{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71384/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71384","id":"gutenberg_71384","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71384","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Christianity and other religions","Religions"],"text":"FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n                         CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                            C. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n                         London: FETTER LANE, E.C.\n                       Edinburgh: 100 PRINCES STREET\n\n                       New York: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n                Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n                     Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.\n                    Tokyo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA\n\n\n                           _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                 FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n                                 BEING\n\n                      STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY\n                       FROM 330 B.C. TO 330 A.D.\n\n                                   BY\n                            F. LEGGE, F.S.A.\n\n     (Honorary) Foreign Secretary Society of Biblical Archaeology,\n                Member of Council Royal Asiatic Society,\n            Member of Committee Egypt Exploration Fund, &c.\n\n\n                 \u201cThe ghosts of words and dusty dreams\u201d\n                 \u201cOld memories, faiths infirm and dead\u201d\n\n                          SWINBURNE, _F\u00e9lise_.\n\n\n                             IN TWO VOLUMES\n\n                                 VOL. I\n\n\n                               Cambridge:\n                        at the University Press\n                                  1915\n\n                               Cambridge:\n                       PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.\n                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThe following pages are a modest attempt to bring before the public\ncertain documents of great importance for the understanding of the\ngrowth and development of the Christian religion. They are not new,\nalmost all of them having been translated at one time or another into\nEnglish, French, German, or Italian: but they are all practically\nunknown save to scholars, are all fragmentary, and with hardly an\nexception, are difficult to understand without a running commentary. In\nthese circumstances, I have ventured to follow, not for the first time,\nthe advice given by Sir Gaston Maspero to his pupils in one of his\nluminous lectures at the Coll\u00e8ge de France. \u201cIf\u201d said in effect that\ngreat master of archaeology, \u201cyou find yourselves in the presence of\nscattered and diverse examples of any monument you cannot\nunderstand\u2014funerary cones, amulets of unusual form, hypocephali, or\nanything else\u2014make a collection of them. Search museums, journals of\nEgyptology, proceedings of learned societies, until you think they have\nno more novelties of the kind to offer you. Then put those you have\ncollected side by side and study them. The features they have in common\nwill then readily appear and in a little time you will find that you\nwill perceive not only the use of the objects in question, but also the\nhistory of their development, their connexion with each other, and their\nrelative dates.\u201d This has been the end aimed at in this book; and\nalthough, like most aims in this world, it has not been perfectly\nachieved, it may, I think, be said with confidence that these documents\nexplain and supplement one another in a remarkable degree, and that in\nthe majority of cases sense can now be read into what at first sight\nseemed to be nonsense. As more fragments of the same kind come to light,\nalso, one has fair reason to hope that those points which are still\nobscure may be made clear.\n\nThe system of references adopted perhaps calls for some explanation. As\nI have no right to expect my readers to take what I say for gospel, I\nshould have preferred to give my authority for every statement made by\nme in the text. But there are often many authorities supporting the same\nstatement, and some discrimination between them was necessary unless\nthese two volumes were to be swollen to an intolerable length. The same\nconsideration for brevity, too, has often led me to quote at second or\nthird hand rather than at first. References to well-known passages in\nthe more widely read classical writers and Christian Fathers are not\nneeded by scholarly readers, while to others they are difficult to check\nor verify. I have therefore deliberately and of choice preferred the\nless recondite sources to the more recondite, and have never hesitated\nto refer the reader to encyclopaedias, popular lectures, and the works\navowedly addressed to the general public of writers like Renan and\nMahaffy, rather than to the sources from which they have themselves\ndrawn their information. In so doing, however, I have never consciously\nfailed to check the statement quoted with the original source, and to\nsee, so far as in me lay, that it correctly represents its purport. A\nfairly long experience has convinced me that to many readers the \u201cApoll.\nRhod. ac Nigid. Schuster, p. 41\u201d and the \u201cClemens de div. serv. Su 20\u201d\ndear to certain German professors and their English admirers mean very\nlittle, and to the greater public nothing at all. For the translations\nwhich appear in the text or notes I have gleaned from all sources, but,\nexcept where expressly mentioned, I must personally accept all\nresponsibility for them, and in cases in which any doubt seemed possible\nI have generally added the words of the original document.