon them.\n\nIn making these elaborations additional facts were added and new points\nof view emerged, so that the printed statements bear little resemblance\nto the lectures of which they pretend to be reports. Such\ntransformations are inevitable when one attempts to make a written\nreport of what was essentially an ocular demonstration, unless every one\nof the numerous pictures is reproduced.\n\nEach of the first two lectures was printed before the succeeding lecture\nwas set up in type. For these reasons there is a good deal of\nrepetition, and in successive lectures a wider interpretation of\nevidence mentioned in the preceding addresses. Had it been possible to\nrevise the whole book at one time, and if the pressure of other duties\nhad permitted me to devote more time to the work, these blemishes might\nhave been eliminated and a coherent story made out of what is little\nmore than a collection of data and tags of comment. No one is more\nconscious than the writer of the inadequacy of this method of presenting\nan argument of such inherent complexity as the dragon story: but my\nobligation to the Rylands Library gave me no option in the matter: I had\nto attempt the difficult task in spite of all the unpropitious\ncircumstances. This book must be regarded, then, not as a coherent\nargument, but merely as some of the raw material for the study of the\ndragon's history. In my lecture (13 November, 1918) on \"The Meaning of\nMyths,\" which will be published in the _Bulletin of the John Rylands\nLibrary_, I have expounded the general conclusions that emerge from the\nstudies embodied in these three lectures; and in my forthcoming book,\n\"The Story of the Flood,\" I have submitted the whole mass of evidence to\nexamination in detail, and attempted to extract from it the real story\nof mankind's age-long search for the elixir of life.\n\nIn the earliest records from Egypt and Babylonia it is customary to\nportray a king's beneficence by representing him initiating irrigation\nworks. In course of time he came to be regarded, not merely as the giver\nof the water which made the desert fertile, but as himself the\npersonification and the giver of the vital powers of water. The\nfertility of the land and the welfare of the people thus came to be\nregarded as dependent upon the king's vitality. Hence it was not\nillogical to kill him when his virility showed signs of failing and so\nimperilled the country's prosperity. But when the view developed that\nthe dead king acquired a new grant of vitality in the other world he\nbecame the god Osiris, who was able to confer even greater boons of\nlife-giving to the land and people than was the case before. He was the\nNile, and he fertilized the land. The original dragon was a beneficent\ncreature, the personification of water, and was identified with kings\nand gods.\n\nBut the enemy of Osiris became an evil dragon, and was identified with\nSet.\n\nThe dragon-myth, however, did not really begin to develop until an\nageing king refused to be slain, and called upon the Great Mother, as\nthe giver of life, to rejuvenate him. Her only elixir was human blood;\nand to obtain it she was compelled to make a human sacrifice. Her\nmurderous act led to her being compared with and ultimately identified\nwith a man-slaying lioness or a cobra. The story of the slaying of the\ndragon is a much distorted rumour of this incident; and in the process\nof elaboration the incidents were subjected to every kind of\ninterpretation and also confusion with the legendary account of the\nconflict between Horus and Set.\n\nWhen a substitute was obtained to replace the blood the slaying of a\nhuman victim was no longer logically necessary: but an explanation had\nto be found for the persistence of this incident in the story. Mankind\n(no longer a mere individual human sacrifice) had become sinful and\nrebellious (the act of rebellion being complaints that the king or god\nwas growing old) and had to be destroyed as a punishment for this\ntreason. The Great Mother continued to act as the avenger of the king or\ngod. But the enemies of the god were also punished by Horus in the\nlegend of Horus and Set. The two stories hence became confused the one\nwith the other. The king Horus took the place of the Great Mother as the\navenger of the gods. As she was identified with the moon, he became the\nSun-god, and assumed many of the Great Mother's attributes, and also\nbecame her son. In the further development of the myth, when the Sun-god\nhad completely usurped his mother's place, the infamy of her deeds of\ndestruction seems to have led to her being confused with the rebellious\nmen who were now called the followers of Set, Horus's enemy. Thus an\nevil dragon emerged from this blend of the attributes of the Great\nMother and Set. This is the Babylonian Tiamat. From the amazingly\ncomplex jumble of this tissue of confusion all the incidents of the\ndragon-myth were derived.\n\nWhen attributes of the Water-god or his enemy became assimilated with\nthose of the Great Mother and the Warrior Sun-god, the animals with\nwhich these deities were identified came to be regarded individually and\ncollectively as concrete expressions of the Water-god's powers. Thus the\ncow and the gazelle, the falcon and the eagle, the lion and the serpent,\nthe fish and the crocodile became symbols of the life-giving and the\nlife-destroying powers of water, and composite monsters or dragons were\ninvented by combining parts of these various creatures to express the\ndifferent manifestations of the vital powers of water. The process of\nelaboration of the attributes of these monsters led to the development\nof an amazingly complex myth: but the story became still further\ninvolved when the dragon's life-controlling powers became confused with\nman's vital spirit and identified with the good or evil genius which was\nregarded as the guest, welcome or unwelcome, of every individual's body,\nand the arbiter of his destiny. In my remarks on the _ka_ and the\n_fravashi_ I have merely hinted at the vast complexity of these elements\nof confusion.\n\nHad I been familiar with [Archbishop] Soederblom's important\nmonograph,[2] when I was writing Chapters I and III, I might have\nattempted to indicate how vital a part the confusion of the individual\n_genius_ with the mythical wonder-beast has played in the history of the\nmyths relating to the latter. For the identification of the dragon with\nthe vital spirit of the individual explains why the stories of the\nformer appealed to the selfish interest of every human being. At the\ntime the lecture on \"Incense and Libations\" was written, I had no idea\nthat the problems of the _ka_ and the _fravashi_ had any connexion with\nthose relating to the dragon. But in the third chapter a quotation from\nProfessor Langdon's account of \"A Ritual of Atonement for a Babylonian\nKing\" indicates that the Babylonian equivalent of the _ka_ and the\n_fravashi_, \"my god who walks at my side,\" presents many points of\naffinity to a dragon.\n\nWhen in the lecture on \"Incense and Libations\" I ventured to make the\ndaring suggestion that the ideas underlying the Egyptian conception of\nthe _ka_ were substantially identical with those entertained by the\nIranians in reference to the _fravashi_, I was not aware of the fact\nthat such a comparison had already been made. In [Archbishop]\nSoederblom's monograph, which contains a wealth of information in\ncorroboration of the views set forth in Chapter I, the following\nstatement occurs: \"L'analyse, faite par M. Brede-Kristensen (_AEgypternes\nforestillinger om livet efter doeden_, 14 ss. Kristiania, 1896) du _ka_\negyptien, jette une vive lumiere sur notre question, par la frappante\nanalogie qui semble exister entre le sens originaire de ces deux termes\n_ka_ et _fravashi_\" (p. 58, note 4). \"La similitude entre le _ka_ et la\n_fravashi_ a ete signalee deja par Nestor Lhote, _Lettres ecrites\nd'Egypte_, note, selon Maspero, _Etudes de mythologie et d'archeologie\negyptiennes_, I, 47, note 3.\"\n\nIn support of the view, which I have submitted in Chapter I, that the\noriginal idea of the _fravashi_, like that of the _ka_, was suggested by\nthe placenta and the foetal membranes, I might refer to the specific\nstatement (Farvardin-Yasht, XXIII, 1) that \"les fravashis tiennent en\nordre l'enfant dans le sein de sa mere et l'enveloppent de sorte qu'il\nne meurt pas\" (_op. cit._, Soederblom, p. 41, note 1). The _fravashi_\n\"nourishes and protects\" (p. 57): it is \"the nurse\" (p. 58): it is\nalways feminine (p. 58). It is in fact the placenta, and is also\nassociated with the functions of the Great Mother. \"Nous voyons dans\nfravashi une personification de la force vitale, conservee et exercee\naussi apres la mort. La fravashi est le principe de vie, la faculte qu'a\nl'homme de se soutenir par la nourriture, de manger, d'absorber et ainsi\nd'exister et de se developper. Cette etymologie et le role attribute a\nla fravashi dans le developpement de l'embryon, des animaux, des plantes\nrappellent en quelque sorte, comme le remarque M. Foucher, l'idee\ndirectrice de Claude Bernard. Seulement la fravashi n'a jamais ete une\nabstraction. La fravashi est une puissance vivante, un _homunculus in\nhomine_, un etre personnifie comme du reste toutes les sources de vie et\nde mouvement que l'homme non civilise apercoit dans son organisme.\n\n\"Il ne faut pas non plus considerer la fravashi comme un double de\nl'homme, elle en est plutot une partie, un hote intime qui continue son\nexistence apres la mort aux memes conditions qu'avant, et qui oblige\nles vivants a lui fournir les aliments necessaires\" (_op. cit._, p. 59).\n\nThus the _fravashi_ has the same remarkable associations with\nnourishment and placental functions as the _ka_. As a further suggestion\nof its connexion with the Great Mother as the inaugurator of the year,\nand in virtue of her physiological (uterine) functions the\nmoon-controlled measurer of the month, it is important to note that \"Le\n19^e jour de chaque mois est egalement consecre aux fravashis en\ngeneral. Le premier mois porte aussi le nom de Farvardin. Quant aux\nformes des fetes mensuelles, elles semblent conformes a celles que nous\nallons rappeler [les fetes celebrees en l'honneur des mortes]\" (_op.\ncit._, p. 10).\n\nBut the _fravashi_ was not only associated with the Great Mother, but\nalso with the Water-god or Good Dragon, for it controlled the waters of\nirrigation and gave fertility to the soil (_op. cit._, p. 36). The\n_fravashi_ was also identified with the third member of the primitive\nTrinity, the Warrior Sun-god, not merely in the general sense as the\nadversary of the powers of evil, but also in the more definite form of\nthe Winged Disk (_op. cit._, pp. 67 and 68).\n\nIn all these respects the _fravashi_ is brought into close association\nwith the dragon, so that in addition to being \"the divine and immortal\nelement\" (_op. cit._, p. 51), it became the genius or spirit that\npossesses a man and shapes his conduct and regulates his behaviour. It\nwas in fact the expression of a crude attempt on the part of the early\npsychologists of Iran to explain the working of the instinct of\nself-preservation.\n\nIn the text of Chapters I and III I have referred to the Greek,\nBabylonian, Chinese, and Melanesian variants of essentially the same\nconception. Soederblom refers to an interesting parallel among the\nKarens, whose _kelah_ corresponds to the Iranian _fravashi_ (p. 54, Note\n2: compare also A. E. Crawley, \"The Idea of the Soul,\" 1909).\n\nIn the development of the dragon-myth astronomical factors played a very\nobtrusive part: but I have deliberately refrained from entering into a\ndetailed discussion of them, because they were not primarily the real\ncausal agents in the origin of the myth. When the conception of a\nsky-world or a heaven became drawn into the dragon story it came to\nplay so prominent a part as to convince most writers that the myth was\nprimarily and essentially astronomical. But it is clear that originally\nthe myth was concerned solely with the regulation of irrigation systems\nand the search upon earth for an elixir of life.\n\nWhen I put forward the suggestion that the annual inundation of the Nile\nprovided the information for the first measurement of the year, I was\nnot aware of the fact that Sir Norman Lockyer (\"The Dawn of Astronomy,\"\n1894, p. 209), had already made the same claim and substantiated it by\nmuch fuller evidence than I have brought together here.\n\nIn preparing these lectures I have received help from so large a number\nof correspondents that it is difficult to enumerate all of them. But I\nam under a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Alan Gardiner for calling my\nattention to the fact that the common rendering of the Egyptian word\n_didi_ as \"mandrake\" was unjustifiable, and to Mr. F. Ll. Griffith for\nexplaining its true meaning and for lending me the literature relating\nto this matter. Miss Winifred M. Crompton, the Assistant Keeper of the\nEgyptian Department in the Manchester Museum, gave me very material\nassistance by bringing to my attention some very important literature\nwhich otherwise would have been overlooked; and both she and Miss\nDorothy Davison helped me with the drawings that illustrate this volume.\nMr. Wilfrid Jackson gave me much of the information concerning shells\nand cephalopods which forms such an essential part of the argument, and\nhe also collected a good deal of the literature which I have made use\nof. Dr. A. C. Haddon, F.R.S., of Cambridge, lent me a number of books\nand journals which I was unable to obtain in Manchester; and Mr. Donald\nA. Mackenzie, of Edinburgh, has poured in upon me a stream of\ninformation, especially upon the folk-lore of Scotland and India. Nor\nmust I forget to acknowledge the invaluable help and forbearance of\nMr. Henry Guppy, of the John Rylands Library, and Mr. Charles W. E.\nLeigh, of the University Library. To all of these and to the still\nlarger number of correspondents who have helped me I offer my most\ngrateful thanks.\n\nDuring the three years in which these lectures were compiled I have\nbeen associated with Dr. W. H. R. Rivers, F.R.S., and Mr. T. H. Pear in\ntheir psychological work in the military hospitals, and the influence of\nthis interesting experience is manifest upon every page of this volume.\n\nBut perhaps the most potent factor of all in shaping my views and\ndirecting my train of thought has been the stimulating influence of Mr.\nW. J. Perry's researches, which are converting ethnology into a real\nscience and shedding a brilliant light upon the early history of\ncivilization.\n\nG. ELLIOT SMITH.\n\n9 December, 1918.\n\n\n[1: \"The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civilisation in the East and in\nAmerica,\" _Bulletin of the John Rylands Library_, January-March, 1916.]\n\n[2: Nathan Soederblom, \"Les Fravashis Etude sur les Traces dans le\nMazdeisme d'une Ancienne Conception sur la Survivance des Morts,\" Paris,\n1899.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.   INCENSE AND LIBATIONS                                    1\n\n CHAPTER II.  DRAGONS AND RAIN GODS                                   76\n\n CHAPTER III. THE BIRTH OF APHRODITE                                 140\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n                                                             FACING PAGE\n Fig. 1.--The conventional Egyptian representation of the burning\n     of incense and the pouring of libations                           2\n\n Fig. 2.--Water-colour sketch by Mrs. Cecil Firth, representing a\n     restoration of the early mummy found at Medum by Professor\n     Flinders Petrie, now in the Museum of the Royal College of\n     Surgeons in London                                               16\n\n Fig. 3.--A mould taken from a life-mask found in the Pyramid of Teta\n     by Mr. Quibell                                                   17\n\n Fig. 4.--Portrait statue of an Egyptian lady of the Pyramid Age      18\n\n Fig. 5.--Statue of an Egyptian noble of the Pyramid Age to show the\n     technical skill in the representation of life-like eyes          52\n\n Fig. 6.--Representation of the ancient Mexican worship of the Sun    70\n\n Fig. 7.--A mediaeval picture of a Chinese Dragon upon its cloud\n     (after the late Professor W. Anderson)                           80\n\n Fig. 8.--A Chinese Dragon (after de Groot)                           80\n\n Fig. 9.--Dragon from the Ishtar Gate of Babylon                      81\n\n Fig. 10.--Babylonian Weather God                                     81\n\n Fig. 11.--Reproduction of a picture in the Maya Codex Troano\n     representing the Rain-god _Chac_ treading upon the Serpent's\n     head, which is interposed between the earth and the rain the\n     god is pouring out of a bowl. A Rain-goddess stands upon the\n     Serpent's tail                                                   84\n\n Fig. 12.--Another representation of the elephant-headed Rain-god. He\n     is holding thunderbolts, conventionalized in a hund-like form.\n     The serpent is converted into a sac, holding up the\n     rain-waters.                                                     84\n\n Fig. 13.--A page (the 36th) of the Dresden Maya Codex.               86\n\n Fig. 14.--A. The so-called \"sea-goat\" of Babylonia, a creature\n     compounded of the antelope and fish of Ea.--B. The \"sea-goat\"\n     as the vehicle of Ea or Marduk.--C to K--a series of varieties\n     of the _makara_ from the Buddhist Rails at Buddha Gaya and\n     Mathura, circa 70 B.C.--70 A.D., after Cunningham\n     (\"Archaeological Survey of India,\" Vol. III, 1873, Plates IX and\n     XXIX).--L. The _makara_ as the vehicle of Varuna, after Sir\n     George Birdwood. It is not difficult to understand how, in the\n     course of the easterly diffusion of culture, such a picture\n     should develop into the Chinese Dragon or the American\n     elephant-headed god                                              88\n\n Fig. 15.--Photograph of a Chinese embroidery in the Manchester\n     School of Art representing the Dragon and the Pearl-Moon\n     Symbol                                                           98\n\n Fig. 16.--The God of Thunder (from a Chinese drawing (? 17th\n     Century) in the John Rylands Library)                           136\n\n Fig. 17.--From Joannes de Turrecremata's \"Meditationes seu\n     Contemplationes\". _Rome: Ulrich Han_, 1467                      137\n\n Fig. 18.--(a) The Archaic Egyptian slate palette of Narmer showing,\n     perhaps, the earliest design of Hathor (at the upper corners\n     of the palette) as a woman with cow's horns and ears (compare\n     Flinders Petrie \"The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty,\" Part\n     I, 1900, Plate XXVII, Fig. 71). The pharaoh is wearing a belt\n     from which are suspended four cow-headed Hathor figures in\n     place of the cowry-amulets of more primitive peoples. This\n     affords corroboration of the view that Hathor assumed the\n     functions originally attributed to the cowry-shell. (b) The\n     king's _sporran_, where Hathor-heads (H) take the place of the\n     cowries of the primitive girdle                                 150\n\n Fig. 19.--The front of Stela B (famous for the realistic\n     representations of the Indian elephant at its upper corners),\n     one of the ancient Maya monuments at Copan, Central America\n     (after Maudslay's photograph and diagram). The girdle of the\n     chief figure is decorated both with shells (_Oliva_ or\n     _Conus_) and amulets representing human faces corresponding to\n     the Hathor-heads on the Narmer palette (Fig. 18)                151\n\n Fig. 20.--Diagrams illustrating the form of cowry-belts worn in\n     (a) East Africa and (b) Oceania respectively. (c) Ancient\n     Indian girdle (from the figure of Sirima Devata on the Bharat\n     Tope), consisting of strings of pearls and precious stones,\n     and what  seem to be (fourth row from the top) models of\n     cowries. (d) The Copan girdle (from Fig. 19) in which both\n     shells and heads of deities are represented. The two objects\n     suspended from the belt between the heads recall Hathor's\n     sistra                                                          153\n\n Fig. 21.--(a) A slate triad found by Professor G. A. Reisner in the\n     temple of the Third Pyramid at Giza. It shows the Pharaoh\n     Mycerinus supported on his right side by the goddess Hathor,\n     represented as a woman with the moon and the cow's horns upon\n     her head, and on the left side by a nome goddess, bearing upon\n     her head the jackal-symbol of her nome. (b) The Ecuador\n     Aphrodite. Bas-relief from Cerro-Jaboncillo (after Saville,\n     \"Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador,\" Preliminary Report, 1907,\n     Plate XXXVIII). A grotesque composite monster intended to\n     represent a woman (compare Saville's Plates XXXV, XXXVI, and\n     XXXIX), whose head is a conventionalized Octopus, whose body\n     is a _Loligo_, and whose limbs are human                        164\n\n Fig. 22.--(a) _Sepia officinalis_, after Tryon, \"Cephalopoda\".\n     (b) _Loligo vulgaris_, after Tryon. (c) The position usually\n     adopted by the resting Octopus, after Tryon                     168\n\n Fig. 23.--A series of Mycenaean conventionalizations of the Argonaut\n     and the Octopus (after Tuempel), which provided the basis for\n     Houssay's theory of the origin of the triskele (a, c, and d)\n     and swastika (b and e), and Siret's theory to explain the\n     design of Bes's face (f and g)                                  172\n\n Fig. 24.--(a) and (b) Two Mycenaean pots (after Schliemann). (a) The\n     so-called \"owl-shaped\" vase is really a representation of the\n     Mother-Pot in the form of a conventionalized Octopus (Houssay).\n     (b) The other vase represents the Octopus Mother-Pot, with a\n     jar upon her head and another in her hands--a three-fold\n     representation of the Great Mother as a pot. (c) A Cretan vase\n     from Gournia in which the Octopus-motive is represented as a\n     decoration upon the pot instead of in its form, (d), (e), (f),\n     (g), and (h) A series of coins from Central Greece (after Head)\n     showing a series of conventionalizations of the Octopus, with\n     its pot-like body and palm-tree-like arms (f). (i) _Sepia\n     officinalis_ (after Tryon). (h) and (l) The so-called \"spouting\n     vases\" in the hands of the Babylonian god Ea, from a cylinder\n     seal of the time of Gudea, Patesi of Tello, after Ward (\"Seal\n     Cylinders, etc.,\" p. 215)                                       180\n\n Fig 25.--(a) Winged Disk from the Temple of Thothmes I. (b) Persian\n     design of Winged Disk above the Tree of Life (Ward, \"Seal\n     Cylinders of Western Asia,\" Fig. 1109). (c) Assyrian or\n     Syro-Hittite design of the Winged Disk and Tree of Life in an\n     extremely conventionalized form (Ward, Fig. 1310).\n     (d) Assyrian conventionalized Winged Disk and Tree of Life,\n     from the design upon the dress of Assurnazipal (Ward, Fig.\n     670). (e) Part of the design from a tablet of the time of\n     Dungi (Ward, Fig. 663). (f) Design on a Cretan sarcophagus from\n     Hagia Triada (Blinkenberg, Fig. 9). (g) Double axe from a gold\n     signet from Acropolis Treasure, Mycenae (after Sir Arthur Evans,\n     \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" p. 10). (h) Assyrian Winged\n     Disk (Ward, Fig. 608). (i) \"Primitive Chaldean Winged Gate\"\n     (Ward, Fig. 349). (k) Persian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 1144).\n     (l) An Assyrian Tree of Life and Winged Disk crudely\n     conventionalized (Ward, Fig. 691). (m) Assyrian Tree of Life\n     and Winged Disk in which the god is riding in a crescent\n     replacing the Disk (Ward, Fig. 695)                             184\n\n Fig. 26.--(a) An Egyptian picture of Hathor between the mountains\n     of the horizon (on which trees are growing) (after Budge,\n     \"Gods of the Egyptians,\" Vol. II, p. 101). (b) The mountains\n     of the horizon supporting a cow's head as a surrogate of\n     Hathor, from a stele found at Teima in Northern Arabia, now in\n     the Louvre (after Sir Arthur Evans, _op. cit._, p. 39).\n     (c) The Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash rising between the\n     Eastern Mountains, the Gates of Dawn (Ward, _op. cit._, p.\n     373). (d) The familiar Egyptian representation of the sun\n     rising between the Eastern Mountains (the splitting of the\n     mountain giving birth to \"the ridiculous mouse\"--Smintheus).\n     (e) Part of the design from a Mycenaean vase from Old Salamis\n     (after Evans, p. 9). (f) Part of the design from a lentoid gem\n     from the Idaean Cave, now in the Candia Museum (after Evans,\n     Fig. 25). (g) The Eastern Mountains supporting the pillar-form\n     of the goddess (after Evans, Fig. 66). (h) Another Mycenaean\n     design comparable with (e). (i) Design from a signet-ring from\n     Mycenae; (after Evans, Fig. 34). (k) The famous sculpture above\n     the Lion Gate at Mycenae                                         188\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT.\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n Fig 1.--Early representation of a \"Dragon\" compounded of the\n    forepart of an eagle and the hindpart of a lion (from an\n    Archaic Cylinder-seal from Susa, after Jequier)                   79\n\n Fig. 2.--The earliest Babylonian conception of the Dragon Tiamat\n    (from a Cylinder-seal in the British Museum, after L. W. King)    79\n\n Fig. 3.--Wm. Dennis's drawing of the \"Flying Dragon\" depicted on the\n    rocks at Piasa, Illinois                                          94\n\n Fig. 4.--Two representations of Astarte (Qetesh)                    155\n\n Fig. 5.--_Pterocera bryonia_, the Red Sea spider-shell              170\n\n Fig. 6.--(a) Picture of a bowl of water--the hieroglyphic sign\n     equivalent to _hm_ (the word _hmt_ means \"woman\"--Griffith,\n     \"Beni Hasan,\" Part III, Plate VI, Fig. 88 and p. 29). (b) \"A\n     basket of sycamore figs\"--Wilkinson's \"Ancient Egyptians,\" Vol.\n     I, p. 323. (c) and (d) are said by Wilkinson to be hieroglyphic\n     signs meaning \"wife\" and are apparently taken from (b). But (c)\n     is identical with (i), which, according to Griffith (p. 14),\n     represents a bivalve shell (g, from Plate III, Fig. 3), more\n     usually placed obliquely (h). The varying conventionalizations\n     of (a) or (b) are shown in (d), (e), and (f) (Griffith,\n     \"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 34). (k) The sign for a lotus leaf, which\n     is a phonetic equivalent of the sign (h), and, according to\n     Griffith (\"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 26), \"is probably derived from\n     the same root, on account of its shell-like outline\". (l) The\n     hieroglyphic sign for a pot of water in such words as _Nu_ and\n     _Nut_. (m) A \"pomegranate\" (replacing a bust of Tanit) upon a\n     sacred column at Carthage (Arthur J. Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and\n     Pillar Cult,\" p. 46). (n) The form of the body of an octopus as\n     conventionalized on the coins of Central Greece (compare Fig.\n     24 (d))                                                         179\n\n Fig. 7.--(a) An Egyptian design representing the sun-god Horus\n     emerging from a lotus, representing his mother Hathor (Isis).\n     (b) Papyrus sceptre often carried by goddesses and\n     animistically identified with them either as an instrument of\n     life-giving or destruction. (c) Conventionalized lily--the\n     prototype of the trident and the thunder-weapon. (d) A\n     water-plant associated with the Nile-gods                       180\n\n Fig. 8.--(a) \"Ceremonial forked object,\" or \"magic wand,\" used in\n     the ceremony of \"opening the mouth,\" possibly connected with\n     (b) (a bicornuate uterus), according to Griffith\n     (\"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 60). (c) The Egyptian sign for a key.\n     (d) The double axe of Crete and Egypt                           191\n\n Fig. 9.--The Egyptian emblem for gold, the sign _nub_               222\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nINCENSE AND LIBATIONS.[3]\n\n\nThe dragon was primarily a personification of the life-giving and\nlife-destroying powers of water. This chapter is concerned with the\ngenesis of this biological theory of water and its relationship to the\nother germs of civilisation.\n\nIt is commonly assumed that many of the elementary practices of\ncivilization, such as the erection of rough stone buildings, whether\nhouses, tombs, or temples, the crafts of the carpenter and the\nstonemason, the carving of statues, the customs of pouring out libations\nor burning incense, are such simple and obvious procedures that any\npeople might adopt them without prompting or contact of any kind with\nother populations who do the same sort of things. But if such apparently\ncommonplace acts be investigated they will be found to have a long and\ncomplex history. None of these things that seem so obvious to us was\nattempted until a multitude of diverse circumstances became focussed in\nsome particular community, and constrained some individual to make the\ndiscovery. Nor did the quality of obviousness become apparent even when\nthe enlightened discoverer had gathered up the threads of his\npredecessor's ideas and woven them into the fabric of a new invention.\nFor he had then to begin the strenuous fight against the opposition of\nhis fellows before he could induce them to accept his discovery. He had,\nin fact, to contend against their preconceived ideas and their lack of\nappreciation of the significance of the progress he had made before he\ncould persuade them of its \"obviousness\". That is the history of most\ninventions since the world began. But it is begging the question to\npretend that because tradition has made such inventions seem simple and\nobvious to us it is unnecessary to inquire into their history or to\nassume that any people or any individual simply did these things without\nany instruction when the spirit moved it or him so to do.\n\nThe customs of burning incense and making libations in religious\nceremonies are so widespread and capable of being explained in such\nplausible, though infinitely diverse, ways that it has seemed\nunnecessary to inquire more deeply into their real origin and\nsignificance. For example, Professor Toy[4] disposes of these questions\nin relation to incense in a summary fashion. He claims that \"when burnt\nbefore the deity\" it is \"to be regarded as food, though in course of\ntime, when the recollection of this primitive character was lost, a\nconventional significance was attached to the act of burning. A more\nrefined period demanded more refined food for the gods, such as ambrosia\nand nectar, but these also were finally given up.\"\n\nThis, of course, is a purely gratuitous assumption, or series of\nassumptions, for which there is no real evidence. Moreover, even if\nthere were any really early literature to justify such statements, they\nexplain nothing. Incense-burning is just as mysterious if Prof. Toy's\nclaim be granted as it was before.\n\nBut a bewildering variety of other explanations, for all of which the\nmerit of being \"simple and obvious\" is claimed, have been suggested. The\nreader who is curious about these things will find a luxurious crop of\nspeculations by consulting a series of encyclopaedias.[5] I shall content\nmyself by quoting only one more. \"Frankincense and other spices were\nindispensable in temples where bloody sacrifices formed part of the\nreligion. The atmosphere of Solomon's temple must have been that of a\nsickening slaughter-house, and the fumes of incense could alone enable\nthe priests and worshippers to support it. This would apply to thousands\nof other temples through Asia, and doubtless the palaces of kings and\nnobles suffered from uncleanliness and insanitary arrangements and\nrequired an antidote to evil smells to make them endurable.\"[6]\n\nIt is an altogether delightful anachronism to imagine that religious\nritual in the ancient and aromatic East was inspired by such\nsqueamishness as a British sanitary inspector of the twentieth century\nmight experience!\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 1.--The conventional Egyptian representation of the\nBurning of Incense and the Pouring of Libations (Period of the New\nEmpire)--after Lepsius]\n\nBut if there are these many diverse and mutually destructive reasons in\nexplanation of the origin of incense-burning, it follows that the\nmeaning of the practice cannot be so \"simple and obvious\". For scholars\nin the past have been unable to agree as to the sense in which these\nadjectives should be applied.\n\nBut no useful purpose would be served by enumerating a collection of\nlearned fallacies and exposing their contradictions when the true\nexplanation has been provided in the earliest body of literature that\nhas come down from antiquity. I refer to the Egyptian \"Pyramid Texts\".\n\nBefore this ancient testimony is examined certain general principles\ninvolved in the discussion of such problems should be considered. In\nthis connexion it is appropriate to quote the apt remarks made, in\nreference to the practice of totemism, by Professor Sollas.[7] \"If it is\ndifficult to conceive how such ideas ... originated at all, it is still\nmore difficult to understand how they should have arisen repeatedly and\nhave developed in much the same way among races evolving independently\nin different environments. It is at least simpler to suppose that all\n[of them] have a common source ... and may have been carried ... to\nremote parts of the world.\"\n\nI do not think that anyone who conscientiously and without bias examines\nthe evidence relating to incense-burning, the arbitrary details of the\nritual and the peculiar circumstances under which it is practised in\ndifferent countries, can refuse to admit that so artificial a custom\nmust have been dispersed throughout the world from some one centre where\nit was devised.\n\nThe remarkable fact that emerges from an examination of these so-called\n\"obvious explanations\" of ethnological phenomena is the failure on the\npart of those who are responsible for them to show any adequate\nappreciation of the nature of the problems to be solved. They know that\nincense has been in use for a vast period of time, and that the practice\nof burning it is very widespread. They have been so familiarized with\nthe custom and certain more or less vague excuses for its perpetuation\nthat they show no realization of how strangely irrational and devoid of\nobvious meaning the procedure is. The reasons usually given in\nexplanation of its use are for the most part merely paraphrases of the\ntraditional meanings that in the course of history have come to be\nattached to the ritual act or the words used to designate it. Neither\nthe ethnologist nor the priestly apologist will, as a rule, admit that\nhe does not know why such ritual acts as pouring out water or burning\nincense are performed, and that they are wholly inexplicable and\nmeaningless to him. Nor will they confess that the real inspiration to\nperform such rites is the fact of their predecessors having handed them\ndown as sacred acts of devotion, the meaning of which has been entirely\nforgotten during the process of transmission from antiquity. Instead of\nthis they simply pretend that the significance of such acts is obvious.\nStripped of the glamour which religious emotion and sophistry have woven\naround them, such pretended explanations become transparent subterfuges,\nnone the less real because the apologists are quite innocent of any\nconscious intention to deceive either themselves or their disciples. It\nshould be sufficient for them that such ritual acts have been handed\ndown by tradition as right and proper things to do. But in response to\nthe instinctive impulse of all human beings, the mind seeks for reasons\nin justification of actions of which the real inspiration is unknown.\n\nIt is a common fallacy to suppose that men's actions are inspired mainly\nby reason. The most elementary investigation of the psychology of\neveryday life is sufficient to reveal the truth that man is not, as a\nrule, the pre-eminently rational creature he is commonly supposed to\nbe.[8] He is impelled to most of his acts by his instincts, the\ncircumstances of his personal experience, and the conventions of the\nsociety in which he has grown up. But once he has acted or decided upon\na course of procedure he is ready with excuses in explanation and\nattempted justification of his motives. In most cases these are not the\nreal reasons, for few human beings attempt to analyse their motives or\nin fact are competent without help to understand their own feelings and\nthe real significance of their actions. There is implanted in man the\ninstinct to interpret for his own satisfaction his feelings and\nsensations, i.e. the meaning of his experience. But of necessity this is\nmostly of the nature of rationalizing, i.e. providing satisfying\ninterpretations of thoughts and decisions the real meaning of which\nis hidden.\n\nNow it must be patent that the nature of this process of rationalization\nwill depend largely upon the mental make-up of the individual--of the\nbody of knowledge and traditions with which his mind has become stored\nin the course of his personal experience. The influences to which he has\nbeen exposed, daily and hourly, from the time of his birth onward,\nprovide the specific determinants of most of his beliefs and views.\nConsciously and unconsciously he imbibes certain definite ideas, not\nmerely of religion, morals, and politics, but of what is the correct and\nwhat is the incorrect attitude to assume in most of the circumstances of\nhis daily life. These form the staple currency of his beliefs and his\nconversation. Reason plays a surprisingly small part in this process,\nfor most human beings acquire from their fellows the traditions of their\nsociety which relieves them of the necessity of undue thought. The very\nwords in which the accumulated traditions of his community are conveyed\nto each individual are themselves charged with the complex symbolism\nthat has slowly developed during the ages, and tinges the whole of his\nthoughts with their subtle and, to most men, vaguely appreciated shades\nof meaning.[9] During this process of acquiring the fruits of his\ncommunity's beliefs and experiences every individual accepts without\nquestion a vast number of apparently simple customs and ideas. He is apt\nto regard them as obvious, and to assume that reason led him to accept\nthem or be guided by them, although when the specific question is put to\nhim he is unable to give their real history.\n\nBefore leaving these general considerations[10] I want to emphasize\ncertain elementary facts of psychology which are often ignored by those\nwho investigate the early history of civilization.\n\nFirst, the multitude and the complexity of the circumstances that are\nnecessary to lead men to make even the simplest invention render the\nconcatenation of all of these conditions wholly independently on a\nsecond occasion in the highest degree improbable. Until very definite\nand conclusive evidence is forthcoming in any individual case it can\nsafely be assumed that no ethnologically significant innovation in\ncustoms or beliefs has ever been made twice.\n\nThose critics who have recently attempted to dispose of this claim by\nreferring to the work of the Patent Office thereby display a singular\nlack of appreciation of the real point at issue. For the ethnological\nproblem is concerned with different populations who are assumed _not_ to\nshare any common heritage of acquired knowledge, nor to have had any\ncontact, direct or indirect, the one with the other. But the inventors\nwho resort to the Patent Office are all of them persons supplied with\ninformation from the storehouse of our common civilization; and the\ninventions which they seek to protect from imitation by others are\nmerely developments of the heritage of all civilized peoples. Even when\nsimilar inventions are made apparently independently under such\ncircumstances, in most cases they can be explained by the fact that two\ninvestigators have followed up a line of advance which has been\ndetermined by the development of the common body of knowledge.\n\nThis general discussion suggests another factor in the working of the\nhuman mind.\n\nWhen certain vital needs or the force of circumstances compel a man to\nembark upon a certain train of reasoning or invention the results to\nwhich his investigations lead depend upon a great many circumstances.\nObviously the range of his knowledge and experience and the general\nideas he has acquired from his fellows will play a large part in shaping\nhis inferences. It is quite certain that even in the simplest problem of\nprimitive physics or biology his attention will be directed only to some\nof, and not all, the factors involved, and that the limitations of his\nknowledge will permit him to form a wholly inadequate conception even of\nthe few factors that have obtruded themselves upon his attention. But he\nmay frame a working hypothesis in explanation of the factors he had\nappreciated, which may seem perfectly exhaustive and final, as well as\nlogical and rational to him, but to those who come after him, with a\nwider knowledge of the properties of matter and the nature of living\nbeings, and a wholly different attitude towards such problems, the\nprimitive man's solution may seem merely a ludicrous travesty.\n\nBut once a tentative explanation of one group of phenomena has been made\nit is the method of science no less than the common tendency of the\nhuman mind to buttress this theory with analogies and fancied\nhomologies. In other words the isolated facts are built up into a\ngeneralisation. It is important to remember that in most cases this\nmental process begins very early; so that the analogies play a very\nobtrusive part in the building up of theories. As a rule a multitude of\nsuch influences play a part consciously or unconsciously in shaping any\nbelief. Hence the historian is faced with the difficulty, often quite\ninsuperable, of ascertaining (among scores of factors that definitely\nplayed some part in the building up of a great generalization) the real\nfoundation upon which the vast edifice has been erected. I refer to\nthese elementary matters here for two reasons. First, because they are\nso often overlooked by ethnologists; and secondly, because in these\npages I shall have to discuss a series of historical events in which a\nbewildering number of factors played their part. In sifting out a\ncertain number of them, I want to make it clear that I do not pretend to\nhave discovered more than a small minority of the most conspicuous\nthreads in the complex texture of the fabric of early human thought.\n\nAnother fact that emerges from these elementary psychological\nconsiderations is the vital necessity of guarding against the\nmisunderstandings necessarily involved in the use of words. In the\ncourse of long ages the originally simple connotation of the words used\nto denote many of our ideas has become enormously enriched with a\nmeaning which in some degree reflects the chequered history of the\nexpression of human aspirations. Many writers who in discussing ancient\npeoples make use of such terms, for example, as \"soul,\" \"religion,\" and\n\"gods,\" without stripping them of the accretions of complex symbolism\nthat have collected around them within more recent times, become\ninvolved in difficulty and misunderstanding.\n\nFor example, the use of the terms \"soul\" or \"soul-substance\" in much of\nthe literature relating to early or relatively primitive people is\nfruitful of misunderstanding. For it is quite clear from the context\nthat in many cases such people meant to imply nothing more than \"life\"\nor \"vital principle,\" the absence of which from the body for any\nprolonged period means death. But to translate such a word simply as\n\"life\" is inadequate because all of these people had some theoretical\nviews as to its identity with the \"breath\" or to its being in the nature\nof a material substance or essence. It is naturally impossible to find\nany one word or phrase in our own language to express the exact idea,\nfor among every people there are varying shades of meaning which cannot\nadequately express the symbolism distinctive of each place and society.\nTo meet this insuperable difficulty perhaps the term \"vital essence\" is\nopen to least objection.\n\nIn my last Rylands lecture[11] I sketched in rough outline a tentative\nexplanation of the world-wide dispersal of the elements of the\ncivilization that is now the heritage of the world at large, and\nreferred to the part played by Ancient Egypt in the development of\ncertain arts, customs, and beliefs. On the present occasion I propose to\nexamine certain aspects of this process of development in greater\ndetail, and to study the far-reaching influence exerted by the Egyptian\npractice of mummification, and the ideas that were suggested by it, in\nstarting new trains of thought, in stimulating the invention of arts\nand crafts that were unknown before then, and in shaping the complex\nbody of customs and beliefs that were the outcome of these potent\nintellectual ferments.\n\nIn speaking of the relationship of the practice of mummification to the\ndevelopment of civilization, however, I have in mind not merely the\ninfluence it exerted upon the moulding of culture, but also the part\nplayed by the trend of philosophy in the world at large in determining\nthe Egyptian's conceptions of the wider significance of embalming, and\nthe reaction of these effects upon the current doctrines of the meaning\nof natural phenomena.\n\nNo doubt it will be asked at the outset, what possible connexion can\nthere be between the practice of so fantastic and gruesome an art as the\nembalming of the dead and the building up of civilization? Is it\nconceivable that the course of the development of the arts and crafts,\nthe customs and beliefs, and the social and political organizations--in\nfact any of the essential elements of civilization--has been deflected a\nhair's breadth to the right or left as the outcome, directly or\nindirectly, of such a practice?\n\nIn previous essays and lectures[12] I have indicated how intimately this\ncustom was related, not merely to the invention of the arts and crafts\nof the carpenter and stonemason and all that is implied in the building\nup of what Professor Lethaby has called the \"matrix of civilization,\"\nbut also to the shaping of religious beliefs and ritual practices,\nwhich developed in association with the evolution of the temple and the\nconception of a material resurrection. I have also suggested the\nfar-reaching significance of an indirect influence of the practice of\nmummification in the history of civilization. It was mainly responsible\nfor prompting the earliest great maritime expeditions of which the\nhistory has been preserved.[13] For many centuries the quest of resins\nand balsams for embalming and for use in temple ritual, and wood for\ncoffin-making, continued to provide the chief motives which induced the\nEgyptians to undertake sea-trafficking in the Mediterranean and the Red\nSea. The knowledge and experience thus acquired ultimately made it\npossible for the Egyptians and their pupils to push their adventures\nfurther afield. It is impossible adequately to estimate the vastness of\nthe influence of such intercourse, not merely in spreading abroad\nthroughout the world the germs of our common civilization, but also, by\nbringing into close contact peoples of varied histories and traditions,\nin stimulating progress. Even if the practice of mummification had\nexerted no other noteworthy effect in the history of the world, this\nfact alone would have given it a pre-eminent place.\n\nAnother aspect of the influence of mummification I have already\ndiscussed, and do not intend to consider further in this lecture. I\nrefer to the manifold ways in which it affected the history of medicine\nand pharmacy. By accustoming the Egyptians, through thirty centuries, to\nthe idea of cutting the human corpse, it made it possible for Greek\nphysicians of the Ptolemaic and later ages to initiate in Alexandria the\nsystematic dissection of the human body which popular prejudice forbade\nelsewhere, and especially in Greece itself. Upon this foundation the\nknowledge of anatomy and the science of medicine has been built up.[14]\nBut in many other ways the practice of mummification exerted\nfar-reaching effects, directly and indirectly, upon the development of\nmedical and pharmaceutical knowledge and methods.[15]\n\nThere is then this _prima-facie_ evidence that the Egyptian practice of\nmummification was closely related to the development of architecture,\nmaritime trafficking, and medicine. But what I am chiefly concerned with\nin the present lecture is the discussion of the much vaster part it\nplayed in shaping the innermost beliefs of mankind and directing the\ncourse of the religious aspirations and the scientific opinions, not\nmerely of the Egyptians themselves, but also of the world at large, for\nmany centuries afterward.\n\nIt had a profound influence upon the history of human thought. The vague\nand ill-defined ideas of physiology and psychology, which had probably\nbeen developing since Aurignacian times[16] in Europe, were suddenly\ncrystallized into a coherent structure and definite form by the musings\nof the Egyptian embalmer. But at the same time, if the new philosophy\ndid not find expression in the invention of the first deities, it gave\nthem a much more concrete form than they had previously presented, and\nplayed a large part in the establishment of the foundations upon which\nall religious ritual was subsequently built up, and in the initiation of\na priesthood to administer the rites which were suggested by the\npractice of mummification.\n\n\n[3: An elaboration of a Lecture on the relationship of the Egyptian\npractice of mummification to the development of civilization delivered\nin the John Rylands Library, on 9 February, 1916.]\n\n[4: \"Introduction to the History of Religions,\" p. 486.]\n\n[5: He might start upon this journey of adventure by reading the article\non \"Incense\" in Hastings' _Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n[6: Samuel Laing, \"Human Origins,\" Revised by Edward Clodd, 1903, p.\n38.]\n\n[7: \"Ancient Hunters,\" 2nd Edition, pp. 234 and 235.]\n\n[8: On this subject see Elliot Smith and Pear, \"Shell Shock and its\nLessons,\" Manchester University Press, 1917, p. 59.]\n\n[9: An interesting discussion of this matter by the late Professor\nWilliam James will be found in his \"Principles of Psychology,\" Vol. I,\npp. 261 _et seq._]\n\n[10: For a fuller discussion of certain phases of this matter see my\naddress on \"Primitive Man,\" in the _Proceedings of the British Academy_,\n1917, especially pp. 23-50.]\n\n[11: \"The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civilization in the East and in\nAmerica,\" _The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library_, Jan.-March, 1916.]\n\n[12: \"The Migrations of Early Culture,\" 1915, Manchester University\nPress: \"The Evolution of the Rock-cut Tomb and the Dolmen,\" _Essays and\nStudies Presented to William Ridgeway_, Cambridge, 1913, p. 493:\n\"Oriental Tombs and Temples,\" _Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and\nOriental Society_, 1914-1915, p. 55.]\n\n[13: \"Ships as Evidence of the Migrations of Early Culture,\" Manchester\nUniversity Press, 1917, p. 37.]\n\n[14: \"Egyptian Mummies,\" _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. I, Part\nIII, July, 1914, p. 189.]\n\n[15: Such, for example, as its influence in the acquisition of the means\nof preserving the tissues of the body, which has played so large a part\nin the development of the sciences of anatomy, pathology, and in fact\nbiology in general. The practice of mummification was largely\nresponsible for the attainment of a knowledge of the properties of many\ndrugs and especially of those which restrain putrefactive changes. But\nit was not merely in the acquisition of a knowledge of material facts\nthat mummification exerted its influence. The humoral theory of\npathology and medicine, which prevailed for so many centuries and the\neffects of which are embalmed for all time in our common speech, was\nclosely related in its inception to the ideas which I shall discuss in\nthese pages. The Egyptians themselves did not profit to any appreciable\nextent from the remarkable opportunities which their practice of\nembalming provided for studying human anatomy. The sanctity of these\nritual acts was fatal to the employment of such opportunities to gain\nknowledge. Nor was the attitude of mind of the Egyptians such as to\npermit the acquisition of a real appreciation of the structure of the\nbody.]\n\n[16: See my address, \"Primitive Man,\" _Proc. Brit. Academy_, 1917.]\n\n\nBeginning of Stone-Working.\n\nDuring the last few years I have repeatedly had occasion to point out\nthe fundamental fallacy underlying much of the modern speculation in\nethnology, and I have no intention of repeating these strictures\nhere.[17] But it is a significant fact that, when one leaves the\nwritings of professed ethnologists and turns to the histories of their\nspecial subjects written by scholars in kindred fields of investigation,\nviews such as I have been setting forth will often be found to be\naccepted without question or comment as the obvious truth.\n\nThere is an excellent little book entitled \"Architecture,\" written by\nProfessor W. R. Lethaby for the Home University Library, that affords an\nadmirable illustration of this interesting fact. I refer to this\nparticular work because it gives lucid expression to some of the ideas\nthat I wish to submit for consideration. \"Two arts have changed the\nsurface of the world, Agriculture and Architecture\" (p. 1). \"To a large\ndegree architecture\" [which he defines as \"the matrix of civilization\"]\n\"is an Egyptian art\" (p. 66): for in Egypt \"we shall best find the\norigins of architecture as a whole\" (p. 21).\n\nNevertheless Professor Lethaby bows the knee to current tradition when\nhe makes the wholly unwarranted assumption that Egypt probably learnt\nits art from Babylonia. He puts forward this remarkable claim in spite\nof his frank confession that \"little or nothing is known of a primitive\nage in Mesopotamia. At a remote time the art of Babylonia was that of a\ncivilized people. As has been said, there is a great similarity between\nthis art and that of dynastic times in Egypt. Yet it appears that Egypt\nborrowed of Asia, rather than the reverse.\" [He gives no reasons for\nthis opinion, for which there is no evidence, except possibly the\ninvention of bricks for building.] \"If the origins of art in Babylonia\nwere as fully known as those in Egypt, the story of architecture might\nhave to begin in Asia instead of Egypt\" (p. 67).\n\nBut later on he speaks in a more convincing manner of the known facts\nwhen he says (p. 82):--\n\nWhen Greece entered on her period of high-strung life the time of first\ninvention in the arts was over--the heroes of Craft, like Tubal Cain and\nDaedalus, necessarily belong to the infancy of culture. The phenomenon\nof Egypt could not occur again; the mission of Greece was rather to\nsettle down to a task of gathering, interpreting, and bringing to\nperfection Egypt's gifts. The arts of civilization were never developed\nin watertight compartments, as is shown by the uniformity of custom over\nthe modern world. Further, if any new nation enters into the circle of\nculture it seems that, like Japan, it must 'borrow the capital'. The art\nof Greece could hardly have been more self-originated than is the\nscience of Japan. Ideas of the temple and of the fortified town must\nhave spread from the East, the square-roomed house, columnar orders,\nfine masonry, were all Egyptian.\n\nElsewhere[18] I have pointed out that it was the importance which the\nEgyptian came to attach to the preservation of the dead and to the\nmaking of adequate provision for the deceased's welfare that gradually\nled to the aggrandisement of the tomb. In course of time this impelled\nhim to cut into the rock,[19] and, later still, suggested the\nsubstitution of stone for brick in erecting the chapel of offerings\nabove ground. The Egyptian burial customs were thus intimately related\nto the conceptions that grew up with the invention of embalming. The\nevidence in confirmation of this is so precise that every one who\nconscientiously examines it must be forced to the conclusion that man\ndid not instinctively select stone as a suitable material with which to\nerect temples and houses, and forthwith begin to quarry and shape it for\nsuch purposes.\n\nThere was an intimate connexion between the first use of stone for\nbuilding and the practice of mummification. It was probably for this\nreason, and not from any abstract sense of \"wonder at the magic of art,\"\nas Professor Lethaby claims, that \"ideas of sacredness, of ritual\nrightness, of magic stability and correspondence with the universe,\nand of perfection of form and proportion\" came to be associated with\nstone buildings.\n\nAt first stone was used only for such sacred purposes, and the pharaoh\nalone was entitled to use it for his palaces, in virtue of the fact that\nhe was divine, the son and incarnation on earth of the sun-god. It was\nonly when these Egyptian practices were transplanted to other countries,\nwhere these restrictions did not obtain, that the rigid wall of\nconvention was broken down.\n\nEven in Rome until well into the Christian era \"the largest domestic and\ncivil buildings were of plastered brick\". \"Wrought masonry seems to have\nbeen demanded only for the great monuments, triumphal arches, theatres,\ntemples and above all for the Coliseum.\" (Lethaby, _op. cit._ p. 120).\n\nNevertheless Rome was mainly responsible for breaking down the hieratic\ntradition which forbade the use of stone for civil purposes. \"In Roman\narchitecture the engineering element became paramount. It was this which\nbroke the moulds of tradition and recast construction into modern form,\nand made it free once more\" (p. 130).\n\nBut Egypt was not only responsible for inaugurating the use of stone for\nbuilding. For another forty centuries she continued to be the inventor\nof new devices in architecture. From time to time methods of building\nwhich developed in Egypt were adopted by her neighbours and spread far\nand wide. The shaft-tombs and _mastabas_ of the Egyptian Pyramid Age\nwere adopted in various localities in the region of the Eastern\nMediterranean,[20] with certain modifications in each place, and in turn\nbecame the models which were roughly copied in later ages by the\nwandering dolmen-builders. The round tombs of Crete and Mycenae were\nclearly only local modifications of their square prototypes, the\nEgyptian Pyramids of the Middle Kingdom. \"While this AEgean art gathered\nfrom, and perhaps gave to, Egypt, it passed on its ideals to the north\nand west of Europe, where the productions of the Bronze Age clearly show\nits influence\" (Lethaby, p. 78) in the chambered mounds of the Iberian\npeninsula and Brittany, of New Grange in Ireland and of Maes Howe in the\nOrkneys.[21] In the East the influence of these AEgean modifications may\npossibly be seen in the Indian _stupas_ and the _dagabas_ of Ceylon,\njust as the stone stepped pyramids there reveal the effects of contact\nwith the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt.\n\nProfessor Lethaby sees the influence of Egypt in the orientation of\nChristian churches (p. 133), as well as in many of their structural\ndetails (p. 142); in the domed roofs, the iconography, the symbolism,\nand the decoration of Byzantine architecture (p. 138); and in Mohammedan\nbuildings wherever they are found.\n\nFor it was not only the architecture of Greece, Rome, and Christendom\nthat received its inspiration from Egypt, but that of Islam also. These\nbuildings were not, like the religion itself, in the main Arabic in\norigin. \"Primitive Arabian art itself is quite negligible. When the new\nstrength of the followers of the Prophet was consolidated with great\nrapidity into a rich and powerful empire, it took over the arts and\nartists of the conquered lands, extending from North Africa to Persia\"\n(p. 158); and it is known how this influence spread as far west as Spain\nand as far east as Indonesia. \"The Pharos at Alexandria, the great\nlighthouse built about 280 B.C., almost appears to have been the parent\nof all high and isolated towers.... Even on the coast of Britain, at\nDover, we had a Pharos which was in some degree an imitation of the\nAlexandrian one.\" The Pharos at Boulogne, the round towers of Ravenna,\nand the imitations of it elsewhere in Europe, even as far as Ireland,\nare other examples of its influence. But in addition the Alexandrian\nPharos had \"as great an effect as the prototype of Eastern minarets as\nit had for Western towers\" (p. 115).\n\nI have quoted so extensively from Professor Lethaby's brilliant little\nbook to give this independent testimony of the vastness of the influence\nexerted by Egypt during a span of nearly forty centuries in creating and\ndeveloping the \"matrix of civilization\". Most of this wider dispersal\nabroad was effected by alien peoples, who transformed their gifts from\nEgypt before they handed on the composite product to some more distant\npeoples. But the fact remains that the great centre of original\ninspiration in architecture was Egypt.\n\nThe original incentive to the invention of this essentially Egyptian art\nwas the desire to protect and secure the welfare of the dead. The\nimportance attached to this aim was intimately associated with the\ndevelopment of the practice of mummification.\n\nWith this tangible and persistent evidence of the general scheme of\nspread of the arts of building I can now turn to the consideration of\nsome of the other, more vital, manifestations of human thought and\naspirations, which also, like the \"matrix of civilization\" itself, grew\nup in intimate association with the practice of embalming the dead.\n\nI have already mentioned Professor Lethaby's reference to architecture\nand agriculture as the two arts that have changed the surface of the\nworld. It is interesting to note that the influence of these two\ningredients of civilization was diffused abroad throughout the world in\nintimate association the one with the other. In most parts of the world\nthe use of stone for building and Egyptian methods of architecture made\ntheir first appearance along with the peculiarly distinctive form of\nagriculture and irrigation so intimately associated with early Babylonia\nand Egypt.[22]\n\nBut agriculture also exerted a most profound influence in shaping the\nearly Egyptian body of beliefs.\n\nI shall now call attention to certain features of the earliest mummies,\nand then discuss how the ideas suggested by the practice of the art of\nembalming the dead were affected by the early theories of agriculture\nand the mutual influence they exerted one upon the other.\n\n\n[17: See, however, _op. cit. supra_; also \"The Origin of the\nPre-Columbian Civilization of America,\" _Science_, N.S., Vol. XLV, No.\n1158, pp. 241-246, 9 March, 1917.]\n\n[18: _Op. cit. supra_.]\n\n[19: For the earliest evidence of the cutting of stone for architectural\npurposes, see my statement in the _Report of the British Association for\n1914_, p. 212.]\n\n[20: Especially in Crete, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Southern Russia,\nand the North African Littoral.]\n\n[21: For an account of the evidence relating to these monuments, with\nfull bibliographical references, see Dechelette, \"Manuel d'Archeologie\nprehistorique Celtique et Gallo-Romaine,\" T. 1, 1912, pp. 390 _et seq._;\nalso Sophus Mueller, \"Urgeschichte Europas,\" 1905, pp. 74 and 75; and\nLouis Siret, \"Les Cassiterides et l'Empire Colonial des Pheniciens,\"\n_L'Anthropologie_, T. 20, 1909, p. 313.]\n\n[22: W. J. Perry, \"The Geographical Distribution of Terraced Cultivation\nand Irrigation,\" _Memoirs and Proc. Manch. Lit. and Phil. Soc._, Vol.\n60, 1916.]\n\n\nThe Origin of Embalming.\n\nI have already explained[23] how the increased importance that came to\nbe attached to the corpse as the means of securing a continuance of\nexistence led to the aggrandizement of the tomb. Special care was taken\nto protect the dead and this led to the invention of coffins, and to the\nmaking of a definite tomb, the size of which rapidly increased as more\nand more ample supplies of food and other offerings were made. But the\nvery measures thus taken the more efficiently to protect and tend the\ndead defeated the primary object of all this care. For, when buried in\nsuch an elaborate tomb, the body no longer became desiccated and\npreserved by the forces of nature, as so often happened when it was\nplaced in a simple grave directly in the hot dry sand.\n\nIt is of fundamental importance in the argument set forth here to\nremember that these factors came into operation before the time of the\nFirst Dynasty. They were responsible for impelling the Proto-Egyptians\nnot only to invent the wooden coffin, the stone sarcophagus, the\nrock-cut tomb, and to begin building in stone, but also to devise\nmeasures for the artificial preservation of the body.\n\nBut in addition to stimulating the development of the first real\narchitecture and the art of mummification other equally far-reaching\nresults in the region of ideas and beliefs grew out of these practices.\n\nFrom the outset the Egyptian embalmer was clearly inspired by two\nideals: (a) to preserve the actual tissues of the body with a minimum\ndisturbance of its superficial appearance; and (b) to preserve a\nlikeness of the deceased as he was in life. At first it was naturally\nattempted to make this simulacrum of the body itself if it were\npossible, or alternatively, when this ideal was found to be\nunattainable, from its wrappings or by means of a portrait statue. It\nwas soon recognized that it was beyond the powers of the early embalmer\nto succeed in mummifying the body itself so as to retain a recognizable\nlikeness to the man when alive: although from time to time such attempts\nwere repeatedly made,[24] until the period of the XXI Dynasty, when the\noperator clearly was convinced that he had at last achieved what his\npredecessors, for perhaps twenty-five centuries, had been trying in vain\nto do.\n\n\n[23: _Op. cit. supra_.]\n\n[24: See my volume on \"The Royal Mummies,\" General Catalogue of the\nCairo Museum.]\n\n\nEarly Mummies.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 2.--Water-colour sketch by Mrs. Cecil Firth,\nrepresenting a restoration of the early mummy found at Medum by Prof.\nFlinders Petrie, now in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in\nLondon]\n\nIn the earliest known (Second Dynasty) examples of Egyptian attempts at\nmummification[25] the corpse was swathed in a large series of bandages,\nwhich were moulded into shape to represent the form of the body. In a\nlater (probably Fifth Dynasty) mummy, found in 1892 by Professor\nFlinders Petrie at Medum, the superficial bandages had been impregnated\nwith a resinous paste, which while still plastic was moulded into the\nform of the body, special care being bestowed upon the modelling of the\nface[26] and the organs of reproduction, so as to leave no room for\ndoubt as to the identity and the sex. Professor Junker has described[27]\nan interesting series of variations of these practices. In two graves\nthe bodies were covered with a layer of stucco plaster. First the corpse\nwas covered with a fine linen cloth: then the plaster was put on, and\nmodelled into the form of the body (p. 252). But in two other cases it\nwas not the whole body that was covered with this layer of stucco,\nbut only the head. Professor Junker claims that this was done\n\"apparently because the head was regarded as the most important part, as\nthe organs of taste, sight, smell, and hearing were contained in it\".\nBut surely there was the additional and more obtrusive reason that the\nface affords the means of identifying the individual! For this modelling\nof the features was intended primarily as a restoration of the form of\nthe body which had been altered, if not actually destroyed. In other\ncases, where no attempt was made to restore the features in such durable\nmaterials as resin or stucco, the linen-enveloped head was modelled, and\na representation of the eyes painted upon it so as to enhance the\nlife-like appearance of the face.\n\nThese facts prove quite conclusively that the earliest attempts to\nreproduce the features of the deceased and so preserve his likeness,\nwere made upon the wrapped mummy itself. Thus the mummy was intended to\nbe the portrait as well as the actual bodily remains of the dead. In\nview of certain differences of opinion as to the original significance\nof the funerary ritual, which I shall have occasion to discuss later on\n(see p. 20), it is important to keep these facts clearly in mind.\n\nA discovery made by Mr. J. E. Quibell in the course of his excavations\nat Sakkara[28] suggests that, as an outcome of these practices a new\nprocedure may have been devised in the Pyramid Age--the making of a\ndeath-mask. For he discovered what may be the mask taken directly from\nthe face of the Pharaoh Teta (Fig. 3).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 3.--A mould taken from a life-mask found in the\nPyramid of Teta by Mr. Quibell]\n\nAbout this time also the practice originated of making a life-size\nportrait statue of the dead man's head and placing it along with the\nactual body in the burial chamber. These \"reserve heads,\" as they have\nbeen called, were usually made of fine limestone, but Junker found one\nmade of Nile mud.[29]\n\nJunker believes that there was an intimate relationship between the\nplaster-covered heads and the reserve-heads. They were both expressions\nof the same idea, to preserve a simulacrum of the deceased when his\nactual body had lost all recognizable likeness to him as he was when\nalive. The one method aimed at combining in the same object the actual\nbody and the likeness; the other at making a more life-like portrait\napart from the corpse, which could take the place of the latter when\nit decayed.\n\nJunker states further that \"it is no chance that the substitute-heads\n... entirely, or at any rate chiefly, are found in the tombs that have\nno statue-chamber and probably possessed no statues. The statues [of the\nwhole body] certainly were made, at any rate partly, with the intention\nthat they should take the place of the decaying body, although later the\nidea was modified. The placing of the substitute-head in [the burial\nchamber of] the mastaba therefore became unnecessary at the moment when\nthe complete figure of the dead [placed in a special hidden chamber, now\ncommonly called the _serdab_] was introduced.\" The ancient Egyptians\nthemselves called the _serdab_ the _pr-twt_ or \"statue-house,\" and the\ngroup of chambers, forming the tomb-chapel in the mastaba, was known to\nthem as the \"_ka_-house\".[30]\n\nIt is important to remember that, even when the custom of making a\nstatue of the deceased became fully established, the original idea of\nrestoring the form of the mummy itself or its wrappings was never\nabandoned. The attempts made in the XVIII, and XXI and XXII Dynasties to\npack the body of the mummy itself and by artificial means give it a\nlife-like appearance afford evidence of this. In the New Empire and in\nRoman times the wrapped mummy was sometimes modelled into the form of a\nstatue. But throughout Egyptian history it was a not uncommon practice\nto provide a painted mask for the wrapped mummy, or in early Christian\ntimes simply a portrait of the deceased.\n\nWith this custom there also persisted a remembrance of its original\nsignificance. Professor Garstang records the fact that in the XII\nDynasty,[31] when a painted mask was placed upon the wrapped mummy, no\nstatue or statuette was found in the tomb. The undertakers apparently\nrealized that the mummy[32] which was provided with a life-like mask was\ntherefore fulfilling the purposes for which statues were devised. So\nalso in the New Empire the packing and modelling of the actual mummy so\nas to restore its life-like appearance were regarded as obviating the\nneed for a statue.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 4.--Portrait Statue of an Egyptian Lady of the\nPyramid Age]\n\nI must now return to the further consideration of the Old Kingdom\nstatues. All these varied experiments were inspired by the same desire,\nto preserve the likeness of the deceased. But when the sculptors\nattained their object, and created those marvellous life-like portraits,\nwhich must ever remain marvels of technical skill and artistic feeling\n(Fig. 4), the old ideas that surged through the minds of the Predynastic\nEgyptians, as they contemplated the desiccated remains of the dead, were\nstrongly reinforced. The earlier people's thoughts were turned more\nspecifically than heretofore to the contemplation of the nature of life\nand death by seeing the bodies of their dead preserved whole and\nincorruptible; and, if their actions can be regarded as an expression of\ntheir ideas, they began to wonder what was lacking in these physically\ncomplete bodies to prevent them from feeling and acting like living\nbeings. Such must have been the results of their puzzled contemplation\nof the great problems of life and death. Otherwise the impulse to make\nmore certain the preservation of the body by the invention of\nmummification and to retain a life-like representation of the deceased\nby means of a sculptured statue remains inexplicable. But when the\ncorpse had been rendered incorruptible and the deceased's portrait had\nbeen fashioned with realistic perfection the old ideas would recur with\nrenewed strength. The belief then took more definite shape that if the\nmissing elements of vitality could be restored to the statue, it might\nbecome animated and the dead man would live again in his vitalized\nstatue. This prompted a more intense and searching investigation of the\nproblems concerning the nature of the elements of vitality of which the\ncorpse was deprived at the time of death. Out of these inquiries in\ncourse of time a highly complex system of philosophy developed.[33]\n\nBut in the earlier times with which I am now concerned it found\npractical expression in certain ritual procedures, invented to convey to\nthe statue the breath of life, the vitalising fluids, and the odour and\nsweat of the living body. The seat of knowledge and of feeling was\nbelieved to be retained in the body when the heart was left _in situ_:\nso that the only thing needed to awaken consciousness, and make it\npossible for the dead man to take heed of his friends and to act\nvoluntarily, was to present offerings of blood to stimulate the\nphysiological functions of the heart. But the element of vitality which\nleft the body at death had to be restored to the statue, which\nrepresented the deceased in the _ka_-house.[34]\n\nIn my earlier attempts[35] to interpret these problems, I adopted the\nview that the making of portrait statues was the direct outcome of the\npractice of mummification. But Dr. Alan Gardiner, whose intimate\nknowledge of the early literature enables him to look at such problems\nfrom the Egyptian's own point of view, has suggested a modification of\nthis interpretation. Instead of regarding the custom of making statues\nas an outcome of the practice of mummification, he thinks that the two\ncustoms developed simultaneously, in response to the two-fold desire to\npreserve both the actual body and a representation of the features of\nthe dead. But I think this suggestion does not give adequate recognition\nto the fact that the earliest attempts at funerary portraiture were made\nupon the wrappings of the actual mummies.[36] This fact and the evidence\nwhich I have already quoted from Junker make it quite clear that from\nthe beginning the embalmer's aim was to preserve the body and to convert\nthe mummy itself into a simulacrum of the deceased. When he realized\nthat his technical skill was not adequate to enable him to accomplish\nthis double aim, he fell back upon the device of making a more perfect\nand realistic portrait statue apart from the mummy. But, as I have\nalready pointed out, he never completely renounced his ambition of\ntransforming the mummy itself; and in the time of the New Empire he\nactually attained the result which he had kept in view for nearly twenty\ncenturies.\n\nIn these remarks I have been referring only to funerary portrait\nstatues. Centuries before the attempt was made to fashion them modellers\nhad been making of clay and stone representations of cattle and human\nbeings, which have been found not only in Predynastic graves in Egypt\nbut also in so-called \"Upper Palaeolithic\" deposits in Europe.\n\nBut the fashioning of realistic and life-size human portrait-statues for\nfunerary purposes was a new art, which gradually developed in the way I\nhave tried to depict. No doubt the modellers made use of the skill they\nhad acquired in the practice of the older art of rough impressionism.\n\nOnce the statue was made a stone-house (the _serdab_) was provided for\nit above ground[37]. As the dolmen is a crude copy of the _serdab_[38]\nit can be claimed as one of the ultimate results of the practice of\nmummification. It is clear that the conception of the possibility of a\nlife beyond the grave assumed a more concrete form when it was realized\nthat the body itself could be rendered incorruptible and its distinctive\ntraits could be kept alive by means of a portrait statue. There are\nreasons for supposing that primitive man did not realize or contemplate\nthe possibility of his own existence coming to an end.