{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35791/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35791","id":"gutenberg_35791","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35791","summary":null,"tags":["Birth -- Folklore","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Folklore -- Assyria","Folklore -- Babylonia","Omens"],"text":"\n\n\n\nProduced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Babylonian-Assyrian\n Birth-Omens\n\n And\n Their Cultural Significance\n\n\n by\n Morris Jastrow, jr.\n Ph. D. (Leipzig) Professor of Semitic Languages in the University\n of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)\n\n\n Gie\u00dfen 1914\n Verlag von Alfred T\u00f6pelmann (vormals J. Ricker)\n\n\n\n\n =Religionsgeschichtliche\n Versuche und Vorarbeiten=\n\n begr\u00fcndet von\n Albrecht Dieterich und Richard W\u00fcnsch\n herausgegeben von\n Richard W\u00fcnsch und Ludwig Deubner\n in M\u00fcnster i. W. in K\u00f6nigsberg i. Pr.\n\n XIV. Band. 5. Heft\n\n\n\n\n To\n\n SIR WILLIAM OSLER\n\n Regius Professor of Medicine\n Oxford University\n\n This volume is dedicated\n as a mark of esteem and admiration.\n\n \"Most fine, most honour'd, most renown'd.\"\n (King Henry V, 2d Part, Act IV, 5, 164.)\n\n\n\n\n=Analysis=\n\n\n Divination in Babylonia and Assyria 1\n\n Three chief methods: hepatoscopy, astrology and birth-omens 1-6\n\n Spread of Hepatoscopy and Astrology to Hittites, Etruscans,\n Greeks and Romans and to China 3-4\n\n The Transition motif in religious rites and popular customs 5-6\n\n Omen collections in Ashurbanapal's Library 6-7\n\n Birth-omen reports 9-12\n\n Animal Birth-omens 12-28\n\n Double foetus 13-16\n\n Principles of interpretation 14-15\n\n Multiple births among ewes 17-18\n\n Malformation of ears 19-22\n\n Excess number of ears 20-22\n\n Ewe giving birth to young resembling lion 23-26\n\n Ewe giving birth to young resembling other animals 27-28\n\n Human Birth-omens 28-41\n\n Twins 29-30\n\n Monstrosities 30\n\n Multiple births 31\n\n Malformation of ears 32-33\n\n Malformation of mouth, nostrils, jaws, arms, lips, hand 33-34\n\n Malformation of anus, genital member, thigh, feet 35-36\n\n Principles of interpretation 36\n\n Misshapen embryos 37\n\n Weaklings, cripples, deaf-mutes, still-births, dwarfs 38-39\n\n Talking infants, with bearded lips and teeth 39\n\n Infants with animal features 32. 33. 35-36. 40-41\n\n Study of Human Physiognomy among Greeks and Romans 43-44\n\n Resemblances between human and animal features 45\n\n Porta's and Lavater's Views 45-48\n\n Study of Human Physiognomy based on birth-omens 49-50\n\n Birth-omens in Julius Obsequens 50-52\n\n Birth-omens in Valerius Maximus 52\n\n Cicero on birth-omens 53-54\n\n Macrobius on birth-omens 55\n\n Birth-omens among Greeks and in Asia Minor 56-58\n\n Birth-omens as basis of belief in fabulous and hybrid\n beings 59-62\n\n Dragons, Hippocentaurs and hybrid creatures in\n Babylonian-Assyrian Literature and Art 63-64\n\n Fabulous creatures of Greek Mythology and Birth-omens 64-66\n\n Egyptian sphinxes 67-70\n\n Totemism 70\n\n Metamorphosis of human beings into animals and vice versa 70-72\n\n Talking animals in fairy tales 71\n\n History of monsters and persistency of belief in monsters 72-78\n\n Lycosthenes' work 73-75\n\n Summary 78-80\n\n Index 81-86\n\n\n\n\n \"... they do observe\n unfather'd heirs and loathly births of natures\"\n (King Henry V. 2nd part\n Act IV, 4, 121-122).\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nAs a result of researches in the field of Babylonian-Assyrian divination,\nnow extending over a number of years[1], it may be definitely said that\napart from the large class of miscellaneous omens[2], the Babylonians and\nAssyrians developed chiefly three methods of divination into more or less\nelaborate systems--divination through the inspection of the liver of a\nsacrificial animal or Hepatoscopy, through the observation of the\nmovements in the heavens or Astrology, (chiefly directed to the moon and\nthe planets but also to the sun and the prominent stars and\nconstellations), and through the observance of signs noted at birth in\ninfants and the young of animals or Birth-omens. Elsewhere[3], I have\nsuggested a general division of the various forms of divination methods\ninto two classes, voluntary and involuntary divination, meaning by the\nformer the case in which a sign is deliberately selected and then\nobserved, by the latter where the sign is not of your own choice but\nforced upon your attention and calling for an interpretation. Hepatoscopy\nfalls within the former category[4], Astrology and Birth-omens in the\nlatter.\n\nEach one of these three methods rests on an underlying well-defined theory\nand is not the outcome of mere caprice or pure fancy, though of course\nthese two factors are also prominent. In the case of Hepatoscopy, we find\nthe underlying theory to have been the identification of the 'soul' or\nvital centre of the sacrificial victim--always a sheep--with the deity to\nwhom the animal is offered,--at least to the extent that the two souls are\nattuned to one another. The liver being, according to the view prevalent\namong Babylonians and Assyrians as among other peoples of antiquity at a\ncertain stage of culture, the seat of the soul[5], the inspection of the\nliver followed as the natural and obvious means of ascertaining the mind,\ni. e., the will and disposition of the deity to whom an inquiry has been\nput or whom one desired to consult. The signs on the liver--the size and\nshape of the lobes, and of the gall bladder, the character or\npeculiarities of the two appendices to the upper lobe, (the processus\npyramidalis and the processus papillaris), and the various markings on the\nliver were noted, and on the basis of the two main principles conditioning\nall forms of divination (1) association of ideas and (2) noting the\nevents that followed upon certain signs, a decision was reached as to\nwhether the deity was favorably or unfavorably disposed or, what amounted\nto the same thing, whether the answer to the inquiry was favorable or\nunfavorable.\n\nIn the case of Astrology,--a relatively more advanced method of\ndivination,--the underlying theory rested on the supposed complete\ncorrespondence between movements and phenomena in the heavens and\noccurrences on earth. The gods, being identified with the heavenly\nbodies,--with the moon, sun, planets, and fixed stars--or as we might also\nput it, the heavenly bodies being personified as gods, the movements in\nthe heavens were interpreted as representing the activity of the gods\npreparing the events on earth. Therefore, he who could read the signs in\nthe heavens aright would know what was to happen here below. Astrology\ncorresponded in a measure to the modern Weather Bureau in that it enabled\none to ascertain a little in advance what was certain to happen,\nsufficiently so in order to be prepared for it. Compared with Hepatoscopy,\nAstrology not only represents a form of divination that might be\ndesignated as semi-scientific--only relatively scientific of course--but\nalso occupies a higher plane, because there was no attempt involved to\ninduce a deity unfavorably disposed to change his mind. The signs were\nthere; they pointed unmistakably to certain occurrences on earth that were\ncertain to occur and it was the task of the diviner--the =b\u00e2r\u00fb= or\n'inspector' as the Babylonian called him--to indicate whether what the\ngods were preparing would be beneficial or harmful. Both Hepatoscopy and\nAstrology as developed by the Babylonians and Assyrians =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests\nexerted a wide influence, the former spreading to the Hittites and\nEtruscans and through the one or the other medium to Greeks and Romans[6],\nwhile Babylonian-Assyrian Astrology passing to the Greeks became the basis\nfor Graeco-Roman and mediaeval Astrology, profoundly influencing the\nreligious thought of Europe[7] and in a modified form surviving even to\nour own days. The chain of evidence has recently been completed[8] to\nprove the direct transfer of the cuneiform astrological literature to\nGreek astrologers and astronomers. The possibility also of a spread or at\nleast of a secondary influence of both systems to the distant East is also\nto be considered. In fact considerable evidence is now available to show\nthat Babylonian-Assyrian astrological notions and in part also\nastronomical data spread to China[9].\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nThe observation of signs observed in young animals and in infants at the\ntime of birth constitutes a third division of Babylonian-Assyrian\ndivination, quite equal in prominence to Hepatoscopy and Astrology. Here\ntoo we are justified in seeking for some rational or quasi-rational basis\nfor the importance attached by Babylonians and Assyrians, and as we shall\nsee by other nations as well, to anything of a noteworthy or unusual\ncharacter observed at the moment that a new life was ushered into the\nworld. The mystery of life made as deep an impression upon primitive man\nand upon ancient peoples as it does on the modern scientist, who endeavors\nwith his better equipment and enriched by the large experience of past\nages, to penetrate to the very source of life. A new life issuing from\nanother life--what could be stranger, what more puzzling, what more\nawe-inspiring? If we bear in mind that there is sufficient evidence to\nwarrant us in saying that among peoples in a primitive state of culture,\nthe new life was not associated with the sexual act[10], the mystery must\nhave appeared still more profound. The child or the young animal was\nsupposed to be due to the action of some spirit or demon that had found\nits way into the mother, just as death was supposed to be due to some\nmalicious demon that had driven the spirit of life out of the body. The\nmany birth customs found in all parts of the world[11], are associated\nwith this impression of mystery made by the new life; they centre largely\nround the idea of protection to the mother and her offspring at a critical\nperiod. The rejoicing is tempered by the fear of the demons who were\nsupposed to be lurking near to do mischief to the new life and to the one\nwho brought it forth. The thought is a natural one, for the young life\nhangs in the balance, while that of the mother appears to be positively\nthreatened. All bodily suffering and all physical ailments being ascribed\nto the influence of bad demons, or to the equally malevolent influence of\npersons who could by their control of the demons or in some other way\nthrow a spell over the individual, Birth, Puberty, Marriage and Death as\nthe four periods in life which may be regarded as critical and\ntransitional are marked by popular customs and religious rites that follow\nmankind from primitive times down to our own days. A modern scholar, Van\nGennep, who has recently gathered these customs in a volume and\ninterpreted them, calls his work 'Rites de Passage', i. e., customs\nassociated with the four periods of transition from one stage to the other\nand which survive in advanced forms of faith as Baptism, Confirmation,\nMarriage ceremonies and Funeral rites, just as the chief festivals in all\nreligions are the 'Rites de Passage' of nature--associated with the\ntransition periods of the year, with the vernal equinox, the summer\nsolstice, the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice or, expressed in\nagricultural terms, with sowing time, with blossoming or early harvest\ntime, with the later harvest time and with the period of decay.\n\nThe significance attached to birth omens is thus merely a phase of the\nceremonies attendant upon the passage of the new-born from its mysterious\nhiding place to the light. The analogy between the new life and the\nprocesses of nature is complete, for the plant, too, after being hidden in\nthe earth, which is pictured in the religions of antiquity as a 'great\nmother', comes to the surface.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThe field of observation in the case of the new-born among mankind and in\nthe animal world is large--very large, and yet definitely bounded. Normal\nconditions were naturally without special significance, but any deviation\nfrom the normal was regarded as a sign calling for interpretation. Such\ndeviations covered a wide and almost boundless range from peculiar\nformations of any part of the body or of the features, to actual\nmalformations and monstrosities. The general underlying principle was, the\ngreater the abnormality, the greater the significance attached to it; and\nas in the case of the movements in the heaven, the unusual was regarded as\nan indication of some imminent unusual occurrence. We are fortunate in\npossessing among the tablets of Ashurbanapal's library, unearthed by\nLayard just fifty years ago and which is still our main source for the\nBabylonian-Assyrian religious literature, many hundreds of texts\nfurnishing lists of birth omens and their interpretation[12], just as we\nhave many hundreds of texts dealing with liver divination[13], and even\nmore dealing with Astrology[14], apart from the many hundreds of texts\ndealing with miscellaneous omens of which up to the present only a small\nproportion has been published[15]. From this division of the great\ncollection gathered by Ashurbanapal's scribes chiefly from the temple\narchives of Babylonia, it appears that the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests made extensive\ncollections of all kinds of omens which served the purpose of official\nhand-books to be consulted in case of questions put to the priests as to\nthe significance of any particular phenomenon, and which were also used as\ntextbooks for the training of the aspirants to the priesthood.\n\nConfining ourselves to the birth-omens[16], the first question that arises\nis whether the signs entered are based on actual occurrences or are\nfanciful. In the case of many entries, as will presently be made evident,\nthe anomalies noted rest upon =actual= observation, but with the desire of\nthe priests to embrace in their collections all possible contingencies so\nas to be prepared for any question that might at any time arise, a large\nnumber of signs were entered which the diviners thought _might_ occur. In\nother words, in order to be on the safe side the diviners allowed their\nfancy free rein and registered many things that we can positively say\nnever did occur and never could occur[17]. With the help of hand-books on\nhuman and animal pathology, we can without difficulty distinguish between\ntwo classes. Thus, twins being regarded as significant and triplets even\nmore so, the priests did not stop at this point but provided for cases\nwhen four, five six up to eight and more infants were born at one\ntime[18]. Again in regard to animals, inasmuch as bitches and sows may\nthrow a litter of ten and even more, the priests in their collections\ncarried the number up to thirty[19] which is, of course, out of the\nquestion. For sheep and goats the number was extended up to ten, though it\nprobably never happened that more than triplets were ever born to an ewe\nor to a mother-goat. Even twins are rare, and I am told that there are few\nauthenticated cases of triplets.\n\nMalformations among infants and the young of animals were of course\nplentiful, but here too the anomalies and monstrosities are not as\nnumerous and varied as were entered in the handbooks of the Babylonian and\nAssyrian diviners. The factor of fancy to which I have referred enters\neven more largely in the entries of many actual malformations, through the\nassumption of a more or less fanciful resemblance of some feature or of\nsome part of an infant or of the young of an animal with the features or\nparts of some animal.\n\nAn excess number of limbs--three legs or four arms in the case of an\ninfant, or five or six legs in the case of a lamb, puppy, pig or foal, or\ntwo heads--is not uncommon. On this basis the priests entered cases of\nexcess legs and arms and heads up to nine and more[20]; and similarly in\nregard to ears and eyes.\n\nThat, however, despite the largely fanciful character of the entries in\nthe omen texts, these collections not only rested on a firm basis of\nactual observation, but served a practical purpose is shown by the\nexamples that we have of official reports made by the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests of\nhuman and animal anomalies, with the interpretations attached that\nrepresent quotations from the collections[21]. A report of this kind in\nreference to an animal monstrosity reads in part as follows[22]:\n\n 'If it is a double foetus, but with one head, a double spine, two\n tails and one body, the land that is now ruled by two will be ruled\n by one person.\n\n If it is a double foetus with one head, the land will be safe.'\n\nWe have here two quotations from a text furnishing all kinds of\npeculiarities connected with a double foetus and we are fortunate in\nhaving the text from which the quotations are made[23]. Evidently an ewe\nhas given birth to a monstrosity such as is here described, the case has\nbeen reported to the diviners who furnish the king[24] with this report,\nindicating that since the monstrosity has only one head, what might have\nbeen an unfavorable omen is converted into a favorable one.\n\nAnother report[25] regarding a monstrosity born of a sow reads:\n\n 'If a foetus has eight feet and two tails, the ruler will acquire\n universal sway. A butcher, Uddanu by name, reported as follows: A sow\n gave birth (to a young) having eight feet and two tails. I have\n preserved it in salt and kept it in the house. From\n Nergal-etir[26].'\n\nHere we have the name of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priest who made the report expressly\nindicated. The report begins with a quotation from the collections,\nindicating the interpretation to be put upon the occurrence, after which\nthe report of the actual event that took place is given in detail; and\nNergal-etir is careful to add that he has preserved the specimen as a\nproof of its occurrence, precisely as to-day such a monstrosity would be\nbottled and kept in a pathological museum. In another report[27]\ncontaining various quotations from the collections of birth-omens and\nclosing with one in regard to a mare that had given birth to two colts,\none male and one female, with smooth hair over the ears, over the feet,\nmouth and hoofs, which is interpreted as a favorable sign[28], the one who\nmakes the report adds 'Whether this is so, I shall ascertain. It will be\ninvestigated according to instructions'. Evidently, the facts had not been\ndefinitely ascertained and the diviner, while furnishing the\ninterpretations for various possibilities, promises to inform himself\ndefinitely and report again as to the exact nature of the unusual\noccurrence. Frequently these omen reports contain interesting and\nimportant allusions to historical events which are then embodied in the\ncollections[29]. In fact the event which followed upon any unusual or\nstriking sign, whether in the heavens or among the newly born or what not,\nwas carefully noted and on the principle of =post hoc propter hoc= was\nregarded as the event presaged by the sign in question. The definite\nindication of the interpretation to be put upon the omen itself was\nsupplied by the actual event that followed upon the appearance of some\nsign, though it was not supposed that the sign would always be followed by\nthe same occurrence. The point to which attention was primarily directed\nwas whether the occurrence was of a favorable or an unfavorable nature. If\nfavorable, the conclusion was drawn that the sign was a favorable one and\nhence in the event of its recurrence some favorable incident might be\nexpected according to existing circumstances--victory in an impending\nbattle, suppression of an uprising, recovery of some member of the royal\nhousehold who may be lying ill, good crops at the approaching harvest or\nwhatever the case may be--or in general a favorable answer to any question\nput by a ruler. The same would apply to a combination of signs, one of the\nfundamental principles of divination being--once favorable, always\nfavorable.\n\nAmong the birth-omen reports we have one containing a historical reference\nof unusual interest[30].\n\n 'If the foetus is male and female--omen of Azag-Bau who ruled the\n land. The king's country will be seized.\n\n If a foetus is male and female, without testicles, a son of the\n palace[31] will rule the land or will assert himself against the\n king.'\n\nWe must assume in this case that a monstrosity has been born, having\npartly male and partly female organs. The priest by way of interpretation\nnotes a series of signs registered in the collections, all prognosticating\nan abnormal state of affairs--a woman on the throne, captivity, seizure\nof the throne by an usurper and revolt. We frequently find in the\ncollections several interpretations registered in this way,--a valuable\nindication of the manner in which these collections were compiled by the\npriests from a variety of documents before them. The name of this female\nruler, hitherto known only from this report and from a list of proper\nnames in which Azag-Bau occurred, has now turned up in an important list\nof early dynasties ruling in the Euphratean Valley, discovered and\npublished by Scheil[32]. We may conclude, therefore, that at the time that\nAzag-Bau sat on the throne or shortly before, such a monstrosity actually\ncame to light. As an unusual occurrence it presaged something unusual, and\nwas naturally associated with the extraordinary circumstance of a woman\nmounting the throne. Azag-Bau according to the newly discovered list is\nthe founder of a dynasty ruling in Erech as a centre and whose date\nappears to be somewhere between 2800 and 3000 B. C.--possibly even\nearlier. As a founder of a dynasty that overthrew a previous one, Azag-Bau\nmust have engaged in hostilities with other centres, so that the second\ninterpretation that 'the king's country will be seized' may well refer to\nsome historical event of the same general period. Be that as it may, the\nimportant point for us is that we have here another proof of the practical\npurpose served by the observation of birth-omens.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nPassing now to some illustrations of birth-omens from the collections of\nthe =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, let us first take up some texts dealing with omens\nfrom the young of animals. Naturally, the animals to which attention was\ndirected were the domesticated ones--sheep, goats, cows, dogs, horses and\npigs. Among these the most prominent is the sheep, corresponding to the\nsignificance attached to the sheep in liver divination where it is, in\nfact, the only animal whose liver is read as a means of forecasting the\nfuture[33]. As a result of this particularly prominent position taken by\nthe sheep in birth-omens, the word =isbu=, designating the normal or\nabnormal foetus--human or animal--when introduced without further\nqualification generally indicates the foetus of a sheep[34].\n\nA text[35] dealing with a double foetus, i. e., of a sheep[36], reads in\npart as follows:\n\n 'If it is a double foetus with slits (?) on the head and tail, the\n land will be secure.\n\n If it is a double foetus and enclosed[37], confusion in the country,\n the dynasty [will come to an end].\n\n If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, the king\n will [subdue ?] the land.\n\n If it is a double foetus and encompassed like an enclosure, confusion\n in the land, hostilities [in the country].\n\n If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, with slits\n on the body, end of the dynasty, confusion and disturbances in the\n country.\n\n If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, with twisted\n necks and only one head, the land will remain under one head.