\n\nFinally, I have not attempted to impress my own opinion on my readers,\nbut merely to give them the material on which they can form their own;\nand where I have found myself in doubt as to what the facts of the case\nreally were, I have never scrupled to say so. This is not a counsel of\nperfection, but the one which on the whole seemed to me best. If by\ndoing so I have succeeded in sending to the documents themselves a few\nreaders hitherto ignorant of them, I shall think I have not wasted my\ntime.\n\nF. LEGGE.\n\n    6 GRAY\u2019S INN SQUARE,\n    _July 1914_.\n\nP.S. The outbreak of the war has caused the publication of this book to\nbe postponed. I regret the delay the less that it has enabled me to make\nuse of several works and studies which have appeared during the last\ntwelve months.\n\nF. L.\n\n\n\n\n                                 ERRATA\n\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThe following author\u2019s corrections have already been applied to the\ne-books for this Volume and for Volume 2.\n\nVOL. I.\n\n    p. 121, l. 5, _for_ Xerxes _read_ Darius.\n\n    p. 141, n. 4, _for_ Prof. C. R. B. Weidmann _read_ Prof. Carl\n    Robert.\n\n\nVOL. II.\n\n    p. 18, n. 2, _for_ cc. III, xxxi. Justin Martyr _read_ cc. III,\n    xxxi; Justin Martyr.\n\n    p. 36, n. 1, _for_ Isidore Loeb, _La Cabbale juive_, p. 587. F.\n    Herman Kr\u00fcger, _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, _s.v._ Gnosticisme _read_\n    Isidore Loeb, _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, _s.v._ La Cabbale juive;\n    _ibid._ F. Herman Kr\u00fcger, _s.v._ Gnosticisme.\n\n    p. 37, n. 1, _for_ Thou the King, the Aeon of Aeons _read_ Thou\n    King, Aeon of Aeons.\n\n    p. 38, n. 3, _for_ Introduction (pp. xx-xxiii) _read_ Introduction\n    (pp. lxi-lxiii).\n\n    p. 69, n. 3, _for_ \u05d4\u05e9\u05d8\u05d1\u05d4 _read_ \u05d7\u05e9\u05d8\u05e4\u05d4.\n\n    p. 72, l. 4, _for_ boundless _read_ thoughtless.\n\n    p. 102, l. 22, _for_ Ecclesiasticis _read_ Ecclesiasticus.\n\n    p. 129, n. 3, _for_ Canons _read_ Canon.\n\n    p. 146, l. 17, _for_ its _read_ Its.\n\n    p. 146, n. 2, _for_ the Five Words, translated in the text _read_\n    the five words translated in the text.\n\n    p. 166, n. 2, _for_ 18 Eons _read_ 18 Aeons.\n\n    p. 174, l. 1, _for_ die _read_ dies.\n\n    p. 183, l. 10, _for_ Books _read_ Texts.\n\n    p. 200, l. 10, _for_ Pistis Sophia _read_ Texts of the Saviour.\n\n    p. 338, n. 2, _for_ Journal des Savants _read_ Journal des Savans.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\nTABLE OF DATES . . . Pages xiii-xxvii\n\nBOOKS AND ARTICLES REFERRED TO . . . xxviii-xlviii\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nImportance of study of Christian origins\u2014Cause of popular misconceptions\non the subject\u2014Change of standpoint with progress of science of\nreligions\u2014Definition of science and religion\u2014Apparent dilemma of\northodox\u2014Christianity seems to follow evolutionary law like other\nfaiths\u2014Rivals of infant Christianity\u2014Judaism, classical Paganism, and\nphilosophy ruled out\u2014Real competitors, Oriental religions, Gnosticism,\nand Manichaeism\u2014Certain features common to surviving documents of all\nthese faiths\u2014Possibility of common origin\u2014Question insoluble till origin\nand dates of Zoroastrianism ascertained . . . Pages xlix-lxiii\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER\n\nThe extent of the Persian Empire and its government\u2014Alexander\u2019s aim, the\nmarriage of Europe and Asia, attained after his death\u2014Greek becomes\ncommon language\u2014Importance of this for History of Religions\u2014Ideas of\nantiquity about gods\u2014Monotheism of philosophers, and of Hebrew\nProphets\u2014Aristotle\u2019s _dictum_ that religion follows form of temporal\ngovernment\u2014Alexander, perfect type of monarch\u2014Adoption of monarchical\ngovernment by his Successors\u2014Identification of Greek with barbarian\ngods\u2014Worship of Syrian and other foreign gods in Athens\u2014Increase of\nforeign worships after Alexander\u2014Deification of Alexander and his\nSuccessors leads to Euhemerism\u2014Change of religious views among\nGreeks\u2014Age of innovation in religion\u2014The missions of Asoka\u2014Religious\nassociations in Greece, their composition and influence\u2014Low character of\ntheir priests and members\u2014Alexander of Abonoteichos\u2014Impulse given by\nassociations to proselytism\u2014Summary . . . 1-27\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE ALEXANDRIAN DIVINITIES\n\nAlexander\u2019s Egypt and the policy of the Ptolemies\u2014The Egyptian\npriesthoods and their disastrous rule\u2014Popularity of worship of\nOsiris\u2014Legend of Osiris according to Plutarch\u2014Its composite character,\ntotemistic and historical elements\u2014The Dying God of the Eastern\nMediterranean\u2014The Eleusinian Mysteries\u2014Resemblance of Eleusis legend to\nOsirian\u2014Ptolemy\u2019s new religion\u2014The Alexandrian triad, Serapis, Isis, and\nHorus\u2014Refusal of Egyptians to accept Ptolemy\u2019s religion\u2014Its success in\nthe West culminates under the Antonines\u2014Causes of its triumph\u2014Its\nmonarchical principle, or monotheistic pantheism\u2014The Fatherhood of\nGod\u2014Hope for future life\u2014The Mysteries of the Alexandrian Religion\ndescribed\u2014Degrees of initiation\u2014Popular and external Ceremonies: Daily\nServices in Temples, Opening, and Closing\u2014Other Ceremonies: The\nHerculaneum Frescoes\u2014Adoration of the Sacred Water\u2014The Finding of\nOsiris\u2014The Ship of Isis\u2014Modern character of these Festivals\u2014The Isiac\nPriesthood\u2014Recluses of Serapeum\u2014Decline of Alexandrian Religion with\nrise of Christianity\u2014Superiority of Christianity\u2014Last days of\nAlexandrian Religion\u2014Destruction of Serapeum at Alexandria in 391\nA.D.\u2014Borrowings of Christianity from Alexandrian Religion\u2014Ritual,\nWorship of Virgin, and Monachism\u2014Likeness of sacramental usages\u2014And,\nmore doubtfully, of doctrines\u2014Transition probably effected through\nGnostic heresies . . . 28-89\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF GNOSTICISM\n\nReligion and Magic\u2014Knowledge chief necessity in magic\u2014Origin of myths,\ncosmogonies, and apocalypses\u2014Spells and charms\u2014Examples from Magic\nPapyri, Sumerian invocation of Persephone, etc.