[39] Even when he\nwitnessed the death of his fellows he does not appear to have\nappreciated the fact that it was really the end of life and not merely a\nkind of sleep from which the dead might awake. But if the corpse were\ndestroyed or underwent a process of natural disintegration the fact was\nbrought home to him that death had occurred. If these considerations,\nwhich early Egyptian literature seems to suggest, be borne in mind, the\nview that the preservation of the body from corruption implied a\ncontinuation of existence becomes intelligible. At first the\nsubterranean chambers in which the actual body was housed were developed\ninto a many-roomed house for the deceased, complete in every detail.[40]\nBut when the statue took over the function of representing the deceased,\na dwelling was provided for it above ground. This developed into the\ntemple where the relatives and friends of the dead came and made the\nofferings of food which were regarded as essential for the maintenance\nof existence.\n\nThe evolution of the temple was thus the direct outcome of the ideas\nthat grew up in connexion with the preservation of the dead. For at\nfirst it was nothing more than the dwelling place of the reanimated\ndead. But when, for reasons which I shall explain later (see p. 30), the\ndead king became deified, his temple of offerings became the building\nwhere food and drink were presented to the god, not merely to maintain\nhis existence, but also to restore his consciousness, and so afford an\nopportunity for his successor, the actual king, to consult him and\nobtain his advice and help. The presentation of offerings and the ritual\nprocedures for animating and restoring consciousness to the dead king\nwere at first directed solely to these ends. But in course of time, as\ntheir original purpose became obscured, these services in the temple\naltered in character, and their meaning became rationalized into acts\nof homage and worship, and of prayer and supplication, and in much later\ntimes, acquired an ethical and moral significance that was wholly absent\nfrom the original conception of the temple services. The earliest idea\nof the temple as a place of offering has not been lost sight of. Even in\nour times the offertory still finds a place in temple services.\n\n\n[25: G. Elliot Smith, \"The Earliest Evidence of Attempts at\nMummification in Egypt,\" _Report British Association_, 1912, p. 612:\ncompare also J. Garstang, \"Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,\" London,\n1907, pp. 29 and 30. Professor Garstang did not recognize that\nmummification had been attempted.]\n\n[26: G. Elliot Smith, \"The History of Mummification in Egypt,\" _Proc.\nRoyal Philosophical Society of Glasgow_, 1910: also \"Egyptian Mummies,\"\n_Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. I, Part III, July, 1914, Plate\nXXXI.]\n\n[27: \"Excavations of the Vienna Imperial Academy of Sciences at the\nPyramids of Gizah, 1914,\" _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. I, Oct.\n1914, p. 250.]\n\n[28: \"Excavations at Saqqara,\" 1907-8, p. 113.]\n\n[29: The great variety of experiments that were being made at the\nbeginning of the Pyramid Age bears ample testimony to the fact that the\noriginal inventors of these devices were actually at work in Lower Egypt\nat that time.]\n\n[30: Aylward M. Blackman, \"The _Ka_-House and the Serdab,\" _Journal of\nEgyptian Archaeology_, Vol. III, Part IV, Oct., 1916, p. 250. The word\n_serdab_ is merely the Arabic word used by the native workmen, which has\nbeen adopted and converted into a technical term by European\narchaeologists.]\n\n[31: _Op. cit._ p. 171.]\n\n[32: It is a remarkable fact that Professor Garstang, who brought to\nlight perhaps the best, and certainly the best-preserved, collection of\nMiddle Kingdom mummies ever discovered, failed to recognize the fact\nthat they had really been embalmed (_op. cit._ p. 171).]\n\n[33: The reader who wishes for fuller information as to the reality of\nthese beliefs and how seriously they were held will find them still in\nactive operation in China. An admirable account of Chinese philosophy\nwill be found in De Groot's \"Religious System of China,\" especially Vol.\nIV, Book II. It represents the fully developed (New Empire) system of\nEgyptian belief modified in various ways by Babylonian, Indian and\nCentral Asiatic influences, as well as by accretions developed locally\nin China.]\n\n[34: A. M. Blackman, \"The _Ka_-House and the Serdab,\" _The Journal of\nEgyptian Archaeology_, Vol. III, Part IV, Oct., 1916, p. 250.]\n\n[35: \"Migrations of Early Culture,\" p. 37.]\n\n[36: Dr. Alan Gardiner (Davies and Gardiner, \"The Tomb of Amenemhet,\"\n1915, p. 83, footnote) has, I think, overlooked certain statements in my\nwritings and underestimated the antiquity of the embalmer's art; for he\nattributes to me the opinion that \"mummification was a custom of\nrelatively late growth\".\n\nThe presence in China of the characteristically Egyptian beliefs\nconcerning the animation of statues (de Groot, _op. cit._ pp. 339-356),\nwhereas the practice of mummification, though not wholly absent, is not\nobtrusive, might perhaps be interpreted by some scholars as evidence in\nfavour of the development of the custom of making statues independently\nof mummification. But such an inference is untenable. Not only is it the\nfact that in most parts of the world the practices of making statues and\nmummifying the dead are found in association the one with the other, but\nalso in China the essential beliefs concerning the dead are based upon\nthe supposition that the body is fully preserved (_see_ de Groot, chap.\nXV.). It is quite evident that the Chinese customs have been derived\ndirectly or indirectly from some people who mummified their dead as a\nregular practice. There can be no doubt that the ultimate source of\ntheir inspiration to do these things was Egypt.\n\nI need mention only one of many identical peculiarities that makes this\nquite certain. De Groot says it is \"strange to see Chinese fancy depict\nthe souls of the viscera as distinct individuals with animal forms\" (p.\n71). The same custom prevailed in Egypt, where the \"souls\" or protective\ndeities were first given animal forms in the Nineteenth Dynasty\n(Reisner).]\n\n[37: The Arabic word conveys the idea of being \"hidden underground,\"\nbecause the house is exposed by excavation.]\n\n[38: _Op. cit. supra_, Ridgeway Essays; also _Man_, 1913, p. 193.]\n\n[39: See Alan H. Gardiner, \"Life and Death (Egyptian),\" Hastings'\n_Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n[40: See the quotation from Mr. Quibell's account in my statement in the\n_Report of the British Association for 1914_, p. 215.]\n\n\nThe Significance of Libations.\n\nThe central idea of this lecture was suggested by Mr. Aylward M.\nBlackman's important discovery of the actual meaning of incense and\nlibations to the Egyptians themselves.[41] The earliest body of\nliterature preserved from any of the peoples of antiquity is comprised\nin the texts inscribed in the subterranean chambers of the Sakkara\nPyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. These documents, written\nforty-five centuries ago, were first brought to light in modern times in\n1880-81; and since the late Sir Gaston Maspero published the first\ntranslation of them, many scholars have helped in the task of\nelucidating their meaning. But it remained for Blackman to discover the\nexplanation they give of the origin and significance of the act of\npouring out libations. \"The general meaning of these passages is quite\nclear. The corpse of the deceased is dry and shrivelled. To revivify it\nthe vital fluids that have exuded from it [in the process of\nmummification] must be restored, for not till then will life return and\nthe heart beat again. This, so the texts show us, was believed to be\naccomplished by offering libations to the accompaniment of incantations\"\n(_op. cit._ p. 70).\n\nIn the first three passages quoted by Blackman from the Pyramid Texts\n\"the libations are said to be the actual fluids that have issued from\nthe corpse\". In the next four quotations \"a different notion is\nintroduced. It is not the deceased's own exudations that are to revive\nhis shrunken frame but those of a divine body, the [god's fluid][42]\nthat came from the corpse of Osiris himself, the juices that dissolved\nfrom his decaying flesh, which are communicated to the dead\nsacrament-wise under the form of these libations.\"\n\nThis dragging-in of Osiris is especially significant. For the analogy of\nthe life-giving power of water that is specially associated with Osiris\nplayed a dominant part in suggesting the ritual of libations. Just as\nwater, when applied to the apparently dead seed, makes it germinate and\ncome to life, so libations can reanimate the corpse. These general\nbiological theories of the potency of water were current at the time,\nand, as I shall explain later (see p. 28), had possibly received\nspecific application to man long before the idea of libations developed.\nFor, in the development of the cult of Osiris[43] the general\nfertilizing power of water when applied to the soil found specific\nexemplification in the potency of the seminal fluid to fertilize human\nbeings. Malinowski has pointed out that certain Papuan people, who are\nignorant of the fact that women are fertilized by sexual connexion,\nbelieve that they can be rendered pregnant by rain falling upon them\n(_op. cit. infra_). The study of folk-lore and early beliefs makes it\nabundantly clear that in the distant past which I am now discussing no\nclear distinction was made between fertilization and vitalization,\nbetween bringing new life into being and reanimating the body which had\nonce been alive. The process of fertilization of the female and\nanimating a corpse or a statue were regarded as belonging to the same\ncategory of biological processes. The sculptor who carved the\nportrait-statues for the Egyptian's tomb was called _sa'nkh_, \"he who\ncauses to live,\" and \"the word 'to fashion' (_ms_) a statue is to all\nappearances identical with _ms_, 'to give birth'\".[44]\n\nThus the Egyptians themselves expressed in words the ideas which an\nindependent study of the ethnological evidence showed many other peoples\nto entertain, both in ancient and modern times.[45]\n\nThe interpretation of ancient texts and the study of the beliefs of less\ncultured modern peoples indicate that our expressions: \"to give birth,\"\n\"to give life,\" \"to maintain life,\" \"to ward off death,\" \"to insure good\nluck,\" \"to prolong life,\" \"to give life to the dead,\" \"to animate a\ncorpse or a representation of the dead,\" \"to give fertility,\" \"to\nimpregnate,\" \"to create,\" represent a series of specializations of\nmeaning which were not clearly differentiated the one from the other in\nearly times or among relatively primitive modern people.\n\nThe evidence brought together in Jackson's work clearly suggests that at\na very early period in human history, long before the ideas that found\nexpression in the Osiris story had materialized, men entertained in all\nits literal crudity the belief that the external organ of reproduction\nfrom which the child emerged at birth was the actual creator of the\nchild, not merely the giver of birth but also the source of life.\n\nThe widespread tendency of the human mind to identify similar objects\nand attribute to them the powers of the things they mimic led primitive\nmen to assign to the cowry-shell all these life-giving and birth-giving\nvirtues. It became an amulet to give fertility, to assist at birth, to\nmaintain life, to ward off danger, to ensure the life hereafter, to\nbring luck of any sort. Now, as the giver of birth, the cowry-shell also\ncame to be identified with, or regarded as, the mother and creator of\nthe human family; and in course of time, as this belief became\nrationalized, the shell's maternity received visible expression and it\nbecame personified as an actual woman, the Great Mother, at first nameless\nand with ill-defined features. But at a later period, when the dead king\nOsiris gradually acquired his attributes of divinity, and a god emerged\nwith the form of a man, the vagueness of the Great Mother who had been\nmerely the personified cowry-shell soon disappeared and the amulet assumed,\nas Hathor, the form of a real woman, or, for reasons to be explained\nlater, a cow.\n\nThe influence of these developments reacted upon the nascent conception\nof the water-controlling god, Osiris; and his powers of fertility were\nenlarged to include many of the life-giving attributes of Hathor.\n\n\n[41: \"The Significance of Incense and Libations in Funerary and Temple\nRitual,\" _Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde_, Bd.\n50, 1912, p. 69.]\n\n[42: Mr. Blackman here quotes the actual word in hieroglyphics and adds\nthe translation \"god's fluid\" and the following explanation in a\nfootnote: \"The Nile was supposed to be the fluid which issued from\nOsiris. The expression in the Pyramid texts may refer to this\nbelief--the dead\" [in the Pyramid Age it would have been more accurate\nif he had said the dead king, in whose Pyramid the inscriptions were\nfound] \"being usually identified with Osiris--since the water used in\nthe libations was Nile water.\"]\n\n[43: The voluminous literature relating to Osiris will be found\nsummarized in the latest edition of \"The Golden Bough\" by Sir James\nFrazer. But in referring the reader to this remarkable compilation of\nevidence it is necessary to call particular attention to the fact that\nSir James Frazer's interpretation is permeated with speculations based\nupon the modern ethnological dogma of independent evolution of similar\ncustoms and beliefs without cultural contact between the different\nlocalities where such similarities make their appearance.\n\nThe complexities of the motives that inspire and direct human activities\nare entirely fatal to such speculations, as I have attempted to indicate\n(see above, p. 195). But apart from this general warning, there are\nother objections to Sir James Frazer's theories. In his illuminating\narticle upon Osiris and Horus, Dr. Alan Gardiner (in a criticism of Sir\nJames Frazer's \"The Golden Bough: Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Studies in the\nHistory of Oriental Religion,\" _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol.\nII, 1915, p. 122) insists upon the crucial fact that Osiris was\nprimarily a king, and that \"it is always as a _dead_ king,\" \"the role of\nthe living king being invariably played by Horus, his son and heir\".\n\nHe states further: \"What Egyptologists wish to know about Osiris beyond\nanything else is how and by what means he became associated with the\nprocesses of vegetable life\". An examination of the literature relating\nto Osiris and the large series of homologous deities in other countries\n(which exhibit _prima facie_ evidence of a common origin) suggests the\nidea that the king who first introduced the practice of systematic\nirrigation thereby laid the foundation of his reputation as a beneficent\nreformer. When, for reasons which I shall discuss later on (see p. 220),\nthe dead king became deified, his fame as the controller of water and\nthe fertilization of the earth became apotheosized also. I venture to\nput forward this suggestion only because none of the alternative\nhypotheses that have been propounded seem to be in accordance with,\nor to offer an adequate explanation of, the body of known facts\nconcerning Osiris.\n\nIt is a remarkable fact that in his lectures on \"The Development of\nReligion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\" which are based upon his own\nstudies of the Pyramid Texts, and are an invaluable storehouse of\ninformation, Professor J. H. Breasted should have accepted Sir James\nFrazer's views. These seem to me to be altogether at variance with the\nrenderings of the actual Egyptian texts and to confuse the exposition.]\n\n[44: Dr. Alan Gardiner, quoted in my \"Migrations of Early Culture,\" p.\n42: see also the same scholar's remarks in Davies and Gardiner, \"The\nTomb of Amenemhet,\" 1915, p. 57, and \"A new Masterpiece of Egyptian\nSculpture,\" _The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. IV, Part I,\nJan., 1917.]\n\n[45: See J. Wilfrid Jackson, \"Shells as Evidence of the Migrations of\nEarly Culture,\" 1917, Manchester University Press.]\n\n\nEarly Biological Theories.\n\nBefore the full significance of these procedures can be appreciated it\nis essential to try to get at the back of the Proto-Egyptian's mind and\nto understand his general trend of thought. I specially want to make it\nclear that the ritual use of water for animating the corpse or the\nstatue was merely a specific application of the general principles of\nbiology which were then current. It was no mere childish make-believe or\npriestly subterfuge to regard the pouring out of water as a means of\nanimating a block of stone. It was a conviction for which the\nProto-Egyptians considered there was a substantial scientific basis; and\ntheir faith in the efficacy of water to animate the dead is to be\nregarded in the same light as any scientific inference which is made at\nthe present time to give a specific application of some general theory\nconsidered to be well founded. The Proto-Egyptians clearly believed in\nthe validity of the general biological theory of the life-giving\nproperties of water. Many facts, no doubt quite convincing to them,\ntestified to the soundness of their theory. They accepted the principle\nwith the same confidence that modern people have adopted Newton's Law of\nGravitation, and Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species, and applied\nit to explain many phenomena or to justify certain procedures, which in\nthe light of fuller knowledge seem to modern people puerile and\nludicrous. But the early people obviously took these procedures\nseriously and regarded their actions as rational. The fact that their\nearly biological theory was inadequate ought not to mislead modern\nscholars and encourage them to fall into the error of supposing that the\nritual of libations was not based upon a serious inference. Modern\nscientists do not accept the whole of Darwin's teaching, or possibly\neven Newton's \"Law,\" but this does not mean that in the past innumerable\ninferences have been honestly and confidently made in specific\napplication of these general principles.\n\nIt is important, then, that I should examine more closely the\nProto-Egyptian body of doctrine to elucidate the mutual influence of it\nand the ideas suggested by the practice of mummification. It is not\nknown where agriculture was first practised or the circumstances which\nled men to appreciate the fact that plants could be cultivated. In many\nparts of the world agriculture can be carried on without artificial\nirrigation, and even without any adequate appreciation on the part of\nthe farmer of the importance of water. But when it came to be practised\nunder such conditions as prevail in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the\ncultivator would soon be forced to realize that water was essential for\nthe growth of plants, and that it was imperative to devise artificial\nmeans by which the soil might be irrigated. It is not known where or by\nwhom this cardinal fact first came to be appreciated, whether by the\nSumerians or the Egyptians or by some other people. But it is known that\nin the earliest records both of Egypt and Sumer the most significant\nmanifestations of a ruler's wisdom were the making of irrigation canals\nand the controlling of water. Important as these facts are from their\nbearing upon the material prospects of the people, they had an\ninfinitely more profound and far-reaching effect upon the beliefs of\nmankind. Groping after some explanation of the natural phenomenon that\nthe earth became fertile when water was applied to it, and that seed\nburst into life under the same influence, the early biologist formulated\nthe natural and not wholly illogical idea that water was the repository\nof life-giving powers. Water was equally necessary for the production of\nlife and for the maintenance of life.\n\nAt an early stage in the development of this biological theory man and\nother animals were brought within the scope of the generalization. For\nthe drinking of water was a condition of existence in animals. The idea\nthat water played a part in reproduction was co-related with this fact.\n\nEven at the present time many aboriginal peoples in Australia, New\nGuinea, and elsewhere, are not aware of the fact that in the process of\nanimal reproduction the male exercises the physiological role of\nfertilization.[46]\n\nThere are widespread indications throughout the world that the\nappreciation of this elementary physiological knowledge was acquired at\na relatively recent period in the history of mankind. It is difficult to\nbelieve that the fundamental facts of the physiology of fertilization in\nanimals could long have remained unknown when men became breeders of\ncattle. The Egyptian hieroglyphs leave no doubt that the knowledge was\nfully appreciated at the period when the earliest picture-symbols were\ndevised, for the verb \"to beget\" is represented by the male organs of\ngeneration. But, as the domestication of animals may have been earlier\nthan the invention of agriculture, it is possible that the appreciation\nof the fertilizing powers of the male animal may have been definitely\nmore ancient than the earliest biological theory of the fertilizing\npower of water.\n\nI have discussed this question to suggest that the knowledge that\nanimals could be fertilized by the seminal fluid was certainly brought\nwithin the scope of the wider generalization that water itself was\nendowed with fertilizing properties. Just as water fertilized the earth,\nso the semen fertilized the female. Water was necessary for the\nmaintenance of life in plants and was also essential in the form of\ndrink for animals. As both the earth and women could be fertilized by\nwater they were homologized one with the other. The earth came to be\nregarded as a woman, the Great Mother.[47] When the fertilizing water\ncame to be personified in the person of Osiris his consort Isis was\nidentified with the earth which was fertilized by water.[48]\n\nOne of the earliest pictures of an Egyptian king represents him using\nthe hoe to inaugurate the making of an irrigation-canal.[49] This was\nthe typical act of benevolence on the part of a wise ruler. It is not\nunlikely that the earliest organization of a community under a definite\nleader may have been due to the need for some systematized control of\nirrigation. In any case the earliest rulers of Egypt and Sumer were\nessentially the controllers and regulators of the water supply and as\nsuch the givers of fertility and prosperity.\n\nOnce men first consciously formulated the belief that death was not the\nend of all things,[50] that the body could be re-animated and\nconsciousness and the will restored, it was natural that a wise ruler\nwho, when alive, had rendered conspicuous services should after death\ncontinue to be consulted. The fame of such a man would grow with age;\nhis good deeds and his powers would become apotheosized; he would become\nan oracle whose advice might be sought and whose help be obtained in\ngrave crises. In other words the dead king would be \"deified,\" or at any\nrate credited with the ability to confer even greater boons than he was\nable to do when alive.\n\nIt is no mere coincidence that the first \"god\" should have been a dead\nking, Osiris, nor that he controlled the waters of irrigation and was\nspecially interested in agriculture. Nor, for the reasons that I have\nalready suggested, is it surprising that he should have had phallic\nattributes, and in himself have personified the virile powers of\nfertilization.[51]\n\nIn attempting to explain the origin of the ritual procedures of burning\nincense and offering libations it is essential to realize that the\ncreation of the first deities was not primarily an expression of\nreligious belief, but rather an application of science to national\naffairs. It was the logical interpretation of the dominant scientific\ntheory of the time for the practical benefit of the living; or in other\nwords, the means devised for securing the advice and the active help of\nwise rulers after their death. It was essentially a matter of practical\npolitics and applied science. It became \"religion\" only when the\nadvancement of knowledge superseded these primitive scientific theories\nand left them as soothing traditions for the thoughts and aspirations of\nmankind to cherish. For by the time the adequacy of these theories of\nknowledge began to be questioned they had made an insistent appeal, and\nhad come to be regarded as an essential prop to lend support to man's\nconviction of the reality of a life beyond the grave. A web of moral\nprecept and the allurement of hope had been so woven around them that\nno force was able to strip away this body of consolatory beliefs; and\nthey have persisted for all time, although the reasoning by which they\nwere originally built up has been demolished and forgotten several\nmillennia ago.\n\nIt is not known where Osiris was born. In other countries there are\nhomologous deities, such as Ea, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis, which are\ncertainly manifestations of the same idea and sprung from the same\nsource. Certain recent writers assume that the germ of the\nOsiris-conception was introduced into Egypt from abroad. But if so,\nnothing is known for certain of its place of origin. In any case there\ncan be no doubt that the distinctive features of Osiris, his real\npersonality and character, were developed in Egypt.\n\nFor reasons which I have suggested already it is probable that the\nsignificance of water in cultivation was not realized until cereals were\ncultivated in some such place as Babylonia or Egypt. But there are very\ndefinite legends of the Babylonian Ea coming from abroad by way of the\nPersian Gulf.[52] The early history of Tammuz is veiled in obscurity.\n\nSomewhere in South Western Asia or North Eastern Africa, probably within\na few years of the development of the art of agriculture, some\nscientific theorist, interpreting the body of empirical knowledge\nacquired by cultivating cereals, propounded the view that water was the\ngreat life-giving element. This view eventually found expression in the\nOsiris-group of legends.\n\nThis theory found specific application in the invention of libations and\nincense. These practices in turn reacted upon the general body of\ndoctrine and gave it a more sharply defined form. The dead king also\nbecame more real when he was represented by an actual embalmed body and\na life-like statue, sitting in state upon his throne and holding in his\nhands the emblems of his high office.\n\nThus while, in the present state of knowledge, it would be unjustifiable\nto claim that the Osiris-group of deities was invented in Egypt, and\ncertainly erroneous to attribute the general theory of the fertilizing\nproperties of water to the practice of embalming, it is true that the\nlatter was responsible for giving Osiris a much more concrete and\nclearly-defined shape, of \"making a god in the image of man\", and for\ngiving to the water-theory a much richer and fuller significance than it\nhad before.\n\nThe symbolism so created has had a most profound influence upon the\nthoughts and aspirations of the human race. For Osiris was the prototype\nof all the gods; his ritual was the basis of all religious ceremonial;\nhis priests who conducted the animating ceremonies were the pioneers of\na long series of ministers who for more than fifty centuries, in spite\nof the endless variety of details of their ritual and the character of\ntheir temples, have continued to perform ceremonies that have undergone\nremarkably little essential change. Though the chief functions of the\npriest as the animator of the god and the restorer of his consciousness\nhave now fallen into the background in most religions, the ritual acts\n(the incense and libations, the offerings of food and blood and the\nrest) still persist in many countries: the priest still appeals by\nprayer and supplication for those benefits, which the Proto-Egyptian\naimed at securing when he created Osiris as a god to give advice and\nhelp. The prayer for rain is one of the earliest forms of religious\nappeal, but the request for a plentiful inundation was earlier still.\n\nI have already said that in using the terms \"god\" and \"religion\" with\nreference to the earliest form of Osiris and the beliefs that grew up\nwith reference to him a potent element of confusion is introduced.\n\nDuring the last fifty centuries the meanings of those two words have\nbecome so complexly enriched with the glamour of a mystic symbolism that\nthe Proto-Egyptian's conception of Osiris and the Osirian beliefs must\nhave been vastly different from those implied in the words \"god\" and\n\"religion\" at the present time. Osiris was regarded as an actual king\nwho had died and been reanimated. In other words he was a _man_ who\ncould bestow upon his former subjects the benefits of his advice and\nhelp, but could also display such human weaknesses as malice, envy, and\nall uncharitableness. Much modern discussion completely misses the mark\nby the failure to recognize that these so-called \"gods\" were really men,\nequally capable of acts of beneficence and of outbursts of hatred, and\nas one or the other aspect became accentuated the same deity could\nbecome a Vedic _deva_ or an Avestan _daeva_, a _deus_ or a devil, a god\nof kindness or a demon of wickedness.\n\nThe acts which the earliest \"gods\" were supposed to perform were not at\nfirst regarded as supernatural. They were merely the boons which the\nmortal ruler was supposed to be able to confer, by controlling the\nwaters of irrigation and rendering the land fertile. It was only when\nhis powers became apotheosized with a halo of accumulated glory (and the\ngrowth of knowledge revealed the insecurity of the scientific basis upon\nwhich his fame was built up) that a priesthood reluctant to abandon any\nof the attributes which had captured the popular imagination, made it an\nobligation of belief to accept these supernatural powers of the gods for\nwhich the student of natural phenomena refused any longer to be a\nsponsor. This was the parting of the ways between science and religion;\nand thenceforth the attributes of the \"gods\" became definitely and\nadmittedly superhuman.\n\nAs I have already stated (p. 23) the original object of the offering of\nlibations was thus clearly for the purpose of animating the statue of\nthe deceased and so enabling him to continue the existence which had\nmerely been interrupted by the incident of death. In course of time,\nhowever, as definite gods gradually materialized and came to be\nrepresented by statues, they also had to be vitalized by offerings of\nwater from time to time. Thus the pouring out of libations came to be an\nact of worship of the deity; and in this form it has persisted until our\nown times in many civilized countries.\n\nBut not only was water regarded as a means of animating the dead, or\nstatues representing the dead, and an appropriate act of worship, in\nthat it vitalized an idol and the god dwelling in it was thus able to\nhear and answer supplications. Water also became an essential part of\nany act of ritual rebirth.[53] As a baptism it also symbolized the\ngiving of life. The initiate was re-born into a new communion of faith.\nIn scores of other ways the same conception of the life-giving\nproperties of water was responsible for as many applications of the use\nof libations in inaugurating new enterprises, such as \"baptising\" ships\nand blessing buildings. It is important to remember that, according to\nearly Egyptian beliefs, the continued existence of the dead was wholly\ndependent upon the attentions of the living. Unless this animating\nceremony was performed not merely at the time of the funeral, but also\nat stated periods afterwards, and unless the friends of the deceased\nperiodically supplied food and drink, such a continuation of existence\nwas impossible.\n\nThe development of these beliefs had far-reaching effects in other\ndirections. The idea that a stone statue could be animated ultimately\nbecame extended to mean that the dead man could enter into and dwell in\na block of stone, which he could leave or return to at will. From this\narose the beliefs, which spread far and wide, that the dead ancestors,\nkings, or deified kings, dwelt in stones; and that they could be\nconsulted as oracles, who gave advice and counsel. The acceptance of\nthis idea that the dead could be reanimated in a stone statue no doubt\nprepared the minds of the people to credit the further belief, which\nother circumstances were responsible for creating, that men could be\nturned into stone. In the next chapter I shall explain how these\npetrifaction stories developed.[54]\n\nAll the rich crop of myths concerning men and animals dwelling in stones\nwhich are to be found encircling the globe from Ireland to America, can\nbe referred back to these early Egyptian attempts to solve the mysteries\nof death, and to acquire the means of circumventing fate.[55]\n\nThese beliefs at first may have concerned human beings only. But in\ncourse of time, as the duty of revictualling an increasingly large\nnumber of tombs and temples tended to tax the resources of the people,\nthe practice developed of substituting for the real things models, or\neven pictures, of food-animals, vegetables, and other requisites of the\ndead. And these objects and pictures were restored to life or reality by\nmeans of a ritual which was essentially identical with that used for\nanimating the statue or the mummy of the deceased himself.\n\nIt is well worth considering whether this may not be one of the basal\nfactors in explanation of the phenomena which the late Sir Edward Tylor\nlabelled \"animism\".\n\nSo far from being a phase of culture through which many, if not all,\npeoples have passed in the course of their evolution, may it not have\nbeen merely an artificial conception of certain things, which was given\nso definite a form in Egypt, for the specific reasons at which I have\njust hinted, and from there spread far and wide?\n\nAgainst this view may be urged the fact that our own children talk in an\nanimistic fashion. But is not this due in some measure to the\nunconscious influence of their elders? Or at most is it not a vague and\nill-defined attitude of anthropomorphism necessarily involved in all\nspoken languages, which is vastly different from what the ethnologist\nunderstands by \"animism\"[56]?\n\nBut whether this be so or not, there can be no doubt that the \"animism\"\nof the early Egyptians assumed its precise and clear-cut distinctive\nfeatures as the result of the growth of ideas suggested by the attempts\nto make mummies and statues of the dead and symbolic offerings of food\nand other funerary requisites.\n\nThus incidentally there grew up the belief in a power of magic by means\nof which these make-believe offerings could be transformed into\nrealities. But it is important to emphasize the fact that originally the\nconviction of the genuineness of this transubstantiation was a logical\nand not unnatural inference based upon the attempt to interpret natural\nphenomena, and then to influence them by imitating what were regarded as\nthe determining factors.[57]\n\nIn China these ideas still retain much of their primitive influence and\ndirectness of expression. Referring to the Chinese \"belief in the\nidentity of pictures or images with the beings they represent\" de Groot\nstates that the _kwan shuh_ or \"magic art\" is a \"main branch of Chinese\nwitchcraft\". It consists essentially of \"the infusion of a soul, life,\nand activity into likenesses of beings, to thus render them fit to work\nin some direction desired ... this infusion is effected by blowing or\nbreathing, or spurting water over the likeness: indeed breath or _khi_,\nor water from the mouth imbued with breath, is identical with _yang_\nsubstance or life.\"[58]\n\n\n[46: Baldwin Spencer and Gillen, \"The Northern Tribes of Central\nAustralia\"; \"Across Australia\"; and Spencer's \"Native Tribes of the\nNorthern Territory of Australia\". For a very important study of the\nwhole problem with special reference to New Guinea, see B. Malinowski,\n\"Baloma: the Spirits of the Dead,\" etc., _Journal of the Royal\nAnthropological Institute_, 1916, p. 415.]\n\n[47: The idea of the earth's maternal function spread throughout the\ngreater part of the world.]\n\n[48: With reference to the assimilation of the conceptions of human\nfertilization and watering the soil and the widespread idea among the\nancients of regarding the male as \"he who irrigates,\" Canon van\nHoonacker gave M. Louis Siret the following note:--\n\n\"In Assyrian the cuneiform sign for water is also used, _inter alia_, to\nexpress the idea of begetting (_banu_). Compare with this the references\nfrom Hebrew and Arabic writings. In Isaiah xlviii. 1, we read 'Hear ye\nthis, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are\ncome forth out of the waters of Judah'; and in Numbers xxiv. 7, 'Water\nshall flow from his buckets and his seed shall be in many waters'.\n\n\"The Hebrew verb (_shangal_) which denotes sexual intercourse has, in\nArabic (_sadjala_), the meaning 'to spill water'. In the Koran, Sur. 36,\nv. 6, the word _ma'un_ (water) is used to designate semen\" (L. Siret,\n\"Questions de Chronologie et d'Ethnographie Iberiques,\" Tome I, 1913, p.\n250).]\n\n[49: Quibell, \"Hieraconpolis\", Vol. I, 260, 4.]\n\n[50: In using this phrase I want to make a clear distinction between the\nphase of culture in which it had never occurred to man that, in his\nindividual case, life would come to an end, and the more enlightened\nstage, in which he fully realized that death would inevitably be his\nfate, but that in spite of it his real existence would continue.\n\nIt is clear that at quite an early stage in his history man appreciated\nthe fact that he could kill an animal or his fellow-man. But for a long\ntime he failed to realize that he himself, if he could avoid the process\nof mechanical destruction by which he could kill an animal or a\nfellow-man, would not continue to exist. The dead are supposed by many\npeople to be still in existence so long as the body is preserved. Once\nthe body begins to disintegrate even the most unimaginative of men can\nentirely repress the idea of death. But to primitive people the\npreservation of the body is equally a token that existence has not come\nto an end. The corpse is merely sleeping.]\n\n[51: Breasted, _op. cit._, p. 28.]\n\n[52: The possibility, or even the probability, must be borne in mind\nthat the legend of Ea arising from the waters may be merely another way\nof expressing his primary attribute as the personification of the\nfertilizing powers of water.]\n\n[53: This occurred at a later epoch when the attributes of the\nwater-controlling deity of fertility became confused with those of the\nbirth-giving mother goddess (_vide infra_, p. 40).]\n\n[54: For a large series of these stories see E. Sidney Hartland's\n\"Legend of Perseus\". But even more instructive, as revealing the\nintimate connexion of such ideas with the beliefs regarding the\npreservation of the body, see J. J. M. de Groot, \"The Religious System\nof China,\" Vol. IV, Book II, 1901.]\n\n[55: In this connexion see de Groot, _op. cit._ pp. 356 and 415.\n[Transcriber's Note: the original text contained no marker for this\nfootnote, so a guess has been made as to what it referred]]\n\n[56: The child certainly resembles primitive man in the readiness with\nwhich it attributes to even the crudest models of animals or human\nbeings the feelings of living creatures.]\n\n[57: It became \"magical\" in our sense of the term only when the growth\nof knowledge revealed the fact that the measures taken were inadequate\nto attain the desired end; while the \"magician\" continued to make the\npretence that he could attain that end by ultra-physical means.]\n\n[58: De Groot, _op. cit._ p. 356.]\n\n\nIncense.\n\nSo far I have referred in detail only to the offering of libations. But\nthis was only one of several procedures for animating statues, mummies,\nand food-offerings. I have still to consider the ritual procedures of\nincense-burning and \"opening the mouth\".\n\nFrom Mr. Blackman's translations of the Egyptian texts it is clear that\nthe burning of incense was intended to restore to the statue (or the\nmummy) the odour of the living body, and that this was part of the\nprocedure considered necessary to animate the statue. He says \"the\nbelief about incense [which is explained by a later document, the\n_Ritual of Amon_] apparently does not occur in the Old Kingdom religious\ntexts that are preserved to us, yet it may quite well be as ancient as\nthat period. That is certainly Erman's view\" (_op. cit._ p. 75).\n\nHe gives the following translation of the relevant passage in the\n_Ritual of Amon_ (XII, 11): \"The god comes with body adorned which he\nhas fumigated with the eye of his body, the incense of the god which has\nissued from his flesh, the sweat of the god which has fallen to the\nground, which he has given to all the gods.... It is the Horus eye. If\nit lives, the people live, thy flesh lives, thy members are vigorous\"\n(_op. cit._ p. 72). In his comments upon this passage Mr. Blackman\nstates: \"In the light of the Pyramid libation-formulae the expressions in\nthis text are quite comprehensible. Like the libations the grains of\nincense are the exudations of a divinity,[59] the fluid which issued\nfrom his flesh, the god's sweat descending to the ground.... Here\nincense is not merely the 'odour of the god,' but the grains of resin\nare said to be the god's sweat\" (_op. cit._ p. 72). \"Both rites, the\npouring of libations and the burning of incense, are performed for the\nsame purpose--to revivify the body [or the statue] of god and man by\nrestoring to it its lost moisture\" (p. 75).\n\nIn attempting to reconstitute the circumstances which led to the\ninvention of incense-burning as a ritual act, the nature of the problem\nto be solved must be recalled. Among the most obtrusive evidences of\ndeath were the coldness of the skin, the lack of perspiration and of the\nodour of the living. It is important to realize what the phrase \"odour\nof the living\" would convey to the Proto-Egyptian. From the earliest\nPredynastic times in Egypt it had been the custom to make extensive use\nof resinous material as an essential ingredient (what a pharmacist would\ncall the adhesive \"vehicle\") of cosmetics. One of the results of this\npractice in a hot climate must have been the association of a strong\naroma of resin or balsam with a living person.[60] Whether or not it was\nthe practice to burn incense to give pleasure to the living is not\nknown. The fact that such a procedure was customary among their\nsuccessors may mean that it was really archaic; or on the other hand the\npossibility must not be overlooked that it may be merely the later\nvulgarization of a practice which originally was devised for purely\nritual purposes. The burning of incense before a corpse or statue was\nintended to convey to it the warmth, the sweat, and the odour of life.\n\nWhen the belief became well established that the burning of incense was\npotent as an animating force, and especially a giver of life to the\ndead, it naturally came to be regarded as a divine substance in the\nsense that it had the power of resurrection. As the grains of incense\nconsisted of the exudation of trees, or, as the ancient texts express\nit, \"their sweat,\" the divine power of animation in course of time\nbecame transferred to the trees. They were no longer merely the source\nof the life-giving incense, but were themselves animated by the deity\nwhose drops of sweat were the means of conveying life to the mummy.\n\nThe reason why the deity which dwelt in these trees was usually\nidentified with the Mother-Goddess will become clear in the course of\nthe subsequent discussion (p. 38). It is probable that this was due\nmainly to the geographical circumstance that the chief source of incense\nwas Southern Arabia, which was also the home of the primitive goddesses\nof fertility. For they were originally nothing more than\npersonifications of the life-giving cowry amulets from the Red Sea.\n\nThus Robertson Smith's statement that \"the value of the gum of the\nacacia as an amulet is connected with the idea that it is a clot of\nmenstruous blood, i.e., that the tree is a woman\"[61] is probably an\ninversion of cause and effect. It was the value attached to the gum that\nconferred animation upon the tree. The rest of the legend is merely a\nrationalization based upon the idea that the tree was identified with\nthe mother-goddess. The same criticism applies to his further contention\n(p. 427) with reference to \"the religious value of incense\" which he\nclaims to be due to the fact that \"like the gum of the _samora_ (acacia)\ntree, ... it was an animate or divine plant\".\n\nMany factors played a part in the development of tree-worship but it is\nprobable the origin of the sacredness of trees must be assigned to the\nfact that it was acquired from the incense and the aromatic woods which\nwere credited with the power of animating the dead. But at a very early\nepoch many other considerations helped to confirm and extend the\nconception of deification. When Osiris was buried, a sacred sycamore\ngrew up as \"the visible symbol of the imperishable life of Osiris\".[62]\nBut the sap of trees was brought into relationship with life-giving\nwater and thus constituted another link with Osiris. The sap was also\nregarded as the blood of trees and the incense that exuded as the sweat.\nJust as the water of libation was regarded as the fluid of the body of\nOsiris, so also, by this process of rationalization, the incense came to\npossess a similar significance.\n\nFor reasons precisely analogous to those already explained in the case\nof libations, the custom of burning incense, from being originally a\nritual act for animating the funerary statue, ultimately developed into\nan act of homage to the deity.\n\nBut it also acquired a special significance when the cult of sky-gods\ndeveloped,[63] for the smoke of the burning incense then came to be\nregarded as the vehicle which wafted the deceased's soul to the sky or\nconveyed there the requests of the dwellers upon earth.[64]\n\n\"The soul of a human being is generally conceived [by the Chinese] as\npossessing the shape and characteristics of a human being, and\noccasionally those of an animal; ... the spirit of an animal is the shape\nof this animal or of some being with human attributes and speech. But\nplant spirits are never conceived as plant-shaped, nor to have\nplant-characters ... whenever forms are given them, they are mostly\nrepresented as a man, a woman, or a child, and often also as an animal,\ndwelling in or near the plant, and emerging from it at times to do harm,\nor to dispense blessings.... Whether conceptions on the animation of\nplants have never developed in Chinese thought and worship before ideas\nabout human ghosts ... had become predominant in mind and custom, we\ncannot say: but the matter seems probable\" (De Groot, _op. cit._ pp.\n272, 273). Tales of trees that shed blood and that cry out when hurt are\ncommon in Chinese literature (p. 274) [as also in Southern Arabia]; also\nof trees that lodge or can change into maidens of transcendent beauty\n(p. 276).\n\nIt is further significant that amongst the stories of souls of men\ntaking up their residence in and animating trees and plants, the human\nbeing is usually a woman, accompanied by \"a fox, a dog, an old raven or\nthe like\" (p. 276).\n\nThus in China are found all the elements out of which Dr. Rendel Harris\nbelieves the Aphrodite cult was compounded in Cyprus,[65] the animation\nof the anthropoid plant, its human cry, its association with a beautiful\nmaiden and a dog.[66]\n\nThe immemorial custom of planting trees on graves in China is supposed\nby De Groot (p. 277) to be due to \"the desire to strengthen the soul of\nthe buried person, thus to save his body from corruption, for which\nreason trees such as pines and cypresses, deemed to be bearers of great\nvitality for being possessed of more _shen_ than other trees, were used\npreferably for such purposes\". But may not such beliefs also be an\nexpression of the idea that a tree growing upon a grave is developed\nfrom and becomes the personification of the deceased? The significance\nof the selection of pines and cypresses may be compared to that\nassociated with the so-called \"cedars\" in Babylonia, Egypt, and\nPhoenicia, and the myrrh- and frankincense-producing trees in Arabia and\nEast Africa. They have come to be accredited with \"soul-substance,\"\nsince their use in mummification and as incense and for making coffins,\nhas made them the means for attaining a future existence. Hence in\ncourse of time they came to be regarded as charged with the spirit of\nvitality, the _shen_ or \"soul-substance\".\n\nIn China also it was because the woods of the pine or fir and the cyprus\nwere used for making coffins and grave-vaults and that pine-resin was\nregarded as a means of attaining immortality (De Groot, _op. cit._ pp.\n296 and 297) that such veneration was bestowed upon these trees. \"At an\nearly date, Taoist seekers after immortality transplanted that animation\n[of the hardy long-lived fir and cypress[67]] into themselves by\nconsuming the resin of those trees, which, apparently, they looked upon\nas coagulated soul-substance, the counterpart of the blood in men and\nanimals\" (p. 296).\n\nIn India the _amrita_, the god's food of immortality, was sometimes\nregarded as the sap exuded from the sacred trees of paradise.\n\nElsewhere in these pages it is explained how the vaguely defined Mother\n\"Goddess\" and the more distinctly anthropoid Water \"God,\" which\noriginally developed quite independently the one of the other,\nultimately came to exert a profound and mutual influence, so that many\nof the attributes which originally belonged to one of them came to be\nshared with the other. Many factors played a part in this process of\nblending and confusion of sex. As I shall explain later, when the moon\ncame to be regarded as the dwelling or the impersonation of Hathor, the\nsupposed influence of the moon over water led to a further assimilation\nof her attributes with those of Osiris as the controller of water, which\nreceived definite expression in a lunar form of Osiris.\n\nBut the link that is most intimately related to the subject of this\naddress is provided by the personification of the Mother-Goddess in\nincense-trees. For incense thus became the sweat or the tears of the\nGreat Mother just as the water of libation was regarded as the fluid\nof Osiris.\n\n\n[59: As I shall explain later (see page 38), the idea of the divinity of\nthe incense-tree was a result of, and not the reason for, the practice\nof incense-burning. As one of the means by which the resurrection was\nattained incense became a giver of divinity; and by a simple process\nof rationalization the tree which produced this divine substance became\na god.\n\nThe reference to the \"eye of the body\" (see p. 55) means the life-giving\ngod or goddess who is the \"eye\" of the sky, _i.e._ the god with whom the\ndead king is identified.]\n\n[60: It would lead me too far afield to enter into a discussion of the\nuse of scents and unguents, which is closely related to this question.]\n\n[61: \"The Religion of the Semites,\" p. 133.]\n\n[62: Breasted, p. 28.]\n\n[63: For reasons explained on a subsequent page (56).]\n\n[64: It is also worth considering whether the extension of this idea may\nnot have been responsible for originating the practice of cremation--as\na device for transferring, not merely the animating incense and the\nsupplications of the living, but also the body of the deceased to the\nsky-world. This, of course, did not happen in Egypt, but in some other\ncountry which adopted the Egyptian practice of incense-burning, but was\nnot hampered by the religious conservatism that guarded the sacredness\nof the corpse.]\n\n[65: \"The Ascent of Olympus,\" 1917.]\n\n[66: For a collection of stories relating to human beings, generally\nwomen, dwelling in trees, see Hartland's \"Legend of Perseus\".]\n\n[67: The fact that the fir and cypress are \"hardy and long-lived\" is not\nthe reason for their being accredited with these life-prolonging\nqualities. But once the latter virtues had become attributed to them the\nfact that the trees were \"hardy and long-lived\" may have been used to\nbolster up the belief by a process of rationalization.]\n\n\nThe Breath of Life.\n\nAlthough the pouring of libations and the burning of incense played so\nprominent a part in the ritual of animating the statue or the mummy, the\nmost important incident in the ceremony was the \"opening of the mouth,\"\nwhich was regarded as giving it the breath of life.\n\nElsewhere[68] I have suggested that the conception of the heart and\nblood as the vehicles of life, feeling, volition, and knowledge may have\nbeen extremely ancient. It is not known when or under what circumstances\nthe idea of the breath being the \"life\" was first entertained. The fact\nthat in certain primitive systems of philosophy the breath was supposed\nto have something to do with the heart suggests that these beliefs may\nbe a constituent element of the ancient heart-theory. In some of the\nrock-pictures in America, Australia, and elsewhere the air-passages are\nrepresented leading to the heart. But there can be little doubt that the\npractice of mummification gave greater definiteness to the ideas\nregarding the \"heart\" and \"breath,\" which eventually led to a\ndifferentiation between their supposed functions.[69] As the heart and\nthe blood were obviously present in the dead body they could no longer\nbe regarded as the \"life\". The breath was clearly the \"element\" the lack\nof which rendered the body inanimate. It was therefore regarded as\nnecessary to set the heart working. The heart then came to be looked\nupon as the seat of knowledge, the organ that feels and wills during\nwaking life. All the pulsating motions of the body seem to have been\nregarded, like the act of respiration, as expressions of the vital\nprinciple or \"life,\" which Dutch ethnological writers refer to as \"soul\nsubstance\". The neighbourhood of certain joints where the pulse can be\nfelt most readily, and the top of the head, where pulsation can be felt\nin the infant's fontanelle, were therefore regarded by some Asiatic\npeoples as the places where the substance of life could leave or enter\nthe body.\n\nIt is possible that in ancient times this belief was more widespread\nthan it is now. It affords an explanation of the motive for trephining\nthe skull among ancient peoples, to afford a more ready passage for the\n\"vital essence\" to and from the skull.\n\nIn his lecture on \"The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul,\"[70] Professor\nJohn Burnet has expounded the meaning of early Greek conceptions of the\nsoul with rare insight and lucidity. Originally, the word [Greek:\npsyche] meant \"breath,\" but, by historical times, it had already been\nspecialized in two distinct ways. It had come to mean _courage_ in the\nfirst place, and secondly the _breath of life_, the presence or absence\nof which is the most obvious distinction between the animate and the\ninanimate, the \"ghost\" which a man \"gives up\" at death. But it may also\nquit the body temporarily, which explains the phenomenon of swooning\n([Greek: lipopsychia]). It seemed natural to suppose it was also the\nthing that can roam at large when the body is asleep, and even appear to\nanother sleeping person in his dream. Moreover, since we can dream of\nthe dead, what then appears to us must be just what leaves the body at\nthe moment of death. These considerations explain the world-wide belief\nin the \"soul\" as a sort of double of the real bodily man, the Egyptian\n_ka_,[71] the Italian _genius_, and the Greek [Greek: psyche].\n\nNow this double is not identical with whatever it is in us that feels\nand wills during our waking life. That is generally supposed to be blood\nand not breath.\n\nWhat we feel and perceive have their seat in the heart: they belong to\nthe body and perish with it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is only when the shades have been allowed to drink blood that\nconsciousness returns to them for a while.\n\nAt one time the [Greek: psyche] was supposed to dwell with the body in\nthe grave, where it had to be supported by the offerings of the\nsurvivors, especially by libations ([Greek: choai]).\n\nAn Egyptian psychologist has carried the story back long before the\ntimes of which Professor Burnet writes. He has explained \"his conception\nof the functions of the 'heart (mind) and tongue'. 'When the eyes see,\nthe ears hear, and the nose breathes, they transmit to the heart. It is\nhe (the heart) who brings forth every issue and it is the tongue which\nrepeats the thought of the heart.'\"[72]\n\n\"There came the saying that Atum, who created the gods, stated\nconcerning Ptah-Tatenen: 'He is the fashioner of the gods.... He made\nlikenesses of their bodies to the satisfaction of their hearts. Then the\ngods entered into their bodies of every wood and every stone and every\nmetal.'\"[73]\n\nThat these ideas are really ancient is shown by the fact that in the\nPyramid Texts Isis is represented conveying the breath of life to Osiris\nby \"causing a wind with her wings\".[74] The ceremony of \"opening the\nmouth\" which aimed at achieving this restoration of the breath of life\nwas the principal part of the ritual procedure before the statue or\nmummy. As I have already mentioned (p. 25), the sculptor who modelled\nthe portrait statue was called \"he who causes to live,\" and the word \"to\nfashion\" a statue is identical with that which means \"to give birth\".\nThe god Ptah created man by modelling his form in clay. Similarly the\nlife-giving sculptor made the portrait which was to be the means of\nsecuring a perpetuation of existence, when it was animated by the\n\"opening of the mouth,\" by libations and incense.\n\nAs the outcome of this process of rationalization in Egypt a vast crop\nof creation-legends came into existence, which have persisted with\nremarkable completeness until the present day in India, Indonesia,\nChina, America, and elsewhere. A statue of stone, wood, or clay is\nfashioned, and the ceremony of animation is performed to convey to it\nthe breath of life, which in many places is supposed to be brought down\nfrom the sky.[75]\n\nIn the Egyptian beliefs, as well as in most of the world-wide legends\nthat were derived from them, the idea assumed a definite form that the\nvital principle (often referred to as the \"soul,\" \"soul-substance,\" or\n\"double\") could exist apart from the body. Whatever the explanation, it\nis clear that the possibility of the existence of the vital principle\napart from the body was entertained. It was supposed that it could\nreturn to the body and temporarily reanimate it. It could enter into and\ndwell within the stone representation of the deceased. Sometimes this\nso-called \"soul\" was identified[76] with the breath of life, which\ncould enter into the statue as the result of the ceremony of \"opening\nthe mouth\".\n\nIt has been commonly assumed by Sir Edward Tyler and those who accept\nhis theory of animism that the idea of the \"soul\" was based upon the\nattempts to interpret the phenomena of dreams and shadows, to which\nBurnet has referred in the passage quoted above. The fact that when a\nperson is sleeping he may dream of seeing absent people and of having a\nvariety of adventures is explained by many peoples by the hypothesis\nthat these are real experiences which befell the \"soul\" when it wandered\nabroad during its owner's sleep. A man's shadow or his reflection in\nwater or a mirror has been interpreted as his double. But what these\nspeculations leave out of account is the fact that these dream- and\nshadow-phenomena were probably merely the predisposing circumstances\nwhich helped in the development of (or the corroborative details which\nwere added to and, by rationalization, incorporated in) the\n\"soul-theory,\" which other circumstances were responsible for\ncreating.[77]\n\nI have already called attention (p. 5) to the fact that in many of the\npsychological speculations in ethnology too little account is taken of\nthe enormous complexity of the factors which determine even the simplest\nand apparently most obvious and rational actions of men. I must again\nremind the reader that a vast multitude of influences, many of them of a\nsubconscious and emotional nature, affect men's decisions and opinions.\nBut once some definite state of feeling inclines a man to a certain\nconclusion, he will call up a host of other circumstances to buttress\nhis decision, and weave them into a complex net of rationalization. Some\nsuch process undoubtedly took place in the development of \"animism\"; and\nthough it is not possible yet to reconstruct the whole history of the\ngrowth of the idea, there can be no question that these early strivings\nafter an understanding of the nature of life and death, and the attempts\nto put the theories into practice to reanimate the dead, provided the\nfoundations upon which has been built up during the last fifty centuries\na vast and complex theory of the soul. In the creation of this edifice\nthe thoughts and the aspirations of countless millions of peoples have\nplayed a part: but the foundation was laid down when the Egyptian king\nor priest claimed that he could restore to the dead the \"breath of life\"\nand, by means of the wand which he called \"the great magician,\"[78]\ncould enable the dead to be born again. The wand is supposed by some\nscholars[79] to be a conventionalized representation of the uterus, so\nthat its power of giving birth is expressed with literal directness.\nSuch beliefs and stories of the \"magic wand\" are found to-day in\nscattered localities from the Scottish Highlands to Indonesia and\nAmerica.\n\nIn this sketch I have referred merely to one or two aspects of a\nconception of vast complexity. But it must be remembered that, once the\nmind of man began to play with the idea of a vital essence capable of\nexisting apart from the body and to identify it with the breath of life,\nan illimitable field was opened up for speculation. The vital principle\ncould manifest itself in all the varied expressions of human\npersonality, as well as in all the physiological indications of life.\nExperience of dreams led men to believe that the \"soul\" could also leave\nthe body temporarily and enjoy varied experiences. But the\nconcrete-minded Egyptian demanded some physical evidence to buttress\nthese intangible ideas of the wandering abroad of his vital essence. He\nmade a statue for it to dwell in after his death, because he was not\nable to make an adequately life-like reproduction of the dead man's\nfeatures upon the mummy itself or its wrappings. Then he gradually\npersuaded himself that the life-substance could exist apart from the\nbody as a \"double\" or \"twin\" which animated the statue.\n\nSearching for material evidence to support his faith primitive man not\nunnaturally turned to the contemplation of the circumstances of his\nbirth. All his beliefs concerning the nature of life can ultimately be\nreferred back to the story of his own origin, his birth or creation.\n\nWhen an infant is born it is accompanied by the after-birth or placenta\nto which it is linked by the umbilical cord. The full comprehension of\nthe significance of these structures is an achievement of modern\nscience. To primitive man they were an incomprehensible marvel. But once\nhe began to play with the idea that he had a double, a vital essence in\nhis own shape which could leave the sleeping body and lead a separate\nexistence, the placenta obviously provided tangible evidence of its\nreality. The considerations set forth by Blackman,[80] supplementing\nthose of Moret, Murray and Seligman and others, have been claimed as\nlinking the placenta with the _ka_.\n\nMuch controversy has waged around the interpretation of the Egyptian\nword _ka_, especially during recent years. An excellent summary of the\narguments brought forward by the various disputants up to 1912 will be\nfound in Morel's \"Mysteres Egyptiens\". Since then more or less\ncontradictory views have been put forward by Alan Gardiner, Breasted,\nand Blackman. It is not my intention to intervene in a dispute as to the\nmeaning of certain phrases in ancient literature; but there are certain\naspects of the problems at issue which are so intimately related to my\nmain theme as to make some reference to them unavoidable.\n\nThe development of the custom of making statues of the dead necessarily\nraised for solution the problem of explaining the deceased's two bodies,\nhis actual mummy and his portrait statue. During life on earth his vital\nprinciple dwelt in the former, except on those occasions when the man\nwas asleep. His actual body also gave expression to all the varied\nattributes of his personality. But after death the statue became the\ndwelling place of these manifestations of the spirit of vitality.\n\nWhether or not the conception arose out of the necessities unavoidably\ncreated by the making of statues, it seems clear that this custom must\nhave given more concrete shape to the belief that all of those elements\nof the dead man's individuality which left his body at the time of death\ncould shift as a shadowy double into his statue.\n\nAt the birth of a king he is accompanied by a comrade or twin exactly\nreproducing all his features. This double or _ka_ is intimately\nassociated throughout life and in the life to come with the king's\nwelfare. In fact Breasted claims that the _ka_ \"was a kind of superior\ngenius intended to guide the fortunes of the individual _in the\nhereafter_\" ... there \"he had his abode and awaited the coming of his\nearthly companion\".[81] At death the deceased \"goes to his _ka_, to the\nsky\". The _ka_ controls and protects the deceased: he brings him food\nwhich they eat together.\n\nIt is important clearly to keep in mind the different factors involved\nin the conception of the _ka_:--\n\n(a) The statue of the deceased is animated by restoring to it the breath\nof life and all the other vital attributes of which the early Egyptian\nphysiologist took cognisance.\n\n(b) At the time of birth there came into being along with the child a\n\"twin\" whose destinies were closely linked with the child's.\n\n(c) As the result of animating the statue the deceased also has restored\nto him his character, \"the sum of his attributes,\" his individuality,\nlater raised to the position of a protecting genius or god, a Providence\nwho watches over his well-being.[82]\n\nThe _ka_ is not simply identical with the breath of life or _animus_, as\nBurnet supposes (_op. cit. supra_), but has a wider significance. The\nadoption of the conception of the _ka_ as a sort of guardian angel which\nfinds its appropriate habitation in a statue that has been animated does\nnot necessarily conflict with the view so concretely and unmistakably\nrepresented in the tomb-pictures that the _ka_ is also a double who is\nborn along with the individual.\n\nThis material conception of the _ka_ as a double who is born with and\nclosely linked to the individual is, as Blackman has emphasized,[83]\nvery suggestive of Baganda beliefs and rites connected with the\nplacenta. At death the circumstances of the act of birth are\nreconstituted, and for this rebirth the placenta which played an\nessential part in the original process is restored to the deceased. May\nnot the original meaning of the expression \"he goes to his _ka_\" be a\nliteral description of this reunion with his placenta? The\nidentification of the _ka_ with the moon, the guardian of the dead man's\nwelfare, may have enriched the symbolism.\n\nBlackman makes the suggestion that \"on the analogy of the beliefs\nentertained by the Hamitic ruling caste in Uganda,\" according to Roscoe,\n\"the placenta,[84] or rather its ghost, would have been supposed by the\nAncient Egyptians to be closely connected with the individual's\npersonality, as\" he maintains was also the case with the god or\nprotecting genius of the Babylonians.[85] \"Unless united with his twin's\n[i.e. his placenta's] ghost the dead king was an imperfect deity, i.e.\nhis directing intelligence was impaired or lacking,\" presumably because\nthe placenta was composed of blood, which was regarded as the material\nof consciousness and intelligence.\n\nIn China, as the quotations from de Groot (see footnote) show, the\nplacenta when placed under felicitous circumstances is able to ensure\nthe child a long life and to control his mental and physical welfare.\n\nIn view of the claims put forward by Blackman to associate the placenta\nwith the _ka_, it is of interest to note Moret's suggestion concerning\nthe fourteen forms of the _ka_, to which von Bissing assigns the\ngeneral significance \"nourishment or offerings\". He puts the question\nwhether they do not \"personify the elements of material and intellectual\nprosperity, all that is necessary for the health of body and spirit\"\n(_op. cit._, p. 209).\n\nThe placenta is credited with all the varieties of life-giving potency\nthat are attributed to the Mother-Goddess. It therefore controls the\nwelfare of the individual and, like all maternal amulets (_vide supra_),\nensures his good fortune. But, probably by virtue of its supposed\nderivation from and intimate association with blood, it also ministered\nto his mental welfare.\n\nIn my last Rylands Lecture I referred to the probability that the\nessential elements of Chinese civilization were derived from the West. I\nhad hoped that, before the present statement went to the printer, I\nwould have found time to set forth in detail the evidence in\nsubstantiation of the reality of that diffusion of culture.\n\nBriefly the chain of proof is composed of the following links: (a) the\nintimate cultural contact between Egypt, Southern Arabia, Sumer, and\nElam from a period at least as early as the First Egyptian Dynasty; (b)\nthe diffusion of Sumerian and Elamite culture in very early times at\nleast as far north as Russian Turkestan and as far east as Baluchistan;\n(c) at some later period the quest of gold, copper, turquoise, and jade\nled the Babylonians (and their neighbours) as far north as the Altai and\nas far east as Khotan and the Tarim Valley, where their pathways were\nblazed with the distinctive methods of cultivation and irrigation; (d)\nat some subsequent period there was an easterly diffusion of culture\nfrom Turkestan into the Shensi Province of China proper; and (e) at\nleast as early as the seventh century B.C. there was also a spread of\nWestern culture to China by sea.[86]\n\nI have already referred to some of the distinctively Egyptian traits in\nChinese beliefs concerning the dead. Mingled with them are other equally\ndefinitely Babylonian ideas concerning the liver.\n\nIt must be apparent that in the course of the spread of a complex system\nof religious beliefs to so great a distance, only certain of their\nfeatures would survive the journey. Handed on from people to people,\neach of whom would unavoidably transform them to some extent, the\ntenets of the Western beliefs would become shorn of many of their\ndetails and have many excrescences added to them before the Chinese\nreceived them. In the crucible of the local philosophy they would be\nassimilated with Chinese ideas until the resulting compound assumed a\nChinese appearance. When these inevitable circumstances are recalled the\nvalue of any positive evidence of Western influence is of special\nsignificance.\n\nAccording to the ancient Chinese, man has two souls, the _kwei_ and the\n_shen_. The former, which according to de Groot is definitely the more\nancient of the two (p. 8), is the material, substantial soul, which\nemanates from the terrestrial part of the universe, and is formed of\n_yin_ substance. In living man it operates under the name of _p'oh_,\nand on his death it returns to the earth and abides with the deceased\nin his grave.\n\nThe _shen_ or immaterial soul emanates from the ethereal celestial part\nof the cosmos and consists of _yang_ substance. When operating actively\nin the living human body, it is called _khi_ or \"breath,\" and _hwun_;\nwhen separated from it after death it lives forth as a refulgent spirit,\nstyled _ming_.[87]\n\nBut the _shen_ also, in spite of its sky-affinities, hovers about the\ngrave and may dwell in the inscribed grave-stone (p. 6). There may be a\nmultitude of _shen_ in one body and many \"soul-tablets\" may be provided\nfor them (p. 74).\n\nJust as in Egypt the _ka_ is said to \"symbolize the force of life which\nresides in nourishment\" (Moret, p. 212), so the Chinese refer to the\nethereal part of the food as its _khi_, i.e. the \"breath\" of its _shen_.\n\nThe careful study of the mass of detailed evidence so lucidly set forth\nby de Groot in his great monograph reveals the fact that, in spite of\nmany superficial differences and apparent contradictions, the early\nChinese conceptions of the soul and its functions are essentially\nidentical with the Egyptian, and must have been derived from the\nsame source.\n\nFrom the quotations which I have already given in the foregoing pages,\nit appears that the Chinese entertain views regarding the functions of\nthe placenta which are identical with those of the Baganda, and a\nconception of the souls of man which presents unmistakable analogies\nwith Egyptian beliefs. Yet these Chinese references do not shed any\nclearer light than Egyptian literature does upon the problem of the\npossible relationship between the _ka_ and the _placenta_.\n\nIn the Iranian domain, however, right on the overland route from the\nPersian Gulf to China, there seems to be a ray of light. According to\nthe late Professor Moulton, \"The later Parsi books tell us that the\nFravashi is a part of a good man's identity, living in heaven and\nreuniting with the soul at death. It is not exactly a guardian angel,\nfor it shares in the development or deterioration of the rest of the\nman.\"[88]\n\nIn fact the Fravashi is not unlike the Egyptian _ka_ on the one side and\nthe Chinese _shen_ on the other. \"They are the _Manes_, 'the good folk'\"\n(p. 144): they are connected with the stars in their capacity as spirits\nof the dead (p. 143), and they \"showed their paths to the sun, the moon,\nthe sun, and the endless lights,\" just as the _kas_ guide the dead in\nthe hereafter.\n\nThe Fravashis play a part in the annual All Soul's feast (p. 144), for\nwhich Breasted has provided an almost exact parallel in Egypt during the\nMiddle Kingdom.[89] All the circumstances of the two ceremonies are\nessentially identical.\n\nNow Professor Moulton suggests that the word Fravashi may be derived\nfrom the Avestan root _var_, \"to impregnate,\" and _fravasi_ mean\n\"birth-promotion\" (p. 142). As he associates this with childbirth the\npossibility suggests itself whether the \"birth-promoter\" may not be\nsimply the placenta.\n\nLoret (quoted by Moret, p. 202), however, derives the word _ka_ from a\nroot signifying \"to beget,\" so that the Fravashi may be nothing more\nthan the Iranian homologue of the Egyptian _ka_.\n\nThe connecting link between the Iranian and Egyptian conceptions may be\nthe Sumerian instances given to Blackman[90] by Dr. Langdon.\n\nThe whole idea seems to have originated out of the belief that the sum\nof the individual attributes or vital expressions of a man's personality\ncould exist apart from the physical body. The contemplation of the\nphenomena of sleep and death provided the evidence in corroboration\nof this.\n\nAt birth the newcomer came into the world physically connected with the\nplacenta, which was accredited with the attributes of the life-giving\nand birth-promoting Great Mother and intimately related to the moon and\nthe earliest totem. It was obviously, also, closely concerned in the\nnutrition of the embryo, for was it not the stalk upon which the latter\nwas growing like some fruit on its stem? It was a not unnatural\ninference to suppose that, as the elements of the personality were not\nindissolubly connected with the body, they were brought into existence\nat the time of birth and that the placenta was their vehicle.\n\nThe Egyptians' own terms of reference to the sculptor of a statue show\nthat the ideas of birth were uppermost in their minds when the custom of\nstatue-making was first devised. Moret has brought together (_op. cit.\nsupra_) a good deal of evidence to suggest the far-reaching significance\nof the conception of ritual rebirth in early Egyptian religious\nceremonial. With these ideas in his mind the Egyptian would naturally\nattach great importance to the placenta in any attempt to reconstruct\nthe act of rebirth, which would be regarded in a literal sense. The\nplacenta which played an essential part in the original act would have\nan equally important role in the ritual of rebirth. [For a further\ncomment upon the problem discussed in the preceding ten pages, see\nAppendix A, p. 73.]\n\n\n[68: \"Primitive Man,\" _Proceedings of the British Academy_, 1917, p. 41.\n\nIt is important to remember that the real meaning of respiration was\nquite unknown until modern science revealed the part played by oxygen.]\n\n[69: The enormous complexity and intricacy of the interrelation between\nthe functions of the \"heart,\" and the \"breath\" is revealed in Chinese\nphilosophy (see de Groot, _op. cit._ Chapter VII. _inter alia_).]\n\n[70: Second Annual Philosophical Lecture, Henriette Hertz Trust,\n_Proceedings of the British Academy_, Vol. VII, 26 Jan., 1916.]