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If it is a double foetus, the heads enclosed, with eight legs and\n only one spine, the land will be visited by a destructive storm[38].\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one head, the land will be secure,\n the ruler will prevail against his enemy, peace and prosperity in the\n country[39].\n\n If it is a double foetus with one head, a double spine, eight feet,\n two necks and two tails, the king will enlarge his land.\n\n If it is a double foetus with one head, double spine, two tails and\n one body, then the land that is ruled by two will be ruled by one.\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one head and one spine, eight\n feet, two necks and two tails, the king will enlarge his land.\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one neck, the ruler will enlarge\n his land.\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one spine, the ruler will enlarge\n his land.\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one mouth, the land will remain\n under the command of the king.\n\n If it is a double foetus with only one breast, the land will be\n enlarged, rule of a legitimate king.\n\nIn order to grasp the principles underlying the interpretation of such\nomens, we must take as our starting point the conceptions connected with\nthe various parts of the body. Bearing in mind that the omens deal\nprimarily with public affairs and the general welfare and only to a\nlimited extent with private and individual concerns[40], the head of the\nfoetus by a natural association stands for the ruler or occasionally for\nthe owner of the mother lamb. One head to the double foetus, therefore,\nindicates unity--a single rule--whereas two heads point to disruption of\nsome kind. If the double foetus is so entwined as to be shut in within an\nenclosure, a similarly natural association of ideas would lead to the\ncountry being shut in, in a state of confusion, the land in a condition of\nsubjugation or the like. On the other hand, if merely the heads are\nenclosed so as to give the impression of unity and the rest of the two\nbodies is disentangled, the unfavorable sign is converted into a favorable\none. A second principle involved in the interpretation results in a more\nfavorable conclusion if the double foetus shows less complications. So, a\nsingle neck or a single spine or a single breast or a single mouth point\nagain, like a single head, towards unity and therefore to flourishing\nconditions in the land. In the case of legs and tails, to be sure, the\nconditions seem to be reversed--the eight legs and two tails and two necks\nwith one head pointing to enlargement of the land, whereas a double foetus\nwith only six or five feet forebodes some impending misfortune[41].\n\nLet us proceed further with this text.\n\n If it is a double foetus, one well formed and the second issuing from\n the mouth of the first[42], the king will be killed and his army will\n [revolt ?], his oil plantation and his dwelling will be destroyed[43].\n\n If it is a double foetus, the second lying at the tail [of the\n first], with two breasts and two tails, there will be no unity in the\n land[44].\n\n If it is a double foetus, and the second lies at the tail of the\n first and enclosed and both are living, ditto.\n\n If it is a double foetus, and one rides over the other, victory,\n throne will support throne.\n\n If it is a double foetus and one rides over the other and there is\n only one head, the power of the king will conquer the enemy's land.\n\n If it is a double foetus, one above and one below, with only one\n spine and eight feet, four [Variant: 'two'] ears, and two tails,\n throne will support throne.\n\n If it is a double foetus with the faces downward, approach of the son\n of the king, who will take the throne of his father, or a second son\n of the king will die, or a third son of the king will die.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If it is a double foetus with five feet, serious hostility in the\n country, the house of the man will perish, his stall[45] will be\n destroyed.\n\n If it is a double foetus with six feet, the population will be\n diminished, confusion in the land.\n\n If it is a foetus within a foetus, the king will weaken his enemy,\n his possessions will be brought into the palace[46].\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a foetus gives birth to a second foetus[47], the king will assert\n himself against his opponent.\n\nIt will be observed that in quite a number of cases two alternative\ninterpretations are given, one of an official character referring to the\npublic welfare, or to occurrences in the royal household[48], the other of\nan unofficial character bearing on the welfare of the individual to whom\nthe mother lamb that had produced the monstrosity belonged. One foetus\nissuing from the other, or one within the other, appears to have been a\nfavorable or an unfavorable sign, according to the position of the second.\nIf the one lay above the other, the association of ideas pointed to a\ncontrol of the ruler over his enemy. In some cases, the association of\nideas leading to the interpretation is not clear; and we must perhaps\nassume in such instances an entry of an event that =actually= occurred\nafter the birth of the monstrosity in question. A certain measure of\narbitrariness in the interpretations also constitutes a factor to be taken\ninto consideration; and the last thing that we need to expect in any\nsystem of divination is a =consistent= application of any principle\nwhatsoever.\n\nThe text passes on to an enumeration of the case of an ewe giving birth to\nmore than two lambs. The 'official' interpretations are throughout\nunfavorable[49], and the priests were quite safe in their entries which\nwere purely arbitrary in these cases, since such multiple births never\noccurred. It is worth while to quote these interpretations as an\nillustration of the fanciful factor that, as already indicated, played a\nnot insignificant part in the system unfolded.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to three (lambs), the prosperity of the country\n will be annulled, but things will go well with the owner of the ewe,\n his stall will be enlarged.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to three fully developed (lambs), the dynasty\n will meet with opposition, approach of an usurper, the country will\n be destroyed.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to four, the land will encounter hostility, the\n produce of the land will be swept away, approach of an usurper,\n destruction in the land.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to four fully developed lambs, [locusts (?)]\n will come and [destroy] the country.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to four, approach of an usurper, the country\n will be destroyed.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to five, destruction will ravage the country,\n the owner of the house will die, his stall will be destroyed.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to five, one with the head of a bull[50], one\n with a lion-head, one with a jackal-head, one with a dog-head and one\n with the head of a lamb[51], devastation will take place in the\n country.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to six, confusion among the population.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to seven,--three male and four female--, the\n king will perish.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to eight, approach of an usurper, the tribute\n of the king will be withheld.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to nine, end of the dynasty.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to ten, a weakling will acquire universal\n sovereignty[52].\n\nThe general similarity of the interpretations may be taken as a further\nindication that the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests were simply giving their fancy free\nscope in making prognostications for conditions that could never arise;\nnor is it of serious moment that in the case of triplets the\ninterpretation is favorable to the owner of the ewe, or that in the case\nof ten lambs, even the official interpretation is not distinctly\nunfavorable--in view of the purely 'academic' character of such entries.\n\nAn extract from a long text[53] furnishing omens derived from all kinds of\npeculiarities and abnormal phenomena noted on the ears of an\nanimal--primarily again the sheep, though no doubt assumed to be\napplicable to other domesticated animals--will throw further light on the\nsystem of divination devised by the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, and will also\nillustrate the extravagant fancy of the priests in their endeavor to make\ntheir collections provide for all possible and indeed for many impossible\ncontingencies.\n\n If a foetus[54] lacks the right ear, the rule of the king will come\n to an end, his palace will be destroyed, overthrow of the elders of\n the city, the king will be without counsellors, confusion in the\n land, diminution of the cattle in the land, the enemy will acquire\n control[55].\n\n If the foetus lacks a left ear, a god will harken to the prayer of\n the king, the king will take the land of his enemy, the palace of the\n enemy will be destroyed, the enemy will be without a counsellor, the\n cattle of the enemy's country will be diminished, the enemy will lose\n control.\n\n If the right ear of the foetus is detached, the stall[56] will be\n destroyed.\n\n If the left ear of the foetus is detached, the enemy's stall will be\n destroyed.\n\n If the right ear of the foetus is split, the herd will be destroyed\n or the leaders of the city will leave (it)[57].\n\n If the left ear of the foetus is split, the herd will be enlarged,\n the leaders of the enemy's country will leave (it).\n\n If the right ear of the foetus is split and swollen with clay, the\n country [will have a rival].\n\n If the left ear of the foetus is split and swollen with clay, the\n enemy's country will have a rival.\n\n If the right ear of the foetus is destroyed, the stall will be\n enlarged, the stall of the enemy will be diminished.\n\n If the outside of the right ear is destroyed, the land will yield to\n the enemy's land.\n\n If the right ear of the foetus lies near the cheek[58], the enemy\n will prevail against the power of the king, the king will be without\n counsellors, a ruler will not inhabit the land, or the son of the\n king of universal sway[59] will be king.\n\n If the left ear of the foetus lies near the cheek, an enemy will be\n installed in the royal palace.\n\n If the right ear of the foetus lies near the jaw, birth of a\n demon[60] in my land, or in the house of the man[61].\n\n If the left ear of the foetus lies near the jaw, birth of a demon in\n the enemy's land, or the land of the enemy will perish.\n\nThe guiding principle of the interpretation in these instances is the\nnatural association of the right as your side and the left with the\nenemy's side. A defect on the right side is unfavorable to you, i. e., to\nthe king or to the country or to the individual in whose household the\nbirth occurs, while the same defect on the left side is unfavorable to the\nenemy and, therefore, favorable to you. The principle is quite\nconsistently carried out even to the point that if the sign itself is\nfavorable, it is only when it is found on the right side that it is\nfavorable to you, while its occurrence on the left side is favorable to\nthe enemy.\n\nDefects of any kind appear to be unfavorable, whereas an excess of organs\nand parts are in many instances favorable, though with a considerable\nmeasure of arbitrariness.\n\n If the foetus has two ears on the right side and none on the left,\n the boundary city of the enemy will become subject to you.\n\n If the foetus has two ears on the left side and none on the right,\n your boundary city will become subject to the enemy.\n\n If the foetus has two ears on the right side and one on the left, the\n land will remain under the control of the ruler.\n\n If the foetus has two ears on the left side and one on the right, the\n land will revolt.\n\n If within the right ear of the foetus a second ear[62] appears, the\n ruler will have counsellors.\n\n If within the left ear of the foetus there is a second ear, the\n counsellors of the ruler will advise evilly.\n\n If behind the right ear of the foetus there is a second ear, the\n ruler will have counsellors.\n\n If behind the left ear of the foetus there is a second ear, confusion\n in the land, the land will be destroyed[63].\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a foetus has [four] ears, a king of universal sway will be in the\n land.\n\n [If a foetus has four ears], two lying in front (and) two in back,\n the ruler will acquire possessions in a strange country[64].\n\n * * * * *\n\n If behind the right ear, there are two ears, visible on the\n outside[65], the inhabitants of the boundary city will become subject\n to the enemy.\n\n If behind the left ear there are two ears visible on the outside, the\n inhabitants of the boundary city of the enemy will become subject to\n you.\n\n If a foetus has three ears, one on the left side and two on the right\n side, the angry gods will return to the country.\n\n If a foetus has three ears, one on the left side and two on the\n right, the gods will kill within the country.\n\n If within the right ear of a foetus there are three ears with the\n inner sides well formed, the opponent will conclude peace with the\n king whom he fears, the army of the ruler will dwell in peace with\n him.\n\n If within the left ear of a foetus there are three ears with the\n inner sides well formed, thy ally will become hostile.\n\n If behind each of the two ears there are three ears visible on the\n outside, confusion in the land, the counsel of the land will be\n discarded, one land after the other will revolt.\n\n If within each of two ears there are three ears visible on the inner\n side, things will go well with the ruler's army.\n\n If within each of the two ears there are three ears, visible on the\n outside and the inside, the army of the ruler will forsake him and\n his land will revolt.\n\n If within each of the two ears there are three ears, visible on the\n outside and the inside, the army of the ruler will forsake him and\n his land will revolt.\n\n If the ears of a foetus are choked up[66], in place of a large king a\n small king will be in the land.\n\nIn general, therefore, an excess number of ears points to enlargement,\nincreased power, stability of the government and the like; and this is\nprobably due in part to the association of wisdom and understanding with\nthe ear in Babylonian[67], for as a general thing an excess of organs or\nof parts of the body is an unfavorable sign, because a deviation from the\nnormal.\n\nIn the same way as in the case of the ears, we have birth-omen texts\ndealing with the head, lips, mouth, eyes, feet, joints, tail, genital\norgans, hair, horns and other parts of the body[68]. In many of these\ntexts dealing with all kinds of peculiar formations and abnormalities in\nthe case of one organ or one part of the body or the other, a comparison\nis instituted between the features or parts of one animal with those of\nanother and the interpretation is guided by the association of ideas with\nthe animal compared. A moment's reflection will show the importance of\nthis feature in extending the field of observation almost =ad infinitum=.\nA lamb born with a large head might suggest a lion, a small long head that\nof a dog, or a very broad face might suggest the features of a bull. From\ncomparisons of this kind, the step would be a small one to calling a lamb\nwith lion-like features, a lion, or a lamb with features recalling those\nof a dog, a dog and so on through the list, the interpretations being\nchosen through the ideas associated with the animal in question. A text of\nthis kind[69], of which we have many, reads in part as follows.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, the abandoned weapons will make an\n attack (again), the king will be without a rival.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but with a head of a 'rain bow'\n bird[70], the son will seize the throne of his father.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are\n (also) human, the power of the king will conquer a powerful country.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those\n of a lamb, the young cattle will not prosper.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those\n of an ass, severe famine will occur in the country.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those\n of a dog, Nergal[71] will cause destruction.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion but (some of) the features are those\n of a =khupipi=[72], the ruler will be without a rival and will\n destroy the land of his enemy.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but with the mouth of a wild cow,\n the rule of the king will not prosper.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion but with the mouth of a bull, famine\n will ensue.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the horny exuberance of an ibex\n on its face, prices will be lowered[73].\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the horny exuberance of an ibex\n on its face and if the eyes are open[74], prices will be high.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion with fatty flesh on the nose, the\n land will be well nourished.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and the right temple is covered with\n fatty flesh, the land will be richly blessed.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and the left temple is covered with\n fatty flesh,--rivalry.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and it is covered all over with\n fatty flesh, the king will be without a rival.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion but without a head[75], death of the\n ruler.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the gorge torn off[76],\n destruction of the land, the mistress[77] will die.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the gorge torn off and a\n mutilated tail[78], the land [will be destroyed (?)]\n\nFrom texts like these it would appear that the phrase of 'an ewe giving\nbirth to a lion' had acquired a purely conventional force to describe a\nlamb whose head or general features suggested those of a lion. It may have\ncome to be used indeed for a newly born lamb of unusually large\nproportions. Hence one could combine with the description of a lion-lamb\nsuch further specifications as that it also suggested human features, or\nlooked like an ass or a dog, or that while it came under the category of a\nlion-lamb, it yet had some of the features of a normal lamb. At all events\nwe must not credit the Babylonians or Assyrians with so absurd a belief as\nthat an ewe could actually produce a lion. Such a supposition is at once\ndisposed of when we come to other texts where we find entries of an ewe\nproducing a whole series of animals--a jackal, dog, fox, panther, hyena,\ngazelle, etc. and where we must perforce assume resemblances between a\nyoung lamb and the animals in question and not any extravagant views of\npossible cross-breeding[79]. To clinch the matter, we have quite a number\nof passages in which the preposition 'like' is introduced[80] instead of\nthe direct equation, showing that when the texts speak of an ewe giving\nbirth to a lion, a jackal, a dog, etc., the priests had in mind merely a\nresemblance as the basis of such statements.\n\nThe general idea associated with the lion in divination texts is that of\npower, success, increase and the like. The sign, therefore, of an ewe\nproducing a lion is a favorable one; it is only through attendant\ncircumstances that the character of the sign is transformed into an\nunfavorable or partly unfavorable omen. So in case the lion-lamb has a\nhead suggestive of the variegated colors of the rainbow bird, the sign\nstill points to power, but to a power exercised by the crown prince\nagainst the father. If some of the features suggest those of an ass or of\na dog or of a pig, the ideas associated with these animals convert what\nwould otherwise have been a favorable sign into an unfavorable one. The\nmouth of a wild cow or of a bull, thus interfering with the complete\nidentification of the young lamb as a lion-lamb, similarly, brings about\nan unfavorable interpretation. Fatty flesh by a natural association points\nto increased prosperity, while mutilations of the head, tail or of any\nother part naturally carry with them unfavorable prognostications.\n\nIt is interesting to see from a long list of comparisons of a new-born\nlamb with all kinds of animals[81] the extent to which the association of\nideas connected with the animals in question is carried.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a dog ... the king's land will revolt.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a beaver[82] (?), the king's land will\n experience misery.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a fox, Enlil[83] will maintain the rule of\n the legitimate king for many years, or[84] the king will strengthen\n his power.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a Mukh-Dul[85], the enemy will carry away\n the inhabitants of the land, the land will despite its strength go to\n ruin, the dynasty will be opposed, confusion in the land.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a panther, the kingdom of the ruler will\n secure universal sway.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a hyena (?), approach of Elam.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a gazelle, the days of the ruler through the\n grace of the gods will be long, or the ruler will have warriors.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a hind, the son of the king will seize his\n father's throne, or the approach of Subartu will overthrow the land.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a roebuck, the son of the king will seize\n his father's throne, or destruction of cattle[86].\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a wild cow, revolt will prevail in the\n land.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to an ox, the weapons of the ruler will prevail\n over the weapons of the enemy.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to an ox that has _ganni_[87], the ruler will\n weaken the land of his enemy.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to an ox with two tails, omen of Ishbi-Ura[88],\n who was without a rival.\n\n If an ewe gives birth to a cow, the king will die, another king will\n draw nigh and divide the country.\n\nOne might have supposed that such omens represent a purely imaginative\ntheoretical factor, but the introduction of the historical reference\nproves conclusively that the Babylonians and Assyrians attached an\nimportance to the fancied resemblance of an animal to an other, and that\nin the case of such strange statements as that an ewe gives birth to one\nof a series of all kinds of animals, it is this fancied resemblance that\nforms the basis and the point of departure for the interpretation.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nIf, now, we turn to birth-omens in the case of infants, we find in the\nomen texts the same two classes, those in which all kinds of abnormalities\nand malformations are registered, and such in which the fancied\nresemblance of the new-born infant to some animal, or of some features of\nan infant to those of an animal is introduced as a factor. The principles\nunderlying the interpretation, so far as they can be recognized, are\nnaturally the same as in the case of birth-omens for the young of\ndomesticated animals. A few illustrations will make this clear.