\u2014Letter of Nephotes to\nPsammeticus with process of lecanomancy\u2014Egyptian magicians deal with\ndevils\u2014Polyglot spell of Alleius Craeonius invokes Jehovah with heathen\ngods\u2014Spread of magic in late Pagan and early Christian centuries\u2014Magic\nceremonies not all imposture\u2014Hypnotism employed in magic\u2014Influence of\nthese ideas on evolution of Gnostic sects\u2014Leads to development of ritual\nin worship, especially in Egypt\u2014Effect of Gnostic ideas if not\nchecked\u2014Their early appearance in Greece\u2014The rise of astrology\u2014Its\norigin in Babylonia\u2014Introduces new ideas in religion\u2014Astrological\ntablets in Assurbanipal\u2019s library\u2014Construction of calendar\u2014System of\ncorrespondences\u2014Planetary influence\u2014Change in astrology when united to\nGreek mathematics\u2014Religion and Magic alike adopt astral\ntheories\u2014Increased importance of Sun worship\u2014Impulse given by astral\ntheories to Gnosticism\u2014Entry into it of predestinarian ideas . . .\n90-120\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nPRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE ORPHICI\n\nThe Orphic poems and the Pythagoreans\u2014The Orphic Theology and Legend of\nDionysos\u2014Orphics first to connect this with man\u2019s fate in next\nworld\u2014Asceticism of Orphic ideal\u2014Initiation a substitute for\nasceticism\u2014Gold Plates of Italian Orphics and their likeness to Egyptian\nfunerary literature\u2014Orphic propaganda at first confined to\nRhapsodists\u2014Orphics seize upon worships of foreign gods\u2014Demosthenes\u2019\noration against Aeschines and its explanation\u2014Orphics probably form\n_thiasi_ and other religious associations\u2014The Orpheotelestae, wandering\ncharlatans\u2014The Orphic Hymns\u2014Hymns to Persephone and Dionysos and their\nexplanation\u2014Influence of Orphics upon later religions\u2014Orphism leads to\nspread of syncretism, magic, and external conformity\u2014Summary of Orphism\nand its influence upon Gnosticism . . . 121-148\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nPRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE ESSENES\n\nContrast between religious ideas of Greeks and Jews\u2014Fate of Jews under\nAlexander\u2019s Successors and Maccabaean Wars\u2014Josephus\u2019 account of the\nEssenes\u2014Its accuracy shown by Philo and others\u2014Improbable views as to\ntheir origin\u2014Essenes essentially Gnostics\u2014Their secret teaching\u2014The\nEnochian Apocalypses described\u2014The Messianic delusions of the Jews in\nRoman times\u2014Books of Enoch, etc.\u2014Essene method of interpreting\nScripture, isopsephism, and Cabala\u2014Later history of Essenes\u2014Survival of\ntheir exegetical methods among Gnostics . . . 149-171\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nPRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: SIMON MAGUS\n\nAdherence of Jews to Mosaic Law\u2014Inconvenience of this to rich, and\nnecessity for compromise between Judaism and Hellenism\u2014System of Philo\nJudaeus and formation of secret sects among Jews\u2014Simon Magus in\nthe New Testament\u2014Position of Samaritans _temp._ Christ\nintermediate between Jews and heathen\u2014Account of Simon in\nClementines untrustworthy\u2014Hippolytus\u2019 quotations from the _Great\nAnnouncement_\u2014Simon\u2019s First Cause and Six Roots\u2014His system of\ncorrespondences or paradigms\u2014His bisexual Deity\u2014Parallels between\nsystems of Simon and of Orphics\u2014Simon\u2019s account of creation\nof man\u2014Simon\u2019s views on origin of evil and redemption not\nclear\u2014Contradiction among Fathers as to Simon\u2019s doctrines\u2014Simon\u2019s\nredemption through union of sexes and Platonic affinity\u2014Simon\u2019s view of\nend of world\u2014Later history of Simon\u2019s sect; their indifference in\nexternal matters and changes\u2014Fathers\u2019 ascription of all subsequent\nheresy to borrowing from Simon examined and partly confirmed . . .\n172-202\n\n\n\n\n                             TABLE OF DATES\n\n\nN.B. The dates which follow are only approximate, no attempt having here\nbeen made to harmonize the system of chronology lately adopted by the\nprofessors of the Berlin school with those formerly in use. For the\ndates of the reigns of the Egyptian and Asiatic Successors of Alexander,\nI have mainly relied upon the excellent work of M. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq as\ngiven in his French version of Droysen\u2019s _Hellenismus_, his _Histoire\ndes Lagides_ and (especially) his _Histoire des S\u00e9leucides_, the second\nvolume of which, containing the chronological tables, maps, and indexes,\nhas appeared at the close of this year (1914). The dates of the Parthian\nand Bactrian kings are given with all reserve and are in effect\nconjectures based on the slipshod statements of compilers like Justin,\nQuintus Curtius, and Trogus Pompeius. For the Parthian dates I have\nfollowed, though without any confidence in its accuracy, the chronology\nof Prof. Eduard Meyer, and for the Bactrian, those given in Mr. H. C.\nRawlinson\u2019s _Bactria_.\n\nThe dates in Vol. II, which deals with the centuries after Christ, are\nfor the most part fairly well ascertained, and those given in Prof.\nBury\u2019s edition of Gibbon have been used wherever possible. For matters\nnot mentioned in Gibbon, such as the lives of the obscurer Christian\nFathers and leaders of sects, recourse has generally been had to Smith\nand Wace\u2019s _Dictionary of Christian Biography_ and other books of the\nkind. The only serious discrepancy here noticeable arises from the habit\nstill prevalent among certain Continental writers of beginning the\nChristian Era four years earlier than others, so as to increase all\nsubsequent dates by 4. Thus M. Cumont, in his _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_ and\nelsewhere, invariably gives the date of the Carnuntum inscription\nproclaiming Mithras the Protector of the Roman Empire, as 307 A.D.,\nalthough he asserts that the _Iovii et Herculi religiosissimi Augusti_\nresponsible for the inscription are Diocletian and Galerius. Diocletian,\nhowever, resigned the purple, and retired into private life in the year\n305 A.D., by the reckoning of Prof. Bury and others, and it is plain\ntherefore that M. Cumont puts the date too far forward according to our\nideas. To bring it into line, I have therefore ventured to alter the\ndate of the inscription quoted by him to 304 A.D., which would moreover\ncoincide with the persecution of the Christians, which he thinks may\nhave owed some of its severity to the rivalry of the Mithraic faith. The\nsame procedure has been followed in one or two other cases.