\n\n[71: The Egyptian _ka_, however, was a more complex entity than this\ncomparison suggests.]\n\n[72: Breasted, _op. cit._ pp. 44 and 45.]\n\n[73: _Op. cit._ pp. 45 and 46.]\n\n[74: _Ibid._ p. 28.]\n\n[75: W. J. Perry has collected the evidence preserved in a remarkable\nseries of Indonesian legends in his recent book, \"The Megalithic Culture\nof Indonesia\". But the fullest exposition of the whole subject is\nprovided in the Chinese literature summarized by de Groot (_op. cit._).]\n\n[76: See, however, the reservations in the subsequent pages.]\n\n[77: The thorough analysis of the beliefs of any people makes this\nabundantly clear. De Groot's monograph is an admirable illustration of\nthis (_op. cit._ Chapter VII.). Both in Egypt and China the conceptions\nof the significance of the shadow are later and altogether subsidiary.]\n\n[78: Alan H. Gardiner, Davies and Gardiner, _op. cit._ p. 59.]\n\n[79: F. Ll. Griffith, \"A Collection of Hieroglyphs,\" 1898, p. 60.]\n\n[80: Aylward M. Blackman, \"Some Remarks on an Emblem upon the Head of an\nAncient Egyptian Birth-Goddess,\" _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol.\nIII, Part III, July, 1916, p. 199; and \"The Pharaoh's Placenta and the\nMoon-God Khons,\" _ibid._ Part IV, Oct., 1916, p. 235.]\n\n[81: \"Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\" p. 52. Breasted denies\nthat the _ka_ was an element of the personality.]\n\n[82: For an abstruse discussion of this problem see Alan H. Gardiner,\n\"Personification (Egyptian),\" Hastings' _Encyclopaedia of Religion and\nEthics_, pp. 790 and 792.]\n\n[83: _Op. cit. supra_.]\n\n[84: Mr. Blackman is puzzled to explain what \"possible connexion there\ncould be between the Pharaoh's placenta and the moon beyond the fact\nthat it is the custom in Uganda to expose the king's placenta each new\nmoon and anoint it with butter.\"\n\nTo those readers who follow my argument in the later pages of this\ndiscussion the reasoning at the back of this association should be plain\nenough. The moon was regarded as the controller of menstruation. The\nplacenta (and also the child) was considered to be formed of menstrual\nblood. The welfare of the placenta was therefore considered to be under\nthe control of the moon.\n\nThe anointing with butter is an interesting illustration of the close\nconnexion of these lunar and maternal phenomena with the cow.\n\nThe placenta was associated with the moon also in China, as the\nfollowing quotation shows.\n\nAccording to de Groot (_op. cit._ p. 396), \"in the _Siao 'rh fang_ or\nMedicament for Babies, by the hand of Ts'ui Hing-kung [died 674 A.D.],\nit is said: 'The placenta should be stored away in a felicitous spot\nunder the salutary influences of the sky or the moon ... in order that\nthe child may be ensured a long life'\". He then goes on to explain how\nany interference with the placenta will entail mental or physical\ntrouble to the child.\n\nThe placenta also is used as the ingredient of pills to increase\nfertility, facilitate parturition, to bring back life to people on the\nbrink of death and it is the main ingredient \"in medicines for lunacy,\nconvulsions, epilepsy, etc.\" (p. 397). \"It gives rest to the heart,\nnourishes the blood, increases the breath, and strengthens the _tsing_\"\n(p. 396).\n\nThese attributes of the placenta indicate that the beliefs of the\nBaganda are not merely local eccentricities, but widespread and sharply\ndefined interpretations of the natural phenomena of birth.]\n\n[85: _Op. cit._ p. 241.]\n\n[86: See \"The Origin of Early Siberian Civilization,\" now being\npublished in the _Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and\nPhilosophical Society_.]\n\n[87: De Groot, p. 5.]\n\n[88: _Early Religious Poetry of Persia_, p. 145.]\n\n[89: _Op. cit._ p. 264.]\n\n[90: _Ibid._ p. 240.]\n\n\nThe Power of the Eye.\n\nIn attempting to understand the peculiar functions attributed to the eye\nit is essential that the inquirer should endeavour to look at the\nproblem from the early Egyptian's point of view. After moulding into\nshape the wrappings of the mummy so as to restore as far as possible the\nform of the deceased the embalmer then painted eyes upon the face. So\nalso when the sculptor had learned to make finished models in stone or\nwood, and by the addition of paint had enhanced the life-like\nappearance, the statue was still merely a dead thing. What were needed\nabove all to enliven it, literally and actually, in other words, to\nanimate it, were the eyes; and the Egyptian artist set to work and with\ntruly marvellous skill reproduced the appearance of living eyes (Fig.\n5). How ample was the justification for this belief will be appreciated\nby anyone who glances at the remarkable photographs recently published\nby Dr. Alan H. Gardiner.[91] The wonderful eyes will be seen to make the\nstatue sparkle and live. To the concrete mind of the Egyptian this\ntriumph of art was regarded not as a mere technical success or\naesthetic achievement. The artist was considered to have made the statue\nreally live; in fact, literally and actually converted it into a \"living\nimage\". The eyes themselves were regarded as one of the chief sources of\nthe vitality which had been conferred upon the statue.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 5--Statue of an Egyptian Noble of the Pyramid Age to\nshow the technical skill in the representation of life-like eyes]\n\nThis is the explanation of all the elaborate care and skill bestowed\nupon the making of artificial eyes. No doubt also it was largely\nresponsible for giving definition to the remarkable belief in the\nanimating power of the eye. But so many other factors of most diverse\nkinds played a part in building up the complex theory of the eye's\nfertilizing potency that all the stages in the process of\nrationalization cannot yet be arranged in orderly sequence.\n\nI refer to the question here and suggest certain aspects of it that seem\nworthy of investigation merely for the purpose of stimulating some\nstudent of early Egyptian literature to look into the matter\nfurther.[92]\n\nAs death was regarded as a kind of sleep and the closing of the eyes was\nthe distinctive sign of the latter condition the open eyes were not\nunnaturally regarded as clear evidence of wakefulness and life. In fact,\nto a matter-of-fact people the restoration of the eyes to the mummy or\nstatue was equivalent to an awakening to life.\n\nAt a time when a reflection in a mirror or in a sheet of water was\nsupposed to afford quite positive evidence of the reality of each\nindividual's \"double,\" and when the \"soul,\" or more concretely, \"life,\"\nwas imagined to be a minute image or homunculus, it is quite likely that\nthe reflection in the eye may have been interpreted as the \"soul\"\ndwelling within it. The eye was certainly regarded as peculiarly rich in\n\"soul substance\". It was not until Osiris received from Horus the eye\nwhich had been wrenched out in the latter's combat with Set that he\n\"became a soul\".[93]\n\nIt is a remarkable fact that this belief in the animating power of the\neye spread as far east as Polynesia and America, and as far west as the\nBritish Islands.\n\nOf course the obvious physiological functions of the eyes as means of\ncommunication between their possessor and the world around him; the\npowerful influence of the eyes for expressing feeling and emotion\nwithout speech; the analogy between the closing and opening of the eyes\nand the changes of day and night, are all hinted at in Egyptian\nliterature.\n\nBut there were certain specific factors that seem to have helped to give\ndefiniteness to these general ideas of the physiology of the eyes. The\ntears, like all the body moisture, came to share the life-giving\nattributes of water in general. And when it is recalled that at funeral\nceremonies emotion found natural expression in the shedding of tears, it\nis not unlikely that this came to be assimilated with all the other\nwater-symbolism of the funerary ritual. The early literature of Egypt,\nin fact, refers to the part played by Isis and Nephthys in the\nreanimation of Osiris, when the tears they shed as mourners brought\nlife back to the god. But the fertilizing tears of Isis were life-giving\nin the wider sense. They were said to cause the inundation which\nfertilized the soil of Egypt, meaning presumably that the \"Eye of Re\"\nsent the rain.\n\nThere is the further possibility that the beliefs associated with the\ncowry may have played some part, if not in originating, at any rate in\nemphasizing the conception of the fertilizing powers of the eye. I have\nalready mentioned the outstanding features of the symbolism of the\ncowry. In many places in Africa and elsewhere the similarity of this\nshell to the half-closed eyelids led to its use as an artificial \"eye\"\nin mummies. The use of the same objects to symbolize the female\nreproductive organs and the eyes may have played some part in\ntransferring to the latter the fertility of the former. The gods were\nborn of the eyes of Ptah. Might not the confusion of the eye with the\ngenitalia have given a meaning to this statement? There is evidence of\nthis double symbolism of these shells. Cowry shells have also been\nemployed, both in the Persian Gulf and the Pacific, to decorate the bows\nof boats, probably for the dual purpose of representing eyes and\nconferring vitality upon the vessel. These facts suggest that the belief\nin the fertilizing power of the eyes may to some extent be due to this\ncowry-association. Even if it be admitted that all the known cases of\nthe use of cowries as eyes of mummies are relatively late, and that it\nis not known to have been employed for such a purpose in Egypt, the mere\nfact that the likeness to the eyelids so readily suggests itself may\nhave linked together the attributes of the cowry and the eye even in\nPredynastic times, when cowries were placed with the dead in the grave.\n\nHathor's identification with the \"Eye of Re\" may possibly have been an\nexpression of the same idea. But the role of the \"Eye of Re\" was due\nprimarily to her association with the moon (_vide infra_, p. 56).\n\nThe apparently hopeless tangle of contradictions involved in these\nconceptions of Hathor will have to be unravelled. For \"no eye is to be\nfeared more than thine (Re's) when it attacketh in the form of Hathor\"\n(Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 165). If it was the beneficent life-giving\naspect of the eye which led to its identification with Hathor, in course\nof time, when the reason for this connexion was lost sight of, it became\nassociated with the malevolent, death-dealing _avatar_ of the goddess,\nand became the expression of the god's anger and hatred toward his\nenemies. It is not unlikely that such a confusion may have been\nresponsible for giving concrete expression to the general psychological\nfact that the eyes are obviously among the chief means for expressing\nhatred for and intimidating and \"brow-beating\" one's fellows. [In my\nlecture on \"The Birth of Aphrodite\" I shall explain the explicit\ncircumstances that gave rise to these contradictions.]\n\nIt is significant that, in addition to the widespread belief in the\n\"evil eye\"--which in itself embodies the same confusion, the expression\nof admiration that works evil--in a multitude of legends it is the eye\nthat produces petrifaction. The \"stony stare\" causes death and the dead\nbecome transformed into statues, which, however, usually lack their\noriginal attribute of animation. These stories have been collected by\nMr. E. S. Hartland in his \"Legend of Perseus\".\n\nThere is another possible link in the chain of associations between the\neye and the idea of fertility. I have already referred to the\ndevelopment of the belief that incense, which plays so prominent a part\nin the ritual for conferring vitality upon the dead, is itself replete\nwith animating properties. \"Glaser has already shown the _anti_ incense\nof the Egyptian Punt Reliefs to be an Arabian word, _a-a-netc_,\n'tree-eyes' (_Punt und die Suedarabischen Reiche_, p. 7), and to refer to\nthe large lumps ... as distinguished from the small round drops, which\nare supposed to be tree-tears or the tree-blood.\"[94]\n\n\n[91: \"A New Masterpiece of Egyptian Sculpture,\" _The Journal of Egyptian\nArchaeology_, Vol. IV, Part I, Jan., 1917.]\n\n[92: In all probability the main factor that was responsible for\nconferring such definite life-giving powers upon the eye was the\nidentification of the moon with the Great Mother. The moon was the Eye\nof Re, the sky-god.]\n\n[93: Breasted, \"Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\" p. 59. The\nmeaning of the phrase rendered \"a soul\" here would be more accurately\ngiven by the word \"reanimated\".]\n\n[94: Wilfred H. Schoff, \"The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea,\" 1912, p.\n164.]\n\n\nThe Moon and the Sky-World.\n\nThere are reasons for believing that the chief episodes in Aphrodite's\npast point to the Red Sea for their inspiration, though many other\nfactors, due partly to local circumstances and partly to contact with\nother civilizations, contributed to the determination of the traits of\nthe Mediterranean goddess of love. In Babylonia and India there are very\ndefinite signs of borrowing from the same source. It is important,\ntherefore, to look for further evidence to Arabia as the obvious bond of\nunion both with Phoenicia and Babylonia.\n\nThe claim made in Roscher's _Lexicon der Mythologie_ that the Assyrian\nIshtar, the Phoenician Ashtoreth (Astarte), the Syrian Atargatis\n(Derketo), the Babylonian Belit (Mylitta) and the Arabian Ilat (Al-ilat)\nwere all moon-goddesses has given rise to much rather aimless\ndiscussion, for there can be no question of their essential homology\nwith Hathor and Aphrodite. Moreover, from the beginning, all\ngoddesses--and especially this most primitive stratum of fertility\ndeities--were for obvious reasons intimately associated with the\nmoon.[95] But the cyclical periodicity of the moon which suggested the\nanalogy with the similar physiological periodicity of women merely\nexplains the association of the moon with women. The influence of the\nmoon upon dew and the tides, perhaps, suggested its controlling power\nover water and emphasized the life-giving function which its association\nwith women had already suggested. For reasons which have been explained\nalready, water was associated more especially with fertilization by the\nmale. Hence the symbolism of the moon came to include the control of\nboth the male and the female processes of reproduction.[96]\n\nThe literature relating to the development of these ideas with\nreference to the moon has been summarized by Professor Hutton\nWebster.[97] He shows that \"there is good reason for believing that\namong many primitive peoples the moon, rather than the sun, the planets\nor any of the constellations, first excited the imagination and aroused\nfeelings of superstitious awe or of religious veneration\".\n\nSpecial attention was first devoted to the moon when agricultural\npursuits compelled men to measure time and determine the seasons. The\ninfluence of the moon on water, both the tides and dew, brought it\nwithin the scope of the then current biological theory of fertilization.\nThis conception was powerfully corroborated by the parallelism of the\nmoon's cycles and those of womankind, which was interpreted by regarding\nthe moon as the controlling power of the female reproductive functions.\nThus all of the earliest goddesses who were personifications of the\npowers of fertility came to be associated, and in some cases identified,\nwith the moon.\n\nIn this way the animation and deification of the moon was brought about:\nand the first sky deity assumed not only all the attributes of the\ncowry, i.e. the female reproductive functions, but also, as the\ncontroller of water, many of those which afterwards were associated with\nOsiris. The confusion of the male fertilizing powers of Osiris with the\nfemale reproductive functions of Hathor and Isis may explain how in some\nplaces the moon became a masculine deity, who, however, still retained\nhis control over womankind, and caused the phenomena of menstruation by\nthe exercise of his virile powers.[98] But the moon-god was also a\nmeasurer of time and in this aspect was specially personified in Thoth.\n\nThe assimilation of the moon with these earth-deities was probably\nresponsible for the creation of the first sky-deity. For once the\nconception developed of identifying a deity with the moon, and the\nOsirian beliefs associated with the deification of a dead king grew up,\nthe moon became the impersonation of the spirit of womankind, some\nmortal woman who by death had acquired divinity.\n\nAfter the idea had developed of regarding the moon as the spirit of a\ndead person, it was only natural that, in course of time, the sun and\nstars should be brought within the scope of the same train of thought,\nand be regarded as the deified dead. When this happened the sun not\nunnaturally soon leapt into a position of pre-eminence. As the moon\nrepresented the deified female principle the sun became the dominant\nmale deity Re. The stars also became the spirits of the dead.\n\nOnce this new conception of a sky-world was adumbrated a luxuriant crop\nof beliefs grew up to assimilate the new beliefs with the old, and to\nbuttress the confused mixture of incompatible ideas with a complex\nscaffolding of rationalization.\n\nThe sun-god Horus was already the son of Osiris. Osiris controlled not\nonly the river and the irrigation canals, but also the rain-clouds. The\nfumes of incense conveyed to the sky-gods the supplications of the\nworshippers on earth. Incense was not only \"the perfume that deities,\"\nbut also the means by which the deities and the dead could pass to their\ndoubles in the newly invented sky-heaven. The sun-god Re was represented\nin his temple not by an anthropoid statue, but by an obelisk,[99] the\ngilded apex of which pointed to heaven and \"drew down\" the dazzling rays\nof the sun, reflected from its polished surface, so that all the\nworshippers could see the manifestations of the god in his temple.\n\nThese events are important, not only for creating the sky-gods and the\nsky-heaven, but possibly also for suggesting the idea that even a mere\npillar of stone, whether carved or uncarved, upon which no attempt had\nbeen made to model the human form, could represent the deity, or rather\ncould become the \"body\" to be animated by the god.[100] For once it was\nadmitted, even in the home of these ancient ideas concerning the\nanimation of statues, that it was not essential for the idol to be\nshaped into human form, the way was opened for less cultured peoples,\nwho had not acquired the technical skill to carve statues, simply to\nerect stone pillars or unshaped masses of stone or wood for their gods\nto enter, when the appropriate ritual of animation was performed.[101]\n\nThis conception of the possibility of gods, men, or animals dwelling in\nstones spread in course of time throughout the world, but in every place\nwhere it is found certain arbitrary details of the methods of animating\nthe stone reveal the fact that all these legends must have been derived\nfrom the same source.\n\nThe complementary belief in the possibility of the petrifaction of men\nand animals has a similarly extensive geographical distribution. The\nhistory of this remarkable incident I shall explain in the lecture on\n\"Dragons and Rain Gods\" (Chapter II.).[102]\n\n\n[95: I am not concerned here with the explanation of the means by which\ntheir home became transferred to the planet Venus.]\n\n[96: In his discussion of the functions of the Fravashis in the Iranian\nYasht, the late Professor Moulton suggested the derivation of the word\nfrom the Avestan root _var_, \"to impregnate,\" so that _fravasi_ might\nmean \"birth-promotion\". But he was puzzled by a reference to water.\n\"Less easy to understand is their intimate connexion with the Waters\"\n(\"Early Religious Poetry of Persia,\" pp. 142 and 143). But the Waters\nwere regarded as fertilizing agents. This is seen in the Avestan\nAnahita, who was \"the presiding genie of Fertility and more especially\nof the Waters\" (W. J. Phythian-Adams, \"Mithraism,\" 1915, p. 13).]\n\n[97: \"Rest Days,\" New York, 1916, pp. 124 _et seq._]\n\n[98: Wherever these deities of fertility are found, whether in Egypt,\nBabylonia, the Mediterranean Area, Eastern Asia, and America,\nillustrations of this confusion of sex are found. The explanation which\nDr. Rendel Harris offers of this confusion in the case of Aphrodite\nseems to me not to give due recognition to its great antiquity and\nalmost world-wide distribution.]\n\n[99: L. Borchardt, \"Das Re-heiligtum des Koenigs Ne-woser-re\". For a good\nexposition of this matter see A. Moret, \"Sanctuaires de l'ancien Empire\nEgyptien,\"; _Annales du Musee Guimet_, 1912, p. 265.]\n\n[100: It is possible that the ceremony of erecting the _dad_ columns may\nhave played some part in the development of these beliefs. (On this see\nA. Moret, \"Mysteres Egyptiens,\" 1913, pp. 13-17.)]\n\n[101: Many other factors played a part in the development of the stories\nof the birth of ancestors from stones. I have already referred to the\norigin of the idea of the cowry (or some other shell) as the parent of\nmankind. The place of the shell was often taken by roughly carved\nstones, which of course were accredited with the same power of being\nable to produce men, or of being a sort of egg from which human beings\ncould be hatched. It is unlikely that the finding of fossilized animals\nplayed any leading role in the development of these beliefs, beyond\naffording corroborative evidence in support of them after other\ncircumstances had been responsible for originating the stories. The more\ncircumstantial Oriental stories of the splitting of stones giving birth\nto heroes and gods may have been suggested by the finding in pebbles of\nfossilized shells--themselves regarded already as the parents of\nmankind. But such interpretations were only possible because all the\npredisposing circumstances had already prepared the way for the\nacceptance of these specific illustrations of a general theory.\n\nThese beliefs may have developed before and quite independently of the\nideas concerning the animation of statues; but if so the latter event\nwould have strengthened and in some places become merged with the other\nstory.]\n\n[102: For an extensive collection of these remarkable petrifaction\nlegends in almost every part of the world, see E. Sidney Hartland's \"The\nLegend of Perseus,\" especially Volumes I and III. These distinctive\nstories will be found to be complexly interwoven with all the matters\ndiscussed in this address.]\n\n\nThe Worship of the Cow.\n\nIntimately linked with the subjects I have been discussing is the\nworship of the cow. It would lead me too far afield to enter into the\ndetails of the process by which the earliest Mother-Goddesses became so\nclosely associated or even identified with the cow, and why the cow's\nhorns became associated with the moon among the emblems of Hathor.\nBut it is essential that reference should be made to certain aspects of\nthe subject.\n\nI do not think there is any evidence to justify the common theory that\nthe likeness of the crescent moon to a cow's horns was the reason for\nthe association. On the other hand, it is clear that both the moon and\nthe cow became identified with the Mother-Goddess quite independently\nthe one of the other, and at a very remote period.\n\nIt is probable that the fundamental factor in the development of this\nassociation of the cow and the Mother-Goddess was the fact of the use of\nmilk as food for human beings. For if the cow could assume this maternal\nfunction she was in fact a sort of foster-mother of mankind; and in\ncourse of time she came to be regarded as the actual mother of the human\nrace and to be identified with the Great Mother.\n\nMany other considerations helped in this process of assimilation. The\nuse of cattle not merely as meat for the sustenance of the living but as\nthe usual and most characteristic life-giving food for the dead\nnaturally played a part in conferring divinity upon the cow, just as an\nanalogous relationship made incense a holy substance and was responsible\nfor the personification of the incense-tree as a goddess. This influence\nwas still further emphasized in the case of cattle because they also\nsupplied the blood which was used for the ritual purpose of bestowing\nconsciousness upon the dead, and in course of time upon the gods also,\nso that they might hear and attend to the prayers of supplicants.\n\nOther circumstances emphasize the significance attached to the cow: but\nit is difficult to decide whether they contributed in any way to the\ndevelopment of these beliefs or were merely some of the practices which\nwere the result of the divination of the cow. The custom of placing\nbutter in the mouths of the dead, in Egypt, Uganda, and India, the\nvarious ritual uses of milk, the employment of a cow's hide as a\nwrapping for the dead in the grave, and also in certain mysterious\nceremonies,[103] all indicate the intimate connexion between the cow and\nthe means of attaining a rebirth in the life to come.\n\nI think there are definite reasons for believing that once the cow\nbecame identified with the Mother-Goddess as the parent of mankind the\nfirst step was taken in the development of the curious system of ideas\nnow known as \"totemism\".\n\nThis, however, is a complex problem which I cannot stay to discuss here.\n\nWhen the cow became identified with the Great Mother and the moon was\nregarded as the dwelling or the personification of the same goddess, the\nDivine Cow by a process of confused syncretism came to be regarded as\nthe sky or the heavens, to which the dead were raised up on the cow's\nback. When Re became the dominant deity, he was identified with the sky,\nand the sun and moon were then regarded as his eyes. Thus the moon, as\nthe Great Mother as well as the Eye of Re, was the bond of\nidentification of the Great Mother with an eye. This was probably how\nthe eye acquired the animating powers of the Giver of Life.\n\nA whole volume might be written upon the almost world-wide diffusion of\nthese beliefs regarding the cow, as far as Scotland and Ireland in the\nwest, and in their easterly migration probably as far as America, to the\nconfusion alike of its ancient artists and its modern ethnologists.[104]\n\nAs an illustration of the identification of the cow's attributes with\nthose of the life-giving Great Mother, I might refer to the late\nProfessor Moulton's commentary[105] on the ancient Iranian Gathas, where\ncow's flesh is given to mortals by Yima to make them immortal. \"May we\nconnect it with another legend whereby at the Regeneration Mithra is to\nmake men immortal by giving them to eat the fat of the ... primeval Cow\nfrom whose slain body, according to the Aryan legends adopted by\nMithraism, mankind was first created?\"[106]\n\n\n[103: See A. Moret, _op. cit._ p. 81, _inter alia_.]\n\n[104: See the Copan sculptured monuments described by Maudslay in Godman\nand Salvin's \"Biologia Centrali-Americana,\" Archaeology, Plate 46,\nrepresenting \"Stela D,\" with two serpents in the places occupied by the\nIndian elephants in Stela B--concerning which see _Nature_, November 25,\n1915. To one of these intertwined serpents is attached a cow-headed\nhuman daemon. Compare also the Chiriqui figure depicted by MacCurdy,\n\"A Study of Chiriquian Antiquities,\" Yale University Press, 1911, fig.\n361, p. 209.]\n\n[105: \"Early Religious Poetry of Persia,\" pp. 42 and 43.]\n\n[106: _Op. cit._ p. 43. But I think these legends accredited to the\nAryans owe their parentage to the same source as the Egyptian beliefs\nconcerning the cow, and especially the remarkable mysteries upon which\nMoret has been endeavouring to throw some light--\"Mysteres Egyptiens,\"\np. 43.]\n\n\nThe Diffusion of Culture.\n\nIn these pages I have made no attempt to deal with the far-reaching and\nintricate problems of the diffusion abroad of the practices and beliefs\nwhich I have been discussing. But the thoughts and the aspirations of\nevery cultured people are permeated through and through with their\ninfluence.\n\nIt is important to remember that in almost every stage of the\ndevelopment of these complex customs and ideas not merely the \"finished\nproduct\" but also the ingredients out of which it was built up were\nbeing scattered abroad.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI shall briefly refer to certain evidence from Asia and America in\nillustration of this fact and in substantiation of the reality of the\ndiffusion to the East of some of the beliefs I have been discussing.\n\nThe unity of Egyptian and Babylonian ideas is nowhere more strikingly\ndemonstrated than in the essential identity of the attributes of Osiris\nand Ea. It affords the most positive proof of the derivation of the\nbeliefs from some common source, and reveals the fact that Egyptian and\nSumerian civilizations must have been in intimate cultural contact at\nthe beginning of their developmental history. \"In Babylonia, as in\nEgypt, there were differences of opinion regarding the origin of life\nand the particular natural element which represented the vital\nprinciple.\" \"One section of the people, who were represented by the\nworshippers of Ea, appear to have believed that the essence of life was\ncontained in water. The god of Eridu was the source of the 'water of\nlife'.\"[107]\n\n\"Offerings of water and food were made to the dead,\" not primarily so\nthat they might be \"prevented from troubling the living,\"[108] but to\nsupply them with the means of sustenance and to reanimate them to help\nthe suppliants. It is a common belief that these and other procedures\nwere inspired by fear of the dead. But such a statement does not\naccurately represent the attitude of mind of the people who devised\nthese funerary ceremonies. For it is not the enemies of the dead or\nthose against whom he had a grudge that run a risk at funerals, but\nrather his friends; and the more deeply he was attached to a particular\nperson the greater the danger for the latter. For among many people\nthe belief obtains that when a man dies he will endeavour to steal\nthe \"soul-substance\" of those who are dearest to him so that they\nmay accompany him to the other world. But as stealing the\n\"soul-substance\"[109] means death, it is easy to misunderstand such a\ndisplay of affection. Hence most people who long for life and hate death\ndo their utmost to evade such embarrassing tokens of love; and most\nethnologists, misjudging such actions, write about \"appeasing the dead\".\nIt was those whom the gods _loved_ who died young.\n\nEa was not only the god of the deep, but also \"lord of life,\" king of\nthe river and god of creation. Like Osiris \"he fertilized parched and\nsunburnt wastes through rivers and irrigating canals, and conferred upon\nman the sustaining 'food of life'.... The goddess of the dead commanded\nher servant to 'sprinkle the Lady Ishtar with the water of life'\" (_op.\ncit._, p. 44).\n\nIn Chapter III. of Mr. Mackenzie's book, from which I have just quoted,\nthere is an interesting collection of quotations clearly showing that\nthe conception of the vitalizing properties of the body moisture of gods\nis not restricted to Egypt, but is found also in Babylonia and India, in\nWestern Asia and Greece, and also in Western Europe.\n\nIt has been suggested that the name Ishtar has been derived from Semitic\nroots implying \"she who waters,\" \"she who makes fruitful\".[110]\n\nBarton claims that: \"The beginnings of Semitic religion as they were\nconceived by the Semites themselves go back to sexual relations ... the\nSemitic conception of deity ... embodies the truth--grossly indeed, but\nnevertheless embodies it--that 'God is love'\" (_op. cit._ p. 107). [This\nstatement, however, is very misleading--see Appendix C, p. 75.]\n\nThroughout the countries where Semitic[111] influence spread the\nprimitive Mother-Goddesses or some of their specialized variants are\nfound. But in every case the goddess is associated with many distinctive\ntraits which reveal her identity with her homologues in Cyprus,\nBabylonia, and Egypt.\n\nAmong the Sumerians \"life comes on earth through the introduction of\nwater and irrigation\".[112] \"Man also results from a union between the\nwater-gods.\"\n\nThe Akkadians held views which were almost the direct antithesis of\nthese. To them \"the watery deep is disorder, and the cosmos, the order\nof the world, is due to the victory of a god of light and spring over\nthe monster of winter and water; man is directly made by the gods\".[113]\n\n\"The Sumerian account of Beginnings centres around the production by the\ngods of water, Enki and his consort Nin-ella (or Dangal), of a great\nnumber of canals bringing rain to the desolate fields of a dry\ncontinent. Life both of vegetables and animals follows the profusion of\nthe vivifying waters.... In the process of life's production besides\nEnki, the personality of his consort is very conspicuous. She is called\n_Nin-Ella_, 'the pure Lady,' _Damgal-Nunna_, the 'great Lady of the\nWaters,' _Nin-Tu_, 'the Lady of Birth'\" (p. 301). The child of Enki and\nNin-ella was the ancestor of mankind.[114]\n\n\"In later traditions, the personality of that Great Lady seems to have\nbeen overshadowed by that of Ishtar, who absorbed several of her\nfunctions\" (p. 301).\n\nProfessor Carnoy fully demonstrates the derivation of certain early\nso-called \"Aryan\" beliefs from Chaldea. In the Iranian account of the\ncreation \"the great spring Ardvi Sura Anahita is the\nlife-increasing, the herd-increasing, the fold-increasing who makes\nprosperity for all countries (Yt. 5, 1) ... that precious spring is\nworshipped as a goddess ... and is personified as a handsome and stately\nwoman. She is a fair maid, most strong, tall of form, high-girded. Her\narms are white and thick as a horse's shoulder or still thicker. She is\nfull of gracefulness\" (Yt. 5, 7, 64, 78). \"Professor Cumont thinks that\nAnahita is Ishtar ... she is a goddess of fecundation and birth.\nMoreover in Achaemenian inscriptions Anahita is associated with Ahura\nMazdah and Mithra, a triad corresponding to the Chaldean triad:\nSin-Shamash-Ishtar. [Greek: Anaitis] in Strabo and other Greek writers\nis treated as [Greek: Aphrodite]\" (p. 302).\n\nBut in Mesopotamia also the same views were entertained as in Egypt of\nthe functions of statues.\n\n\"The statues hidden in the recesses of the temples or erected on the\nsummits of the 'Ziggurats' became imbued, by virtue of their\nconsecration, with the actual body of the god whom they represented.\"\nThus Marduk is said to \"inhabit his image\" (Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 64).\n\nThis is precisely the idea which the Egyptians had. Even at the present\nday it survives among the Dravidian peoples of India.[115] They make\nimages of their village deities, which may be permanent or only\ntemporary, but in any case they are regarded not as actual deities but\nas the \"bodies\" so to speak into which these deities can enter. They are\nsacred only when they are so animated by the goddess. The ritual of\nanimation is essentially identical with that found in Ancient Egypt.\nLibations are poured out; incense is burnt; the bleeding right fore-leg\nof a buffalo constitutes the blood-offering.[116] When the deity is\nreanimated by these procedures and its consciousness restored by the\nblood-offering it can hear appeals and speak.\n\nThe same attitude towards their idols was adopted by the Polynesians.\n\"The priest usually addressed the image, into which it was imagined the\ngod entered when anyone came to inquire his will.\"[117]\n\nBut there are certain other aspects of these Indian customs that are of\npeculiar interest. In my Ridgeway essay (_op. cit. supra_) I referred to\nthe means by which in Nubia the degradation of the oblong Egyptian\n_mastaba_ gave rise to the simple stone circle. This type spread to the\nwest along the North African littoral, and also to the Eastern desert\nand Palestine. At some subsequent time mariners from the Red Sea\nintroduced this practice into India.\n\n[It is important to bear in mind that two other classes of stone circles\nwere invented. One of them was derived, not from the _mastaba_ itself,\nbut from the enclosing wall surrounding it (see my Ridgeway essay, Fig.\n13, p. 531, and compare with Figs. 3 and 4, p. 510, for illustrations of\nthe transformed _mastaba_-type). This type of circle (enclosing a\ndolmen) is found both in the Caucasus-Caspian area as well as in India.\nA highly developed form of this encircling type of structure is seen in\nthe famous rails surrounding the Buddhist _stupas_ and _dagabas_. A\nthird and later form of circle, of which Stonehenge is an example, was\ndeveloped out of the much later New Empire Egyptian conception of\na temple.]\n\nBut at the same time, as in Nubia, and possibly in Libya, the _mastaba_\nwas being degraded into the first of the three main varieties of stone\ncircle, other, though less drastic, forms of simplification of the\n_mastaba_ were taking place, possibly in Egypt itself, but certainly\nupon the neighbouring Mediterranean coasts. In some respects the least\naltered copies of the _mastaba_ are found in the so-called \"giant's\ngraves\" of Sardinia and the \"horned cairns\" of the British Isles. But\nthe real features of the Egyptian _serdab_, which was the essential\npart, the nucleus so to speak, of the _mastaba_, are best preserved in\nthe so-called \"holed dolmens\" of the Levant, the Caucasus, and India.\n[They also occur sporadically in the West, as in France and Britain.]\n\nSuch dolmens and more simplified forms are scattered in Palestine,[118]\nbut are seen to best advantage upon the Eastern Littoral of the Black\nSea, the Caucasus, and the neighbourhood of the Caspian. They are found\nonly in scattered localities between the Black and Caspian Seas. As de\nMorgan has pointed out,[119] their distribution is explained by their\nassociation with ancient gold and copper mines. They were the tombs of\nimmigrant mining colonies who had settled in these definite localities\nto exploit these minerals.\n\nNow the same types of dolmens, also associated with ancient mines,[120]\nare found in India. There is some evidence to suggest that these\ndegraded types of Egyptian _mastabas_ were introduced into India at some\ntime after the adoption of the other, the Nubian modification of the\n_mastaba_ which is represented by the first variety of stone\ncircle.[121]\n\nI have referred to these Indian dolmens for the specific purpose of\nillustrating the complexities of the processes of diffusion of culture.\nFor not only have several variously specialized degradation-products of\nthe same original type of Egyptian _mastaba_ reached India, possibly by\ndifferent routes and at different times, but also many of the ideas\nthat developed out of the funerary ritual in Egypt--of which the\n_mastaba_ was merely one of the manifestations--made their way to India\nat various times and became secondarily blended with other expressions\nof the same or associated ideas there. I have already referred to the\nessential elements of the Egyptian funerary ritual--the statues,\nincense, libations, and the rest--as still persisting among the\nDravidian peoples.\n\nBut in the Madras Presidency dolmens are found converted into Siva\ntemples.[122] Now in the inner chamber of the shrine--which represents\nthe homologue of the _serdab_--in place of the statue or bas-relief of\nthe deceased or of the deity, which is found in some of them (see Plate\nI), there is the stone _linga-yoni_ emblem in the position corresponding\nto that in which, in the later temple in the same locality (Kambaduru),\nthere is an image of Parvati, the consort of Siva.\n\nThe earliest deities in Egypt, both Osiris and Hathor, were really\nexpressions of the creative principle. In the case of Hathor, the\ngoddess was, in fact, the personification of the female organs of\nreproduction.[123] In these early Siva temples in India these principles\nof creation were given their literal interpretation, and represented\nfrankly as the organs of reproduction of the two sexes. The gods of\ncreation were symbolized by models in stone of the creating organs.\nFurther illustrations of the same principle are witnessed in the\nIndonesian megalithic monuments which Perry calls \"dissoliths\".[124]\n\nThe later Indian temples, both Buddhist and Hindu, were developed from\nthese early dolmens, as Mr. Longhurst's reports so clearly demonstrate.\nBut from time to time there was an influx of new ideas from the West\nwhich found expression in a series of modifications of the architecture.\nThus India provides an admirable illustration of this principle of\nculture contact. A series of waves of megalithic culture introduced\npurely Western ideas. These were developed by the local people in their\nown way, constantly intermingling a variety of cultural influences to\nweave them into a distinctive fabric, which was compounded partly of\nimported, partly of local threads, woven locally into a truly Indian\npattern. In this process of development one can detect the effects of\nMycenaean accretions (see for example Longhurst's Plate XIII), probably\nmodified during its indirect transmission by Phoenician and later\ninfluences; and also the more intimate part played by Babylonian,\nEgyptian, and, later, Greek and Persian art and architecture in\ndirecting the course of development of Indian culture.\n\nIncidentally, in the course of the discussions in the foregoing pages, I\nhave referred to the profound influence of Egyptian, Babylonian and\nIndian ideas in Eastern Asia. Perry's important book (_op. cit. supra_)\nreveals their efforts in Indonesia. Thence they spread across the\nPacific to America.\n\nIn the \"Migrations of Early Culture\" (p. 114) I called attention to the\nfact that among the Aztecs water was poured upon the head of the mummy.\nThis ritual procedure was inspired by the Egyptian idea of libations,\nfor, according to Brasseur de Bourbourg, the pouring out of the water\nwas accompanied by the remark \"C'est cette eau que tu as recue en venant\nan monde\".\n\nBut incense-burning and blood-offering were also practised in America.\nIn an interesting memoir[125] on the practice of blood-letting by\npiercing the ears and tongue, Mrs. Zelia Nuttall reproduces a remarkable\npicture from a \"partly unpublished MS. of Sahagun's work preserved in\nFlorence\". \"The image of the sun is held up by a man whose body is\npartly hidden, and two men, seated opposite to each other in the\nforeground, are in the act of piercing the helices or external borders\nof their ears.\" But in addition to these blood-offerings to the sun, two\npriests are burning incense in remarkably Egyptian-like censers, and\nanother pair are blowing conch-shell trumpets.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Representation of the ancient Mexican Worship of\nthe Sun.\n\nThe image of the sun is held up by a man in front of his face; two men\nblow conch-shell trumpets; another pair burn incense; and a third pair\nmake blood-offerings by piercing their ears--after Zelia Nuttall.]\n\nBut it was not merely the use of incense and libations and the\nidentities in the wholly arbitrary attributes of the American pantheon\nthat reveal the sources of their derivation in the Old World. When the\nSpaniards first visited Yucatan they found traces of a Maya baptismal\nrite which the natives called _zihil_, signifying \"to be born again\". At\nthe ceremony also incense was burnt.[126]\n\nThe forehead, the face, the fingers and toes were moistened. \"After they\nhad been thus sprinkled with water, the priest arose and removed the\ncloths from the heads of the children, and then cut off with a stone\nknife a certain bead that was attached to the head from childhood.\"[127]\n\n[The custom of wearing such a bead during childhood is found in Egypt at\nthe present day.]\n\nIn the case of the girls, their mothers \"divested them of a cord which\nwas worn during their childhood, fastened round the loins, having a\nsmall shell that hung in front ('una conchuela asida que les venia a dar\nencima de la parte honesta'--Landa). The removal of this signified that\nthey could marry.\"[128]\n\nThis use of shells is found in the Soudan and East Africa at the present\nday.[129] The girdle upon which the shells were hung is the prototype of\nthe cestus of Hathor, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Kali and all the goddesses of\nfertility in the Old World. It is an admirable illustration of the fact\nthat not only were the finished products, the goddesses and their\nfantastic repertory of attributes, transmitted to the New World, but\nalso the earliest and most primitive ingredients out of which the\ncomplexities of their traits were compounded.\n\nIn Chapter III (\"The Birth of Aphrodite\") I shall explain what an\nimportant part the invention of this girdle played in the development of\nthe material side of civilization and the even vaster influence it\nexerted upon beliefs and ethics. It represents the first stage in the\nevolution of clothing; and it was responsible for originating the belief\nin love-philtres and in the possibility of foretelling the future.\n\nIt would lead me too far from my main purpose in this book to discuss\nthe widespread geographical distribution and historical associations of\nthe customs of baptism and pouring libations among different peoples. I\nmay, however, refer the reader to an article by Mr. Elsdon Best,\nentitled \"Ceremonial Performances Pertaining to Birth, as Performed by\nthe Maori of New Zealand in Past Times\" (_Journal of the Royal\nAnthropological Institute_, Vol. XLIV, 1914, p. 127), which sheds a\nclear light upon the general problem.\n\nThe whole subject of baptismal ceremonies is well worth detailed study\nas a remarkable demonstration of the spread of culture in early times.\n\n\n[107: Donald A. Mackenzie, \"Myths of Babylonia and Assyria,\" p. 44 _et\nseq._]\n\n[108: Dr. Alan Gardiner has protested against the assertions of \"some\nEgyptologists, influenced more by anthropological theorists than by the\nunambiguous evidence of the Egyptian texts,\" to the effect that \"the\nfunerary rites and practices of the Egyptians were in the main\nprecautionary measures serving to protect the living against the dead\"\n(Article \"Life and Death (Egyptian),\" Hastings' _Encyclopaedia of\nReligion and Ethics_). I should like to emphasize the fact that the\n\"anthropological theorists,\" who so frequently put forward these claims\nhave little more justification for them than \"some Egyptologists\".\nCareful study of the best evidence from Babylonia, India, Indonesia, and\nJapan, reveals the fact that anthropologists who make such claims have\nin many cases misinterpreted the facts. In an article on \"Ancestor\nWorship\" by Professor Nobushige Hozumi in A. Stead's \"Japan by the\nJapanese\" (1904) the true point of view is put very clearly: \"The origin\nof ancestor-worship is ascribed by many eminent writers to the _dread of\nghosts_ and the sacrifices made to the souls of ancestors for the\npurpose of _propitiating_ them. It appears to me more correct to\nattribute the origin of ancestor-worship to a contrary cause. It was the\n_love_ of ancestors, not the _dread_ of them\" [Here he quotes the\nChinese philosophers Shiu-ki and Confucius in corroboration] that\nimpelled men to worship. \"We celebrate the anniversary of our ancestors,\npay visits to their graves, offer flowers, food and drink, burn incense\nand bow before their tombs, entirely from a feeling of love and respect\nfor their memory, and no question of 'dread' enters our minds in doing\nso\" (pp. 281 and 282). [See, however, Appendix B, p. 74.]]\n\n[109: For, as I have already explained, the idea so commonly and\nmistakenly conveyed by the term \"soul-substance\" by writers on\nIndonesian and Chinese beliefs would be much more accurately rendered\nsimply by the word \"life,\" so that the stealing of it necessarily means\ndeath.]\n\n[110: Barton, _op. cit._ p. 105.]\n\n[111: The evidence set forth in these pages makes it clear that such\nideas are not restricted to the Semites: nor is there any reason to\nsuppose that they originated amongst them.]\n\n[112: Albert J. Carnoy, \"Iranian Views of Origins in Connexion with\nSimilar Babylonian Beliefs,\" _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,\nVol. XXXVI, 1916, pp. 300-20.]\n\n[113: This is Professor Carnoy's summary of Professor Jastrow's views as\nexpressed in his article \"Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings\".]\n\n[114: Jastrow's interpretation of a recently-discovered tablet published\nby Langdon under the title _The Sumerian Epic of Paradise, the Flood and\nthe Fall of Man_.]\n\n[115: I have already (p. 43) mentioned the fact that it is still\npreserved in China also.]\n\n[116: Henry Whitehead (Bishop of Madras), \"The Village Deities of\nSouthern India,\" Madras Government Museum, Bull., Vol. V, No. 3, 1907;\nWilber Theodore Elmore, \"Dravidian Gods in Modern Hinduism: A Study of\nthe Local and Village Deities of Southern India,\" University Studies:\nUniversity of Nebraska, Vol. XV, No. 1, Jan., 1915. Compare the\nsacrifice of the fore-leg of a living calf in Egypt--A. E. P. B.\nWeigall, \"An Ancient Egyptian Funeral Ceremony,\" _Journal of Egyptian\nArchaeology_, Vol. II, 1915, p. 10. Early literary references from\nBabylonia suggest that a similar method of offering blood was practised\nthere.]\n\n[117: William Ellis, \"Polynesian Researches,\" 2nd edition, 1832, Vol. I,\np. 373.]\n\n[118: See H. Vincent, \"Canaan d'apres l'exploration recente,\" Paris,\n1907, p. 395.]\n\n[119: \"Les Premieres Civilizations,\" Paris, 1909, p. 404: Memoires de la\nDelegation en Perse, Tome VIII, archeol.; and Mission Scientifique au\nCaucase, Tome I.]\n\n[120: W. J. Perry, \"The Relationship between the Geographical\nDistribution of Megalithic Monuments and Ancient Mines,\" _Memoirs and\nProceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society_, Vol.\n60, Part I, 24th Nov., 1915.]\n\n[121: The evidence for this is being prepared for publication by Captain\nLeonard Munn, R.E., who has personally collected the data in Hyderabad.]\n\n[122: Annual Report of the Archaeological Department, Southern Circle,\nMadras, for the year 1915-1916. See for example Mr. A. H. Longhurst's\nphotographs and plans (Plates I-IV) and especially that of the old Siva\ntemple at Kambaduru, Plate IV (b).]\n\n[123: As I shall show in \"The Birth of Aphrodite\" (Chapter III).]\n\n[124: W. J. Perry, \"The Megalithic Culture of Indonesia\".]\n\n[125: \"A Penitential Rite of the Ancient Mexicans,\" Archaeological and\nEthnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. I,\nNo. 7, 1904.]\n\n[126: Bancroft, _op. cit._ Vol. II, pp. 682 and 683.]\n\n[127: _Op. cit._ p. 684.]\n\n[128: _Ibid._]\n\n[129: See J. Wilfrid Jackson, _op. cit. supra_.]\n\n\nSummary.\n\nIn these pages I have ranged over a very wide field of speculation,\ngroping in the dim shadows of the early history of civilization. I have\nbeen attempting to pick up a few of the threads which ultimately became\nwoven into the texture of human beliefs and aspirations, and to suggest\nthat the practice of mummification was the woof around which the web of\ncivilization was intimately intertwined.\n\nI have already explained how closely that practice was related to the\norigin and development of architecture, which Professor Lethaby has\ncalled the \"matrix of civilization,\" and how nearly the ideas that grew\nup in explanation and in justification of the ritual of embalming were\naffected by the practice of agriculture, the second great pillar of\nsupport for the edifice of civilization. It has also been shown how\nfar-reaching was the influence exerted by the needs of the embalmer,\nwhich impelled men, probably for the first time in history, to plan and\ncarry out great expeditions by sea and land to obtain the necessary\nresins and the balsams, the wood and the spices. Incidentally also in\ncourse of time the practice of mummification came to exert a profound\neffect upon the means for the acquisition of a knowledge of medicine and\nall the sciences ancillary to it.\n\nBut I have devoted chief attention to the bearing of the ideas which\ndeveloped out of the practice and ritual of embalming upon the spirit of\nman. It gave shape and substance to the belief in a future life; it was\nperhaps the most important factor in the development of a definite\nconception of the gods: it laid the foundation of the ideas which\nsubsequently were built up into a theory of the soul: in fact, it was\nintimately connected with the birth of all those ideals and aspirations\nwhich are now included in the conception of religious belief and ritual.\nA multitude of other trains of thought were started amidst the\nintellectual ferment of the formulation of the earliest concrete system\nof biological theory. The idea of the properties and functions of water\nwhich had previously sprung up in connexion with the development of\nagriculture became crystallized into a more definite form as the result\nof the development of mummification, and this has played an obtrusive\npart in religion, in philosophy and in medicine ever since. Moreover its\ninfluence has become embalmed for all time in many languages and in the\nritual of every religion.\n\nBut it was a factor in the development not merely of religious beliefs,\ntemples and ritual, but it was also very closely related to the origin\nof much of the paraphernalia of the gods and of current popular beliefs.\nThe swastika and the thunderbolt, dragons and demons, totemism and the\nsky-world are all of them conceptions that were more or less closely\nconnected with the matters I have been discussing.\n\nThe ideas which grew up in association with the practice of\nmummification were responsible for the development of the temple and its\nritual and for a definite formulation of the conception of deities. But\nthey were also responsible for originating a priesthood. For the\nresuscitation of the dead king, Osiris, and for the maintenance of his\nexistence it was necessary for his successor, the reigning king, to\nperform the ritual of animation and the provision of food and drink. The\nking, therefore, was the first priest, and his functions were not\nprimarily acts of worship but merely the necessary preliminaries for\nrestoring life and consciousness to the dead seer so that he could\nconsult him and secure his advice and help.\n\nIt was only when the number of temples became so great and their ritual\nso complex and elaborate as to make it a physical impossibility for the\nking to act in this capacity in all of them and on every occasion that\nhe was compelled to delegate some of his priestly functions to others,\neither members of the royal family or high officials. In course of time\ncertain individuals devoted themselves exclusively to these duties and\nbecame professional priests; but it is important to remember that at\nfirst it was the exclusive privilege of Horus, the reigning king, to\nintercede with Osiris, the dead king, on behalf of men, and that the\nearliest priesthood consisted of those individuals to whom he had\ndelegated some of these duties.\n\nIn conclusion I should like to express in words what must be only too\napparent to every reader of this statement. It claims to be nothing more\nthan a contribution to the study of some of the most difficult problems\nin the history of human thought. For one so ill-equipped for a task of\nsuch a nature as I am to attempt it calls for a word of explanation. The\nclear light that recent research has shed upon the earliest literature\nin the world has done much to destroy the foundations upon which the\ntheories propounded by scholars have been built up. It seemed to be\nworth while to attempt to read afresh the voluminous mass of old\ndocuments with the illumination of this new information.\n\nThe other reason for making such an attempt is that almost every modern\nscholar who has discussed the matters at issue has assumed that the\nfashionable doctrine of the independent development of human beliefs and\npractices was a safe basis upon which to construct his theories. At best\nit is an unproven and reckless speculation. I am convinced it is utterly\nfalse. Holding such views I have attempted to read the evidence afresh.\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\nOn re-reading the discussion of the significance of the _ka_ I realize\nthat, in striving after brevity and conciseness--to keep the size of my\nstatement within the limits of the _Bulletin of the John Rylands\nLibrary_, generously elastic though it is--I have left the argument in a\nrather nebulous form.\n\nIt must not be imagined that a concrete-minded people like the ancient\nEgyptians entertained highly abstract and ethereal ideas about \"the\nsoul\". They recognized that all the expressions of consciousness and\npersonality could cease during sleep; and at the same time the phenomena\nof dreams seemed to afford evidence that these absent elements of the\nindividual's being were enjoying real experiences elsewhere. Thus there\nwas an _alter ego_, identified by this matter-of-fact people with the\ntwin (placenta) which was born with the child and was clearly concerned\nwith its physical and intellectual nourishment--for it was obviously\nconnected by its stalk to the embryo like a tree to its roots, and it\nseemed to be composed of blood, which was regarded as the vehicle of\nmind. But this intellectual \"twin\" kept pace in its growth with the\nphysical body. When a statue was made to represent the latter the _ka_\ncould dwell in the real body or the statue.\n\nThe identification of the placenta with the moon helped the growth of\nthe conception that this \"birth-promoter\" could not only bring about a\nre-birth in the life to come, but also facilitate a transference to the\nsky-world. The placenta had already been superintending the deceased's\nwelfare upon earth and would continue to do so when he rejoined his _ka_\nin the sky world.\n\nThe complexity of the conception is due to the fact that the simple\nearly belief in \"a double\" was gradually elaborated, as one new idea\nafter another became added to it, and rationalized to blend with the\nformer complex in an increasingly involved synthesis. It was only when\nthe elaborate scaffolding of material factors was cleared away that a\nmore ethereal conception of \"the soul\" was sublimated.\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nI should like to emphasize the fact that my protest (on p. 63) was\ndirected against the claim that the custom of offering food and drink to\nthe dead was inspired _primarily_ to prevent them from troubling the\nliving. Its original purpose was to sustain and reanimate the dead; but,\nof course, when its real meaning was forgotten, it was explained in a\ngreat variety of ways by the people who made a practice of presenting\nofferings to the dead without really knowing why they did so.\n\nDr. Alan Gardiner himself has made a statement which casual readers\n(i.e., those who do not discriminate between the motive for the\ninvention of a procedure and the reasons subsequently given for its\ncontinuance) might regard as a contradiction of my quotation from his\nwritings on p. 62. Thus he says: \"Any god could doubtless attack human\nbeings, but savage and malicious deities, like Seth [Set], the murderer\nof Osiris, or Sakhmet, [Sekhet], the 'lady of pestilence' (_nb-t 'idw_),\nwere doubtless most to be feared.\" [This attitude of the malignant\ngoddesses is revealed in a most obtrusive form in the village deities of\nthe Dravidians of Southern India.] \"The dead were specially to be\nfeared; nor was it only those dead who were unhappy or unburied that\nmight torment the living, for the magician sometimes warns them that\ntheir tombs are endangered\" (Article \"Magic (Egyptian),\" _Hastings'\nEncycl. Ethics and Religion_, p. 264).\n\nBut it is important to bear in mind, as the same scholar has explained\nelsewhere [\"Life and Death (Egyptian),\" _Hastings' Encycl._, p. 23]:\n\"Nothing could be farther from the truth [than the statement that 'the\nfunerary rites and practices of the Egyptians were in the main\nprecautionary measures serving to protect the living against the dead'];\nit is of fundamental importance to realize that the vast stores of\nwealth and thought expended by the Egyptians on their tombs--that wealth\nand that thought which created not only the pyramids, but also the\npractice of mummification and a very extensive funerary literature--were\ndue to the anxiety of each member of the community with regard to his\nown individual future welfare, and not to feelings of respect, or fear,\nor duty felt towards the other dead.\"\n\nIt was only in response to certain binding obligations that the living\nobserved all those costly and troublesome rules which were believed to\ninsure the welfare of the deceased. But this recognition of the primary\nand real purpose of the food offerings as sustenance for the dead or the\ngods must not be allowed to blind us to the fact that there is\nwidespread throughout the world a real fear of the dead and ghosts, and\nthat in many places food-offerings are made for the specific purpose \"of\nappeasing the fairies\".\n\nMr. Donald Mackenzie tells me that offerings of milk and porridge are\nmade at the stone monuments in Scotland, and children carry meal in\ntheir pockets to protect themselves from the fairies. For the dead went\nto Fairyland.\n\nBeliefs of a similar kind can be collected from most parts of the world:\nbut the point I specially want to emphasize is that they are _secondary_\nrationalizations of a custom which originally had an utterly different\nsignificance.\n\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\nProf. Barton's statement (_supra_, p. 64) is typical of a widespread\nmisapprehension, resulting from the confusion between sexual relations\nand the giving of life. At first primitive people did not realize that\nthe manifestations of the sex instinct had anything whatever to do with\nreproduction. They were aware of the fact that women gave birth to\nchildren; and the organ concerned in this process was regarded as the\ngiver of life, the creator. The apotheosis of these powers led to the\nconception of the first deity. But it was only secondarily that these\nlife-giving attributes were brought into association with the sexual act\nand the masculine powers of fertilization. Much confusion has been\ncreated by those writers who see manifestations of the sexual factor and\nphallic ideas in every aspect of primitive religion, where in most cases\nonly the power of life-giving plays a part.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nDRAGONS AND RAIN GODS.[130]\n\n\nAn adequate account of the development of the dragon-legend would\nrepresent the history of the expression of mankind's aspirations and\nfears during the past fifty centuries and more. For the dragon was\nevolved along with civilization itself. The search for the elixir of\nlife, to turn back the years from old age and confer the boon of\nimmortality, has been the great driving force that compelled men to\nbuild up the material and the intellectual fabric of civilization. The\ndragon-legend is the history of that search which has been preserved by\npopular tradition: it has grown up and kept pace with the constant\nstruggle to grasp the unattainable goal of men's desires; and the story\nhas been constantly growing in complexity, as new incidents were drawn\nwithin its scope and confused with old incidents whose real meaning was\nforgotten or distorted. It has passed through all the phases with which\nthe study of the spreading of rumours or the development of dreams has\nfamiliarized students of psychology. The simple original stories, which\nbecome blended and confused, their meaning distorted and reinterpreted\nby the rationalizing of incoherent incidents, are given the dramatic\nform with which the human mind invests all stories that make a strong\nappeal to its emotions, and then secondarily elaborated with a wealth of\ncircumstantial detail. This is the history of popular legends and the\ndevelopment of rumours. But these phenomena are displayed in their most\nemphatic form in dreams.[131] In his waking state man restrains his\nroving fancies and exercises what Freud has called a \"censorship\" over\nthe stream of his thoughts: but when he falls asleep, the \"censor\" dozes\nalso; and free rein is given to his unrestrained fancies to make a\nhotch-potch of the most varied and unrelated incidents, and to create a\nfantastic mosaic built up from fragments of his actual experience, bound\ntogether by the cement of his aspirations and fears. The myth resembles\nthe dream because it has developed without any consistent and effective\ncensorship. The individual who tells one particular phase of the story\nmay exert the controlling influence of his mind over the version he\nnarrates: but as it is handed on from man to man and generation to\ngeneration the \"censorship\" also is constantly changing. This lack of\nunity of control implies that the development of the myth is not unlike\nthe building-up of a dream-story. But the dragon-myth is vastly more\ncomplex than any dream, because mankind as a whole has taken a hand in\nthe process of shaping it; and the number of centuries devoted to this\nwork of elaboration has been far greater than the years spent by the\naverage individual in accumulating the stuff of which most of his dreams\nhave been made. But though the myth is enormously complex, so vast a\nmass of detailed evidence concerning every phase and every detail of its\nhistory has been preserved, both in the literature and the folk-lore of\nthe world, that we are able to submit it to psychological analysis and\ndetermine the course of its development and the significance of every\nincident in its tortuous rambling.\n\nIn instituting these comparisons between the development of myths and\ndreams, I should like to emphasize the fact that the interpretation of\nthe _myth_ proposed in these pages is almost diametrically opposed to\nthat suggested by Freud, and pushed to a _reductio ad absurdum_ by his\nmore reckless followers, and especially by Yung.\n\nThe dragon has been described as \"the most venerable symbol employed in\nornamental art and the favourite and most highly decorative motif in\nartistic design\". It has been the inspiration of much, if not most, of\nthe world's great literature in every age and clime, and the nucleus\naround which a wealth of ethical symbolism has accumulated throughout\nthe ages. The dragon-myth represents also the earliest doctrine or\nsystematic theory of astronomy and meteorology.\n\nIn the course of its romantic and chequered history the dragon has been\nidentified with all of the gods and all of the demons of every religion.\nBut it is most intimately associated with the earliest stratum of\ndivinities, for it has been homologized with each of the members of the\nearliest Trinity, the Great Mother, the Water God, and the Warrior Sun\nGod, both individually and collectively. To add to the complexities of\nthe story, the dragon-slayer is also represented by the same deities,\neither individually or collectively; and the weapon with which the hero\nslays the dragon is also homologous both with him and his victim, for it\nis animated by him who wields it, and its powers of destruction make it\na symbol of the same power of evil which it itself destroys.\n\nSuch a fantastic paradox of contradictions has supplied the materials\nwith which the fancies of men of every race and land, and every stage of\nknowledge and ignorance, have been playing for all these centuries. It\nis not surprising, therefore, that an endless series of variations of\nthe story has been evolved, each decked out with topical allusions and\ndistinctive embellishments. But throughout the complex tissue of this\nhighly embroidered fabric the essential threads of the web and woof of\nits foundation can be detected with surprising constancy and regularity.\n\nWithin the limits of such an account as this it is obvious that I can\ndeal only with the main threads of the argument and leave the\ninteresting details of the local embellishments until some other time.\n\nThe fundamental element in the dragon's powers is the control of water.\nBoth in its beneficent and destructive aspects water was regarded as\nanimated by the dragon, who thus assumed the role of Osiris or his enemy\nSet. But when the attributes of the Water God became confused with those\nof the Great Mother, and her evil avatar, the lioness (Sekhet) form of\nHathor in Egypt, or in Babylonia the destructive Tiamat, became the\nsymbol of disorder and chaos, the dragon became identified with\nher also.\n\nSimilarly the third member of the Earliest Trinity also became the\ndragon. As the son and successor of the dead king Osiris the living king\nHorus became assimilated with him. When the belief became more and more\ninsistent that the dead king had acquired the boon of immortality and\nwas really alive, the distinction between him and the actually living\nking Horus became correspondingly minimized. This process of\nassimilation was advanced a further stage when the king became a god and\nwas thus more closely identified with his father and predecessor. Hence\nHorus assumed many of the functions of Osiris; and amongst them those\nwhich in foreign lands contributed to making a dragon of the Water God.\nBut if the distinction between Horus and Osiris became more and more\nattenuated with the lapse of time, the identification with his mother\nHathor (Isis) was more complete still. For he took her place and assumed\nmany of her attributes in the later versions of the great saga which is\nthe nucleus of all the literature of mythology--I refer to the story of\n\"The Destruction Of Mankind\".\n\nThe attributes of these three members of the Trinity, Hathor, Osiris,\nand Horus, thus became intimately linked the one with the other; and in\nSusa, where the earliest pictorial representation of a real dragon\ndeveloped, it received concrete form (Fig. 1) as a monster compounded of\nthe lioness of Hathor (Sekhet) with the falcon (or eagle) of Horus, but\nwith the human attributes and water-controlling powers which originally\nbelonged to Osiris. In some parts of Africa the earliest \"dragon\" was\nnothing more than Hathor's cow or the gazelle or antelope of Horus\n(Osiris) or of Set.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Early Representation of a \"Dragon\" Compounded of\nthe Forepart of an Eagle and the Hindpart of a Lion--(from an Archaic\nCylinder-seal from Susa, after Jequier).]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 2.--The Earliest Babylonian Conception of the Dragon\nTiamat--(from a Cylinder-seal in the British Museum, after L. W. King).]\n\nBut if the dragon was compounded of all three deities, who was the\nslayer of the evil dragon?\n\nThe story of the dragon-conflict is really a recital of Horus's vendetta\nagainst Set, intimately blended and confused with different versions of\n\"The Destruction of Mankind\".[132] The commonplace incidents of the\noriginally prosaic stories were distorted into an almost unrecognizable\nform, then secondarily elaborated without any attention to their\noriginal meaning, but with a wealth of circumstantial embellishment, in\naccordance with the usual methods of the human mind that I have already\nmentioned. The history of the legend is in fact the most complete,\nbecause it is the oldest and the most widespread, illustration of those\ninstinctive tendencies of the human spirit to bridge the gaps in its\ndisjointed experience, and to link together in a kind of mental mosaic\nthe otherwise isolated incidents in the facts of daily life and the\nrumours and traditions that have been handed down from the\nstory-teller's predecessors.\n\nIn the \"Destruction of Mankind,\" which I shall discuss more fully in the\nfollowing pages (p. 109 _et seq._), Hathor does the slaying: in the\nlater stories Horus takes his mother's place and earns his spurs as the\nWarrior Sun-god:[133] hence confusion was inevitably introduced between\nthe enemies of Re, the original victims in the legend, and Horus's\ntraditional enemies, the followers of Set. Against the latter it was\nOsiris himself who fought originally; and in many of the non-Egyptian\nvariants of the legend it is the rain-god himself who is the warrior.\n\nHence all three members of the Trinity were identified, not only with\nthe dragon, but also with the hero who was the dragon-slayer.\n\nBut the weapon used by the latter was also animated by the same Trinity,\nand in fact identified with them. In the Saga of the Winged Disk, Horus\nassumed the form of the sun equipped with the wings of his own falcon\nand the fire-spitting uraeus serpents. Flying down from heaven in this\nform he was at the same time the god and the god's weapon. As a fiery\nbolt from heaven he slew the enemies of Re, who were now identified with\nhis own personal foes, the followers of Set. But in the earlier versions\nof the myth (i.e. the \"Destruction of Mankind\"), it was Hathor who was\nthe \"Eye of Re\" and descended from heaven to destroy mankind with fire;\nshe also was the vulture (Mut); and in the earliest version she did the\nslaughter with a knife or an axe with which she was animistically\nidentified.\n\nBut Osiris also was the weapon of destruction, both in the form of the\nflood (for he was the personification of the river) and the rain-storms\nfrom heaven. But he was also an instrument for vanquishing the demon,\nwhen the intoxicating beer or the sedative drink (the potency of which\nwas due to the indwelling spirit of the god) was the chosen means of\novercoming the dragon.\n\nThis, in brief, is the framework of the dragon-story. The early Trinity\nas the hero, armed with the Trinity as weapon, slays the dragon,\nwhich again is the same Trinity. With its illimitable possibilities for\ndramatic development and fantastic embellishment with incident and\nethical symbolism, this theme has provided countless thousands of\nstory-tellers with the skeleton which they clothed with the living flesh\nof their stories, representing not merely the earliest theories of\nastronomy and meteorology, but all the emotional conflicts of daily\nlife, the struggle between light and darkness, heat and cold, right and\nwrong, justice and injustice, prosperity and adversity, wealth and\npoverty. The whole gamut of human strivings and emotions was drawn\ninto the legend until it became the great epic of the human spirit and\nthe main theme that has appealed to the interest of all mankind in\nevery age.\n\nAn ancient Chinese philosopher, Wang Fu, writing in the time of the Han\nDynasty, enumerates the \"nine resemblances\" of the dragon. \"His horns\nresemble those of a stag, his head that of a camel, his eyes those of a\ndemon, his neck that of a snake, his belly that of a clam, his scales\nthose of a carp, his claws those of an eagle, his soles those of a\ntiger, his ears those of a cow.\"[134] But this list includes only a\nsmall minority of the menagerie of diverse creatures which at one time\nor another have contributed their quota to this truly astounding\nhotch-potch.\n\nThis composite wonder-beast ranges from Western Europe to the Far East\nof Asia, and as we shall see, also even across the Pacific to America.\nAlthough in the different localities a great number of most varied\ningredients enter into its composition, in most places where the dragon\noccurs the substratum of its anatomy consists of a serpent or a\ncrocodile, usually with the scales of a fish for covering, and the feet\nand wings, and sometimes also the head, of an eagle, falcon, or hawk,\nand the forelimbs and sometimes the head of a lion. An association of\nanatomical features of so unnatural and arbitrary a nature can only mean\nthat all dragons are the progeny of the same ultimate ancestors.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 7.--A Mediaeval Picture of a Chinese Dragon upon its\ncloud (After the late Professor W. Anderson)]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 8.--A Chinese Dragon (After de Groot)]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 9.--Dragon from the Ishtar Gate of Babylon]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Babylonian Weather God]\n\nBut it is not merely a case of structural or anatomical similarity, but\nalso of physiological identity, that clinches the proof of the\nderivation of this fantastic brood from the same parents. Wherever the\ndragon is found, it displays a special partiality for water. It controls\nthe rivers or seas, dwells in pools or wells, or in the clouds on the\ntops of mountains, regulates the tides, the flow of streams, or the\nrainfall, and is associated with thunder and lightning. Its home is a\nmansion at the bottom of the sea, where it guards vast treasures,\nusually pearls, but also gold and precious stones. In other instances\nthe dwelling is upon the top of a high mountain; and the dragon's breath\nforms the rain-clouds. It emits thunder and lightning. Eating the\ndragon's heart enables the diner to acquire the knowledge stored in this\n\"organ of the mind\" so that he can understand the language of birds,\nand in fact of all the creatures that have contributed to the making\nof a dragon.\n\nIt should not be necessary to rebut the numerous attempts that have been\nmade to explain the dragon-myth as a story relating to extinct monsters.\nSuch fantastic claims can be made only by writers devoid of any\nknowledge of palaeontology or of the distinctive features of the dragon\nand its history. But when the Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian\nAntiquities in the British Museum, in a book that is not intended to be\nhumorous,[135] seriously claims Dr. Andrews' discovery of a gigantic\nfossil snake as \"proof\" of the former existence of \"the great\nserpent-devil Apep,\" it is time to protest.