\n\nA text[89] dealing with twins, and passing on to multiple births up to\neight, reads in part as follows:\n\n If a woman gives birth to two boys, famine will prevail in the land,\n the interior of the country will witness misfortune, and misfortune\n will enter the house of their father[90].\n\n If a woman gives birth to two boys with one body--no union between\n man and wife, [that house will be reduced][91].\n\n If a woman gives birth to two boys of normal appearance, that\n house[92] ...\n\n If a woman gives birth to a boy and a girl, ill luck will enter the\n land, the land will be diminished.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the spine, with the faces\n [back to back ?], the gods will forsake the country, the king and his\n son will abandon the city.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins without noses and feet, the land\n [will be diminished][93].\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins in an abnormal condition, the land\n will perish, the house of the man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides[94], the land\n ruled by one will be controlled by two.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, (and) the right\n hand of the one lying to the right is missing, the weapon of the\n enemy will kill me, the land will be diminished, weakness will bring\n about defeat and my army will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left\n hand of the one lying to the left is missing[95] ...\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides and the right\n hands are missing--attack, the enemy will destroy the produce of the\n land.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left\n hands are missing, [the produce of the enemy's land will be\n destroyed][96].\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins, united at the sides, and the right\n foot of the one lying to the right is missing, the enemy will abandon\n the rest of my land, the land will be captured.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left\n foot of the one lying to the left, is missing, I will [abandon] the\n rest of the enemy's land, [and the land of the enemy will be\n captured[97]].\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the right\n feet are missing, the seat of the country[98] will be overthrown and\n captured.\n\n If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides and the left feet\n are missing, the seat of the enemy's land [will be overthrown and\n captured].\n\n If a woman gives birth to two girls, the house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to two girls and they die[99] ...\n\n If a woman gives birth to three well developed girls, the land of the\n ruler will be enlarged.\n\n If a woman gives birth to two girls with one body, [no union] between\n man [and wife, the land will be diminished][100].\n\n If a woman gives birth to two girls of normal appearance ...[101].\n\n If a woman gives birth to three boys, distress will seize the land\n ...\n\n If a woman gives birth to [four (?)] boys, [destruction in the\n land][102].\n\nThrough another fragment[103], the list of multiple births is carried up\nto eight--a perfectly safe procedure on the part of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests,\nsince it is unlikely that the case of more than four births at one time\never occurred in the whole scope of Babylonian-Assyrian history. The\ninterpretations in the case of more than triplets appear to have been\nconsistently unfavorable. Even twins, as is apparent from the above\nentries, were generally regarded as unfavorable, because of the deviation\nfrom the normal involved; and this was certainly the case when monstrous\nfactors were connected with the double birth--the two united at the backs\nor at the sides--or when the twins lacked a part of the body such as\nnoses, hands or feet. The fundamental distinction between the right side\nas representing your side and the left as the enemy's side intervenes to\ndifferentiate between the application of the omen to the king or to the\ncountry on the one hand, and to the enemy or his country on the other.\n\nCorresponding to the text above discussed[104], in which interpretations\nare offered for all kinds of malformations or peculiarities, in connection\nwith the ears of newly-born animals, we have a text[105] furnishing omens\nin the same way in the case of human births.\n\n If a woman gives birth, (and the child has) a lion's ear, a powerful\n king will rule in the land.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear[106] is missing, the life\n of the ruler will come to an end.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is missing, the life of the\n king will be long.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both ears are missing, famine will\n prevail in the country, and the land will be diminished.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is small, the house of the\n man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is small, the house of the\n man will be enlarged.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both ears are small, the house of the man\n will be overthrown.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is detached[107], the house\n of the man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is detached, the house of\n the opponent will be destroyed, the house of the man[108] will be\n enlarged.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both ears are detached, the house of the\n man will encounter misfortune.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear reaches to the cheek, a\n weakling will be born in the man's house.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear reaches to the cheek, a\n strong one will be born in the man's house[109].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both ears reach to the cheek, that land\n will be destroyed, protection will be withdrawn.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is deformed, a weakling\n will be born in the man's house.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is deformed, a strong one\n will be born in the man's house[110].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right ear of the child lies at the\n lower jaw[111], the son of the man will destroy the man's house.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left ear lies at the lower jaw, the\n son of the man will encircle the man's house[112].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and there are two ears on the right side and\n the left ear is missing, the angry gods will return to the land and\n the land will have peace.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and there are two ears on the left side and\n the right ear is missing, the counsel of the land will be disturbed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both ears are flattened,--revolt.\n\nThe principle consistently applied throughout these omens is that a defect\nor deformity on the right side is an unfavorable sign, and that the same\nphenomenon on the left side is unfavorable to the enemy, or favorable to\nyou. A large ear--suggesting that of a lion--points by association to\nenlargement and increased strength.\n\nThe text then passes on to other peculiarities.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and (the child has) the mouth of a bird, that\n land will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the mouth is missing, the mistress of the\n house will die.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right nostril is missing,--injury.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both nostrils are missing, the land will\n experience distress, the house of the man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the jaws are missing[113], the days of\n the ruler will come to an end, the house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the lower jaw is missing, the enemy will\n take the boundary strip of my land.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the arms (?) are missing, the house of\n the man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the arms (?) are short, he will attain\n favor.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the upper lip rides over the lower\n one[114], he will attain favor.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the lips are missing, the land will\n encounter distress, the house of the man will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and one arm is short, that man will be\n preferred[115].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right hand is missing, that land will\n suffer destruction.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both hands are missing, the enemy will\n conquer the city of the new-born[116].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the fingers of the right hand are\n missing, the ruler will be hemmed in by his enemy.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and there are six fingers on the right hand,\n misfortune will seize the house.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and there are six toes on the right and on\n the left foot, the children[117] will encounter misfortune.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and there are six toes on the right foot,\n there will be injury[118].\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the genital member is missing, the master\n of the house will be weakened, drying up of the field.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the genital member and the testicles are\n missing, the land will encounter misfortune, the woman[119] will\n suffer pain, the house[120] will control the palace[121].\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the anus is closed[122], the land will\n suffer famine.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the anus [is missing ?], the king will be\n restrained in his palace.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right thigh is missing, the land of\n the ruler will go to ruin.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left thigh is missing, the enemy's\n land will go to ruin.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth, and both feet are missing, the course of the\n land will be checked, that house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right foot [of the child] is like\n that of a turtle[123], the enemy will destroy the property of the\n land.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and hands and feet are like those of a\n turtle, the ruler will destroy the product of his land.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the feet are attached to the belly\n (?)[124], the possession of the house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the child has only one foot, which is\n attached to the belly (?) and does not [touch] the ground[125] the\n land will suffer misfortune, the house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and it has three feet of which two are\n entwined in one another[126] with the body, destruction will prevail\n in the land.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and it has four feet and genital member and\n pudenda are there, the land will suffer misfortune, a strange ruler\n will appear on the scene.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the right leg is missing, the land of the\n ruler will go to ruin.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the left leg is missing, the enemy's land\n will go to ruin.\n\nIn general, malformations are looked upon as unfavorable, as are also\nexcess organs or parts e. g. six fingers or six toes; and it is only\noccasionally that a peculiarity such as shortened arms or a protruding\nupper lip, receives a favorable interpretation. The variations in the\ninterpretations themselves are not numerous, and for the most part are\nprobably selected in an entirely arbitrary fashion, though here, too, as\nhas been pointed out several times, association of ideas enters as a\nfactor, as, e. g., where large ears are made to point to increased power.\nAt the same time, it is also clear that the great majority of the\nmalformations and abnormalities in the text that we have just discussed\nare such as =actually= do occur and with the help of medical works on\nhuman malformations[127], many of the omens described in this and in other\ntexts can be identified. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the\ncollections of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests dealing with birth-omens observed in\ninfants, likewise, rest upon actual observations, though the field was\nextended by passing on from actual to purely fanciful and impossible\nabnormalities. The extent to which this attempt to provide for all kinds\nof contingencies was carried in the collections is illustrated by a\nportion of the first tablet of a series[128] dealing with human\nbirth-omens. This section treating in part of the birth of shapeless\nabortions reads as follows:\n\n If a woman gives birth to =pudenda=[129], the royal dynasty will be\n changed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a head[130], the land will encounter\n distress.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a form of some kind[131], king against\n king,--his rival, will prevail.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a foetus[132], the land will encounter\n distress.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a foetus in which there is a second, the\n rule of the king and of his sons will come to an end ... the power of\n the land [will dwindle].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a mass of clay[133], the king's land will\n oppose him and cause terror.\n\n If a woman is pregnant with a mass of clay and gives birth to a mass\n of clay, misfortune will come, the mother will close off her gate\n against the daughter, there will be no protection, the man[134] will\n go to ruin, the produce of the field will not prosper.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a male still-birth, Nergal[135] will\n destroy, the man[136] will die before his time.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a weak boy, distress, destruction of the\n house[137].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a weak girl, that house will be destroyed\n by fire.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a lame boy, distress, that house [will be\n destroyed].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a lame girl, =ditto=.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a cripple, that house will be plundered.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a crippled girl, that house [will be\n destroyed ?].\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth to something that has no face[138], the land\n will experience sorrow, that house will not prosper.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a weakling, that city[139] [will experience\n misfortune ?].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a crippled being, the land will experience\n sorrow, that house [will not prosper].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a deaf mute, the house will be shut in.\n\n * * * * *\n\n If a woman gives birth to a dwarf[140] of a half-shape, that city\n will be opposed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a half-shaped being with bearded lips[141],\n talking[142], and that moves about, and has teeth[143]--hostility of\n Nergal, the crushing force of a powerful attack on the land, a\n god[144] will destroy, streets will be attacked, houses will be\n seized.\n\nOne may question whether all of such monstrosities actually occurred,\nthough they are all possible, if we add the factor of fancy to account for\nsome of the descriptions. The conventional character of the\ninterpretations and the constant repetition of the same prognostications\nlikewise indicate the desire on the part of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests to exhaust\ntheir medical knowledge of monstrosities and malformations that could\noccur, in order to swell the collections to the largest possible\nproportions. The first tablet of the series[145] of which an extract has\njust been given, begins with an enumeration of various animals to which a\nnewly born infant bears a resemblance and which is expressed, similarly to\nwhat we found in the animal birth-omens, by the phrase that the woman\ngives birth to the animal in question. The series begins as follows:\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the offspring cries in the womb, the land\n will encounter sickness.\n\n If a woman gives birth, and the offspring cries in the womb and it is\n distinctly heard, a powerful enemy will arise and overthrow the land,\n destruction will sweep the land, the enemy will destroy the precious\n possession, or the master's house will be destroyed.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a lion, that city will be taken, the king\n will be captured.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a dog, the master of the house will die and\n that house will be destroyed, confusion, Nergal will destroy.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a pig, a woman will seize the throne.\n\n If a woman gives birth to an ox, the king of universal rule will\n prevail in the land.\n\n If a woman gives birth to an ass, the king of universal rule will\n prevail in the land.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a lamb, the ruler will be without a rival.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a S\u00e2[146], the ruler will be without a\n rival.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a serpent[147], I will surround the house\n of the master.\n\n If a woman gives birth to a dolphin (?)[148], the house of the [man\n will be enlarged ?].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a fish-being[149], the rule of the king\n will prosper, the gods [will return to the land].\n\n If a woman gives birth to a bird[150],...\n\nThese examples will suffice to show the part played by the supposed\nresemblance of a new-born infant with one animal or the other in the\nBabylonian-Assyrian birth-omens; nor is it difficult to see how the\nthought of such resemblances should arise, for, as a matter of fact, the\nshape of the head of an infant easily suggests that of a dog or a bird.\nThe ear if unusually large might recall a donkey's ear; a small eye, that\nof a pig, and a large one, that of a lion[151]. The association of ideas\nwith the various animals no doubt suggests the interpretation in most\ncases, though in others the interpretation appears to be of a purely\nconventional type and as a rule favorable.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nNow what does all this mean? Is there any larger significance in these\nelaborate collections of birth-omens? Do investigations of this character\nserve any purpose beyond finding out how foolish many millions of people\nwere thousands of years ago, though to be sure it may be some satisfaction\nto ascertain for oneself that foolishness has so venerable an ancestry.\nBouch\u00e9-Leclercq says at the close of his introduction to his great work on\nGreek Astrology[152] that 'it is not a waste of time to find out how other\npeoples wasted theirs'. But there would be small comfort even in such a\nreflection, if studies in the history of divination did not furnish a\nlarger outlook on the development of human thought--if in short such\nstudies did not have some important bearing on the cultural history of\nmankind. Let us see whether this is the case.\n\nSuch is the curious nature of man that his science starts with\nsuperstition. The intellectual effort involved in developing what to us at\nleast must appear as a foolish and erroneous notion, nevertheless, results\nin some positive advantage. We often hear it said that medicine starts\nwith religion, and this is true in the sense that the cure of disease was\nonce closely bound up with the belief that all suffering was due to some\ndemon or invisible spirit that had entered the body--a view that is after\nall not so far removed from the modern 'germ' theory holding for so many\ndiseases, for the germs are practically invisible and their demoniac\ncharacter will assuredly not be denied. The cure of a disease in primitive\nmedicine consisted in driving the demon out of the body, for which again\nwe might without much difficulty find an equivalent in modern medicinal\nmethods. Incantations were supposed to have the power of frightening the\ndemon or in some other way of inducing them to leave the body of the\nvictim, but it was soon discovered that certain herbs and concoctions\nhelped to this end--not that it was at first supposed that such herbs and\nconcoctions were useful to the patient, but that they were =obnoxious= to\nthe demons who preferred to leave their victims rather than endure the\nnasty and ill-smelling combinations that frequently form the medical\nprescriptions attached to the incantations[153]. What we would regard as\nmedicinal remedies were originally given to the patient, with a view and\nin the hope of disgusting the demon that had caused the disease--a\nsupplement therefore to the power attributed to the recitation of certain\ncombinations of words, and all with a view to force the demons to release\ntheir hold on the sufferer by quitting his body. From such superstitious\nbeginnings medicine, closely bound up with the prevailing religious\nbeliefs, took its rise. In the same way, liver divination though as a\npractice it belongs to the period of primitive culture and rests on an\nasumption which from the modern scientific point of view is the height of\nabsurdity, nevertheless, led to the study of anatomy and as a matter of\nfact, the observation of the liver for purposes of divination represents\nthe beginnings of the study of anatomy[154]. Astrology led to astronomy,\nand in the same way the observation of birth-omens gave rise to another\nscience or at least to a mental discipline that until quite recently was\nregarded as a science--namely, the study of human and animal physiognomy.\nThe importance given to any and to all kinds of peculiarities in the case\nof the young of animals and in new-born infants naturally sharpened the\npowers of observation, and led people to carefully scrutinize and study\nthe features of the new-born. The large part played in this scrutiny by\nthe supposed resemblance of the features of an infant to those of some\nanimal formed a natural starting point, from which it was not a very large\nstep to the position that this supposed resemblance had a bearing on the\nchild itself. In other words the birth-omens in so far as they referred to\nphenomena among infants had a double significance; they portended\nsomething of moment either to the general welfare or to the house in which\nthe birth took place and also to the child.\n\nIt is certainly not accidental that in the study of Human Physiognomy as\ncarried on among the Greeks and Romans as well as among mediaeval Arabic\nand Christian writers, the supposed resemblances of people to animals was\none of the chief methods employed for determining the character of an\nindividual. This phase of Human Physiognomy I venture to trace back\ndirectly to divination through birth-omens, which would by a natural\nprocess lead to the study of human features as a means of ascertaining the\ncharacter of an individual. Among the Greeks, the great Plato[155] was\nsupposed to approve of the theory that a man possesses to some extent the\ntraits of the animal that he resembles; and it seems to be a kind of\npoetic justice that a philosopher holding so manifestly absurd a theory\nshould himself, as will presently appear, have been compared by a\ncelebrated physiognomist of the 16{th} century to a dog--though to be sure\nto a dog of the finer type. Polemon and Adamantius many centuries after\nPlato are among the significant names of those who tried to work out the\ntheory in the form of an elaborate science[156]. Aristotle who can\ngenerally be counted upon to have sane views on most subjects opposed this\nmethod of studying human character, though until a few decades ago a work\non Human Physiognomy[157] based on the theory of a man's possessing the\ntraits of the animal that he resembles passed as a production of\nAristotle. It is one of the many merits of modern scholarship to have\nremoved this stigma from the prince of Greek philosophers. Aristotle, as a\nmatter of fact, in a significant passage in his =de Generatione Animalium=\n(IV, 54) denies the possibility of the crossing of an animal of one\nspecies with that of another, and adds that malformations can produce\n=apparent= similarities between animals of different species, but which\nare to be explained through the workings of natural laws. These laws\ncondition deviations from the normal as well as all normal phenomena.