\n\n336. Accession of Alexander.\n\n340 to 260. Zeno of Citium (founder of Stoic school) flourished.\n\n340 to 288. Pyrrho of Elis flourished.\n\n334 to 322. Aristotle and first Peripatetic School flourished.\n\n331. Foundation of Alexandria.\n\n     Alexander transports many Jews to Alexandria and gives them equal\n     rights with Macedonians.\n\n330. Death of Darius.\n\n326. Alexander conquers Punjab.\n\n324. Alexander at Susa celebrates marriage of Europe and Asia.\n\n323. Death of Alexander and first division of Empire.\n\nPtolemy, son of Lagos, made satrap of Egypt.\n\n321. Second division of Alexander\u2019s Empire at Triparadisus.\n\n320. Ptolemy captures Jerusalem and transports many Jews to Alexandria.\n\n_Circa_ 316. Euhemerus of Messene flourished.\n\n312. Ptolemy and Seleucus defeat Demetrius Poliorcetes at Gaza.\n\n     Ptolemy seizes Syria, but evacuates it when defeated by Demetrius\n     near Myontes.\n\n     Many Jews voluntarily emigrate to Egypt.\n\n312. Seleucus conquers Media and Persia, and enters Babylon in triumph.\nBeginning of Seleucid Era.\n\n310. Antigonus Monopthalmos by treaty abandons Eastern Provinces to\nSeleucus.\n\n307. Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.\n\n     Demetrius of Phalerum leaves Athens for Alexandria.\n\n     Probable foundation of Museum.\n\n306 to 270. Epicurus flourished.\n\n306. Ptolemy I Soter proclaims himself King of Egypt.\n\n302. Coalition against Antigonus. Ptolemy invades Syria, and Lysimachus\nAsia Minor.\n\n301. Battle of Ipsus, and further division of Empire between Seleucus,\nLysimachus, and Cassander.\n\n300 to 220. Cleanthus of Assos (Stoic philosopher) flourished.\n\n298. Cession of Valley of Indus by Seleucus to Chandragupta.\n\n297. Destruction of Samaria by Demetrius Poliorcetes.\n\n294. Seleucus transports many Jews from Babylon to Antioch and other\nSyrian cities.\n\n293. Many Jewish colonies founded in Cyrene and Libya.\n\n292. Seleucus gives his wife Stratonice and the Eastern Provinces to his\nson Antiochus.\n\n288. Coalition against Demetrius Poliorcetes.\n\n     Accession of Bindusara (Amitrochates) to Chandragupta\u2019s Indian\n     Kingdom.\n\n283. Accession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.\n\n283. Demetrius Poliorcetes dies a prisoner in the hands of Seleucus.\n\n282. Seleucus conquers Asia Minor from Lysimachus.\n\n281. Lysimachus defeated and slain at Corupedion.\n\n     Accession of Antiochus I Soter on assassination of Seleucus.\n\n280.? Establishment of Greek worship of Serapis, Isis, and Horus at\nAlexandria.\n\n280 to 207. Chrysippus of Soli (Stoic philosopher) flourished.\n\n280. Pyrrhus invades Italy.\n\n     Invasion of Thrace by Celtic tribes.\n\n278. Pyrrhus\u2019 campaign in Italy.\n\n277. Settlement of Celtic tribes (Galatae) in Asia.\n\n276. Translation of Pentateuch into Greek by order of Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus.\n\n274. First Syrian War. Ptolemy Philadelphus against Antiochus Soter and\nMagas of Cyrene.\n\n273. Ptolemy Philadelphus sends embassy to Rome to conclude alliance.\n\n265. Accession of Asoka, grandson of Chandragupta.\n\n264. Asoka\u2019s missions to Greek Kings.\n\n     First Punic War.\n\n261. Accession of Antiochus II Theos.\n\n258. Second Syrian War. Ptolemy Philadelphus against Antiochus Theos.\n\n252. Diodotus revolts against Antiochus Theos and founds Kingdom of\nBactria.\n\n250. Association of Greek Sarapiasts at Athens.\n\n249. Arsaces revolts against Antiochus Theos and founds Arsacid Kingdom\nof Parthia.\n\n248. Accession of Tiridates on death of his brother, Arsaces of Parthia.\n\n247. Accession of Seleucus II Callinicus on death of his father,\nAntiochus Theos.\n\n246. Accession of Ptolemy III Euergetes.\n\n     Third Syrian War. Ptolemy Euergetes against Seleucus Callinicus.\n\n245.? Accession of Diodotus II on death of his father, Diodotus of\nBactria.\n\n244. Ptolemy Euergetes overruns Upper Asia as far as Susa.\n\n241. War between Seleucus Callinicus and his brother Antiochus Hierax.\n\n     Accession of Attalus as dynast of Pergamum.\n\n238. Ptolemy Euergetes and his wife Berenice II deified. Decree of\nCanopus.\n\n     Attalus defeats Galatae and proclaims himself King of Pergamum.\n\n230. Euthydemus of Magnesia seizes throne of Bactria on death of\nDiodotus II.\n\n229. Rome first intervenes in affairs of Greece on behalf of\nAcarnanians.\n\n226. Accession of Seleucus III Soter on death of his father, Seleucus\nCallinicus.\n\n225. Attalus of Pergamum, \u201cFriend of Rome,\u201d defeats Seleucus Soter and\nseizes Syrian Asia Minor.\n\n222. Accession of Antiochus III the Great, on assassination of his\nfather, Seleucus Soter.\n\n221. Accession of Ptolemy IV Philopator on death of his father, Ptolemy\nEuergetes.\n\n219. Antiochus the Great reconquers Asia Minor.\n\n     Antiochus the Great captures Jerusalem from Ptolemy Philopator.\n\n217. Antiochus the Great transports 2,000 Jewish families from Babylon\nto Phrygia and Lydia.\n\n     Ptolemy Philopator defeats Antiochus the Great at Raphia and\n     recaptures Jerusalem and Samaria.\n\n     Second Punic War.\n\n216. Worship of Greek Sarapis and Isis established in Boeotia.\n\n211. Accession of Artabanus I to throne of Parthia on death of his\nfather Tiridates.\n\n210. Artabanus of Parthia attacked by Antiochus the Great, who besieges\nhis capital, but finally makes alliance with him.\n\n     First Macedonian War. Romans and Aetolians against Philip.\n\n205. Accession of Ptolemy V Epiphanes.\n\n     Antiochus the Great seizes Palestine.