\n\nThose who attempt to derive the dragon from such living creatures as\nlizards like _Draco volans_ or _Moloch horridus_[136] ignore the\nevidence of the composite and unnatural features of the monsters.\n\n\"Whatever be the origin of the Northern dragon, the myths, when they\nfirst became articulate for us, show him to be in all essentials the\nsame as that of the South and East. He is a power of evil, guardian of\nhoards, the greedy withholder of good things from men; and the slaying\nof a dragon is the crowning achievement of heroes--of Siegmund, of\nBeowulf, of Sigurd, of Arthur, of Tristam--even of Lancelot, the _beau\nideal_ of mediaeval chivalry\" (_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, vol. viii., p.\n467). But if in the West the dragon is usually a \"power of evil,\" in the\nfar East he is equally emphatically a symbol of beneficence. He is\nidentified with emperors and kings; he is the son of heaven the bestower\nof all bounties, not merely to mankind directly, but also to the earth\nas well.\n\nEven in our country his symbolism is not always wholly malevolent,\notherwise--if for the moment we shut our eyes to the history of the\ndevelopment of heraldic ornament--dragons would hardly figure as the\nsupporters of the arms of the City of London, and as the symbol of many\nof our aristocratic families, among which the Royal House of Tudor is\nincluded. It is only a few years since the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was\nadded as an additional badge to the achievement of the Prince of Wales.\nBut, \"though a common ensign in war, both in the East and the West, as\nan ecclesiastical emblem his opposite qualities have remained\nconsistently until the present day. Whenever the dragon is represented,\nit symbolizes the power of evil, the devil and his works. Hell in\nmediaeval art is a dragon with gaping jaws, belching fire.\"\n\nAnd in the East the dragon's reputation is not always blameless. For it\nfigures in some disreputable incidents and does not escape the sort of\npunishment that tradition metes out to his European cousins.\n\n\n[130: An elaboration of a Lecture delivered in the John Rylands Library\non 8 November, 1916.]\n\n[131: In his lecture, \"Dreams and Primitive Culture,\" delivered at the\nJohn Rylands Library on 10 April, 1918, Dr. Rivers has expounded the\nprinciples of dream-development.]\n\n[132: _Vide infra_, p. 109 _et seq._]\n\n[133: Hence soldiers killed in battle and women dying in childbirth\nreceive special consideration in the exclusive heaven of (Osiris's)\nHorus's Indian and American representatives, Indra and Tlaloc.]\n\n[134: M. W. de Visser, \"The Dragon in China and Japan,\" _Verhandelingen\nder Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam_, Afdeeling\nLetterkunde, Deel XIII, No. 2, 1913, p. 70.]\n\n[135: E. A. Wallis Budge, \"The Gods of the Egyptians,\" 1904, vol. i,\np. 11]\n\n[136: Gould's \"Mythical Monsters,\" 1886.]\n\n\nThe Dragon in America and Eastern Asia.\n\nIn the early centuries of the Christian era, and probably also even for\ntwo or three hundred years earlier still, the leaven of the ancient\ncivilizations of the Old World was at work in Mexico, Central America\nand Peru. The most obtrusive influences that were brought to bear,\nespecially in the area from Yucatan to Mexico, were inspired by the\nCambodian and Indonesian modifications of Indian beliefs and practices.\nThe god who was most often depicted upon the ancient Maya and Aztec\ncodices was the Indian rain-god Indra, who in America was provided with\nthe head of the Indian elephant[137] (i.e. seems to have been confused\nwith the Indian Ganesa) and given other attributes more suggestive of\nthe Dravidian Naga than his enemy, the Aryan deity. In other words the\ncharacter of the American god, known as _Chac_ by the Maya people and as\n_Tlaloc_ by the Aztecs, is an interesting illustration of the effects of\nsuch a mixture of cultures as Dr. Rivers has studied in Melanesia.[138]\nNot only does the elephant-headed god in America represent a blend of\nthe two great Indian rain-gods which in the Old World are mortal\nenemies, the one of the other (partly for the political reason that the\nDravidians and Aryans were rival and hostile peoples), but all the\ntraits of each deity, even those depicting the old Aryan conception of\ntheir deadly combat, are reproduced in America under circumstances which\nreveal an ignorance on the part of the artists of the significance of\nthe paradoxical contradictions they are representing. But even many\nincidents in the early history of the Vedic gods, which were due to\narbitrary circumstances in the growth of the legends, reappear in\nAmerica. To cite one instance (out of scores which might be quoted), in\nthe Vedic story Indra assumed many of the attributes of the god Soma. In\nAmerica the name of the god of rain and thunder, the Mexican Indra, is\n_Tlaloc_, which is generally translated \"pulque of the earth,\" from\n_tlal[l]i_, \"earth,\" and _oc[tli]_, \"pulque, a fermented drink (like the\nIndian drink _soma_) made from the juice of the agave\".[139]\n\nThe so-called \"long-nosed god\" (the elephant-headed rain-god) has been\ngiven the non-committal designation \"god B,\" by Schellhas.[140]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 11.--Reproduction of a Picture in the Maya Codex\nTroano representing the Rain-god _Chac_ treading upon the Serpent's\nhead, which is interposed between the earth and the rain the god is\npouring out of a bowl. A Rain-goddess stands upon the Serpent's tail.]\n\nI reproduce here a remarkable drawing (Fig. 11) from the Codex Troano,\nin which this god, whom the Maya people called _Chac_, is shown pouring\nthe rain out of a water-jar (just as the deities of Babylonia and India\nare often represented), and putting his foot upon the head of a serpent,\nwho is preventing the rain from reaching the earth. Here we find\ndepicted with childlike simplicity and directness the Vedic conception\nof Indra overcoming the demon Vritra. Stempell describes this scene as\n\"the elephant-headed god B standing upon the head of a serpent\";[141]\nwhile Seler, who claims that god B is a tortoise, explains it as the\nserpent forming a footstool for the rain-god.[142] In the\nCodex Cortes the same theme is depicted in another way, which is truer\nto the Indian conception of Vritra, as \"the restrainer\"[143] (Fig. 12).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 12.--Another representation of the Elephant-headed\nRain god. He is holding thunderbolts, conventionalised in a hand-like\nform. The Serpent is converted into a sac, holding up the rain-waters.]\n\nThe serpent (the American rattlesnake) restrains the water by coiling\nitself into a sac to hold up the rain and so prevent it from reaching\nthe earth. In the various American codices this episode is depicted in\nas great a variety of forms as the Vedic poets of India described when\nthey sang of the exploits of Indra. The Maya Chac is, in fact, Indra\ntransferred to the other side of the Pacific and there only thinly\ndisguised by a veneer of American stylistic design.\n\nBut the Aztec god Tlaloc is merely the Chac of the Maya people\ntransferred to Mexico. Schellhas declares that the \"god B,\" the \"most\ncommon figure in the codices,\" is a \"universal deity to whom the most\nvaried elements, natural phenomena, and activities are subject\". \"Many\nauthorities consider God B to represent Kukulkan, the Feathered Serpent,\nwhose Aztec equivalent is Quetzalcoatl. Others identify him with\nItzamna, the Serpent God of the East, or with Chac, the Rain God of the\nfour quarters and the equivalent of Tlaloc of the Mexicans.\"[144]\n\nFrom the point of view of its Indian analogies these confusions are\npeculiarly significant, for the same phenomena are found in India. The\nsnake and the dragon can be either the rain-god of the East or the enemy\nof the rain-god; either the dragon-slayer or the evil dragon who has to\nbe slain. The Indian word _Naga_, which is applied to the beneficent god\nor king identified with the cobra, can also mean \"elephant,\" and this\ndouble significance probably played a part in the confusion of the\ndeities in America.\n\nIn the Dresden Codex the elephant-headed god is represented in one place\ngrasping a serpent, in another issuing from a serpent's mouth, and again\nas an actual serpent (Fig. 13). Turning next to the attributes of these\nAmerican gods we find that they reproduce with amazing precision those\nof Indra. Not only were they the divinities who controlled rain,\nthunder, lightning, and vegetation, but they also carried axes and\nthunderbolts (Fig. 13) like their homologues in the Old World. Like\nIndra, Tlaloc was intimately associated with the East and with the tops\nof mountains, where he had a special heaven, reserved for warriors who\nfell in battle and women who died in childbirth. As a water-god also he\npresided over the souls of the drowned and those who in life suffered\nfrom dropsical affections. Indra also specialized in the same branch\nof medicine.\n\nIn fact, if one compares the account of Tlaloc's attributes and\nachievements, such as is given in Mr. Joyce's \"Mexican Archaeology\" or\nProfessor Seler's monograph on the \"Codex Vaticanus,\" with Professor\nHopkins's summary of Indra's character (\"Religions of India\") the\nidentity is so exact, even in the most arbitrary traits and confusions\nwith other deities' peculiarities, that it becomes impossible for any\nserious investigator to refuse to admit that Tlaloc and Chac are merely\nAmerican forms of Indra. Even so fantastic a practice as the\nrepresentation of the American rain-god's face as composed of contorted\nsnakes[145] finds its analogy in Siam, where in relatively recent times\nthis curious device was still being used by artists.[146]\n\n\"As the god of fertility maize belonged to him [Tlaloc], though not\naltogether by right, for according to one legend he stole it after it\nhad been discovered by other gods concealed in the heart of a\nmountain.\"[147] Indra also obtained soma from the mountain by similar\nmeans.[148]\n\nIn the ancient civilization of America one of the most prominent deities\nwas called the \"Feathered Serpent,\" in the Maya language, Kukulkan,\nQuiche Gukumatz, Aztec Quetzalcoatl, the Pueblo \"Mother of Waters\".\nThroughout a very extensive part of America the snake, like the Indian\nNaga, is the emblem of rain, clouds, thunder and lightning. But it is\nessentially and pre-eminently the symbol of rain; and the god who\ncontrols the rain, Chac of the Mayas, Tlaloc of the Aztecs, carried the\naxe and the thunderbolt like his homologues and prototypes in the Old\nWorld. In America also we find reproduced in full, not only the legends\nof the antagonism between the thunder-bird and the serpent, but also\nthe identification of these two rivals in one composite monster, which,\nas I have already mentioned, is seen in the winged disks, both in the\nOld World and the New.[149] Hardly any incident in the history of the\nEgyptian falcon or the thunder-birds of Babylonia, Greece or India,\nfails to reappear in America and find pictorial expression in the Maya\nand Aztec codices.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 13.\n\nA photographic reproduction of the 36th page of the Dresden Maya Codex.\n\nOf the three pictures in the top row one represents the elephant-headed\ngod _Chac_ with a snake's body. He is pouring out rain. The central\npicture represents the lightning animal carrying fire down from heaven\nto earth. On the right _Chac_ is shown in human guise carrying\nthunder-weapons in the form of burning torches.\n\nIn the second row a goddess sits in the rain: her head is prolonged into\nthat of a bird, holding a fish in its beak. The central picture shows\n_Chac_ in his boat ferrying a woman across the water from the East. The\nthird illustration depicts the familiar conflict between the vulture and\nserpent.\n\nIn the third row _Chac_ is seen with his axe: in the central picture he\nis standing in the water looking up towards a rain-cloud; and on the\nright he is shown sitting in a hut resting from his labours.]\n\nWhat makes America such a rich storehouse of historical data is the fact\nthat it is stretched across the world almost from pole to pole; and for\nmany centuries the jetsam and flotsam swept on to this vast strand has\nmade it a museum of the cultural history of the Old World, much of which\nwould have been lost for ever if America had not saved it. But a record\npreserved in this manner is necessarily in a highly confused state. For\nessentially the same materials reached America in manifold forms. The\noriginal immigrants into America brought from North-Eastern Asia such\ncultural equipment as had reached the area east of the Yenesei at the\ntime when Europe was in the Neolithic phase of culture. Then when\nancient mariners began to coast along the Eastern Asiatic littoral and\nmake their way to America by the Aleutian route there was a further\ninfiltration of new ideas. But when more venturesome sailors began to\nnavigate the open seas and exploit Polynesia, for centuries[150] there\nwas a more or less constant influx of customs and beliefs, which were\ndrawn from Egypt and Babylonia, from the Mediterranean and East Africa,\nfrom India and Indonesia, China and Japan, Cambodia and Oceania. One and\nthe same fundamental idea, such as the attributes of the serpent as a\nwater-god, reached America in an infinite variety of guises, Egyptian,\nBabylonian, Indian, Indonesian, Chinese and Japanese, and from this\namazing jumble of confusion the local priesthood of Central America\nbuilt up a system of beliefs which is distinctively American, though\nmost of the ingredients and the principles of synthetic composition were\nborrowed from the Old World.\n\nEvery possible phase of the early history of the dragon-story and all\nthe ingredients which in the Old World went to the making of it have\nbeen preserved in American pictures and legends in a bewildering variety\nof forms and with an amazing luxuriance of complicated symbolism and\npicturesque ingenuity. In America, as in India and Eastern Asia, the\npower controlling water was identified both with a serpent (which in the\nNew World, as in the Old, was often equipped with such inappropriate and\narbitrary appendages, as wings, horns and crests) and a god, who was\neither associated or confused with an elephant. Now many of the\nattributes of these gods, as personifications of the life-giving powers\nof water, are identical with those of the Babylonian god Ea and the\nEgyptian Osiris, and their reputations as warriors with the respective\nsons and representatives, Marduk and Horus. The composite animal of\nEa-Marduk, the \"sea-goat\" (the Capricornus of the Zodiac), was also the\nvehicle of Varuna in India whose relationship to Indra was in some\nrespects analogous to that of Ea to Marduk in Babylonia.[151] The Indian\n\"sea-goat\" or _Makara_ was in fact intimately associated both with\nVaruna and with Indra. This monster assumed a great variety of forms,\nsuch as the crocodile, the dolphin, the sea-serpent or dragon, or\ncombinations of the heads of different animals with a fish's body (Fig.\n14). Amongst these we find an elephant-headed form of the _makara_,\nwhich was adopted as far east as Indonesia and as far west as Scotland.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 14.\n\nA. The so-called \"sea-goat\" of Babylonia, a creature compounded of the\nantelope and fish of Ea.\n\nB. The \"sea-goat\" as the vehicle of Ea or Marduk.\n\nC to K--a series of varieties of the _makara_ from the Buddhist Rails at\nBuddha Gaya and Mathura, circa 70 B.C.-70 A.D., after Cunningham\n(\"Archaeological Survey of India,\" Vol. III, 1873, Plates IX and XXIX).\n\nL. The _makara_ as the vehicle of Varuna, after Sir George Birdwood. It\nis not difficult to understand how, in the course of the easterly\ndiffusion of culture, such a picture should develop into the Chinese\nDragon or the American Elephant-headed God.]\n\nI have already called attention[152] to the part played by the _makara_\nin determining the development of the form of the elephant-headed god in\nAmerica. Another form of the _makara_ is described in the following\nAmerican legend, which is interesting also as a mutilated version of the\noriginal dragon-story of the Old World.\n\nIn 1912 Hernandez translated and published a Maya manuscript[153] which\nhad been written out in Spanish characters in the early days of the\nconquest of the Americas, but had been overlooked until six years ago.\nIt is an account of the creation, and includes the following passages:\n\"All at once came the water [? rain] after the dragon was carried away.\nThe heaven was broken up; it fell upon the earth; and they say that\n_Cantul-ti-ku_ (four gods), the four Baccab, were those who destroyed\nit.... 'The whole world', said _Ah-uuc-chek-nale_ (he who seven times\nmakes fruitful), 'proceeded from the seven bosoms of the earth.' And he\ndescended to make fruitful _Itzam-kab-uin_ (the female whale with\nalligator-feet), when he came down from the central angle of the\nheavenly region\" (p. 171).\n\nHernandez adds that \"the old fishermen of Yucatan still call the whale\n_Itzam_: this explains the name of _Itzaes_, by which the Mayas were\nknown before the founding of Mayapan\".\n\nThe close analogy to the Indra-story is suggested by the phrase\ndescribing the coming of the water \"after the dragon was carried away\".\nMoreover, the Indian sea-elephant _makara_, which was confused in the\nOld World with the dolphin of Aphrodite, and was sometimes also regarded\nas a crocodile, naturally suggests that the \"female whale with the\nalligator-feet\" was only an American version of the old Indian legend.\n\nAll this serves, not only to corroborate the inferences drawn from the\nother sources of information which I have already indicated, but also to\nsuggest that, in addition to borrowing the chief divinities of their\npantheon from India, the Maya people's original name was derived from\nthe same mythology.[154]\n\nIt is of considerable interest and importance to note that in the\nearliest dated example of Maya workmanship (from Tuxtla, in the Vera\nCruz State of Mexico), for which Spinden assigns a tentative date of 235\nB.C., an unmistakable elephant figures among the four hieroglyphs which\nSpinden reproduces (_op. cit._, p. 171). A similar hieroglyphic sign is\nfound in the Chinese records of the Early Chow Dynasty (John Ross, \"The\nOrigin of the Chinese People,\" 1916, P. 152).\n\nThe use of the numerals four and seven in the narrative translated by\nHernandez, as in so many other American documents, is itself, as Mrs.\nZelia Nuttall has so conclusively demonstrated,[155] a most striking and\nconclusive demonstration of the link with the Old World.\n\nIndra was not the only Indian god who was transferred to America, for\nall the associated deities, with the characteristic stories of their\nexploits,[156] are also found depicted with childlike directness of\nincident, but amazingly luxuriant artistic phantasy, in the Maya and\nAztec codices.\n\nWe find scattered throughout the islands of the Pacific the familiar\nstories of the dragon. One mentioned by the Bishop of Wellington refers\nto a New Zealand dragon with jaws like a crocodile's, which spouted\nwater like a whale. It lived in a fresh-water lake.[157] In the same\nnumber of the same _Journal_ Sir George Grey gives extracts from a Maori\nlegend of the dragon, which he compares with corresponding passages from\nSpenser's \"Faery Queen\". \"Their strict verbal and poetical conformity\nwith the New Zealand legends are such as at first to lead to the\nimpression either that Spenser must have stolen his images and language\nfrom the New Zealand poets, or that they must have acted unfairly by the\nEnglish bard\" (p. 362). The Maori legend describes the dragon as \"in\nsize large as a monstrous whale, in shape like a hideous lizard; for in\nits huge head, its limbs, its tail, its scales, its tough skin, its\nsharp spines, yes, in all these it resembled a lizard\" (p. 364).\n\nNow the attributes of the Chinese and Japanese dragon as the controller\nof rain, thunder and lightning are identical with those of the American\nelephant-headed god. It also is associated with the East and with the\ntops of mountains. It is identified with the Indian Naga, but the\nconflict involved in this identification is less obtrusive than it is\neither in America or in India. In Dravidian India the rulers and the\ngods are identified with the serpent: but among the Aryans, who were\nhostile to the Dravidians, the rain-god is the enemy of the Naga. In\nAmerica the confusion becomes more pronounced because Tlaloc (Chac)\nrepresents both Indra and his enemy the serpent. The representation in\nthe codices of his conflict with the serpent is merely a tradition\nwhich the Maya and Aztec scribes followed, apparently without\nunderstanding its meaning.\n\nIn China and Japan the Indra-episode plays a much less prominent part,\nfor the dragon is, like the Indian Naga, a beneficent creature, which\napproximates more nearly to the Babylonian Ea or the Egyptian Osiris. It\nis not only the controller of water, but the impersonation of water and\nits life-giving powers: it is identified with the emperor, with his\nstandard, with the sky, and with all the powers that give, maintain, and\nprolong life and guard against all kinds of danger to life. In other\nwords, it is the bringer of good luck, the rejuvenator of mankind, the\ngiver of immortality.\n\nBut if the physiological functions of the dragon of the Far East can\nthus be assimilated to those of the Indian Naga and the Babylonian and\nEgyptian Water God, who is also the king, anatomically he is usually\nrepresented in a form which can only be regarded as the Babylonian\ncomposite monster, as a rule stripped of his wings, though not of his\navian feet.\n\nIn America we find preserved in the legends of the Indians an accurate\nand unmistakable description of the Japanese dragon (which is mainly\nChinese in origin). Even Spinden, who \"does not care to dignify by\nrefutation the numerous empty theories of ethnic connections between\nCentral America\" [and in fact America as a whole] \"and the Old World,\"\nmakes the following statement (in the course of a discussion of the\nmyths relating to horned snakes in California): \"a similar monster,\npossessing antlers, and sometimes wings, is also very common in Algonkin\nand Iroquois legends, although rare in art. As a rule the horned serpent\nis a water spirit and an enemy of the thunder bird. Among the Pueblo\nIndians the horned snake seems to have considerable prestige in\nreligious belief.... It lives in the water or in the sky and is\nconnected with rain or lightning.\"[158]\n\nThus we find stories of a dragon equipped with those distinctive tokens\nof Chinese origin, the deer's antlers; and along with it a snake with\nless specialized horns suggesting the Cerastes of Egypt and Babylonia. A\nhorned viper distantly akin to the Cerastes of the Old World does occur\nin California; but its \"horns\" are so insignificant as to make it highly\nimprobable that they could have been in any way responsible for the\nobtrusive role played by horns in these widespread American stories.\nBut the proof of the foreign origin of these stories is established by\nthe horned serpent's achievements.\n\nIt \"lives in the water or the sky\" like its homologue in the Old World,\nand it is \"a water spirit\". Now neither the Cobra nor the Cerastes is\nactually a water serpent. Their achievements in the myths therefore have\nno possible relationship with the natural habits of the real snakes.\nThey are purely arbitrary attributes which they have acquired as the\nresult of a peculiar and fortuitous series of historical incidents.\n\nIt is therefore utterly inconceivable and in the highest degree\nimprobable that this long chain of chance circumstances should have\nhappened a second time in America, and have been responsible for the\ncreation of the same bizarre story in reference to one of the rarer\nAmerican snakes of a localized distribution, whose horns are mere\nvestiges, which no one but a trained morphologist is likely to have\nnoticed or recognized as such.\n\nBut the American horned serpent, like its Babylonian and Indian\nhomologues, is also the enemy of the thunder bird. Here is a further\ncorroboration of the transmission to America of ideas which were the\nchance result of certain historical events in the Old World, which I\nhave mentioned in this lecture.\n\nIn the figure on page 94 I reproduce a remarkable drawing of an American\ndragon. If the Algonkin Indians had not preserved legends of a winged\nserpent equipped with deer's antlers, no value could be assigned to this\nsketch: but as we know that this particular tribe retains the legend of\njust such a wonder-beast, we are justified in treating this drawing as\nsomething more than a jest.\n\n\"Petroglyphs are reported by Mr. John Criley as occurring near Ava,\nJackson County, Illinois. The outlines of the characters observed by him\nwere drawn from memory and submitted to Mr. Charles S. Mason, of Toledo,\nOhio, through whom they were furnished to the Bureau of Ethnology.\nLittle reliance can be placed upon the accuracy of such drawing, but\nfrom the general appearance of the sketches the originals of which they\nare copies were probably made by one of the middle Algonquin tribes of\nIndians.[159]\n\n\"The 'Piasa' rock, as it is generally designated, was referred to by the\nmissionary explorer Marquette in 1675. Its situation was immediately\nabove the city of Alton, Illinois.\"\n\nMarquette's remarks are translated by Dr. Francis Parkman as follows:--\n\n\"On the flat face of a high rock were painted, in red, black, and green,\na pair of monsters, each 'as large as a calf, with horns like a deer,\nred eyes, a beard like a tiger, and a frightful expression of\ncountenance. The face is something like that of a man, the body covered\nwith scales; and the tail so long that it passes entirely round the\nbody, over the head, and between the legs, ending like that of a fish.'\"\n\nAnother version, by Davidson and Struve, of the discovery of the\npetroglyph is as follows:--\n\n\"Again they (Joliet and Marquette) were floating on the broad bosom of\nthe unknown stream. Passing the mouth of the Illinois, they soon fell\ninto the shadow of a tall promontory, and with great astonishment beheld\nthe representation of two monsters painted on its lofty limestone front.\nAccording to Marquette, each of these frightful figures had the face of\na man, the horns of a deer, the beard of a tiger, and the tail of a fish\nso long that it passed around the body, over the head, and between the\nlegs. It was an object of Indian worship and greatly impressed the mind\nof the pious missionary with the necessity of substituting for this\nmonstrous idolatry the worship of the true God.\"\n\nA footnote connected with the foregoing quotation gives the following\ndescription of the same rock:--\n\n\"Near the mouth of the Piasa creek, on the bluff, there is a smooth rock\nin a cavernous cleft, under an overhanging cliff, on whose face 50 feet\nfrom the base, are painted some ancient pictures or hieroglyphics, of\ngreat interest to the curious. They are placed in a horizontal line from\neast to west, representing men, plants and animals. The paintings,\nthough protected from dampness and storms, are in great part destroyed,\nmarred by portions of the rock becoming detached and falling down.\"\n\nMr. McAdams, of Alton, Illinois, says, \"The name Piasa is Indian and\nsignifies, in the Illini, the bird which devours men\". He furnishes a\nspirited pen-and-ink sketch, 12 by 15 inches in size and purporting to\nrepresent the ancient painting described by Marquette. On the picture\nis inscribed the following in ink: \"Made by Wm. Dennis, April 3rd,\n1825\". The date is in both letters and figures. On the top of the\npicture in large letters are the two words, \"FLYING DRAGON\". This\npicture, which has been kept in the old Gilham family of Madison county\nand bears the evidence of its age, is reproduced as Fig. 3.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 3.--Wm. Dennis's Drawing of the \"Flying Dragon\"\nDepicted on the Rocks at Piasa, Illinois.]\n\nHe also publishes another representation with the following remarks:--\n\n\"One of the most satisfactory pictures of the Piasa we have ever seen is\nin an old German publication entitled 'The Valley of the Mississippi\nIllustrated. Eighty illustrations from Nature, by H. Lewis, from the\nFalls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of Mexico,' published about the year\n1839 by Arenz & Co., Dusseldorf, Germany. One of the large full-page\nplates in this work gives a fine view of the bluff at Alton, with the\nfigure of the Piasa on the face of the rock. It is represented to have\nbeen taken on the spot by artists from Germany.... In the German picture\nthere is shown just behind the rather dim outlines of the second face a\nragged crevice, as though of a fracture. Part of the bluff's face might\nhave fallen and thus nearly destroyed one of the monsters, for in later\nyears writers speak of but one figure. The whole face of the bluff was\nquarried away in 1846-47.\"\n\nThe close agreement of this account with that of the Chinese and\nJapanese dragon at once arrests attention. The anatomical peculiarities\nare so extraordinary that if Pere Marquette's account is trustworthy\nthere is no longer any room for doubt of the Chinese or Japanese\nderivation of this composite creature. If the account is not accepted we\nwill be driven, not only to attribute to the pious seventeenth-century\nmissionary serious dishonesty or culpable gullibility, but also to\ncredit him with a remarkably precise knowledge of Mongolian archaeology.\nWhen Algonkin legends are recalled, however, I think we are bound to\naccept the missionary's account as substantially accurate.\n\nMinns claims that representations of the dragon are unknown in China\nbefore the Han dynasty. But the legend of the dragon is much more\nancient. The evidence has been given in full by de Visser.[160]\n\nHe tells us that the earliest reference is found in the _Yih King_, and\nshows that the dragon was \"a water animal akin to the snake, which\n[used] to sleep in pools during winter and arises in the spring.\" \"It is\nthe god of thunder, who brings good crops when he appears in the rice\nfields (as rain) or in the sky (as dark and yellow clouds), in other\nwords when he makes the rain fertilize the ground\" (p. 38).\n\nIn the _Shu King_ there is a reference to the dragon as one of the\nsymbolic figures painted on the upper garment of the emperor Hwang Ti\n(who according to the Chinese legends, which of course are not above\nreproach, reigned in the twenty-seventh century B.C.). In this ancient\nliterature there are numerous references to the dragon, and not merely\nto the legends, _but also to representations_ of the benign monster on\ngarments, banners and metal tablets.[161] \"The ancient texts ... are\nshort, but sufficient to give us the main conceptions of Old China with\nregard to the dragon. In those early days [just as at present] he was\nthe god of water, thunder, clouds, and rain, the harbinger of blessings,\nand the symbol of holy men. As the emperors are the holy beings on\nearth, the idea of the dragon being the symbol of Imperial power is\nbased upon this ancient conception\" (_op. cit._, p. 42).\n\nIn the fifth appendix to the _Yih King_, which has been ascribed to\nConfucius, (i.e. three centuries earlier than the Han dynasty mentioned\nby Mr. Minns), it is stated that \"_K'ien_ (Heaven) is a horse, _Kw'un_\n(Earth) is a cow, _Chen (Thunder) is a dragon_.\" (_op. cit._, p.\n37).[162]\n\nThe philosopher Hwai Nan Tsze (who died 122 B.C.) declared that the\ndragon is the origin of all creatures, winged, hairy, scaly, and\nmailed; and he propounded a scheme of evolution (de Visser, p. 65). He\nseems to have tried to explain away the fact that he had never actually\nwitnessed the dragon performing some of the remarkable feats attributed\nto it: \"Mankind cannot see the dragons rise: wind and rain assist them\nto ascend to a great height\" (_op. cit._, p. 65). Confucius also is\ncredited with the frankness of a similar confession: \"As to the dragon,\nwe cannot understand his riding on the wind and clouds and his ascending\nto the sky. To-day I saw Lao Tsze; is he not like the dragon?\" (p. 65).\n\nThis does not necessarily mean that these learned men were sceptical of\nthe beliefs which tradition had forged in their minds, but that the\ndragon had the power of hiding itself in a cloak of invisibility, just\nas clouds (in which the Chinese saw dragons) could be dissipated in the\nsky. The belief in these powers of the dragon was as sincere as that of\nlearned men of other countries in the beneficent attributes which\ntradition had taught them to assign to their particular deities. In the\npassages I have quoted the Chinese scholars were presumably attempting\nto bridge the gap between the ideas inculcated by faith and the evidence\nof their senses, in much the same sort of spirit as, for instance,\nactuated Dean Buckland last century, when he claimed that the glacial\ndeposits of this country afforded evidence in confirmation of the Deluge\ndescribed in the Book of Genesis.\n\nThe tiger and the dragon, the gods of wind and water, are the keystones\nof the doctrine called _fung shui_, which Professor de Groot has\ndescribed in detail.[163]\n\nHe describes it \"as a quasi-scientific system, supposed to teach men\nwhere and how to build graves, temples, and dwellings, in order that the\ndead, the gods, and the living may be located therein exclusively, or as\nfar as possible, under the auspicious influences of Nature\". The dragon\nplays a most important part in this system, being \"the chief spirit of\nwater and rain, and at the same time representing one of the four\nquarters of heaven (i.e. the East, called the Azure Dragon, and the\nfirst of the seasons, spring).\" The word Dragon comprises the high\ngrounds in general, and the water streams which have their sources\ntherein or wind their way through them.[164]\n\nThe attributes thus assigned to the Blue Dragon, his control of water\nand streams, his dwelling on high mountains whence they spring, and his\nassociation with the East, will be seen to reveal his identity with the\nso-called \"god B\" of American archaeologists, the elephant-headed god\n_Tlaloc_ of the Aztecs, _Chac_ of the Mayas, whose more direct parent\nwas Indra.\n\nIt is of interest to note that, according to Gerini,[165] the word\n_Naga_ denotes not only a snake but also an elephant. Both the Chinese\ndragon and the Mexican elephant-god are thus linked with the Naga, who\nis identified both with Indra himself and Indra's enemy Vritra. This is\nanother instance of those remarkable contradictions that one meets at\nevery step in pursuing the dragon. In the confusion resulting from the\nblending of hostile tribes and diverse cultures the Aryan deity who,\nboth for religious and political reasons, is the enemy of the Nagas\nbecomes himself identified with a Naga!\n\nI have already called attention (_Nature_, Jan. 27, 1916) to the fact\nthat the graphic form of representation of the American elephant-headed\ngod was derived from Indonesian pictures of the _makara_. In India\nitself the _makara_ (see Fig. 14) is represented in a great variety of\nforms, most of which are prototypes of different kinds of dragons. Hence\nthe homology of the elephant-headed god with the other dragons is\nfurther established and shown to be genetically related to the evolution\nof the protean manifestations of the dragon's form.\n\nThe dragon in China is \"the heavenly giver of fertilizing rain\" (_op.\ncit._, p. 36). In the _Shu King_ \"the emblematic figures of the ancients\nare given as the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountain, the _dragon_,\nand the variegated animals (pheasants) which are depicted on the upper\nsacrificial garment of the Emperor\" (p. 39). In the _Li Ki_ the unicorn,\nthe phoenix, the tortoise, and the dragon are called the four _ling_\n(p. 39), which de Visser translates \"spiritual beings,\" creatures with\nenormously strong vital spirit. The dragon possesses the most _ling_ of\nall creatures (p. 64). The tiger is the deadly enemy of the dragon\n(p. 42).\n\nThe dragon sheds a brilliant light at night (p. 44), usually from his\nglittering eyes. He is the giver of omens (p. 45), good and bad, rains\nand floods. The dragon-horse is a vital spirit of Heaven and Earth (p.\n58) and also of river water: it has the tail of a huge serpent.\n\nThe ecclesiastical vestments of the Wu-ist priests are endowed with\nmagical properties which are considered to enable the wearer to control\nthe order of the world, to avert unseasonable and calamitous events,\nsuch as drought, untimely and superabundant rainfall, and eclipses.\nThese powers are conferred by the decoration upon the dress. Upon the\nback of the chief vestment the representation of a range of mountains is\nembroidered as a symbol of the world: on each side (the right and left)\nof it a large dragon arises above the billows to represent the\nfertilizing rain. They are surrounded by gold-thread figures\nrepresenting clouds and spirals typifying rolling thunder.[166]\n\nA ball, sometimes with a spiral decoration, is commonly represented in\nfront of the Chinese dragon. The Chinese writer Koh Hung tells us that\n\"a spiral denotes the rolling of thunder from which issues a flash of\nlightning\".[167] De Visser discusses this question at some length and\nrefers to Hirth's claim that the Chinese triquetrum, i.e., the\nwell-known three-comma shaped figure, the Japanese _mitsu-tomoe_, the\nancient spiral, represents thunder also.[168] Before discussing this\nquestion, which involves the consideration of the almost world-wide\nbelief in a thunder-weapon and its relationship to the spiral ornament,\nthe octopus, the pearl, the swastika and triskele, let us examine\nfurther the problem of the dragon's ball (see Fig. 15).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 15.--Photograph of a Chinese Embroidery in the\nManchester School of Art representing the Dragon and the Pearl-Moon\nSymbol.]\n\nDe Groot regards the dragon as a thunder-god and therefore, like Hirth,\nassumes that the supposed thunder-ball is being _belched forth_ and not\nbeing _swallowed_ by the dragon. But de Visser, as the result of a\nconversation with Mr. Kramp and the study of a Chinese picture in\nBlacker's \"Chats on Oriental China\" (1908, p. 54), puts forward the\nsuggestion that the ball is the moon or the pearl-moon which the dragon\nis swallowing, thereby causing the fertilizing rain. The Chinese\nthemselves refer to the ball as the \"precious pearl,\" which, under the\ninfluence of Buddhism in China, was identified with \"the pearl that\ngrants all desires\" and is under the special protection of the Naga,\ni.e., the dragon. Arising out of this de Visser puts the conundrum: \"Was\nthe ball originally also a pearl, not of Buddhism but of Taoism?\"\n\nIn reply to this question I may call attention to the fact that the\ngerms of civilization were first planted in China by people strongly\nimbued with the belief that the pearl was the quintessence of\nlife-giving and prosperity-conferring powers:[169] it was not only\nidentified with the moon, but also was itself a particle of\nmoon-substance which fell as dew into the gaping oyster. It was the very\npeople who held such views about pearls and gold who, when searching for\nalluvial gold and fresh-water pearls in Turkestan, were responsible for\ntransferring these same life-giving properties to jade; and the magical\nvalue thus attached to jade was the nucleus, so to speak, around which\nthe earliest civilization of China was crystallized.\n\nAs we shall see, in the discussion of the thunder-weapon (p. 121), the\nluminous pearl, which was believed to have fallen from the sky, was\nhomologized with the thunderbolt, with the functions of which its own\nmagical properties were assimilated.\n\nKramp called de Visser's attention to the fact that the Chinese\nhieroglyphic character for the dragon's ball is compounded of the signs\nfor _jewel_ and _moon_, which is also given in a Japanese lexicon as\n_divine pearl_, the pearl of the bright moon.\n\n\"When the clouds approached and covered the moon, the ancient Chinese\nmay have thought that the dragons had seized and swallowed this pearl,\nmore brilliant than all the pearls of the sea\" (de Visser, p. 108).\n\nThe difficulty de Visser finds in regarding his own theory as wholly\nsatisfactory is, first, the red colour of the ball, and secondly, the\nspiral pattern upon it. He explains the colour as possibly an attempt to\nrepresent the pearl's lustre. But de Visser seems to have overlooked the\nfact that red and rose-coloured pearls obtained from the conch-shell\nwere used in China and Japan.[170]\n\n\"The spiral is much used in delineating the sacred pearls of Buddhism,\nso that it might have served also to design those of Taoism; although I\nmust acknowledge that the spiral of the Buddhist pearl goes upward,\nwhile the spiral of the dragon is flat\" (p. 103).\n\nDe Visser sums up the whole argument in these words:--\n\n\"These are, however, all mere suppositions. The only facts we know are:\nthe eager attitude of the dragons, ready to grasp and swallow the ball;\nthe ideas of the Chinese themselves as to the ball being the moon or a\npearl; the existence of a kind of sacred \"moon-pearl\"; the red colour of\nthe ball, its emitting flames and its spiral-like form. As the three\nlast facts are in favour of the thunder theory, I should be inclined to\nprefer the latter. Yet I am convinced that the dragons do not _belch\nout_ the thunder. If their trying to _grasp_ or _swallow_ the thunder\ncould be explained, I should immediately accept the theory concerning\nthe thunder-spiral, especially on account of the flames it emits. But I\ndo not see the reason why the god of thunder should persecute thunder\nitself. Therefore, after having given the above facts that the reader\nmay take them into consideration, I feel obliged to say: 'non liquet'\"\n(p. 108).\n\nIt does not seem to have occurred to the distinguished Dutch scholar,\nwho has so lucidly put the issue before us, that his demonstration of\nthe fact of the ball being the pearl-moon about to be swallowed by the\ndragon does not preclude it being also confused with the thunder.\nElsewhere in this volume I have referred to the origin of the spiral\nsymbolism and have shown that it became associated with the pearl\n_before_ it became the symbol of thunder. The pearl-association in fact\nwas one of the links in the chain of events which made the pearl and\nthe spirally-coiled arm of the octopus the sign of thunder.[171]\n\nIt seems quite clear to me that de Visser's pearl-moon theory is the\ntrue interpretation. But when the pearl-ball was provided with the\nspiral, painted red, and given flames to represent its power of emitting\nlight and shining by night, the fact of the spiral ornamentation and of\nthe pearl being one of the surrogates of the thunder-weapon was\nrationalized into an identification of the ball with thunder and the\nlight it was emitting as lightning. It is, of course, quite irrational\nfor a thunder-god to swallow his own thunder: but popular\ninterpretations of subtle symbolism, the true explanation of which is\ndeeply buried in the history of the distant past, are rarely logical and\nalmost invariably irrelevant.\n\nIn his account of the state of Brahmanism in India after the times of\nthe two earlier Vedas, Professor Hopkins[172] throws light upon the real\nsignificance of the ball in the dragon-symbolism. \"Old legends are\nvaried. The victory over Vritra is now expounded thus: Indra, who slays\nVritra, is the sun. Vritra is the moon, who swims into the sun's mouth\non the night of the new moon. The sun rises after swallowing him, and\nthe moon is invisible because he is swallowed. The sun vomits out the\nmoon, and the latter is then seen in the west, and increases again, to\nserve the sun as food. In another passage it is said that when the moon\nis invisible he is hiding in plants and waters.\"\n\nThis seems to clear away any doubt as to the significance of the ball.\nIt is the pearl-moon, which is both swallowed and vomited by the dragon.\n\nThe snake takes a more obtrusive part in the Japanese than in the\nChinese dragon and it frequently manifests itself as a god of the sea.\nThe old Japanese sea-gods were often female water-snakes. The cultural\ninfluences which reached Japan from the south by way of Indonesia--many\ncenturies before the coming of Buddhism--naturally emphasized the\nserpent form of the dragon and its connexion with the ocean.\n\nBut the river-gods, or \"water-fathers,\" were real four-footed dragons\nidentified with the dragon-kings of Chinese myth, but at the same time\nwere strictly homologous with the Naga Rajas or cobra-kings of India.\n\nThe Japanese \"Sea Lord\" or \"Sea Snake\" was also called\n\"Abundant-Pearl-Prince,\" who had a magnificent palace at the bottom of\nthe sea. His daughter (\"Abundant-Pearl-Princess\") married a youth whom\nshe observed, reflected in the well, sitting on a cassia tree near the\ncastle gate. Ashamed at his presence at her lying-in she was changed\ninto a _wani_ or crocodile (de Visser, p. 139), elsewhere described as a\ndragon (_makara_). De Visser gives it as his opinion that the _wani_ is\n\"an old Japanese dragon, or serpent-shaped sea-god, and the legend is an\nancient Japanese tale, dressed in an Indian garb by later generations\"\n(p. 140). He is arguing that the Japanese dragon existed long before\nJapan came under Indian influence. But he ignores the fact that at a\nvery early date both India and China were diversely influenced by\nBabylonia, the great breeding place of dragons; and, secondly, that\nJapan was influenced by Indonesia, and through it by the West, for many\ncenturies before the arrival of such later Indian legends as those\nrelating to the palace under the sea, the castle gate and the cassia\ntree. As Aston (quoted by de Visser) remarks, all these incidents and\nalso the well that serves as a mirror, \"form a combination not unknown\nto European folk-lore\".\n\nAfter de Visser had given his own views, he modified them (on p. 141)\nwhen he learned that essentially the same dragon-stories had been\nrecorded in the Kei Islands and Minahassa (Celebes). In the light of\nthis new information he frankly admits that \"the resemblance of several\nfeatures of this myth with the Japanese one is so striking, that we may\nbe sure that the latter is of Indonesian origin.\" He goes further when\nhe recognizes that \"probably the foreign invaders, who in prehistoric\ntimes conquered Japan, came from Indonesia, and brought the myth with\nthem\" (p. 141). The evidence recently brought together by W. J. Perry in\nhis book \"The Megalithic Culture of Indonesia\" makes it certain that the\npeople of Indonesia in turn got it from the West.\n\nAn old painting reproduced by F. W. K. Mueller,[173] who called de\nVisser's attention to these interesting stories, shows Hohodemi (the\nyouth on the cassia tree who married the princess) returning home\nmounted on the back of a crocodile, like the Indian Varuna upon the\n_makara_ in a drawing reproduced by the late Sir George Birdwood.[174]\n\nThe _wani_ or crocodile thus introduced from India, _via_ Indonesia, is\nreally the Chinese and Japanese dragon, as Aston has claimed. Aston\nrefers to Japanese pictures in which the Abundant-Pearl-Prince and his\ndaughter are represented with dragon's heads appearing over their human\nones, but in the old Indonesian version they maintain their forms as\n_wani_ or crocodiles.\n\nThe dragon's head appearing over a human one is quite an Indian motive,\ntransferred to China and from there to Korea and Japan (de Visser, p.\n142), and, I may add, also to America.\n\n[Since the foregoing paragraphs have been printed, the Curator of the\nLiverpool Museum has kindly called my attention to a remarkable series\nof Maya remains in the collection under his care, which were obtained in\nthe course of excavations made by Mr. T. W. F. Gann, M.R.C.S., an\nofficer in the Medical Service of British Honduras (see his account of\nthe excavations in Part II. of the 19th Annual Report of the Bureau of\nEthnology, Smithsonian Institution of Washington). Among them is a\npottery figure of a _wani_ or _makara_ in the form of an alligator,\nequipped with diminutive deer's horns (like the dragon of Eastern Asia);\nand its skin is studded with circular elevations, presumably meant to\nrepresent the spots upon the star-spangled \"Celestial Stag\" of the\nAryans (p. 130). As in the Japanese pictures mentioned by Aston, a human\nhead is seen emerging from the creature's throat. It affords a most\ndefinite and convincing demonstration of the sources of American\nculture.]\n\nThe jewels of flood and ebb in the Japanese legends consist of the\npearls of flood and ebb obtained from the dragon's palace at the bottom\nof the sea. By their aid storms and floods could be created to destroy\nenemies or calm to secure safety for friends. Such stories are the\nlogical result of the identification of pearls with the moon, the\ninfluence of which upon the tides was probably one of the circumstances\nwhich was responsible for bringing the moon into the circle of the great\nscientific theory of the life-giving powers of water. This in turn\nplayed a great, if not decisive, part in originating the earliest belief\nin a sky world, or heaven.\n\n\n[137: \"Precolumbian Representations of the Elephant in America,\"\n_Nature_, Nov. 25, 1915, p. 340; Dec. 16, 1915, p. 425; and Jan. 27,\n1916, p. 593.]\n\n[138: \"History of Melanesian Society,\" Cambridge, 1914.]\n\n[139: H. Beuchat, \"Manuel d' Archeologie Americaine,\" 1912, p. 319.]\n\n[140: \"Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,\" _Papers of\nthe Peabody Museum_, vol. iv., 1904.]\n\n[141: _Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_, Bd. 40, 1908, p. 716.]\n\n[142: \"Die Tierbilder der mexikanischen und der Maya-Handschriften,\"\n_Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_, Bd. 42, 1910, pp. 75 and 77. In the\nremarkable series of drawings from Maya and Aztec sources reproduced by\nSeler in his articles in the _Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_, the _Peabody\nMuseum Papers_, and his monograph on the _Codex Vaticanus_, not only is\npractically every episode of the dragon-myth of the Old World\ngraphically depicted, but also every phase and incident of the legends\nfrom India (and Babylonia, Egypt and the AEgean) that contributed to the\nbuilding-up of the myth.]\n\n[143: Compare Hopkins, \"Religions of India,\" p. 94.]\n\n[144: Herbert J. Spinden, \"Maya Art,\" p. 62.]\n\n[145: Seler, \"Codex Vaticanus,\" Figs. 299-304.]\n\n[146: See, for example, F. W. K. Mueller, \"Nang,\" _Int. Arch. f.\nEthnolog._, 1894, Suppl. zu Bd. vii., Taf. vii., where the mask of\n_Ravana_ (a late surrogate of Indra in the _Ramayana_) reveals a\nsurvival of the prototype of the Mexican designs.]\n\n[147: Joyce, _op. cit._, p. 37.]\n\n[148: For the incident of the stealing of the soma by Garuda, who in\nthis legend is the representative of Indra, see Hopkins, \"Religions of\nIndia,\" pp. 360-61.]\n\n[149: \"The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civilization in the East and in\nAmerica,\" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1916, Fig. 4, \"The\nSerpent-Bird\".]\n\n[150: Probably from about 300 B.C. to 700 A.D.]\n\n[151: For information concerning Ea's \"Goat-Fish,\" which can truly be\ncalled the \"Father of Dragons,\" as well as the prototype of the Indian\n_makara_, the mermaid, the \"sea-serpent,\" the \"dolphin of Aphrodite,\"\nand of most composite sea-monsters, see W. H. Ward's \"Seal Cylinders of\nWestern Asia,\" pp. 382 _et seq._ and 399 _et seq._; and especially the\ndetailed reports in de Morgan's _Memoires_ (Delegation en Perse).]\n\n[152: _Nature, op. cit., supra_.]\n\n[153: Juan Martinez Hernandez, \"La Creacion del Mundo segun los Mayas,\"\nPaginas Ineditas del MS. De Chumayel, _International Congress of\nAmericanists, Proceedings of the XVIII. Session_, London, 1912, p. 164.]\n\n[154: From the folk-lore of America I have collected many interesting\nvariants of the Indra story and other legends (and artistic designs) of\nthe elephant. I hope to publish these in the near future.]\n\n[155: _Peabody Museum Papers_, 1901.]\n\n[156: See, for example, Wilfrid Jackson's \"Shells as Evidence of the\nMigration of Early Culture,\" pp. 50-66.]\n\n[157: \"Notes on the Maoris, etc.,\" _Journal of the Ethnological\nSociety_, vol. i., 1869, p. 368.]\n\n[158: _Op. cit._, p. 231.]\n\n[159: I quote this and the following paragraphs verbatim from Garrick\nMallery, \"Picture Writing of the American Indians,\" _10th Annual Report,\n1888-89, Bureau of Ethnology (Smithsonian Institute)_. p. 78.]\n\n[160: _Op. cit._, pp. 35 _et seq._]\n\n[161: See de Visser, p. 41.]\n\n[162: There can be no doubt that the Chinese dragon is the descendant of\nthe early Babylonian monster, and that the inspiration to create it\nprobably reached Shensi during the third millennium B.C. by the route\nindicated in my \"Incense and Libations\" (_Bull. John Rylands Library_,\nvol. iv., No. 2, p. 239). Some centuries later the Indian dragon reached\nthe Far East via Indonesia and mingled with his Babylonian cousin in\nJapan and China.]\n\n[163: \"Religious System of China,\" vol. iii., chap, xii., pp. 936-1056.]\n\n[164: This paragraph is taken almost verbatim from de Visser, _op. cit._\npp. 59 and 60.]\n\n[165: G. E. Gerini, \"Researches on Ptolemy's Geography of Eastern Asia,\"\n_Asiatic Society's Monographs_, No. 1, 1909, p. 146.]\n\n[166: De Visser, p. 102, and de Groot, vi., p. 1265, Plate XVIII. The\nreference to \"a range of mountains ... as a symbol of the world\" recalls\nthe Egyptian representation of the eastern horizon as two hills between\nwhich Hathor or her son arises (see Budge, \"Gods of the Egyptians,\" vol.\nii., p. 101; and compare Griffith's \"Hieroglyphs,\" p. 30): the same\nconception was adopted in Mesopotamia (see Ward, \"Seal Cylinders of\nWestern Asia,\" fig. 412, p. 156) and in the Mediterranean (see Evans,\n\"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" pp. 37 _et seq._). It is a remarkable\nfact that Sir Arthur Evans, who, upon p. 64 of his memoir, reproduces\ntwo drawings of the Egyptian \"horizon\" supporting the sun's disk, should\nhave failed to recognize in it the prototype of what he calls \"the horns\nof consecration\". Even if the confusion of the \"horizon\" with a cow's\nhorns was very ancient (for the horns of the Divine Cow supporting the\nmoon made this inevitable), this rationalization should not blind us as\nto the real origin of the idea, which is preserved in the ancient\nEgyptian, Babylonian, Cretan and Chinese pictures (see Fig. 26, facing\np. 188).]\n\n[167: De Visser, p. 103.]\n\n[168: P. 104. The Chinese triquetrum has a circle in the centre and five\nor eight commas.]\n\n[169: See on this my paper \"The Origin of Early Siberian Civilization,\"\nnow being published in the _Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester\nLiterary and Philosophical Society_.]\n\n[170: Wilfrid Jackson, \"Shells as Evidence of the Migrations of Early\nCulture,\" p. 106.]\n\n[171: I shall discuss this more fully in \"The Birth of Aphrodite\".]\n\n[172: \"Religions of India,\" p. 197.]\n\n[173: \"Mythe der Kei-Insulaner und Verwandtes,\" _Zeitsch. f.\nEthnologie_, vol. xxv., 1893, pp. 533 _et seq._]\n\n[174: See Fig. 14.]\n\n\nThe Evolution of the Dragon.\n\nThe American and Indonesian dragons can be referred back primarily to\nIndia, the Chinese and Japanese varieties to India and Babylonia. The\ndragons of Europe can be traced through Greek channels to the same\nultimate source. But the cruder dragons of Africa are derived either\nfrom Egypt, from the AEgean, or from India. All dragons that strictly\nconform to the conventional idea of what such a wonder-beast should be\ncan be shown to be sprung from the fertile imagination of ancient Sumer,\nthe \"great breeding place of monsters\" (Minns).\n\nBut the history of the dragon's evolution and transmission to other\ncountries is full of complexities; and the dragon-myth is made up of\nmany episodes, some of which were not derived from Babylonia.\n\nIn Egypt we do not find the characteristic dragon and dragon-story. Yet\nall of the ingredients out of which both the monster and the legends are\ncompounded have been preserved in Egypt, and in perhaps a more primitive\nand less altered form than elsewhere. Hence, if Egypt does not provide\ndragons for us to dissect, it does supply us with the evidence without\nwhich the dragon's evolution would be quite unintelligible.\n\nEgyptian literature affords a clearer insight into the development of\nthe Great Mother, the Water God, and the Warrior Sun God than we can\nobtain from any other writings of the origin of this fundamental stratum\nof deities. And in the three legends: The Destruction of Mankind, The\nStory of the Winged Disk, and The Conflict between Horus and Set, it has\npreserved the germs of the great Dragon Saga. Babylonian literature has\nshown us how this raw material was worked up into the definite and\nfamiliar story, as well as how the features of a variety of animals were\nblended to form the composite monster. India and Greece, as well as more\ndistant parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia, and even America have\npreserved many details that have been lost in the real home of the\nmonster.\n\nIn the earliest literature that has come down to us from antiquity a\nclear account is given of the original attributes of Osiris. \"Horus\ncomes, he recognizes his father in thee [Osiris], youthful in thy name\nof 'Fresh Water'.\" \"Thou art indeed the Nile, great on the fields at the\nbeginning of the seasons; gods and men live by the moisture that is in\nthee.\" He is also identified with the inundation of the river. \"It is\nUnis [the dead king identified with Osiris] who inundates the land.\" He\nalso brings the wind and guides it. It is the breath of life which\nraises the king from the dead as an Osiris. The wine-press god comes to\nOsiris bearing wine-juice and the great god becomes \"Lord of the\noverflowing wine\": he is also identified with barley and with the beer\nmade from it. Certain trees also are personifications of the god.\n\nBut Osiris was regarded not only as the waters upon earth, the rivers\nand streams, the moisture in the soil and in the bodies of animals and\nplants, but also as \"the waters of life that are in the sky\".\n\n\"As Osiris was identified with the waters of earth and sky, he may even\nbecome the sea and the ocean itself. We find him addressed thus: 'Thou\nart great, thou art green, in thy name of Great Green (Sea); lo, thou\nart round as the Great Circle (Okeanos); lo, thou art turned about, thou\nart round as the circle that encircles the Haunebu (AEgeans).\"\n\nThis series of interesting extracts from Professor Breasted's \"Religion\nand Thought in Ancient Egypt\" (pp. 18-26) gives the earliest Egyptians'\nown ideas of the attributes of Osiris. The Babylonians regarded Ea in\nalmost precisely the same light and endowed him with identical powers.\nBut there is an important and significant difference between Osiris and\nEa. The former was usually represented as a man, that is, as a dead\nking, whereas Ea was represented as a man wearing a fish-skin, as a\nfish, or as the composite monster with a fish's body and tail, which was\nthe prototype of the Indian _makara_ and \"the father of dragons\".\n\nIn attempting to understand the creation of the dragon it is important\nto remember that, although Osiris and Ea were regarded primarily as\npersonifications of the beneficent life-giving powers of water, as the\nbringers of fertility to the soil and the givers of life and immortality\nto living creatures, they were also identified with the destructive\nforces of water, by which men were drowned or their welfare affected in\nvarious ways by storms of sea and wind.\n\nThus Osiris or the fish-god Ea could destroy mankind. In other words the\nfish-dragon, or the composite monster formed of a fish and an antelope,\ncould represent the destructive forces of wind and water. Thus even the\nmalignant dragon can be the homologue of the usually beneficent gods\nOsiris and Ea, and their Aryan surrogates Mazdah and Varuna.\n\nBy a somewhat analogous process of archaic rationalization the sons\nrespectively of Osiris and Ea, the sun-gods Horus and Marduk, acquired a\nsimilarly confused reputation. Although their outstanding achievements\nwere the overcoming of the powers of evil, and, as the givers of light,\nconquering darkness, their character as warriors made them also powers\nof destruction. The falcon of Horus thus became also a symbol of chaos,\nand as the thunder-bird became the most obtrusive feature in the weird\nanatomy of the composite Mesopotamian dragon and his more modern\nbird-footed brood, which ranges from Western Europe to the Far East of\nAsia and America.\n\nThat the sun-god derived his functions directly or indirectly from\nOsiris and Hathor is shown by his most primitive attributes, for in \"the\nearliest sun-temples at Abusir, he appears as the source of life and\nincrease\". \"Men said of him: 'Thou hast driven away the storm, and hast\nexpelled the rain, and hast broken up the clouds'.\" Horus was in fact\nthe son of Osiris and Hathor, from whom he derived his attributes. The\ninvention of the sun-god was not, as most scholars pretend, an attempt\nto give direct expression to the fact that the sun is the source of\nfertility. That is a discovery of modern science. The sun-god acquired\nhis attributes secondarily (and for definite historical reasons) from\nhis parents, who were responsible for his birth.\n\nThe quotation from the Pyramid Texts is of special interest as an\nillustration of one of the results of the assimilation of the idea of\nOsiris as the controller of water with that of a sky-heaven and a\nsun-god. The sun-god's powers are rationalized so as to bring them\ninto conformity with the earliest conception of a god as a power\ncontrolling water.\n\nBreasted attempts to interpret the statements concerning the storm and\nrain-clouds as references to the enemies of the sun, who steal the\nsky-god's eye, i.e., obscure the sun or moon.[175] The incident of\nHorus's loss of an eye, which looms so large in Egyptian legends, is\npossibly more closely related to the earliest attempts at explaining\neclipses of the sun and moon, the \"eyes\" of the sky. The obscuring of\nthe sun and moon by clouds is a matter of little significance to the\nEgyptian: but the modern Egyptian _fellah_, and no doubt his\npredecessors also, regard eclipses with much concern. Such events\nexcite great alarm, for the peasants consider them as actual combats\nbetween the powers of good and evil.\n\nIn other countries where rain is a blessing and not, as in Egypt, merely\nan unwelcome inconvenience, the clouds play a much more prominent part\nin the popular beliefs. In the Rig-Veda the power that holds up the\nclouds is evil: as an elaboration of the ancient Egyptian conception of\nthe sky as a Divine Cow, the Great Mother, the Aryan Indians regarded\nthe clouds as a herd of cattle which the Vedic warrior-god Indra (who in\nthis respect is the homologue of the Egyptian warrior Horus) stole from\nthe powers of evil and bestowed upon mankind. In other words, like\nHorus, he broke up the clouds and brought rain.\n\nThe antithesis between the two aspects of the character of these ancient\ndeities is most pronounced in the case of the other member of this most\nprimitive Trinity, the Great Mother. She was the great beneficent giver\nof life, but also the controller of life, which implies that she was the\ndeath-dealer. But this evil aspect of her character developed only under\nthe stress of a peculiar dilemma in which she was placed. On a famous\noccasion in the very remote past the great Giver of Life was summoned to\nrejuvenate the ageing king. The only elixir of life that was known to\nthe pharmacopoeia of the times was human blood: but to obtain this\nlife-blood the Giver of Life was compelled to slaughter mankind. She\nthus became the destroyer of mankind in her lioness _avatar_ as Sekhet.\n\nThe earliest known pictorial representation of the dragon (Fig. 1)\nconsists of the forepart of the sun-god's falcon or eagle united with\nthe hindpart of the mother-goddess's lioness. The student of modern\nheraldry would not regard this as a dragon at all, but merely a gryphon\nor griffin. A recent writer on heraldry has complained that, \"in spite\nof frequent corrections, this creature is persistently confused in the\npopular mind with the _dragon_, which is even more purely\nimaginary.\"[176] But the investigator of the early history of these\nwonder-beasts is compelled, even at the risk of incurring the herald's\ncensure, to regard the gryphon as one of the earliest known tentative\nefforts at dragon-making. But though the fish, the falcon or eagle, and\nthe composite eagle-lion monster are early known pictorial\nrepresentations of the dragon, good or bad, the serpent is probably more\nancient still (Fig. 2).\n\nThe earliest form assumed by the power of evil was the serpent: but it\nis important to remember that, as each of the primary deities can be a\npower of either good or evil, any of the animals representing them can\nsymbolize either aspect. Though Hathor in her cow manifestation is\nusually benevolent and as a lioness a power of destruction, the cow may\nbecome a demon in certain cases and the lioness a kindly creature. The\nfalcon of Horus (or its representatives, eagle, hawk, woodpecker, dove,\nredbreast, etc) may be either good or bad: so also the gazelle (antelope\nor deer), the crocodile, the fish, or any of the menagerie of creatures\nthat enter into the composition of good or bad demons.\n\n\"The Nagas are semi-divine serpents which very often assume human shapes\nand whose kings live with their retinues in the utmost luxury in their\nmagnificent abodes at the bottom of the sea or in rivers or lakes. When\nleaving the Naga world they are in constant danger of being grasped and\nkilled by the gigantic semi-divine birds, the Garudas, which also change\nthemselves into men\" (de Visser, p. 7).\n\n\"The Nagas are depicted in three forms: common snakes, guarding jewels;\nhuman beings with four snakes in their necks; and winged sea-dragons,\nthe upper part of the body human, but with a horned, ox-like head, the\nlower part of the body that of a coiling-dragon. Here we find a link\nbetween the snake of ancient India and the four-legged Chinese dragon\"\n(p. 6), hidden in the clouds, which the dragon himself emitted, like a\nmodern battleship, for the purpose of rendering himself invisible. In\nother words, the rain clouds were the dragon's breath. The fertilizing\nrain was thus in fact the vital essence of the dragon, being both water\nand the breath of life.\n\n\"We find the Naga king not only in the possession of numberless jewels\nand beautiful girls, but also of mighty charms, bestowing supernatural\nvision and hearing. The palaces of the Naga kings are always described\nas extremely splendid, abounding with gold and silver and precious\nstones, and the Naga women, when appearing in human shape, were\nbeautiful beyond description\" (p. 9).\n\nDe Visser records the story of an evil Naga protecting a big tree that\ngrew in a pond, who failed to emit clouds and thunder when the tree was\ncut down, because he was neither despised nor wounded: for his body\nbecame the support of the stupa and the tree became a beam of the\nstupa (p. 16). This aspect of the Naga as a tree-demon is rare in\nIndia, but common in China and Japan. It seems to be identical with the\nMediterranean conception of the pillar of wood or stone, which is both a\nrepresentative of the Great Mother and the chief support of a\ntemple.[177]\n\nIn the magnificent city that king Yacahketu saw, when he dived into\nthe sea, \"wishing trees that granted every desire\" were among the\nobjects that met his vision. There were also palaces of precious stones\nand gardens and tanks, and, of course, beautiful maidens (de Visser, p.\n20).\n\nIn the Far Eastern stories it is interesting to note the antagonism of\nthe dragon to the tiger, when we recall that the lioness-form of Hathor\nwas the prototype of the earliest malevolent dragon.\n\nThere are five sorts of dragons: serpent-dragons; lizard-dragons;\nfish-dragons; elephant-dragons; and toad-dragons (de Visser, p. 23).\n\n\"According to de Groot, the blue colour is chosen in China because this\nis the colour of the East, from where the rain must come; this quarter\nis represented by the Azure Dragon, the highest in rank among all the\ndragons. We have seen, however, that the original sutra already\nprescribed to use the blue colour and to face the East.... Indra, the\nrain-god, is the patron of the East, and Indra-colour is _nila_, dark\nblue or rather blue-black, the regular epithet of the rain clouds. If\nthe priest had not to face the East but the West, this would agree with\nthe fact that the Nagas were said to live in the western quarter and\nthat in India the West corresponds with the blue colour. Facing the\nEast, however, seems to point to an old rain ceremony in which Indra was\ninvoked to raise the blue-black clouds\" (de Visser, pp. 30 and 31).\n\n\n[175: Breasted, _op. cit._, p. 11.]\n\n[176: G. W. Eve, \"Decorative Heraldry,\" 1897, p. 35.]\n\n[177: Arthur J. Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" pp. 88 _et\nseq._]\n\n\nThe Dragon Myth.\n\nThe most important and fundamental legend in the whole history of\nmythology is the story of the \"Destruction of Mankind\". \"It was\ndiscovered, translated, and commented upon by Naville (\"La Destruction\ndes hommes par les Dieux,\" in the _Transactions of the Society of\nBiblical Archaeology_, vol. iv., pp. 1-19, reproducing Hay's copies made\nat the beginning of [the nineteenth] century; and \"L'Inscription de la\nDestruction des hommes dans le tombeau de Ramses III,\" in the\n_Transactions_, vol. viii., pp. 412-20); afterwards published anew by\nHerr von Bergmann (_Hieroglyphische Inscriften_, pls. lxxv.-lxxxii., and\npp. 55, 56); completely translated by Brugsch (_Die neue Weltordnung\nnach Vernichtung des suendigen Menschengeschlechts nach einer\nAltaegyptischen Ueberlieferung_, 1881); and partly translated by Lauth\n(_Aus AEgyptens Vorzeit_, pp. 70-81) and by Lefebure (\"Une chapitre de la\nchronique solaire,\" in the _Zeitschrift fuer AEgyptische Sprache_, 1883,\npp 32, 33)\".[178]\n\nImportant commentaries upon this story have been published also by\nBrugsch and Gauthier.[179]\n\nAs the really important features of the story consist of the incoherent\nand contradictory details, and it would take up too much space to\nreproduce the whole legend here, I must refer the reader to Maspero's\naccount of it (_op. cit._), or to the versions given by Erman in his\n\"Life in Ancient Egypt\" (p. 267, from which I quote) or Budge in \"The\nGods of the Egyptians,\" vol. i., p. 388.\n\nAlthough the story as we know it was not written down until the time of\nSeti I (_circa_ 1300 B.C.), it is very old and had been circulating as a\npopular legend for more than twenty centuries before that time. The\nnarrative itself tells its own story because it is composed of many\ncontradictory interpretations of the same incidents flung together in a\nhighly confused and incoherent form.\n\nThe other legends to which I shall have constantly to refer are \"The\nSaga of the Winged Disk,\" \"The Feud between Horus and Set,\" \"The\nStealing of Re's Name by Isis,\" and a series of later variants and\nconfusions of these stories.[180]\n\nThe Egyptian legends cannot be fully appreciated unless they are in\nconjunction with those of Babylonia and Assyria,[181] the mythology of\nGreece,[182] Persia,[183] India,[184] China,[185] Indonesia,[186] and\nAmerica.[187]\n\nFor it will be found that essentially the same stream of legends was\nflowing in all these countries, and that the scribes and painters have\ncaught and preserved certain definite phases of this verbal currency.\nThe legends which have thus been preserved are not to be regarded as\nhaving been directly derived the one from the other but as collateral\nphases of a variety of waves of story spreading out from one centre.\nThus the comparison of the whole range of homologous legends is\npeculiarly instructive and useful; because the gaps in the Egyptian\nseries, for example, can be filled in by necessary phases which are\nmissing in Egypt itself, but are preserved in Babylonia or Greece,\nPersia or India, China or Britain, or even Oceania and America.\n\nThe incidents in the Destruction of Mankind may be briefly summarized:\n\nAs Re grows old \"the men who were begotten of his eye\"[188] show signs\nof rebellion. Re calls a council of the gods and they advise him to\n\"shoot forth his Eye[189] that it may slay the evil conspirators.... Let\nthe goddess Hathor descend [from heaven] and slay the men on the\nmountains [to which they had fled in fear].\" As the goddess complied she\nremarked: \"it will be good for me when I subject mankind,\" and Re\nreplied, \"I shall subject them and slay them\". Hence the goddess\nreceived the additional name of _Sekhmet_ from the word \"to subject\".\nThe destructive Sekhmet[190] _avatar_ of Hathor is represented as a\nfierce lion-headed goddess of war wading in blood. For the goddess set\nto work slaughtering mankind and the land was flooded with blood[191].\nRe became alarmed and determined to save at least some remnant of\nmankind. For this purpose he sent messengers to Elephantine to obtain a\nsubstance called _d'd'_ in the Egyptian text, which he gave to the god\nSektet of Heliopolis to grind up in a mortar. When the slaves had\ncrushed barley to make beer the powdered _d'd'_ was mixed with it so as\nto make it red like human blood. Enough of this blood-coloured beer was\nmade to fill 7000 jars. At nighttime this was poured out upon the\nfields, so that when the goddess came to resume her task of destruction\nin the morning she found the fields inundated and her face was mirrored\nin the fluid. She drank of the fluid and became intoxicated so that she\nno longer recognized mankind.[192]\n\nThus Re saved a remnant of mankind from the bloodthirsty, terrible\nHathor. But the god was weary of life on earth and withdrew to heaven\nupon the back of the Divine Cow.\n\nThere can be no doubt as to the meaning of this legend, highly confused\nas it is. The king who was responsible for introducing irrigation came\nto be himself identified with the life-giving power of water. He was the\nriver: his own vitality was the source of all fertility and prosperity.\nHence when he showed signs that his vital powers were failing it became\na logical necessity that he should be killed to safeguard the welfare of\nhis country and people.[193]\n\nThe time came when a king, rich in power and the enjoyment of life,\nrefused to comply with this custom. When he realized that his virility\nwas failing he consulted the Great Mother, as the source and giver of\nlife, to obtain an elixir which would rejuvenate him and obviate the\nnecessity of being killed. The only medicine in the pharmacopoeia of\nthose times that was believed to be useful in minimizing danger to life\nwas human blood. Wounds that gave rise to severe haemorrhage were known\nto produce unconsciousness and death. If the escape of the blood of\nlife could produce these results it was not altogether illogical to\nassume that the exhibition of human blood could also add to the vitality\nof living men and so \"turn back the years from their old age,\" as the\nPyramid Texts express it.\n\nThus the Great Mother, the giver of life to all mankind, was faced with\nthe dilemma that, to provide the king with the elixir to restore his\nyouth, she had to slay mankind, to take the life she herself had given\nto her own children. Thus she acquired an evil reputation which was to\nstick to her throughout her career. She was not only the beneficent\ncreator of all things and the bestower of all blessings: but she was\nalso a demon of destruction who did not hesitate to slaughter even her\nown children.\n\nIn course of time the practice of human sacrifice was abandoned and\nsubstitutes were adopted in place of the blood of mankind. Either the\nblood of cattle,[194] who by means of appropriate ceremonies could be\ntransformed into human beings (for the Great Mother herself was the\nDivine Cow and her offspring cattle), was employed in its stead; or red\nochre was used to colour a liquid which was used ritually to replace the\nblood of sacrifice. When this phase of culture was reached the goddess\nprovided for the king an elixir of life consisting of beer stained red\nby means of red ochre, so as to simulate human blood.\n\nBut such a mixture was doubly potent, for the barley from which the beer\nwas made and the drink itself was supposed to be imbued with the\nlife-giving powers of Osiris, and the blood-colour reinforced its\ntherapeutic usefulness. The legend now begins to become involved and\nconfused. For the goddess is making the rejuvenator for the king, who in\nthe meantime has died and become deified as Osiris; and the beer, which\nis the vehicle of the life-giving powers of Osiris, is now being used to\nrejuvenate his son and successor, the living king Horus, who in the\nversion that has come down to us is replaced by the sun-god Re.\n\nIt is Re who is king and is growing old: he asks Hathor, the Great\nMother, to provide him with the elixir of life. But comparison with some\nof the legends of other countries suggests that Re has usurped the place\npreviously occupied by Horus and originally by Osiris, who as the real\npersonification of the life-giving power of water is obviously the\nappropriate person to be slain when his virility begins to fail. Dr.