\nNothing in nature, Aristotle sums up, can be =contra naturam=. It would\nappear from passages like this that in Aristotle's days the resemblances\nbetween an animal of one species and that of another, and the resemblance\nbetween man and animals had led to the belief of cross breeds to account\nfor such resemblances, while monstrosities among animals and among men\nwere looked upon as omens sent by the gods as a warning or as curses for\ncrimes committed--a point of view that, as we shall see, is likewise to be\ntraced back to Babylonian-Assyrian influences.\n\nThere were others besides Aristotle who opposed the current views, but\nthe curious thing is that even those who rejected the theory of a\ntransition of one species to another still maintained that certain traits\nin an individual could be associated with and explained by features that\nthey had in common with some animal or the other. Notable among these was\nGiovanni Porta, a most distinguished scholar of the 16{th} century, who\nwhile a believer in magic was also a scientific investigator whose\nresearches proved of great value in developing a true theory of light and\nwho among other achievements invented the =camera obscura=. He wrote a\nwork in Latin, =de Humana Physiognomica= (Sorrento, 1586) which he himself\ntranslated into Italian (Naples, 1598) and which subsequently appeared in\nFrench and German editions. It remained in fact the standard work on the\nsubject up to the time of Lavater's great work on Physiognomy at the end\nof the 18{th} century. Porta opposed Plato's theory that a man has the\ntraits of the animal that he resembles, on the ground that a man may have\nfeatures suggesting =various= animals. His forehead may recall that of a\ndog, while his mouth may be like the snout of a swine, and his ears may\nresemble those of an ass. In fact Porta maintains that no man has features\nall of which suggest a comparison with =one= animal only. Yet Porta is of\nthe opinion that the resemblance between men and animals, which is\nself-evident, forms the basis for the study of human character, with this\nmodification, however, which makes the theory even more complicated, that\neach feature,--the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the ears, the\nlips and even the eyebrows, and the color of hair of the head or the\nbeard--betrays some characteristic. It is through the combination of all\nthese features that the character is to be determined, but each feature is\ncompared by Porta to the corresponding one of some animal and its\nsignificance set forth according to the idea associated with the animal.\nPorta's treatise is, therefore, quite as largely taken up with comparisons\nbetween men and animals as are the treaties of other Physiognomists, only\nin more detailed fashion. Thus a long forehead or one not too flat or too\neven, suggested to Porta the character of a sagacious dog and by way of\nillustration (p. 114 and 118)[158] places the portrait of a dog side by\nside with one traditionally supposed to be a likeness of Plato. Dante, so\nPorta tells us, also had such a dog forehead. A square forehead suggests\nthat of a lion (115) and points to magnanimity, courage and\nprudence--provided, he adds, the rest of the face is in proportion; a\nhigh, rounded forehead (117) is compared with that of an ass, and is an\nindication of stupidity and imprudence. In the case of noses, comparisons\nare instituted with the beaks of ravens, eagles and roosters, with the\nnoses of oxen, swine, dogs, apes and stags, and horses. Since the raven is\nan impudent and rapacious bird, he who is endowed by nature with a nose\nthat curves from the forehead outward will also show these unpleasant\nqualities; on the other hand, if the nose is shaped like an eagle's beak,\nthe person will share the magnanimity and royal spirit of the bird of\nJupiter. The illustration (150) shows the picture of the Emperor Sergius\nGalba, side by side with an eagle's face. Cyrus and Artaxerxes, too, are\nsaid to have had noses of this fortunate shape; and by way of confirmation\nof the theory, Porta gives illustrations of the magnanimity of these and\nof other rulers who had a beak like that of an eagle. A nose broad in the\nmiddle and sloping inwards (154), suggesting that of an ox, indicates a\nlying and verbose individual; a thick nose (155) is pictured side by side\nwith a swine's head with the usual uncomplimentary traits associated with\nthat animal. In this way and in most detailed fashion Porta takes up in\nsuccession the mouth, the ears, the eyes, the teeth, the lips, the hair\nand the face in general[159]. A very large and broad face is compared with\nthat of an ox or ass (172 seq.) and indicates ignorance, stupidity,\nlaziness and obstinacy; a very small face resembles that of a cat or an\nape (174 seq.) and prognosticates timidity, shrewd servility and\nnarrowness; a very fleshy face is again compared with that of an ox\n(177); a very bony one with that of an ass, though Porta here as elsewhere\nis somewhat embarrassed by the variant opinions of his authorities\nPseudo-Aristotle, Polemon and Adamantius and not infrequently has recourse\nto textual changes in order to solve difficulties. The doubt as to the\nreasonableness of the whole theory never appears, however, to have entered\nhis mind, and he cheerfully proceeds with his comparisons in the course of\nwhich he introduces notable historical personages as illustrations. In\nthis way Socrates is compared to a stag and because of his baldness is\ngiven a malignant, and, according to others, a lascivious nature (87); the\nEmperor Vitellius is likened to an owl (12); Actiolinus to a hunting dog\nbecause of the groove above his eyes (125); Plato, as we have seen, to a\ndog and Sergius Galba to an eagle, while the head of Alexander the Great,\nthough only of medium size, is compared with that of a lion (72).\n\nSuch was the influence of Porta's work that it remained the authority for\nthe study of Human Physiognomy till towards the end of the 18{th} century\nwhen Lavater's four volumes of \"Physiognomical Fragments\"[160] appeared\nwith their wonderful illustrations, to which the profound impression made\nby the work was largely due. Lavater constantly refers to Porta, but one\nof his main objects is to controvert the thesis that the comparison of\nhuman features with those of animals should form the means of determining\nthe trait indicated by the feature in question. Curiously enough in a\npreliminary outline of his system of Physiognomy[161], Lavater had\nincluded a chapter on the resemblance between man and animals, but by the\ntime he came to work out his system he had changed his mind and henceforth\nopposed Porta's view. To be sure, the grounds on which he does so are more\nof a sentimental than of a scientific character. Lavater--a clergyman and\na believer in the special creation of man by the Divine Power\n(Physiognomische Fragmente II 192),--protests against a possible\nrelationship between man and the animal world, declaring that to see\nanimal features in the human face is to lower the dignity of mankind. Man\ncreated as God's supreme achievement can have nothing to do with the\nanimal creation which represents a lower order of being. Even Lavater does\nnot go so far as to deny all resemblances between human features and those\nof animals. He admits and sympathizes and enlarges on them in several\npassages (II 192; IV 56); but he ascribes them to accident or to fancy,\nand declines to draw therefrom the conclusion that the individual who has\nsome feature or a number of features that suggest those of some animal\nmust, therefore, have the traits associated with the animal or the animals\nin question. It is rather strange that Lavater should not have hit upon\nthe =real= objection to Porta's method which lies in the contradictions in\nwhich he necessarily involves himself by comparing the various features of\nan individual with various animals, the forehead with one animal, the eyes\nwith another, the lips with a third and so on; and since the animals in\nquestion show entirely different and contradictory traits, it is\nmanifestly impossible to reach any rational conclusions as to a man's\ncharacter by so absurd a method. However, although Lavater does not reveal\nthe real weakness of the current theory of Human Physiognomy, yet he\ncontributed to the overthrow of the theory itself which had reached the\nstage of =reductio ad absurdum= through the modifications introduced by\nPorta. It often happens that an outlived theory is set aside through\narguments that are in themselves insufficient to do so.\n\nThrough Lavater the study of Physiognomy was thrown back on the scrutiny\nof human features, and the determination of a man's character by a direct\nmethod and without recourse to comparisons with the features of animals.\nIn thus removing, however, what had been one of the props of the study of\nHuman Physiognomy, Lavater shook the foundation of the study itself. With\nthe advent of modern medicine, the study of Physiognomy was dethroned from\nthe place that it had so long occupied and was relegated to the\npseudo-sciences--an interesting and in many respects a suggestive\nintellectual discipline, but not a science. As a recent writer tersely\nputs it 'The physiognomical feeling and sensation will never die out among\npeople, for the roots lie deep in human nature. It is erroneous, however,\nto attempt to construct a science out of it'[162].\n\nThe thought, however, of endeavoring to determine the character of an\nindividual by a study of the peculiarities and striking indications of his\nfeatures would never have arisen, but for the antecedent beliefs that gave\nto the observation of birth-omens so prominent a place among methods of\ndivination. Corresponding to the emphasis laid upon the individual factor\nwhen Babylonian-Assyrian Astrology passed to the Greeks and which led to\n'Genethlialogy' or the casting of the individual horoscope as the chief\nphase of astrology, in contradistinction to the exclusive bearing of\nastrology in its native haunt on the general welfare[163], the\nBabylonian-Assyrian system of divination through the study of birth-omens\nreceived an individualistic aspect upon passing to the Greeks and Romans,\nby leading to the study of human features as a means of determining the\ncharacter of an individual; and with the character also the\nprognostication of the fate in store for him during his earthly career. In\nother words, the rise of the study of Human Physiognomy finds a natural\nexplanation, if we assume that it takes its rise from a system of\ndivination based on the observation of peculiarities noted at the time of\nbirth. It was natural when divination methods were employed to forecast\nthe future of the individual, that the thought should arise of a close\nrelationship between the features of an individual and his personality,\nwhich would include the powers and qualities bestowed on him, and which\ndetermine his actions and the experiences he will encounter. The fact that\nin this pseudo-science of Physiognomy, the comparison between man and\nanimals played so significant a part among Greek and Roman Physiognomists\nand through them among the scientists of Europe till almost to the\nthreshold of the modern movement in science, adds an additional force to\nthe thesis here set forth. Such a method of determining the traits\npossessed by an individual, and which was the keynote of Human Physiognomy\ntill the days of Lavater, would not have maintained so strong a hold on\nthinkers and on the masses had it arisen in connection with the study\nitself. It was =embodied= into the study of Human Physiognomy as an\nintegral part of it, because it represented an =established= tradition.\nThe Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens in which this very comparison between\nman and animals forms so important a factor furnish the natural conditions\nfor the rise of the tradition, while the long range of time covered by the\nBabylonian-Assyrian birth-omens supply the second factor needed to account\nfor the persistency of the tradition after it had passed beyond the\nconfines within which it arose.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nNow in order to justify the proposition that the study of Human\nPhysiognomy, as developed among the Greeks and Romans and as passed on to\nothers with its insistence on the fancied resemblance between man and\nanimals as a leading and indeed as a fundamental factor, is to be directly\ncarried back to the birth-omens of Babylonia and Assyria, we ought to be\nable to establish that among Greeks and Romans the abnormalities observed\nat the birth of infants and of the young of animals were really regarded\nas omens, and that such omens show a sufficient affinity to what we find\namong Babylonians and Assyrians to warrant the conclusion that, just as\nHepatoscopy and Astrology came to the Greeks and Romans through influences\nemanating from the Euphrates Valley, so also the third large division of\ndivination methods may be traced to the same source. Let us first take up\nthe Romans for which the material at our disposal is so much more\nabundant.\n\nJulius Obsequens, a writer whose exact date has not yet been determined,\ncollected in his famous =Liber de Prodigiis=[164] all the omens that had\nbeen noted during a certain period of Roman history. He enumerates in all\n72 covering the years 55 to 132 A. D. and the list itself is an\ninstructive commentary on the attention that was paid to 'signs' of all\nkinds among the Romans as an index of the will and the intention of the\ngods. We find references to such phenomena as a rain of stones,--presumably\nhail stones--of oil, blood and milk--apparently allusions to volcanic\neruptions, disguised in somewhat fanciful language--of the sun seen at\nnight--perhaps a description of an eclipse when to a frightened populace\nit might appear as though night had suddenly set in--of blood appearing in\nrivers and of milk in lakes--no doubt a pollution of some kind due perhaps\nto masses of earth or to glacial deposits pouring into the river--to\nburning torches in the heavens--probably comets with long tails--and more\nthe like, all indicative of the unbridled play of popular fancy and\nshowing that among the Romans, as among Babylonians and Assyrians, all\nunusual occurrences were looked upon as omens--portending some unusual\nhappenings. Now among the 72 signs of Julius Obsequens there are quite a\nnumber of actual birth-omens, the character of which is so close to what\nwe find in the collections of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb= priests as to show a practical\nidentity in the points of view. So we are told of several instances of a\nmule (supposed to be sterile) giving birth to a young (\u00a7 65), in one case\neven to triplets (\u00a7 15), in another to a young with five feet (\u00a7 27). For\nthe year 83 he records among various remarkable occurrences all regarded\nas omens, the birth of a colt with five feet (\u00a7 24); two years in\nsuccession a two-headed calf (\u00a7 31-32). Very much as in the\nBabylonian-Assyrian collections we read (\u00a7 14) of a sow giving birth to a\nyoung with the hands and feet of a man. Among human monstrosities, our\nauthor records the case of a boy with three feet and one hand (\u00a7 20), with\none hand (\u00a7 52), a boy with a closed anus (\u00a7 26, 40), with four feet, four\neyes and four ears and with double genital members (\u00a7 25). Several\ninstances are given of androgynous infants (\u00a7 22, 32 and 36). Twins born\nat Nursia in the year 100 are described as follows, 'the girl with all\nparts intact, the boy with the upper part of the belly open, revealing the\nintestines[165], the anus closed, and speaking as he expired' (\u00a7 40). The\ntalking infant is a not infrequent phenomenon[166]. In the following year\nthe birth of a boy who said 'ave' is recorded (\u00a7 41). Again, as in the\ncollections of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb= priests[167], we read (\u00a7 57) of a woman giving\nbirth to a serpent.\n\nTo these birth-omens further examples can be added from that inexhaustible\nstorehouse of encyclopaedic knowledge, the Natural History of Pliny the\nYounger who, among other things, tells us (Hist. Nat. VII 3) of a woman\nAlcippa who gave birth to a child with the head of an elephant[168].\nValerius Maximus in his =de Dictis Factisque Memorabilibus= devotes a\nchapter to =Prodigia=[169] of the same miscellaneous character as the\ncollection of Julius Obsequens--many in fact identical--among which by the\nside of rivers flowing with blood, talking oxen who utter words of\nwarning[170], rain of stones, mysterious voices, we also find birth-omens\nsuch as the speaking infant and the child with an elephant's head[171].\nSuetonius[172] tells us that Caesar's horse had human feet and that the\nHaruspices--the Etruscan augurs--declared it to be an omen that the world\nwould one day belong to Caesar. We see, therefore, that among the Romans\nbirth-omens were regarded from the same point of view as among the\nBabylonians and Assyrians and that the interpretation of the omens was the\nconcern of a special class who acted as diviners. Now the question may\nproperly be put at this juncture, whether we are in a position to trace\nthe actual interpretation of birth-omens among the Romans back to the\nBabylonian-Assyrian =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests? To this question, I think an\naffirmative answer may unhesitatingly be given. We have in the first place\nthe testimony of Cicero[173], as well as other writers[174] that the\nEtruscans who are described as skilled in all kinds of divination were\nespecially versed in the interpretation of malformations among infants and\namong the young of animals. Cicero emphasizes more particularly by the\nside of birth-omens, divination through the sacrificial animal and through\nphenomenen in the heavens, thus giving us the same three classes that we\nfind among Babylonians and Assyrians. Since Hepatoscopy and Astrology\namong Greeks and Romans can be traced back directly to Babylonia and\nAssyria[175], the presumption is in favor of the thesis that the Etruscan\naugurs derived their birth-omens also from the same source. The character\nof the specimens that we have of the Etruscan interpretations of\nbirth-omens strengthens this presumption. So, e. g., Cicero preserves the\nwording of such a birth-omen[176] which presents a perfect parallel to\nwhat we find in the collections of the Babylonian-Assyrian =b\u00e2r\u00fb= priests,\nto wit, that if a woman gives birth to a lion, it is an indication that\nthe state will be vanquished by an enemy. If we compare with this a\nstatement in a Babylonian-Assyrian text dealing with birth-omens[177],\nvis.:\n\n 'If a woman gives birth to a lion, that city will be taken, the king\n will be imprisoned',\n\nit will be admitted that the coincidence is too close to be accidental.\nThe phraseology, resting upon the resemblance between man and animals, is\nidentical. The comparison of an infant to a lion, as of a new-born lamb to\na lion is characteristic of the Babylonian-Assyrian divination texts and\neven the form of the omen, stating that the woman actually gave birth to\na lion is the same in both while the basis of interpretation--the lion\npointing to an exercise of strength--is likewise identical. Ordinarily the\nresemblance of the feature of an infant to that of a lion points to\nincreased power on the part of the king of the country, but in the\nspecific case, the omen is unfavorable also in the Babylonian text. It is\nthe enemy who will develop power, so that the agreement between the\nBabylonian and Etruscan omen extends even to the exceptional character of\nthe interpretation in this particular instance.\n\nIn the same passage[178], Cicero refers to the two-fold interpretation\ngiven for the case of a girl born with two heads, one that there will be\nrevolt among the people, the other that the marriage tie will be broken.\nWe thus have two interpretations, one bearing on the public weal, the\nother on private affairs, corresponding to the frequent combination of\n'official' and 'unofficial' interpretations in the collections of the\n=b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests[179]. The specific interpretations are again of the same\ncharacter as we find in the Babylonian-Assyrian texts, 'revolt'[180] being\nin fact one of the most common, while the other corresponds to the phrase\n'no unity among man and wife' found in the texts above discussed[181]. It\nso happens that in the case of the birth of a two-headed girl we have both\nthe 'official' and the 'unofficial' interpretation, namely, 'No union\nbetween man and wife and diminution of the land'[182]--forming a really\nremarkable parallel to the Etruscan omen.\n\nFurther testimony to the parallelism between Etruscan and\nBabylonian-Assyrian methods of divination in the case of birth-omens is\nborn by an interesting passage in the Annals of Tacitus (XV, 47) that\ntwo-headed children or two-headed young of animals were interpreted by the\nHaruspices as pointing to an approaching change of dynasty and to the\nappearance of a weak ruler. Again, therefore, prognostications that\npresent a complete parallel to what we find in the Babylonian-Assyrian\ntexts[183].\n\nMacrobius[184] preserves an Etruscan interpretation of a birth-omen\nrelating to the color of newly born lambs. A purple or golden color of\nthe lamb points to good luck. This 'purple' color corresponds to the term\n=s\u00e2mu= frequently occurring in Babylonian-Assyrian omen texts and which\nis generally rendered 'dark red'[185]. In the collections of the\n=b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, many references are found to the colors of the young\nanimals and among these we have as a complete parallel to the statement\nin Macrobius the following[186]:\n\n [If an ewe] gives birth to a young of dark-red color,--good\n fortune[187].\n\nLastly, the terms used to describe all kinds of malformations--=monstra=\nand =prodigia=[188], i. e., phenomena that 'point' to something show a\nparallel conception to the Babylonian-Assyrian viewpoint that abnormality\nin the case of the young of animals and of infants are primarily =signs=\nsent to indicate unusual events that would shortly happen.\n\nThat the Greeks also attached an importance to malformations, may be\nconcluded from Aristotle's protest[189] against the supposition that a\nwoman can give birth to an infant with the features of some animal[190],\nor that an animal can give birth to a young with human features. Such\nresemblances, he asserts, are merely superficial and he endeavors to\naccount for them as for all malformations in a scientific manner, as due\nto an insufficient control of the fructifying matter which prevents a\nnormal development of the embryo. While Aristotle does not directly refer\nto the belief that malformations and monstrosities were looked upon by\nGreeks as omens, the emphatic manner in which he states that abnormalities\ncannot be against nature but only against the ordinary course of\nnature[191] indicates that he is polemicizing against a view which looked\nupon such anomalies as contrary to nature, and presumably regarded them,\ntherefore, from the same point of view as did the Babylonians and\nEtruscans. We have a direct proof for this view however, in Valerius\nMaximus, who includes in his list of =prodigia= birth-omens recorded among\nthe Greeks, such as a mare giving birth to a hare at the time that Xerxes\nwas planning his invasion of Greece which was regarded as an omen of the\ncoming event[192], or again an infant with malformation of the mouth[193].