\n\n204. Statue of Great Mother brought from Pessinus to Rome.\n\n     Scopas reconquers Palestine for Ptolemy Epiphanes and Jews revolt\n     to latter.\n\n200. Second Macedonian War.\n\n198. Antiochus the Great defeats Scopas at Panion and reoccupies\nJerusalem and Samaria.\n\n197. Accession of Eumenes II on death of his father, Attalus of\nPergamum.\n\n     Philip defeated by Romans at Cynoscephalae.\n\n196. Coronation of Ptolemy Epiphanes at Memphis. Rosetta Stone set up.\n\n191. Ptolemy Epiphanes sends embassy to Rome to offer alliance.\n\n190. Romans defeat Antiochus the Great at Magnesia.\n\n     Accession of Demetrius on death of Euthydemus of Bactria.\n\n     Accession of Priapatius on death of Artabanus of Parthia.\n\n187. Accession of Seleucus IV Philopator on death of his father,\nAntiochus the Great.\n\n182. Accession of Ptolemy VI Eupator.\n\n181. Accession of Ptolemy VII Philometor.\n\n180. Serapeum at Delos in existence.\n\n175. Demetrius of Bactria annexes Cabul and Punjab.\n\n     Accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes on death of his brother,\n     Seleucus Philopator.\n\n175. Eucratides rebels against Demetrius of Bactria and seizes throne.\n\n173. Antiochus Epiphanes seizes Judaea and Coele-Syria.\n\n172. Third Macedonian War.\n\n171. Antiochus Epiphanes invades Egypt and defeats Ptolemy Philometor at\nPelusium.\n\n170. Antiochus Epiphanes plunders Temple of Jerusalem.\n\n     Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes II made joint kings by\n     Romans.\n\n     Accession of Mithridates I to throne of Parthia.\n\n168. Antiochus Epiphanes\u2019 second invasion of Egypt stopped by Romans.\nCircle of Popilius Laena.\n\n166. Antiochus Epiphanes again pillages Temple and persecutes Jewish\nreligion.\n\n     Samaritans make peace with Antiochus Epiphanes and accept\n     Hellenization.\n\n     Revolt of Maccabees against Syria.\n\n164. Accession of Antiochus V Eupator on death of his father, Antiochus\nEpiphanes.\n\n162. Judas Maccabaeus besieged in Jerusalem by Lysias for Antiochus\nEupator. Peace made on Philip\u2019s attempt to seize regency.\n\n     Romans send embassy to Antiochus Eupator which compels him to burn\n     his ships and kill his elephants.\n\n     Demetrius escapes from Rome and invades Syria.\n\n161. Romans recognize Demetrius as King of Syria with title of Demetrius\nI Soter.\n\n     Judas Maccabaeus sends embassy to Rome, is attacked by Demetrius\n     Soter, and slain. Judaea, under his brother Jonathan, submits to\n     Syria.\n\n     Timarchos, Satrap of Media, and Ptolemy, dynast of Commagene,\n     proclaim themselves Kings, and are recognized by Romans.\n\n160. Ptolemy Philometor expelled from Egypt by Euergetes II, but\nrestored by Romans.\n\n     Ptolemy, son of Glaucias, a recluse in Serapeum of Memphis.\n\n159. Accession of Attalus II Philadelphus on death of his brother,\nEumenes of Pergamum.\n\n154. Ptolemy Euergetes II made King of Cyrene.\n\n     Foundation of Jewish Temple or Oneion at Leontopolis in Egypt.\n\n152. Alexander Bala, pretender to throne of Syria, recognized by Romans\nas son of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\n151. Coalition of Egyptian and Asiatic Kings with Romans against\nDemetrius Soter of Syria.\n\n150. Demetrius Soter defeated and slain by coalition of Egyptian and\nAsiatic kings. Alexander Bala succeeds to throne of Syria, and marries\nCleopatra Thea, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor.\n\n149. Third Punic War.\n\n145. Ptolemy Philometor invades Syria and defeats Alexander Bala at\nOenoparas. Ptolemy killed in battle and Alexander by Nabathaeans.\n\n     Accession of Ptolemy IX (Euergetes II) Physcon as sole king of\n     Egypt.\n\n     Accession of Demetrius II Nicator to throne of Syria. Civil war\n     between Demetrius and Diodotus (Trypho) as regent for infant\n     Antiochus VI Epiphanes Dionysos.\n\n144. Ptolemy Physcon expels philosophers from Museum.\n\n142. Simon Maccabaeus succeeds as High Priest Jonathan slain by Trypho.\n\n     Simon Maccabaeus proclaims independence of Judaea.\n\n141. Simon Maccabaeus sends embassy to Romans who receive Jews as\n\u201cFriends of Rome.\u201d\n\n140. Mithridates I of Parthia seizes part of Bactria, Media, Susiana,\nand Persia.\n\n139. Demetrius Nicator invades Parthia and is taken prisoner by\nMithridates.\n\n     Beginning of Era of Arsacides.\n\n     Antiochus VI Epiphanes Dionysos murdered by Trypho, who is made\n     King by army.\n\n138. Accession of Attalus III Philometor on death of his father, Attalus\nII of Pergamum.\n\n     Accession of Phraates II to throne of Parthia.\n\n137. Antiochus VII Sidetes, brother of Demetrius Nicator, takes throne\nof Syria.\n\n135. Antiochus Sidetes defeats Trypho, who commits suicide, at Apamea.\n\n     John and Judas Maccabaeus, sons of Simon, defeat, at Modein, army\n     of Antiochus Sidetes.\n\n     Simon Maccabaeus assassinated by his son-in-law Ptolemy.\n\n     John Hyrcanus succeeds his father Simon as High Priest.\n\n     Hierocles, last Greek King of Bactria, after invasion of Sacae,\n     transfers his capital to Sialk\u00f4t.\n\n     Attalus of Pergamum bequeaths his kingdom to Romans.\n\n134. Siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes. Jews made tributaries to\nSyria.\n\n130. Antiochus Sidetes invades Parthia and reconquers Babylonia and\nMedia.\n\n     Menander (the Milinda of Buddhists) King of Cabul and Punjab.\n\n129. John Hyrcanus sends embassy to Rome for help against Syria.\n\n     Medes rebel against Antiochus Sidetes, who is defeated by Phraates\n     II of Parthia and commits suicide.\n\n     Restoration of Demetrius Nicator to throne of Syria. Phraates II of\n     Parthia slain in battle against Scythians.\n\n129. Accession of Artabanus II of Parthia.\n\n126. Demetrius Nicator defeated and slain by pretender, Alexander\nZabina.\n\n125. Destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus.\n\n124. Accession of Mithridates II the Great on death of Artabanus II in\nbattle against Tocharians.\n\n122. Accession of Antiochus VIII Grypus, son of Demetrius Nicator, who\nwith the help of Egypt defeats and slays Alexander Zabina.