\nC. G. Seligman's account of the Dinka rain-maker Lerpiu, which I have\nalready quoted (p. 113) from Sir James Frazer's \"Dying God,\" suggests\nthat the slain king or god was originally Osiris.\n\nThe introduction of Re into the story marks the beginning of the belief\nin the sky-world or heaven. Hathor was originally nothing more than an\namulet to enhance fertility and vitality. Then she was personified as a\nwoman and identified with a cow. But when the view developed that the\nmoon controlled the powers of life-giving in women and exercised a\ndirect influence upon their life-blood, the Great Mother was identified\nwith the moon. But how was such a conception to be brought into harmony\nwith the view that she was also a cow? The human mind displays an\nirresistible tendency to unify its experience and to bridge the gaps\nthat necessarily exist in its broken series of scraps of knowledge and\nideas. No break is too great to be bridged by this instinctive impulse\nto rationalize the products of diverse experience. Hence, early man,\nhaving identified the Great Mother both with a cow and the moon, had no\ncompunction in making \"the cow jump over the moon\" to become the sky.\nThe moon then became the \"Eye\" of the sky and the sun necessarily became\nits other \"Eye\". But, as the sun was clearly the more important \"Eye,\"\nseeing that it determined the day and gave warmth and light for man's\ndaily work, it was the more important deity. Therefore Re, at first the\nBrother-Eye of Hathor, and afterwards her husband, became the supreme\nsky-deity, and Hathor merely one of his Eyes.\n\nWhen this stage of theological evolution was reached, the story of the\n\"Destruction of Mankind\" was re-edited, and Hathor was called the \"Eye\nof Re\". In the earlier versions she was called into consultation solely\nas the giver of life and, to obtain the life-blood, she cut men's\nthroats with a knife.\n\nBut as the Eye of Re she was identified with the fire-spitting\nuraeus-serpent which the king or god wore on his forehead. She was both\nthe moon and the fiery bolt which shot down from the sky to slay the\nenemies of Re. For the men who were originally slaughtered to provide\nthe blood for an elixir now became the enemies of Re. The reason for\nthis was that, human sacrifice having been abandoned and substitutes\nprovided to replace the human blood, the story-teller was at a loss to\nknow why the goddess killed mankind. A reason had to be found--and the\nrationalization adopted was that men had rebelled against the gods and\nhad to be killed. This interpretation was probably the result of a\nconfusion with the old legend of the fight between Horus and Set, the\nrulers of the two kingdoms of Egypt. The possibility also suggests\nitself that a pun made by some priestly jester may have been the real\nfactor that led to this mingling of two originally separate stories. In\nthe \"Destruction of Mankind\" the story runs, according to Budge,[195]\nthat Re, referring to his enemies, said: _ma-ten set uar er set_,\n\"Behold ye them (_set_) fleeing into the mountain (_set_)\". The enemies\nwere thus identified with the mountain or stone and with Set, the enemy\nof the gods.[196]\n\nIn Egyptian hieroglyphics the symbol for stone is used as the\ndeterminative for Set. When the \"Eye of Re\" destroyed mankind and the\nrebels were thus identified with the followers of Set, they were\nregarded as creatures of \"stone\". In other words the Medusa-eye\npetrified the enemies. From this feeble pun on the part of some ancient\nEgyptian scribe has arisen the world-wide stories of the influence of\nthe \"Evil Eye\" and the petrification of the enemies of the gods.[197] As\nthe name for Isis in Egyptian is \"_Set_\" it is possible that the\nconfusion of the Power of Evil with the Great Mother may also have been\nfacilitated by an extension of the same pun.\n\nIt is important to recognize that the legend of Hathor descending from\nthe moon or the sky in the form of destroying fire had nothing whatever\nto do, in the first instance, with the phenomena of lightning and\nmeteorites. It was the result of verbal quibbling after the destructive\ngoddess came to be identified with the moon, the sky and the \"Eye of\nRe\". But once the evolution of the story on these lines prepared the\nway, it was inevitable that in later times the powers of destruction\nexerted by the fire from the sky should have been identified with the\nlightning and meteorites.\n\nWhen the destructive force of the heavens was attributed to the \"Eye of\nRe\" and the god's enemies were identified with the followers of Set, it\nwas natural that the traditional enemy of Set who was also the more\npotent other \"Eye of Re\" should assume his mother's role of punishing\nrebellious mankind. That Horus did in fact take the place at first\noccupied by Hathor in the story is revealed by the series of trivial\nepisodes from the \"Destruction of Mankind\" that reappear in the \"Saga of\nthe Winged Disk\". The king of Lower Egypt (Horus) was identified with a\nfalcon, as Hathor was with the vulture (Mut): like her, he entered the\nsun-god's boat[198] and sailed up the river with him: he then mounted up\nto heaven as a winged disk, i.e. the sun of Re equipped with his own\nfalcon's wings. The destructive force displayed by Hathor as the Eye of\nRe was symbolized by her identification with Tefnut, the fire-spitting\nuraeus-snake. When Horus assumed the form of the winged disk he added to\nhis insignia two fire-spitting serpents to destroy Re's enemies. The\nwinged disk was at once the instrument of destruction and the god\nhimself. It swooped (or flew) down from heaven like a bolt of destroying\nfire and killed the enemies of Re. By a confusion with Horus's other\nfight against the followers of Set, the enemies of Re become identified\nwith Set's army and they are transformed into crocodiles, hippopotami\nand all the other kinds of creatures whose shapes the enemies of Osiris\nassume.\n\nIn the course of the development of these legends a multitude of other\nfactors played a part and gave rise to transformations of the meaning of\nthe incidents.\n\nThe goddess originally slaughtered mankind, or perhaps it would be truer\nto say, made _a_ human sacrifice, to obtain blood to rejuvenate the\nking. But, as we have seen already, when the sacrifice was no longer a\nnecessary part of the programme, the incident of the slaughter was not\ndropped out of the story, but a new explanation of it was framed.\nInstead of simply making a human sacrifice, mankind as a whole was\ndestroyed for rebelling against the gods, the act of rebellion being\nmurmuring about the king's old age and loss of virility. The elixir soon\nbecame something more than a rejuvenator: it was transformed into the\nfood of the gods, the ambrosia that gave them their immortality, and\ndistinguished them from mere mortals. Now when the development of the\nstory led to the replacement of the single victim by the whole of\nmankind, the blood produced by the wholesale slaughter was so abundant\nthat the fields were flooded by the life-giving elixir. By the sacrifice\nof men the soil was renewed and refertilized. When the blood-coloured\nbeer was substituted for the actual blood the conception was brought\ninto still closer harmony with Egyptian ideas, because the beer was\nanimated with the life-giving powers of Osiris. But Osiris was the Nile.\nThe blood-coloured fertilizing fluid was then identified with the annual\ninundation of the red-coloured waters of the Nile. Now the Nile waters\nwere supposed to come from the First Cataract at Elephantine. Hence by a\nfamiliar psychological process the previous phase of the legend was\nrecast, and by confusion the red ochre (which was used to colour the\nbeer red) was said to have come from Elephantine.[199]\n\nThus we have arrived at the stage where, by a distortion of a series of\nphases, the new incident emerges that by means of a human sacrifice the\nNile flood can be produced. By a further confusion the goddess, who\noriginally did the slaughter, becomes the victim. Hence the story\nassumed the form that by means of the sacrifice of a beautiful and\nattractive maiden the annual inundation can be produced. As the most\npotent symbol of life-giving it is essential that the victim should be\nsexually attractive, i.e. that she should be a virgin and the most\nbeautiful and desirable in the land. When the practice of human\nsacrifice was abandoned a figure or an animal was substituted for the\nmaiden in ritual practice, and in legends the hero rescued the maiden,\nas Andromeda was saved from the dragon.[200] The dragon is the\npersonification of the monsters that dwell in the waters as well as the\ndestructive forces of the flood itself. But the monsters were no other\nthan the followers of Set; they were the victims of the slaughter who\nbecame identified with the god's other traditional enemies, the\nfollowers of Set. Thus the monster from whom Andromeda is rescued is\nmerely another representative of herself!\n\nBut the destructive forces of the flood now enter into the programme.\nIn the phases we have so far discussed it was the slaughter of\nmankind which caused the inundation: but in the next phase it is\nthe flood itself which causes the destruction, as in the later Egyptian\nand the borrowed Sumerian, Babylonian, Hebrew--and in fact the\nworld-wide--versions. Re's boat becomes the ark; the winged disk which\nwas despatched by Re from the boat becomes the dove and the other birds\nsent out to spy the land, as the winged Horus spied the enemies of Re.\n\nThus the new weapon of the gods--we have already noted Hathor's knife\nand Horus's winged disk, which is the fire from heaven, the lightning\nand the thunderbolt--is the flood. Like the others it can be either a\nbeneficent giver of life or a force of destruction.\n\nBut the flood also becomes a weapon of another kind. One of the earlier\nincidents of the story represents Hathor in opposition to Re. The\ngoddess becomes so maddened with the zest of killing that the god\nbecomes alarmed and asks her to desist and spare some representatives of\nthe race. But she is deaf to entreaties. Hence the god is said to have\nsent to Elephantine for the red ochre to make a sedative draught to\novercome her destructive zeal. We have already seen that this incident\nhad an entirely different meaning--it was merely intended to explain the\nobtaining of the colouring matter wherewith to redden the sacred beer so\nas to make it resemble blood as an elixir for the god. It was brought\nfrom Elephantine, because the red waters of inundation of the Nile were\nsupposed by the Egyptians to come from Elephantine.\n\nBut according to the story inscribed in Seti Ist's tomb, the red ochre\nwas an essential ingredient of the sedative mixture (prepared under the\ndirection of Re by the Sekti[201] of Heliopolis) to calm Hathor's\nmurderous spirit.\n\nIt has been claimed that the story simply means that the goddess became\nintoxicated with beer and that she became genially inoffensive solely as\nthe effect of such inebriation. But the incident in the Egyptian story\nclosely resembles the legends of other countries in which some herb is\nused specifically as a sedative. In most books on Egyptian mythology the\nword (_d'd'_) for the substance put into the drink to colour it is\ntranslated \"mandragora,\" from its resemblance to the Hebrew word\n_dudaim_ in the Old Testament, which is often translated \"mandrakes\" or\n\"love-apples\". But Gauthier has clearly demonstrated that the Egyptian\nword does not refer to a vegetable but to a mineral substance, which he\ntranslates \"red clay\".[202] Mr. F. Ll. Griffith tells me, however, that\nit is \"red ochre\". In any case, mandrake is not found at Elephantine\n(which, however, for the reasons I have already given, is a point of no\nimportance so far as the identification of the substance is concerned),\nnor in fact anywhere in Egypt.\n\nBut if some foreign story of the action of a sedative drug had become\nblended with and incorporated in the highly complex and composite\nEgyptian legend the narrative would be more intelligible. The mandrake\nis such a sedative as might have been employed to calm the murderous\nfrenzy of a maniacal woman. In fact it is closely allied to hyoscyamus,\nwhose active principle, hyoscin, is used in modern medicine precisely\nfor such purposes. I venture to suggest that a folk-tale describing the\neffect of opium or some other \"drowsy syrup\" has been absorbed into the\nlegend of the Destruction of Mankind, and has provided the starting\npoint of all those incidents in the dragon-story in which poison or\nsome sleep-producing drug plays a part. For when Hathor defies Re and\ncontinues the destruction, she is playing the part of her Babylonian\nrepresentative Tiamat, and is a dragon who has to be vanquished by the\ndrink which the god provides.\n\nThe red earth which was pounded in the mortar to make the elixir of life\nand the fertilizer of the soil also came to be regarded as the material\nout of which the new race of men was made to replace those who were\ndestroyed.\n\nThe god fashioned mankind of this earth and, instead of the red ochre\nbeing merely the material to give the blood-colour to the draught of\nimmortality, the story became confused: actual blood was presented to\nthe clay images to give them life and consciousness.\n\nIn a later elaboration the remains of the former race of mankind were\nground up to provide the material out of which their successors were\ncreated. This version is a favourite story in Northern Europe, and has\nobviously been influenced by an intermediate variant which finds\nexpression in the Indian legend of the Churning of the Ocean of Milk.\nInstead of the material for the elixir of the gods being pounded by the\nSekti of Heliopolis and incidentally becoming a sedative for Hathor, it\nis the milk of the Divine Cow herself which is churned to provide the\n_amrita_.\n\n\n[178: G. Maspero, \"The Dawn of Civilization,\" p. 164.]\n\n[179: H. Brugsch, \"Die Alraune als altaegyptische Zauberpflanze,\" _Zeit.\nf. AEgypt. Sprache_, Bd. 29, 1891, pp. 31-3; and Henri Gauthier, \"Le nom\nhieroglyphique de l'argile rouge d'Elephantine,\" _Revue Egyptologique_,\nt. xi^e, Nos. i.-ii., 1904, p. 1.]\n\n[180: These legends will be found in the works by Maspero, Erman and\nBudge, to which I have already referred. A very useful digest will be\nfound in Donald A. Mackenzie's \"Egyptian Myth and Legend\". Mr. Mackenzie\ndoes not claim to have any first-hand knowledge of the subject, but his\nexceptionally wide and intimate knowledge of Scottish folk-lore, which\nhas preserved a surprisingly large part of the same legends, has enabled\nhim to present the Egyptian stories with exceptional clearness and\nsympathetic insight. But I refer to his book specially because he is one\nof the few modern writers who has made the attempt to compare the\nlegends of Egypt, Babylonia, Crete, India and Western Europe. Hence the\nreader who is not familiar with the mythology of these countries will\nfind his books particularly useful as works of reference in following\nthe story I have to unfold: \"Teutonic Myth and Legend,\" \"Egyptian Myth\nand Legend,\" \"Indian Myth and Legend,\" \"Myths of Babylonia and Assyria\"\nand \"Myths of Crete and Pre-Hellenic Europe\".]\n\n[181: See Leonard W. King, \"Babylonian Religion,\" 1899.]\n\n[182: For a useful collection of data see A. B. Cook, \"Zeus\".]\n\n[183: Albert J. Carnoy, \"Iranian Views of Origins in connexion with\nSimilar Babylonian Beliefs,\" _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,\nvol. xxxvi., 1916, pp. 300-20; and \"The Moral Deities of Iran and India\nand their Origins,\" _The American Journal of Theology_, vol. xxi., No.\ni., January, 1917.]\n\n[184: Hopkins, \"Religions of India\".]\n\n[185: De Groot, \"The Religious System of China\".]\n\n[186: Perry, \"The Megalithic Culture of Indonesia,\" Manchester, 1918.]\n\n[187: H. Beuchat, \"Manuel d' Archeologie Americaine,\" Paris, 1912; T. A.\nJoyce, \"Mexican Archaeology,\" and especially the memoir by Seler on the\n\"Codex Vaticanus\" and his articles in the _Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_\nand elsewhere.]\n\n[188: I.e. the offspring of the Great Mother of gods and men, Hathor,\nthe \"Eye of Re\".]\n\n[189: That is, Hathor, who as the moon is the \"Eye of Re\".]\n\n[190: Elsewhere in these pages I have used the more generally adopted\nspelling \"_Sekhet_\".]\n\n[191: Mr. F. Ll. Griffith tells me that the translation \"flooding the\nland\" is erroneous and misleading. Comparison of the whole series of\nstories, however, suggests that the amount of blood shed rapidly\nincreased in the development of the narrative: at first the blood of a\nsingle victim; then the blood of mankind; then 7000 jars of a substitute\nfor blood; then the red inundation of the Nile.]\n\n[192: This version I have quoted mainly from Erman, _op. cit._, pp.\n267-9, but with certain alterations which I shall mention later. In\nanother version of the legend wine replaces the beer and is made out of\n\"the blood of those who formerly fought against the gods,\" _cf._\nPlutarch, De Iside (ed. Parthey) 6.]\n\n[193: It is still the custom in many places, and among them especially\nthe regions near the headwaters of the Nile itself, to regard the king\nor rain-maker as the impersonation of the life-giving properties of\nwater and the source of all fertility. When his own vitality shows signs\nof failing he is killed, so as not to endanger the fruitfulness of the\ncommunity by allowing one who is weak in life-giving powers to control\nits destinies. Much of the evidence relating to these matters has been\ncollected by Sir James Frazer in \"The Dying God,\" 1911, who quotes from\nDr. Seligman the following account of the Dinka \"Osiris\":\n\n\"While the mighty spirit Lerpiu is supposed to be embodied in the\nrain-maker, it is also thought to inhabit a certain hut which serves as\na shrine. In front of the hut stands a post to which are fastened the\nhorns of many bullocks that have been sacrificed to Lerpiu; and in the\nhut is kept a very sacred spear which bears the name of Lerpiu and is\nsaid to have fallen from heaven six generations ago. As fallen stars are\nalso called Lerpiu, we may suspect that an intimate connexion is\nsupposed to exist between meteorites and the spirit which animates the\nrain-maker\" (Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 32). Here then we have a house of\nthe dead inhabited by Lerpiu, who can also enter the body of the\nrain-maker and animate him, as well as the ancient spear and the falling\nstars, which are also animate forms of the same god, who obviously is\nthe homologue of Osiris, and is identified with the spear and the\nfalling stars.\n\nIn spring when the April moon is a few days old bullocks are sacrificed\nto Lerpiu. \"Two bullocks are led twice round the shrine and afterwards\ntied by the rain-maker to the post in front of it. Then the drums beat\nand the people, old and young, men and women, dance round the shrine and\nsing, while the beasts are being sacrificed, 'Lerpiu, our ancestor, we\nhave brought you a sacrifice. Be pleased to cause rain to fall.' The\nblood of the bullocks is collected in a gourd, boiled in a pot on the\nfire, and eaten by the old and important people of the clan. The horns\nof the animals are attached to the post in front of the shrine\" (pp. 32\nand 33).]\n\n[194: In Northern Nigeria an official who bore the title of Killer of\nthe Elephant throttled the king \"as soon as he showed signs of failing\nhealth or growing infirmity\". The king-elect was afterwards conducted to\nthe centre of the town, called Head of the Elephant, where he was made\nto lie down on a bed. Then a black ox was slaughtered and its blood\nallowed to pour all over his body. Next the ox was flayed, and the\nremains of the dead king, which had been disembowelled and smoked for\nseven days over a slow fire, were wrapped up in the hide and dragged\nalong to the place of burial, where they were interred in a circular\npit. (Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 35).]\n\n[195: \"Gods of the Egyptians,\" vol. i., p. 392.]\n\n[196: \"The eye of the sun-god, which was subsequently called the eye of\nHorus and identified with the Uraeus-snake on the forehead of Re and of\nthe Pharaohs, the earthly representatives of Re, finally becoming\nsynonymous with the crown of Lower Egypt, was a mighty goddess, Uto or\nButo by name\" (Alan Gardiner, Article \"Magic (Egyptian)\" in Hastings'\n_Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_, p. 268, quoting Sethe.)]\n\n[197: For an account of the distribution of this story see E. Sidney\nHartland, \"The Legend of Perseus\"; also W. J. Perry, \"The Megalithic\nCulture of Indonesia\".]\n\n[198: The original \"boat of the sky\" was the crescent moon, which, from\nits likeness to the earliest form of Nile boat, was regarded as the\nvessel in which the moon (seen as a faint object upon the crescent), or\nthe goddess who was supposed to be personified in the moon, travelled\nacross the waters of the heavens. But as this \"boat\" was obviously part\nof the moon itself, it also was regarded as an animate form of the\ngoddess, the \"Eye of Re\". When the Sun, as the other \"Eye,\" assumed the\nchief role, Re was supposed to traverse the heavens in his own \"boat,\"\nwhich was also brought into relationship with the actual boat used in\nthe Osirian burial ritual.\n\nThe custom of employing the name \"dragon\" in reference to a boat is\nfound in places as far apart as Scandinavia and China. It is the direct\noutcome of these identifications of the sun and moon with a boat\nanimated by the respective deities. In India the _Makara_, the prototype\nof the dragon, was sometimes represented as a boat which was looked upon\nas the fish-_avatar_ of Vishnu, Buddha or some other deity.]\n\n[199: This is an instance of the well-known tendency of the human mind\nto blend numbers of different incidents into one story. An episode of\none experience, having been transferred to an earlier one, becomes\nrationalized in adaptation to its different environment. This process of\npsychological transference is the explanation of the reference to\nElephantine as the source of the _d'd'_, and has no relation to\nactuality. The naive efforts of Brugsch and Gauthier to study the\nnatural products of Elephantine for the purpose of identifying _d'd'_\nwere therefore wholly misplaced.]\n\n[200: In Hartland's \"Legend of Perseus\" a collection of variants of this\nstory will be found.]\n\n[201: In the version I have quoted from Erman he refers to \"the god\nSektet\".]\n\n[202: _Op. cit. supra_.]\n\n\nThe Thunder-Weapon.[203]\n\nIn the development of the dragon-story we have seen that the instruments\nof destruction were of a most varied kind. Each of the three primary\ndeities, Hathor, Osiris and Horus can be a destructive power as well as\na giver of life and of all kinds of boons. Every homologue or surrogate\nof these three deities can become a weapon for dragon-destroying, such\nas the moon or the lotus of Hathor, the water or the beer of Osiris,\nthe sun or the falcon of Horus. Originally Hathor used a flint knife or\naxe: then she did the execution as \"the Eye of Re,\" the moon, the fiery\nbolt from heaven: Osiris sent the destroying flood and the intoxicating\nbeer, each of which, like the knife, axe and moon of Hathor, were\nanimated by the deity. Then Horus came as the winged disk, the falcon,\nthe sun, the lightning and the thunderbolt. As the dragon-story was\nspread abroad in the world any one of these \"weapons\" was confused with\nany of (or all) the rest. The Eye of Re was the fire-spitting\nuraeus-serpent; and foreign people, like the Greeks, Indians and others,\ngave the Egyptian verbal simile literal expression and converted it into\nan actual Cyclopean eye planted in the forehead, which shot out the\ndestroying fire.\n\nThe warrior god of Babylonia is called the bright one,[204] the sword or\nlightning of Ishtar, who was herself called both the sword or lightning\nof heaven.\n\nIn the AEgean area also the sons of Zeus and the progeny of heaven may be\naxes, stone implements, meteoric stones and thunderbolts. In a Swahili\ntale the hero's weapon is \"a sword like a flash of lightning\".\n\nAccording to Bergaigne,[205] the myth of the celestial drink _soma_,\nbrought down from heaven by a bird ordinarily called _cyena_, \"eagle,\"\nis parallel to that of Agni, the celestial fire brought by Mataricvan.\nThis parallelism is even expressly stated in the Rig Veda, verse 6 of\nhymn 1 to Agni and Soma. Mataricvan brought the one from heaven, the\neagle brought the other from the celestial mountain.\n\nKuhn admits that the eagle represents Indra; and Lehmann regards the\neagle who takes the fire as Agni himself. It is patent that both Indra\nand Agni are in fact merely specialized forms of Horus of the Winged\nDisk Saga, in one of which the warrior sun-god is represented, in the\nother the living fire. The elixir of life of the Egyptian story is\nrepresented by the _soma_, which by confusion is associated with the\neagle: in other words, the god Soma is the homologue not only of Osiris,\nbut also of Horus.\n\nOther incidents in the same original version are confused in the Greek\nstory of Prometheus. He stole the fire from heaven and brought it to\nearth: but, in place of the episode of the elixir, which is adopted in\nthe Indian story just mentioned, the creation of men from clay is\naccredited by the Greeks to the \"flaming one,\" the \"fire eagle\"\nPrometheus.\n\nThe double axe was the homologue of the winged disk which fell, or\nrather flew, from heaven as the tangible form of the god. This fire from\nheaven inevitably came to be identified with the lightning. According to\nBlinkenberg (_op. cit._, p. 19) \"many points go to prove that the\ndouble-axe is a representation of the lightning (see Usener, p. 20)\". He\nrefers to the design on the famous gold ring from Mycenae where \"the sun,\nthe moon, a double curved line presumably representing the rainbow, and\nthe double-axe, i.e. the lightning\": but \"the latter is placed lower\nthan the others, probably because it descends from heaven to earth,\"\nlike Horus when he assumed the form of the winged disk and flew down to\nearth as a fiery bolt to destroy the enemies of Re.\n\nThe recognition of the homology of the winged disk with the double axe\nsolves a host of problems which have puzzled classical scholars within\nrecent years. The form of the double axe on the Mycenaean ring[206] and\nthe painted sarcophagus from Hagia Triada in Crete (and especially the\noblique markings upon the axe) is probably a suggestion of the double\nseries of feathers and the outlines of the individual feathers\nrespectively on the wings. The position of the axe upon a symbolic tree\nis not intended, as Blinkenberg claims (_op. cit._, p. 21), as \"a ritual\nrepresentation of the trees struck by lightning\": but is the familiar\nscene of Mesopotamian culture-area, the tree of life surmounted by the\nwinged disk.[207]\n\nThe bird poised upon the axe in the Cretan picture is the homologue of\nthe falcon of Horus: it is in fact a second representation of the winged\ndisk itself. This interpretation is not affected by the consideration\nthat the falcon may be replaced by the eagle, pigeon, woodpecker or\nraven, for these substitutions were repeatedly made by the ancient\npriesthoods in flagrant defiance of the properties of ornithological\nhomologies. The same phenomenon is displayed even more obtrusively in\nCentral America and Mexico, where the ancient sculptors and painters\nrepresented the bird perched upon the tree of life as a falcon, an\neagle, a vulture, a macaw or even a turkey.[208]\n\nThe incident of the winged disk descending to effect the sun-god's\npurposes upon earth probably represents the earliest record of the\nrecognition of thunder and lightning and the phenomena of rain as\nmanifestations of the god's powers. All gods of thunder, lightning, rain\nand clouds derive their attributes, and the arbitrary graphic\nrepresentation of them, from the legend which the Egyptian scribe has\npreserved for us in the Saga of the Winged Disk.\n\nThe sacred axe of Crete is represented elsewhere as a sword which became\nthe visible impersonation of the deity.[209] There is a Hittite story of\na sword-handle coming to life. Hose and McDougall refer to the same\nincident in certain Sarawak legends; and the story is true to the\noriginal in the fact that the sword fell from the sun.[210]\n\nSir Arthur Evans describes as \"the aniconic image of the god\" a stone\npillar on which crude pictures of a double axe have been scratched.\nThese representations of the axe in fact serve the same purpose as the\nwinged disk in Egypt, and, as we shall see subsequently, there was an\nactual confusion between the Egyptian symbol and the Cretan axe.\n\nThe obelisk at Abusir was the aniconic representative of the sun-god Re,\nor rather, the support of the pyramidal apex, the gilded surface of\nwhich reflected the sun's rays and so made manifest the god's presence\nin the stone.\n\nThe Hittites seem to have substituted the winged disk as a\nrepresentation of the sun: for in a design copied from a seal[211] we\nfind the Egyptian symbol borne upon the apex of a cone.\n\nThe transition from this to the great double axe from Hagia Triada in\nthe Candia Museum[212] is a relatively easy one, which was materially\nhelped, as we shall see, by the fact that the winged disk was actually\nhomologized with an axe or knife as alternative weapons used by the\nsun-god for the destruction of mankind.\n\nIn Dr. Seligman's account of the Dinka rain-maker (_supra_, p. 113) we\nhave already seen that the Soudanese Osiris was identified with a spear\nand falling stars.\n\nAccording to Dr. Budge[213] the Egyptian hieroglyph used as the\ndeterminative of the word _neter_, meaning god or spirit, is the axe\nwith a handle. Mr. Griffith, however, interprets it as a roll of yellow\ncloth (\"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 46). On Hittite seals the axe sometimes takes\nthe place of the god Teshub.[214]\n\nSir Arthur Evans endeavours to explain these conceptions by a vague\nappeal to certain natural phenomena (_op. cit._, pp. 20 and 21); but the\nidentical traditions of widespread peoples are much too arbitrary and\nspecific to be interpreted by any such speculations.\n\nSanchoniathon's story of Baetylos being the son of Ouranos is merely a\npoetical way of saying that the sun-god fell to earth in the form of a\nstone or a weapon, as a Zeus Kappotas or a Horus in the form of a winged\ndisk, flying down from heaven to destroy the enemies of Re.\n\n\"The idea of their [the weapons] flying through the air or falling from\nheaven, and their supposed power of burning with inner fire or shining\nin the nighttime,\" was not primarily suggested, as Sir Arthur Evans\nclaims (_op. cit._, p. 21), \"by the phenomena associated with meteoric\nstones,\" but was a rationalization of the events described in the early\nEgyptian and Babylonian stories.\n\nThey \"shine at night\" because the original weapon of destruction was the\nmoon as the Eye of Re. They \"burn with inward fire,\" like the Babylonian\nMarduk, when in the fight with the dragon Tiamat \"he filled his body\nwith burning flame\" (King, _op. cit._, p. 71), because they _were_ fire,\nthe fire of the sun and of lightning, the fire spat out by the Eye\nof Re.\n\nFurther evidence in corroboration of these views is provided by the fact\nthat in the AEgean area the double-axe replaces the moon between the\ncow's horns (Evans, _op. cit._, Fig. 3, p. 9).\n\nIn King's \"Babylonian Religion\" (pp. 70 and 71) we are told how the gods\nprovided Marduk with an invincible weapon in preparation for the combat\nwith the dragon: and the ancient scribe himself sets forth a series of\nits homologues:--\n\nHe made ready his bow ... He slung a spear ... The bow and quiver ... He\nset the lightning in front of him, With burning flame he filled his\nbody.\n\nAn ancient Egyptian writer has put on record further identifications of\nweapons. In the 95th Chapter of the Book of the Dead, the deceased is\nreported to have said: \"I am he who sendeth forth terror into the powers\nof rain and thunder.... I have made to flourish my knife which is in the\nhand of Thoth in the powers of rain and thunder\" (Budge, \"Gods of the\nEgyptians,\" vol. i., p. 414).\n\nThe identification of the winged disk with the thunderbolt which emerges\nso definitely from these homologies is not altogether new, for it was\nsuggested some years ago by Count d'Alviella[215] in these words:--\n\n\"On seeing some representations of the Thunderbolt which recall in a\nremarkable manner the outlines of the Winged Globe, it may be asked if\nit was not owing to this latter symbol that the Greeks transformed into\na winged spindle the Double Trident derived from Assyria. At any rate\nthe transition, or, if it be preferred, the combination of the two\nsymbols is met with in those coins from Northern Africa where Greek art\nwas most deeply impregnated with Phoenician types. Thus on coins of\nBocchus II, King of Mauretania, figures are found which M. Lajard\nconnected with the Winged Globe, and M. L. Mueller calls Thunderbolts,\nbut which are really the result of crossing between these two emblems\".\n\nThe thunderbolt, however, is not always, or even commonly, the direct\nrepresentative of the winged disk. It is more often derived from\nlightning or some floral design.[216]\n\nAccording to Count d'Alviella[217] \"the Trident of Siva at times\nexhibits the form of a lotus calyx depicted in the Egyptian manner\".\n\n\"Perhaps other transformations of the _trisula_ might still be found at\nBoro-Budur [in Java].... The same Disk which, when transformed into a\nmost complicated ornament, is sometimes crowned by a Trident, is also\nmet with between two serpents--which brings us back to the origin of the\nWinged Circle--the Globe of Egypt with the uraei\" (see d'Alviella's Fig.\n158). \"Moreover this ornament, between which and certain forms of the\n_trisula_ the transition is easily traced, commonly surmounts the\nentrance to the pagodas depicted in the bas-reliefs--in exactly the same\nmanner as the Winged Globe adorns the lintel of the temples in Egypt and\nPhoenicia.\"\n\nThus we find traces of a blending of the two homologous designs, derived\nindependently from the lotus and the winged disk, which acquired the\nsame symbolic significance.\n\nThe weapon of Poseidon, the so-called \"Trident of Neptune,\" is\n\"sometimes crowned with a trilobate lotus flower, or with three lotus\nbuds; in other cases it is depicted in a shape that may well represent a\nfishing spear\" (Blinkenberg, _op. cit._, pp. 53 and 54).\n\n\"Even if Jacobsthal's interpretation of the flower as a common Greek\nsymbol for fire be not accepted, the conventionalization of the trident\nas a lotus blossom is quite analogous to the change, on Greek soil, of\nthe Assyrian thunderweapon to two flowers pointing in opposite\ndirections\" (p. 54).\n\nBut the conception of a flower as a symbol of fire cannot thus summarily\nbe dismissed. For Sir Arthur Evans has collected all the stages in the\ntransformation of Egyptian palmette pillars into the rayed pillars of\nCyprus, in which the leaflets of the palmette become converted (in the\nCypro-Mycenaean derivatives) into the rays which he calls \"the natural\nconcomitant of divinities of light\".[218]\n\nThe underlying motive which makes such a transference easy is the\nEgyptian conception of Hathor as a sacred lotus from which the sun-god\nHorus is born. The god of light is identified with the water-plant,\nwhether lotus, iris or lily; and the lotus form of Horus can be\ncorrelated with its Hellenic surrogate, Apollo Hyakinthos. \"The\nfleur-de-lys type now takes its place beside the sacred lotus\" (_op.\ncit._, p. 50). The trident and the fleur-de-lys are thunderweapons\nbecause they represent forms of Horus or his mother.\n\nThe classical keraunos is still preserved in Tibet as the _dorje_, which\nis identified with Indra's thunderbolt, the _vajra_.[219] This word is\nalso applied to the diamond, the \"king of stones,\" which in turn\nacquired many of the attributes of the pearl, another of the Great\nMother's surrogates, which is reputed to have fallen from heaven like\nthe thunderbolt.[220]\n\nThe Tibetan _dorje_, like its Greek original, is obviously a\nconventionalized flower, the leaf-design about the base of the corona\nbeing quite clearly defined.\n\nThe influence of the Winged-Disk Saga is clearly revealed in such Greek\nmyths as that relating to Ixion. \"Euripides is represented by\nAristophanes as declaring that _Aither_ at the creation devised\n\n  The eye to mimic the wheel of the sun.\"[221]\n\nWhen we read of Zeus in anger binding Ixion to a winged wheel made of\nfire, and sending him spinning through the air, we are merely dealing\nwith a Greek variant of the Egyptian myth in which Re despatched Horus\nas a winged disk to slay his enemies. In the Hellenic version the\nsky-god is angry with the father of the centaurs for his ill-treatment\nof his father-in-law and his behaviour towards Hera and her\ncloud-manifestation: but though distorted all the incidents reveal their\noriginal inspiration in the Egyptian story and its early Aryan variants.\n\nIt is remarkable that Mr. A. B. Cook, who compared the wheel of Ixion\nwith the Egyptian winged disk (pp. 205-10), did not look deeper for a\ncommon origin of the two myths, especially when he got so far as to\nidentify Ixion with the sun-god (p. 211).\n\nBlinkenberg sums up the development of the thunder-weapon thus: \"From\nthe old Babylonian representation of the lightning, i.e. two or three\nzigzag lines representing flames, a tripartite thunder-weapon was\nevolved and earned east and west from the ancient seat of civilization.\nTogether with the axe (in Western Asia Minor the double-edged, and\ntowards the centre of Asia the single-edged, axe) it became a regular\nattribute of the Asiatic thunder-gods.... The Indian trisula and the\nGreek triaina are both its descendants\" (p. 57).\n\nDiscussing the relationship of the sun-god to thunder, Dr. Rendel Harris\nrefers to the fact that Apollo's \"arrows are said to be lightnings,\" and\nhe quotes Pausanias, Apollodorus and Mr. A. B. Cook in substantiation of\nhis statements.[222] Both sons of Zeus, Dionysus and Apollo, are\n\"concerned with the production of fire\".\n\nAccording to Hyginus, Typhon was the son of Tartarus and the Earth: he\nmade war against Jupiter for dominion, and, being struck by lightning,\nwas thrown flaming to the earth, where Mount AEtna was placed upon\nhim.[223]\n\nIn this curious variant of the story of the winged disk, the conflict of\nHorus with Set is merged with the Destruction, for the son of Tartarus\n[Osiris] and the Earth [Isis] here is not Horus but his hostile brother\nSet. Instead of fighting for Jupiter (Re) as Horus did, he is against\nhim. The lightning (which is Horus in the form of the winged disk)\nstrikes Typhon and throws him flaming to earth. The episode of Mount\nAEtna is the antithesis of the incident in the Indian legend of the\nchurning of the ocean: Mount Meru is placed in the sea upon the tortoise\n_avatar_ of Vishnu and is used to churn the food of immortality for the\ngods. In the Egyptian story the red ochre brought from Elephantine is\npounded with the barley.\n\nThe story told by Hyginus leads up to the vision in Revelations (xii., 7\n_et seq._): \"There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought\nagainst the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels, and prevailed\nnot, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great\ndragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which\ndeceiveth the whole world: he was cast into the earth, and his angels\nwere cast out with him.\"\n\nIn the later variants the original significance of the Destruction of\nMankind seems to have been lost sight of. The life-giving Great Mother\ntends to drop out of the story and her son Horus takes her place. He\nbecomes the warrior-god, but he not only assumes his mother's role but\nhe also adopts her tactics. Just as she attacked Re's enemies in the\ncapacity of the sky-god's \"Eye,\" so Horus as the other \"Eye,\" the sun,\nto which he gave his own falcon's wings, attacked in the form of the\nwinged disk. The winged disk, like the other \"Eye of Re,\" was not merely\nthe sky weapon which shot down to destroy mankind, but also was the god\nHorus himself. This early conception involved the belief that the\nthunderbolt and lightning represented not merely the fiery weapon but\nthe actual god.\n\nThe winged disk thus exhibits the same confusion of attributes as we\nhave already noticed in Osiris and Hathor. It is the commonest symbol of\nlife-giving and beneficent protective power: yet it is the weapon used\nto slaughter mankind. It is in fact the healing caduceus as well as the\nbaneful thunder-weapon.\n\n\n[203: The history of the thunder-weapon cannot wholly be ignored in\ndiscussing the dragon-myth because it forms an integral part of the\nstory. It was animated both by the dragon and the dragon-slayer. But an\nadequate account of the weapon would be so highly involved and complex\nas to be unintelligible without a very large series of illustrations.\nHence I am referring here only to certain aspects of the subject.\nPending the preparation of a monograph upon the thunder-weapon, I may\nrefer the reader to the works of Blinkenberg, d'Alviella, Ward, Evans\nand A. B. Cook (to which frequent reference is made in these pages) for\nmaterial, especially in the form of illustrations, to supplement my\nbrief and unavoidably involved summary.]\n\n[204: As in Egypt Osiris is described as \"a ray of light\" which issued\nfrom the moon (Hathor), _i.e._ was born of the Great Mother.]\n\n[205: \"Religion vedique,\" i., p. 173, quoted by S. Reinach, \"AEtos\nPrometheus,\" _Revue archeologique_, 4^ie serie, tome x., 1917, p. 72.]\n\n[206: Evans, _op. cit._, Fig. 4, p. 10.]\n\n[207: William Hayes Ward, \"The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia,\" chapter\nxxxviii.]\n\n[208: Seler, \"Codex Vaticanus, No. 3773,\" vol. i., p. 77 _et seq._]\n\n[209: Evans, _op. cit._, p. 8.]\n\n[210: \"The Pagan Tribes of Borneo,\" 1912, vol. ii., p. 137.]\n\n[211: Evans, _op. cit._, Fig. 8, _c_, p. 17.]\n\n[212: There is an excellent photograph of this in Donald McKenzie's\n\"Myths of Crete and Pre-Hellenic Europe,\" facing p. 160.]\n\n[213: \"The Gods of the Egyptians,\" vol. i., pp. 63 _et seq_.]\n\n[214: See, for example, Ward, _op. cit._, p. 411.]\n\n[215: \"The Migration of Symbols,\" pp. 220 and 221.]\n\n[216: Blinkenberg, _op. cit._, p. 53.]\n\n[217: _Op. cit._, p. 256.]\n\n[218: \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" pp. 51 and 52.]\n\n[219: See Blinkenberg, _op. cit._, pp. 45-8.]\n\n[220: I must defer consideration of the part played by certain of the\nGreat Mother's surrogates in the development of the thunder-weapon's\nsymbolism and the associated folk-lore. I have in mind especially the\ninfluence of the octopus and the cow. The former was responsible in part\nfor the use of the spiral as a thunder-symbol; and the latter for the\nbeliefs in the special protective power of thunder-stones over cows (see\nBlinkenberg, _op. cit._). The thunder-stone was placed over the lintel\nof the cow-shed for the same purpose as the winged disk over the door of\nan Egyptian temple. Until the relations of the octopus to the dragon\nhave been set forth it is impossible adequately to discuss the question\nof the seven-headed dragon, which ranges from Scotland to Japan and from\nScandinavia to the Zambesi. In \"The Birth of Aphrodite\" I shall call\nattention to the basal factors in its evolution.]\n\n[221: A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" vol. i., p. 198.]\n\n[222: \"The Ascent of Olympus,\" p. 32.]\n\n[223: \"Tartarus ex Terra procreavit Typhonem, immani magnitudine,\nspecieque portentosa, cui centum capita draconum ex humeris enata erant.\nHic Jovem provocavit, si vellet secum de regno centare. Jovis fulmine\nardenti pectus ejus percussit. Cui cum flagraret, montem AEtnam, qui est\nin Sicilia, super eum imposuit; qui ex eo adhuc ardere dicitur\"\n(Hyginus, fab. 152).]\n\n\nThe Deer.\n\nOne of the most surprising features of the dragon in China, Japan and\nAmerica, is the equipment of deer's horns.\n\nIn Babylonia both Ea and Marduk are intimately associated with the\nantelope or gazelle, and the combination of the head of the antelope (or\nin other cases the goat) with the body of a fish is the most\ncharacteristic manifestation of either god. In Egypt both Osiris and\nHorus are at times brought into relationship with the gazelle or\nantelope, but more often it represents their enemy Set. Hence, in some\nparts of Africa, especially in the west, the antelope plays the part of\nthe dragon in Asiatic stories.[224] The cow[225] of Hathor (Tiamat) may\nrepresent the dragon also. In East Africa the antelope assumes the role\nof the hero,[226] and is the representative of Horus. In the AEgean area,\nAsia Minor and Europe the antelope, gazelle or the deer, may be\nassociated with the Great Mother.[227]\n\nIn India the god Soma's chariot is drawn by an antelope. I have already\nsuggested that Soma is only a specialized form of the Babylonian Ea,\nwhose evil _avatar_ is the dragon: there is thus suggested another link\nbetween the antelope and the latter. The Ea-element explains the\nfish-scales and the antelope provides the horns. I shall return to the\ndiscussion of this point later.\n\nVayu or Pavana, the Indian god of the winds, who afterwards became\nmerged with Indra, rides upon an antelope like the Egyptian Horus.\nSoma's attributes also were in large measure taken over by Indra. Hence\nin this complex tissue of contradictions we once more find the\ndragon-slayer acquiring the insignia, in this case the antelope, of his\nmortal enemy.\n\nI have already referred to the fact that the early Babylonian deities\ncould also be demons. Tiamat, the dragon whom Marduk fought, was merely\nthe malevolent _avatar_ of the Great Mother. The dragon acquired his\ncovering of fish-scales from an evil form of Ea.\n\nIn his Hibbert Lectures Professor Sayce claimed that the name of Ea was\nexpressed by an ideograph which signifies literally \"the antelope\" (p.\n280). \"Ea was called 'the antelope of the deep,' 'the antelope the\ncreator,' 'the lusty antelope'. We should have expected the animal of Ea\nto have been the fish: the fact that it is not so points to the\nconclusion that the culture-god of Southern Babylonia was an\namalgamation of two earlier deities, one the divine antelope and the\nother the divine fish.\" Ea was \"originally the god of the river and was\nalso associated with the snake\". Nina was also both the fish-goddess and\nthe divinity whose name is interchanged with that of the deep. Professor\nSayce then refers to \"the curious process of development which\ntransformed the old serpent-goddess, 'the lady Nina,' into the\nembodiment of all that was hostile to the powers of heaven; but after\nall, Nina had sprung from the fish-god of the deep [who also was both\nantelope and serpent as well, see p. 282], and Tiamat is herself 'the\ndeep' in Semitic dress\" (p. 283).\n\n\"At times Ea was regarded as a gazelle rather than as an antelope.\" The\nposition of the name in the list of animals shows what species of animal\nmust be meant. _Lulim_, \"a stag,\" seems to be a re-duplicated form of\nthe same word. Both _lulim_ and _elim_ are said to be equivalent to\n_sarru_, king (p. 284).\n\nCertain Assyriologists, from whom I asked for enlightenment upon these\nphilological matters, express some doubt as to the antiquity or to the\nreality of the association of the names of Ea and the word for an\nantelope, gazelle or stag. But whatever the value of the linguistic\nevidence, the archaeological, at any rate as early as the time of\nNebuchadnezzar I, brings both Ea and Marduk into close association with\na strange creature equipped with the horns of an antelope or gazelle.\nThe association with the antelope of the homologous deities in India and\nEgypt leaves the reality of the connexion in no doubt. I had hoped that\nProfessor Sayce's evidence would have provided some explanation of the\nstrange association of the antelope. But whether or not the philological\ndata justify the inferences which Professor Sayce drew from them, there\ncan be no doubt concerning the correctness of his statement that Ea was\nrepresented both by fish and antelope, for in the course of his\nexcavations at Susa M. J. de Morgan brought to light representations of\nEa's animal consisting of an antelope's head on the body of a fish.[228]\nHe also makes the statement that the ideogram of Ea, _turahu-apsu_,\nmeans \"antelope of the sea\". I have already (p. 88) referred to the fact\nthat this \"antelope of the sea,\" the so-called \"goat-fish,\" is identical\nwith the prototype of the dragon.\n\nIf his claim that the names of Ea meant both a \"fish\" and an \"antelope\"\nwere well founded, the pun would have solved this problem, as it has\ndone in the case of many other puzzles in the history of early\ncivilization. But if this is not the case, the question is still open\nfor solution. As Set was held to be personified in all the desert\nanimals, the gazelle was identified with the demon of evil for this\nreason. In her important treatise on \"The Asiatic Dionysos\" Miss Gladys\nDavis tells us that \"in his aspect of Moon 'the lord of stars' Soma has\nin this character the antelope as his symbol. In fact, one of the names\ngiven to the moon by the early Indians was 'mriga-piplu' or marked\nlike an antelope\" (p. 202). Further she adds: \"The Sanskrit name for the\nlunar mansion over which Soma presides is 'mriga-siras' or the\ndeer-headed.\" If it be admitted that Soma is merely the Aryan\nspecialization of Ea and Osiris, as I have claimed, Sayce's association\nof Ea with the antelope is corroborated, even if it is not explained.\n\nIn China the dragon was sometimes called \"the celestial stag\" (de Groot,\n_op. cit._, p. 1143). In Mexico the deer has the same intimate celestial\nrelations as it has in the Old World (see Seler, _Zeit. f. Ethnologie_,\nBd. 41, p. 414). I have already referred to the remarkable Maya\ndeer-crocodile _makara_ in the Liverpool Museum (p. 103).\n\nThe systematic zoology of the ancients was lacking in the precision of\nmodern times; and there are reasons for supposing that the antelope and\ngazelle could exchange places the one with the other in their divine\nroles; the deer and the rabbit were also their surrogates. In India a\nspotted rabbit can take the place of the antelope in playing the part of\nwhat we call \"the man in the moon\". This interpretation is common, not\nonly in India, but also in China, and is repeatedly found in the ancient\nMexican codices (Seler, _op. cit._). In the spread of the ideas we have\njust been considering from Babylonia towards the north we find that the\ndeer takes the place of the antelope.\n\nIn view of the close resemblance between the Indian god Soma and the\nPhrygian Dionysus, which has been demonstrated by Miss Gladys Davis, it\nis of interest to note that in the service of the Greek god a man was\ndisguised as a stag, slain and eaten.[229]\n\nArtemis also, one of the many _avatars_ of the Great Mother, who was\nalso related to the moon, was closely associated with the deer.\n\nI have already referred to the fact that in Africa the dragon role of\nthe female antelope may be assumed by the cow or buffalo. In the case of\nthe gods Soma and Dionysus their association with the antelope or deer\nmay be extended to the bull. Miss Davis (_op. cit._) states that in the\nHoma Yasht the deer-headed lunar mansion over which the god presides is\nspoken of as \"leading the Paurvas,\" i.e. Pleiades: \"Mazda brought to\nthee (Homa) the star-studded spirit-fashioned girdle (the belt of Orion)\nleading the Paurvas. Now the Bull-Dionysus was especially associated\nwith the Pleiades on ancient gems and in classical mythology--which form\npart of the sign Taurus.\" The bull is a sign of Haoma (Homa) or Soma.\nThe belt of the thunder-god Thor corroborates the fact of the diffusion\nof these Babylonian ideas as far as Northern Europe.\n\n\n[224: Frobenius, \"The Voice of Africa,\" vol. ii., p. 467 _inter alia_.]\n\n[225: _Op. cit._, p. 468.]\n\n[226: J. F. Campbell, \"The Celtic Dragon Myth,\" with the \"Geste of\nFraoch and the Dragon,\" translated with Introduction by George\nHenderson, Edinburgh, 1911, p. 136.]\n\n[227: For example the red deer occupies the place usually taken by the\ngoddess's lions upon a Cretan gem (Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar\nCult,\" Fig. 32, p. 56): on the bronze plate from Heddemheim (A. B. Cook,\n\"Zeus,\" vol. i., pl. xxxiv., and p. 620) Isis is represented standing on\na hind: Artemis, another _avatar_ of the same Great Mother, was\nintimately associated with deer.]\n\n[228: J. de Morgan, article on \"Koudourrous,\" _Mem. Del. en Perse_, t.\n7, 1905. Figures on p. 143 and p. 148: see also an earlier article on\nthe same subject in tome i. of the same series.]\n\n[229: A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" vol. i., p. 674.]\n\n\nThe Ram.\n\nThe close association of the ram with the thunder-god is probably\nrelated with the fact that the sun-god Amon in Egypt was represented by\nthe ram with a distinctive spiral horn. This spiral became a distinctive\nfeature of the god of thunder throughout the Hellenic and Phoenician\nworlds and in those parts of Africa which were affected by their\ninfluence or directly by Egypt.\n\nAn account of the widespread influence of the ram-headed god of thunder\nin the Soudan and West Africa has been given by Frobenius.[230]\n\nBut the ram also became associated with Agni, the Indian fire-god, and\nthe spiral as a head-appendage became the symbol of thunder throughout\nChina and Japan, and from Asia spread to America where such deities as\nTlaloc still retain this distinctive token of their origin from the\nOld World.\n\nIn Europe this association of the ram and its spiral horn played an even\nmore obtrusive part.\n\nThe octopus as a surrogate of the Great Mother was primarily responsible\nfor the development of the life-giving attributes of the spiral motif.\nBut the close connexion of the Great Mother with the dragon and the\nthunder-weapon prepared the way for the special association of the\nspiral with thunder, which was confirmed when the ram with its spiral\nhorn became the God of Thunder.\n\n\n[230: _Op. cit._, vol. i., pp. 212-27.]\n\n\nThe Pig.\n\nThe relationship of the pig to the dragon is on the whole analogous to\nthat of the cow and the stag, for it can play either a beneficent or a\nmalevolent part. But the nature of the special circumstances which gave\nthe pig a peculiar notoriety as an unclean animal are so intimately\nassociated with the \"Birth of Aphrodite\" that I shall defer the\ndiscussion of them for my lecture on the history of the goddess.\n\n\nCertain Incidents in the Dragon Myth.\n\nThroughout the greater part of the area which tradition has peopled with\ndragons, iron is regarded as peculiarly lethal to the monsters. This\nseems to be due to the part played by the \"smiths\" who forged iron\nweapons with which Horus overcame Set and his followers,[231] or in the\nearlier versions of the legend the metal weapons by means of which the\npeople of Upper Egypt secured their historic victory over the Lower\nEgyptians. But the association of meteoric iron with the thunderbolt,\nthe traditional weapon for destroying dragons, gave added force to the\nancient legend and made it peculiarly apt as an incident in the story.\n\nBut though the dragon is afraid of iron, he likes precious gems and\n_k'ung-ts'ing_ (\"The Stone of Darkness\") and is fond of roasted\nswallows.\n\nThe partiality of dragons for swallows was due to the transmission of a\nvery ancient story of the Great Mother, who in the form of Isis was\nidentified with the swallow. In China, so ravenous is the monster for\nthis delicacy, that anyone who has eaten of swallows should avoid\ncrossing the water, lest the dragon whose home is in the deep should\ndevour the traveller to secure the dainty morsel of swallow. But those\nwho pray for rain use swallows to attract the beneficent deity. Even in\nEngland swallows flying low are believed to be omens of coming rain--a\ntale which is about as reliable as the Chinese variant of the same\nancient legend.\n\n\"The beautiful gems remind us of the Indian dragons; the pearls of the\nsea were, of course, in India as well as China and Japan, considered to\nbe in the special possession of the dragon-shaped sea-gods\" (de Visser,\np. 69). The cultural drift from West to East along the southern coast of\nIndia was effected mainly by sailors who were searching for pearls.\nSharks constituted the special dangers the divers had to incur in\nexploiting pearl-beds to obtain the precious \"giver of life\". But at the\ntime these great enterprises were first undertaken in the Indian Ocean\nthe people dwelling in the neighbourhood of the chief pearl-beds\nregarded the sea as the great source of all life-giving virtues and the\ngod who exercised these powers was incarnated in a fish. The sharks\ntherefore had to be brought into harmony with this scheme, and they\nwere rationalized as the guardians of the storehouse of life-giving\npearls at the bottom of the sea.\n\nI do not propose to discuss at present the diffusion to the East of the\nbeliefs concerning the shark and the modifications which they underwent\nin the course of these migrations in Melanesia and elsewhere; but in my\nlecture upon \"the Birth of Aphrodite\" I shall have occasion to refer to\nits spread to the West and explain how the shark's role was transferred\nto the dog-fish in the Mediterranean. The dog-fish then assumed a\nterrestrial form and became simply the dog who plays such a strange part\nin the magical ceremony of digging up the mandrake.\n\nAt present we are concerned merely with the shark as the guardian of the\nstores of pearls at the bottom of the sea. He became identified with the\nNaga and the dragon, and the store of pearls became a vast\ntreasure-house which it became one of the chief functions of the dragon\nto guard. This episode in the wonder-beast's varied career has a place\nin most of the legends ranging from Western Europe to Farthest Asia.\nSometimes the dragon carries a pearl under his tongue or in his chin as\na reserve of life-giving substance.\n\nMr. Donald Mackenzie has called attention[232] to the remarkable\ninfluence upon the development of the Dragon Myth of the familiar\nEgyptian representation of the child Horus with a finger touching his\nlips. On some pretence or other, many of the European dragon-slaying\nheroes, such as Sigurd and the Highland Finn, place their fingers in\ntheir mouths. This action is usually rationalized by the statement that\nthe hero burnt his fingers while cooking the slain monster.\n\n\n[231: Budge, \"Gods of the Egyptians,\" vol. i., p. 476.]\n\n[232: \"Egyptian Myth and Legend,\" pp. 340 _et seq._]\n\n\nThe Ethical Aspect.\n\nSo far in this discussion I have been dealing mainly with the problems\nof the dragon's evolution, the attainment of his or her distinctive\nanatomical features and physiological attributes. But during this\nprocess of development a moral and ethical aspect of the dragon's\ncharacter was also emerging.\n\nNow that we have realized the fact of the dragon's homology with the\nmoon-god it is important to remember that one of the primary functions\nof this deity, which later became specialized in the Egyptian god\nThoth, was the measuring of time and the keeping of records. The moon,\nin fact, was the controller of accuracy, of truth, and order, and\ntherefore the enemy of falsehood and chaos. The identification of the\nmoon with Osiris, who from a dead king eventually developed into a king\nof the dead, conferred upon the great Father of Waters the power to\nexact from men respect for truth and order. For even if at first these\nideas were only vaguely adumbrated and not expressed in set phrases, it\nmust have been an incentive to good discipline when men remembered that\nthe record-keeper and the guardian of law and order was also the deity\nupon whose tender mercies they would have to rely in the life after\ndeath. Set, the enemy of Osiris, who is the real prototype of the evil\ndragon, was the antithesis of the god of justice: he was the father of\nfalsehood and the symbol of chaos. He was the prototype of Satan, as\nOsiris was the first definite representative of the Deity of which any\nrecord has been preserved.\n\nThe history of the evil dragon is not merely the evolution of the devil,\nbut it also affords the explanation of his traditional peculiarities,\nhis bird-like features, his horns, his red colour, his wings and cloven\nhoofs, and his tail. They are all of them the dragon's distinctive\nfeatures; and from time to time in the history of past ages we catch\nglimpses of the reality of these identifications. In one of the earliest\nwoodcuts (Fig. 17) found in a printed book Satan is depicted as a monk\nwith the bird's feet of the dragon. A most interesting intermediate\nphase is seen in a Chinese water-colour in the John Rylands Library, in\nwhich the thunder-dragon is represented in a form almost exactly\nreproducing that of the devil of European tradition (Fig. 16).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 16.--The God Of Thunder.\n\n(From a Chinese drawing (? 17th Century) in the John Rylands Library)]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 17.--From Joannes de Turrecremata's \"Meditationes\nseu Contemplationes\". _Romae: Ulrich Hau_. 1467]\n\nEarly in the Christian era, when ancient beliefs in Egypt became\ndisguised under a thin veneer of Christianity, the story of the conflict\nbetween Horus and Set was converted into a conflict between Christ and\nSatan. M. Clermont-Ganneau has described an interesting bas-relief in\nthe Louvre in which a hawk-headed St. George, clad in Roman military\nuniform and mounted on a horse, is slaying a dragon which is represented\nby Set's crocodile.[233] But the Biblical references to Satan leave no\ndoubt as to his identity with the dragon, who is specifically mentioned\nin the Book of Revelations as \"the old serpent which is the Devil and\nSatan\" (xx. 2).\n\nThe devil Set was symbolic of disorder and darkness, while the god\nOsiris was the maintainer of order and the giver of light. Although the\nmoon-god, in the form of Osiris, Thoth and other deities, thus came to\nacquire the moral attributes of a just judge, who regulated the\nmovements of the celestial bodies, controlled the waters upon the earth,\nand was responsible for the maintenance of order in the Universe, the\nethical aspect of his functions was in large measure disguised by the\nmaterial importance of his duties. In Babylonia similar views were held\nwith respect to the beneficent water-god Ea, who was the giver of\ncivilization, order and justice, and Sin, the moon-god, who \"had\nattained a high position in the Babylonian pantheon,\" as \"the guide of\nthe stars and the planets, the overseer of the world at night\". \"From\nthat conception a god of high moral character soon developed.\" \"He is an\nextremely beneficent deity, he is a king, he is the ruler of men, he\nproduces order and stability, like Shamash and like the Indian Varuna\nand Mitra, but besides that, he is also a judge, he loosens the bonds of\nthe imprisoned, like Varuna. His light, like that of Varuna, is\nthe symbol of righteousness.... Like the Indian Varuna and the\nIranian Mazdah, he is a god of wisdom.\"\n\nWhen these Egyptian and Babylonian ideas were borrowed by the Aryans,\nand the Iranian Mazdah and the Indian Varuna assumed the role of the\nbeneficent deity of the former more ancient civilizations, the material\naspect of the functions of the moon-god became less obtrusive; and there\ngradually emerged the conception, to which Zarathushtra first gave\nconcrete expression, of the beneficent god Ahura Mazdah as \"an\nomniscient protector of morality and creator of marvellous power and\nknowledge\". \"He is the most-knowing one, and the most-seeing one. No one\ncan deceive him. He watches with radiant eyes everything that is done in\nopen or in secret.\" \"Although he has a strong personality he has no\nanthropomorphic features.\" He has shed the material aspects which loomed\nso large in his Egyptian, Babylonian and earlier Aryan prototypes, and a\nmore ethereal conception of a God of the highest ethical qualities\nhas emerged.\n\nThe whole of this process of transformation has been described with deep\ninsight and lucid exposition by Professor Cumont, from whose important\nand convincing memoir I have quoted so freely in the foregoing\nparagraphs.[234]\n\nThe creation of a beneficent Deity of such moral grandeur inevitably\nemphasized the baseness and the malevolence of the \"Power of Evil\". No\nlonger are the gods merely glorified human beings who can work good or\nevil as they will; but there is now an all-powerful God controlling the\nmorals of the universe, and in opposition to Him \"the dragon, the old\nserpent, which is the Devil and Satan\".\n\n\n[233: \"Horus et St. George d'apres un bas-relief inedit du Louvre,\"\n_Revue Archeologique_, Nouvelle Serie, t. xxxii., 1876, p. 196, pl.\nxviii. It is right to explain that M. Clermont-Ganneau's interpretation\nof this relief has not been accepted by all scholars.]\n\n[234: Albert J. Carnoy, \"The Moral Deities of Iran and India and their\nOrigins,\" _The American Journal of Theology_, vol. xxi., No. 1, Jan.\n1917, p. 58.]\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nTHE BIRTH OF APHRODITE.[235]\n\n\nIt may seem ungallant to discuss the birth of Aphrodite as part of the\nstory of the evolution of the dragon. But the other chapters of this\nbook, in which frequent references have been made to the early history\nof the Great Mother, have revealed how vital a part she played in the\ndevelopment of the dragon. The earliest real dragon was Tiamat, one of\nthe forms assumed by the Great Mother; and an even earlier prototype was\nthe lioness (Sekhet) manifestation of Hathor.\n\nThus it becomes necessary to enquire more fully (than has been done in\nthe other chapters) into the circumstances of the Great Mother's birth\nand development, and to investigate certain aspects of her ontogeny to\nwhich only scant attention has been paid in the preceding pages.\n\nSeveral reasons have led me to select Aphrodite from the vast legion of\nGreat Mothers for special consideration. In spite of her high\nspecialization in certain directions the Greek goddess of love retains\nin greater measure than any of her sisters some of the most primitive\nassociations of her original parent. Like vestigial structures in\nbiology, these traits afford invaluable evidence, not only of\nAphrodite's own ancestry and early history, but also of that of the\nwhole family of goddesses of which she is only a specialized type. For\nAphrodite's connexion with shells is a survival of the circumstances\nwhich called into existence the first Great Mother and made her not only\nthe Creator of mankind and the universe, but also the parent of all\ndeities, as she was historically the first to be created by human\ninventiveness. In this lecture I propose to deal with the more general\naspects of the evolution of all these daughters of the Great Mother:\nbut I have used Aphrodite's name in the title because her\nshell-associations can be demonstrated more clearly and definitely than\nthose of any of her sisters.\n\nIn the past a vast array of learning has been brought to bear upon the\nproblems of Aphrodite's origin; but this effort has, for the most part,\nbeen characterized by a narrowness of vision and a lack of adequate\nappreciation of the more vital factors in her embryological history. In\nthe search for the deep human motives that found specific expression in\nthe great goddess of love, too little attention has been paid to\nprimitive man's psychology, and his persistent striving for an elixir of\nlife to avert the risk of death, to renew youth and secure a continuance\nof existence after death. On the other hand, the possibility of\nobtaining any real explanation has been dashed aside by most scholars,\nwho have been content simply to juggle with certain stereotyped\ncatchphrases and baseless assumptions, simply because the traditions of\nclassical scholarship have made these devices the pawns in a rather\naimless game.\n\nIt is unnecessary to cite specific illustrations in support of this\nstatement. Reference to any of the standard works on classical\narchaeology, such as Roscher's \"Lexikon,\" will testify to the truth of my\naccusation. In her \"Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion\" Miss\nJane Harrison devotes a chapter (VI) to \"The Making of a Goddess,\" and\ndiscusses \"The Birth of Aphrodite\". But she strictly observes the\ntraditions of the classical method; and assumes that the meaning of the\nmyth of Aphrodite's birth from the sea--the germs of which are at least\nfifty centuries old--can be decided by the omission of any\nrepresentation of the sea in the decoration of a pot made in the fifth\ncentury B.C.!\n\nBut apart from this general criticism, the lack of resourcefulness and\nopen mindedness, certain more specific factors have deflected classical\nscholars from the true path. In the search for the ancestry of\nAphrodite, they have concentrated their attention too exclusively upon\nthe Mediterranean area and Western Asia, and so ignored the most ancient\nof the historic Great Mothers, the African Hathor, with whom (as Sir\nArthur Evans[236] clearly demonstrated more than fifteen years ago) the\nCypriote goddess has much closer affinities than with any of her\nAsiatic sisters. Yet no scholar, either on the Greek or Egyptian side,\nhas seriously attempted to follow up this clue and really investigate\nthe nature of the connexions between Aphrodite and Hathor, and the\nhistory of the development of their respective specializations of\nfunctions.[237]\n\nBut some explanation must be given for my temerity in venturing to\ninvade the intensively cultivated domains of Aphrodite \"with a mind\nundebauched by classical learning\". I have already explained how the\nstudy of Libations and Dragons brought me face to face with the problems\nof the Great Mother's attributes. At that stage of the enquiry two\ncircumstances directed my attention specifically to Aphrodite. Mr.\nWilfrid Jackson was collecting the data relating to the cultural uses of\nshells, which he has since incorporated in a book.[238] As the results\nof his search accumulated, the fact soon emerged that the original\nGreat Mother was nothing more than a cowry-shell used as a life-giving\namulet; and that Aphrodite's shell-associations were a survival of the\nearliest phase in the Great Mother's history. At this psychological\nmoment Dr. Rendel Harris[239] claimed that Aphrodite was a\npersonification of the mandrake. But the magical attributes of the\nmandrake, which he claimed to have been responsible for converting the\namulet into a goddess, were identical with those which Jackson's\ninvestigations had previously led me to regard as the reasons for\nderiving Aphrodite from the cowry. The mandrake was clearly a surrogate\nof the shell or vice versa.[240] The problem to be solved was to decide\nwhich amulet was responsible for suggesting the process of life-giving.\nThe goddess Aphrodite was closely related to Cyprus; the mandrake was a\nmagical plant there; and the cowry is so intimately associated with the\nisland as to be called _Cypraea_. So far as is known, however, the\nshell-amulet is vastly more ancient than the magical reputation of the\nplant. Moreover, we know why the cowry was regarded as feminine and\naccredited with life-giving attributes. There are no such reasons for\nassigning life-giving powers or the female sex to the mandrake. The\nclaim that its magical properties are due to the fancied resemblance of\nits root to a human being is wholly untenable.[241] The roots of many\nplants are at least as manlike; and, even if this character was the\nexclusive property of the mandrake, how does it help to explain the\nremarkable repetory of quite arbitrary and fantastic properties and the\nfemale sex assigned to the plant? Sir James Frazer's claim[242] that\n\"such beliefs and practices illustrate the primitive tendency to\npersonify nature\" is a gratuitous and quite irrelevant assumption, which\noffers no explanation whatsoever of the specific and arbitrary nature of\nthe form assumed by the personification. But when we investigate the\nhistorical development of the peculiar attributes of the cowry-shell,\nand appreciate why and how they were acquired, any doubt as to the\nsource from which the mandrake obtained its \"magic\" is removed; and\nwith it the fallacy of Sir James Frazer's wholly unwarranted claims is\nalso exposed.\n\nIf we ignore Sir James Frazer's naive speculations we can make use of\nthe compilations of evidence which he makes with such remarkable\nassiduity. But it is more profitable to turn to the study of the\nremarkable lectures which Dr. Rendel Harris has been delivering in this\nroom[243] during the last few years. Our genial friend has been\ncultivating his garden on the slopes of Olympus,[244] and has been\nplucking the rich fruits of his ripe scholarship and nimble wit. At the\nsame time, with rougher implements and cruder methods, I have been\nburrowing in the depths of the earth, trying to recover information\nconcerning the habits and thoughts of mankind many centuries before\nDionysus and Apollo, and Artemis and Aphrodite, were dreamt of.\n\nIn the course of these subterranean gropings no one was more surprised\nthan I was to discover that I was getting entangled in the roots of the\nsame plants whose golden fruit Dr. Rendel Harris was gathering from his\nOlympian heights. But the contrast in our respective points of view was\nperhaps responsible for the different appearance the growths assumed.\n\nTo drop the metaphor, while he was searching for the origins of the\ndeities a few centuries before the Christian era began, I was finding\ntheir more or less larval forms flourishing more than twenty centuries\nbefore the commencement of his story. For the gods and goddesses of his\nnarrative were only the thinly disguised representatives of much more\nancient deities decked out in the sumptuous habiliments of Greek\nculture.\n\nIn his lecture on Aphrodite, Dr. Rendel Harris claimed that the goddess\nwas a personification of the mandrake; and I think he made out a good\nprima facie case in support of his thesis. But other scholars have set\nforth equally valid reasons for associating Aphrodite with the argonaut,\nthe octopus, the purpura, and a variety of other shells, both univalves\nand bivalves.[245]\n\nThe goddess has also been regarded as a personification of water, the\nocean, or its foam.[246] Then again she is closely linked with pigs,\ncows, lions, deer, goats, rams, dolphins, and a host of other creatures,\nnot forgetting the dove, the swallow, the partridge, the sparling, the\ngoose, and the swan.[247]\n\nThe mandrake theory does not explain, or give adequate recognition to,\nany of these facts. Nor does Dr. Rendel Harris suggest why it is so\ndangerous an operation to dig up the mandrake which he identifies with\nthe goddess, or why it is essential to secure the assistance of a\ndog[248] in the process. The explanation of this fantastic fable gives\nan important clue to Aphrodite's antecedents.\n\n\n[235: An elaboration of a lecture delivered at the John Rylands Library,\non 14 November, 1917.]\n\n[236: \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" p. 52. Compare also A. E. W.\nBudge, \"The Gods of the Egyptians,\" Vol. I, p. 435.]\n\n[237: With a strange disregard of Sir Arthur Evans's \"Mycenaean Tree and\nPillar Cult,\" Mr. H. R. Hall makes the following remarks in his \"AEgean\nArchaeology\" (p. 150): \"The origin of the goddess Aphrodite has long been\ntaken for granted. It has been regarded as a settled fact that she was\nSemitic, and came to Greece from Phoenicia or Cyprus. But the new\ndiscoveries have thrown this, like other received ideas, into the\nmelting-pot, for the Minoans undoubtedly worshipped an Aphrodite. We see\nher, naked and with her doves, on gold plaques from one of the Mycenaean\nshaft-graves (Schuchhardt, _Schliemann_, Figs. 180, 181), which must be\nas old as the First Late Minoan period (_c._ 1600-1500 B.C.), and--not\nrising from the foam, but sailing over it--in a boat, naked, on the lost\ngold ring from Mochlos. It is evident now that she was not only a\nCanaanitish-Syrian goddess, but was common to all the people of the\nLevant. She is Aphrodite-Paphia in Cyprus, Ashtaroth-Astarte in Canaan,\nAtargatis in Syria, Derketo in Philistria, Hathor in Egypt; what the\nMinoans called her we do not know, unless she was Britomartis. She must\ntake her place by the side of Rhea-Diktynna in the Minoan pantheon.\"\n\nIt is not without interest to note that on the Mochlos ring the goddess\nis sailing in a papyrus float of Egyptian type, like the moon-goddess in\nher crescent moon.\n\nThe association of this early representative of Aphrodite with doves is\nof special interest in view of Highnard's attempt (\"Le Mythe de Venus,\"\n_Annales du Musee Guimet_, T. 1, 1880, p. 23) to derive the name of \"la\ndeesse a la colombe\" from the Chaldean and Phoenician _phrit_ or _phrut_\nmeaning \"a dove\".\n\nMr. Hall might have extended his list of homologues to Mesopotamia,\nIran, and India, to Europe and Further Asia, to America, and, in fact,\nevery part of the world that harbours goddesses.]\n\n[238: \"Shells as Evidence of the Migration of Early Culture.\"]\n\n[239: \"The Ascent of Olympus.\"]\n\n[240: A striking confirmation of the fact that the mandrake is really a\nsurrogate of the cowry is afforded by the practice in modern Greece of\nusing the mandrake carried in a leather bag in the same way (and for the\nsame magical purpose as a love philtre) as the Baganda of East Africa\nuse the cowry (in a leather bag) at the present time.]