\nHerodotus[194] records as another sign at the time of Xerxes' contemplated\ninvasion of Greece a mule giving birth to a chicken with double genital\norgans, male and female, which is clearly again a birth omen. A further\nproof is furnished in a passage in Aelian[195], which reports that an ewe\nin the herd of Nikippos gave birth to a lion and that this was regarded as\nan omen prognosticating that Nikippos, who at the time was a simple\ncitizen, would become the ruler of the island. It will be recalled that\nthis birth-omen--the ewe giving birth to a lion--is not only of special\nfrequency, in the omen series of Babylonia and Assyria[196], but is part\nof the conventional divinatory phraseology of these texts, while the\ninterpretation based on the association of the lion with power forms a\ncomplete and verbal parallel to the system devised by the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests.\nThe fact that the birth-omen is reported as occurring at Cos is rather\ninteresting, because it was there that Berosus, who brought Babylonian\nAstrology to the Greeks, settled and opened his school for instruction in\nthe divinatory methods of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests. We are, therefore, justified\nin looking upon this circumstance as a link connecting birth-omens among\nGreek settlements with influences, emanating directly from the\ncivilization of the Euphrates Valley. As another proof of the spread of\nBabylonian-Assyrian divination in other parts of the ancient world, we may\npoint to the story reported by Herodotus[197] of a concubine of King Meles\nof Sardis who gave birth to a lion, and of the tale found in Cicero as\nwell as in Herodotus[198], of the speaking infant of king Croesus of\nLydia which was interpreted as an omen of the coming destruction of the\nkingdom and of the royal house. Here, again, we find (a) the familiar\nphraseology resting upon the supposed resemblance between man and animals\nand (b) the agreement in the interpretation of the anomaly of an infant\ncapable of speaking--a birth-omen of particularly ominous\nsignificance[199]. Bearing in mind the discovery of clay models of livers\nwith inscriptions revealing the terminology of Babylonian-Assyrian\nHepatoscopy in the Hittite centre Boghaz-Kewi[200] and which definitely\nestablishes the spread of this division of Babylonian-Assyrian Divination\nto Asia Minor, it is quite in keeping with what we would have a right to\nexpect, to come across traces of Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens in this\nsame general region. That the Etruscans are to be traced back to Asia\nMinor is a thesis that is now so generally accepted as to justify us in\nregarding it as definitely established[201]. Hepatoscopy and Birth-omens\nthus followed the same course in passing from the distant East to the\nWest. We may sum up our thesis in the general statement that Babylonian\ndivination made its way from Babylonia to Assyria, subsequently spread to\nAsia Minor and through the mediation of Hittites and Etruscans came to the\nGreeks and Romans[202]. The same is the case with Astrology so far as the\nRomans were concerned, for whom the Etruscans again represent the\nmediators, while the Greeks appear to have obtained their knowledge of\nBabylonian-Assyrian Astrology through the direct contact between Greece\nand Euphratean culture, leading to a mutual exchange of views and customs.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nThere is still another aspect of the subject of Babylonian-Assyrian\nBirth-omens to which attention should be directed, and which will further\nillustrate the cultural significance of the views that gave rise to this\nextensive subdivision of Babylonian-Assyrian divination. We have in the\ncourse of our investigations noted the tendency in the collections of the\n=b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests to allow a free scope to the reins of fancy, which led to\nthe amplification of entries of actual occurrences by adding entries of\nabnormalities that do not occur. In order to be prepared for all\ncontingencies, the priests, as we saw, extended the scope of birth-omens\nin all directions, through entries for an ascending scale of multiple\nbirths which went far beyond the remotest possibility, through equally\nextravagant entries of the number of excess organs or of excess parts of\nthe body, and through the most fanciful combinations of the features,\naspects and parts of various animals in the case of new-born infants and\nthe young of animals. The omission of the preposition 'like'[203] in the\ncase of these entries obscured the starting-point for such comparisons,\nand it was natural for the idea of an ewe =actually= giving birth to a\nlion, or for a woman to some animal or the other--a lion, dog, fox,\netc.--to take root[204]. Strange as this may seem to us, yet if we bear in\nmind the ignorance of people in the ancient world as to the origin and\ncourse of pregnancy and the general lack of knowledge of the laws of\nnature, the dividing line between the possible and the impossible would be\ncorrespondingly faint. At all events, the transition from the abnormal to\nthe belief in monstrosities that were quite out of the question and that\nrepresent the outcome of pure fancy would be more readily made. Indeed,\nthrough a combination of all the features involved in the entries of the\n=b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, we obtain a reasonable basis for the belief, widespread\nthroughout the ancient Orient as well as in the Greek and Roman world and\nexisting up to the threshhold of modern science, in all kinds of monstrous\nbeings which find their reflex in the fabulous creatures of mythology,\nlegend and folklore. In other words, the Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens\nform the first chapter in the history of monsters. The very term\n=monstrum=, as already suggested, reflects the Babylonian-Assyrian point\nof view, as a being which is sent as a sign--'pointing' (monstrare) to\nsome coming event. A =monstrum= is in fact a =demonstration= of the will\nor intent of a deity, which becomes definite through the interpretation\nput upon it. Perhaps this point will become a little clearer, if we\nconsider some of the possibilities included in the Babylonian-Assyrian\nbirth-omens. An ewe giving birth to a lamb with two or even more heads, or\nto a creature with some of the organs and parts of the body doubled and\nwith some single is certainly a monstrosity; and it is only a small step\nfrom such monstrosities which fall within the category of the abnormally\npossible to supposed combinations of the parts or features of various\nanimals in one being. We actually read in one of these texts[205] of an\n=isbu= or a young lamb having the head of a lion and the tail of a fox, or\nthe head of a dog and the mouth of a lion, or the head of a mountain goat\nand the mouth of a lion; or in another text[206] of colts with heads or\nmanes of lions, or with the claws of lions or feet of dogs or with the\nheads of dogs. It is only necessary to carry this fanciful combination a\nlittle further to reach the conception that led to picturing the Egyptian\nsphinxes or the Babylonian =sedu= or =lamassu=[207]--the protecting\nspirits or demons guarding the entrances to palaces and temples, as having\nthe head of a man, the body of a lion or bull; and in the case of the\nAssyrian sphinxes also the wings of an eagle. Similarly, in the case of\ninfants we find actual monstrosities recorded as a child with a double\nface, four hands and four feet[208], or with the ear of a lion and the\nmouth of a bird. Here again the step is a small one to the assumption of\nhybrid beings as hippocentaurs--half man and half horse--or tritons and\nmermaids--half human, half fish--or satyrs and fawns or monsters like\nCerberus with several heads.\n\nIt has commonly been held that the conception of such fabulous hybrid\nbeings rested on a popular belief in a kind of primitive theory of\nevolution, according to which in an early stage creatures were produced in\na mixed form and that gradually order was brought out of this chaotic\nstage of creation. Berosus[209] in his account of creation according to\nBabylonian traditions voices this theory, and gives a description of the\n'mixed' creatures that marked this earliest period of time, \"men with\ndouble wings, some with four wings and two faces, some with one body but\ntwo heads and having both male and female organs, others with goat's legs\nand horns, with horses feet, the hind parts of the body like a horse, in\nfront like a man, (i. e., hippocentaurs). There were also bulls with human\nheads, dogs with four bodies and fish tails, horses with the head of dogs,\nmen and other creatures with heads and bodies of horses but tails of\nfishes, and various other creatures with the forms of all kinds of animals\n... all kinds of marvellous hybrid beings\". The description, which is\nconfirmed in part by the Marduk Epic or the 'Babylon' version of creation\nwhere we encounter 'scorpion men', 'fish-men', 'goat-fish', dragons and\nother monstrous beings[210] as the brood of Tiamat the symbol of primaeval\nchaos, reads like an extract from the birth-omens in the\nBabylonian-Assyrian handbooks of divination. As a matter of fact, many of\nthe hybrid beings described by Berosus can be parallelled in those parts\nof the collections that have been published[211].\n\nMy thesis, therefore, is that the birth-omens gave rise to the belief in\nall kinds of monstrous and fabulous beings. The resemblances between men\nand animals, as well as between an animal of one species with that of\nanother, led to the supposition that all manner of hybrid beings =could=\nbe produced in nature. The fanciful combinations in the collections of the\n=b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, in part reflecting popular fancies, in part 'academical'\nexercises of the fancies of the priests, formed the basis and\nstarting-point for the theory that at the beginning of time, pictured as a\ncondition of chaos and confusion, such hybrid beings represented the norm,\nwhile with the substitution of law and order for chaos and confusion,\ntheir occurrence was exceptional and portended some approaching deviation\nfrom the normal state of affairs. It is not unusual in the history of\nreligious and of popular beliefs to find fancy and fanciful resemblances\nleading to the belief in the reality. Once the thought suggested by the\nmanifold abnormalities occurring in the young of domestic animals and\namong infants firmly rooted, there was no limit to the course of unbridled\nfancy in this direction. Adding to this the practical importance attached\nto birth-omens, what would be more natural than that with the development\nand spread of systems of divination devised to interpret the strange\nphenomena observed at birth, the belief in all kinds of monsters and\nmonstrosities should likewise have been developed and should have spread\nwith the extending influence of Babylonian-Assyrian divination.\n\nBabylonian literature furnishes many examples of the persistency of such\nbeliefs. It is sufficient to refer (a) to the gigantic scorpion-men who\nkeep guard at the gate of the sun in the mountain Masu and who are\ndescribed in the Gilgamesh epic[212] as 'terrible', whose very aspect is\ndeath, (b) to Engidu, the companion of Gilgamesh, who is pictured as a man\nwith the body of a bull, and the horns of a bison[213], (c) to the monster\nTiamat in the creation tale pictured in art with the mouth and foreclaws\nof a lion, wings and hind-feet of an eagle[214], or as a monstrous dragon\nwith the head of a serpent, fore feet of a panther, hind talons of an\neagle, or again described as a serpent of seven heads[215], and (d) to the\n'mixed' creatures--man, bull or lion and eagle combined--above referred to\nand that appear in such various forms in Babylonian and Assyrian art[216],\nand reappear as sphinxes in Hittite[217] and Egyptian art. The\nHippocentaur in various forms also appears in the Babylonian art of the\nCassite period[218].\n\nIf we are correct in tracing the spread of Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens\nto the peoples of Asia Minor and thence to the Greeks and Romans, and in\nassociating the belief in all kinds of monstrous and fabulous beings with\nthese birth-omens and as a direct outcome of the fanciful combinations\nembodied in the collections of the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests, the spread of this\nbelief would accompany the extension of the sphere of influence of\nBabylonian-Assyrian divination and of Euphratean culture in general. The\nthesis here proposed would, therefore, carry with it the assumption that\nthe fabulous creatures of Greek and Roman mythology, as well as the wide\nspread belief in monstrosities of all kinds found in Greek and Roman\nwriters, and which belief through the influence of Greek and Roman ideas\nwas carried down to the middle ages and up to our own days, reverts in the\nlast instance to the Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nThe thesis that the fabulous figures of Greek mythology were suggested by\nmalformations was set forth some twelve years ago by Prof. Friedrich\nSchatz in a monograph on '_Die griechischen G\u00f6tter und die menschlichen\nMi\u00dfgeburten_' (Wiesbaden 1901), in which he endeavored to show that the\nconceptions of such beings as the Cyclops, Harpies, Centaurs and Sirens\nwere merely the fanciful elaborations of the impression made by actually\noccurring abnormal phenomena in the case of infants. The cyclops (9 seq.\nwith illustrations) was suggested by the child born with one eye[219], the\nsiren (11 seq. with illustration) by the abnormal but actually occurring\nphenomenon of a child born with the feet united[220]. A double headed god\nlike Janus (12 seq.) was suggested by the monstrosity of a child with two\nheads and even such a tale as that of the head of the Gorgon, Schaatz\nbelieves is based (24 seq. with illustrations) or, at all events,\nsuggested by the fact that a woman gave birth to an undeveloped embryo\nwhich suggests a human head[221]. The three heads of Cerberus, Diana of\nthe many breasts and even harpies are similarly explained as suggested by\nmalformations or by excess parts or organs. Having reached my conclusions\nlong before I learned of Dr. Schaatz's monograph, I was naturally glad to\nfind that the idea had occurred to some one who had approached the subject\nfrom an entirely different point of view and without reference to\nbirth-omens. I would not go so far as Dr. Schaatz in the attempt to trace\nback =all= the fabulous creatures of mythology, to certain specific\nmalformations. Indeed some of his combinations are almost as fanciful as\nthe creatures themselves, e. g., his endeavor to explain the Prometheus\nmyth as suggested by 'extopy of the liver' (36), whereas the tale clearly\nrests upon the old theory of the liver as the seat of the life[222], but\nthe main thought that the idea of monstrous beings was suggested by actual\nmalformations =plus= the factor of unbridled fancy is, I venture to think,\ncorrect. We must, of course, add to human malformations the many abnormal\nphenomena occurring in the young of animals in which the determining\nfactor is again the =significance= attached to all kinds of malformation\namong human beings and animals as birth-omens. This factor must be taken\nas our point of departure; it furnishes a reason not merely for the rise\nof the belief in all kinds of fabulous creatures but also for the\nelaboration and the persistency of the belief and for its embodiment in\nthe religious thought of peoples. It is because the malformation is an\nomen that it leads to further beliefs and fancies. The direct association\nof the belief in fabulous creatures with birth-omens in Babylonia and\nAssyria lends a presumption in favor of the same association among the\nGreeks. If, therefore, we can trace the attachment to birth-omens among\nGreeks and Romans to the Euphrates Valley, we will have found a reasonable\nexplanation for the part played by monsters and fabulous beings in the\nmythology and the religion of the Greeks and Romans. Further than this, it\nis not necessary to go. It is not essential to the establishment of the\nthesis to trace =all= the fabulous beings of classical mythology to actual\nmalformations. The factor of fancy would lead to the extension of the\nsphere far beyond the original boundaries; nor is it necessary to find\nparallels to all the creatures of Greek and Roman mythology in Babylonian\nand Assyrian literature or art in order to justify the dependence of the\nformer upon Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens. No doubt the Greeks, more\nparticularly, developed the conception in their own way, adding other\nfeatures to it, just as they modified Babylonian-Assyrian astrology in\nadapting it to their environment and their way of thinking, and just as\nthe Etruscans and Romans modified the Babylonian-Assyrian\nhepatoscopy[223]. All that is claimed here is that the =conception= of\nmonstrous and fabulous beings is a direct outcome of the importance\nattached to Birth-omens; and since the Babylonians and Assyrians are the\nonly people who developed an elaborate system of divination in which the\ninterpretation of birth-omens constituted an important division, and which\nspread with the extension of Euphratean culture to Asia Minor and thence\nto Greece and Rome, I claim that the ultimate source of the belief itself\nis to be sought in the Euphrates Valley.\n\nCan we trace the conception likewise to the distant East? Dr. Bab in an\ninteresting essay on '_Geschlechtsleben, Geburt und Mi\u00dfgeburten_' in the\n_Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Ethnologie_[224] adopts the thesis of Dr. Schaatz and\napplies it to account for the frequent representation of gods in India\nwith excess organs or an excess number of parts of the body--gods and\ngoddesses with many heads, with three or four eyes, various breasts and\nmore the like. The same would of course apply to representations of\nChinese gods and demons. Bab's paper is elaborately illustrated and the\njuxtaposition of actual malformations with the representation of gods and\ndemons in India and China leaves no doubt of at least a partial dependence\nof these artistic fancies upon actual occurrences in nature[225]. Again,\nhowever, a warning is in order not to carry the thesis too far; nor is it\npossible to furnish definite proofs for the spread of Babylonian-Assyrian\nsystems of divination to the distant East, though we now have some\nevidence pointing to a spread in this direction of Babylonian-Assyrian\nastrology[226] and perhaps also of Babylonian-Assyrian hepatoscopy[227].\nIn a general way, we are also justified in seeking for an early\nconnection--commercial, artistic and social--between the Euphrates Valley\nand distant India and China, but for the present we must rest content with\nthe assertion of the possibility that Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens, and\nwith this system of divination also the conception of and belief in hybrid\nmonsters and fabulous creatures spread eastwards as well as westwards.\n\nHow stands the case with Egypt, where we find sphinxes that represent a\ncombination of man and animal and where we encounter numerous gods\ncomposed of human bodies with the heads of animals? The question of\nforeign influences in the earlier art of Egypt is one that has as yet\nscarcely been touched, and we are equally at sea as to the possibility of\nvery early connections between the Euphratean culture and that which arose\nin the valley of the Nile. The fact that the oldest pyramid--that of King\nZoser at Sakkarah--is formed of a succession of terraces[228] like the\n=zikkurats= or stage-towers of Babylonia and moreover is of brick was\nregarded by Ihering[229] as an evidence of an influence exerted by\nBabylonia upon Egypt. An isolated phenomenon is too slender a thread on\nwhich to hang a weighty theory, and the step pyramid of Zoser can be\nexplained as a transition from a form of the =mastaba= to the genuine\npyramid, without recourse to foreign models. All attempts to find a\nconnection between the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the oldest hieroglyphics\nforms from which the Babylonian cuneiform script developed have likewise\nended in negative results and the same is to be said of endeavors to find\nany direct connection between Babylonian and Egyptian beliefs and rites\nand myths and despite certain rather striking points of resemblance[230].\nAnd yet it is difficult to suppress the impression one receives that much\nin Egyptian art and in the Egyptian religion suggests early outside\ninfluences. With Babylonia and Egypt in more or less close touch as far\nback at least as 1700 B. C., and with Asiatic entanglements reverting to a\nstill earlier period, the possibility of some connection between the\nEgyptian forms of the sphinx--the crouching lion with the human head, the\nfalcon-headed and ram-headed sphinxes--and the combinations of the human\nface with bulls and lions in Babylonian art to which the Assyrians added\nthe wings, cannot be summarily set aside. The question as to the age of\nthe sphinx at Gizeh--the oldest of all--is still in abeyance. Maspero\nascribes it to the early Memphite art[231], Spiegelberg to the middle\nkingdom[232], while others bring it down to the 18th dynasty. If we\naccept Spiegelberg's date we will be close to the period when by general\nconsent the Mediterranean culture--including therefore Syria, Palestine\nand Western Asia in general--exercised a decided influence on Egypt. It is\nduring the time of the new kingdom that the sphinxes become frequent, as\nit is at this period that the tendency to represent the gods as a\ncombination of the human and animal form becomes prominent and reaches its\nhighest form of expression.\n\nNow, to be sure, we have not as yet come across any traces of\nBabylonian-Assyrian divination in any of its forms in Egypt, but that may\nbe due to the rationalistic character of the Egyptian religion in the\n'official' form revealed by the monuments and the literature which, while\nfull of rites and ceremonials connected so largely with the cult of the\ndead, is yet relatively free of magic or divination. It is possible,\nhowever, that in the unofficial popular customs divination may have played\na greater part than we suspect. Be this as it may, the conception of\nmonstrous beings may have found its way into Egypt even without the\ntransfer of the practice of interpreting birth-omens. The thesis of\noutside influences to account for the Egyptian sphinxes and for the\ncombination of the human and animal form as a means of representing gods\nand goddesses, is on the whole more plausible than to assume that\nBabylonians and Egyptians should have independently hit upon the idea of\ncarving sphinxes to protect the entrances to temples and palaces.\nNaturally, we must again be on our guard not to carry the theory too far.