\n\n120. Accession of Mithridates Eupator as King of Pontus.\n\n117. Accession of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Lathyrus.\n\n     Civil war in Syria between Antiochus Grypus and Antiochus IX\n     Cyzicenus, son of Antiochus Sidetes. Division of Syria between\n     them.\n\n113. Antiochus Cyzicenus invades Judaea, and is ordered by Romans to\nwithdraw.\n\n106. Accession of Ptolemy XI Alexander.\n\n     Aristobulus succeeds his father, John Hyrcanus, as High Priest, and\n     proclaims himself King.\n\n105. Municipality of Puteoli builds Serapeum.\n\n     Aristobulus of Judaea annexes Iturea.\n\n     Alexander Jannaeus succeeds, as King, his brother Aristobulus.\n\n98. Alexander Jannaeus, trying to annex Ptolemais and Gaza, is defeated\nby Ptolemy Lathyrus, then King of Cyprus.\n\n    Alexander Jannaeus makes league with Cleopatra III, who compels\n    Ptolemy to withdraw.\n\n96. Alexander Jannaeus captures Gaza and massacres inhabitants.\n\n    Accession of Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator on assassination of his\n    father, Antiochus Grypus.\n\n95. Antiochus X Pius, son of Antiochus Cyzicenus, defeats and slays\nSeleucus Epiphanes near Mopsuestia.\n\n94. Division of Syria. Antiochus Pius reigns in Upper Syria, Philip I\nand Demetrius III Eucaerus, sons of Antiochus Grypus, in Coele-Syria.\n\n93. Antiochus Pius slain in battle against the Parthians in Commagene.\n\n    Ariobarzanes, King of Cappadocia, expelled by Mithridates Eupator of\n    Pontus, but reinstated by Romans under Sulla.\n\n89. Alexander Jannaeus crucifies 800 Pharisees at Bethome and restores\npeace in Judaea.\n\n88. Demetrius Eucaerus invades Judaea and defeats Alexander Jannaeus at\nSichem, but is taken prisoner by Parthians and dies in captivity.\n\n    Interregnum in Parthia.\n\n    First Mithridatic War.\n\n87. Antiochus XII Dionysos, son of Antiochus Grypus, crowned King of\nSyria at Damascus.\n\n84. Sulla makes peace with Mithridates.\n\n    Antiochus Dionysos defeated and slain at Motho by Aretas the\n    Philhellene, King of Nabathaeans.\n\n83. Tigranes, King of Armenia, becomes King of Syria.\n\n82. Sulla dictator.\n\n81. Accession of Ptolemy XII Alexander II.\n\n    Accession of Ptolemy XIII Auletes.\n\n_Circa_ 80. College of Pastophori of Greek Isis at Rome founded.\n\n79. Death of Alexander Jannaeus, and accession of his widow, Salome\nAlexandra.\n\n78. Death of Sulla.\n\n77. Tigranes builds Tigranocerta, and transports thither many peoples of\ndifferent race.\n\n76. The Arsacid Sinatroces, captive among the Scyths, released by them\nto become King of Parthia.\n\n75. Second Mithridatic War.\n\n74. Nicomedes of Bithynia bequeaths his kingdom to Mithridates Eupator\nof Pontus.\n\n    Third Mithridatic War.\n\n72. Mithridates, defeated by Lucullus, takes refuge with his son-in-law\nTigranes.\n\n70. Accession of Phraates III of Parthia.\n\n69. Tigranes invades Palestine, but is bought off by Salome Alexandra.\nTigranes defeated and Tigranocerta taken by Lucullus.\n\n    Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, son of Antiochus Pius, made King of Syria.\n\n    Death of Salome Alexandra, and accession of her son Aristobulus as\n    King, with John Hyrcanus II as High Priest.\n\n67. Pompey suppresses the Cilician pirates. Reported introduction of\nMysteries of Mithras into Italy.\n\n66. Phraates III of Parthia, Friend of Rome, invades Armenia.\n\n    Tigranes submits to Pompey, and is allowed to retain Great Armenia.\n\n    Civil war in Palestine between Aristobulus and John Hyrcanus II.\n\n65. Siege of Jerusalem by Nabathaeans and Pharisees, raised by command\nof Pompey\u2019s lieutenant Scaurus.\n\n64. Ariarathes, King of Cappadocia, receives from Romans Lesser Armenia,\nGordyene, and Sophene.\n\n    Osrhoene and Edessa made into separate kingdom under Arab prince\n    Ariamne.\n\n    Syria becomes Roman province.\n\n63. Death of Mithridates Eupator.\n\n    Death of Antiochus Asiaticus.\n\n61. Pompey captures Jerusalem, and puts an end to Maccabaean Kingdom.\nAristobulus sent captive to Rome.\n\n    Samaria and all forcibly Judaized communities regain their autonomy.\n\n58. Ptolemy Auletes, expelled from Egypt, flies to Rome.\n\n    Statues of Isis at Rome thrown down by order of Consul, A. Gabinius.\n\n57. Alexander, son of Aristobulus of Judaea, rebels, and is defeated by\nGabinius, Proconsul of Syria.\n\n56. Aristobulus escapes from Rome and heads new revolt in Judaea.\n\n55. Accession of Orodes I to throne of Parthia.\n\n    Fresh revolt of Jews under Alexander suppressed by Gabinius, who\n    makes Antipater the Idumean ruler of Judaea.\n\n    Ptolemy Auletes restored to throne of Egypt by Gabinius.\n\n53. Crassus and Roman army defeated by Parthians at Carrhae.\n\n52. Fresh revolt of Jews suppressed by Cassius.\n\n51. Accession of Cleopatra VI and Ptolemy XIV.\n\n50. Temple of Isis at Rome destroyed by Consul, L. Aemilius Paulus.\n\n48. Julius Caesar and Cleopatra besieged in Alexandria by Egyptian\nrebels. Death of Ptolemy XIV.\n\n    Temples of Isis near Capitol thrown down at bidding of augurs.\n\n47. Cleopatra made queen jointly with Ptolemy XV.\n\n    Antipater and Jewish troops take part in raising of siege of\n    Alexandria.\n\n    Julius Caesar repeals Jewish tribute and liability to military\n    service, and gives Jews religious liberty and self-government.\n\n    John Hyrcanus II made hereditary ethnarch of Judaea.\n\n46. Herod, son of Antipater, enters Roman army and is made military\ngovernor of Coele-Syria.\n\n45. Death of Ptolemy XV. Cleopatra makes her son Caesarion coregent with\nher as Ptolemy XVI.\n\n    Hermaeus last Greek ruler in India.\n\n44. Assassination of Julius Caesar.\n\n    Fresh revolt of Jews on Caesar\u2019s death suppressed by Cassius, who\n    makes Herod Procurator of Coele-Syria.\n\n43. Triumvirs Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus decree temple to Isis and\nSerapis.\n\n42. Battle of Philippi and division of Roman world between Mark Antony\nand Octavian.\n\n41. Death of Antipater of Judaea. Mark Antony makes Herod and his\nbrother Phasael joint tetrarchs under John Hyrcanus II.