\n\n[241: Old Gerade was frank enough to admit that he \"never could perceive\nshape of man or woman\" (quoted by Rendel Harris, _op. cit._, p. 110).]\n\n[242: \"Jacob and the Mandrakes,\" _Proceedings of the British Academy_,\nVol. VIII, p. 22.]\n\n[243: The John Rylands Library.]\n\n[244: \"The Ascent of Olympus.\"]\n\n[245: See the memoirs by Tuempel, Jahn, Houssay, and Jackson, to which\nreference is made elsewhere in these pages.]\n\n[246: The well-known circumstantial story told in Hesiod's theogony.]\n\n[247: See the article \"Aphrodite\" in Roscher's \"Lexikon\".]\n\n[248: Sir James Frazer's claim that the incident of the ass in a late\nJewish story of Jacob and the mandrakes (_op. cit._, p. 20) \"helps us to\nunderstand the function of the dog,\" is quite unsupported. The learned\nguardian of the Golden Bough does not explain _how_ it helps us to\nunderstand.]\n\n\nThe Search for the Elixir of Life. Blood as Life.\n\nIn delving into the remotely distant history of our species we cannot\nfail to be impressed with the persistence with which, throughout the\nwhole of his career, man (of the species _sapiens_) has been\nseeking[249] for an elixir of life, to give added \"vitality\" to the dead\n(whose existence was not consciously regarded as ended), to prolong the\ndays of active life to the living, to restore youth, and to protect his\nown life from all assaults, not merely of time, but also of\ncircumstance. In other words, the elixir he sought was something that\nwould bring \"good luck\" in all the events of his life and its\ncontinuation. Most of the amulets, even of modern times, the lucky\ntrinkets, the averters of the \"Evil Eye,\" the practices and devices for\nsecuring good luck in love and sport, in curing bodily ills or mental\ndistress, in attaining material prosperity, or a continuation of\nexistence after death, are survivals of this ancient and persistent\nstriving after those objects which our earliest forefathers called\ncollectively the \"givers of life\".\n\nFrom statements in the earliest literature[250] that has come down to us\nfrom antiquity, no less than from the views that still prevail among\nthe relatively more primitive peoples of the present day, it is clear\nthat originally man did not consciously formulate a belief in\nimmortality.\n\nIt was rather the result of a defect of thinking, or as the modern\npsychologist would express it, an instinctive repression of the\nunpleasant idea that death would come to him personally, that primitive\nman refused to contemplate or to entertain the possibility of life\ncoming to an end. So intense was his instinctive love of life and dread\nof such physical damage as would destroy his body that man unconsciously\navoided thinking of the chance of his own death: hence his belief in the\ncontinuance of life cannot be regarded as the outcome of an active\nprocess of constructive thought.\n\nThis may seem altogether paradoxical and incredible.\n\nHow, it may be asked, can man be said to repress the idea of death, if\nhe instinctively refused to admit its possibility? How did he escape the\ninevitable process of applying to himself the analogy he might have been\nsupposed to make from other men's experience and recognize that he\nmust die?\n\nMan appreciated the fact that he could kill an animal or another man by\ninflicting certain physical injuries on him. But at first he seems to\nhave believed that if he could avoid such direct assaults upon himself,\nhis life would flow on unchecked. When death does occur and the\nonlookers recognize the reality, it is still the practice among certain\nrelatively primitive people to search for the man who has inflicted\ndeath on his fellow.\n\nIt would, of course, be absurd to pretend that any people could fail to\nrecognize the reality of death in the great majority of cases. The mere\nfact of burial is an indication of this. But the point of difference\nbetween the views of these early men and ourselves, was the tacit\nassumption on the part of the former, that in spite of the obvious\nchanges in his body (which made inhumation or some other procedure\nnecessary) the deceased was still continuing an existence not unlike\nthat which he enjoyed previously, only somewhat duller, less eventful\nand more precarious. He still needed food and drink, as he did before,\nand all the paraphernalia of his mortal life, but he was dependent upon\nhis relatives for the maintenance of his existence.\n\nSuch views were difficult of acceptance by a thoughtful people, once\nthey appreciated the fact of the disintegration of the corpse in the\ngrave; and in course of time it was regarded as essential for continued\nexistence that the body should be preserved. The idea developed, that so\nlong as the body of the deceased was preserved and there were restored\nto it all the elements of vitality which it had lost at death, the\ncontinuance of existence was theoretically possible and worthy of\nacceptance as an article of faith.\n\nLet us consider for a moment what were considered to be elements of\nvitality by the earliest members of our species.[251]\n\nFrom the remotest times man seems to have been aware of the fact that he\ncould kill animals or his fellow men by means of certain physical\ninjuries. He associated these results with the effusion of blood. The\nloss of blood could cause unconsciousness and death. Blood, therefore,\nmust be the vehicle of consciousness and life, the material whose escape\nfrom the body could bring life to an end.[252]\n\nThe first pictures painted by man, with which we are at present\nacquainted, are found upon the walls and roofs of certain caves in\nSouthern France and Spain. They were the work of the earliest known\nrepresentatives of our own species, _Homo sapiens_, in the phase of\nculture now distinguished by the name \"Aurignacian\".\n\nThe animals man was in the habit of hunting for food are depicted.[253]\nIn some of them arrows are shown implanted in the animal's flank near\nthe region of the heart; and in others the heart itself is represented.\n\nThis implies that at this distant time in the history of our species, it\nwas already realized how vital a spot in the animal's anatomy the heart\nwas. But even long before man began to speculate about the functions of\nthe heart, he must have learned to associate the loss of blood on the\npart of man or animals with death, and to regard the pouring out of\nblood as the escape of its vitality. Many factors must have contributed\nto the new advance in physiology which made the heart the centre or the\nchief habitation of vitality, volition, feeling, and knowledge.\n\nNot merely the empirical fact, acquired by experience in hunting, of the\npeculiarly vulnerable nature of the heart, but perhaps also the\nknowledge that the heart contained life-giving blood, helped in\ndeveloping the ideas about its functions as the bestower of life and\nconsciousness.\n\nThe palpitation of the heart after severe exertion or under the\ninfluence of intense emotion would impress the early physiologist with\nthe relationship of the heart to the feelings, and afford confirmation\nof his earlier ideas of its functions.\n\nBut whatever the explanation, it is known from the folk-lore of even the\nmost unsophisticated peoples that the heart was originally regarded as\nthe seat of life, feeling, volition, and knowledge, and that the blood\nwas the life-stream. The Aurignacian pictures in the caves of Western\nEurope suggest that these beliefs were extremely ancient.\n\nThe evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that not only were such\nideas of physiology current in Aurignacian times, but also certain\ncultural applications of them had been inaugurated even then. The\nremarkable method of blood-letting by chopping off part of a finger\nseems to have been practised even in Aurignacian times.[254]\n\nIf it is legitimate to attempt to guess at the meaning these early\npeople attached to so singular a procedure, we may be guided by the\nideas associated with this act in outlying corners of the world at the\npresent time. On these grounds we may surmise that the motive underlying\nthis, and other later methods of blood-letting, such as circumcision,\npiercing the ears, lips, and tongue, gashing the limbs and body, et\ncetera, was the offering of the life-giving fluid.\n\nOnce it was recognized that the state of unconsciousness or death was\ndue to the loss of blood it was a not illogical or irrational procedure\nto imagine that offerings of blood might restore consciousness and life\nto the dead.[255] If the blood was seriously believed to be the vehicle\nof feeling and knowledge, the exchange of blood or the offering of blood\nto the community was a reasonable method for initiating anyone into the\nwider knowledge of and sympathy with his fellow-men.\n\nBlood-letting, therefore, played a part in a great variety of\nceremonies, of burial and of initiation, and also those of a\ntherapeutic[256] and, later, of a religious significance.\n\nBut from Aurignacian times onwards, it seems to have been admitted that\nsubstitutes for blood might be endowed with a similar potency.\n\nThe extensive use of red ochre or other red materials for packing around\nthe bodies of the dead was presumably inspired by the idea that\nmaterials simulating blood-stained earth, were endowed with the same\nlife-giving properties as actual blood poured out upon the ground in\nsimilar vitalizing ceremonies.\n\nAs the shedding of blood produced unconsciousness, the offering of blood\nor red ochre was, therefore, a logical and practical means of restoring\nconsciousness and reinforcing the element of vitality which was\ndiminished or lost in the corpse.\n\nThe common statement that primitive man was a fantastically irrational\nchild is based upon a fallacy. He was probably as well endowed mentally\nas his modern successors; and was as logical and rational as they are;\nbut many of his premises were wrong, and he hadn't the necessary body of\naccumulated wisdom to help him to correct his false assumptions.\n\nIf primitive man regarded the dead as still existing, but with a reduced\nvitality, it was a not irrational procedure on the part of the people of\nthe Reindeer Epoch in Europe to pack the dead in red ochre (which they\nregarded as a surrogate of the life-giving fluid) to make good the lack\nof vitality in the corpse.\n\nIf blood was the vehicle of consciousness and knowledge, the exchange of\nblood was clearly a logical procedure for establishing communion of\nthought and feeling and so enabling an initiate to assimilate the\ntraditions of his people.\n\nIf red carnelian was a surrogate of blood the wearing of bracelets or\nnecklaces of this life-giving material was a proper means of warding off\ndanger to life and of securing good luck.\n\nIf red paint or the colour red brought these magical results, it was\nclearly justifiable to resort to its use.\n\nAll these procedures are logical. It is only the premises that were\nerroneous.\n\nThe persistence of such customs in Ancient Egypt makes it possible for\nus to obtain literary evidence to support the inferences drawn from\narchaeological data of a more remote age. For instance, the red jasper\namulet sometimes called the \"girdle-tie of Isis,\" was supposed to\nrepresent the blood of the goddess and was applied to the mummy \"to\nstimulate the functions of his blood\";[257] or perhaps it would be more\naccurate to say that it was intended to add to the vital substance which\nwas so obviously lacking in the corpse.\n\n\n[249: In response to the prompting of the most fundamental of all\ninstincts, that of the preservation of life.]\n\n[250: See Alan Gardiner, _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. IV,\nParts II-III, April-July, 1917, p. 205. Compare also the Babylonian\nstory of Gilgamesh.]\n\n[251: Some of these have been discussed in Chapter 1 (\"Incense and\nLibations\") and will not be further considered here.]\n\n[252: \"The life which is the blood thereof\" (Gen. ix. 4).]\n\n[253: See, for example, Sollas, \"Ancient Hunters,\" 2nd Edition, 1915,\npp. 326 (fig. 163), 333 (fig. 171), and 36 (fig. 189).]\n\n[254: Sollas, _op. cit._, pp. 347 _et seq._]\n\n[255: The \"redeeming blood,\" [Greek: Pharmakon athanasias].]\n\n[256: The practice of blood-letting for therapeutic purposes was\nprobably first suggested by a confused rationalization. The act of\nblood-letting was a means of healing; and the victim himself supplied\nthe vitalizing fluid!]\n\n[257: Davies and Gardiner, \"The Tomb of Amenemhet,\" p. 112.]\n\n\nThe Cowry as a Giver of Life.\n\nBlood and its substitutes, however, were not the only materials that had\nacquired a reputation for vitalizing qualities in the Reindeer Epoch.\nFor there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that shells also were\nregarded, even in that remote time, as life-giving amulets.\n\nIf the loss of blood was at first the only recognized cause of death,\nthe act of birth was clearly the only process of life-giving. The portal\nby which a child entered the world was regarded, therefore, not only as\nthe channel of birth, but also as the actual giver of life.[258] The\nlarge Red Sea cowry-shell, which closely simulates this \"giver of life,\"\nthen came to be endowed by popular imagination with the same powers.\nHence the shell was used in the same way as red ochre or carnelian: it\nwas placed in the grave to confer vitality on the dead, and worn on\nbracelets and necklaces to secure good luck by using the \"giver of life\"\nto avert the risk of danger to life. Thus the general life-giving\nproperties of blood, blood substitutes, and shells, came to be\nassimilated the one with the other.[259]\n\nAt first it was probably its more general power of averting death or\ngiving vitality to the dead that played the more obtrusive part in the\nmagical use of the shell. But the circumstances which led to the\ndevelopment of the shell's symbolism naturally and inevitably conferred\nupon the cowry special power over women. It was the surrogate of the\nlife-giving organ. It became an amulet to increase the fertility of\nwomen and to help them in childbirth. It was, therefore, worn by girls\nsuspended from a girdle, so as to be as near as possible to the organ it\nwas supposed to simulate and whose potency it was believed to be able to\nreinforce and intensify. Just as bracelets and necklaces of carnelian\nwere used to confer on either sex the vitalizing virtues of blood, which\nit was supposed to simulate, so also cowries, or imitations of them made\nof metal or stone, were worn as bracelets, necklaces, or hair-ornaments,\nto confer health and good luck in both sexes. But these ideas received a\nmuch further extension.\n\nAs the giver of life, the cowry came to have attributed to it by some\npeople definite powers of creation. It was not merely an amulet to\nincrease fertility: it was itself the actual parent of mankind, the\ncreator of all living things; and the next step was to give these\nmaternal functions material expression, and personify the cowry as an\nactual woman in the form of a statuette with the distinctly feminine\ncharacters grossly exaggerated;[260] and in the domain of belief to\ncreate the image of a Great Mother, who was the parent of the universe.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 18 (a) The Archaic Egyptian slate palette of Narmer\nshowing, perhaps, the earliest design of Hathor (at the upper corners of\nthe palette) as a woman with cow's horns and ears (compare Flinders\nPetrie, \"The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty,\" Part I, 1900, Plate\nXXVII, Fig. 71). The pharaoh is wearing a belt from which are suspended\nfour cow-headed Hathor figures in place of the cowry-amulets of more\nprimitive peoples. This affords corroboration of the view that Hathor\nassumed the functions originally attributed to the cowry-shell.\n\n(b) The king's _sporran_, where Hathor-heads (H) take the place of the\ncowries of the primitive girdle.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 19.--The front of Stela B (famous for the realistic\nrepresentations of the Indian elephant at its upper corners), one of the\nancient Maya monuments at Copan, Central America (after Maudslay's\nphotograph and diagram).\n\nThe girdle of the chief figure is decorated both with shells (_Oliva_ or\n_Conus_) and amulets representing human faces corresponding to the\nHathor-heads on the Narmer palette (Fig. 18).]\n\nThus gradually there developed out of the cowry-amulet the conception of\na creator, the giver of life, health, and good luck. This Great Mother,\nat first with only vaguely defined traits, was probably the first deity\nthat the wit of man devised to console him with her watchful care over\nhis welfare in this life and to give him assurance as to his fate in\nthe future.\n\nAt this stage I should like to emphasize the fact that these beliefs had\ntaken shape long before any definite ideas had been formulated as to the\nphysiology of animal reproduction and before agriculture was practised.\n\nMan had not yet come to appreciate the importance of vegetable\nfertility, nor had he yet begun to frame theories of the fertilizing\npowers of water, or give specific expression to them by creating the god\nOsiris in his own image.\n\nNor had he begun to take anything more than the most casual interest in\nthe sun, the moon, and the stars. He had not yet devised a sky-world nor\ncreated a heaven. When, for reasons that I have already discussed,[261]\nthe theory of the fertilizing and the animating power of water was\nformulated, the beliefs concerning this element were assimilated with\nthose which many ages previously had grown up in explanation of the\npotency of blood and shells. In addition to fertilizing the earth, water\ncould also animate the dead. The rivers and the seas were in fact a vast\nreservoir of this animating substance. The powers of the cowry, as a\nproduct of the sea, were rationalized into an expression of the great\ncreative force of the water.\n\nA bowl of water became the symbol of the fruitfulness of woman. Such\nsymbolism implied that woman, or her uterus, was a receptacle into which\nthe seminal fluid was poured and from which a new being emerged in a\nflood of amniotic fluid.\n\nThe burial of shells with the dead is an extremely ancient practice, for\ncowries have been found upon human skeletons of the so-called \"Upper\nPalaeolithic Age\" of Southern Europe.\n\nAt Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne) Mediterranean cowries were found arranged\nin pairs upon the body; two pairs on the forehead, one near each arm,\nfour in the region of the thighs and knees, and two upon each foot.\nOthers were found in the Mentone caves, and are peculiarly important,\nbecause, upon the same stratum as the skeleton with which they were\nassociated, was found part of a _Cassis rufa_, a shell whose habitat\ndoes not extend any nearer than the Indian Ocean.[262]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 20.--Diagrams illustrating the form of cowry-belts\nworn in (a) East Africa and (b) Oceania respectively.\n\n(c) Ancient Indian girdle (from the figure of Sirima Devata on the\nBharat Tope), consisting of strings of pearls and precious stones, and\nwhat seem to be (fourth row from the top) models of cowries.\n\n(d) The Copan girdle (from Fig. 19) in which both shells and heads of\ndeities are represented. The two objects suspended from the belt between\nthe heads recall Hathor's sistra.]\n\nThese facts are very important. In the first place they reveal the great\nantiquity of the practice of burying shells with the dead, presumably\nfor the purpose of \"life-giving\". Secondly, they suggest the possibility\nthat their magical value as givers of life may be more ancient than\ntheir specific use as intensifiers of the fertility of women. Thirdly,\nthe association of these practices with the use of the shell _Cassis\nrufa_ indicates a very early cultural contact between the people living\nupon the North-Western shores of the Mediterranean in the Reindeer Age\nand the dwellers on the coasts of the Indian Ocean; and the\nprobability that these special uses of shells by the former were\ninspired by the latter.\n\nThis hint assumes a special significance when we first get a clear view\nof the more fully-developed shell-cults of the Eastern Mediterranean\nmany centuries later.[263] For then we find definite indications that\nthe cultural uses of shells were obviously borrowed from the Erythraean\narea.\n\nLong before the shell-amulet became personified as a woman the\nMediterranean people had definitely adopted the belief in the cowry's\nability to give life and birth.\n\n\n[258: As it is still called in the Semitic languages. In the Egyptian\nPyramid Texts there is a reference to a new being formed \"by the vulva\nof Tefnut\" (Breasted).]\n\n[259: Many customs and beliefs of primitive peoples suggest that this\ncorrelation of the attributes of blood and shells went much deeper than\nthe similarity of their use in burial ceremonies and for making\nnecklaces and bracelets. The fact that the monthly effusion of blood in\nwomen ceased during pregnancy seems to have given rise to the theory,\nthat the new life of the child was actually formed from the blood thus\nretained. The beliefs that grew up in explanation of the placenta form\npart of the system of interpretation of these phenomena: for the\nplacenta was regarded as a mass of clotted blood (intimately related to\nthe child which was supposed to be derived from part of the same\nmaterial) which harboured certain elements of the child's mentality\n(because blood was the substance of consciousness).]\n\n[260: See S. Reinach, \"Les Deesses Nues dans l'Art Oriental et dans\nl'Art Grec,\" _Revue Archeol._, T. XXVI, 1895, p. 367. Compare also the\nfigurines of the so-called Upper Palaeolithic Period in Europe.]\n\n[261: Chapter I.]\n\n[262: The literature relating to these important discoveries has been\nsummarized by Wilfrid Jackson in his \"Shells as Evidence of the\nMigrations of Early Culture,\" pp. 135-7.]\n\n[263: Cowries were obtained in Neolithic sites at Hissarlik and Spain\n(Siret, _op. cit._, p. 18).]\n\n\nThe Origin of Clothing.\n\nThe cowry and its surrogates were supposed to be potent to confer\nfertility on maidens; and it became the practice for growing girls to\nwear a girdle on which to suspend the shells as near as possible to the\norgan their magic was supposed to stimulate. Among many peoples[264]\nthis girdle was discarded as soon as the girls reached maturity.\n\nThis practice probably represents the beginning of the history of\nclothing; but it had other far-reaching effects in the domain of belief.\n\nIt has often been claimed that the feeling of modesty was not the reason\nfor the invention of clothing, but that the clothes begat modesty.[265]\nThis doctrine contains a certain element of truth, but is by no means\nthe whole explanation. For true modesty is displayed by people who have\nnever worn clothes.\n\nBefore mankind could appreciate the psychological fact that the wearing\nof clothing might add to an individual's allurement and enhance her\nsexual attractiveness, some other circumstances must have been\nresponsible for suggesting the experiments out of which this empirical\nknowledge emerged. The use of a girdle (a) as a protection against\ndanger to life, and (b) as a means of conferring fecundity on\ngirls[266] provided the circumstances which enabled men to discover that\nthe sexual attractiveness of maidens, which in a state of nature was\noriginally associated with modesty and coyness, was profoundly\nintensified by the artifices of clothing and adornment.\n\nAmong people (such as those of East Africa and Southern Arabia) in which\nit was customary for unmarried girls to adorn themselves with a girdle,\nit is easy to understand how the meaning of the practice underwent a\nchange, and developed into a device for enhancing their charms and\nstimulating the imaginations of their suitors.\n\nOut of such experience developed the idea of the magical girdle as an\nallurement and a love-provoking charm or philtre. Thus Aphrodite's\ngirdle acquired the reputation of being able to _compel_ love. When\nIshtar removed her girdle in the under-world reproduction ceased in the\nworld. The Teutonic Brunhild's great strength lay in her girdle. In fact\nmagic virtues were conferred upon most goddesses in every part of the\nworld by means of a cestus of some sort.[267] But the outstanding\nfeature of Aphrodite's character as a goddess of love is intimately\nbound up with these conceptions which developed from the wearing of a\ngirdle of cowries.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 4.--Two representations of Astarte (Qetesh).\n\n(a) The mother-goddess standing upon a lioness (which is her Sekhet\nform): she is wearing her girdle, and upon her head is the moon and the\ncow's horns, conventionalized so as to simulate the crescent moon. Her\nhair is represented in the conventional form which is sometimes used as\nHathor's symbol. In her hands are the serpent and the lotus, which again\nare merely forms of the goddess herself.\n\n(b) Another picture of Astarte (from Roscher's \"Lexikon\") holding the\npapyrus sceptre which at times is regarded as an animate form of the\nmother-goddess herself and as such a thunder weapon.]\n\nIn the Biblical narrative, after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden\nfruit, \"the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were\nnaked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons,\"\nor, as the Revised Version expresses it, \"girdles\". The girdle of\nfig-leaves, however, was originally a surrogate of the girdle of\ncowries: it was an amulet to give fertility. The consciousness of\nnakedness was part of the knowledge acquired as _the result_ of the\nwearing of such girdles (and the clothing into which they developed),\nand was not originally the motive that impelled our remote ancestors to\nclothe themselves.\n\nThe use of fig-leaves for the girdle in Palestine is an interesting\nconnecting link between the employment of the cowry and the mandrake for\nsimilar purposes in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea and in Cyprus and\nSyria respectively (_vide infra_).\n\nIn Greece and Italy, the sweet basil has a reputation for magical\nproperties analogous to those of the cowry. Maidens collect the plant\nand wear bunches of it upon their body or upon their girdles; while\nmarried women fix basil upon their heads.[268] It is believed that the\nodour of the plant will attract admirers: hence in Italy it is called\n_Bacia-nicola_. \"Kiss me, Nicholas\".[269]\n\nIn Crete it is a sign of mourning presumably because its life-prolonging\nattributes, as a means of conferring continued existence to the dead,\nhave been so rationalized in explanation of its use at funerals.\n\nOn New Year's day in Athens boys carry a boat and people remark, \"St.\nBasil is come from Caesarea\".\n\n\n[264: See Jackson, _op. cit._, pp. 139 _et seq._]\n\n[265: For a discussion of this subject see the chapter on \"The\nPsychology of Modesty and Clothing,\" in William I. Thomas's \"Sex and\nSociety,\" Chicago, 1907; also S. Reinach, \"Cults, Myths, and Religions,\"\np. 177; and Paton, \"The Pharmakoi and the Story of the Fall,\" _Revue\nArcheol._, Serie IV. T. IX, 1907, p. 51.]\n\n[266: It is important to remember that shell-girdles were used by both\nsexes for general life-giving and luck-bringing purposes, in the\nfunerary ritual of both sexes, in animating the dead or statues of the\ndead, to attain success in hunting, fishing, and head-hunting, as well\nas in games. Thus men also at times wore shells upon their belts or\naprons, and upon their implements and fishing nets, and adorned their\ntrophies of war and the chase with them. Such customs are found in all\nthe continents of the Old World and also in America, as, for example, in\nthe girdles of _Conus_- and _Oliva_-shells worn by the figures\nsculptured upon the Copan stelae. See, for example, Maudslay's pictures\nof stele N, Plate 82 (Biologia Centrali-Americana; Archaeology) _inter\nalia_. But they were much more widely used by women, not merely by\nmaidens, but also by brides and married women, to heighten their\nfertility and cure sterility, and by pregnant women to ensure safe\ndelivery in childbirth. It was their wider employment by women that\ngives these shells their peculiar cultural significance.]\n\n[267: Witness the importance of the girdle in early Indian and American\nsculptures: in the literature of Egypt, Babylonia, Western Europe, and\nthe Mediterranean area. For important Indian analogies and Egyptian\nparallels see Moret, \"Mysteres Egyptiens,\" p. 91, especially note 3. The\nmagic girdle assumed a great variety of forms as the number of\nsurrogates of the cowry increased. The mugwort (Artemisia) of Artemis\nwas worn in the girdle on St. John's Eve (Rendel Harris, _op. cit._, p.\n91): the people of Zante use vervain in the same way; the people of\nFrance (Creuse et Correres) rye-stalks; Eve's fig-leaves; in Vedic India\nthe initiate wore the \"cincture of Munga's herbs\"; and Kali had her\ngirdle of hands. Breasted, (\"Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\" p.\n29) says: \"In the oldest fragments we hear of Isis the great, who\n_fastened on the girdle_ in Khemmis, when she brought her [censer] and\nburned incense before her son Horus.\"]\n\n[268: This distinction between the significance of the amulet when worn\non the girdle and on the head (in the hair), or as a necklace or\nbracelet, is very widespread. On the girdle it _usually_ has the\nsignificance of stimulating the individual's fertility: worn elsewhere\nit was intended to ward off danger to life, _i.e._ to give good luck. An\ninteresting surrogate of Hathor's distinctive emblem is the necklace of\ngolden apples worn by a priestess of Apollo (Rendel Harris, _op. cit._,\np. 42).]\n\n[269: De Gubernatis, \"Mythologie des Plantes,\" Vol. II, p. 35.]\n\n\nPearls.\n\nDuring the chequered history of the Great Mother the attributes of the\noriginal shell-amulet from which the goddess was sprung were also\nchanging and being elaborated to fit into a more complex scheme. The\nmagical properties of the cowry came to be acquired by other Red Sea\nshells, such as _Pterocera_, the pearl oyster, conch shells, and others.\nEach of these became intimately associated with the moon.[270] The\npearls found in the oysters were supposed to be little moons, drops of\nthe moon-substance (or dew) which fell from the sky into the gaping\noyster. Hence pearls acquired the reputation of \"shining by night,\" like\nthe moon from which they were believed to have come: and every surrogate\nof the Great Mother, whether plant, animal, mineral or mythical\ninstrument, came to be endowed with the power of \"shining by night\". But\npearls were also regarded as the quintessence of the shell's life-giving\nproperties, which were considered to be all the more potent because they\nwere sky-given emanations of the moon-goddess herself. Hence pearls\nacquired the reputation of being the \"givers of life\" _par excellence_,\nan idea which found literal expression in the ancient Persian word\n_margan_ (from _mar_, \"giver\" and _gan_, \"life\"). This word has been\nborrowed in all the Turanian languages (ranging from Hungary to\nKamskatckha), but also in the non-Turanian speech of Western Asia,\nthence through Greek and Latin (_margarita_) to European languages.[271]\nThe same life-giving attributes were also acquired by the other\npearl-bearing shells; and at some subsequent period, when it was\ndiscovered that some of these shells could be used as trumpets, the\nsound produced was also believed to be life-giving or the voice of the\ngreat Giver of Life. The blast of the trumpet was also supposed to be\nable to animate the deity and restore his consciousness, so that he\ncould attend to the appeals of supplicants. In other words the noise\nwoke up the god from his sleep. Hence the shell-trumpet attained an\nimportant significance in early religious ceremonials for the ritual\npurpose of summoning the deity, especially in Crete and India, and\nultimately in widely distant parts of the world.[272] Long before these\nshells are known to have been used as trumpets, they were employed like\nthe other Red Sea shells as \"givers of life\" to the dead in Egypt. Their\nuse as trumpets was secondary.\n\nAnd when it was discovered that purple dye could be obtained from\ncertain of the trumpet-shells, the colouring-matter acquired the same\nlife-giving powers as had already been conferred upon the trumpet and\nthe pearls: thus it became regarded as a divine substance and as the\nexclusive property of gods and kings.\n\nLong before, the colour red had acquired magic potency as a surrogate of\nlife-giving blood; and this colour-symbolism undoubtedly helped in the\ndevelopment of the similar beliefs concerning purple.\n\n\n[270: For the details see Jackson, _op. cit._, pp. 57-69. Both the\nshells and the moon were identified with the Great Mother. Hence they\nwere homologized the one with the other.]\n\n[271: Dr. Mingana has given me the following note: \"It is very probable\nthat the Graeco-Latin _margarita_, the Aramaeo-Syriac _margarita_, the\nArabic _margan_, and the Turanian _margan_ are derived from the Persian\n_mar-gan_, meaning both 'pearl' and 'life,' or etymologically 'giver,\nowner, or possessor, of life'. The word _gan_, in Zend _yan_, is\nthoroughly Persian and is undoubtedly the original form of this\nexpression.\"]\n\n[272: See Chapter II of Jackson's book, _op. cit._]\n\n\nSharks and Dragons.\n\nWhen the life-giving attributes of water were confused with the same\nproperties with which shells had independently been credited long\nbefore, the shell's reputation was rationalized as an expression of the\nvital powers of the ocean in which the mollusc was born. But the same\nexplanation was also extended to include fishes, and other denizens of\nthe water, as manifestations of similar divine powers. In the lecture on\n\"Dragons and Rain Gods\" I referred to the identification of Ea, the\nBabylonian Osiris, with a fish (p. 105). When the value of the pearl as\nthe giver of life impelled men to incur any risks to obtain so precious\nan amulet, the chief dangers that threatened pearl-fishers were due to\nsharks. These came to be regarded as demons guarding the treasure-houses\nat the bottom of the sea. Out of these crude materials the imaginations\nof the early pearl-fishers created the picture of wonderful submarine\npalaces of Naga kings in which vast wealth, not merely of pearls, but\nalso of gold, precious stones, and beautiful maidens (all of them\n\"givers of life,\" _vide infra_, p. 224), were placed under the\nprotection of shark-dragons.[273] The conception of the pearl (which is\na surrogate of the life-giving Great Mother) guarded by dragons is\nlinked by many bonds of affinity with early Erythraean and Mediterranean\nbeliefs. The more usual form of the story, both in Southern Arabian\nlegend and in Minoan and Mycenaean art, represents the Mother Goddess\nincarnate in a sacred tree or pillar with its protecting dragons in the\nform of serpents or lions, or a variety of dragon-surrogates, either\nreal animals, such as deer or cattle, or composite monsters (Fig.\n26).[274]\n\nThere are reasons for believing that these stories were first invented\nsomewhere on the shores of the Erythraean Sea, probably in Southern\nArabia. The animation of the incense-tree by the Great Mother, for the\nreasons which I have already expounded,[275] formed the link of her\nidentification with the pearl, which probably acquired its magical\nreputation in the same region.\n\n\"In the Persian myth, the white Haoma is a divine tree, growing in the\nlake Vourukasha: the fish Khar-mahi circles protectingly around it and\ndefends it against the toad Ahriman. It gives eternal life, children to\nwomen, husbands to girls, and horses to men. In the Minokhired the tree\nis called 'the preparer of the corpse'\" (Spiegel, \"Eran. Altertumskunde,\"\nII, 115--quoted by Jung, \"Psychology of the Unconscious,\" p. 532). The\nidea of guarding the divine tree[276] by dragons was probably the result\nof the transference to that particular surrogate of the Great Mother of\nthe shark-stories which originated from the experiences of the seekers\nafter pearls, her other representatives.\n\nThere are many other bits of corroborative evidence to suggest that\nthese shell-cults and the legends derived from them were actually\ntransmitted from the Red Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean. Nor is it\nsurprising that this should have happened, when it is recalled that\nEgyptian sailors were trafficking in both seas long before the Pyramid\nAge, and no doubt carried the beliefs and the legends of one region to\nthe other. I have already referred to the adoption in the Mediterranean\narea of the idea of the dragon-protectors of the tree- and pillar-forms\nof the Great Mother, and suggested that this was merely a garbled\nversion of the pearl-fisher's experience of the dangers of attacks by\nsharks. But the same legends also reached the Levant in a less modified\nform, and then underwent another kind of transformation (and confusion\nwith the tree-version) in Cyprus or Syria.\n\nAs the shark would be a not wholly appropriate actor in the\nMediterranean, its role is taken by its smaller Selachian relative, the\ndog-fish. In the notes on Pliny's Natural History, Dr. Bostock and Mr.\nH. T. Riley[277] refer to the habits of dog-fishes (\"Canes marini\"), and\nquote from Procopius (\"De Bell. Pers.\" B. I, c. 4) the following\n\"wonderful story in relation to this subject\": \"Sea-dogs are wonderful\nadmirers of the pearl-fish, and follow them out to sea.... A certain\nfisherman, having watched for the moment when the shell-fish was\ndeprived of the attention of its attendant sea-dog, ... seized the\nshell-fish and made for the shore. The sea-dog, however, was soon aware\nof the theft, and making straight for the fisherman, seized him. Finding\nhimself thus caught, he made a last effort, and threw the pearl-fish on\nshore, immediately on which he was torn to pieces by its\nprotector.\"[278]\n\nThough the written record of this story is relatively modern the\nincident thus described probably goes back to much more ancient times.\nIt is only a very slightly modified version of an ancient narrative of a\nshark's attack upon a pearl-diver.\n\nFor reasons which I shall discuss in the following pages, the role of\nthe cowry and pearl as representatives of the Great Mother was in the\nLevant assumed by the mandrake, just as we have already seen the\nSouthern Arabian conception of her as a tree adopted in Mycenaean lands.\nHaving replaced the sea-shell by a land plant it became necessary, in\nadapting the legend, to substitute for the \"sea-dog\" some land animal.\nNot unnaturally it became a dog. Thus the story of the dangers incurred\nin the process of digging up a mandrake assumed the well-known\nform.[279] The attempt to dig up the mandrake was said to be fraught\nwith great danger. The traditional means of circumventing these risks\nhas been described by many writers, ancient and modern, and preserved in\nthe folk-lore of most European and western Asiatic countries. The story\nas told by Josephus is as follows: \"They dig a trench round it till the\nhidden part of the root is very small, then they tie a dog to it, and\nwhen the dog tries hard to follow him that tied him, this root is easily\nplucked up, but the dog dies immediately, as it were, instead of the man\nthat would take the plant away.\"[280] Thus the dog takes the place of\nthe dog-fish when the mandrake becomes the pearl's surrogate. The only\ndiscrepancy between the two stories is the point to which Josephus calls\nspecific attention. For instead of the dog killing the thief, as the\nshark (dog-fish) kills the stealer of pearls, the dog becomes the victim\nas a substitute for the man. As Josephus remarks, \"the dog dies\nimmediately, as it were, instead of the man that would take the plant\naway\". This distortion of the story is true to the traditions of\nlegend-making. The dog-incident is so twisted as to be transformed into\na device for plucking the dangerous plant without risk.\n\nIt is quite possible that earlier associations of the dog with the Great\nMother may have played some part in this transference of meaning, if\nonly by creating confusion which made such rationalization necessary. I\nrefer to the part played by Anubis in helping Isis to collect the\nfragments of Osiris; and the role played by Anubis, and his Greek\n_avatar_ Cerberus, in the world of the dead. Whether the association of\nthe dog-star Sirius with Hathor had anything to do with the confusion is\nuncertain.[281]\n\nThere was an intimate association of the dog with the goddess of the\nunder-world (Hecate) and the ritual of rebirth of the dead.[282] Perhaps\nthe development of the story of the underworld-goddess Aphrodite's dog\nand the mandrake may have been helped by this survival of the\nassociation of Isis with Anubis, even if there is not a more definite\ncausal relationship between the dog-incidents in the various legends.\n\nThe divine dog Anubis is frequently represented in connexion with the\nritual of rebirth,[283] where it is shown upon a standard in association\nwith the placenta. The hieroglyphic sign for the Egyptian word _mes_,\n\"to give birth,\" consists of the skins of three dogs (or jackals, or\nfoxes). The three-headed dog Cerberus that guarded the portal of Hades\nmay possibly be a distorted survival of this ancient symbolism of the\nthree-fold dog-skin as the graphic sign for the act of emergence from\nthe portal of birth. Elsewhere (p. 223) in this lecture I have referred\nto Charon's _obolus_ as a surrogate of the life-giving pearl or cowry\nplaced in the mouth of the dead to provide \"vital substance\". Rohde[284]\nregards Charon as the second Cerberus, corresponding to the Egyptian\ndog-faced god Anubis: just as Charon received his _obolus_, so in Attic\ncustom the dead were provided with [Greek: melitoutia] the object of\nwhich is usually said to be to pacify the dog of hell.\n\nWhat seems to link all these fantastic beliefs and customs with the\nstory of the dog and the mandrake is the fact that they are closely\nbound up with the conception of the dog as the guardian of hidden\ntreasure.\n\nThe mandrake story may have arisen out of a mingling of these two\nstreams of legend--the shark (dog-fish) protecting the treasures at the\nbottom of the sea, and the ancient Egyptian beliefs concerning the\ndog-headed god who presides at the embalmer's operations and\nsuperintends the process of rebirth.\n\nThe dog of the story is a representative of the dragon guarding the\ngoddess in the form of the mandrake, just as the lions over the gate at\nMycenae heraldically support her pillar-form, or the serpents in Southern\nArabia protect her as an incense tree. Dog, Lion, and Serpent in these\nlegends are all representatives of the goddess herself, i.e. merely her\nown _avatars_ (Fig. 26).\n\nAt one time I imagined that the role of Anubis as a god of embalming and\nthe restorer of the dead was merely an ingenuous device on the part of\nthe early Egyptians to console themselves for the depredations of\njackals in their cemeteries. For if the jackal were converted into a\nlife-giving god it would be a comforting thought to believe that the\ndead man, even though devoured, was \"in the bosom of his god\" and\nthereby had attained a rebirth in the hereafter. In ancient Persia\ncorpses were thrown out for the dogs to devour. There was also the\ncustom of leading a dog to the bed of a dying man who presented him with\nfood, just as Cerberus was given honey-cakes by Hercules in his journey\nto hell. But I have not been able to obtain any corroboration of this\nsupposition. It is a remarkable coincidence that the Great Mother has\nbeen identified with the necrophilic vulture as Mut; and it has been\nclaimed by some writers[285] that, just as the jackal was regarded as a\nsymbol of rebirth in Egypt and the dead were exposed for dogs to devour\nin Persia, so the vulture's corpse-devouring habits may have been\nprimarily responsible for suggesting its identification with the Great\nMother and for the motive behind the Indian practice of leaving the\ncorpses of the dead for the vultures to dispose of.[286] It is not\nuncommon to find, even in English cathedrals, recumbent statues of\nbishops with dogs as footstools. Petronius (\"Sat.,\" c. 71) makes the\nfollowing statement: \"valde te rogo, ut secundum pedes statuae meae\ncatellam pingas--ut mihi contingat tuo beneficio post mortem\nvivere\".[287] The belief in the dog's service as a guide to the dead\nranges from Western Europe to Peru.\n\nTo return to the story of the dog and the mandrake: no doubt the demand\nwill be made for further evidence that the mandrake actually assumed the\nrole of the pearl in these stories. If the remarkable repertory of\nmagical properties assigned to the mandrake[288] be compared with those\nwhich developed in connexion with the cowry and the pearl,[289] it will\nbe found that the two series are identical. The mandrake also is the\ngiver of life, of fertility to women, of safety in childbirth; and like\nthe cowry and the pearl it exerts these magical influences only if it be\nworn in contact with the wearer's skin.[290] But the most definite\nindication of the mandrake's homology with the pearl is provided by the\nlegend that \"it shines by night\". Some scholars,[291] both ancient and\nmodern, have attempted to rationalize this tradition by interpreting it\nas a reference to the glow-worms that settle on the plant! But it is\nonly one of many attributes borrowed by the mandrake from the pearl,\nwhich was credited with this remarkable reputation only when early\nscientists conceived the hypothesis that the gem was a bit of moon\nsubstance.\n\nAs the memory of the real history of these beliefs grew dim, confusion\nwas rapidly introduced into the stories. I have already explained how\nthe diving for pearls started the story of the great palace of treasures\nunder the waters which was guarded by dragons. As the pearl had the\nreputation of shining by night, it is not surprising that it or some of\nits surrogates should in course of time come to be credited with the\npower of \"revealing hidden treasures,\" the treasures which in the\noriginal story were the pearls themselves. Thus the magic fern-seed and\nother treasure-disclosing vegetables[292] are surrogates of the\nmandrake, and like it derive their magical properties directly or\nindirectly from the pearl.\n\nThe fantastic story of the dog and the mandrake provides the most\ndefinite evidence of the derivation of the mandrake-beliefs from the\nshell-cults of the Erythraean Sea. There are many other scraps of\nevidence to corroborate this. I shall refer here only to one of these.\n\"The discovery of the art of purple-dyeing has been attributed to the\nTyrian tutelary deity Melkart, who is identified with Baal by many\nwriters. According to Julius Pollux ('Onomasticon,' I, iv.) and Nonnus\n('Dionys.,' XL, 306) Hercules (Melkart) was walking on the seashore\naccompanied by his dog and a Tyrian nymph, of whom he was enamoured. The\ndog having found a _Murex_ with its head protruding from its shell,\ndevoured it, and thus its mouth became stained with purple. The nymph,\non seeing the beautiful colour, bargained with Hercules to provide her\nwith a robe of like splendour.\"[293] This seems to be another variant of\nthe same story.\n\n\n[273: In Eastern Asia (see, for example, Shinji Nishimura, \"The\nHisago-Bune,\" Tokio, 1918, published by the Tokio Society of Naval\nArchitects, p. 18, where the dragon is identified with the _wani_, which\ncan be either a crocodile or a shark); in Oceania (L. Frobenius, \"Das\nZeitalter des Sonnengottes,\" Bd. I., 1904, and C. E. Fox and F. H. Drew,\n\"Beliefs and Tales of San Cristoval,\" _Journal of the Royal\nAnthropological Institute_, Vol. XLV, 1915, p. 140); and in America (see\nThomas Gann, \"Mounds in Northern Honduras,\" _Nineteenth Annual Report of\nthe Bureau of American Ethnology_, 1897-8, Part II, p. 661) the dragon\nassumes the form of a shark, a crocodile, or a variety of other\nanimals.]\n\n[274: Sir Arthur Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" _op. cit.\nsupra_: W. Hayes Ward, \"The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia,\" _op. cit._:\nand Robertson Smith, \"The Religion of the Semites,\" p. 133: \"In\nHadramant it is still dangerous to touch the sensitive mimosa, because\nthe spirit that resides in the plant will avenge the injury\". When men\ninterfere with the incense trees it is reported: \"the demons of the\nplace flew away with doleful cries in the shape of white serpents, and\nthe intruders died soon afterwards\".]\n\n[275: _Vide supra_, p. 38.]\n\n[276: In Western mythology the dragon guarding the fruit-bearing tree of\nlife is also identified with the Mother of Mankind (Campbell, \"Celtic\nDragon Myth,\" pp. xli and 18). Thus the tree and its defender are both\nsurrogates of the Great Mother. When Eve ate the apple from the tree of\nParadise she was committing an act of cannibalism, for the plant was\nonly another form of herself. Her \"sin\" consisted in aspiring to attain\nthe immortality which was the exclusive privilege of the gods. This\nincident is analogous to that found in the Indian tales where mortals\nsteal the _amrita_. By Eve's sin \"death came into the world\" for the\nparadoxical reason that she had eaten the food of the gods which gives\nimmortality. The punishment meted out to her by the Almighty seems to\nhave been to inhibit the life-giving and birth-facilitating action of\nthe fruit of immortality, so that she and all her progeny were doomed to\nbe mortal and to suffer the pangs of child-bearing.\n\nThere was a widespread belief among the ancients that ceremonies in\nconnexion with the gods must (to be efficacious) be done in the reverse\nof the usual human way (Hopkins, \"Religions of India,\" p. 201). So also\nan act which gives immortality to the gods, brings death to man.\n\nThe full realization of the fact that man was mortal imposed upon the\nearly theologians the necessity of explaining the immortality of the\ngods. The elixir of life was the food of the gods that conferred eternal\nlife upon them. By one of those paradoxes so dear to the maker of myths\nthis same elixir brought death to man.]\n\n[277: Bohn's Edition, 1855, Vol. II, p. 433.]\n\n[278: A Cretan scene depicts a man attacking a dog-headed sea-monster\n(Mackenzie, _op. cit._, \"Myths of Crete,\" p. 139).]\n\n[279: A number of versions of this widespread fable have been collected\nby Dr. Rendel Harris (_op. cit._) and Sir James Frazer (_op. cit._). I\nquote here from the former (p. 118).]\n\n[280: Josephus, \"Bell. Jud.,\" VII, 6, 3, quoted by Rendel Harris, _op.\ncit._, p. 118.]\n\n[281: The dog-star became associated with Hathor for reasons which are\nexplained on p. 209. It was \"the opener of the Way\" for the birth of the\nsun and the New Year.]\n\n[282: When Artemis acquired the reputation as a huntress and her deer\nbecame her quarry the dog was rationalized into the new scheme.]\n\n[283: See, for example, Moret's \"Mysteres Egyptiens,\" pp. 77-80.]\n\n[284: \"Psyche,\" p. 244.]\n\n[285: See, for example, Jung, _op. cit._, p. 268.]\n\n[286: Nekhebit, the Egyptian Vulture goddess, was identified by the\nGreeks with Eileithyia, the goddess of birth (Wiedemann, \"Religion of\nthe Ancient Egyptians,\" p. 141). She was usually represented as a\nvulture hovering over the king. Her place can be taken by the falcon of\nHorus or in the Babylonian story of Etana by the eagle. In the Indian\nMahabharata the Garuda is described as \"the bird of life ... destroyer\nof all, creator of all\".]\n\n[287: Quoted by Jung, _op. cit._, p. 530.]\n\n[288: See Rendel Harris (_op. cit._) and Sir James Frazer (_op. cit._).]\n\n[289: Jackson, _op. cit._]\n\n[290: An interesting rationalization (of which Mr. T. H. Pear has kindly\nreminded me) of this ancient Oriental belief is still alive amongst\nBritish women. It is maintained that pearls \"lose their lustre\" unless\nthey are worn in contact with the skin. This of course is a pure myth,\nbut also an illuminating survival.]\n\n[291: See Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 16, especially the references to the\n\"devil's candle\" and \"the lamp of the elves\".]\n\n[292: Rendel Harris, _op. cit._, p. 113: Other factors played a part in\nthe development of this legend of opening up treasure-houses. Both\nArtemis and Hecate are associated with a magical plant capable of\nopening locks and helping the process of birth. Artemis is a goddess of\nthe portal and her life-giving symbol in a multitude of varied forms is\nfound appropriately placed above the lintel of doors.]\n\n[293: Jackson, _op. cit._, p. 195.]\n\n\nThe Octopus.\n\nAphrodite was associated not only with the cowry, the pearl, and the\nmandrake, but also with the octopus, the argonaut, and other\ncephalopods. Tuempel seems to imagine that the identification of the\ngoddess with the argonaut and the octopus necessarily excludes her\nassociation with molluscs; and Dr. Rendel Harris attributes an equally\nexclusive importance to the mandrake. But in such methods of argument\ndue recognition is not given to the outstanding fact in the history of\nprimitive beliefs. The early philosophers built up their great\ngeneralizations in the same way as their modern successors. They were\nsearching for some explanation of, or a working hypothesis to include,\nmost diverse natural phenomena within a concise scheme. The very essence\nof such attempts was the institution of a series of homologies and\nfancied analogies between dissimilar objects. Aphrodite was at one and\nthe same time the personification of the cowry, the conch shell, the\npurple shell, the pearl, the lotus, and the lily, the mandrake and the\nbryony, the incense tree and the cedar, the octopus and the argonaut,\nthe pig, and the cow.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 21.--(a) A slate triad found by Professor G. A.\nReisner in the temple of the Third Pyramid at Giza. It shows the Pharaoh\nMycerinus supported on his right side by the goddess Hathor, represented\nas a woman with the moon and the cow's horns upon her head, and on the\nleft side by a nome goddess, bearing upon her head the jackal-symbol of\nher nome.\n\n(b) The Ecuador Aphrodite. Bas-relief from Cerro Jaboncillo (after\nSaville, \"Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador,\" Preliminary Report, 1907,\nPlate XXXVIII).\n\nA grotesque composite monster intended to represent a woman (compare\nSaville's Plates XXXV, XXXVI, and XXXIX), whose head is a\nconventionalized Octopus, whose body is a _Loligo_, and whose limbs\nare human.]\n\nEvery one of these identifications is the result of a long and chequered\nhistory, in which fancied resemblances and confusion of meaning play a\nvery large part. But I cannot too strongly repudiate the claim made by\nSir James Frazer that such events are merely so many evidences of the\ninnate human tendency to personify nature. The history of the arbitrary\ncircumstances that were responsible for the development of each one of\nthese homologies is entirely fatal to this wholly unwarranted\nspeculation.[294] Tuempel claims[295] the Aphrodite was associated more\nespecially with \"a species of _Sepia_\". He refers to the attempts to\nassociate the goddess of love with amulets of univalvular shells \"in\nvirtue of a certain peculiar and obscene symbolism\".[296] Naturalists,\nhowever, designate with the term _Venus Cytherea_ certain gaping\nbivalve molluscs.\n\nBut, according to Tuempel (p. 386), neither univalvular nor bivalve\nshells can be regarded as a real part of the goddess's cultural\nequipment. There is no representation of Aphrodite coming in a shell\nfrom across the sea.[297] The truly sacred Aphrodite-shell was entirely\ndifferent, so Tuempel believes: it was obviously difficult to preserve,\nbut for that reason more worthy of notice, for the small [Greek:\nchoirinai] (pectines), virginalia marina (Apuleius de mag. 34, 35, and\nin reference thereto, Isidor. origg. 9, 5, 24) or spuria ([Greek:\nsporia]) were only the commoner and more readily obtained surrogates:\nthe univalvular shells.\n\n([Greek: monothyra] of Aristotle), such as those just mentioned, and the\nother [Greek: ostrea] of Aphrodite, the Nerites (periwinkles, etc.), the\npurple shell and the Echineis were also real Veneriae conchae. Among the\nNerites Aelian enumerates (N.A. 14, 28): [Greek: Aphroditen de\nsyndiaitomenen en te thalatte hesthenai te to Nerite tode kai echein\nauton philon]. On account of their supposed medicinal value in cases of\nabortion and especially as a prophylactic for pregnant women the [Greek:\nEcheneis] (pure Latin re[mi]mora) was called [Greek: odinolyte][298]\n(Pliny, 32, 1, 5: pisciculus!). According to Mutianus (Pliny, 9, 25\n(41), 79 f.), it was a species of purple shell, but larger than the true\n_Murex purpura_. From this the sanctity of the Echineis to the Cnidian\nAphrodite is demonstrated: \"quibus (conchis) inhaerentibus plenam ventis\nstetisse navem portantem Periandro, ut castrarentur nobilis pueros,\nconchasque, quae id praestiterint, apud Cnidiorum Venerem coli\" (Pliny).\n\nTuempel then (p. 387) accuses Stephani of being mistaken in his\ninterpretation of Martial's Cytheriacae (Epign. II, 47, 1 = purple\nshells) as the amulets of Aphrodite, and claims that Jahn has given the\ncorrect solution of the following passages from Pliny (N.H., 9, 33 [52],\n103, compare 32, 11 [53]): \"navigant ex his (conchis) veneriae,\npraebentesque concavam sui partem et aurae opponentes per summa aequorum\nvelificant\"; and further (9, 30[49], 94): \"in Propontide concham esse\nacatii modo carinatam inflexa puppe, prora rostrata, in hac condi\nnauplium animal saepiae simile ludendi societate sola, duobus hoc fieri\ngeneribus: tranquillum enim vectorem demissis palmulis ferire ut remis;\nsi vero flatus invitet, easdem in usu gubernaculi porrigi pandique\nbuccarum sinus aurae\".\n\nTuempel claims (pp. 387 and 388) that this quotation settles the\nquestion. Aphrodite's \"shell,\" according to him, is the _Nauplius_\n(depicted as a shell-fish, with its sail-like palmulae spread out to the\nwind, but with the same sails flattened into plate-like arms for\nsteering), clearly \"a species of _Sepia_,\" wholly like Aphrodite\nherself, a ship-like shell-fish sailing over the surface of the water,\nthe concha veneria. [The analogy to a ship bearing the Great Mother is\nextremely ancient and originally referred to the crescent moon carrying\nthe moon-goddess across the heavenly ocean.]\n\nElsewhere (p. 399) he discusses the reasons for the connexion of\nAphrodite with the \"nautilus,\" by which is meant the argonaut of\nzoologists.\n\nBut if Jahn and Tuempel have thus clearly established the proof of the\nintimate association of Aphrodite with certain cephalopods, they are\nwholly unjustified in the assumption that their quotations from\nrelatively modern authors disprove the reality of the equally close\n(though more ancient) relationship of the goddess to the cowry, the\npearl-shell, the trumpet-shell, and the purple-shell.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that, as we have already seen, the primitive\nshell-cults of the Erythraean Sea had been diffused throughout the\nMediterranean area long before Aphrodite was born upon the shores of the\nLevant, and possibly before Hathor came into existence in the south. The\nuse of the cowry and gold models of the cowry goes back to an early time\nin AEgean history.[299] And the influence of Aphrodite's early\nassociations had become blurred and confused by the development of new\nlinks with other shells and their surrogates.\n\nBut the connexion of Aphrodite with the octopus and its kindred played a\nvery obtrusive part in Minoan and Mycenaean art; and its influence was\nspread abroad as far as Western Europe[300] and towards the East as far\nas America. In many ways it was a factor in the development of such\nartistic designs as the spiral and the volute, and not improbably also\nof the swastika.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 22.--(a) _Sepia officinalis_, after Tryon,\n\"Cephalopoda\".\n\n(b) _Loligo vulgaris_, after Tryon.\n\n(c) The position usually adopted by the resting Octopus, after Tryon.]\n\nStarting from the researches of Tuempel, a distinguished French\nzoologist, Dr. Frederic Houssay,[301] sought to demonstrate that the\ncult of Aphrodite was \"based upon a pre-existing zoological philosophy\".\nThe argument in support of his claim that Aphrodite was a\npersonification of the octopus must be sharply differentiated into two\nparts: first, the reality of the association of the octopus with the\ngoddess, of which there can be no doubt; and secondly, his explanation\nof it, which (however popular it may be with classical writers and\nmodern scholars)[302] is not only a gratuitous assumption, but also,\neven if it were based upon more valid evidence than the speculations\nof such recent writers as Pliny, would not really carry the explanation\nvery far.\n\nI refer to his claim that \"les premiers conquerants de la mer furent\ninduits en veneration du poulpe nageur (octopus) parce qu'ils crurent\nque quelque-uns de ces cephalopodes, les poulpes sacres (argonauta)\navaient, comme eux et avant eux, invente la navigation\" (_op. cit._, p.\n15). Idle fancies of this sort do not help us to understand the\narbitrary beliefs concerning the magical powers of the octopus.\n\nThe real problem we have to solve is to discover why, among all the\nmultitude of bizarre creatures to be found in the Mediterranean Sea, the\noctopus and its allies should thus have been singled out for distinctive\nappreciation, and also acquired the same remarkable attributes as the\ncowry.\n\nI believe that the Red Sea \"Spider shell,\" _Pterocera_,[303] was the\nlink between the cowry and the octopus. This shell was used, like the\ncowry, for funerary purposes in Egypt and as a trumpet in India.[304]\nBut it was also depicted upon a series of remarkable primitive statues\nof the god Min, which were found at Coptos during the winter 1893-4 by\nProfessor Flinders Petrie.[305] Some of these objects are now in the\nCairo Museum and the others in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. They are\nsupposed to be late predynastic representations of the god Min. If this\nsupposition is correct they are the earliest idols (apart from mere\namulets) that have been preserved from antiquity.\n\nUpon these statues, representations of the Red Sea shell _Pterocera\nbryonia_ are sculptured in low relief. Mr. F. Ll. Griffith is\ndisinclined to accept my suggestion that the object of these pictures of\nthe shell was to animate the statues. But whether this was their purpose\nor not, it is probably not without some significance that these\nlife-giving shells were associated with so obtrusively phallic a deity\nas Min. In any case they afford concrete evidence of cultural contact\nbetween Coptos and the Red Sea, and indicate that these particular\nshells were chosen as symbols of that sea or its coast.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 5--Pterocera Bryonia. the Red Sea Spider-shell.\n_Col._--the columella 1-7--the \"claws\".]\n\nThe distinctive feature of the _Pterocera_ is that the mantle in the\nadult expands into a series of long finger-like processes each of which\nsecretes a calcareous process or \"claw\". There are seven[306] of these\nclaws as well as the long columella (Fig. 5). Hence, when the\nshell-cults were diffused from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean (where\nthe _Pterocera_ is not found), it is quite likely that the people of the\nLevant may have confused with the octopus some sailor's account of the\neight-rayed shell (or perhaps representations of it on some amulet or\nstatue). Whether this is the explanation of the confusion or not, it is\ncertain that the beliefs associated with the cowry and the octopus in\nthe AEgean area are identical with those linked up with the cowry and the\n_Pterocera_ in the Red Sea.\n\nI have already mentioned that the mandrake is believed to possess the\nsame magical powers. Sir James Frazer has called attention to the fact\nthat in Armenia the bryony (_Bryonia alba_) is a surrogate of the\nmandrake and is credited with the same attributes.[307] Lovell Reeve\n(\"Conchologia Iconica,\" VI, 1851) refers to the Red Sea _Pterocera_ as\nthe \"Wild Vine Root\" species, previously known as _Strombus radix\nbryoniae_; and Chemnitz (\"Conch. Cab.,\" 1788, Vol. X, p. 227) says the\nFrench call it \"Racine de brione femelle imparfaite,\" and refer to it as\n\"the maiden\". Here then is further evidence that this shell (a) was\nassociated in some way with a surrogate of the mandrake (Aphrodite), and\n(b) was regarded as a maiden. Thus clearly it has a place in the\nchequered history of Aphrodite. I have suggested the possibility of its\nconfusion with the octopus, which may have led to the inclusion of the\nlatter within the scope of the marine creatures in Aphrodite's cultural\nequipment. According to Matthioli (Lib. 2, p. 135), another of\nAphrodite's creatures, the purple shell-fish, was also known as \"the\nmaiden\". By Pliny it is called Pelogia, in Greek [Greek: porphyra]; and\n[Greek: porphyromata] was the term applied to the flesh of swine that\nhad been sacrificed to Ceres and Proserpine (Hesych.). In fact, the\npurple-shell was \"the maiden\" and also \"the sow\": in other words it was\nAphrodite. The use of the term \"maiden\" for the _Pterocera_ suggests a\nsimilar identification. To complete this web of proof it may be noted\nthat an old writer has called the mandrake the plant of Circe, the\nsorceress who turned men into swine by a magic draught.[308] Thus we\nhave a series of shells, plants, and marine creatures accredited with\nidentical magical properties, and each of them known in popular\ntradition as \"the maiden\". They are all culturally associated with\nAphrodite.\n\nI shall have occasion (_infra_, p. 177) to refer to M. Siret's account\nof the discovery of the AEgean octopus-motif upon AEneolithic objects in\nSpain, and of the widespread use in Western Europe of certain\nconventional designs derived from the octopus. M. Siret also (see the\ntable, Fig. 6, on p. 34 of his book) makes the remarkable claim that the\nconventional form of the Egyptian Bes, which, according to Quibell,[309]\nis the god whose function it is to preside over sexual intercourse in\nits purely physical aspect, is derived from the octopus. If this is\ntrue--and I am bound to admit that it is far from being proved--it\nsuggests that the Red Sea littoral may have been the place of origin of\nthe cultural use of the octopus and an association with Hathor, for Bes\nand Hathor are said to have been introduced into Egypt from there.[310]\n\nThat the octopus was actually identified with the Great Mother and also\nwith the dragon is revealed by the fact of the latter assuming an\noctopus-form in Eastern Asia and Oceania, and by the occurrence of\noctopus-motifs in the representation of the goddess in America. One of\nthe most remarkable series of pictures depicting the Great Mother is\nfound sculptured in low relief upon a number of stone slabs from Manabi\nin Central America,[311] one of which I reproduce here (Fig. 21_b_).\nThe head of the goddess is a conventionalized octopus; to that was added\na body consisting of a _Loligo_; and, to give greater definiteness to\nthis remarkable process of building up the form of the goddess,\nconventional representations of her arms and legs (and in some of the\nsculptures also the _pudendum muliebre_) were added. Thus there can\nbe no doubt of the identification of this American Aphrodite and\nthe octopus.\n\nIn the Polynesian Rata-myth there is a very instructive series of\nmanifestations of the dragon.[312] The first form assumed by the monster\nin this story was a gaping shell-fish of enormous size; then it appeared\nas a mighty octopus; and lastly, as a whale, into whose jaws the hero\nNganaoa sprang, as his representatives are said to have done elsewhere\nthroughout the world (Frobenius, _op. cit._, pp. 59-219).\n\nHoussay (_op. cit. infra_) calls attention to the fact that at times\nAstarte was shown carrying an octopus as her emblem,[313] and has\nsuggested that it was mistaken for a hand, just as in America the\nthunderbolt of Chac was given a hand-like form in the Dresden Codex\n(_vide supra_. Fig. 13), and elsewhere (_e.g._ Fig. 12).\n\nIf this suggestion should prove to be well founded it would provide a\nmore convincing explanation of the girdle of hands worn by the Indian\ngoddess Kali[314] than that usually given. If the \"hands\" really\nrepresent surrogates of the cowry, the wearing of such a girdle brings\nthe Indian goddess into line, not only with Astarte and Aphrodite, but\nalso with the East African maidens who still wear the girdle of cowries.\nKali's exploits were in many respects identical with those of the\nbloodthirsty Sekhet-manifestation of the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Just\nas Sekhet had to be restrained by Re for her excess of zeal in murdering\nhis foes, so Siva had to intervene with Kali upon the battlefield\nflooded with gore (as also in the Egyptian story) to spare the remnant\nof his enemies.[315]\n\n\n[294: Sir James Frazer, \"Jacob and the Mandrakes,\" _Proc. Brit.\nAcademy_.]\n\n[295: K. Tuempel, \"Die 'Muschel der Aphrodite,'\" _Philologus, Zeitschrift\nfuer das Classische Alterthum_, Bd. 51, 1892, p. 385: compare also, with\nreference to the \"Muschel der Aphrodite,\" O. Jahn, _SB. d. k. Saechs. G.\nd. W._, VII, 1853, p. 16 ff.; also IX, 1855, p. 80; and Stephani,\n_Compte rendu pour l'an 1870-71_, p. 17 ff.]\n\n[296: See Jahn, _op. cit._, 1855, T. V, 6, and T. IV, 8: figures of the\nso-called [Greek: Choirinai] (from [Greek: Choiros] in the double sense\nas \"pig\" and \"the female pudendum\"): Aristophanes, Eq. 1147; Vesp. 332;\nPollux, 8, 16; Hesch. s.v.]\n\n[297: The fact that no graphic representation of this event has been\nfound is surely a wholly inadequate reason for refusing to credit the\nstory. Very few episodes in the sacred history of the gods received\nconcrete expression in pictures or sculptures until relatively late. A\nHellenistic representation of the goddess emerging from a bivalve was\nfound in Southern Russia (Minns, \"Scythians and Greeks,\" p. 345).\n\nTuempel cites the following statements: \"te (Venus) ex concha natam esse\nautumant: cave tu harum conchas spernas!\" Tibull. 3, 3, 24: \"et faveas\nconcha, Cypria, vecta tua\"; Statius Silv. 1, 2, 117: Venus to\nViolentilla, \"haec et caeruleis mecum consurgere digna fluctibus et\nnostra potuit considere concha\"; Fulgent. myth. 2, 4 \"concha etiam\nmarina pingitur (Venus) portari (I. HS:--am portare)\"; Paulus Diacon. p.\n52, \"M. Cytherea Venus ab urbe Cythera, in quam primum devecta esse\ndicitur concha, cum in mari esset concepta cet\".]\n\n[298: From [Greek: odino]--\"to have the pains of childbirth\".]\n\n[299: See Schliemann, \"Ilios,\" p. 455; and Siret, _op. cit_.]\n\n[300: Siret, _op. cit. supra_, p. 59.]\n\n[301: \"Les Theories de la Genese a Mycenes et le sens zoologique de\ncertains symboles du culte d'Aphrodite,\" _Revue Archeologique_, 3^ie\nserie, T. XXVI, 1895, p. 13.]\n\n[302: It was adduced also by Tuempel and others before him.]\n\n[303: or _Pteroceras_.]\n\n[304: Jackson, _op. cit._, p. 38.]\n\n[305: \"Koptos,\" pp. 7-9, Pls. III. and IV.: for a discussion of the\nsignificance of these statues see Jean Capart, \"Les Debuts de l'Art en\nEgypte,\" Brussels, 1904, p. 216 _et seq._]\n\n[306: This may help to explain the peculiar sanctity of the shell.]\n\n[307: Frazer, _op. cit._, 4.]\n\n[308: Just as Hathor (or her surrogate Horus) turned men into the\ncreatures of Set, _i.e._ pigs, crocodiles, _et cetera_.]\n\n[309: \"Excavations at Saqqara,\" 1905-1906, p. 14.]\n\n[310: Maspero, \"The Dawn of Civilization,\" p. 34.]\n\n[311: Saville, \"Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador,\" 1907.]\n\n[312: A detailed summary of the literature relating to the world-wide\ndistribution of certain phases of the dragon-myth is given by Frobenius,\n\"Das Zeitalter des Sonnesgottes,\" Berlin, 1904: on pp. 63-5 he gives the\nRata-myth.]\n\n[313: Which can also be compared with the conventional form of the\nthunderbolt.]\n\n[314: Of course the hands had the additional significance as trophies of\nher murderous zeal. But I think this is a secondary rationalization of\ntheir meaning. An excellent photograph of a bronze statue (in the\nCalcutta Art Gallery), representing Kali with her girdle of hands, is\ngiven by Mr. Donald A. Mackenzie, \"Indian Myth and Legend,\" p. xl.]\n\n[315: F. T. Elworthy has summarized the extensive literature relating to\nhand-amulets (\"The Evil Eye,\" 1895; and \"Horns of Honour,\" 1900). Many\nof these hands have the definite reputation as fertility charms which\none would expect if Houssay's hypothesis of their derivation from the\noctopus is well founded.]\n\n\nThe Swastika.\n\nHoussay (_op. cit. supra_) has made the interesting suggestion that the\nswastika may have been derived from such conventionalized\nrepresentations of the octopus as are shown in Fig. 23. This series of\nsketches is taken from Tuempel's memoir, which provided the foundation\nfor Houssay's hypothesis.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 23.--A series of Mycenaean conventionalizations of\nthe Argonaut and the Octopus (after Tuempel), which provided the basis\nfor Houssay's theory of the origin of the triskele (_a_, _c_, and _d_)\nand swastika (b and e), and Siret's theory to explain the design of\nBes's face (f and g)]\n\nA vast amount of attention has been devoted to this lucky symbol,[316]\nwhich still enjoys a widespread vogue at the present day, after a\nhistory of several thousand years. Although so much has been written in\nattempted explanation of the swastika since Houssay made his suggestion,\nso far as I am aware no one has paid the slightest attention to his\nhypothesis or made even a passing reference to his memoir.[317]\nFantastic and far-fetched though it may seem at first sight (though\nsurely not more so than the strictly orthodox solar theory advocated by\nMr. Cook or Mrs. Nuttall's astral speculations) Houssay's suggestion\noffers an explanation of some of the salient attributes of the swastika\non which the alternative hypotheses shed little or no light.\n\nAmong the earliest known examples of the symbol are those engraved upon\nthe so-called \"owl-shaped\" (but, as Houssay has conclusively\ndemonstrated, really octopus-shaped) vases and a metal figurine found by\nSchliemann in his excavations of the hill at Hissarlik.[318] The\nswastika is represented upon the _mons Veneris_ of these figures, which\nrepresent the Great Mother in her form as a woman or as a pot, which is\nan anthropomorphized octopus, one of the avatars of the Great Mother.\nThe symbol seems to have been intended as a fertility amulet like the\ncowry, either suspended from a girdle or depicted upon a pubic shield or\nconventionalized fig-leaf.\n\nWherever it is found the swastika is supposed to be an amulet to confer\n\"good luck\" and long life. Both this reputation and the association with\nthe female organs of reproduction link up the symbol with the cowry, the\n_Pterocera_, and the octopus. It is clear then that the swastika has the\nsame reputation for magic and the same attributes and associations as\nthe octopus; and it may be a conventionalized representation of it, as\nHoussay has suggested.\n\nIt must not be assumed that the identification of the swastika with the\nGreat Mother and her powers of giving life and resurrection\n_necessarily_ invalidates the solar and astral theories recently\nchampioned by Mr. Cook and Mrs. Nuttall respectively. I have already\ncalled attention to the fact that the Sun-god derived his existence and\nall his attributes from his mother. The whole symbolism of the Winged\nDisk and the Wheel of the Sun and their reputation for life-giving and\ndestruction were adopted from the Great Mother. These well-established\nfacts should prepare us to recognize that the admission of the truth of\nHoussay's suggestion would not necessarily invalidate the more widely\naccepted solar significance of the swastika.\n\nTuempel called attention to the fact that, when they set about\nconventionalizing the octopus, the Mycenaean artists often resorted to\nthe practice of representing pairs of \"arms\" as units and so making\nfour-limbed and three-limbed forms (Fig. 23), which Houssay regards as\nthe prototypes of the swastika and the triskele respectively. That such\na process may have played a part in the development of the symbol is\nfurther suggested by the form of a Transcaucasian swastika found by\nRoessler,[319] who assigns it to the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age. Each\nof the four limbs is bifurcated at its extremity. Moreover they exhibit\nthe series of spots, so often found upon or alongside the limbs of the\nsymbol, which suggest the conventional way of representing the suckers\nof the octopus in the Mycenaean designs (Fig. 23).\n\nAnother remarkable picture of a swastika-like emblem has been found in\nAmerica.[320] The elephant-headed god sits in the centre and four pairs\nof arms radiate from him, each of them equipped with definite suckers.\n\nAnother possible way in which the design of a four-limbed swastika may\nhave been derived from an octopus is suggested by the gypsum weight\nfound in 1901 by Sir Arthur Evans[321] in the West Magazine of the\npalace at Knossos (_circa_ 1500 B.C.). Upon the surface of this weight\nthe form of an octopus has been depicted, four of the arms of which\nstand out in much stronger relief than the others.\n\nThe number four has a peculiar mystical significance (_vide infra_, p.