\nThe form given to the images of the gods by the Egyptians suggests the\nalmost perfect blending of the human and animal, and as such is a distinct\nexpression of the genius of Egyptian art. All that is claimed here is that\nthe =thought= of reproducing hybrid and fabulous beings in art did not\narise in Egypt without some outside influences. Resemblances between the\nhuman form and the features of animals may have suggested themselves to\nall peoples without any influence exerted by one on the other, but in\norder to take the further step, leading to the belief in the =actual=\nexistence of beings in which the human and the animal are combined, the\nresemblances must have been fraught with some practical significance. This\ncondition, I hold, is fulfilled if the resemblances--as well as all kinds\nof other abnormalities--are looked upon as =signs= sent for a specific\npurpose i. e. to point to some unusual happening that may be confidently\nexpected. The monster in short presupposes what the word implies, that it\nis a 'sign'--an omen of some kind.\n\nA warning may also not be out of place against connecting the belief in\nmonsters and fabulous creatures with the mental processes that give rise\nto totemistic beliefs. In so far as totemism implies the descent of a clan\nor group from some animal, it rests in part upon the supposed resemblance\nbetween man and animals. Without this feature the thought of a descent of\nhuman beings from some animal would hardly have occurred to people, but\nthis is only one factor involved. Ignorance as to processes of nature in\nbringing about a new life is an equally important factor; and there are\nothers. But totemism does not involve the combination of the human and the\nanimal form in one being. That combination belongs to an entirely\ndifferent process of thought, though it also has as its starting-point the\nrecognition of a resemblance between man and animals. The conception of\nhybrid beings is allied to that of human creatures or of animals who\nthrough defects or through an excess number of organs or of parts of the\nbody represent striking deviations from the normal. Both classes fall\nwithin the category of monsters, i. e., they are signs sent for a specific\npurpose. Descent from an animal totem, however, where the belief exists,\nis not looked upon as abnormal, but on the contrary as the rule.\n\nStill a third direction taken by the impression made upon man through the\nrecognition of a resemblance between him and certain species of the animal\nworld is represented by the belief--so widespread--of the possibility of\nthe change of the human form into the animal. References to such phenomena\nare not infrequent in Latin Literatures. Pliny[233] refers to several\ninstances of women being transformed into men. Livy[234] also speaks of\nthis phenomenon as a matter of common belief; and it is merely another\nphase of this same belief that we encounter in the famous Metamorphoses of\nOvid where the gods take on the form of animals, Io being changed to a cow\nand back again to human form, Jupiter to a bull, Cadmus to a dragon, Medea\nto a fish, and so on through quite a long list. Circe by virtue of her\npowers can change men to swine, just as she transforms her rivals into\ntrees. Apuleius' famous tale of the Golden Ass where the hero is changed\ninto a talking ass rests upon the same deep-rooted belief, which appears\nagain in a modified form in the Jatakas or Birth-stories of India where\nBuddha takes on the form of all kinds of animals and which lead to the\nbeast fables of Bidpai where animals are introduced at every turn who talk\nand act as men[235]. Even such a tale as that of Balaam's talking ass\nwould not have arisen without the antecedent belief in the possibility of\na transformation of man to animals and the reverse. In fact the talking\nanimal in all fairy tales rests in the last instance on a metamorphosis.\nBut this metamorphosis has nothing to do with hybrid creatures or\nmonsters. The universal spread of totemistic beliefs preclude =a priori= a\nsingle centre as a starting-point for such beliefs; and the same in all\nprobabilities holds good for the belief that men may be changed into\nanimals and the reverse. In both, however, the factor of the resemblance\nbetween man and animals is undoubtedly involved. All that is claimed by my\nthesis is that the development of this recognition of a resemblance\nbetween man and animal in the direction which led to the belief in\nfabulous creatures and monsters, that is to say combinations of man and\nanimal in one being, side by side with abnormalities through defective\norgans or parts of the body, or through an excess in the number of the\norgans or parts of the body is associated, wherever it is found, with\nbirth-omens; that is, with the observation of striking or peculiar\nphenomena observed at the time of birth in the case of infants or the\nyoung of animals and regarded as omens. =Monstra=, =prodigia=, =ostenta=\nand =portenta= to use the terms employed by Latin writers. All these terms\nconvey the idea that such phenomena are signs sent by the gods as a means\nof indicating what the gods have in mind, or, to put it more generally,\nwhat the future has in store. This chain of ideas and conceptions and\nbeliefs is restricted to culture circles which have been subject to common\ninfluences.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nThe history of monsters forms an interesting division in the annals of\nmankind, and I should like in conclusion to call attention to the\npersistency of this belief down to the threshhold almost of our own days.\nAmong the Romans up to the latest period the old law of either burning the\nmonsters or of throwing them into the sea was generally carried out[236].\nThis was done on the supposition that the monster was an ill omen\nforeboding evil and which was sent as a punishment. Plutarch tells a\nstory[237] which despite the skeptical attitude assumed by the narrator,\nshows that the same point of view prevailed among the Greeks. From the\nGreeks and Romans the belief in all kinds of monsters and the view that\nthey were signs of divine anger was handed down to Christian Europe.\nPrecisely as among the Babylonians and Assyrians, no distinction was drawn\nbetween monstrosities that actually occurred--such as infants, or the\nyoung of animals with two heads, or with only one eye, or with no nose, or\nan otherwise defective face, or with an excess number of hands or feet in\nthe case of children, or an excess number of feet in the case of animals\nand the like[238]--and such as are purely imaginary, or in which the\nimagination plays at least a leading factor.\n\nA learned Jesuit, Conrad Lycosthenes, published an elaborate work in 1557\nunder the title =Prodigiorum ac Ostentorum Chronicon= (Basel) in which he\nput together all miracles, miraculous happenings and strange phenomena\nfrom the creation of the world down to his days. This is only one of a\nnumber of compilations of this character, the significant feature of which\nis the jumbling together into one class, of miracles, of unusual phenomena\nin the heavens and on earth, of the birth of malformations--human or\nanimal--including monstrosities and fanciful hybrid creatures,--all being\nviewed as signs sent by a divine power. Lycosthenes includes in his\ncompilation the accounts of ancient writers and later travellers of\npeoples of remarkable formation such as the Scipodes and Monomeri (10) of\nwhom Pliny[239] reports that they have only one foot, of people who have\nthe heads of dogs (11), of others living in Western Ethiopia (8) who have\nfour eyes, of the Ipopodes in Asia (8) who have the feet of horses, and of\nthe Scythians (ib.) who have only one eye, or of people have no heads, of\nothers with eyes, nose and mouth on the breast (9), or who have six arms,\n(14) or who are provided with hoofs and horns, or of women (13) who lay\ntheir young in the form of eggs.\n\nLycosthenes' work is elaborately illustrated and so he portrays for us\nthese strange beings, as well as men with the heads of dogs (11),\nhippocentaurs (12), men with six arms (14), baldheaded women with beards,\nand people in the region of the North Sea who have ears that cover the\nwhole body (13), mermaids, tritons, satyrs, fauns (10, 28, 218, 311, 317)\nand harpies (31). The whole army of fabulous beings of mythology and\nfolk-lore is brought before us[240], including the remarkable creature\nwhom Gessner in his great work on Animals[241] describes as 'a virgin with\nhuman face, arms and hands, body of a dog, wings of a bird, claws of a\nlion and the tail of a dragon'. Naive credulity =alone= would be\ninsufficient to account for such fancies, but if we start from the deep\nimpression made by malformations of all kinds from the point of view of\nbirth-omen divination, the exaggeration of such malformations through the\nplay of the imagination would follow from the inherent fondness of human\nnature for the marvellous. A large part of Lycosthenes' work is taken up\nwith the malformations and monstrosities mentioned in classical\nwriters--Pliny, Livy, Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Julius Obsequens, Aelian,\netc. which he has collected with great patience. Passing beyond classical\ndays, he is at equal pains to put together all records of unusual\nphenomena, adding generally the attendant circumstances or the events that\nfollowed, which the sign was regarded as portending. All kinds of\nmonstrosities are described, together with the date and the place of their\nappearance. A lamb with a swine's head (136), born in Macedonia presaged\nthe war with Phillip which soon thereafter broke out. A double-headed ox\nborn in the year 573 B. C. (309) presaged the defeat of the Persians. A\nchild without arms (316) and the tail of a fish instead of legs, born in\nThrace in 601 A. D., was ordered to be killed. In 854 A. D. a boy attached\nto a dog was born (352, see the illustration). This happened in the days\nof Lotharius Caesar, duke of Saxony, who soon thereafter died. In 858 A.\nD. (353) a monstrosity of mixed shape was born and all kinds of\nmisfortunes followed. Twins united at the loins born in England in 1112\nare brought into connection with a victory of King Boleslaus of Poland and\nthe death of Waldrich, duke of Saxony. He carries his chronicle beyond\n1543[242] in which year a human monstrosity was born at Cracow, with\nflames starting out of the eyes, mouth and nose, with horns on its head,\nwith the tail of a dog, with faces of apes on its breast and legs, with\nthe eyes of a cat and with claws. It lived for four hours, cried\n'Vigilate, Dominus Deus vester adventat' and expired. The point of view\nthroughout is the time-honored one that the monstrosity is a =monstrum=--a\nsign sent by an angered deity, just as on the other hand as a trace of the\npristine ignorance of the processes of nature, the belief continued to\nprevail that such monstrosities were due to the intercourse of women with\ndemons--either wilfully accomplished by the woman, or without her\nknowledge. Martin in his _Histoire des Monstres_ devotes an entire\nchapter[243] to illustrations of this belief, which is advocated as late\nas the year 1836 by Goerres[244], the Professor of Philosophy at the\nMunich University, and even as late as the year 1864 by Delaporte in a\nbook on the devil[245]. Such a belief which involves the possibility of\npregnancy without the ordinary sexual intercourse and which has left its\ntraces far and wide[246] in the religious history of mankind must have\nacted as a powerful agent in maintaining also the belief in all kinds of\nmonstrosities that could never have occurred. The demons naturally could\ndo anything, and thus a very simple theory was evolved to account for such\nmonstrosities and which supplemented the older one[247] that accounted for\nthe simpler hybrid beings as due to the intercourse of a human being with\nan animal. The cooperation of the demons, moreover, was a natural\ncorrelative to the belief that deviations from the normal course of things\nwere omens. Even Christian theology found no difficulty in assuming that\nGod permitted a demon to exercise his power over those who had through sin\nforfeited the Divine protection, with the result that in many cases the\nunfortunate mother was brought before a tribunal and not infrequently\nsuffered death for the sin of intercourse with some demon. Martin's work,\nabove referred to, also furnishes abundant evidence of the persistency\nboth of the belief in monsters and of their being regarded as omens even\nin the scientific world down to a very late date. He tells the story[248]\nof the birth of twins, united at the breast, in the year 1569. The royal\nphysician Jacques Roy was commissioned to make an autopsy and to report on\nthe result. He closes his report with a poem, glorifying the Catholic\nChurch and vigorously denouncing the Protestant movement. More than this,\nhe concludes from the fact that one of the twins received the baptismal\nrite before dying, while the other died without baptism that the Catholic\nchurch would survive the Hugenot heresy. In 1605 twins united at the\numbilicum were born in Paris, and despite the fact that the Faculty of\nMedicine of Paris presented a scientific report, accounting for the\nmonstrosity through the fact that 'the semen was too plentiful for one\nbody and two small for two', a chronicler in embodying the report of the\nphysicians in his account presents his view that the monstrosity was a\nsymbol of the wickedness of Papism and of Mohammedanism. Between 1539 and\n1605 we have the Edict of Nantes which in rendering civil liberty to the\nHugenots brought about a reversion of feeling in their favor. The tables\nare therefore turned, and the monstrosity is now a sign sent against the\nCatholic Church. The chronicler breaks out in rhyme as follows[249]:\n\n \"Je tiens que ces deux fronts, cette face jumelle,\n Sont deux religions, dont l'une est qui s'appelle\n Papisme, et son autheur est l'antechrist romain,\n De l'autre est Mahumet avec son Alcorain\".\n\nThe persistency of the belief in monsters even in scientific or\nquasi-scientific circles and of regarding monsters as omens no doubt had\nmuch to do with the fact that a really scientific theory to account for\nsuch malformations as actually do occur was not put forth until the year\n1826 when Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire in reporting to the French Academy\nof Medicine on a mummy found at Hermopolis[250] and which appeared to have\nbeen that of a human monstrosity, enunciated the view which led to the\nscience of Teratology, as a branch of modern medicine[251].\n\nBut despite the results of scientific investigation which so strikingly\njustify Aristotle's protest against regarding abnormal phenomena in the\nyoung of animals and of infants as =contra naturam=, the strong desire for\nthe marvellous still helps to maintain at least the belief in monsters,\neven if the corollary that the monster is a birth-omen has disappeared.\n\nThe believers of the Middle Ages have been succeeded by the deceivers of\nthe 19th and 20th centuries--the naive Lycosthenes by the shrewder\nBarnums[252] who in order to supply the demand created by the love of the\nmarvellous have manufactured their monsters. To be sure even this is not\nquite new under the sun, for Pliny[253] tells us that he saw a\nhippocentaur which was brought to Rome from Thessalonica at the order of\nthe Emperor Claudius and which, as it subsequently turned out, was the\nembalmed body of a horse to which a human foetus had been skillfully\nattached. The latest companion piece to this neat bit of trickery is to be\nfound in a description of a fish with the head of a man that was exhibited\nin the Crimea in 1911--fished up in the Pacific Ocean[254]!\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nTo sum up the results of our investigations in a series of propositions:\n\n1. The Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens which can be traced back to at\nleast 2000 B. C. rest on the impression made by the mystery of a new life\nemerging from another.\n\n2. A leading factor in the interpretation of the omens was the recognized\nresemblance--often striking--between the features of an infant and that of\nsome animal, or of an animal to some other.\n\n3. As Babylonian-Assyrian hepatoscopy led to the study of the anatomy of\nthe liver, and Babylonian-Assyrian astrology to the study of the phenomena\nin the heavens, so the resemblance between man and animals became the\nbasis for the study of Human Physiognomy, which when it came to the Greeks\nand Romans was made a means of determining the character of the\nindividual, just as Babylonian-Assyrian astrology when transferred to\nGreece and Rome was applied to the individual as a means of casting his\nhoroscope, i. e., for determining the general course of his life.\n\n4. This same factor of the resemblance between men and animals in\nconjunction with the ignorance as to the processes of nature led to the\nbelief in all kinds of hybrid creatures, composed of human and animal\norgans or features.\n\n5. This belief underlies the fabulous creatures of Greek and Roman\nmythology, and also helps to explain the representation of gods as partly\nanimalic in Egypt, in India and in China.\n\n6. The recognition of a resemblance between man and animals is universal,\nand besides leading in connection with birth-omens to the belief in the\nactual existence of beings composed of partly human and partly animal\norgans or parts of the body, developed quite independently of such\nassociations also in three other directions, leading on the one hand to\nthe belief in the descent of a clan or group from some animal, and on the\nother to the belief in a transformation of a human being into an animal\nand =vice versa=, and thirdly to the Beast Fables of India in which beasts\nthat talk like human beings are introduced.\n\n7. The theory set forth in Berosus of a time when mixed creatures of all\nkinds existed reflects the fanciful combinations found in the collections\nof the =b\u00e2r\u00fb=-priests.\n\n8. The Roman view of a monster as a 'sign' (monstrum), sent as an\nindication of some event of a disastrous character, is directly traceable\nto the Babylonian-Assyrian point of view of malformations of all kinds and\ndeviations from the normal as birth-omens.\n\n9. From Rome this view passed over to mediaeval Europe, where under\nChristian influence the monster became a 'sign' sent by an angered deity\nas a warning and as a punishment for sins.\n\n10. The pristine ignorance of the course of nature, leading to the\nassumption that conception could take place without sexual intercourse,\nhad its natural outcome in the belief that women giving birth to\nmonstrosities had intercourse--wilful or unknown to them--with demons as\nemissaries of the devil, or with the devil himself. This attitude served\nto maintain the belief in monsters down to the threshhold of modern\nscience.\n\n11. The Roman law of burning the monstrous birth or of throwing it into\nthe sea was maintained for a long time and led also to the punishment of\nthe woman who through supposed intercourse with a demon had given birth to\na monster.\n\n12. The view taken of monsters as a sign sent by an angered Deity had much\nto do with preventing the rise of a scientific theory to account for\nactual malformations of all kinds.\n\n13. The rise of Teratology as a branch of medical science in the 19th\ncentury represents the closing chapter in the history of monsters, which\nis thus to be traced back to Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens--one of the\nthree chief branches of Babylonian-Assyrian divination that all made their\nway with the spread of the influence of Euphratean culture throughout Asia\nMinor and westwards to Greece and Rome, and that may also have passed to\nthe distant East.\n\n\n\n\n[=Addendum=, to page 43, Note 2.]\n\nPorta, who in his =Della Fisonomia dell' Huomo= (Venice edition, 1648,\nchapters XIII and XIV, or Latin edition =De Humana Physiognomia=,\nFrankfurt 1618, chapter IX) ascribes to Plato the opinion that a man who\nresembles an animal is likely to have the traits of that animal, appears\nto base this view on such a passage as Phaedo \u00a7 31, referred to in the\nnote, and which is given as the reference in the German translation of\nPorta's work. The passage, however, hardly admits of this interpretation,\nthough it would appear from Porta, who evidently does not stand alone in\nhis opinion, that from Plato's view that according to the life led by a\nman his soul will be transferred into an animal having the traits\nmanifested by the individual, the corollary was drawn that a man who\nresembles an animal has a soul which shows the traits of the animal which\nhe resembles.\n\n\n\n\nIndex\n\n(Assyrian words italicized)\n\n\n Acephaly 25\n\n Actiolinus, likened to a hunting dog 47\n\n Adamantius 44\n\n Aelian 57. 75\n\n Agnathy 34\n\n Alexander the Great, likened to a lion 47\n\n Algemundus, King of Lombards 8. 74\n\n =alluttu= (dolphin) 40\n\n Androgynous formations 11. 51. 56\n\n Animals 8. 12. 26. 40 seq. 51 seq.\n -- with two to seven heads 62\n\n Anus, closed 35. 51 seq.\n\n Ape, human nose compared with ape's 46\n\n Aprosopy 38\n\n Apuleius 71\n\n Aristotle 44. 56. 59. 77\n\n Arms, one arm short 34\n\n Arnobius 53\n\n Ashurbanapal (Assyrian ruler) 6. 23\n\n Ashurbanapal's Library 6\n\n Ass, born by woman 40\n -- Golden Ass 71\n -- human face compared with 46 seq.\n -- talking 71\n\n Astrology 1\n -- underlying theory 3\n -- among Greeks and Romans 3. 50. 53. 79\n -- among Etruscans 3\n -- among Hittites 3\n -- in Europe 4\n\n Astrology in China 4\n -- official reports 9\n -- leads to astronomy 43\n -- horoscope 79\n\n Azag-Bau (female ruler) 11 seq.\n\n\n Bab, E. 66\n\n Babylonia and Egypt 68\n\n Balaam's ass 71\n\n Baldness, a sign of lasciviousness 47\n\n Baptism 5\n\n Barnum, P. T. 78\n\n =b\u00e2r\u00fb= (diviner) 3. 7. 9 seq. 12. 18 seq. 37. 54. 59 seq. 64. 79\n\n Baur, Paul V. 64\n\n Beard, child born with 39\n\n Belly, open 52\n\n Berosus 57. 62\n\n Bezold, Carl 4\n\n Bird, sending out birds 2\n -- born by woman 41\n -- child with mouth of 61\n\n Birnbaum, R. 34. 37\n\n Birth customs 5\n\n Birth-omens 2\n -- basis of 4\n -- mystery of birth 4\n -- texts 6 seq.\n -- official reports 9\n -- basis of interpretation 11 seq. 14 seq. 16 seq. 19. 20. 22 seq.\n -- combination of texts 19\n -- animal 9-28\n -- human 28-41\n -- lead to study of human physiognomy 43 seq.\n -- as warnings 44\n -- among Romans 52 seq.\n -- give rise to belief in hybrid and fabulous beings 62\n -- in India 67\n -- in China 67\n -- in Egypt 67\n -- in Europe 72\n\n Blood, in rivers 51 seq.\n -- , rain of blood 51\n\n Boghaz-Keui 58\n\n Boissier, Alfred 11\n\n Boleslaus, King of Poland 75\n\n Boll, Franz 4\n\n Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, A. 41\n\n Boy see Child\n\n Brachyprosopy 25\n\n Buddha 71\n\n Bull, with human head 61\n -- Jupiter changed to bull 71\n\n\n Cadmus, changed into a dragon 71\n\n Caesar, Julius, his horse had human feet 52\n\n Calf, two-headed 74\n\n Cat, human face compared with cat's 46\n\n Cerberus 61. 65\n\n Chavannes, Eduard 67\n\n Chicken, as offspring of mule 56\n\n Child, with mouth of bird 33\n -- without mouth 33\n -- androgynous 51. 62. 74\n -- with one hand 51\n -- with three feet 51\n -- with three feet and one hand 51\n -- with closed anus 51 seq.\n -- with open belly 52\n -- with four feet, four eyes, four ears, and double genital members 51\n -- with two faces, four hands and four feet 62\n -- with face of an ass 62\n -- with caudal appendix 73\n -- with club-foot 73\n -- with six toes 73\n -- with elephant's head 74\n -- with three legs 74\n -- with three legs and three hands 71\n -- with four legs 74\n -- with four hands and four legs 74\n -- with beard and four eyes 74\n -- two-headed 74\n -- without eyes or nose 74\n -- without arms or feet 74\n -- without eyes, no arms, and fish's tail instead of feet 74\n -- speaking 52. 74\n -- speaking in womb 74\n\n China 67\n -- astrology in China 4\n\n Cicero 53 seq. 57. 74\n\n Claudius (Roman Emperor) 71\n\n Clay, A. T. 64\n\n Club-foot 73\n\n Cos 57\n\n Cow 12. 