\n\n40. Pacorus, prince of Parthia, invades Palestine, and takes John\nHyrcanus II and Phasael away captive.\n\n39. Parthians driven out of Palestine by P. Ventidius Bassus.\n\n    Herod proclaimed King of Judaea by Romans.\n\n38. Caius Sossius, Legate of Syria, captures Jerusalem, and puts Herod\non throne.\n\n31. Battle of Actium. Herod deserts Mark Antony.\n\n30. Herod makes submission to Octavian, and receives increase of\nterritory.\n\n    Death of Cleopatra and Caesarion. Egypt becomes Roman province.\n\n    Octavian becomes Emperor with title of Augustus.\n\n28. Augustus orders all temples of Alexandrian gods outside _Pomoerium_.\n\n21. M. Vipsanius Agrippa, the consul, forbids celebration of Egyptian\nrites within 1 mile of Rome.\n\n20. Phraates IV of Parthia sends Augustus his four sons as hostages, and\nreturns Roman standards captured with Crassus.\n\n    Herod rebuilds Temple of Jerusalem.\n\n4. Death of Herod. Fresh revolt of Jews suppressed by Varus.\n\n   Augustus divides Herod\u2019s Kingdom between the tetrarchs Archelaus,\n   Antipas, and Philip.\n\n\nA.D.\n\n\n2. Accession of Phraates V or Phraataces on murder of his father,\nPhraates IV of Parthia.\n\n5. Accession of Orodes II of Parthia.\n\n6. Archelaus deposed and banished. Judaea becomes a Roman province.\n\n8. Accession of Vonones I of Parthia.\n\n14. Accession of Tiberius.\n\n16. Vonones expelled from Parthia by Artabanus, King of Media.\n\n    Artabanus makes war on Rome, and is in turn expelled.\n\n19. Expulsion of Jewish colony from Rome.\n\n    Tiberius destroys Temple of Isis and throws statues into the Tiber.\n\n24. Death of Philip, Jewish tetrarch.\n\n26. Pontius Pilate appointed Procurator of Judaea.\n\n36.? John the Baptist put to death by Antipas.\n\n     Interregnum in Parthia. Struggle between pretenders, Tiridates II,\n     Cumianus, and Bardanes I.\n\n37. Accession of Caligula.\n\n    Antipas defeated by Aretas, King of Nabathaeans.\n\n    Agrippa receives Philip\u2019s tetrarchy with title of King.\n\n39. Antipas deposed and banished. His tetrarchy added to Agrippa\u2019s\nkingdom.\n\n41. Judaea added to Agrippa\u2019s kingdom.\n\n    Accession of Claudius.\n\n44. Death of Agrippa. Cuspius Fadus made Procurator of Judaea.\n\n47. Tiberius Alexander (nephew of Philo) succeeds Cuspius as Procurator.\n\n47. Gotarzes, son of Artabanus of Media, having been expelled from\nParthia by his brother Bardanes, retakes crown on Bardanes\u2019 death.\n\n48. Revolt of Jews. Tiberius Alexander replaced by Cumanus.\n\n_Circa_ 50. Clement of Rome born: died about 95 A.D.\n\n51. Accession of Vonones II to throne of Parthia followed immediately by\nthat of Vologeses I.\n\n    War between Rome and Parthia.\n\n    Temple of Isis at Rome rebuilt.\n\n52. Ummidius Quadratus, Legate of Syria, deposes Cumanus, and appoints\nFelix Procurator of Judaea.\n\n54. Accession of Nero.\n\n55. Nero makes worship of Greek Isis _religio licita_.\n\n60. Porcius Festus succeeds Felix as Procurator of Judaea.\n\n62. Death of Porcius. Albinus succeeds him.\n\n    Persecution of Christians by Ananus, the High Priest.\n\n    Martyrdom of James the Just.\n\n63. Vologeses I of Parthia, defeated by Corbulo, signs treaty of peace.\n\n64. Gessius Florus succeeds Albinus as Procurator of Judaea.\n\n66. Tiridates invested King of Armenia by Nero.\n\n    Revolt of the Jews. Roman garrison of Jerusalem massacred after\n    surrender. Cestius Gallus, Legate of Syria, attacks Jerusalem, but\n    is beaten off.\n\n67. First Jewish War. Vespasian replaces Cestius as Legate.\n\n68. Accession of Galba.\n\n69. Accession of Otho.\n\n    Otho appears in public in dress of priest of Isis.\n\n    Domitian escapes from Capitol in similar dress.\n\n    Accession of Vitellius.\n\n    Vespasian consults oracle, and works miraculous cures, in Temple of\n    Isis at Alexandria.\n\n70. Accession of Vespasian.\n\n    Siege and sack of Jerusalem by Titus. Burning of Herod\u2019s Temple.\n\n70-107. St Ignatius flourished.\n\n72. Vespasian deposes Antiochus IV of Commagene, last of Seleucides.\n\n77. Accession of Vologeses II of Parthia. Many pretenders, some of whom\nreign concurrently with him till his death.\n\n79. Accession of Titus.\n\n80. Domitian rebuilds Temple of Isis which had been burned.\n\n    Statius mentions Mithraic Tauroctony in his _Thebaid_.\n\n81. Accession of Domitian.\n\n_Circa_ 83. Earliest Mithraic Inscription known.\n\n96. Accession of Nerva.\n\n98. Accession of Trajan.\n\n_Circa_ 100. Marcion born; died about 165.\n\n     Menander, Simon Magus\u2019s successor, flourished.\n\n102. Earliest dated Mithraic Inscription by T. Claudius Livianus,\nPraetorian Prefect.\n\n113-117. War between Rome and Parthia.\n\n116. Revolt of Jews throughout East suppressed by Lucius Quietus.\n\n117. Accession of Hadrian.\n\n117-138. Basilides the Egyptian flourished.\n\n_Circa_ 120. Hadrian places in his _lararium_ images of Greek Serapis\nand Isis.\n\n120-160. Tatian flourished.\n\n121. Justin Martyr born: martyred about 151.\n\n_Circa_ 125. Saturninus of Antioch flourished.\n\n130. Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem and names it Aelia Capitolina.\n\n_Circa_ 130. Apelles the Marcionite born: died about 180.\n\n132. Revolt of Jews, under the Messiah Bar Cochba, and War of\nExtermination.\n\n138. Accession of Antoninus Pius.\n\n138-160. Valentinus the Gnostic flourished.\n\n_Circa_ 140. Cerdo the Syrian flourished.\n\n147. Irenaeus of Lyons born: died about 202.\n\n     Vologeses III restores Parthian Kingdom, and collects books of\n     Avesta.\n\n150. Tertullian born: died about 220 A.D.\n\n_Circa_ 150. Marcus the magician flourished.\n\n     _Hermas Pastor_ appears.\n\n155. Clement of Alexandria born: died about 211.\n\n     Bardesanes or Ibn Daisan born: died about 223.\n\n162. War between Rome and Parthia. Parthian Kings substitute Aramaic for\nGreek on their coins.\n\n164. Destruction of Parthian capital, Seleucia on the Tigris, by Avidius\nCassius.\n\n170. Heracleon the Valentinian born: died about 210.\n\n_Circa_ 170. Lucian the Marcionite flourished.\n\n     Ptolemy the Valentinian flourished.\n\n170-183. Theophilus of Antioch flourished.