\n206) and is especially associated with the Sun-god Horus. This fact may\nhave played some part in the process of reduction of the number of limbs\nof the octopus to four; or alternatively it may have helped to emphasize\nthe solar associations of the symbol, which other considerations were\nresponsible for suggesting. The designs upon the pots from Hissarlik\nshow that at a relatively early epoch the swastika was confused with the\nsun's disc represented as a wheel with four spokes.[322] But the solar\nattributes of the swastika are secondary to those of life-giving and\nluck-bringing, with which it was originally endowed as a form of the\nGreat Mother.\n\nThe only serious fact which arouses some doubt as to the validity of\nHoussay's theory is the discovery of an early painted vase at Susa\ndecorated with an unmistakable swastika. Edmond Pottier, who has\ndescribed the ceramic ware from Susa,[323] regards this pot as\nProto-Elamite of the earliest period. If Pottier's claim is justified we\nhave in this isolated specimen from Susa the earliest example of the\nswastika. Moreover, it comes from a region in which the symbol was\nsupposed to be wholly absent.\n\nThis raises a difficult problem for solution. Is the Proto-Elamite\nswastika the prototype of the symbol whose world-wide migrations have\nbeen studied by Wilson (_op. cit. supra_)? Or is it an instance of\nindependent evolution? If it falls within the first category and is\nreally the parent of the early Anatolian swastikas, how is it to be\nexplained? Was the conventionalization of the octopus design much more\nancient than the earliest Trojan examples of the symbol? Or was the\nSusian design adopted in the West and given a symbolic meaning which it\ndid not have before then?\n\nThese are questions which we are unable to answer at present because the\nnecessary information is lacking. I have enumerated them merely to\nsuggest that any hasty inferences regarding the bearing of the Susian\ndesign upon the general problem are apt to be misleading. Vincent[324]\nclaims that the fact of the swastika having been in use by ceramic\nartists in Crete and Susiana many centuries before the appearance of\nMycenaean art is fatal to Houssay's hypothesis. But I think it is too\nsoon to make such an assumption. The swastika was already a rigidly\nconventionalized symbol when we first know it both in the Mediterranean\nand in Susiana. It may therefore have a long history behind it. The\noctopus may possibly have begun to play a part in the development of\nthis symbolism before the Egyptian Bes (_vide supra_, p. 171) was\nevolved, perhaps even before the time of the Coptos statues of Min\n(_supra_, p. 169), or in the early days of Sumerian history when the\nconventional form of the water-pot was being determined (_infra_, p.\n179). These are mere conjectures, which I mention merely for the purpose\nof suggesting that the time is not yet ripe for using such arguments as\nVincent's finally to dispose of Houssay's octopus-theory.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the symbolism of the Mycenaean spiral and the\nvolute is closely related to the octopus. In fact, the evidence provided\nby Minoan paintings and Mycenaean decorative art demonstrates that the\nspiral as a symbol of life-giving was definitely derived from the\noctopus. The use of the volute on Egyptian scarabs[325] and also in the\ndecoration of an early Thracian statuette of a nude goddess[326]\nindicate that it was employed like the spiral and octopus as a\nlife-symbol.\n\nIn Spanish graves of the Early and Middle Neolithic types M. Siret found\ncowry-shells in association with a series of flint implements, crude\nidols, and pottery almost precisely reproducing the forms of similar\nobjects found with cowries and pecten shells at Hissarlik.[327] But when\nthe AEneolithic phase of culture dawned in Spain, and the AEgean\noctopus-motif made its appearance there, the culture as a whole reveals\nunmistakable evidence of a predominantly Egyptian inspiration.\n\nM. Siret claims, however, that, even in the Neolithic phase in Spain,\nthe crude idols represent forms derived from the octopus in the Eastern\nMediterranean (p. 59 _et seq._). He regards the octopus as \"a\nconventional symbol of the ocean, or, more precisely, of the fertilizing\nwatery principle\" (p. 19). He elucidates a very interesting feature of\nthe AEneolithic representation of the octopus in Spain. The spiral-motif\nof the AEgean gives place to an angular design, which he claims to be due\nto the influence of the conventional Egyptian way of representing water\n(p. 40). If this interpretation is correct--and, in spite of the\nslenderness of the evidence, I am inclined to accept it--it affords a\nremarkable illustration of the effects of culture-contact in the\nconventionalization of designs, to which Dr. Rivers has called\nattention.[328] Whatever explanation may be provided of this method of\nrepresenting the arms of the octopus with its angularly bent\nextremities, it seems to have an important bearing on Houssay's\nhypothesis of the swastika's origin. For it would reveal the means by\nwhich the spiral or volute shape of the limbs of the swastika became\ntransformed into the angular form, which is so characteristic of the\nconventional symbol.[329]\n\nThe significance of the spiral as a form of the Great Mother inevitably\nled to its identification with the thunder weapon, like all her other\nsurrogates. I have already referred (Chapter II, p. 98) to the\nassociation of the spiral with thunder and lightning in Eastern Asia.\nBut other factors played a significant part in determining this\nspecialization. In Egypt the god Amen was identified with the ram; and\nthis creature's spirally curved horn became the symbol of the\nthunder-god throughout the Mediterranean area,[330] and then further\nafield in Europe, Africa, and Asia, where, for instance, we see Agni's\nram with the characteristic horn. This blending of the influence of the\noctopus- and the ram's-horn-motifs made the spiral a conventional\nrepresentation of thunder. This is displayed in its most definite form\nin China, Japan, Indonesia, and America, where we find the separate\nspiral used as a thunder-symbol, and the spiral appendage on the side of\nthe head as a token of the god of thunder.[331]\n\n\n[316: Thomas Wilson (\"The Swastika, the Earliest Known Symbol, and its\nMigrations; with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in\nPrehistoric Times,\" _Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1894_,\nWashington, 1896) has given a full and well-illustrated summary of most\nof the literature: further information is provided by Count d'Alviella\n(_op. cit. supra_), \"The Migration of Symbols\"; by Zelia Nuttall (\"The\nFundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations,\"\n_Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum_,\nCambridge, Mass., 1901); and Arthur Bernard Cook (\"Zeus, A Study in\nAncient Religion,\" Vol. I, Cambridge, 1914, pp. 472 _et seq._).]\n\n[317: Since this has been printed Mr. W. J. Perry has called my\nattention to a short article by Rene Croste (\"Le Svastika,\" _Bull.\nTrimestriel de la Societe Bayonnaise d'Etudes Regionales_, 1918), in\nwhich Houssay's hypothesis is mentioned as having been adopted by\nGuilleminot (\"Les Nouveaux Horizons de la Science\").]\n\n[318: Wilson (_op. cit._, pp. 829-33 and Figs. 125, 128, and 129) has\ncollected the relevant passages and illustrations from Schliemann's\nwritings.]\n\n[319: _Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_, Bd. 37, p. 148.]\n\n[320: Seler, _Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie_, Bd., 41, p. 409.]\n\n[321: _Corolla Numismatica_, 1906, p. 342.]\n\n[322: A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" pp. 198 _et seq_.]\n\n[323: \"Etude Historique et Chronologique sur les Vases Peints de\nl'Acropole de Suse,\" _Memoires de la Delegation en Perse_, T. XIII,\n_Rech. Archeol._, 5^e serie, 1912, Plate XLI, Fig. 3.]\n\n[324: \"Canaan,\" p. 340, footnote.]\n\n[325: Alice Grenfell, _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. II, 1915,\np. 217: and _Ancient Egypt_, 1916, Part I, p. 23.]\n\n[326: S. Reinach, _Revue Archeol._, T. XXVI, 1895, p. 369.]\n\n[327: L. Siret, \"Questions de Chronologie et d'Ethnographie Iberiques,\"\n1913, p. 18, Fig. 3.]\n\n[328: Rivers, \"History of Melanesian Society,\" Vol. II, p. 374; also\n_Report Brit. Association_, 1912, p. 599.]\n\n[329: M. Siret assigns the date of the appearance in Spain of the highly\nconventionalized angular form of octopus to the time between the\nfifteenth and the twelfth centuries B.C.; and he attributes it to\nPhoenician influence (p. 63).]\n\n[330: Cook, \"Zeus,\" p. 346 _et seq._]\n\n[331: This is well shown upon the Copan representations (Fig. 19) of the\nelephant-headed god--see _Nature_, November, 25, 1915, p. 340.]\n\n\nThe Mother Pot.\n\nIn the lecture on \"Incense and Libations\" (Chapter I) I referred to the\nenrichment of the conception of water's life-giving properties which the\ninclusion of the idea of human fertilization by water involved. When\nthis event happened a new view developed in explanation of the part\nplayed by woman in reproduction. She was no longer regarded as the real\nparent of mankind, but as the matrix in which the seed was planted and\nnurtured during the course of its growth and development. Hence in the\nearliest Egyptian hieroglyphic writing the picture of a pot of water was\ntaken as the symbol of womanhood, the \"vessel\" which received the seed.\nA globular water-pot, the common phonetic value of which is _Nw_ or\n_Nu_, was the symbol of the cosmic waters, the god _Nw (Nu)_, whose\nfemale counterpart was the goddess _Nut_.\n\nIn his report, \"A Collection of Hieroglyphs,\"[332] Mr. F. Ll. Griffith\ndiscusses the bowl of water (a) and says that it stands for the female\nprinciple in the words for _vulva_ and woman. When it is recalled that\nthe cowry (and other shells) had the same double significance, the\npossibility suggests itself whether at times confusion may not have\narisen between the not very dissimilar hieroglyphic signs for \"a shell\"\n(h) and \"the bowl of water\" (woman) (f).[333]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 6.\n\n(a) Picture of a bowl of water--the hieroglyphic sign equivalent to _hm_\n(the word _hmt_ means \"woman\")--Griffith, \"Beni Hasan,\" Part III, Plate\nVI, Fig. 88 and p. 29.\n\n(b) \"A basket of sycamore figs\"--Wilkinson's \"Ancient Egyptians,\" Vol.\nI, p. 323.\n\n(c) and (d) are said by Wilkinson to be hieroglyphic signs meaning\n\"wife\" and are apparently taken from (b). But (c) is identical with (i),\nwhich, according to Griffith (p. 14), represents a bivalve shell (g,\nfrom Plate III, Fig. 3), more usually placed obliquely (h). The varying\nconventionalizations of (a) or (b) are shown in (d), (e), and (f)\n(Griffith, \"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 34).\n\n(k) The sign for a lotus leaf, which is a phonetic equivalent of the\nsign (h), and, according to Griffith (\"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 26), \"is\nprobably derived from the same root, on account of its shell-like\noutline\".\n\n(l) The hieroglyphic sign for a pot of water in such words as _Nu_\nand _Nut_.\n\n(m) A \"pomegranate\" (replacing a bust of Tanit) upon a sacred column at\nCarthage (Arthur J. Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" p. 46).\n\n(n) The form of the body of an octopus as conventionalized on the coins\nof Central Greece (compare Fig. 24 (d)). Its similarity to the Egyptian\npot-sign (l) (which also has the significance of mother-goddess) is\nworthy of note.]\n\nReferring to the sign (g and h) for \"a shell,\" Mr. Griffith says (p.\n25): \"It is regularly found at all periods in the word _haw.t_ =\naltar,[334] and perhaps only in this word: but it is a peculiarity of\nthe Pyramid Texts that the sign shown in the text-figures _c_, _h_,\nand _i_ is in them used very commonly, not as a word-sign, but also\nas a phonetic equivalent to the sign labelled _k_ (in the text-figure)\nfor _h'_ (_kha_), or apparently for _h_ alone in many words.\n\n\"The name of the lotus leaf is probably derived from the same root, on\naccount of its shell-like outline or _vice versa_.\"\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 7.\n\n(a) An Egyptian design representing the sun-god Horus emerging from a\nlotus, representing his mother Hathor (Isis).\n\n(b) Papyrus sceptre often carried by goddesses and animistically\nidentified with them either as an instrument of life-giving or\ndestruction.\n\n(c) Conventionalized lily--the prototype of the trident and the\nthunder-weapon.\n\n(d) A water-plant associated with the Nile-gods.]\n\nThe familiar representation of Horus (and his homologues in India and\nelsewhere) being born from the lotus suggests that the flower represents\nhis mother Hathor. But as the argument in these pages has led us towards\nthe inference that the original form of Hathor was a shell-amulet,[335]\nit seems not unlikely that her identification with the lotus may have\narisen from the confusion between the latter and the cowry, which no\ndoubt was also in part due to the belief that both the shell and the\nplant were expressions of the vital powers of the water in which they\ndeveloped.\n\nThe identification of the Great Mother with a pot was one of the factors\nthat played a part in the assimilation of her attributes with those of\nthe Water God, who in early Sumerian pictures was usually represented\npouring the life-giving waters from his pot (Fig. 24, _h_ and _l_).\n\n[Illustration:\n\nFig. 24.\n\n(a) and (b) Two Mycenaean pots (after Schliemann).\n\n(a) The so-called \"owl-shaped\" vase is really a representation of the\nMother-Pot in the form of a conventionalized Octopus (Houssay).\n\n(b) The other vase represents the Octopus Mother-Pot, with a jar upon\nher head and another in her hands--a three-fold representation of the\nGreat Mother as a pot.\n\n(c) A Cretan vase from Gournia in which the Octopus-motive is\nrepresented as a decoration upon the pot instead of in its form.\n\n(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) A series of coins from Central Greece (after\nHead) showing a series of conventionalizations of the Octopus, with its\npot-like body and palm-tree-like arms (f).\n\n(i) _Sepia officinalis_ (after Tryon).\n\n(k) and (l) The so-called \"spouting vases\" in the hands of the\nBabylonian god Ea, from a cylinder seal of the time of Gudea, Patesi of\nTello, after Ward (\"Seal Cylinders, etc.,\" p. 215).\n\nThe \"spouting vases\" have been placed in conjunction with the Sepia to\nsuggest the possibility of confusion with a conventionalized drawing of\nthe latter in the blending of the symbolism of the water-jar and\ncephalopods in Western Asia and the Mediterranean.]\n\nThis idea of the Mother Pot is found not only in Babylonia, Egypt,\nIndia,[336] and the Eastern Mediterranean, but wherever the influence of\nthese ancient civilizations made itself felt. It is widespread among the\nCeltic-speaking peoples. In Wales the pot's life-giving powers are\nenhanced by making its rim of pearls. But as the idea spread, its\nmeaning also became extended. At first it was merely a jug of water or a\nbasket of figs, but elsewhere it became also a witch's cauldron, the\nmagic cup, the Holy Grail, the font in which a child is reborn into the\nfaith, the vessel of water here being interpreted in the earliest sense\nas the uterus or the organ of birth. The Celtic pot, so Mr. Donald\nMackenzie tells me, is closely associated with cows, serpents, frogs,\ndragons, birds, pearls, and \"nine maidens that blow the fire under the\ncauldron\"; and, if the nature of these relationships be examined, each\nof them will be found to be a link between the pot and the Great Mother.\n\nThe witch's cauldron and the maidens who assist in the preparation of\nthe witch's medicine seem to be the descendants respectively of Hathor's\npots (in the story of the Destruction of Mankind) and the Sekti who\nchurn up the _didi_ and the barley with which to make the elixir of\nimmortality and the sedative draught for the destructive goddess\nherself.\n\nMr. Donald Mackenzie has given me a number of additional references from\nCeltic and Indian literature in corroboration of these widespread\nassociations of the pot with the Great Mother; and he reminds me that in\nOceania the coco-nut has the same reputation as the pot in the Indian\n_Mahabharata_. It is the source of food and anything else that is\nwanted, and its supply can never be exhausted. [On some future occasion\nI hope to make use of the wonderful legends of the pot's life-giving\npowers, to which Mr. Mackenzie has directed my attention. At present,\nhowever, I must content myself with the statement that the pot's\nidentity with the Great Mother is deeply rooted in ancient belief\nthroughout the greater part of the world.[337]]\n\nThe diverse conceptions of the Great Mother as a pot and as an octopus\nseem to have been blended in Mycenaean lands, where the so-called\n\"owl-shaped\" pots were clearly intended to represent the goddess in both\nthese aspects united in one symbol. When the diffusion of these ideas\ninto more remote parts of the world took place syntheses with other\nmotives produced a great variety of most complex forms. In Honduras\npottery vessels have been found[338] which give tangible expression to\nthe blending of the ideas of the Mother Pot, the crocodile-like\n_Makara_, star-spangled like Hathor's cow, Aphrodite's pig, and Soma's\ndeer, and provided with the deer's antlers of the Eastern Asiatic dragon\n(see Chapter II, p. 103).\n\nThe New Testament sets forth the ancient conception of birth and\nrebirth. When Nicodemus asks: \"How can a man be born again when he is\nold? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?\" he\nis told: \"Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot\nenter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh:\nand that which is born of the spirit is spirit\" (John iii. 4, 5, and 6).\n\nThe phrase \"born of water\" refers to the birth \"of the flesh\"; and the\nmother's womb is the vessel containing \"the water\" from which the new\nlife emerges. Plutarch states, with reference to the birth of Isis:\n\"[Greek: tetarte de ten Isin en panygrois genesthai]\". The great waters\nwhich produced all living things, the Egyptian god Nun and the goddess\nNut, were expressed in hieroglyphic as pots of water. The goddess was\nidentified with Hathor's celestial star-spangled cow, the original\nmother of the sun-god; and the word \"Nun\" was a symbol of all that was\nnew, young, and fresh, and the fertilizing and life-giving waters of the\nannual inundation of the Nile. Hathor was the daughter of these waters,\nas Aphrodite was sprung from the sea-foam.\n\n\n[332: _Archaeol. Survey of Egypt_, 1898, p. 3.]\n\n[333: Compare the two-fold meaning of the Latin _testa_ as \"shell\" and\n\"bowl\".]\n\n[334: Compare the association of shells with altars in Minoan Crete and\nthe widespread use of large shells as bowls for \"holy water\" in\nChristian churches.]\n\n[335: Miss Winifred M. Crompton, Assistant Keeper of the Egyptian\nDepartment of the Manchester Museum, has called my attention to a\nremarkable piece of evidence which affords additional corroboration of\nthe view that Hathor was a development of the cowry-amulet. Upon the\nfamous archaic palette of Narmer (Fig. 18), a sporran, composed of four\nrepresentations of Hathor's head, takes the place of the original\ncowries that were suspended from more primitive girdles.\n\nThe cowries of the head ornament of primitive peoples of Africa and Asia\n(and of the Mediterranean area in early times--Schliemann's \"Ilios,\"\nFig. 685) are often replaced in Egypt by lotus flowers (W. D. Spanton,\n\"Water Lilies of Egypt,\" _Ancient Egypt_, 1917, Part I, Figs. 19, 20,\nand 21). Upon the head-band of the statue of Nefert, which I have\nreproduced in Chapter I (Fig. 4), a conventional lotus design is found\n(see Spanton's Fig. 19), which is almost identical with the classical\nthunder-weapon.]\n\n[336: Among the Dravidian people at the present day the seven goddesses\n(corresponding to the seven Hathors) are often represented by seven\npots.]\n\n[337: The luxuriant crop of stories of the Holy Grail was not inspired\noriginally by mere literary invention. A tradition sprung from the\nfountain-head of all mythology, the parent-story of the Destruction of\nMankind, provided the materials which a series of writers elaborated\ninto the varied assortment of legends of the Mother Pot. The true\nmeaning of the Quest of the Holy Grail can be understood only by reading\nthe fabled accounts of it in the light of the ancient search for the\nelixir of life and the historical development of the narrative\ndescribing that search.\n\nA concise summary of the Grail literature will be found in Jessie L.\nWeston's \"The Quest of the Holy Grail\" (1913). Her theory will be found,\nafter some slight modifications, to fall into line with the general\nargument of this book.\n\nMr. F. Ll. Griffith tells me that the Egyptian hieroglyphic for the verb\n\"coire cum\" gives frank expression to the real meaning of the symbolism\nof the pot as the matrix which receives the seed. The same idea provides\nthe material for the incident of the birth of Drona (the pot-born) in\nthe Adi Parva (Sections CXXXI, CXXXIX, and CLXVIII, in Roy's\ntranslation) of the Mahabharata, to which Mr. Donald A. Mackenzie has\nkindly called my attention. Drona was conceived in a pot from the seed\nof a Rishi. A widespread variant of the same story is the conception of\na child from a drop of blood in a pot (see, for example, Hartland,\n\"Legend of Perseus,\" Vol. I, pp. 98 and 144). If the pot can thus create\na human being, it is easy to understand how it acquired its reputation\nof being also able to multiply food and provide an inexhaustible supply.\nSimilarly, all substances, such as barley, rice, gold, pearls, and jade,\nto which the possession of a special vital essence or \"soul substance\"\nwas attributed, were believed to be able to reproduce themselves and so\nincrease in quantity of their own activities. As \"givers of life\" they\nwere also able to add to their own life-substance, in other words to\ngrow like any other living being.]\n\n[338: \"An American Dragon,\" _Man_, November, 1918.]\n\n\nArtemis and the Guardian of the Portal.\n\nSir Gardner Wilkinson states (see text-figure, p. 179, _b_) that \"a\nbasket of sycamore figs\" was originally the hieroglyphic sign for a\nwoman, a goddess, or a mother. Later on (p. 199) I shall refer to the\npossible bearing of this Egyptian idea upon the origin of the Hebrew\nword for mandrakes and the allusion to \"a basket of figs\" in the Book\nof Jeremiah.\n\nThe life-giving powers attributed to \"love-apples\" and the association\nof these ideas with the fig-tree may have facilitated the transference\nof these attributes of \"apples\" to those actually growing upon a tree.\n\nWe know that Aphrodite was intimately associated, not only with\n\"love-apples,\" but also with real apples. The sun-god Apollo's connexion\nwith the apple-tree, which Dr. Rendel Harris, with great daring, wants\nto convert into an identity of name, was probably only one of the\nresults of that long series of confusions between the Great Mother\n(Hathor) and the Sun-god (Horus), to which I have referred in my\ndiscussion of the dragon-story.\n\nBut when Apollo's form emerges more clearly he is associated not with\nAphrodite but with Artemis, whom Dr. Rendel Harris has shown to be\nidentified with the mugwort, _Artemisia_. The association of the goddess\nwith this plant is probably related to the identification of Sekhet with\nthe marsh-plants of the Egyptian Delta and of Hathor and Isis with the\nlotus and other water plants. Any doubt as to the reality of these\nassociations and Egyptian connexions is banished by the evidence of\nArtemis's male counterpart Apollo Hyakinthos and his relations to the\nsacred lily and other water plants.[339] Artemis was a gynaecological\nspecialist: for she assisted women not only in childbirth and the\nexpulsion of the placenta, but also in cases of amenorrhoea and\naffections of the uterus. She was regarded as the goddess of the portal,\nnot merely of birth,[340] but also of gold and treasure, of which she\npossessed the key, and of the year (January).\n\nThis brings us back to the guardianship of gold and treasures which\nplays so vital a part in the evolution of the Mediterranean goddesses.\nFor, like the story of the dog and the mandrake, it emphasizes the\nconchological ancestry of these deities and their connexion with the\nguardians of the subterranean palaces where pearls are found. But\nArtemis was not only the opener of the treasure-houses, but she also\npossessed the secret of the philosopher's stone: she could transmute\nbase substances into gold,[341] for was she not the offspring of the\nGolden Hathor? To open the portal either of birth or wealth she used her\nmagic wand or key. As _Nub_, the lady of gold, the Great Mother could\nnot only change other substances into gold, but she was also the\nguardian of the treasure house of gold, pearls, and precious stones.\nHence she could grant riches. Elsewhere in this chapter (p. 221) I shall\nexplain how the goddess came to be identified with gold.\n\nJust as Hathor, the Eye of Re, descended to provide the elixir of youth\nfor the king who was the sun-god, so Artemis is described as\ntravelling through the air in a car drawn by two serpents[342] seeking\nthe most pious of kings in order that she might establish her cult with\nhim and bless him with renewed youth.[343]\n\nArtemis was a moon-goddess closely related to Britomartis and Diktynna,\nthe Cretan prototype of Aphrodite. These goddesses afforded help to\nwomen in childbirth and were regarded as guardians of the portal. The\ngoddess of streams and marshes was identified with the mugwort\n(_Artemisia_), which was hung above the door in the place occupied at\nother times by the winged disk, the thunder-stone, or a crocodile\n(dragon). As the guardian of portals Artemis's magic plant could open\nlocks and doors. As the giver of life she could also withhold the vital\nessence and so cause disease or death; but she possessed the means of\ncuring the ills she inflicted. Artemis, in fact, like all the other\ngoddesses, was a witch.\n\nIn former lectures[344] I have often discussed the remarkable feature of\nEgyptian architecture, which is displayed in the tendency to exaggerate\nthe door-posts and lintels, until in the New Empire the great temples\nbecome transformed into little more than monstrously overgrown doorways\nor pylons. I need not emphasize again the profound influence exerted by\nthis line of development upon the Dravidian temples of India and the\nsymbolic gateways of China and Japan.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 25.\n\n(a) Winged Disk from the Temple of Thothmes I.\n\n(b) Persian design of Winged Disk above the Tree of Life (Ward, \"Seal\nCylinders of Western Asia,\" Fig. 1109).\n\n(c) Assyrian or Syro-Hittite design of the Winged Disk and Tree of Life\nin an extremely conventionalized form (Ward, Fig. 1310).\n\n(d) Assyrian conventionalized Winged Disk and Tree of Life, from the\ndesign upon the dress of Assurnazipal (Ward, Fig. 670).\n\n(e) Part of the design from a tablet of the time of Dungi (Ward, Fig.\n663). The Tree of Life (or the Great Mother) between the two mountains:\nalongside the tree is the heraldic eagle.\n\n(f) Design on a Cretan sarcophagus from Hagia Triada (Blinkenberg, Fig.\n9). The Tree of Life has now become the handle of the Double Axe, into\nwhich the Winged Disk has been transformed. But the bird which was the\nprototype of the Winged Disk has been added.\n\n(g) Double axe from a gold signet from Acropolis Treasure, Mycenae (after\nSir Arthur Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" p. 10).\n\n(h) Assyrian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 608) showing reduplication of the\nwing-pattern, possibly suggesting the doubling of each axe-blade in _g_.\n\n(i) \"Primitive Chaldean Winged Gate\" (Ward, Fig. 349). The Gate as the\nGoddess of the Portal.\n\n(k) Persian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 1144) above a fire-altar in the form\nsuggestive of the mountains of dawn (compare Fig. 26, _c_).\n\n(l) An Assyrian Tree of Life and Winged Disk crudely conventionalized\n(Ward, Fig. 695).\n\n(m) Assyrian Tree of Life and \"Winged Disk\" in which the god is riding\nin a crescent replacing the Disk (Ward, Fig. 695).]\n\nThis significance of gates was no doubt suggested by the idea that they\nrepresented the means of communication between the living and the dead,\nand, symbolically, the portal by which the dead acquired a rebirth into\na new form of existence. It was presumably for this reason that the\nwinged disk as a symbol of life-giving, was placed above the lintels of\nthese doors, not merely in Egypt, Phoenicia, the Mediterranean Area, and\nWestern Asia, but also in America,[345] and in modified forms in India,\nIndonesia, Melanesia, Cambodia, China, and Japan.\n\nThe discussion (Chapter II) of the means by which the winged disk came\nto acquire the power of life-giving, \"the healing in its wings,\" will\nhave made it clear that the sun became accredited with these virtues\nonly when it assumed the place of the other \"Eye of Re,\" the Great\nMother. In fact, it was a not uncommon practice in Egypt to represent\nthe eyes of Re or of Horus himself in place of the more usual winged\ndisk. In the AEgean area the original practice of representing the Great\nMother was retained long after it was superseded in Egypt by the use of\nthe winged disk (the sun-god).\n\nOver the lintel of the famous \"Lion Gate\" at Mycenae, instead of the\nwinged disk, we find a vertical pillar to represent the Mother Goddess,\nflanked by two lions which are nothing more than other representatives\nof herself (Fig. 26). [Illustration: Fig. 26.\n\n(a) An Egyptian picture of Hathor between the mountains of the horizon\n(on which trees are growing) (after Budge, \"Gods of the Egyptians,\" Vol.\nII, p. 101). [This is a part only of a scene in which the goddess Nut is\ngiving birth to the sun, whose rays illuminate Hathor on the horizon, as\nSothis, the \"Opener of the Way\" for the sun.]\n\n(b) The mountains of the horizon supporting a cow's head as a surrogate\nof Hathor, from a stele found at Teima in Northern Arabia, now in the\nLouvre (after Sir Arthur Evans, _op. cit._, p. 39). This indicates the\nidentity of what Evans calls \"the horns of consecration\" and the\n\"mountains of the horizon,\" and also suggests how confusion may have\narisen between the mountains and the cow's horns.\n\n(c) The Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash rising between the Eastern\nMountains, the Gates of Dawn (Ward, _op. cit._, p. 373).\n\n(d) The familiar Egyptian representation of the sun rising between the\nEastern Mountains (the splitting of the mountain giving birth to \"the\nridiculous mouse\"--Smintheus). The _ankh_ (life-sign) below the sun is\nthe determinative of the act of giving birth or life. The design is\nheraldically supported by the Great Mother's lionesses.\n\n(e) Part of the design from a Mycenaean vase from Old Salamis (after\nEvans, p. 9). The cow's head and the Eastern Mountains are shown\nalongside one another, each of them supporting the Double Axe\nrepresenting the god.\n\n(f) Part of the design from a lentoid gem from the Idaean Cave, now in\nthe Candia Museum (after Evans, Fig. 25). If this design be compared\nwith the Egyptian picture (a), it will be seen that Hathor's place is\ntaken by the tree-form of the Great Mother, and the trees which in the\nformer (a) are growing upon the Eastern Mountains are now placed\nalongside the \"horns\". In the complete design (_vide_ Evans, _op. cit._,\np. 44) a votary is represented blowing a conch-shell trumpet to animate\nthe deity in the sacred tree.\n\n(g) The Eastern Mountains supporting the pillar-form of the goddess\n(after Evans, Fig. 66).\n\n(h) Another Mycenaean design comparable with (e).\n\n(i) Design from a signet-ring from Mycenae (after Evans, Fig. 34). If\nthis be compared with the Egyptian picture (a) it will be noted that the\nGreat Mother is now replaced by a tree: the Eastern Mountains by bulls,\nfrom whose backs the trees of the Eastern Mountains are sprouting. This\ndesign affords interesting corroboration of the suggestion that the\nEastern Mountains may be confused with the cow's head (see _b_ and _c_)\nor with the cow itself. Newberry (_Annals of Archaeology and\nAnthropology_, Liverpool, Vol. I, p. 28) has called attention to the\nintimate association (in Protodynastic Egypt) of the Eastern Mountains,\nthe Bull and the Double Axe--a certain token of cultural contact\nwith Crete.\n\n(k) The famous sculpture above the Lion Gate at Mycenae. The pillar form\nof the Great Mother heraldically supported by her lioness-avatars, which\ncorrespond to the cattle of the design (i) and the Eastern Mountains of\n(a). The use of this design above the lintel of the gate brings it into\nhomology with the Winged Disk. The Pillar represents the Goddess, as the\nDisk represents her Egyptian _locum tenens_, Horus; her destructive\nrepresentatives (the lionesses) correspond to the two uraei of the Winged\nDisk design.]\n\nIn his \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,\" Sir Arthur Evans has shown that\nall possible transitional forms can be found (in Crete and the AEgean\narea) between the representation of the actual goddess and her\npillar-and tree-manifestations, until the stage is reached where the sun\nitself appears above the pillar between the lions.[346] In the large\nseries of seals from Mesopotamia and Western Asia which have been\ndescribed in Mr. William Hayes Ward's monograph,[347] we find manifold\nlinks between both the Egyptian and the Minoan cults.\n\nThe tree-form of the Great Mother there becomes transformed into the\n\"tree of life\" and the winged disk is perched upon its summit. Thus we\nhave a duplication of the life-giving deities. The \"tree of life\" of the\nGreat Mother surmounted by the winged disk which is really her surrogate\nor that of the sun-god, who took over from her the power of life-giving\n(Figs. 25 and 26).\n\nIn an interesting Cretan sarcophagus from Hagia Triada[348] the\nlife-giving power is _tripled_. There is not only the tree representing\nthe Great Mother herself; but also the double axe (the winged-disk\nhomologue of the sun-god); and the more direct representation of him as\na bird perched upon the axe (Fig. 25, _f_).\n\nThe identification of the Great Mother with the tree or pillar seems\nalso to have led to her confusion with the pestle with which the\nmaterials for her draught of immortality was pounded. She was also the\nbowl or mortar in which the pestle worked.[349]\n\nAs the Great Mother became confused with the pestle, so, \"the\nSoma-plant, whose stalks are crushed by the priests to make the\nSoma-libation, becomes in the _Vedas_ itself the Crusher or Smiter, by a\nvery characteristic and frequent Oriental conceit in accordance with\nwhich the agent and the person or thing acted on are identified\".[350]\n\n\"The pressing-stones by means of which Soma is crushed typify\nthunderbolts.\" \"In the _Rig-Veda_, we read of him [Soma] as\n_jyotihrathah_, _i.e._ 'mounted on a car of light' (IX, 5, 86, verse\n43); or again: 'Like a hero he holds weapons in his hand ... mounted on\na chariot' (IX, 4, 76, verse 2)\"--(p. 171).\n\n\"Soma was the giver of power, of riches and treasures, flocks and herds,\nbut above all, the giver of immortality\" (p. 140).\n\nSir Arthur Evans is of opinion \"that in the case of the Cypriote\ncylinders the attendant monsters and, to a certain extent, the symbolic\ncolumn itself, are taken from an Egyptian solar cycle, and the inference\nhas been drawn that the aniconic pillars among the Mycenaeans of Cyprus\nwere identified with divinities having some points in common with the\nsun-gods Ra, or Horus, and Hathor, the Great Mother\" (_op. cit._, pp. 63\nand 64).\n\nIn attempting to find some explanation of how the tree or pillar of the\ngoddess came to be replaced in the Indian legend by Mount Meru, the\npossibility suggests itself whether the aniconic form of the Great\nMother placed between two relatively diminutive hills may not have\nhelped, by confusion, to convert the cone itself into a yet bigger hill,\nwhich was identified with Mount Meru, the summit of which in other\nlegends produced the _amrita_ of the gods, either in the form of the\nsoma plant that grew upon its heights, or the rain clouds which\ncollected there. But, as the subsequent argument will make clear, the\nreal reason for the identification of the Great Mother with a mountain\nwas the belief that the sun was born from the splitting of the eastern\nmountain, which thus assumed the function of the sun-god's mother.\nPossibly the association of the tops of mountains with cloud- and\nrain-phenomena and the gods that controlled them played some part in\nthe development of the symbolism of mountains. [When I referred (in\nChapter II, p. 98) to the fact that what Sir Arthur Evans calls \"the\nhorns of consecration\" was primarily the split mountain of the dawn, I\nwas not aware that Professor Newberry (\"Two Cults of the Old Kingdom,\"\n_Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology_, Liverpool, Vol. I, 1908, p. 28)\nhad already suggested this identification.]\n\nIn the Egyptian story the god Re instructed the Sekti of Heliopolis to\npound the materials for the food of immortality. In the Indian version,\nthe gods, aware of their mortality, desired to discover some elixir\nwhich would make them immortal. To this end, Mount Meru [the Great\nMother] was cast into the sea [of milk]. Vishnu, in his second avatar as\na tortoise[351] supported the mountain on his back; and the Naga serpent\nVasuki was then twisted around the mountain, the gods seizing its head\nand the demons his tail twirled the mountain until they had churned the\namrita or water of life. Wilfrid Jackson has called attention to the\nfact that this scene has been depicted, not only in India and Japan, but\nalso in the Precolumbian _Codex Cortes_ drawn by some Maya artist in\nCentral America.[352]\n\nThe horizon is the birthplace of the gods; and the birth of the deity is\ndepicted with literal crudity as an emergence from the portal between\nits two mountains. The mountain splits to give birth to the sun-god,\njust as in the later fable the parturient mountain produced the\n\"ridiculous mouse\" (Apollo Smintheus). The Great Mother is described as\ngiving birth--\"the gates of the firmament are undone for Teti himself at\nbreak of day\" [that is when the sun-god is born on the horizon]. \"He\ncomes forth from the Field of Earu\" (Egyptian Pyramid Texts--Breasted's\ntranslation).\n\nIn the domain of Olympian obstetrics the analogy between birth and the\nemergence from the door of a house or the gateway of a temple is a\ncommon theme of veiled reference. Artemis, for instance, is a goddess of\nthe portal, and is not only a helper in childbirth, but also grows in\nher garden a magical herb which is capable of opening locks. This\nreputation, however, was acquired not merely by reason of her skill in\nmidwifery, but also as an outcome of the legend[353] of the\ntreasure-house of pearls which was under the guardianship of the great\n\"giver of life\" and of which she kept the magic key. She was in fact\nthe feminine form of Janus, the doorkeeper who presided over all\nbeginnings, whether of birth, or of any kind of enterprise or new\nventure, or the commencement of the year (like Hathor). Janus was the\nguardian of the door of Olympus itself, the gate of rebirth into the\nimmortality of the gods.\n\nThe ideas underlying these conceptions found expression in an endless\nvariety of forms, material, intellectual, and moral, wherever the\ninfluence of civilization made itself felt. I shall refer only to one\ngroup of these expressions that is directly relevant to the\nsubject-matter of this book. I mean the custom of suspending or\nrepresenting the life-giving symbol above the portal of temples and\nhouses. Thus the plant peculiar to Artemis herself, the mugwort or\nArtemisia, was hung above the door,[354] just as the winged disk was\nsculptured upon the lintel, or the thunder-stone was placed above the\ndoor of the cowhouse[355] to afford the protection of the Great Mother's\npowers of life-giving to her own cattle.\n\nIn the Pyramid Texts the rebirth of a dead pharaoh is described with\nvivid realism and directness. \"The waters of life which are in the sky\ncome. The waters of life which are in the earth come. The sky burns for\nthee, the earth trembles for thee, before the birth of the god. The two\nhills are divided, the god comes into being, the god takes possession of\nhis body. The two hills are divided, this Neferkere comes into being,\nthis Neferkere takes possession of his body. Behold this Neferkere--his\nfeet are kissed by the pure waters which are from Atum, which the\nphallus of Shu made, which the vulva of Tefnut brought into being. They\nhave come, they have brought for thee the pure waters from their\nfather.\"[356]\n\nThe Egyptians entertained the belief[357] that the sun-god was born of\nthe celestial cow Mehetweret, a name which means \"Great Flood,\" and\nis the equivalent of the primeval ocean Nun. In other words the\ncelestial cow Hathor, the embodiment of the life-giving waters of heaven\nand earth, is the mother of Horus. So also Aphrodite was born of the\n\"Great Flood\" which is the ocean.\n\nIn his report upon the hieroglyphs of Beni Hasan,[358] Mr. Griffith\nrefers to the picture of \"a woman of the marshes,\" which is read\n_sekht_, and is \"used to denote the goddess Sekhet, the goddess of the\nmarshes, who presided over the occupations of the dwellers there. Chief\namong these occupations must have been the capture of fish and fowl and\nthe culture and gathering of water-plants, especially the papyrus and\nthe lotus\". Sekhet was in fact a rude prototype of Artemis in the\ncharacter depicted by Dr. Rendel Harris.[359]\n\nIt is perhaps not without significance that the root of a marsh plant,\nthe _Iris pseudacorus_[360] is regarded in Germany as a luck-bringer\nwhich can take the place of the mandrake.[361]\n\nThe Great Mother wields a magic wand which the ancient Egyptian scribes\ncalled the \"Great Magician\". It was endowed with the two-fold powers of\nlife-giving and opening, which from the beginning were intimately\nassociated the one with the other from the analogy of the act of birth,\nwhich was both an opening and a giving of life. Hence the \"magic wand\"\nwas a key or \"opener of the ways,\" wherewith, at the ceremonies of\nresurrection, the mouth was opened for speech and the taking of food, as\nwell as for the passage of the breath of life, the eyes were opened for\nsight, and the ears for hearing. Both the physical act of opening (the\n\"key\" aspect) as well as the vital aspect of life-giving (which we may\ncall the \"uterine\" aspect) were implied in this symbolism. Mr. Griffith\nsuggests that the form of the magic wand may have been derived from that\nof a conventionalized picture of the uterus,[362] in its aspect as a\ngiver of life. But it is possible also that its other significance as an\n\"opener of the ways\" may have helped in the confusion of the\nhieroglyphic uterus-symbol with the key-symbol, and possibly also with\ndouble-axe symbol which the vaguely defined early Cretan Mother-Goddess\nwielded. For, as we have already seen (_supra_, p. 122), the axe also\nwas a life-giving divinity and a magic wand (Fig. 8).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 8.\n\n(a) \"Ceremonial forked object,\" or \"magic wand,\" used in the ceremony of\n\"opening the mouth,\" possibly connected with (b) (a bicornuate uterus),\naccording to Griffith (\"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 60).\n\n(c) The Egyptian sign for a key.\n\n(d) The double axe of Crete and Egypt.]\n\n\nIn his chapter on \"the Origin of the Cult of Artemis,\" Dr. Rendel Harris\nrefers to the reputation of Artemis as the patron of travellers, and to\nParkinson's statement: \"It is said of Pliny that if a traveller binde\nsome of the hearbe [Artemisia] with him, he shall feele no weariness at\nall in his journey\" (p. 72). Hence the high Dutch name _Beifuss_ is\napplied to it.\n\nThe left foot of the dead was called \"the staff of Hathor\" by the\nEgyptians; and the goddess was said \"to make the deceased's legs to\nwalk\".[363]\n\nIt was a common practice to tie flowers to a mummy's feet, as I\ndiscovered in unwrapping the royal mummies. According to Moret (_op.\ncit._) the flowers of Upper and Lower Egypt were tied under the king's\nfeet at the celebration of the Sed festival.\n\nMr. Battiscombe Gunn (quoted by Dr. Alan Gardiner) states that the\nfamiliar symbol of life known as the _ankh_ represents the string of a\nsandal.[364]\n\nIt seems to be worth considering whether the symbolism of the\nsandal-string may not have been derived from the life-girdle, which in\nancient Indian medical treatises was linked in name with the female\norgans of reproduction and the pubic bones. According to Moret (_op.\ncit._, p. 91) a girdle furnished with a tail was used as a sign of\nconsecration or attainment of the divine life after death. Jung (_op.\ncit._, p. 270), who, however, tries to find a phallic meaning in all\nsymbolism, claims that reference to the foot has such a significance.\n\n\n[339: Evans, _op. cit._, p. 50.]\n\n[340: Her Latin representative, Diana, had a male counterpart and\nconjugate, Dianus, _i.e._ Janus, of whom it was said: \"Ipse primum Janus\ncum puerperium concipitur ... aditum aperit recipiendo semini\". For\nother quotations see Rendel Harris, _op. cit._, p. 88 and the article\n\"Janus\" in Roscher's \"Lexikon\".]\n\n[341: Rendel Harris, p. 73.]\n\n[342: No doubt the two uraei of the Saga of the Winged Disk.]\n\n[343: A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" Vol. I, p. 244.]\n\n[344: _Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society_, 1916.]\n\n[345: \"The Influence of Egyptian Civilization in the East and in\nAmerica,\" _Bulletin of the John Rylands Library_, 1916.]\n\n[346: Evans's, Fig. 41, p. 63.]\n\n[347: \"The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia,\" 1910.]\n\n[348: Paribeni, \"Monumenti antichi dell'accademia dei Lincei,\" XIX,\npunt. 1, pll. 1-3; and V. Duhn, \"Arch. f. Religionswissensch.,\" XII, p.\n161, pll. 2-4; quoted by Blinkenberg, \"The Thunder Weapon,\" pp. 20 and\n21, Fig. 9.]\n\n[349: Without just reason, many writers have assumed that the pestle,\nwhich was identified with the handle used in the churning of the ocean\n(see de Gubernatis, \"Zoological Mythology,\" Vol II, p. 361), was a\nphallic emblem. This meaning may have been given to the handle of the\nchurn at a later period, when the churn itself was regarded as the\nMother Pot or uterus; but we are not justified in assuming that this was\nits primary significance.]\n\n[350: Gladys M. N. Davis, \"The Asiatic Dionysos,\" p. 172.]\n\n[351: The tortoise was the vehicle of Aphrodite also and her\nrepresentatives in Central America.]\n\n[352: Jackson, \"Shells, etc.,\" pp. 57 _et seq._]\n\n[353: _Vide supra_, p. 158.]\n\n[354: Rendel Harris, \"The Ascent of Olympus,\" p. 80. In the building up\nof the idea of rebirth the ancients kept constantly before their minds a\nvery concrete picture of the actual process of parturition and of the\nanatomy of the organs concerned in this physiological process. This is\nnot the place to enter into a discussion of the anatomical facts\nrepresented in the symbolism of the \"giver of life\" presiding over the\nportal and the \"two hills\" which are divided at the birth of the deity:\nbut the real significance of the primitive imagery cannot be wholly\nignored if we want to understand the meaning of the phraseology used by\nthe ancient writers.]\n\n[355: Blinkenberg, \"The Thunder-weapon,\" p. 72.]\n\n[356: Aylward M. Blackman, \"Sacramental Ideas and Usages in Ancient\nEgypt,\" _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, March,\n1918, p. 64.]\n\n[357: _Op. cit._, p. 60.]\n\n[358: \"Archaeol. Survey of Egypt,\" 5th Memoir, 1896, p. 31.]\n\n[359: See especially _op. cit._, p. 35, the goddess of streams and\nmarshes, who was also herself \"the mother plant,\" like the mother of\nHorus.]\n\n[360: Whose cultural associations with the Great Mother in the Eastern\nMediterranean littoral has been discussed by Sir Arthur Evans, \"Mycenaean\nTree and Pillar Cult,\" pp. 49 _et seq._ Compare also _Apollo hyakinthos_\nas further evidence of the link with Artemis.]\n\n[361: P. J. Veth, \"Internat. Arch. f. Ethnol.,\" Bd. 7, pp. 203 and 204.]\n\n[362: \"Hieroglyphics,\" p. 60.]\n\n[363: Budge, \"The Gods of the Egyptians,\" Vol. I, pp. 436 and 437.]\n\n[364: Alan Gardiner, \"Life and Death (Egyptian),\" Hastings'\n_Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n\nThe Mandrake.\n\nWe have now given reasons for believing that the personification of the\nmandrake was in some way brought about by the transference to the plant\nof the magical virtues that originally belonged to the cowry shell.\n\nThe problem that still awaits solution is the nature of the process by\nwhich the transference was effected.\n\nWhen I began this investigation the story of the Destruction of Mankind\n(see Chapter II) seemed to offer an explanation of the confusion.\nBrugsch, Naville, Maspero, Erman, and in fact most Egyptologists, seemed\nto be agreed that the magical substance from which the Egyptian elixir\nof life was made was the mandrake. As there was no hint[365] in the\nEgyptian story of the derivation of its reputation from the fancied\nlikeness to the human form, its identification with Hathor seemed to be\nmerely another instance of those confusions with which the pathway of\nmythology is so thickly strewn. In other words, the plant seemed to have\nbeen used merely to soothe the excited goddess: then the other\nproperties of \"the food of the gods,\" of which it was an ingredient,\nbecame transferred to the mandrake, so that it acquired the reputation\nof being a \"giver of life\" as well as a sedative. If this had been true\nit would have been a simple process to identify this \"giver of life\"\nwith the goddess herself in her role as the \"giver of life,\" and her\ncowry-ancestor which was credited with the same reputation.\n\nBut this hypothesis is no longer tenable, because the word _d'd'_\n(variously transliterated _doudou_ or _didi_), which Brugsch[366] and\nhis followers interpreted as \"mandragora,\" is now believed to have\nanother meaning.\n\nIn a closely reasoned memoir, Henri Gauthier[367] has completely\ndemolished Brugsch's interpretation of this word. He says there are\nnumerous instances of the use of _d'd'_ (which he transliterates\n_doudouiou_) in the medical papyri. In the Ebers papyrus \"_doudou_\nd'Elephantine broye\" is prescribed as a remedy for external application\nin diseases of the heart, and as an astringent and emollient dressing\nfor ulcers. He says the substance was brought to Elephantine from the\ninterior of Africa and the coasts of Arabia.\n\nMr. F. Ll. Griffith informs me that Gauthier's criticism of the\ntranslation \"mandrakes\" is undoubtedly just: but that the substance\nreferred to was most probably \"red ochre\" or \"haematite\".[368]\n\nThe relevant passage in the Story of the Destruction of Mankind (in Seti\nI's tomb) will then read as follows: \"When they had brought the red\nochre, the Sekti of Heliopolis pounded it, and the priestesses mixed the\npulverized substance with the beer, so that the mixture resembled human\nblood\".\n\nI would call special attention to Gauthier's comment that the\nblood-coloured beer \"had _some magical and marvellous property which is\nunknown to us_\".[369]\n\nIn his dictionary Brugsch considered the determinative [Symbol: circle\nover three vertical lines] to refer to the fruits of a tree which he\ncalled \"apple tree,\" on the supposed analogy with the Coptic [jiji\n(janja iota janja iota)], _fructus autumnalis_, _pomus_, the Greek\n[Greek: opora]; and he proposed to identify the supposed fruit, then\ntransliterated _doudou_, with the Hebrew _doudaim_, and translate it\n_poma amatoria_, mandragora, or in German, _Alraune_. This\ninterpretation was adopted by most scholars until Gauthier raised\nobjections to it.\n\nAs Loret and Schweinfurth have pointed out, the mandrake is not found in\nEgypt, nor in fact in any part of the Nile Valley.[370]\n\nBut what is more significant, the Greeks translated the Hebrew\n_duda'im_ by [Greek: mandragoras] and the Copts did not use the\nword [Coptic: jiji] in their translations, but either the Greek word or\na term referring to its sedative and soporific properties. Steindorff\nhas shown (_Zeitsch. f. AEgypt. Sprache_, Bd. XXVII, 1890, p. 60) that\nthe word in dispute would be more correctly transliterated \"_didi_\"\ninstead of \"_doudou_\".\n\nFinally, in a letter Mr. Griffith tells me the identification of _didi_\nwith the Coptic [Coptic: jiji], \"apple (?)\" is philologically\nimpossible.\n\nAlthough this red colouring matter is thus definitely proved not to be\nthe fruit of a plant, there are reasons to suggest that when the story\nof the Destruction of Mankind spread abroad--and the whole argument of\nthis book establishes the fact that it did spread abroad--the substance\n_didi_ was actually confused in the Levant with the mandrake. We have\nalready seen that in the Delta a prototype of Artemis was already\nidentified with certain plants.\n\nIn all probability _didi_ was originally brought into the Egyptian\nlegend merely as a surrogate of the life-blood, and the mixture of which\nit was an ingredient was simply a restorer of youth to the king. But the\ndeterminative (in the tomb of Seti I)--a little yellow disc with a red\nborder, which misled Naville into believing the substance to be yellow\nberries--may also have created confusion in the minds of ancient\nLevantine visitors to Egypt, and led them to believe that reference was\nbeing made to their own yellow-berried drug, the mandrake. Such an\nincident might have had a two-fold effect. It would explain the\nintroduction into the Egyptian story of the sedative effects of _didi_,\nwhich would easily be rationalized as a means of soothing the maniacal\ngoddess; and in the Levant it would have added to the real properties of\nmandrake[371] the magical virtues which originally belonged to _didi_\n(and blood, the cowry, and water).\n\nIn my lecture on \"Dragons and Rain Gods\" (Chapter II) I explained that\nthe Egyptian story of the Destruction of Mankind is merely one version\nof a saga of almost world-wide currency. In many of the non-Egyptian\nversions[372] the role of _didi_ in the Egyptian story is taken by some\n_vegetable_ product of a _red_ colour; and many of these versions reveal\na definite confusion between the red fruit and the red clay, thus\nproving that the confusion of _didi_ with the mandrake is no mere\nhypothetical device to evade a difficulty on my part, but did actually\noccur.\n\nIn the course of the development of the Egyptian story the red clay from\nElephantine became the colouring matter of the Nile flood, and this in\nturn was rationalized as the blood or red clay into which the bodies of\nthe slaughtered enemies of Re were transformed,[373] and the material\nout of which the new race of mankind was created.[374] In other words,\nthe new race was formed of _didi_. There is a widespread legend that the\nmandrake also is formed from the substance of dead bodies[375] often\nrepresented as innocent or chaste men wrongly killed, just as the red\nclay was the substance of mankind killed to appease Re's wrath, \"the\nblood of the slaughtered saints\".[376]\n\nBut the original belief is found in a more definite form in the ancient\nstory that \"the mandrake was fashioned out of the same earth whereof God\nformed Adam\".[377] In other words the mandrake was part of the same\nsubstance as the earth _didi_.[378]\n\nFurther corroboration of this confusion is afforded by a story from\nLittle Russia, quoted by de Gubernatis.[379] If bryony (a widely\nrecognized surrogate of mandrake) be suspended from the girdle all the\ndead Cossacks (who, like the enemies of Re in the Egyptian story, had\nbeen killed and broken to pieces in the earth) will come to life again.\n_Thus we have positive evidence of the homology of the mandrake with red\nclay or haematite._\n\nThe transference to the mandrake of the properties of the cowry (and the\ngoddesses who were personifications of the shell) and blood (and its\nsurrogates) was facilitated by the manifold homologies of the Great\nMother with plants. We have already seen that the goddess was identified\nwith: (a) incense-trees and other trees, such as the sycamore, which\nplayed some definite part in the burial ceremonies, either by providing\nthe divine incense, the materials for preserving the body, or for making\ncoffins to ensure the protection of the dead, and so make it possible\nfor them to continue their existence; and (b) the lotus, the lily, the\niris, and other marsh plants,[380] for reasons that I have already\nmentioned (p. 184).\n\nThe Babylonian poem of Gilgamesh represents one of the innumerable\nversions of the great theme which has engaged the attention of writers\nin every age and country attempting to express the deepest longings of\nthe human spirit. It is the search for the elixir of life. The object of\nGilgamesh's search is a magic _plant_ to prolong life and restore youth.\nThe hero of the story went on a voyage by water in order to obtain what\nappears to have been a marsh plant called _dittu_.[381] The question\nnaturally arises whether this Babylonian story and the name of the plant\nplayed any part in Palestine in blending the Egyptian and Babylonian\nstories and confusing the Egyptian elixir of life, the red earth _didi_,\nwith the Babylonian elixir, the plant _dittu_?\n\nIn the Babylonian story a serpent-demon steals the magic plant, just as\nin India _soma_, the food of immortality, is stolen. In Egypt Isis\nsteals Re's name,[382] and in Babylonia the Zu bird steals the tablets\nof destiny, the _logos_. In Greek legend apples are stolen from the\ngarden of Hesperides. Apples are surrogates of the mandrake and _didi_.\n\nWe have now seen that the mandrake is definitely a surrogate (a) of the\ncowry and a series of its shell-homologues, and (b) of the red substance\nin the Story of the Destruction of Mankind.\n\nThere still remain to be determined (i) the means by which the mandrake\nbecame identified with the goddess, (ii) the significance of the Hebrew\nword _duda-im_, and (iii) the origin of the Greek word\n_mandragora_.\n\nThe answer to the first of these three queries should now be obvious\nenough. As the result of the confusion of the life-giving magical\nsubstance _didi_ with the sedative drug, mandrake, the latter acquired\nthe reputation of being a \"giver of life\" and became identified with\n_the_ \"giver of life,\" the Great Mother, the story of whose exploits was\nresponsible for the confusion.\n\nThe erroneous identification of _didi_ with the mandrake was originally\nsuggested by Brugsch from the likeness of the word (then transliterated\n_doudou_) with the Hebrew word _duda-im_ in Genesis, usually\ntranslated \"mandrakes\". I have already quoted the opinion of Gauthier\nand Griffith as to the error of such identification. But the evidence\nnow at our disposal seems to me to leave no doubt as to the reality of\nthe confusion of the Egyptian red substance with the mandrake. This\nnaturally suggests the possibility that the similarity of the sounds of\nthe words _may_ have played some part in creating the confusion: but it\nis impossible to admit this as a factor in the development of the story,\nbecause the Hebrew word probably arose out of the identification of the\nmandrake with the Great Mother and not by any confusion of names. In\nother words the similarity of the names of these homologous substances\nis a mere coincidence.\n\nDr. Rendel Harris claims (and Sir James Frazer seems to approve of the\nsuggestion) that the Hebrew word _duda-im_ was derived from\n_dodim_, \"love\"; and, on the strength of this derivation, he soars\ninto a lofty flight of philological conjecture to transmute\n_dodim_, into _Aphrodite_, \"love\" into the \"goddess of love\". It\nwould be an impertinence on my part to attempt to follow these\nexcursions into unknown heights of cloudland.\n\nBut my colleagues Professor Canney and Principal Bennett tell me that\nthe derivation of _duda-im_ from _dodim_ is improbable;\nand the former authority suggests that _duda-im_ may be merely\nthe plural of _dud_, a \"pot\".[383] Now I have already explained how a\npot came to symbolize a woman or a goddess, not merely in Egypt, but\nalso in Southern India, and in Mycenaean Greece, and, in fact, the\nMediterranean generally.[384] Hence the use of the term _dud_ for the\nmandrake implies either (a) an identification of the plant with the\ngoddess who is the giver of life, or (b) an analogy between the form of\nthe mandrake-fruit and a pot, which in turn led to it being called a\npot, and from that being identified with the goddess.[385]\n\nI should explain that when Professor Canney gave me this statement he\nwas not aware of the fact that I had already arrived at the conclusion\nthat the Great Mother was identified with a pot and also with the\nmandrake; but in ignorance of the meaning of the Hebrew words I had\nhesitated to equate the pot with the mandrake. As soon as I received his\nnote, and especially when I read his reference to the second meaning,\n\"basket of figs,\" in Jeremiah, I recalled Mr. Griffith's discussion of\nthe Egyptian hieroglyphic (\"a pot of water\") for woman, wife, or\ngoddess, and the claim made by Sir Gardner Wilkinson that this manner of\nrepresenting the word for \"wife\" was apparently taken from a\nconventionalized picture of \"a basket of sycamore figs\".[386] The\ninterpretation has now clearly emerged that the mandrake was called\n_duda'im_ by the Hebrews because it was identified with the\nMother Pot. The symbolism involved in the use of the Hebrew word also\nsuggests that the inspiration may have come from Egypt, where a woman\nwas called \"a pot of water\" or \"a basket of figs\".\n\nWhen the mandrake acquired the definite significance as a symbol of the\nGreat Mother and the power of life-giving, its fruit, \"the love apple,\"\nbecame the quintessence of vitality and fertility. The apple and the\npomegranate became surrogates of the \"love apple,\" and were graphically\nrepresented in forms hardly distinguishable from pots, occupying places\nwhich mark them out clearly as homologues of the Great Mother\nherself.[387]\n\nBut once the mandrake was identified with the Great Mother in the Levant\nthe attributes of the plant were naturally acquired from her local\nreputation there. This explains the pre-eminently conchological aspect\nof the magical properties of the mandrake and the bryony.\n\nI shall not attempt to refer in detail to the innumerable stories of red\nand brown apples, of rowan berries, and a variety of other red fruits\nthat play a part in the folk-lore of so many peoples, such as _didi_\nplayed in the Egyptian myth. These fruits can be either elixirs of life\nand food of the gods, or weapons for overcoming the dragon as Hathor\n(Sekhet) was conquered by her sedative draught.[388]\n\nIn his account of the peony, Pliny (\"Nat. Hist.,\" Book XXVIII, Chap. LX)\nsays it has \"a stem two cubits in length, accompanied by two or three\nothers, and of a reddish colour, with a bark like that of the laurel ...\nthe seed is enclosed in capsules, _some being red_ and some black ... it\nhas an _astringent taste_. The leaves of the female plant _smell like\nmyrrh_\". Bostock and Riley, from whose translation I have made this\nquotation, add that in reality the plant is destitute of smell. In the\nEbers papyrus _didi_ was mixed with incense in one of the\nprescriptions;[389] and in the Berlin medical papyrus it was one of the\ningredients of a fumigation used for treating heart disease. If my\ncontention is justified, it may provide the explanation of how the\nconfusion arose by which the peony came to have attributed to it a\n\"smell like myrrh\".\n\nPliny proceeds: \"Both plants [_i.e._ male and female] grow in the woods,\nand they should always be taken up at night, it is said; as it would be\ndangerous to do so in the day-time, the woodpecker of Mars being sure to\nattack the person so engaged.[390] It is stated also that the person,\nwhile taking up the root, runs great risk of being attacked with\n[prolapsus ani].... Both plants are used[391] for various purposes: the\nred seed, taken in red wine, about fifteen in number, arrest\nmenstruation; while the black seed, taken in the same proportion, in\neither raisin or other wine, are curative of diseases of the uterus.\" I\nrefer to these red-coloured beverages and their therapeutic use in\nwomen's complaints to suggest the analogy with that other red drink\nadministered to the Great Mother, Hathor.\n\nIn his essay, \"Jacob and the Mandrakes,\"[392] Sir James Frazer has\ncalled attention to the homologies between the attributes of the peony\nand the mandrake and to the reasons for regarding the former as Aelian's\n_aglaophotis_.\n\nPliny states (\"Nat. Hist.,\" Book XXIV, Chap. CII) that the\n_aglaophotis_ \"is found growing among the marble quarries of Arabia, on\nthe side of Persia,\" just as the Egyptian _didi_ was obtained near the\ngranite quarries at Aswan. \"By means of this plant [aglaophotis],\naccording to Democritus, the Magi can summon the deities into their\npresence when they please, \"just as the users of the conch-shell trumpet\nbelieved they could do with this instrument. I have already (p. 196)\nemphasized the fact that all of these plants, mandrake, bryony, peony,\nand the rest, were really surrogates of the cowry, the pearl, and the\nconch-shell. The first is the ultimate source of their influence on\nwomankind, the second the origin of their attribute of _aglaophotis_,\nand the third of their supposed power of summoning the deity. The\nattributes of some of the plants which Pliny discusses along with the\npeony are suggestive. Pieces of the root of the _achaemenis_ (? perhaps\n_Euphorbia antiquorum_ or else a night-shade) taken in wine, torment the\nguilty to such an extent in their dreams as to extort from them a\nconfession of their crimes. He gives it the name also of \"hippophobas,\"\nit being an especial object of terror to mares. The complementary story\nis told of the mandrake in mediaeval Europe. The decomposing tissues of\nthe body of an innocent victim on the gallows when they fall upon the\nearth can become reincarnated in a mandrake--the _main de gloire_ of old\nFrench writers.\n\nThen there is the plant _adamantis_, grown in Armenia and\nCappadocia, which when _presented to a lion makes the beast fall upon\nits back_, and drop its jaws. Is this a distorted reminiscence of the\nlion-manifestation of Hathor who was calmed by the substance _didi_? A\nmore direct link with the story of the destruction of mankind is\nsuggested by the account of the _ophiusa_, \"which is found in\nElephantine, an island of Ethiopia\". This plant is of a livid colour,\nand hideous to the sight. Taken by a person in drink, it inspires such a\nhorror of serpents, which his imagination continually represents as\nmenacing him that he commits suicide at last: hence it is that persons\nguilty of sacrilege are compelled to drink an infusion of it (Pliny,\n\"Nat. Hist.,\" XXIV, 102). I am inclined to regard this as a variant of\nthe myth of the Destruction of Mankind in which the \"snake-plant\" from\nElephantine takes the place of the uraei of the Winged Disk Saga, and\npunishes the act of sacrilege by driving the delinquent into a state of\ndelirium tremens.\n\nThe next problem to be considered is the derivation of the word\n_mandragora_. Dr. Mingana tells me it is a great puzzle to discover any\nadequate meaning. The attempt to explain it through the Sanskrit _mand_,\n\"joy,\" \"intoxication,\" or _mantasana_, \"sleep,\" \"life,\" or _mandra_,\n\"pleasure,\" or _mantara_, \"paradise tree,\" and _agru_, \"unmarried,\nviolently passionate,\" is hazardous and possibly far-fetched.\n\nThe Persian is _mardumgiah_, \"man-like plant\".\n\nThe Syro-Arabic word for it is _Yabrouh_, Aramaic _Yahb-kouh_, \"giver of\nlife\". This is possibly the source of the Chinese _Yah-puh-lu_ (Syriac\n_ya-bru-ha_) and _Yah-puh-lu-Yak_. The termination _Yak_ is merely the\nTuranian termination meaning \"diminutive\".\n\nThe interest of the Levantine terms for the mandrake lies in the fact\nthat they have the same significance as the word for pearl, _i.e._\n\"giver of life\". This adds another argument (to those which I have\nalready given) for regarding the mandrake as a surrogate of the pearl.\nBut they also reveal the essential fact that led to the identification\nof the plant with the Mother-Goddess, which I have already discussed.\n\nIn Arabic the mandrake is called _abou ruhr_, \"father of life,\" _i.e._\n\"giver of life\".[393]\n\nIn Arabic _margan_ means \"coral\" as well as \"pearl\". In the\nMediterranean area coral is explained as a new and marvellous plant\nsprung from the petrified blood-stained branches on which Perseus hung\nthe bleeding head of Medusa. Eustathius (\"Comment. ad Dionys. Perieget.\"\n1097) derives [Greek: koralion] from [Greek: kore], personifying the\nmonstrous virgin: but Chaeroboscos claims that it comes from [Greek:\nkore] and [Greek: alion], because it is a maritime product used to make\nornaments for maidens. In any case coral is a \"giver of life\" and as\nsuch identified with a maiden,[394] as the most potential embodiment of\nlife-giving force. But this specific application of the word for \"giver\nof life\" was due to the fact that in all the Semitic languages, as well\nas in literary references in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, this phrase was\nunderstood as a reference to the female organs of reproduction. The\nsame _double entendre_ is implied in the use of the Greek word for \"pig\"\nand \"cowry,\" these two surrogates of the Great Mother, each of which can\nbe taken to mean the \"giver of life\" or the \"pudendum muliebre\".\n\nPerhaps the most plausible suggestion that has been made as to the\nderivation of the word \"mandragora\" is Delatre's claim[395] that it is\ncompounded of the words _mandros_, \"sleep,\" and _agora_, \"object or\nsubstance,\" and that mandragora means \"the sleep-producing substance\".\n\nThis derivation is in harmony with my suggestion as to the means by\nwhich the plant acquired its magical properties. The sedative substance\nthat, in the Egyptian hieroglyphs (of the Story of the Destruction of\nMankind), was represented by yellow spheres with a red covering was\nconfused in Western Asia with the yellow-berried plant which was known\nto have sedative properties. Hence the plant was confused with the\nmineral and so acquired all the magical properties of the Great Mother's\nelixir. But the Indian name is descriptive of the actual properties of\nthe plant and is possibly the origin of the Greek word.\n\nAnother suggestion that has been made deserves some notice. It has been\nclaimed that the first syllable of the name is derived from the Sanskrit\n_mandara_, one of the trees in the Indian paradise, and the instrument\nwith which the churning of the ocean was accomplished.[396] The mandrake\nhas been claimed to be the tree of the Hebrew paradise; and a connexion\nhas thus been instituted between it and the _mandara_. This hypothesis,\nhowever, does not offer any explanation of how either the mandrake or\nthe _mandara_ acquired its magical attributes. The Indian tree of life\nwas supposed to \"sweat\" _amrita_ just as the incense trees of Arabia\nproduce the divine life-giving incense.\n\nBut there are reasons[397] for the belief that the Indian story of the\nchurning of the sea of milk is a much modified version of the old\nEgyptian story of the pounding of the materials for the elixir of life.\nThe _mandara_ churn-stick, which is often supposed to represent the\nphallus,[398] was originally the tree of life, the tree or pillar which\nwas animated by the Great Mother herself.[399] So that the _mandara_ is\nhomologous with the _mandragora_. But so far as I am aware, there is no\nadequate reason for deriving the latter word from the former.\n\nThe derivation from the Sanskrit words _mandros_ and _agora_ seems to\nfit naturally into the scheme of explanation which I have been\nformulating.\n\nIn the Egyptian story the Sekti of Heliopolis pounded the _didi_ in a\nmortar to make \"the giver of life,\" which by a simple confusion might be\nidentified with the goddess herself in her capacity as \"the giver of\nlife\". This seems to have occurred in the Indian legend. Lakshmi, or\nSri, was born at the churning of the ocean. Like Aphrodite, who was born\nfrom the sea-foam churned from the ocean, Lakshmi was the goddess of\nbeauty, love, and prosperity.\n\nBefore leaving the problems of mandrake and the homologous plants and\nsubstances, it is important that I should emphasize the role of blood\nand blood-substitutes, red-stained beer, red wine, red earth, and red\nberries in the various legends. These life-giving and death-dealing\nsubstances were all associated with the colour red, and the destructive\ndemons Sekhet and Set were given red forms, which in turn were\ntransmitted to the dragon, and to that specialized form of the dragon\nwhich has become the conventional way of representing Satan.\n\n[The whole of the mandrake legend spread to China and became attached to\nthe plants _ginseng_ and _shang-luh_--see de Groot, Vol. II, p. 316 _et\nseq._; also Kumagusu Minakata, _Nature_, Vol. LI, April 25, 1895, p.\n608, and Vol. LIV, Aug. 13, 1896, p. 343. The fact that the Chinese\nmake use of the Syriac word _yabruha_ (_vide supra_) suggests the source\nof these Chinese legends.]\n\n\n[365: As Maspero has specifically mentioned (\"Dawn of Civilization,\" p.\n166).]\n\n[366: \"Die Alraune als altaegyptische Zauberpflanze,\" _Zeitsch. f. AEgypt.\nSprache_, Bd. XXIX, 1891, pp. 31-3.]\n\n[367: \"Le nom hieroglyphique de l'argile rouge d'Elephantine,\" _Revue\nEgyptologique_, XI^e Vol., Nos. i.-ii., 1904, p. 1.]\n\n[368: It is quite possible that the use of the name \"haematite\" for this\nancient substitute for blood may itself be the result of the survival of\nthe old tradition.]\n\n[369: It is very important to keep in mind the two distinct properties\nof _didi_: (a) its magical life-giving powers, and (b) its sedative\ninfluence.]\n\n[370: In Chapter II, p. 118, I have given other reasons of a\npsychological nature for minimizing the significance of the geographical\nquestion.]\n\n[371: For the therapeutic effects of mandrake see the _British Medical\nJournal_, 15 March, 1890, p. 620.]\n\n[372: Even in Egypt itself _didi_ may be replaced by fruit in the more\nspecialized variants of the Destruction of Mankind. Thus, in the Saga of\nthe Winged Disk, Re is reported to have said to Horus: \"Thou didst put\ngrapes in the water which cometh forth from Edfu\". Wiedemann (\"Religion\nof the Ancient Egyptians,\" p. 70) interprets this as meaning: \"thou\ndidst cause the red blood of the enemy to flow into it\". But by analogy\nwith the original version, as modified by Gauthier's translation of\n_didi_, it should read: \"thou didst make the water blood-red with\ngrape-juice\"; or perhaps be merely a confused jumble of the two\nmeanings.]\n\n[373: In the Babylonian story of the Deluge \"Ishtar cried aloud like a\nwoman in travail, the Lady of the gods lamented with a loud voice\n(saying): The old race of man hath been turned back into clay, because I\nassented to an evil thing in the council of the gods, and agreed to a\nstorm which hath destroyed my people that which I brought forth\" (King,\n\"Babylonian Religion,\" p. 134).\n\nThe Nile god, Knum, Lord of Elephantine, was reputed to have formed the\nworld of alluvial soil. The coming of the waters from Elephantine\nbrought life to the earth.]\n\n[374: In the Babylonian story, Bel \"bade one of the gods cut off his\nhead and mix the earth with the blood that flowed from him, and from the\nmixture he directed him to fashion men and animals\" (King, \"Babylonian\nReligion,\" p. 56). Bel (Marduk) represents the Egyptian Horus who\nassumes his mother's role as the Creator. The red earth as a surrogate\nof blood in the Egyptian story is here replaced by earth _and_ blood.\n\nBut Marduk created not only men and animals but heaven and earth also.\nTo do this he split asunder the carcase of the dragon which he had\nslain, the Great Mother Tiamat, the evil _avatar_ of the Mother-Goddess\nwhose mantle had fallen upon his own shoulders. In other words, he\ncreated the world out of the substance of the \"giver of life\" who was\nidentified with the red earth, which was the elixir of life in the\nEgyptian story. This is only one more instance of the way in which the\nsame fundamental idea was twisted and distorted in every conceivable\nmanner in the process of rationalization. In one version of the Osirian\nmyth Horus cut off the head of his mother Isis and the moon-god Thoth\nreplaced it with a cow's head, just as in the Indian myth Ganesa's head\nwas replaced by an elephant's.]\n\n[375: See Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 9.]\n\n[376: Compare with this the story of Picus the giant who fled to Kirke's\nisle and there was slain by Helios, the plant [Greek: moly] springing\nfrom his blood (A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" p. 241, footnote 15). For a\ndiscussion of _moly_ see Andrew Lang's \"Custom and Myth\".]\n\n[377: Frazer, p. 6.]\n\n[378: In Socotra a tree (dracaena) has been identified with the dragon,\nand its exudation, \"dragon's blood,\" was called cinnabar, and confused\nwith the mineral (red sulphide of mercury), or simply with red ochre. In\nthe Socotran dragon-myth the elephant takes the hero's role, as in the\nAmerican stories of Chac and Tlaloc (see Chapter II). The word\n_kinnabari_ was applied to the thick matter that issues from the dragon\nwhen crushed beneath the weight of the dying elephant during these\ncombats (Pliny, XXXIII, 28 and VIII, 12). The dragon had a passion for\nelephant's blood. Any thick red earth attributed to such combats was\ncalled _kinnabari_ (Schoff, _op. cit._, p. 137). This is another\nillustration of the ancient belief in the identification of blood and\nred ochre.]