71\n\n Cracow, monster of 75\n\n Cripple 38\n\n Croesus (King of Lydia) 57 seq.\n\n Cross-breeding 44. 59\n\n Cumont, Franz 4\n\n Cyclops 64\n\n\n Dante, dog forehead 46\n\n Deaf-mute 38\n\n Death (see also Funeral rites) 5\n\n Delaporte, Albert 76\n\n Demon 20. 42. 75\n\n Diana of many breasts 65\n\n Divination, methods 1 seq.\n -- basis of interpretation 11\n\n Diviner see =b\u00e2r\u00fb=\n\n D\u00f6derlein, Albert 8\n\n Dog 12. 40. 59. 61\n -- Plato compared to a 44. 47\n -- born by a woman 40. 59\n -- with four bodies and fish tails 61\n -- with six divisions of foot 73\n\n Dragon 63\n\n Dwarf 39\n\n\n Eagle 61\n -- human nose compared with beak of 46 seq.\n\n Ear, deformities and omens 19 seq. 32 seq.\n\n Egypt 67 seq. 77\n\n Elephant, born by woman 74\n -- child with head of 52\n\n Ellenberger-Scheunert 26\n\n Engidu 63\n\n Enlil (deity) 27\n\n Esarhaddon (Assyrian ruler) 10\n\n Ethiopia 73\n\n Etruscans 3. 52 seq. 54 seq. 58\n\n Eusebius 61\n\n Ewe see Sheep\n\n Excess number of limbs and organs 8. 10. 20 seq. 36 seq. 51\n\n\n Fabulous beings 61 seq. 66 seq.\n\n Fauns 61\n\n Features see Physiognomy.\n\n Feet, six toes on each foot 35\n -- six toes on right foot 35\n -- like those of a turtle 36\n -- attached to belly 36\n -- only one foot, which is attached to belly 36\n -- child with three feet 36\n -- child with four feet 36\n -- horse with human feet 52\n\n Festivals at transition periods 5 seq.\n\n Fingers, one missing 34\n -- six on right hand 34\n\n Fish, born by woman 40\n -- dogs with fish tails 61\n -- men and other creatures with fish tails 61\n -- Medea changed to a fish 71\n\n Foetus, double 9. 13 seq. 15 seq.\n\n Fox, born by woman 59\n\n Foerster, Richard 44\n\n Frazer, J. G. 5\n\n Funeral rites 5\n\n\n =ganni= 28\n\n Genital members, intact 36. 52\n -- missing 35\n\n Gessner, Conrad 74\n\n Gilgamesh 63\n\n Gizeh 68\n\n Goat 12\n -- men with legs and horns of 61\n -- goat-fish 61\n\n Goerres, Johann Joseph von 75\n\n Gorgon 65\n\n Greek and Roman mythology 64 seq. 66\n\n Greeks and Romans 58\n\n Guinard, L. 37. 40. 73. 77\n\n\n Hand, child with one hand 51\n\n Hare, born by mare 56\n\n Hartland, S. G. 5\n\n Haruspices see Etruscans\n\n Hepatoscopy (see also Liver) 1. 50. 66. 78\n\n Herbig, G. 58\n\n Hermopolis, mummy 77\n\n Herodotus 56\n\n Hippocentaurs 61. 63 seq.\n\n Hirst and Piersol 64. 75\n\n Hittites 3. 58\n -- omens 10\n\n Horse, in birth-omens 12\n -- with human feet 52\n -- mare giving birth to a hare 56\n -- hippocentaurs 61\n -- men with horses' feet 61\n -- three-footed 74\n -- five footed 74\n -- with two tails and mane of lion 62\n -- with human head 62\n -- with dog's head 62\n\n Hybrid formations 60 seq. 67 seq.\n\n\n Ihering, Rudolph von 68\n\n India 67\n\n Infant see Child\n\n Io, changed into a cow 71\n\n Ipopodes, have horses' feet 73\n\n =isbu= (foetus) 13. 19. 60. 62\n\n Ishbi-urra (Babylonian ruler), omen 28\n\n\n Jacobs, Joseph 71\n\n Janus 65\n\n Jastrow, Morris, jr. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 10. 13. 23. 26. 28. 29. 36. 39. 43.\n 49. 57. 58. 60. 63. 65. 66. 67\n\n Jatakas 71\n\n Jaw, missing 34\n\n Julius Obsequens 35. 50 seq. 57. 74\n\n\n =khupipi= 24\n\n Kitt, Theodor 25. 75\n\n\n =lamassu= (winged lion or bull) 62\n\n Lamb see Sheep\n\n Lavater, J. C. 47. 48. 50\n\n Leg, missing 36\n\n Lion, lamb like unto 23 seq. 53. 57. 59\n -- born by woman 40. 53 seq. 57. 59\n -- Alexander's head compared to lion's 47\n -- =sedu, lamassu= with head of 61\n\n Lips, missing 34\n -- upper lip projecting 34\n\n Liver 1\n -- as seat of soul 2\n -- signs on 2\n -- parts of 2\n -- divination texts 6\n -- official reports 9\n -- divination 1. 44\n -- clay models 58\n\n Livy 39. 71. 74. 75\n\n Lotharius Caesar, Duke of Saxony 75\n\n Lu-Bat (planet) 13\n\n Luschan, Felix von 63\n\n Lycosthenes, Conrad 8. 39. 57. 75 seq. 78.\n\n\n Macedonia, monster of 75\n\n Macrobius 55\n\n Malformations 8. 19. 29 seq. 32 seq. 36 seq. 56\n\n Marduk Epic 61\n\n =marratum= (rainbow) 23\n\n Marriage customs 5\n\n Martin, Ernest 72. 75 seq. 77\n\n Maspero, Gaston 68\n\n Medea, changed into a fish 71\n\n Medicine, early 42\n\n Meles (King of Sardis) 57\n\n Mermaids 61\n\n Metamorphosis, of men into animals, of women into men 71\n\n Milk, in lakes 51\n\n Monomeri, have only one foot 73\n\n Monstrosities 8. 10. 20. 29 seq. 33 seq. 44. 51 seq. 54 seq. 60 seq.\n 72 seq.\n\n Monstrum 55. 60. 79\n\n Mouth, child with mouth of bird 33\n -- child without mouth 33\n -- malformation of mouth 56\n\n Mule, giving birth to chicken 56\n -- three-footed, five-footed 74\n\n Multiple births 8. 17 seq. 51 seq. 59\n\n\n Naram-Sin (Babylonian ruler), omens 10\n\n Nergal (god of pestilence) 39 seq.\n\n Nergal-etir (diviner) 10\n\n Neubert, Fritz 49\n\n Nikippos 57\n\n Nostrils, missing 34\n\n\n Official and unofficial interpretations 16 seq. 19. 34 seq. 54\n\n Owl, Vitellius likened to 47\n\n Ox, born by woman 40\n -- human face compared with 46 seq.\n -- talking 52. 74\n\n\n Palestine 69\n\n Pathology, human and animal 7 seq.\n\n Periander 72\n\n Perokomy 25\n\n Phillip of Macedonia 75\n\n Phlegon 71\n\n Physiognomy, study of 8. 23 seq. 43 seq. 70\n -- among Greeks 43 seq. 49\n -- Porta's work 45 seq.\n -- Lavater's work 45. 47 seq.\n -- decline of study 48 seq.\n -- as indication of character 45 seq.\n -- in Europe 45 seq. 49\n\n Pied d'equin (club-foot) 73\n\n Piersol see Hirst\n\n Pig, in birth-omens 12\n -- with five divisions of hoof 73\n\n Plato, views on resemblances between men and animals 43 seq. 80\n -- compared with dog 46 seq.\n\n Pliny 8. 39. 52. 71. 74. 75. 78\n\n Ploss-Bartels 5\n\n Plutarch 72\n\n Polemon 44\n\n Porta, G. B. 45 seq. 80\n\n Portents 51\n\n Prodigium 55 seq.\n\n Prometheus myth 65\n\n Pseudo-Aristotle 44\n\n Pyramids 68\n\n Puberty 5\n\n\n Rain of stones, oil, blood 51\n\n Raven, noses compared with beak of 46\n\n Resemblances, between animals 23 seq. 44 seq. 62\n -- between infants and animals 40. 44 seq. 62. 78\n -- protest against 47 seq. 77 seq.\n\n Richard III, born with teeth 39\n\n Roscius 55\n\n Rossbach, Otto 35. 51\n\n Roy, Jacques 76\n\n\n =s\u00e2= (animal) 40\n\n St. Hilaire Etienne Geoffrey 77\n\n Sakkarah 68\n\n Sargon (Babylonian ruler), omens 10\n\n Satyrs 61\n\n Schaatz, Friedrich 64 seq.\n\n Scheil, Vincent 12\n\n Schwalbe, Ernst 67\n\n Scipodes, have only one foot 73\n\n Scythians, have only one eye 73\n\n =sedu= (winged lion or bull) 62\n\n Se-ma Tsien 67\n\n Sergius Galba (Roman Emperor), likened to an eagle 47\n\n Serpent, born by woman 40. 52\n\n Shakespeare's Henry V 39\n\n Sheep, animal of sacrifice 2\n -- prominence in hepatoscopy 12\n -- omens 13 seq. 19 seq. 23 seq.\n -- resemblance to lion 23 seq.\n -- resemblance to infant 40\n -- color of 55\n -- with feet of a lion 62\n -- with feet of lion, head of dog in front, six feet long and bristles\n of a swine 62\n -- with feet of lion, head of dog, tail of swine 62\n -- with two heads, two tails and dog's feet 62\n -- with two heads, two feet, dog's hair 62\n -- with four division of hoof 73\n -- without ears 73\n -- two-headed 74\n -- with swine's head 74\n\n Siren 64\n\n Siren formation 40\n\n Socrates, compared with stag 47\n\n Sow 10\n\n Sphinxes 60. 68\n\n Spiegelberg, Wilhelm 68 seq.\n\n Stag, human nose compared with stag's 46 seq.\n\n Still-birth 38\n\n Subartu (older name of Assyria) 27\n\n Suetonius 52\n\n Sun at night 51\n\n Swine, born by woman 40\n -- human nose compared with swine's 46\n -- men changed to 71\n -- two-headed 74\n -- with human head 74\n -- with human hands and feet 74\n\n Syria 69\n\n\n Tacitus 55\n\n Talking infant 39. 52. 57 seq.\n\n Teeth, child born with 39\n\n Teratology 77\n\n =tertu= (omen) 13\n\n Testicles, missing 35\n\n Thales 72\n\n Thigh, missing 35\n\n Thompson, R. C. 11\n\n Thrace, monster of 75\n\n Thulin, Carl 54 seq.\n\n =tigri ili= (dwarf) 39\n\n Toes, six on foot 35\n\n Torches in heaven 51\n\n Totemism 70. 79\n\n Transition periods 5\n\n Tritons 61\n\n Turtle, child with turtle's hands and feet 35 seq.\n\n Twins 28 seq.\n -- united at the back 74\n -- \" \" \" breast 76\n -- \" \" \" umbilicum 76\n\n\n Ungnad, Arthur 61\n\n Urumus (Babylonian ruler), omen 10\n\n\n Valerius Maximus 52. 56. 75\n\n Van Gennep, Arnold 5\n\n Virolleaud, Charles 37\n\n Vitellius (Roman Emperor), likened to owl 47\n\n\n Walde, Alois 55\n\n Waldrich, Duke of Saxony 75\n\n Ward, W. H. 64\n\n Winged human figures 61. 63\n\n Woman, giving birth to elephant, to serpent, to seven children 74\n\n Wuelker, Richard 57\n\n\n Xerxes 56\n\n\n Zimmern, Heinrich 61. 63\n\n Zoser (Egyptian ruler) 68\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Embodied in detail in the author's _Religion Babyloniens und\nAssyriens_ II 203-969 to be referred to hereafter as Jastrow _Religion_.\nSee also various special articles by the writer such as \"Signs and Names\nfor the Liver in Babylonian\" (Zeitschr. f. Assyr. XX 105-129). \"The Liver\nin Antiquity and the Beginnings of Anatomy\" (Trans. of the College of\nPhysicians of Phila. XXIX 117-138). \"The Liver in Babylonian Divination\"\n(Proc. of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Soc. of Phila. XXV 23-30). \"The\nLiver as the Seat of the Soul\" (Studies in the History of Religions\npresented to C. H. Toy 143-169). \"Sign and Name for Planet in Babylonian\"\n(Proc. Amer. Philos. Society XLVII 141-156). \"Hepatoscopy and Astrology in\nBabylonia and Assyria\" (ib. XLVII 646-676). \"Sun and Saturn\" (Revue\nd'Assyriologie VII No. 2), and the general survey in the author's _Aspects\nof Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria_ (N. Y. 1911),\nChapter III and IV.\n\n[2] The field of divination was gradually extended so that practically\nevery unusual occurrence or every occurrence that even aroused attention\nwas regarded as an omen. Among these miscellaneous classes of omens we may\ndistinguish as distinct subdivisions (a) dreams, (b) phenomena connected\nwith rivers and canals, (c) movements of animals--chiefly serpents, dogs,\nsheep and certain birds like ravens and falcons; also mice and rats, and\nvarious insects as roaches and locusts, (d) phenomena in houses and\ntemples, including probably (as in Leviticus, Chap. 14) suspicious looking\nmarks or spots, (e) peculiarities and diseases of any portion of the human\nframe. No doubt the list can be still further extended.\n\n[3] See Hepatoscopy and Astrology in Babylonia and Assyria (Proc. Amer.\nPhilos. Society XLVII 646 sq.)\n\n[4] The Greek and Roman method of sending out birds and noting their\nflight is another example of voluntary divination, and so is the ancient\nArabic method of selecting arrows, writing certain words on them, throwing\nthem before the image or symbol of a deity and as they fell, reading the\noracle sent by the deity.\n\n[5] See the details in the writer's 'The Liver as the Seat of the Soul'.\n(Toy Anniversary volume 143-168.)\n\n[6] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 120 sq. and \"The Liver as the Seat of the\nSoul\" (Toy Anniversary volume) 158-165.\n\n[7] See Cumont, _Fatalisme Astrale et Religions Antiques_ (Revue\nd'Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature Religieuse 1912); also the same author's\n_Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans_ (N. Y. 1912).\n\n[8] Bezold and Boll, _Reflexe astrologischer Keilinschriften bei\ngriechischen Schriftstellern_ (Heidelberg Akad. d. Wiss. 1911); see also\nCumont, _Babylon und die griechische Astronomie_ (Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f. das\nklass. Altertum XXVIII Abt. I. 1-10).\n\n[9] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 745 sq. and Boll, _Der ostasiatische\nTierzyklus im Hellenismus_ (Leiden 1912). I hope to treat this phase of\nthe subject more fully in a special article. See for the present the\nsummary of my paper on this subject in the Actes du IV{\u00e8re} Congr\u00e8s\nInternational d'Histoire des Religions (Leiden 1913) 106-111 and Records\nof the Past (Washington) Vol. XII (1913) 12-16.\n\n[10] See Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_--especially the summary in Chap.\nVII, and also Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_ I 93 seq.; 191 seq. etc.\n\n[11] See Plo\u00df-Bartels, _Das Weib_ (2{d} ed.) Chap. XXXII; _Das Kind_ Chap.\nIII, VIII, IX and Van Gennep, _Rites de Passage_ Chap. V.\n\n[12] Part XXVII and Part XXVIII Pl. 1-42 of _Cuneiform Texts from\nBabylonian Tablets etc. in the British Museum_, are taken up with texts of\nthis character.\n\n[13] Parts XX, XXX and XXXI and Pl. 1-42 of Part XXVIII represent the bulk\nof this section of the Library so far as recovered by Layard, Rassam and\nGeorge Smith. Previous to the British Museum publication, Alfred Boissier\nhad published three volumes of divination texts of all kinds under the\ntitle of _Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Pr\u00e9sages_ (Paris 1894-99) and\nin his _Choix de Textes relatifs a la Divination Assyro-Babylonienne_\n(Paris 1905-06).\n\n[14] The chief publications of astrological texts is by Ch. Virolleaud\nunder the title _L'Astrologie Chald\u00e9enne_ (Paris 1903-13), consisting up\nto the present of four parts and two supplements containing texts, and\nfour parts with two supplements containing the transliteration of these\ntexts. Besides this publication, M. Virolleaud has published numerous\nfragments of texts in the periodical _Babyloniaca_, founded and edited by\nhim. Cun. Texts, Part XXX Pl. 43-50 also contains astrological texts; Part\nXXXIII Pl. 1-12 are aids to astrology.\n\n[15] Chiefly by Boissier in the two works mentioned in note 2 on p. 6.\n\n[16] Copious specimens of liver divinations texts in German translation\nwith comments will be found in the author's _Religion Babyloniens und\nAssyriens_ II 227-412; of Astrological Texts _ib_ II 458-740; Oil and\nWater, Divination _ib_ II 749-775; of Animal omens _ib_ II 775-826; of\nBirth omens _ib_ II 837-941 and a summary view of the miscellaneous omens\n_ib_ II 946-969.\n\n[17] The same is the case with the collections of liver signs and to a\nlarge extent also in the case of the astrological collections.\n\n[18] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 24 Cases of more than three births at one time\nare extremely rare. A case of quintuplets in Groningen in the year 1897 is\nvouched for by Prof. D\u00f6derlein of Munich and one was reported in the\nnewspapers recently as occurring in the United States. A case of\nsextuplets is noted by Vasalli in the Boll. Med. della Svizzera Italiana,\n1894, Nos. 3 and 4. This seems to be the highest mark, though Pliny, Hist.\nNat. VII 3, on the authority of Trogus records that a woman in Egypt gave\nbirth to seven infants at one time; Lycosthenes, Prodigiorum ac.\nOstentorum Chronicon (Basel 1557) p. 284 reports the same number born in\nthe days of Algemundus, King of the Lombards.\n\n[19] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 3.\n\n[20] E. g. Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 45 (K. 12050); XXVIII Pl. 42, 20.\n\n[21] In the same way we have hundreds of _official_ reports of occurences\nand observed phenomena in the heavens with the interpretations taken from\nthe astrological texts; and we also have a large number of official\nreports of the same character dealing with the results of the inspection\nof the liver of a sacrificial animal, killed and inspected at a given time\nfor the purpose of obtaining an answer to a question put. These reports\nare made in all cases to the rulers, which thus stamps them as official.\nSee copious examples in Jastrow, _Religion_, II 227-271; 275-319 (Liver\ntexts); 458-542; 578-584; 613-616; 639-652; 656-673; 688-692 (Astrological\nTexts).\n\n[22] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 28.\n\n[23] The first omen is taken from Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 26, 11; the second\nfrom ib. line 10.\n\n[24] The omens were always supposed to bear on events of a public import;\nhence the reports may always be assumed to be addressed to the reigning\nking, even when this is not expressly stated.\n\n[25] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 45.\n\n[26] From other sources (cf. Jastrow, _Religion_ II 467, 3) we know that\nNergal-etir flourished during the reign of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria\n(705-668 B. C.).\n\n[27] Cun. Texts XXXVII Pl. 30.\n\n[28] The text from which this omen is quoted is found. Cun. Texts XXVII\nPl. 48, 2-4.\n\n[29] See examples in Jastrow, _Religion_ II 227-244 (Sargon and Naram-Sin\nomens); 333 and 392 (murder of a ruler Urumu); 555, (invasion of Babylonia\nby Hittites); see also 226, 3; 843, 7 and articles by the writer in\nZeitschr. f. Assyr. XXI 277-282 and Revue S\u00e9mitique XVII 87-96.\n\n[30] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 6; also Boissier, _Documents Assyriens_ 185 (the\nfirst publication of this text, the importance of which was recognized by\nBoissier) and Thompson, _Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of\nNineveh and Babylon_ (London 1900) Nr. 276.\n\n[31] I. e. A child of the harem--not the legitimate heir.\n\n[32] Les plus anciennes Dynasties connues de Sumer-Accad. Comptes Rendus\nde l'Acad. des Inscript. et Belles-Lettres 1911, 606-621.\n\n[33] The position occupied by the sheep in divination leads in astrology\nto the use of the Sumerian term Lu-Bat, i. e., 'dead sheep' as the\ndesignation of the planets, the association of ideas being 'dead sheep' ==\n=t\u00eartu= 'omen' and then == planet, because the planets were regarded as\nomens. In the larger sense, the moon and sun were included among the\nplanets. See Jastrow, _Religion_ II p. 448 sq. and the article \"Sign and\nName for Planets in Babylonian\" quoted in note 1 on p. 1.\n\n[34] See Jastrow _Religion_ II 845, 1 and 847, 68.\n\n[35] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 25-26 completed by the duplicate Pl. 27-28.\n\n[36] Shown by the continuation of the text. Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 26.\n\n[37] I. e. twisted up in a heap.\n\n[38] An interpretation evidently based on the fact of a destructive storm\nthat swept over the land after the birth of a monstrosity as described in\nthe omen.\n\n[39] Three interpretations, gathered from various documents and here\nunited.\n\n[40] Not infrequently a birth-omen is interpreted as applying to the owner\nof the mother lamb or to the household in which the lamb was born,--but\ngenerally as an alternative to an _official_ interpretation bearing on\npublic affairs. See e. g. below pp. 15 and 16.\n\n[41] See below p. 16.\n\n[42] I. e., lying at the mouth.\n\n[43] I. e., presumably the plantation and house of the owner of the mother\nlamb.\n\n[44] The opposite to this is 'throne will support throne', i. e., there\nwill be mutual support.\n\n[45] I. e., the stall of the owner of the mother lamb.\n\n[46] I. e., the property of the owner of the mother lamb will be\nconfiscated.\n\n[47] I. e., the second issues from the belly of the other, or appears to\ndo so.\n\n[48] Whatever occurred to the king or to a member of his household was an\nomen for the _general_ welfare under the ancient view of the king as the\nrepresentative of the deity on earth.\n\n[49] A partial exception, however occurs in the case of three and of ten\nlambs being produced at one birth. See below p. 18.\n\n[50] I. e., of course, the head resembles that of a bull. See below p. 23\nsq. and 27 sq.\n\n[51] I. e., with a normal head.\n\n[52] A variant reads, \"the city will acquire sovereignty\".\n\n[53] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 37-38 of which again Pl. 36 is an extract.\n\n[54] The term used throughout is =isbu= for which see above p. 13.\n\n[55] The unusual number of alternative interpretations--though all\nunfavorable--points to the compilation of the text from various sources in\nwhich the sign was again entered with a different interpretation in each.\nThese varying interpretations are here united; and no doubt the priests\nfelt that there was safety in numbers. One of the seven prognosticated\nevents was quite certain to happen--at some time. The chief point was that\nthe sign was unfavorable.\n\n[56] I. e., the stall of the owner of the mother lamb.\n\n[57] As above, an unofficial and an official interpretation.\n\n[58] I. e., displaced.\n\n[59] I. e., of Babylonia or Assyria.\n\n[60] I. e., a demoniac being or a monstrosity of some kind.\n\n[61] I. e., of the owner of the mother lamb.\n\n[62] I. e., the rudiments of what seems to be a second ear.\n\n[63] Similarly, a second ear appearing below or above (?) the other one,\nis a favorable sign; on the right side, therefore, favorable to you, on\nthe left favorable to the enemy, and, therefore, unfavorable to your side.\n\n[64] There is inserted at this point an omen for the case that \"a foetus\nhas eight (?) feet and two tails with unfavorable interpretations,\napproach of an usurper, no unity in the land, the land will destroy its\ninhabitants.\"\n\n[65] I. e., not one within the other--in all, therefore, three ears.\n\n[66] Literally \"full\".\n\n[67] The 'wide-eared man' (rapas uzni) is the wise man. Ashurbanapal in\nthe subscript to the tablets of his library thanks the gods for having\n'opened his ears wide', i. e. given him understanding etc.\n\n[68] See the partial list of such texts, Jastrow, _Religion_ II 851 note\n1.\n\n[69] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 21-22, with a duplicate Pl. 19 (K. 4132).\n\n[70] For =marratum= \"the rain-bow\" see Jastrow, _Religion_ II 739 note 7\nand 875, note 3. The \"rain-bow\" bird must have been one distinguished by\nits manifold coloring. A lion-lamb with the head of a 'rainbow bird' was,\ntherefore, a young lamb with a large lion-like head, but showing various\nhues and shades.\n\n[71] The god of pestilence.\n\n[72] An animal not yet identified.\n\n[73] Low prices indicate hard times and are an unfavorable sign; high\nprices are favorable. The gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria appear to\nhave been on the side of the \"Trusts\".\n\n[74] It is assumed that the abnormal birth is still-born, but in this\nparticular case the eyes are open.\n\n[75] Such a monstrosity is known as Acephaly in modern nomenclature. See\nKitt, _Lehrbuch der pathologischen Anatomie der Haustiere_ (4 ed.) I, 72,\nfor illustrations of an =Acephalus bipes=.\n\n[76] Known in modern nomenclature as Brachyprosopy. See Kitt, ib. I 87 sq.\n\n[77] Presumably the mistress of the household in which the monstrosity was\nborn.\n\n[78] Perokormy--See the illustration in Kitt, ib. I 75 sq.\n\n[79] Cross-breeding, in fact, is a comparatively rare phenomenon in the\nanimal world, limited to the horse and ass, horse and zebra, dog and wolf,\ndog and fox, or jackal, lion and tiger, ox and buffalo or yak, hare and\nrabbit, camel and dromedary, goat and mountain stag, and possibly lambs\nand goats. See Ellenberger-Scheunert, _Lehrbuch der vergleichenden\nPhysiologie der Hauss\u00e4ugetiere_ (Berlin 1910) 703.\n\n[80] See the enumeration in Jastrow, _Religion_ II 873 note 2, e. g.,\n'eyes like those of a dog' in the case of a newly-born lamb (Cun. Texts\nXVII Pl. 23, 14), 'foot like that of a lion' (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 45,\n34), 'head like that of a dog' (Cun. Texts, XXVIII Pl. 36, 15); in the\ncase of a double foetus 'both like a lion' or 'like a dog' (Cun. Texts\nXXVII Pl. 48, 11-12) etc.\n\n[81] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 22, obv. 13-25.\n\n[82] Ideographic designation 'water dog'.\n\n[83] The chief god of Nippur and the older head of the pantheon.\n\n[84] I. e., an alternative interpretation.\n\n[85] An unidentified animal.\n\n[86] I. e., an alternative interpretation of a less official character.\n\n[87] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 879 note 9.\n\n[88] Founder of the Isin dynasty (c. 2175 B. C.)--another illustration of\nan historical omen.\n\n[89] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 4, 15-39, completed by the duplicates Pl. 3,\n22-27 and Pl. 1, 1-2 and Pl. 6. The complete translation of the tablet\nwith its various duplicates will be found in Jastrow, _Religion_ II\n900-916.