\n\n[379: \"Mythologie des Plantes,\" Vol. II, p. 101.]\n\n[380: In an interesting article on \"The Water Lilies of Ancient Egypt\"\n(_Ancient Egypt_, 1917, Part I, p. 1) Mr. W. D. Spanton has collected a\nseries of illustrations of the symbolic use of these plants. In view of\nthe fact that the papyrus- and lotus-sceptres and the lotus-designs\nplayed so prominent a part in the evolution of the Greek thunder-weapon,\nit is peculiarly interesting to find (in the remote times of the Pyramid\nAge) lotus designs built up into the form of the double-axe (Spanton's\nFigs. 28 and 29) and the classical _keraunos_ (his Fig. 19).]\n\n[381: The Babylonian magic plant to prolong life and renew youth, like\nthe red mineral _didi_ of the Egyptian story. It was also \"the plant of\nbirth\" and \"the plant of life\".]\n\n[382: Mueller, Quibell, Maspero, and Sethe regard the \"round cartouche,\"\nwhich the divine falcon often carries in place of the _ankh_-symbol of\nlife, as a representation of the royal name (R. Weill, \"Les Origines de\nl'Egypte pharaonique,\" _Annales du Musee Guimet_, 1908, p. 111). The\nanalogous Babylonian sign known as \"the rod and ring\" is described by\nWard (_op. cit._, p. 413) as \"the emblem of the sun-god's supremacy,\" a\n\"symbol of majesty and power, like the tablets of destiny\".\n\nAs it was believed in Egypt and Babylonia that the possession of a name\n\"was equivalent to being in existence,\" we can regard the object carried\nby the hawk or vulture as a token of the giving of life and the\ncontrolling of destiny. It can probably be equated with the \"tablets of\ndestiny\" so often mentioned in the Babylonian stories, which the bird\ngod _Zu_ stole from Bel and was compelled by the sun-god to restore\nagain. Marduk was given the power to destroy or to create, _to speak the\nword of command_ and to control fate, to wield the invincible weapon and\nto be able to render objects invisible. This form of the weapon, \"the\nword\" or _logos_, like all the other varieties of the thunder-weapon,\ncould \"become flesh,\" in other words, be an animate form of the god.\n\nIn Egyptian art it is usually the hawk of Horus (the homologue of\nMarduk) which carries the \"round cartouche,\" which is the _logos_, the\ntablets of destiny.]\n\n[383: I quote Professor Canney's notes on the word _duda'im_\n(Genesis xxx. 14) verbatim: \"The _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ says (s.v.\n'Mandrakes'): 'The Hebrew name, _duda'im_, was no doubt popularly\nassociated with _dodim_, [Hebrew: dodim], \"love\"; but its real\netymology (like that of [Greek: mandragoras]) is obscure\".\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"The same word is translated 'mandrakes' in Song of Songs vii. 13.\n\n\"_Duda'im_ occurs also in Jeremiah xxiv, 1, where it is usually\ntranslated 'baskets' ('baskets of figs'). Here it is the plural of a\nword _dud_, which means sometimes a 'pot' or 'kettle,' sometimes a\n'basket'. The etymology is again doubtful.\n\n\"I should imagine that the words in Jeremiah and Genesis have somehow or\nother the same etymology, and that _duda-im_ in Genesis has no\nreal connexion with _dodim_ 'love'.\n\n\"The meaning 'pot' (_dud_, plur. _duda-im_) is probably more\noriginal than 'basket'. Does _duda-im_ in Genesis and Song of\nSongs denote some kind of pot or caldron-shaped flower or fruit?\"]\n\n[384: The Mother Pot is really a fundamental conception of all religious\nbeliefs and is almost world-wide in its distribution.]\n\n[385: The fruit of the lotus (which is a form of Hathor) assumes a form\n(Spanton, _op. cit._, Fig. 51) that is identical with a common\nMediterranean symbol of the Great Mother, called \"pomegranate\" by Sir\nArthur Evans (see my text-fig. 6, p. 179, _m_), which is a surrogate of\nthe apple and mandrake. The likeness to the Egyptian hieroglyph for a\njar of water (text-fig. 6, _l_) and the goddess _Nu_ of the fruit of the\npoppy (which was closely associated with the mandrake by reason of its\nsoporific properties) may have assisted in the transference of their\nattributes. The design of the water-plant (text-fig. 7, _d_) associated\nwith the Nile god may have helped such a confusion and exchange.]\n\n[386: \"A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians,\" revised and\nabridged, 1890, Vol. I, p. 323.]\n\n[387: See, for example, Sir Arthur Evans, \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar\nWorship,\" Fig. 27, p. 46.]\n\n[388: In a Japanese dragon-story the dragon drinks \"sake\" from pots set\nout on the shore (as Hathor drank the _didi_ mixture from pots\nassociated with the river); and the intoxicated monster was then slain.\nFrom its tail the hero extracted a sword (as in the case of the Western\ndragons), which is now said to be the Mikado's state sword.]\n\n[389: See Gauthier, _op. cit._, pp. 2 and 3.]\n\n[390: Compare the dog-incident in the mandrake story.]\n\n[391: Bostock and Riley add the comment that \"the peony has no medicinal\nvirtues whatever\".]\n\n[392: _Proceedings of the British Academy_, Vol. VIII, 1917, p. 16 (in\nthe reprint).]\n\n[393: I am indebted to Dr. Alphonse Mingana for this information. But\nthe philological question is discussed in a learned memoir by the late\nProfessor P. J. Veth, \"De Leer der Signatuur,\" _Internationales Archiv\nfuer Ethnographie_, Leiden, Bd. VII, 1894, pp. 75 and 105, and especially\nthe appendix, p. 199 _et seq._, \"De Mandragora, Naschrift op het tweede\nHoofdstuk der Verhandeling over de Leer der Signatuur\".]\n\n[394: Like the _Purpura_ and the _Pterocera_, the bryony and other\nshells and plants.]\n\n[395: Larousse, Article \"Mandragore\".]\n\n[396: I have already referred to another version of the churning of the\nocean in which Mount Meru was used as a churn-stick and identified with\nthe Great Mother, of whom the _mandara_ was also an avatar.]\n\n[397: Which I shall discuss in my forthcoming book on \"The Story of the\nFlood\".]\n\n[398: The phallic interpretation is certainly a secondary\nrationalization of an incident which had no such implication\noriginally.]\n\n[399: The \"tree of the knowledge of good and evil\" (Genesis ii. 17)\nproduced fruit the eating of which opened the eyes of Adam and Eve, so\nthat they realized their nakedness: they became conscious of sex and\nmade girdles of fig-leaves (_vide supra_, p. 155). In other words, the\ntree of life had the power of love-provoking like the mandrake. In\nHenderson's \"Celtic Dragon Myth\" (p. xl) we read: \"The berries for which\nshe [Medb] craved were from the Tree of Life, the food of the gods, the\neating of which by mortals brings death,\" and further: \"The berries of\nthe rowan tree are the berries of the gods\" (p. xliii). I have already\nsuggested the homology between these red berries, the mandrake, and the\nred ochre of Hathor's elixir. Thus we have another suggestion of the\nidentity of the tree of paradise and the mandrake.]\n\n\nThe Measurement of Time.\n\nIt was the similarity of the periodic phases of the moon and of\nwomankind that originally suggested the identification of the Great\nMother with the moon, and originated the belief that the moon was the\nregulator of human beings.[400] This was the starting-point of the\nsystem of astrology and the belief in Fates. The goddess of birth and\ndeath controlled and measured the lives of mankind.\n\nBut incidentally the moon determined the earliest subdivision of time\ninto months; and the moon-goddess lent the sanctity of her divine\nattributes to the number twenty-eight.\n\nThe sun was obviously the determiner of day and night, and its rising\nand setting directed men's attention to the east and the west as\ncardinal points intimately associated with the daily birth and death of\nthe sun. We have no certain clue as to the factors which first brought\nthe north and the south into prominence. But it seems probable that the\ndirection of the river Nile,[401] which was the guide to the orientation\nof the corpse in its grave, may have been responsible for giving special\nsanctity to these other cardinal points. The association of the\ndirection of the deceased's head with the position of the original\nhomeland and the eventual home of the dead would have made the south a\n\"divine\" region in Predynastic times. For similar reasons the north may\nhave acquired special significance in the Early Dynastic period.[402]\n\nWhen the north and the south were added to the other two cardinal points\nthe intimate association of the east and the west with the measurement\nof time would be extended to include all the four cardinal points.[403]\nFour became a sacred number associated with time-measurement, and\nespecially with the sun.[404]\n\nMany other factors played a part in the establishment of the sanctity\nof the number four. Professor Lethaby has suggested[405] that the\nfour-sided building was determined by certain practical factors, such as\nthe desirability of fashioning a room to accommodate a woven mat, which\nwas necessarily of a square or oblong form. But the study of the\nevolution of the early Egyptian grave and tomb-superstructures suggests\nthat the early use of slabs of stone, wooden boards, and mud-bricks\nhelped in the process of determining the four-sided form of house and\nroom.\n\nWhen, out of these rude beginnings, the vast four-sided pyramid was\ndeveloped, the direction of its sides was brought into relationship with\nthe four cardinal points; and there was a corresponding development and\nenrichment of the symbolism of the number four. The form of the divine\nhouse of the dead king, who was the god, was thus assimilated to the\nform of the universe, which was conceived as an oblong area at the four\ncorners of which pillars supported the sky, as the four legs supported\nthe Celestial Cow.\n\nHaving invested the numbers four and twenty-eight with special sanctity\nand brought them into association with the measurement of time, it was a\nnot unnatural proceeding to subdivide the month into four parts and so\nbring the number seven into the sacred scheme. Once this was done the\nmoon's phases were used to justify and rationalize this procedure, and\nthe length of the week was incidentally brought into association with\nthe moon-goddess, who had seven _avatars_, perhaps originally one for\neach day of the week. At a later period the number seven was arbitrarily\nbrought into relationship with the Pleiades.\n\nThe seven Hathors were not only mothers but fates also. Aphrodite was\nchief of the fates.\n\nThe number seven is associated with the pots used by Hathor's\npriestesses at the celebration inaugurating the new year; and it plays a\nprominent part in the Story of the Flood. In Babylonia the sanctity of\nthe number received special recognition. When the goddess became the\ndestroyer of mankind, the device seems to have been adopted of\nintensifying her powers of destruction by representing her at times as\nseven demons.[406]\n\nBut the Great Mother was associated not only with the week and month but\nalso with the year. The evidence at our disposal seems to suggest that\nthe earliest year-count was determined by the annual inundation of the\nriver. The annual recurrence of the alternation of winter and summer\nwould naturally suggest in a vague way such a subdivision of time as the\nyear; but the exact measurement of that period and the fixing of an\narbitrary commencement, a New Year's day, were due to other reasons. In\nthe Story of the Destruction of Mankind it is recorded that the incident\nof the soothing of Hathor by means of the blood-coloured beer (which, as\nI have explained elsewhere,[407] is a reference to the annual Nile\nflood) was celebrated annually on New Year's day.\n\nHathor was regarded in tradition as the cause of the inundation. She\nslaughtered mankind and so caused the original \"flood\": in the next\nphase she was associated with the 7000 jars of red beer; and in the\nultimate version with the red-coloured river flood, which in another\nstory was reputed to be \"the tears of Isis\".\n\nHathor's day was in fact the date of the commencement of the inundation\nand of the year; and the former event marked the beginning of the year\nand enabled men for the first time to measure its duration. Thus\nHathor[408] was the measurer of the year, the month, and the week; while\nher son Horus (Chronus) was the day-measurer.\n\nIn Tylor's \"Early History of Mankind\" (pp. 352 _et seq._) there is a\nconcise summary of some of the widespread stories of the Fountain of\nYouth which restores youthfulness to the aged who drank of it or bathed\nin it. He cites instances from India, Ethiopia, Europe, Indonesia,\nPolynesia, and America. \"The Moslem geographer, Ibn-el-Wardi, places the\nFountain of Life in the dark south-western regions of the earth\"\n(p. 353).\n\nThe star Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of the Egyptian New\nYear.[409] Hence it became \"the second sun in heaven,\" and was\nidentified with the goddess of the New Year's Day. The identification of\nHathor with this \"second sun\"[410] may explain why the goddess is said\nto have entered Re's boat. She took her place as a crown upon his\nforehead, which afterwards was assumed by her surrogate, the\nfire-spitting uraeus-serpent. When Horus took his mother's place in the\nmyth, he also entered the sun-god's boat, and became the prototype of\nNoah seeking refuge from the Flood in the ship the Almighty instructed\nhim to make.\n\nIn memory of the beer-drinking episode in the Destruction of Mankind,\nNew Year's Day was celebrated by Hathor's priestesses in wild orgies of\nbeer drinking.\n\nThis event was necessarily the earliest celebration of an anniversary,\nand the prototype of all the incidents associated with some special day\nin the year which have been so many milestones in the historical\nprogress of civilization.\n\nThe first measurement of the year also naturally forms the\nstarting-point in the framing of a calendar.\n\nSimilar celebrations took place to inaugurate the commencement of the\nyear in all countries which came, either directly or indirectly, under\nEgyptian influence.\n\nThe month [Greek: Aphrodisia] (so-called from the festival of the\ngoddess) began the calendar of Bithynia, Cyprus, and Iasos, just as\nHathor's feast was a New Year's celebration in Egypt.\n\nIn the celebration of these anniversaries the priestesses of Aphrodite\nworked themselves up in a wild state of frenzy; and the term [Greek:\nhysteria][411] became identified with the state of emotional derangement\nassociated with such orgies. The common belief that the term \"hysteria\"\nis derived directly from the Greek word for uterus is certainly\nerroneous. The word [Greek: hysteria] was used in the same sense as\n[Greek: Aphrodisia], that is as a synonym for the festivals of the\ngoddess. The \"hysteria\" was the name for the orgy in celebration of the\ngoddess on New Year's day: then it was applied to the condition produced\nby these excesses; and ultimately it was adopted in medicine to apply to\nsimilar emotional disturbances. Thus both the terms \"hysteria\" and\n\"lunacy\"[412] are intimately associated with the earliest phases in the\nmoon-goddess's history; and their survival in modern medicine is a\nstriking tribute to the strong hold of effete superstition in this\nbranch of the diagnosis and treatment of disease.[413]\n\nI have already referred to the association of Artemis with the portal of\nbirth and rebirth. As the guardian of the door her Roman representative\nDiana and her masculine _avatar_ Dianus or Janus gave the name to the\ncommencement of the year. The Great Mother not only initiated the\nmeasurement of the year, but she (or her representative) lent her name\nto the opening of the year in various countries.\n\nBut the story of the Destruction of Mankind has preserved the record not\nonly of the circumstances which were responsible for originating the\nmeasurement of the year and the making of a calendar, but also of the\nmaterials out of which were formed the mythical epochs preserved in the\nlegends of Greece and India and many other countries further removed\nfrom the original centre of civilization. When the elaboration of the\nearly story involved the destruction of mankind, it became necessary to\nprovide some explanation of the continued existence of man upon the\nearth. This difficulty was got rid of by creating a new race of men from\nthe fragments of the old or from the clay into which they had been\ntransformed (_supra_, p. 196). In course of time this _secondary_\ncreation became the basis of the familiar story of the _original_\ncreation of mankind. But the story also became transformed in other\nways. Different versions of the process of destruction were blended into\none narrative, and made into a series of catastrophes and a succession\nof acts of creation. I shall quote (from Mr. T. A. Joyce's \"Mexican\nArchaeology,\" p. 50) one example of these series of mythical epochs or\nworld ages to illustrate the method of synthesis:--\n\nWhen all was dark Tezcatlipoca transformed himself into the sun to give\nlight to men.\n\n1. This sun terminated in the destruction of mankind, including a race\nof giants, by _jaguars_.\n\n2. The second sun was Quetzalcoatl, and his age terminated in a terrible\n_hurricane_, during which mankind was transformed into monkeys.\n\n3. The third sun was Tlaloc, and the destruction came by a _rain of\nfire_.\n\n4. The fourth was Chalchintlicue, and mankind was finally destroyed by a\n_deluge_, during which they became fishes.\n\nThe first episode is clearly based upon the story of the lioness-form of\nHathor destroying mankind: the second is the Babylonian story of Tiamat,\nmodified by such Indian influences as are revealed in the _Ramayana_:\nthe third is inspired by the Saga of the Winged Disk; and the fourth by\nthe story of the Deluge.\n\nSimilar stories of world ages have been preserved in the mythologies of\nEastern Asia, India, Western Asia, and Greece, and no doubt were derived\nfrom the same original source.\n\n\n[400: The Greek Chronus was the son of Selene.]\n\n[401: Or possibly the situations of Upper and Lower Egypt.]\n\n[402: See G. Elliot Smith, \"The Ancient Egyptians\".]\n\n[403: The association of north and south with the primary subdivision of\nthe state probably led to the inclusion of the other two cardinal points\nto make the subdivision four-fold.]\n\n[404: The number four was associated with the sun-god. There were four\n\"children of Horus\" and four spokes to the wheel of the sun.]\n\n[405: \"Architecture,\" p. 24.]\n\n[406: See the chapter on \"Magic\" in Jevons, \"Comparative Religion\". In\nhis article \"Magic (Egyptian),\" in Hastings' _Encyclopaedia of Religion\nand Ethics_ (p. 266), Dr. Alan Gardiner makes the following statement:\n\"The mystical potency attaching to certain _numbers_ doubtless\noriginated in associations of thought that to us are obscure. The number\nseven, in Egyptian magic, was regarded as particularly efficacious. Thus\nwe find references to the seven Hathors: _cf._ [Greek: ai hepta Tychai\ntou ouranou] (A. Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie_, Leipzig, 1910, p.\n71): 'the seven daughters of Re,' who 'stand and weep and make seven\nknots in their seven tunics'; and similarly 'the seven hawks who are in\nfront of the barque of Re'.\"\n\nAre the seven daughters of Re the seven days of the week, or the\nrepresentatives of Hathor corresponding to the seven days?]\n\n[407: Chapter II, p. 118.]\n\n[408: We have already seen that the primitive aspect of life-giving that\nplayed an essential part in the development of the story we are\nconsidering was the search for the means by which youth could be\nrestored. It is significant that Hathor's reputed ability to restore\nyouth is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts in association with her\nfunctions as the measurer of years: for she is said \"to turn back the\nyears from King Teti,\" so that they pass over him without increasing his\nage (Breasted, \"Thought and Religion in Ancient Egypt,\" p. 124).]\n\n[409: Breasted (\"Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\" p. 22) states\nthat as the inundation began at the rising of Sothis, the star of Isis,\nsister of Osiris, they said to him [_i.e._ Osiris]: \"The beloved\ndaughter, Sothis, makes thy fruits (rnpwt) in her name of 'Year'\n(rnpt)\".]\n\n[410: The Great Mother was identified with the moon, but when she became\nspecialized, her representative adopted Sothis or Venus as her star.]\n\n[411: \"At Argos the principal fete of Aphrodite was called [Greek:\nhysteria] because they offered sacrifices of pigs (\"Athen.\" III, 49, 96;\n\"Clem. Alex. Protr.\" 33)\"--Article \"Aphrodisia,\" _Dict. des Antiquites_,\np. 308. The Greek word for pig had the double significance of \"pig\" and\n\"female organs of reproduction\".]\n\n[412: Aphrodite sends Aphrodisiac \"mania\" (see Tuempel, _op. cit._, pp.\n394 and 395).]\n\n[413: There is still widely prevalent the belief in the possibility of\nbeing \"moonstruck,\" and many people, even medical men who ought to know\nbetter, solemnly expound to their students the influence of the moon in\nproducing \"lunacy\". If it were not invidious one could cite instances of\nthis from the writings of certain teachers of psychological medicine in\nthis country within the last few months. The persistence of these kinds\nof traditions is one of the factors that make it so difficult to effect\nany real reform in the treatment of mental disease in this country.]\n\n\nThe Seven-headed Dragon.\n\nI have already referred to the magical significance attached to the\nnumber seven and the widespread references to the seven Hathors, the\nseven winds to destroy Tiamat, the seven demons, and the seven fates.\nIn the story of the Flood there is a similar insistence on the\nseven-fold nature of many incidents of good and ill meaning in the\nnarrative. But the dragon with this seven-fold power of wreaking\nvengeance came to be symbolized by a creature with seven heads.\n\nA Japanese story told in Henderson's notes to Campbell's \"Celtic Dragon\nMyth\"[414] will serve as an introduction to the seven-headed monster:--\n\n\"A man came to a house where all were weeping, and learned that the last\ndaughter of the house was to be given to a dragon with _seven or\neight_[415] heads who came to the sea-shore yearly to claim a victim. He\nwent with her, enticed the dragon to drink _sake_ from pots set out on\nthe shore, and then he slew the monster. From the end of his tail he\ntook out a sword, which is supposed to be the Mikado's state sword. He\nmarried the maiden, and with her got a jewel or talisman which is\npreserved with the regalia. A third thing of price so preserved is a\nmirror.\"\n\nThe seven-headed dragon is found also in the Scottish dragon-myth, and\nthe legends of Cambodia, India, Persia, Western Asia, East Africa, and\nthe Mediterranean area.\n\nThe seven-headed dragon probably originated from the seven Hathors. In\nSouthern India the Dravidian people seem to have borrowed the Egyptian\nidea of the seven Hathors. \"There are seven Mari deities, all sisters,\nwho are worshipped in Mysore. All the seven sisters are regarded vaguely\nas wives or sisters of Siva.\"[416] At one village in the Trichinopoly\ndistrict Bishop Whitehead found that the goddess Kaliamma was\nrepresented by seven brass pots, and adds: \"It is possible that the\nseven brass pots represent seven sisters or the seven virgins sometimes\nfound in Tamil shrines\" (p. 36). But the goddess who animates seven\npots, who is also the seven Hathors, is probably well on the way to\nbecoming a dragon with seven heads.\n\nThere is a close analogy between the Swahili and the Gaelic stories that\nreveals their ultimate derivation from Babylonia. In the Scottish story\nthe seven-headed dragon comes in a storm of wind and spray. The East\nAfrican serpent comes in a storm of wind and dust.[417] In the\nBabylonian story seven winds destroy Tiamat.\n\n\"The famous legend of the seven devils current in antiquity was of\nBabylonian origin, and belief in these evil spirits, who fought against\nthe gods for the possession of the souls and bodies of men, was\nwidespread throughout the lands of the Mediterranean basin. Here is one\nof the descriptions of the seven demons:--\n\n\"Of the seven the first is the south wind....\n\n\"The second is a dragon whose open mouth....\n\n\"The third is a panther whose mouth spares not.\n\n\"The fourth is a frightful python....\n\n\"The fifth is a wrathful ... who knows no turning back.\n\n\"The sixth is an on-rushing ... who against god and king [attacks].\n\n\"The seventh is a hurricane, an evil wind which [has no mercy].\n\n\"The Babylonians were inconsistent in their description of the seven\ndevils, describing them in various passages in different ways. In fact\nthey actually conceived of a very large number of these demons, and\ntheir visions of the other evil spirits are innumerable. According to\nthe incantation of Shamash-shum-ukin fifteen evil spirits had come into\nhis body and\n\n\"'My God who walks at my side they drove away.'\n\n\"The king calls himself 'the son of his God'. We have here the most\nfundamental doctrines of Babylonian theology, borrowed originally from\nthe religious beliefs of the Sumerians. For them man in his natural\ncondition, at peace with the gods and in a state of atonement, is\nprotected by a divine spirit whom they conceived of as dwelling in their\nbodies along with their souls or 'the breath of life'. In many ways the\nEgyptians held the same doctrine, in their belief concerning the\n_ka_[418] or the soul's double. According to the beliefs of the\nSumerians and Babylonians these devils, evil spirits, and all evil\npowers stand for ever waiting to attach (_sic_) (? attack) the divine\ngenius with each man. By means of insinuating snares they entrap mankind\nin the meshes of their magic. They secure possession of his soul and\nbody by leading him into sin, or bringing him into contact with tabooed\nthings, or by overcoming his divine protector with sympathetic\nmagic.... These adversaries of humanity thus expel a man's god, or\ngenius, or occupy his body. These rituals of atonement have as their\nprimary object the ejection of the demons and the restoration of the\ndivine protector. Many of the prayers end with the petition, 'Into the\nkind hands of his god and goddess restore him'.\n\n\"Representations of the seven devils are somewhat rare.... The Brit.\nMus. figurine represents the demon of the winds with body of a dog,\nscorpion tail, bird legs and feet\" (S. Langdon, \"A Ritual of Atonement\nfor a Babylonian King,\" _The Museum Journal_ [University of\nPennsylvania], Vol. VIII, No. 1, March, 1917, pp. 39-44).\n\nBut the Babylonians not only adopted the Egyptian conception of the\npower of evil as being seven demons, but they also seem to have fused\nthese seven into one, or rather given the real dragon seven-fold\nattributes.[419]\n\nIn \"The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia\"[420] (British Museum),\nMarduk's weapon is compared to \"the fish with seven wings\".\n\nThe god himself is represented as addressing it in these words: \"The\ntempest of battle, my weapon of fifty heads, which like the great\nserpent of seven heads is yoked with seven heads, which like the strong\nserpent of the sea (sweeps away) the foe\".\n\nIn the Japanese story which I have quoted, the number of the dragon's\nheads is given as _seven_ or _eight_; and de Visser is at a loss to know\nwhy \"the number eight should be stereotyped in these stories of\n[Japanese] dragons\".[421]\n\nI have already emphasized the world-wide association of the\nseven-headed dragon with storms. The Argonaut (usually called\n\"Nautilus\" by classical scholars) was the prophet of ill-luck and the\nstorm-bringer: but, true to the paradox that runs through the whole\ntissue of mythology, this form of the Great Mother is also a benevolent\nwarner against storms. This seems to be another link between the\nseven-headed dragon and these cephalopoda.\n\nI would suggest, merely as a tentative working hypothesis, that the\nprocess of blending the seven _avatars_ of the dragon into a\nseven-headed dragon may have been facilitated by its identification with\nthe _Pterocera_ and the octopus. We know that the octopus and the\nshell-fish were forms assumed by the dragon (see p. 172): the confusion\nbetween the numbers seven and eight is such as might have been created\nduring the transference of the _Pterocera's_ attributes to the octopus\n(_vide supra_, p. 170); and the Babylonian reference to \"the fish with\nseven wings,\" which was afterwards rationalized into \"a great serpent\nwith seven heads,\" seems to provide the clue which explains the origin\nof the seven-headed dragon. If Hathor was a seven-fold goddess and at\nthe same time was identified with the seven-spiked spider-shell\n(_Pterocera_), the process of converting the shell-fish's seven \"wings\"\ninto seven heads would be a very simple one for an ancient story-teller.\nIf this hypothesis has any basis in fact, the circumstance that the\nbeliefs concerning the _Pterocera_ must (from the habitat of the\nshell-fish) have come into existence upon the shores of Southern Arabia\nwould explain the appearance of the derived myth of the seven-headed\ndragon in Babylonia.\n\nMy attention was first called to the possibility of the octopus being\nthe parent of the seven-headed dragon, and one of the forms assumed by\nthe thunderbolt, by the design upon a krater from Apulia.[422] The\nweapon seemed to be a conventionalization of the octopus. Though further\nresearch has led me to distrust this interpretation, it has convinced me\nof the intimate association of the octopus and the derived spiral\nornament with thunder and the dragon, and has suggested that the process\nof blending the seven demons into a seven-headed demon has been assisted\nby the symbolism of the octopus and the _Pterocera_.\n\n\n[414: \"The Celtic Dragon Myth,\" by J. F. Campbell, with the \"Geste of\nFraoch and the Dragon,\" translated with introduction by George\nHenderson, Edinburgh, 1911, p. 134.]\n\n[415: My italics.]\n\n[416: Henry Whitehead (Bishop of Madras), \"The Village Gods of South\nIndia,\" Oxford, 1916, p. 24.]\n\n[417: \"The Celtic Dragon Myth,\" p. 136.]\n\n[418: See Chapter I, p. 47.]\n\n[419: I do not propose to discuss here the interesting problems raised\nby this identification of the dragon with a man's good or evil spirit.\nBut it is worthy of note that while the Babylonian might be possessed by\nseven evil spirits, the Egyptian could have as many as fourteen good\nspirits or _kas_. In a form somewhat modified by the Indian and\nIndonesian channels, through which they must have passed, these beliefs\nstill persist in Melanesia; and the illuminating account of them given\nby C. E. Fox and F. W. Drew (\"Beliefs and Tales of San Cristoval,\"\n_Journ. Roy. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. XLV, 1915, p. 161), makes it easier\nto us to form some conception of their original meaning in ancient\nBabylonia and Egypt. The _ataro_ which possesses a man (and there may be\nas many as a hundred of these \"ghosts\") leaves his body at death and\nusually enters a shark (or in other cases an octopus, skate, turtle,\ncrocodile, hawk, kingfisher, tree, or stone).]\n\n[420: Vol. II, 19, 11-18, and 65, quoted by Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_,\np. 282.]\n\n[421: _Op. cit._, p. 150.]\n\n[422: A. B. Cook, \"Zeus,\" Vol. I, p. 337, in which (Fig. 269) the rider\nin the car is _welcoming_ the thunderbolt as a divine gift from heaven,\n_i.e._ as a life-amulet, a giver of fertility and good luck. For a\ndesign representing the octopus as a weapon of the god Eros see the\ntitle-page of Usener's \"Die Sintfluthsagen,\" 1899.]\n\n\nThe Pig.\n\nI have already referred to the circumstances that were responsible for\nthe identification of the cow with the Great Mother, the sky, and the\nmoon. Once this had happened, the process seems to have been extended to\ninclude other animals which were used as food, such as the sheep, goat,\npig, and antelope (or gazelle and deer). In Egypt the cow continued to\noccupy the pre-eminent place as a divine animal; and the cow-cult\nextended from the Mediterreanean to equatorial Africa, to Western\nEurope, and as far East as India. But in the Mediterranean area the pig\nplayed a more prominent part than it did in Egypt.[423] In the latter\ncountry Osiris, Isis, and especially Set, were identified with the pig;\nand in Syria the place of Set as the enemy of Osiris (Adonis) was taken\nby an actual pig. But throughout the Eastern Mediterranean the pig was\nalso identified with the Great Mother and associated with lunar and sky\nphenomena. In fact at Troy the pig was represented[424] with the\nstar-shaped decorations with which Hathor's divine cow (in her role as a\nsky-goddess) was embellished in Egypt. To complete the identification\nwith the cow-mother Cretan fable represents a sow suckling the infant\nMinos or the youthful Zeus-Dionysus as his Egyptian prototype was\nsuckled by the divine cow.\n\nNow the cowry-shell was called [Greek: choiros] by the Greeks. The pig,\nin fact, was identified both with the Great Mother and the shell; and it\nis clear from what has been said already in these pages that the reason\nfor this strange homology was the fact that originally the Great Mother\nwas nothing more than the cowry-shell.\n\nBut it was not only with the shell itself that the pig was identified\nbut also with what the shell symbolized. Thus the term [Greek: choiros]\nhad an obscene significance in addition to its usual meaning \"pig\" and\nits acquired meaning \"cowry\". This fact seems to have played some part\nin fixing upon the pig the notoriety of being \"an unclean animal\".[425]\nBut it was mainly for other reasons of a very different kind that the\neating of swine-flesh was forbidden. The tabu seems to have arisen\noriginally because the pig was a sacred animal identified with the Great\nMother and the Water God, and especially associated with both these\ndeities in their lunar aspects.\n\nAccording to a Cretan legend the youthful god Zeus-Dionysus was suckled\nby a sow. For this reason \"the Cretans consider this animal sacred, and\nwill not taste of its flesh; and the men of Praesos perform sacred rites\nwith the sow, making her the first offering at the sacrifice\".[426]\n\nBut when the pig also assumed the role of Set, as the enemy of Osiris,\nand became the prototype of the devil, an active aversion took the place\nof the sacred tabu, and inspired the belief in the unwholesomeness of\npig flesh. To this was added the unpleasant reputation as a dirty animal\nwhich the pig itself acquired, for the reasons which I have already\nstated.\n\nI have already referred to the irrelevance of Miss Jane Harrison's\ndenial of the birth of Aphrodite from the sea (p. 141). Miss Harrison\ndoes not seem to have realized that in her book[427] she has collected\nevidence which is much more relevant to the point at issue. For, in the\ninteresting account of the Eleusinian Mysteries (pp. 150 _et seq._), she\nhas called attention to the important rite upon the day \"called in\npopular parlance '[Greek: halade mystai],' 'to the sea ye mystics'\" (p.\n152), which, I think, has a direct bearing upon the myth of Aphrodite's\nbirth from the sea.\n\nThe Mysteries were celebrated at full moon; and each of the candidates\nfor admission \"took with him his own pharmakos,[428] a young pig\".\n\n\"Arrived at the sea, each man bathed with his pig\" (p. 152). On one\noccasion, so it is said, \"when a mystic was bathing his pig, a\nsea-monster ate off the lower part of his body\" (p. 153). So important\nwas the pig in this ritual \"that when Eleusis was permitted (B.C.\n350-327) to issue her autonomous coinage it is the pig she chooses as\nthe sign and symbol of her mysteries\" (p. 153).\n\n\"On the final day of the Mysteries, according to Athenaeus, two vessels\ncalled _plemochoae_ are emptied, one towards the East and the other\ntowards the West, and at the moment of outpouring a mystic formulary\nwas pronounced.... What the mystic formulary was we cannot certainly\nsay, but it is tempting to connect the libation of the _plemochoae_ with\na formulary recorded by Proclos. He says 'In the Eleusinian mysteries,\nlooking up to the sky they cried aloud \"Rain,\" and looking down to earth\nthey cried \"Be fruitful\"'\" (p. 161).\n\nIn these latter incidents we see, perhaps, a distant echo of Hathor's\npots of blood-coloured beer that were poured out upon the soil, which in\na later version of the story became the symbol of the inundation of the\nriver and the token of the earth's fruitfulness. The personification in\nthe Great Mother of these life-giving powers of the river occurred at\nabout the same time; and this was rationalized by the myth that she was\nborn of the sea. She was also identified with the moon and a sow. Hence\nthese Mysteries were celebrated, both in Egypt and in the Mediterranean,\nat full moon, and the pig played a prominent part in them. The\ncandidates washed the sacrificial pig in the sea, not primarily as a\nrite of purification,[429] as is commonly claimed, but because the\nsacrificial animal was merely a surrogate of the cowry, which lived in\nthe sea, and of the Great Mother,[430] who was sprung from the cowry and\nhence born of the sea. In the story of the man carrying the pig being\nattacked by a sea-monster, perhaps we have an incident of that\nwidespread story of the shark guarding the pearls. We have already seen\nhow it was distorted into the fantastic legend of the dog's role in the\ndigging up of mandrakes. In the version we are now considering the\npearl's place is taken by the pig, both of them surrogates of the cowry.\n\nThe object of the ceremony of carrying the pig into the sea was not the\ncleansing of \"the unclean animal,\" nor was it _primarily_ a rite of\npurification in any sense of the term: it was simply a ritual procedure\nfor identifying the sacrifice with the goddess by putting it in her own\nmedium, and so transforming the surrogate of the sea-shell, the\nprototype of the sea-born goddess, into the actual Great Mother.\n\nThe question naturally arises: what was the real purpose of the\nsacrifice of the pig?\n\nIn the story of the Destruction of Mankind we have seen that originally\na human victim was slain for the purpose of obtaining the life-giving\nhuman blood to rejuvenate the ageing king. Two circumstances were\nresponsible for the modification of this procedure. In the first place,\nthere was the abandonment of human sacrifice and the substitution of\neither beer coloured red with ochre to resemble blood (or in other cases\nred wine) or the actual blood of an animal sacrifice in place of the\nhuman blood. Secondly, the blood of the Great Mother herself\n(personified in the special _avatar_ that was recognized in a particular\nlocality, the cow in one place, the pig in another, and so on) was\nregarded as more potent as a life-giving force than that of a mere\nmortal human being. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that this was\nthe real reason for the abandoning of human sacrifice and the\nsubstitution of an animal for a human being. For it is unlikely that, in\nthe rude state of society which had become familiarized with and\nbrutalized by the practice of these bloody rites of homicide, ethical\nmotives alone would have prompted the abolition of the custom of human\nsacrifice, to which such deep significance was attached. The\nsubstitution of the animal was prompted rather by the idea of obtaining\na more potent elixir from the life-blood of the Great Mother herself in\nher cow- or sow-forms.\n\nIn the transitional stage of the process of substitution of an animal\nfor a human being some confusion seems to have arisen as to the ritual\nmeaning of the new procedure. If Moret's account of the Egyptian\nMysteries[431] is correct--and without a knowledge of Egyptian philology\nI am not competent to express an opinion upon this matter--the attempt\nwas made to identify the animal victim of sacrifice with the human being\nwhose place it had taken. In the procession a human being wore the skin\nof an animal; and, according to Moret, there was a ceremony of passing a\nhuman being through the skin as a ritual procedure for transforming the\nmock victim into the animal which was to be sacrificed in his place. If\nthere is any truth in this interpretation, such a ceremony must have\nbeen prompted by a misunderstanding of the meaning of the sacrifice,\nunless the identification of the sacrificial animal with the goddess was\nmerely a secondary rationalization of the substitution which had been\nmade for ethical or some other reasons.\n\nWe know that the dead were often buried in the skins of sacrificial\nanimals, and so identified with the life-giving deities and given\nrebirth. We know also that in certain ceremonies the appropriate skins\nwere worn by those who were impersonating particular gods or goddesses.\nThe wearing of these skins of divine animals seems to have been prompted\nnot so much by the idea of a reincarnation in animal form as by the\ndesire for identification and communion with the particular deity which\nthe animal represented. The whole question, however, is one of great\ncomplexity, which can only be settled by a critical study of the texts\nby some scholar who keeps clearly before his mind the real issues, and\nrefuses to take refuge in the stereotyped evasions of conventional\nmethods of interpretation.\n\nThe sacrifice of the sow to Demeter is merely a late variant of Hathor's\nsacrifice of a human being to rejuvenate the king Re. How the real\nmeaning of the story became distorted I have already explained in\nChapter II (\"Dragons and Rain Gods\"). The killing of the sow to obtain a\ngood harvest is homologous with the sacrifice of a maiden to obtain a\ngood inundation of the river. The sow is the surrogate of the beautiful\nprincess of the fairy tale. Instead of the maiden being slain, in one\ncase, as Andromeda, she is rescued by the hero, in the other her place\nis taken by a sow. These late rationalizations are merely glosses of the\ndeep motives which more than fifty centuries ago seem to have prompted\nearly pharmacologists to obtain a more potent elixir than human blood by\nstealing from the heights of Olympus the divine blood of the life-giving\ndeities themselves.\n\nThe pig was identified not only with the Great Mother, but with Osiris\nand Set also. With the pig's lunar and astral associations I do not\npropose to deal in these pages, as the astronomical aspects of the\nproblems are so vast as to need much more space than the limits imposed\nin this statement. But it is important to note that the identification\nof Set with a pig was perhaps the main factor in riveting upon this\ncreature the fetters of a reputation for evil. The evil dragon was the\nrepresentative of both Set and the Great Mother (Sekhet or Tiamat); and\nboth of them were identified with the pig. Just as Set killed Osiris, so\nthe pig gave Adonis his mortal injury.[432] When these earthly incidents\nwere embellished with a celestial significance, the conflict of Horus\nwith Set was interpreted as the struggle between the forces of light and\norder and the powers of darkness and chaos. When worshipped as a\ntempest-god the Mesopotamian Rimmon was known as \"the pig\"[433] and, as\n\"the wild boar of the desert,\" was a form of Set.\n\nI have discussed the pig at this length because the use of the words\n[Greek: choiros] by the Greeks, and _porcus_ and _porculus_ by the\nRomans, reveals the fact that the terms had the double significance of\n\"pig\" and \"cowry-shell\". As it is manifestly impossible to derive the\nword \"cowry\" from the Greek word for \"pig,\" the only explanation that\nwill stand examination is that the two meanings must have been acquired\nfrom the identification of both the cowry and the pig with the Great\nMother and the female reproductive organs. In other words, the\npig-associations of Aphrodite afford clear evidence that the goddess was\noriginally a personification of the cowry.[434]\n\nThe fundamental nature of the identification of the cowry, the pig, and\nthe Great Mother, the one with the other, is revealed not merely in the\narchaeology of the AEgean, but also in the modern customs and ancient\npictures of the most distant peoples. For example, in New Guinea the\nplace of the sacrificial pig may be taken by the cowry-shell;[435] and\nupon the chief facade of the east wing of the ancient American monument,\nknown as the Casa de las Monjas at Chichen Itza, the hieroglyph of the\nplanet Venus is placed in conjunction with a picture of a wild pig.[436]\n\n\n[423: And also, in a misunderstood form, even as far as America.]\n\n[424: Schliemann, \"Ilios,\" Fig. 1450, p. 616.]\n\n[425: This is seen in the case of the Persian word _khor_, which means\nboth \"pig\" and \"harlot\" or \"filthy woman\". The possibility of the\nderivation of the old English word \"[w]hore\" from the same source is\nworth considering.]\n\n[426: L. R. Farnell, \"Cults of the Greek States,\" Vol. I, p. 37.]\n\n[427: \"Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion.\"]\n\n[428: Which, in fact, was intended as the equivalent of [Greek:\npharmakon athanasias], \"the redeeming blood\".]\n\n[429: Blackman (\"Sacramental Ideas and Usages in Ancient Egypt,\"\n_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, March, 1918, p. 57;\nand May, 1918, p. 85) has shown that the idea of purification was\ncertainly entertained.]\n\n[430: In some places an image of the goddess was washed in the sea.]\n\n[431: \"Mysteres Egyptiens.\"]\n\n[432: Mr. Donald Mackenzie has collected a good deal of folk-lore\nconcerning the pig (\"Myths of Egypt,\" pp. 66 _et seq._; also his books\non Babylonian, Indian, and Cretan myths, _op. cit. supra_).]\n\n[433: According to Sayce, \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 153, note 6.]\n\n[434: In Egypt not only was the sow identified with Isis, but \"lucky\npigs\" were worn on necklaces just like the earlier cowry-amulets (Budge,\n\"Guide to the Egyptian Collections\" (British Museum), p. 96).]\n\n[435: Malinowski, _Trans. and Proc. Royal Society, South Australia_,\nXXXIX, 1915, p. 587 _et. seq._]\n\n[436: Seler, \"Die Tierbilder der mexikanischen und der\nMaya-Handschriften,\" _Zeitsch. f. Ethnologie_, Bd. 41, 1909, p. 405, and\nFig. 242 in Maudslay, \"Biologia Centrali-Americana,\" Vol. III, Pl. 13.]\n\n\nGold and the Golden Aphrodite.\n\nThe evidence which has been collected by Mr. Wilfrid Jackson seems to\nsuggest that the shell-cults originated in the neighbourhood of the\nRed Sea.\n\nWith the introduction of the practice of wearing shells on girdles and\nnecklaces and as hair ornaments the time arrived when people living some\ndistance from the sea experienced difficulty in obtaining these amulets\nin quantities sufficient to meet their demands. Hence they resorted to\nthe manufacture of imitations of these shells in clay and stone. But at\nan early period in their history the inhabitants of the deserts between\nthe Nile and the Red Sea (Hathor's special province) discovered that\nthey could make more durable and attractive models of cowries and other\nshells by using the plastic yellow metal which was lying about in these\ndeserts unused and unappreciated. This practice first gave to the metal\ngold an arbitrary value which it did not possess before. For the\npeculiar life-giving attributes of the shells modelled in the yellow\nmetal came to be transferred to the gold itself. No doubt the lightness\nand especially the beauty of such gold models appealed to the early\nEgyptians, and were in large measure responsible for the hold gold\nacquired over mankind. But this was an outcome of the empirical\nknowledge gained from a practice that originally was inspired purely by\ncultural and not aesthetic motives. The earliest Egyptian hieroglyphic\nsign for gold was a picture of a necklace of such amulets; and this\nemblem became the determinative of the Great Mother Hathor, not only\nbecause she was originally the personification of the life-giving\nshells, but also because she was the guardian deity both of the Eastern\nwadys where the gold was found and of the Red Sea coasts where the\ncowries were obtained. Hence she became the \"Golden Hathor,\" the\nprototype of the \"Golden Aphrodite\".\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 9.--The Egyptian emblem for gold, the sign _nub_. It\nrepresents a collar from which golden amulets, probably representing\ncowries, are suspended.]\n\nIt is a significant token of the influence of these Egyptian incidents\nupon the history of the AEgean that among the earliest gold ornaments\nfound by Schliemann at Troy were a series of crude representations of\ncowries worn as pendants to a hair ornament.[437]\n\nIt is hardly necessary to insist upon the vast influence upon the\nhistory of civilization which this arbitrary value of gold has been\nresponsible for exerting. For more than fifty centuries men have been\nsearching for the precious metal, and have been spreading abroad\nthroughout the world the elements of our civilization. It has been not\nonly the chief factor in bringing about the contact of peoples[438] and\nincidentally in building up our culture, but it has been the cause,\ndirectly or indirectly, of most of the warfare which has afflicted\nmankind. Yet these mighty forces were let loose upon the world as the\nresult of the circumstance that early searchers for an elixir of life\nused the valueless metal to make imitations of their shell amulets!\n\nThe identification of gold with cowries may not have been the primary\nreason for the invention of gold currency. In fact, Professor Ridgeway\nhas called attention to certain historical events which in his opinion\nforced men to convert their jewellery into coinage. But the fact that\ncowries were the earliest form of currency may have prepared the way for\nthe recognition of the use of gold for a similar purpose. Moreover, we\nknow that long before a real gold currency came into being rings of gold\nwere in Egypt a form of tribute and a sign of wealth. Cowries acquired\ntheir significance as currency as the result of incidents in some\nrespects analogous to those which impelled the early Egyptians to make\ngold models of the shells. In places in Africa far removed from the sea\nwhere the practice has grown up of offering vast numbers of cowries to\nbrides on the occasion of their marriage (as fertility amulets) or of\nputting the shells in the grave (to secure for the dead fresh vital\nenergy), the people offered their most treasured possessions, such as\ntheir cattle, in exchange for the amulets which were believed to confer\nsuch priceless social and religious boons. Cattle were therefore given\nin exchange for cowries, or the shells were used for the purchase of\nwives. When the new significance as currency developed a remarkable\nconfusion occurred. In many places cowries were placed in the mouth of\nthe dead to confer the breath of life: but when the cowries acquired the\nnew meaning as currency, the people who had lost all knowledge of the\noriginal significance of this practice explained the cowries as money\nwith which to pay Charon's fare to the other world. Then, in many\nplaces, the cowry was replaced by an actual metallic coin. Most scholars\nfall into the same error as these ancient rationalists, and accept\ntheir explanation of the _obolus_ as though it were the real meaning of\nthe act.\n\nAnother result of the use of gold models of shells as life-giving\namulets was that the metal also acquired the reputation of being a giver\nof life,[439] which originally belonged merely to the shell or the\nimitation of its form, whatever the substance used for making the model.\n\nThus gold came to share the same magical reputation as the cowry and the\npearl. It was also put to the same use: it was buried with the dead to\nconfer a continuation of existence.\n\nNot only was Hathor called _Nub_, _i.e._ \"gold\" or the golden Hathor:\nbut the place where the funerary statue was made (\"born\") in Egypt was\ncalled the \"House of Gold\" and personified as a goddess who gave rebirth\nto the dead (Alan Gardiner, \"The Tomb of Amenemhet,\" p. 95; and A. M.\nBlackman, _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, Vol. IV, p. 127).\n\nWhen ancient prospectors from the South exploited the rivers of\nTurkestan for alluvial gold and fresh water pearls, incidentally they\nalso collected pebbles of jade for the purpose of making seals. The\nlocal inhabitants confused the properties of the stone with the magical\nreputation of the gold and the pearls. One outcome of this jade-fishing\nin Turkestan was the transference of the credit of life-giving to jade.\nProspectors searching for these precious materials gradually made their\nway east past Lob Nor, and eventually discovered the deposits of gold\nand jade in the Shensi province. Thus jade became the nucleus around\nwhich the distinctive civilization of China became crystallized. It\nplayed an obtrusive part not only in attracting men from the West and in\ndetermining the locality where the germs of Western civilization were\nplanted in China, but also in giving Chinese culture its distinctive\nshape.\n\n\"The ancient Chinese, wishing to facilitate the resurrection of the\ndead, surrounded them with jade, gold, pearls, timber, and other things\nimbued with influences emitted from the heavens, or, in other words,\nwith such objects as are pervaded with vital energy derived from the\n_Yang_ matter of which the heavens are the principal depository.\" (De\nGroot, _op. cit._, p. 316).\n\nBy a similar process diamonds acquired the same reputation in India when\nsearchers after gold discovered the precious metal in Hyderabad, and\nthe diamonds of Golconda came to be accredited with life-giving\npowers.[440]\n\nAccording to the beliefs of the Indians \"the Naga owns riches, the water\nof life, and a jewel that restores the dead to life\".\n\nThus gold, pearls, jade, and diamonds in course of time acquired the\nreputation of elixirs of life, but the hold they established upon\nmankind was due to the fact (a) that the amulets made of these materials\nmade a strong appeal to the aesthetic sense, and (b) the arbitrary value\nassigned to them made them desirable objects to search for.\n\nIn his \"Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult\" (1901) Sir Arthur Evans gives\ncogent reasons for the view that at the time when Mycenaean influence was\npowerful in Cyprus \"the 'golden Aphrodite' of the Egyptians seems to\nplay a much more important part than any form of Astarte or Mylitta\"\n(p. 52). \"The Cypriote parallels will be found to have a fundamental\nimportance as demonstrating in detail that these ['a simple form of the\npalmette pillar, approaching a fleur-de-lys in outline,' in association\nwith its guardian monsters] are in fact taken over from the cult of\nMentu-Ra, the Warrior Sun-god of Egypt, of Hathor, and of Horus\"\n(p. 52).\n\n\n[437: So far as I am aware the fact that these objects were intended to\nrepresent cowries does not appear to have been recognized hitherto. I am\nindebted to Mr. Wilfrid Jackson for calling my attention to the figures\n685 and 832 in Schliemann's \"Ilios\" (1880), and for identifying the\nobjects.]\n\n[438: See Perry, \"Megalithic Monuments and Ancient Mines,\" _Proceedings\nand Memorials of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society_,\n1916; also \"War and Civilization,\" _Bulletin of the John Rylands\nLibrary_, 1918.]\n\n[439: \"Danae pregnant with immortal gold.\"]\n\n[440: See Laufer, \"The Diamond,\" also Munn, \"The Ancient Gold Mines of\nHyderabad,\" paper now being published in the _Proceedings of the\nManchester Literary and Philosophical Society_.]\n\n\nAphrodite as the Thunder-stone.\n\nAs a surrogate of the Great Mother, the Eye of Re, the thunder-weapon\nwas also identified with any of her varied manifestations.\n\nThe thunderbolt is one of the manifestations of the life-giving and\ndeath-dealing Divine Cow, and therefore is able specially to protect\nmundane cows.[441]\n\nThere are numerous hints in the ancient literature of other countries in\nconfirmation of the association of the Great Mother with \"falling\nstars\". \"In a fragment of Sanchoniathon, Astarte, travelling about the\nhabitable world, is said to have found a star falling through the air,\nwhich she took up and consecrated.\"[442]\n\nAphrodite also was looked upon as a meteoric stone that fell from the\nmoon. In the \"Iliad,\" Zeus is said to have sent Athena as a meteorite\nfrom heaven to earth.[443]\n\nThe association of Aphrodite with meteoric stones and the ancient belief\nthat they fell from the moon serve to confirm the identification of\nthese life-giving and death-dealing objects with the pearl and the\nthunderbolt. In Southern India the goddesses may be represented either\nby small stones or by pots of water, usually seven in number. During the\nceremony around the stone-form of the goddess the _kappukaran_ runs\nthrice around the stone, as the mandrake-digger does around the plant.\nThe _pujari_ who represents the goddess is painted like a leopard\n(Hathor's lioness) and kills the sacrificial sheep. The goddess (like\nHathor) is supposed to drink the blood of the sacrificial victims\n(Whitehead, _op. cit._, pp. 164-8).\n\nMany factors played a part in the development of the beliefs about the\norigin of mankind from stones, with which the identification of the\nthunderbolt with the winged disk plays a part.\n\nThe idea that the cowry was the giver of life and the parent of men was\nalso transferred to crude stone imitations of the shell. Perhaps the\nbelief in such stones as creators of human beings may have been\nreinforced by finding actual fossilized shells within pebbles.[444]\n\nA further corroboration of this theory was provided when the pearl came\nto be regarded as the quintessence of the life-giving substance of\nshells and as a little particle of moon-substance which fell as a drop\nof dew into the gaping oyster. Perry (_op. cit._, p. 78) refers to an\nIndonesian belief among the Tsalisen that their ancestors came out of\nthe moon; and the chief of this people has a spherical stone which is\nsaid to represent the moon.\n\nThis association of the moon with round stones may be connected with the\nidentification of the sun (as the winged disk) with a stone axe, when\nthey came to be regarded as alternative weapons for the destruction or\nthe creation of men. Perry records a story of a rock being lowered down\nfrom the sun, from which it was born, and out of a cleft in it man and\nwoman emerged, as they were believed to have been born from the cleft in\nthe cowry.\n\nThen there are the Egyptian beliefs concerning stone statues, obelisks,\nor even unshaped blocks of stone which could be animated by human beings\nor gods.[445]\n\nThe cycle of these stories was completed when the \"Eye of Re\"\nslaughtered the enemies of the god and they became identified with the\nfollowers of Set, \"creatures of stone\". Thus the evil eye petrified\nrebellious men: and so was launched upon its course the peculiar group\nof legends which in time encircled the world.\n\nIt is particularly significant that in Indonesia, in association with\nthese ideas about stone-origins and petrifaction, Perry (p. 133) found\nalso the clear-cut belief that the thunder-weapon was a stone, or the\ntooth of a cloud-dragon in the sky.\n\nIn Indonesia also petrifaction, thunder-stones, rain, floods, lightning,\nand an arrow shot to the accompaniment of thunder and lightning were the\npunishments traditionally assigned for certain offences, such as incest\nand laughing at animals.\n\nThe same people who introduced into the Malay Archipelago these\ncharacteristic fragments of the dragon-myth also believed that certain\nanimals were impersonations of their gods: they also brought stories of\nincestuous unions on the part of their deities and rulers. To laugh at\ntheir sacred animals, or to imitate privileged customs permitted to\ntheir deities, but not to ordinary mortals, merited the same sort of\npunishments as were meted out to those other rebels against the ruling\nclass and the gods in the home of these beliefs.[446]\n\nTo laugh at the divine animals, or to commit incest, which was a divine\nprerogative, was analogous to \"the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,\"\nwhich in the New Testament is proclaimed an unpardonable offence, and in\npagan legend was punished by the divine wrath, thunder, lightning, rain,\nfloods, or petrifaction being the avenging instruments. Oedipus put out\nhis own eyes to forestall the traditional wrath of the gods.\n\n\n[441: Blinkenberg, _op. cit._, p. 70 _et seq._]\n\n[442: Quoted by Layard, \"Nineveh and its Remains,\" Vol. II, p. 457.]\n\n[443: Cook, \"Zeus,\" I, p. 760.]\n\n[444: Striking examples of these stories about birth from split stones\nhave been given by Perry, \"Megalithic Culture of Indonesia,\" Chapter X,\nand de Groot's \"Religious System of China\". It is possible that the\ndouble meaning of the Egyptian word _set_, as \"stone\" and \"mountain\"\nplayed a part in originating these stories. I have already quoted from\nthe Pyramid Texts the account of the daily birth of the sun-god by a\nsplitting of the \"mountain\" of the dawn. By a pun on this word the god's\norigin might have been interpreted as having taken place from a split\n\"stone\". The fact that the Great Mother was identified with a \"mountain\"\n(_set_) may also have facilitated the homology with the other meaning of\n_set_, _i.e._ \"a stone\".]\n\n[445: \"Incense and Libations\".]\n\n[446: As the character and attributes of the early goddesses became more\ncomplex, and contradictory traits were more sharply contrasted, the\ninevitable tendency developed to differentiate the goddesses themselves,\nand provide distinctive names for the new personalities thus split off\nfrom the common parent. We see this in Egypt in the case of Hathor and\nSekhet, and in Babylonia in Ishtar and Tiamat. But the process of\nspecialization and differentiation might even involve a change of sex.\nThere can be no doubt that the _god_ Horus was originally a\ndifferentiation of certain of the aspects of the sky-goddess Hathor, at\nfirst as a brother \"Eye\". But as the _king_ Horus was the son of Osiris\n(as the dead king), when the confusion of the attributes of Osiris and\nHathor--the actual father and the divine mother of Horus--made their\nmarriage inevitable, the maternal relationship of the goddess to her\n\"brother\" was emphasized. But as the Great Mother, Hathor was the parent\nof the universe, and the mother not only of Horus but also of his father\nOsiris. This complicated rationalization made Hathor the sister, mother,\nand grandmother of Horus, and was responsible for originating the belief\nin the incestuous practices of the divine family. When the royal family\nassumed the role of gods and goddesses they were bound by these\ntraditions (which had their origin purely in theological sophistry) and\nwere driven to indulge in actual incest, as we know from the records of\nthe Egyptian royal family and their imitators in other countries. But\nincest became a royal and divine prerogative which was sternly forbidden\nto mere mortals and regarded as a peculiarly detestable sin.]\n\n\nThe Serpent and the Lioness.\n\nWhen the development of the story of the Destruction of Mankind\nnecessitated the finding of a human sacrifice and drove the Great Mother\nto homicide, this side of her character was symbolized by identifying\nher with a man-slaying lion and the venomous uraeus-serpent.\n\nShe had previously been represented by such beneficent food-providing\nand life-sustaining creatures as the cow, the sow, and the gazelle\n(antelope or deer): but when she developed into a malevolent creature\nand became the destroyer of mankind it was appropriate that she should\nassume the form of such man-destroyers as the lion and the cobra.\n\nOnce the reason for such identifications grew dim, the uraeus-form of the\nGreat Mother became her symbol in either of her aspects, good or bad,\nalthough the legend of her poison-spitting, man-destroying powers\npersisted.[447] The identification of the destroying-goddess with the\nmoon, \"the Eye of the Sun-god,\" prepared the way for the rationalization\nof her character as a uraeus-serpent spitting venom and the sun's Eye\nspitting fire at the Sun-god's enemies. Such was the goddess of Buto in\nLower Egypt, whose uraeus-symbol was worn on the king's forehead, and was\nmisinterpreted by the Greeks as not merely a symbolic \"eye,\" but an\nactual median eye upon the king's or the god's forehead.\n\nIt is not without special significance that in the ancient legend (see\nSethe, _op. cit._) the lioness-goddess Tefnut was reputed to have come\nfrom Elephantine (or at any rate the region of Sehel and Biga, which has\nthe same significance), which serves to demonstrate her connexion with\nthe story of the Destruction of Mankind and to corroborate the inference\nas to its remote antiquity. She was identified with Hathor, Sekhet,\nBast, and other goddesses.\n\nBut the uraeus was not merely the goddess who destroyed the king's\nenemies and the emblem of his kingship: in course of time the cobra\nbecame identified with the ruler himself and the dead king, who was the\ngod Osiris. When this happened the snake acquired the god's reputation\nof being the controller of water.\n\nThe fashionable speculation of modern scholars that the movements of the\nsnake naturally suggest rippling water[448] and provide \"the obvious\nreason\" which led many people quite independently the one of the other\nto associate the snake with water, is thus shown to have no foundation\nin fact.\n\nOne would have imagined that, if any natural association between snakes\nand water was the reason for this association, a water-snake would have\nbeen chosen to express the symbolism; or, if it was the mere rippling\nmotion of the reptile, that all snakes or any snake would have been\ndrawn into the analogy. But primarily only one kind of snake, a cobra,\nwas selected[449]; and it is not a water snake, and cannot live in or\nunder water. It was selected _because it was venomous_ and the\nappropriate symbol of man-slaying.\n\nThe circumstances which led to the identification of this particular\nserpent with water were the result of a process of legend-making of so\narbitrary and eccentric a nature as to make it impossible seriously to\npretend that so tortuous a ratiocination should have been exactly\nfollowed to the same unexpected destination also in Crete and Western\nEurope, in Babylonia and India, in Eastern Asia, and in America, without\nprompting the one of the other. No serious investigator who is capable\nof estimating the value of evidence can honestly deny that the belief in\nthe serpent's control over water was diffused abroad from one centre\nwhere a concatenation of peculiar circumstances and beliefs led to the\nidentification of the ruler with the cobra and the control of water.\n\nWe are surely on safe ground in assuming the improbability of such a\nwholly fortuitous set of events happening a second time and producing\nthe same result elsewhere. Thus when we find in India the Naga rajas\nidentified with the cobra, and credited with the ability to control the\nwaters, we can confidently assume that in some way the influence of\nthese early Egyptian events made itself felt in India. As we compare the\ndetails of the Naga worship in India[450] with early Egyptian beliefs,\nall doubt as to their common origin disappears.\n\nThe Naga rulers were closely associated with springs, streams, and\nlakes. \"To this day the rulers of the Hindu Kush states, Hunza and\nNagar, though now Mohammedans, are believed, by their subjects, to be\nable to command the elements.\"\n\nOldham adds: \"This power is still ascribed to the serpent-gods of the\nsun-worshipping countries of China, Manchuria, and Korea, and was so,\nuntil the introduction of Christianity, in Mexico and Peru\". This is put\nforward in support of his argument that the Naga kings' \"supposed\nability to control the elements, and especially the waters,\" arose \"from\ntheir connexion with the sun\". But this is not so.[451] The belief in\nthe Egyptian king's power over water was certainly older than\nsun-worship, which did not begin until Osirian beliefs and the\npersonification of the moon as the Great Mother brought the sky-deities\nand the control of water into correlation the one with the other. The\nassociation of the sun and the serpent in the royal insignia was a later\ndevelopment.\n\nThe early Egyptian goddess was identified with the uraeus-serpent in that\nvitally important nodal point of primitive civilization, Buto, in Lower\nEgypt. The earliest deity in Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean seems\nto have been a goddess who was also closely associated with the serpent.\nAccording to Langdon \"the ophidian nature of the earliest Sumerian\nmother-goddess _Innini_ is unmistakable.... She carries the caduceus in\nher hand, two serpents twining about a staff.\"[452]\n\nThe earliest Indian deities also were goddesses, and the first rulers of\nwhom any record has been preserved were regarded as divine cobras, to\nwhom was attributed the power of controlling water. These Nagas, whether\nkings or queens, gods or goddesses, were the prototypes of the Eastern\nAsiatic dragon, whose origin is discussed in Chapter II.\n\nIn Japan the earliest sun-deity was a goddess who was identified with a\nsnake. Elsewhere in this volume (Chapter II) I have referred to the\ncompleteness of the transference to America of these Old World ideas of\nthe serpent. Right on the route taken by the main stream of cultural\ndiffusion across the Pacific we still find in their fully-developed form\nthe old beliefs concerning the good Mother Serpent of the ancient\ncivilizations (C. E. Fox and F. H. Drew, _op. cit. supra_, p. 139). She\ncould be re-incarnated as a coconut: she controlled crops; she was\nassociated with the coming of death into the world, with the\nintroduction of agriculture and the discovery of fire. Like her\npredecessors in the West she was also a Mother Pot or Basket that\nnever emptied.\n\nAll the _hiona_ or _figona_ (_i.e._ spirits) of San Cristoval have a\nserpent incarnation from Agunua the creator, worshipped by every one, to\nOharimae and others, only known to particular persons. Other spirits,\ncalled _ataro_, might be incarnate in almost any animal. Agunua, who\ntook the form of a serpent, was good, not evil (p. 134). Very many\npools, rocks, water-falls, or large trees were thought to be the abode\nof _figona_. These serpent spirits could take the form of a stone, or\nretire within a stone, and sacred stones seem to be connected with\n_figona_ rather than with _ataro_ (p. 135). Almost all the local\n_figona_ are represented as female snakes, but Agunua is a male snake\n(p. 137).\n\nAs the real significance of the snake's symbolism originated from its\nidentification with the Great Mother in her destructive aspect, it is\nnot surprising that the snake is the most primitive form of the evil\ndragon. The Babylonian Tiamat was originally represented as a huge\nserpent,[453] and throughout the world the serpent is pre-eminently a\nsymbol of the evil dragon and the powers of evil.\n\nThe serpent that tempted Eve was the homologue both of the mother of\nmankind herself and also of the tree of paradise. It was the\nrepresentative of the dragon-protector of pearls and of other kinds of\ntreasure: it was also the goddess who animated the sacred tree as well\nas the protector who attacked all who approached it. It was the evil\ndragon that tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit which brought\nher mortality.\n\nThe identification of the Great Mother with the lioness (and the\nsecondary association of her husband and son with the lion) was\nresponsible for a widespread relationship of these creatures with the\ngods and goddesses in Egypt and the Mediterranean, in Western Asia, in\nBabylonia and India, in Eastern Asia [tiger] and America [ocelot, and\nforms borrowed from the conventionalized lions and tigers of the Old\nWorld].\n\nThe account of the Great Mother's attributes and associations throws\ninto clear relief certain aspects of the evolution of the dragon which\nwere left in a somewhat nebulous state in Chapter II. The earliest form\nassumed by the power of evil was the serpent or the lion, because these\ndeath-dealing creatures were adopted as symbols of the Great Mother in\nher role as the Destroyer of Mankind. When Horus was differentiated from\nthe Great Mother and became her _locum tenens_, his falcon (or eagle)\nwas blended with Hathor's lioness to make the composite monster which is\nrepresented on Elamite and Babylonian monuments (see p. 79). But when\nthe role of water as the instrument of destruction became prominent,\nEa's antelope and fish were blended to make a monster, usually known as\nthe \"goat-fish,\" which in India and elsewhere assumed a great variety of\nforms. Some of the varieties of _makara_ were sufficiently like a\ncrocodile to be confused or identified with this representative of the\nfollowers of Set.\n\nThe real dragon was created when all three larval types--serpent,\neagle-lion, and antelope-fish--were blended to form a monster with\nbird's feet and wings, a lion's forelimbs and head, the fish's scales,\nthe antelope's horns, and a more or less serpentine form of trunk and\ntail, and sometimes also of head. Repeated substitution of parts of\nother animals, such as the spiral horn of Amen's ram, a deer's antlers,\nand the elephant's head, led to endless variation in the dragon's\ntraits.\n\nThe essential unity of the motives and incidents of the myths of all\npeoples and of every age is a token, not of independent origin or the\nresult of \"the similarity of the working of the human mind,\" but of\ntheir derivation from the same ultimate source.\n\nThe question naturally arises: what is a myth? The dragon-myth of the\nWest is the religion of China. The literature of every religion is\nsaturated with the influence of the myth. In what respect does religion\ndiffer from myth? In Chapter I, I attempted to explain how originally\nscience and religion were not differentiated. Both were the outcome of\nman's attempt to peer into the meaning of natural phenomena, and to\nextract from such knowledge practical measures for circumventing fate.\nHis ever-insistent aim was to combat danger to life.\n\nReligion was differentiated from science when the measures for\ncontrolling fate became invested with the assurance of supernatural\nhelp, for which the growth of a knowledge of natural phenomena made it\nimpossible for the mere scientist to be the sponsor. It became a\nquestion of faith rather than knowledge; and man's instinctive struggle\nagainst the risk of extinction impelled him to cling to this larger hope\nof salvation, and to embellish it with an ethical and moral significance\nwhich at first was lacking in the eternal search for the elixir of life.\n\nIf religion can be regarded as archaic science enriched with the belief\nin supernatural control, the myth can be regarded as effete religion\nwhich has been superseded by the growth of a loftier ethical purpose.\nThe myth is to religion what alchemy is to chemistry or astrology is to\nastronomy. Like these sciences, religion retains much of the material of\nthe cruder phase of thought that is displayed in myth, alchemy, and\nastrology, but it has been refined and elaborated. The dross has been to\na large extent eliminated, and the pure metal has been moulded into a\nmore beautiful and attractive form. In searching for the elixir of life,\nthe makers of religion have discovered the philosopher's stone, and with\nits aid have transmuted the base materials of myth into the gold of\nreligion.\n\nIf we seek for the deep motives which have prompted men in all ages so\npersistently to search for the elixir of life, for some means of\naverting the dangers to which their existence is exposed, it will be\nfound in the instinct of self-preservation, which is the fundamental\nfactor in the behaviour of all living beings, the means of preservation\nof the life which is their distinctive attribute and the very essence of\ntheir being.\n\nThe dragon was originally a concrete expression of the divine powers of\nlife-giving; but with the development of a higher conception of\nreligious ideals it became relegated to a baser role, and eventually\nbecame the symbol of the powers of evil.\n\n\n[447: Sethe, \"Zur altaegyptische Sage von Sonnenaugen das im Fremde war,\"\n_Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde AEgyptens_, V, p. 23.\n[Transcriber's note: the title of the paper has been misprinted. It\nshould read \"...vom Sonnenauge, das...\"]]\n\n[448: See especially the claims put forward by Brinton, which have been\naccepted by Spinden, Joyce, and many other recent writers.]\n\n[449: Possibly also the Cerastes. At a relatively late period other\nsnakes were adopted as surrogates of the cobra and Cerastes.]\n\n[450: See Oldham, \"Sun and Serpent,\" p. 51 _inter alia_.]\n\n[451: Blackman, however, has recently advanced this claim in reference\nto Egypt (_op. cit._, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology_, 1918, p. 57), as\nBreasted and others have done before.]\n\n[452: S. Langdon, \"A Seal of Nidaba, the Goddess of Vegetation,\"\n_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, Vol. XXXVI, 1914,\np. 281.]\n\n[453: L. W. King, \"Babylonian Religion,\" p. 58.]\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: Numerous obvious printing errors have been corrected.\nHowever, inconsistent hyphenation in the original has been retained.]","title":"The Evolution of the Dragon","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":103398}