\n\n[90] An alternative 'unofficial' interpretation as in the instances noted\nabove pp. 15-16, 20 etc.\n\n[91] Two interpretations, both unofficial--a rather unusual case.\n\n[92] The rest of the line is broken off.\n\n[93] The line is defective, but the omen was without doubt unfavorable.\n\n[94] As in the case of the famous Siamese twins.\n\n[95] Interpretation broken off, but it was no doubt the reverse of what\nwas entered in the preceding omen, i. e., unfavorable for the enemy and\ntherefore, favorable to your side.\n\n[96] The end of the line can be restored by comparison with the preceding\nomen.\n\n[97] Restoration certain.\n\n[98] I. e., the capital.\n\n[99] Interpretation no doubt unfavorable.\n\n[100] Restored by comparison with the second omen--above p. 29.\n\n[101] Rest of the line broken off, but the interpretation was no doubt\nunfavorable.\n\n[102] The end of the line supplied by Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 24, 16.\n\n[103] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 241, 16 (K. 3881) to the close of the tablet.\n\n[104] Above p. 19 seq.\n\n[105] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 16, together with Pl. 17, 18--an extract from\nthe fuller tablet.\n\n[106] I. e., of the child; and so of course in every case.\n\n[107] Compare the omen in the case of the young of an animal, above p. 19.\n\n[108] I. e., the father of the child.\n\n[109] The 'left' side being unfavorable to the enemy is favorable to you.\nWe may, however, expect to find in a variant text 'A weakling will be born\nin the enemy's house'.\n\n[110] See preceding note.\n\n[111] I. e., misplaced.\n\n[112] I. e., protect it.\n\n[113] =Agnathy= in modern nomenclature. See Birnbaum, _Klinik der\nMi\u00dfbildungen_ 73.\n\n[114] I. e., the upper lip falls over the lower one.\n\n[115] I. e., the father of the child.\n\n[116] I. e., the city in which the child was born.\n\n[117] Of the same house.\n\n[118] Presumably to the household in which the child was born.\n\n[119] I. e., the mother.\n\n[120] Variant 'the offspring', i. e., the newly born infant.\n\n[121] I. e., there will be a political upheaval.\n\n[122] This malformation of a child with a closed anus is frequently\nreferred to in Roman omens, e. g., Julius Obsequens, de prodigiis (ed.\nRo\u00dfbach), \u00a7\u00a7 26 and 40. See below p. 52.\n\n[123] I. e., only the rudiments of a foot are to be seen.\n\n[124] I. e., they are directly attached to the body without thighs.\n\n[125] I. e., bent and deformed so that one cannot stand on it.\n\n[126] Twisted legs as in the illustration in Jastrow's _Bildermappe zur\nRel. Babyl. und Assyr._ No. 35.\n\n[127] As, e. g., Guinard, _Pr\u00e9cis de Teratologie_ or Birnbaum, _Klinik der\nMi\u00dfbildungen_.\n\n[128] Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 34, with duplicate K 630 (Virolleaud,\n_Fragments des Textes Divinatoires_ 9).\n\n[129] I. e., a shapeless abortion suggesting =pudenda=.\n\n[130] I. e., a miscarriage, shaped like a head.\n\n[131] I. e., a shapeless mass.\n\n[132] I. e., an embryo.\n\n[133] I. e., a shapeless mass.\n\n[134] I. e., the father. Note the five alternative interpretations\npointing again to the union of various collections of omens.\n\n[135] The god of pestilence.\n\n[136] I. e., the father of the child.\n\n[137] In which the birth took place.\n\n[138] =Aprosopy.= See above p. 25.\n\n[139] In which the birth took place.\n\n[140] The expression used is =tigri ili= 'a divine =tigru='--which I take\nto be the Babylonian term for dwarf. See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 913 note\n7.\n\n[141] Elsewhere we find the anomaly of a child born with a beard or with\nhair on the chin referred to. See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 929.\n\n[142] The talking infant (see also Jastrow, _Religion_ II 929 note 6)\noccurs frequently as a prodigy in Roman literature. See Lycosthenes,\nProdigiorum ac Ostentorum Chronicon 113. 228 etc.\n\n[143] See further Jastrow, _Religion_ II 928--infants born with one tooth,\nwith two teeth or a number of teeth. The omen is also found in Roman\nliterature, Livy, Historia XLI, 21; Pliny, Hist. Nat. VII, 15. King\nRichard the Third is among the historical personages said to have been\nborn with teeth and which was regarded as an evil omen. (See Henry V, 3d\nPart. Act V, 6. 53 and 75.)\n\n[144] Nergal, the god of pestilence, is meant. The text adds as a note\n'Such a being is called a divine =tigru='. See note 1 above.\n\n[145] Cun. Texts XXVI Pl. 4 with various duplicates and 'extract' tablets.\nSee Jastrow, _Religion_ II 907, note 1.\n\n[146] An unidentified animal.\n\n[147] In another list of birth-omens a woman giving birth to a serpent is\ninterpreted that 'the king will increase in power' (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl.\n43, 9).\n\n[148] =Alluttu=--described elsewhere (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 46, 9), as a\nfish with a thick head--probably, therefore, a dolphin.\n\n[149] Such a malformation with the feet united and ending in the rudiments\nof toes that resemble fish's tail is still called a 'Sirenformation' in\nmodern nomenclature. See Guinard, _Pr\u00e9cis de Teratologie_ 366 with\nillustrations fig. 178 and 179. See also Lycosthenes l. c. 142 and 316,\nalso Hirst and Piersol, Human Monstrosities 88 and Pl. VII (sireno-melus).\n\n[150] The interpretation is broken off.\n\n[151] Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 3, 10; where this comparison is introduced\nwith the interpretation that 'the king will be without a rival'.\n\n[152] _L'astrologie Grecque_ IX.\n\n[153] See numerous examples in Cun. Texts XXIII.\n\n[154] See the writer's paper on 'The Liver and the Beginnings of Anatomy'\nquoted on p. 1 note 1.\n\n[155] On the basis of such passages as Phaedo, \u00a7 31. See, however, the\npostcript on p. 80.\n\n[156] See Scriptores Physiognomici Graeci et Latini (ed. Richard Foerster,\nLeipzig 1903, 2 vols.) containing the treatises of Pseudo-Aristotle,\nPolemon, Adamantius and others. See Chapter I of Polemon (ed. Foerster I\n108) and Chapter II (170-198); Chapter II, 2 of Adamantius (349 sq.) for a\nlong enumeration of the resemblances between man and animals and the\nconclusions to be drawn therefrom.\n\n[157] 'Physiognomika' included in Foerster's edition I 5-91. See\nFoerster's Prolegomena to his edition XIX, 2.\n\n[158] I quote from the Latin ed. of 1593 (Hanovia).\n\n[159] He also has a series of chapters on the voice, which are much more\nreasonable in character because of the omission of any comparisons with\nanimals; and passes on to the hands, the breast, the belly and the thighs\nand feet, and the general shape of the body.\n\n[160] _Physiognomische Fragmente_ (Leipzig 1775-1778).\n\n[161] _Von der Physiognomik_ (Leipzig 1772), 2. St\u00fcck p. 45.\n\n[162] Fritz Neubert, _Die volkst\u00fcmlichen Anschauungen \u00fcber Physiognomik in\nFrankreich bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters_ (Munich Dissertation 1910)\n118.\n\n[163] See Jastrow _Religion_, II 704 sq.\n\n[164] I quote Rossbach's edition in the Teubner Series.\n\n[165] In the Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens, such cases, expressed by the\nphrase 'middle portion open', are very frequent, e. g., Cun. Text XXVII\nPl. 44 (K 3166); 47, 14-15; 44 etc.\n\n[166] See above p. 39 and below p. 57.\n\n[167] Above p. 40.\n\n[168] In the same paragraph he records the birth of a serpent by a woman\nas in Julius Obsequens \u00a7 57.\n\n[169] Book I, 6.\n\n[170] E. g., =cave tibi, Roma= (I, 6, 5) at the time of the Second Punic\nWar.\n\n[171] I, 6, 5. Further examples of all kinds of omens are found in Chap. 8\nof the first book of the Memorabilia.\n\n[172] Life of Julius Caesar \u00a7 61.\n\n[173] De Divinatione I 41-42.\n\n[174] Arnobius, Adversum Nationes VII 26 calls Etruria the =genetrix et\nmater superstitionis=.\n\n[175] See above p. 4.\n\n[176] De Divinatione I 53.\n\n[177] Cun. Texts XXIII Pl. 14, 4.\n\n[178] De Divinatione I 53. Cicero does not specifically state that the\ninterpretation is due to Etruscan haruspices, but Thulin, _Etruskische\nDisziplin_ III 116, properly concludes that Cicero who is discussing\nEtruscan augury in the paragraph has Etruscan augurs in mind.\n\n[179] See above p. 14 note 2. Among the Romans these two classes were\nknown as =ostenta publica= and =ostenta privata= (Thulin, _Etruskische\nDisziplin_ III 86 and 116, 1).\n\n[180] The phrase =bartu= or =bartu ina m\u00e2ti= 'revolt' or 'revolt in the\ncountry' occurs hundreds of times in the divination texts.\n\n[181] See p. 29 and 31.\n\n[182] See p. 31.\n\n[183] See above p. 29 sq. Cicero also furnishes us (de Divinatione I 36)\nwith a most striking parallel between a Babylonian-Assyrian animal omen\nand an Etruscan interpretation of the same omen. He tells us that the\nnurse of the young Roscius observed how a serpent came and wound itself\naround the sleeping child. On inquiry, the Haruspices declared that the\noccurrence was an omen indicating that the child would become famous and\ndistinguished above his fellows. In the same way we find in the\nBabylonian-Assyrian texts that 'if a serpent is found lying on a little\nchild, the child whether male or female, will acquire renown and riches'.\nSee Jastrow, _Religion_ II 782 and 942, 3.\n\n[184] =Saturnalia= III 7, 2 also quoted by Servius, though in a slightly\nmodified form. See Thulin, _Etruskische Disziplin_ III 76 and 102.\n\n[185] The chief colors in Babylonia-Assyrian omen texts are white, black,\nyellow and dark red. See e. g., Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 32 (K. 3838 etc.),\n4-9.\n\n[186] Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 19 (K. 13443), 5.\n\n[187] =hud libbi=, literally 'joy of heart'.\n\n[188] Cicero, De Divinatione I 41, who correctly explains the application\nof =monstrum= to a malformation. For the etymology of =prodigium=, see\nWalde, _Lateinisch-Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch_ s. v.\n\n[189] De Generatione Animalium IV, 54. See above p. 44.\n\n[190] He gives as illustrations a child born with the head of a ram or of\nan ox; a calf born with a child's head, or a lamb with the head of an ox.\nSee further ib IV, 65 seq.\n\n[191] De Generatione IV, 63. See above p. 44. He argues against the\npossibility of such hybrid creatures (IV, 55), on the ground of the\nvarying length of pregnancy in the case of women, ewes, bitches, and cows.\n\n[192] I, 6, de Prodigiis quae evenere Externis \u00a7 1. See also Herodotus,\nVII 57 who represents the source of Valerius Maximus.\n\n[193] Book I, 8 de Miraculis quae contigere Externis \u00a7 12.\n\n[194] VII, 57.\n\n[195] Varia Historia I 29. Aelian says that the story was told by 'the\nchildren in Cos'--evidently a rationalistic supplement to the tale, dating\nfrom a time when it was no longer considered possible to take such stories\nseriously. The story had become, as we would say, 'an old wives' tale'.\n\n[196] See above p. 24 sq. and Jastrow, _Religion_ II 875 sq.\n\n[197] Herodotus I \u00a7 84.\n\n[198] Herodotus I \u00a7 85; Cicero, De Divinatione I 53. The latter preserves\nthe tradition in its correct form =Croesi filium cum infans esset\nlocutum=. The omen consists in the fact that the =infant= speaks as in the\ncases reported by Julius Obsequens (see above 52). In Herodotus the story\nis perverted through the rationalistic touch that the son of Croesus was\ndumb for many years (cf. also \u00a7\u00a7 34 and 39) but suddenly acquired the\npower of speech. The story loses its point by this modification. The\ncorrect form of the story is also given by Lycosthenes, _Prodigiorum ac\nOstentorum Chronicon_ 65. The 'speaking' infant of which Wuelker,\n_Prodigienwesen bei den R\u00f6mern_ 20 gives six instances, was always\nregarded as an ill omen, prognosticating some national misfortune.\n\n[199] See above p. 39.\n\n[200] See the writer's article 'The Liver as the Seat of the Soul' in\n'Studies in the History of Religions in honor of C. H. Toy' 164 and\nJastrow, _Religion_ II 742. Several of the models are now in the Berlin\nMuseum, and will, it is hoped, soon be published.\n\n[201] See Herbig's article on the 'Etruscan Religion' in Hastings'\nDictionary of Religion and Ethics. The possibility, indeed, that the\nEtruscans belong to one of the Hittite groups is to be seriously\nconsidered, though naturally the problem cannot be approached until\nfurther advances in the decipherment of the Hittite inscriptions shall\nhave been made, following along the line of R. C. Thompson's recent\nattempt \"A New Development of the Hittite Hieroglyphics\" (Oxford 1913),\nwhich unquestionably marks considerable progress.\n\n[202] See further Jastrow, _Religion_ II 320, 3.\n\n[203] See above 26.\n\n[204] Aristotle, de Generatione IV, 54 refers to a physiognomist who\ntraced back all such 'malformations' (as Aristotle calls them) to two or\nthree animals, and whose views he says met with much favor, the assumption\nbeing that such hybrid beings were produced by the union between a woman\nand an animal, or by crossing of animals. As a matter of fact intercourse\nbetween a human being and an animal never produces results, and the\ncrossing of animals only in restricted cases, which do not enter into\nconsideration in the birth-omens. See above p. 26 note 1.\n\n[205] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 29.\n\n[206] Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 48.\n\n[207] The name given to these demons. See Jastrow, _Bildermappe zur\nReligion Babyloniens und Assyriens_ Nr. 62.\n\n[208] See above p. 29 seq.\n\n[209] In the Chronicle of Eusebius (ed. Schoene I 14, 18). See also\nZimmern, _Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_ II 488 seq.\n\n[210] See Ungnad's translation in Gressmann's _Altorientalische Texte und\nBilder_ I 8.\n\n[211] E. g., horses with the heads of dogs (Cun. Texts XXVI Pl. 48, 9); an\n=isbu= (young of animal) with human head (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 29, 26 and\n31, 8); infants with two faces, four hands and four feet (Cun. Texts XXVII\nPl. 8, 10, 21-22 (K. 7093)); human face and body of a =sedu=, i. e., a\nbody of a lion or bull with wings (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 10, 23 == Pl. 8, 6\n== Pl. 15,17); infant with male and female organs (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl.\n5, 11); with the face of an ass (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 15, 12);\n=isbu=--probably lamb--with feet of a lion (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 45, 34);\nhorse with two tails and mane of lion (Cun. Texts XXVII Pl. 49, 3 (K.\n4031)); horse with human head (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 31, 7); animals with\ntwo to seven heads (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 33 (K. 6288 rev.)); =isbu= (here\nprobably a lamb) with the feet of a lion, head of dog in front, six feet\nand bristles of a swine (Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 38, 13); with the feet of a\nlion, head of a dog and tail of a swine (ib. 1. 15); with two heads, two\ntails and feet like those of a dog (ib. 1. 17); two heads, two feet, hair\nof a dog (ib. 1. 19), etc.\n\n[212] Tablet IX.\n\n[213] See Jastrow, _Bildermappe zur Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_\nNos. 149, 150, 184 usw.\n\n[214] See Zimmern, _Keilinschriften und das A. T._ II 503 sq.\n\n[215] Jastrow ib. No. 120; other fanciful forms, Nos. 193-199.\n\n[216] See Jastrow, _Bildermappe_ (Gie\u00dfen 1912), Nos. 36-47 (on Boundary\nStones), 52-53 (dragons), 55-60 (winged human figures and winged human\nfigure with eagle face), 61 (bull with human head), 62 (winged bull with\nhuman face), 63-64 (winged horses, winged bulls, winged sphinxes, winged\nhuman figures).\n\n[217] See Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_ IV 330 sq. and 338 sq.\nand Pl. LV-LVI.\n\n[218] Jastrow, _Bildermappe_ No. 32 winged hippocentaur with two heads\n(man and lion) with scorpion tail and horse's tail and scorpions attached\nto the forelegs; No. 33, upright hippocentaur, head, arms and upper part\nof the body that of a man, lower part of the body that of a horse with two\nfeet. Similar figures appear on seal cylinders, e. g. Ward, Seal Cylinders\nof Western Asia, 382, and Clay, Dated Cassite Archives, 15 and Pl. XV, No.\n6. See Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art pp. 1-4. A vast amount of material\nbearing on the representation of all kinds of monstrous beings in\nBabylonian, Assyrian and Hittite art will be found in Ward's valuable work\njust quoted, particularly in chapters LI to LV and LXVII to LXIX, but also\nchapters VII-XI; XV (Bird-man!) XVIII, XXXVI and XXXVIII.\n\n[219] See e. g. Hirst and Piersol, _Human Monstrosities_ 116 Pl. XXII.\n\n[220] See above p. 40 note 4.\n\n[221] This birth-omen 'if a woman gives birth to a head' actually occurs\nin the Babylonian-Assyrian collections, e. g., Cun. Texts XXVIII Pl. 34,\n24 (K. 8274). See above p. 37.\n\n[222] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 943, 1. The vulture eats the liver\nbecause it is the seat of life. The renewal of the liver is the renewal of\nlife. Prometheus thus suffers perpetual death and is yet condemned to\neternal renewal of life. This view of the liver is incidentally a proof of\nthe high antiquity of the myth.\n\n[223] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 320 seq.\n\n[224] Vol. 38 (190), 209-311.\n\n[225] Schwalbe, _Mi\u00dfgeburten und Mi\u00dfbildungen bei Menschen und Tieren_ I\n39 also favors this view.\n\n[226] See p. 4 and Jastrow, _Religion_ II 740 seq.\n\n[227] See Jastrow, _Religion_ II 937, 2. In Se-ma Tsien's _Memoires\nHistoriques_ tr. by Chavannes I 13, there is a reference to a monster\nwhich had the body of a man and the head of an ox, and which was born to a\nwoman through a dragon.\n\n[228] See Spiegelberg, _Geschichte der \u00e4gyptischen Kunst_ 17; Maspero _Art\nin Egypt_ 40.\n\n[229] _The Evolution of the Aryan_ 101.\n\n[230] Pointed out by Hommel, _Grundri\u00df der Geographie und Geschichte des\nalten Orients_ I 113-129 who, however, includes much in his discussion\nthat is doubtful, and draws conclusions that are entirely too far\nreaching.\n\n[231] See Maspero, _Art in Egypt_ 80.\n\n[232] _Geschichte der \u00e4gyptischen Kunst_ 35--perhaps to Amenemhat III of\nthe 12th dynasty.\n\n[233] Hist. Nat. VII 3.\n\n[234] See also Phlegon, Mirabilia (ed. Keller) IV-X including (VI) the\ncase of a woman turning into a man in the days of Emperor Claudius at\nAntiochia.\n\n[235] See Joseph Jacobs, Introduction to his edition of the _Fables of\nBidpai_ (London 1888) XXXIX-LI.\n\n[236] See the references in Ernest Martin, _Histoire des Monstres depuis\nl'antiquit\u00e9 jusqu'\u00e0 nos jours_ (Paris 1880) 7 seq. Martin's book is a mine\nof valuable information on this subject.\n\n[237] Banquet of the Seven Sages \u00a7 3. The story is placed in the days of\nPeriander and Thales, and relates the remarkable birth of a centaur in the\nherd of Periander. Thales is asked to examine the strange creature, and\nafter doing so asks the diviner Diocles, whether he does not intend to\nmake some expiation in order to avert the anger of the gods. The diviner\nanswers 'Why not?', and assures Thales that the birth of the monster is an\nomen of discord and sedition. Thales smiled and looking at the young\nshepherd of Periander in charge of the herd advised Periander to keep a\nlook-out on his young men, or to provide wives for them. The intimation\nreflects little credit on Thales' knowledge of the processes of nature.\n\n[238] See for actually occurring human monstrosities, Hirst and Peirsol,\n_Human Monstrosities_; Kitt, _Pathologische Anatomie der Haustiere_ (4th\ned.) I Chap. III and Guinard's _Pr\u00e9cis de Teratologie_ (Paris 1893), e. g.\nin the last named work, a lamb without ears (168), an infant with a caudal\nappendix (82), club-foot (131--still called pied d'equin), six toes (128),\na pig with five divisions of the hoof, a lamb with four divisions, a dog\nwith six etc. (129).\n\n[239] Hist. Nat. VII \u00a7 3.\n\n[240] Also such omens as the speaking infant (113. 118), while still in\nthe womb (175), the talking ox (65. 113. 118. 125. 129. 140. 146. 153.\n159. 166. etc.), by the side of the two-headed swine (129), three-footed\nmule or horse (150. 157. 166), a five-footed horse or mule (131. 136. 171.\n176), two-headed calf (180. 181. 308), lamb with swine's head (135. 136),\nswine with human head (124. 136. 138), with human hands and feet (165),\ntwo-headed lamb (138. 139. 197. 198), boy with elephant's head (125),\ninfant without eyes or nose (141), without arms or feet (142), two-headed\nboy (155. 177. 315. 317), with four hands and four legs (163. 165. 172.\n317), with three legs (168 and 169), with three legs and three hands\n(199), with four legs (175), androgynous infants (125. 135. 170. 175. 181.\n187. 196. 198), twins united at the back etc., (198. 284), a child with\nbeard and four eyes (272), a woman giving birth to an elephant (201), to a\nserpent (209-210), a woman giving birth to seven children in days of\nAlgemundus, first king of Lombards (284), a boy without eyes, no arms and\na fish tail instead of feet (316) etc.\n\n[241] Conrad Gessner, _Allgemeines Thierbuch_ (Deutsch von Conrad Foerer,\nFrankfurt 1669) 19.\n\n[242] p. 582. The chronicle is brought down in fact to the year 1557.\n\n[243] p. 32-68.\n\n[244] _Christliche Mystik_ III 440 seq.\n\n[245] Le Diable (Paris 1864).\n\n[246] In the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary,\nthis factor is involved.\n\n[247] See above 44.\n\n[248] P. 98. Chapter XII, of Martin's work, ('Les Monstres Celebres'),\nfurnishes many supplements to Lycosthenes work, including some interesting\nexamples of Hermaphrodites.\n\n[249] Martin p. 100.\n\n[250] The mummy was found in the cemetery reserved for the sacred animals,\nfrom which Martin concludes that the Egyptians shared the general belief\nin monsters as due to the combination of the human with the animal. It\nwould be interesting in view of the present stage of Egyptological\nresearch to determine the exact character of the mummy which was thus\ndestined to play so important a part in the history of modern medicine.\nSee Martin, ib Introduction p. V.\n\n[251] See Guinard, _Pr\u00e9cis de Teratologie_ (Paris 1854) in which a full\naccount of the theory of St. Hilaire and of those who followed in his\nfootsteps is given.\n\n[252] P. T. Barnum, the famous American showman, in his Memoirs tells in a\nmost frank manner of the manufacture of his monsters--living and dead.\n\n[253] Hist. Nat. VII 3.\n\n[254] Amsterdamer Weekblad voor Nederland, May 28, 1911. The illustration\nattached to the description reveals the bogus character of the 'monster'.\n\n\n\n\n Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten\n begr\u00fcndet von\n Albrecht Dieterich und Richard W\u00fcnsch\n =herausgegeben=\n von\n\n Richard W\u00fcnsch und Ludwig Deubner\n in M\u00fcnster i. W. in K\u00f6nigsberg i. Pr.\n\n Vierzehnter Band\n\n 1913/1914\n\n Verlag von Alfred T\u00f6pelmann (vorm. J. Ricker) in Gie\u00dfen\n\n\nInhaltsverzeichnis des vierzehnten Bandes\n\nLinck, Kurt: =De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Iesum Nazarenum spectant\ntestimoniis= (1. Heft).\n\nK\u00f6chling, Josef: =De coronarum apud antiquos vi atque usu= (2. Heft).\n\nScheftelowitz, Isidor: =Das stellvertretende Huhnopfer= (3. Heft).\n\nDirichlet, Gustav Lejeune: =De veterum macarismis= (4. Heft).\n\nJastrow, jr., Morris: =Babylonian-Assyrian Birth Omens= (5. Heft).\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nSuperscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.\n\nGesperrt text is indicated by =gesperrt=.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
","title":"Babylonian-Assyrian Birth-Omens and Their Cultural Significance","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":31509}