\n\n179. Pantaenus founds Christian school at Alexandria.\n\n180. Accession of Commodus.\n\n185. Origen of Alexandria born: died about 253.\n\n191. Accession of Vologeses IV to throne of Parthia.\n\n193. Accession of Pertinax. Murder of Pertinax, and sale of Empire by\nPraetorians to Didius Julianus.\n\n     Accession of Septimius Severus.\n\n195. War between Rome and Parthia.\n\n_Circa_ 200. Axionicus the Valentinian flourished.\n\n209. Accession of Artabanus IV of Parthia.\n\n211. Accession of Caracalla and Geta.\n\n216. Birth of Manes: died 275.\n\n     War between Rome and Parthia.\n\n217. Accession of Macrinus.\n\n219. Accession of Heliogabalus.\n\n221. Alexander Severus proclaimed Caesar.\n\n222. Accession of Alexander Severus.\n\n     War between Rome and Parthia.\n\n_Circa_ 222. Hippolytus of Porta Romana flourished.\n\n226. Ardesh\u00eer, son of Sassan, conquers Artabanus IV of Parthia, and\nfounds Sassanid dynasty of Persia.\n\n230. War between Rome and Persia.\n\n235. Accession of Maximin.\n\n     Persecution of Christians.\n\n238. Accession and death of the two Gordians.\n\n     Maximus and Balbinus proclaimed Emperors with Gordian III as\n     Caesar, but are murdered by Praetorians.\n\n     Accession of Gordian III.\n\n     Manes begins to teach.\n\n241. Accession of Sapor (Shap\u00fbr) I of Persia on death of his father\nArdesh\u00eer.\n\n242. War between Rome and Persia.\n\n244. Accession of Philip the Arabian.\n\n246. M. Julius Philippus proclaimed Augustus jointly with his father,\nPhilip the Arabian.\n\n249. Accession of Decius.\n\n     Persecution of Christians.\n\n251. Accession of Gallus.\n\n253. Accession of Valerian.\n\n     Gallienus proclaimed Augustus jointly with his father Valerian.\n\n254. First appearance of Franks, who attack Rhine and invade Spain and\nAfrica.\n\n260. War between Rome and Persia.\n\n     Valerian taken prisoner by Sapor, and dies in captivity.\n\n260-268. Reign of Gallienus and the Thirty Tyrants.\n\n         Right of Church to hold property recognized.\n\n268. Accession of Claudius.\n\n270. Accession of Aurelian.\n\n     St Anthony introduces monachism into Church.\n\n272. Accession of Hormisdas (Ormuz) I of Persia.\n\n273. Aurelian captures Palmyra, and puts an end to Zenobia\u2019s Kingdom.\n\n     Aurelian decides case of Paul of Samosata, and affirms primacy of\n     Roman Church.\n\n273. Accession of Varanes (Bahram) I of Persia.\n\n275. Manes put to death by Varanes I.\n\n     Accession of Tacitus.\n\n276. Accession of Varanes II of Persia.\n\n     Accession of Probus.\n\n282. Accession of Carus.\n\n283. Carinus proclaimed Augustus jointly with his father Carus.\n\n284. Numerian proclaimed Augustus jointly with his brother Carinus on\ndeath of Carus.\n\n     Accession of Diocletian.\n\n286. Maximian proclaimed Augustus jointly with Diocletian.\n\n287. Edict of Diocletian against Manichaeans. Teachers to be burned:\nHearers\u2019 goods to be confiscated.\n\n292. Constantius Chlorus and Galerius proclaimed Caesars under the two\nAugusti.\n\n293. Accession of Varanes III of Persia followed by that of Narses.\n\n296. War between Rome and Persia.\n\n_Circa_ 300. Alexander of Lycopolis flourished.\n\n302. Accession of Hormisdas II of Persia.\n\n303. Persecution of Christians. Era of Martyrs.\n\n304. Mithras declared at Carnuntum Protector of Roman Empire.\n\n305. Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian.\n\n     Constantius Chlorus and Galerius become Augusti.\n\n     Maximin and Severus proclaimed Caesars.\n\n306. Death of Constantius Chlorus. Constantine proclaimed Augustus by\narmy, but allowed title of Caesar only by Galerius.\n\n     Severus proclaimed Augustus in place of Constantius Chlorus.\n\n     Maximian and Maxentius, his son, rebel.\n\n307. Severus, besieged in Ravenna by Maximian, surrenders and commits\nsuicide.\n\n     Maximian gives his daughter Fausta to Constantine, and proclaims\n     him Augustus jointly with himself.\n\n     War of Augusti, Maximian, Maxentius, and Constantine, against\n     Galerius, who proclaims Licinius and Maximin Augusti jointly with\n     himself.\n\n308. Maximian plots against Constantine, who puts him to death.\n\n     Ephrem Syrus born: died 373.\n\n310. Accession of Sapor II of Persia.\n\n311. Death of Galerius; Licinius and Maximin divide Eastern provinces\nbetween them.\n\n312. War between Constantine and Maxentius, who is defeated at Turin,\nVerona, and Saxa Rubra, and slain.\n\n     Edict of Toleration by Constantine and Licinius.\n\n313. Maximin declares war against Licinius, but is defeated at Heraclea\nand slain.\n\n314. War between Constantine and Licinius, who is defeated and makes\npeace.\n\n315. Pachomius groups monks together in monasteries and institutes\ncommon life.\n\n316?. Death of Diocletian.\n\n320. Epiphanius of Constantia born: died about 400 A.D.\n\n323. War between Constantine and Licinius, who is defeated and put to\ndeath.\n\n     Constantine becomes sole Emperor.\n\n     Constantine issues renewed edict of toleration.\n\n324?. Constantine directs enquiry into Manichaean doctrines by\nMusonianus (Strategius), Praetorian Prefect of the East.\n\n325. Constantine summons Council of Nicaea.\n\n327. Foundation of Constantinople and transfer of capital of Empire\nthither.\n\n337. Baptism and death of Constantine.\n\n\n\n\n            BOOKS AND ARTICLES REFERRED TO IN TEXT OR NOTES\n\n\nN.B.\u2014The works of the better-known classical writers (e.g. Livy) and of\nFathers of the Church (e.g. St Augustine) have been omitted from the\nfollowing list. Authors included in the first category are quoted either\nfrom the collection M\u00fcller-Didot or from Teubner\u2019s series; those in the\nsecond, from Migne\u2019s _Patrologia_. The place of publication, when not\nspecially mentioned, is London, and the edition quoted is, subject to\nthe same reservation, the last published. In the body of the book, the\nfull title, date, and other particulars of the work referred to are\ngiven the first time of mention only, abbreviations being used in\nsubsequent references.\n\nABANO, PETER DE. Heptameron, seu Elementa Magica. Paris, 1567.\n\nABEL, EUGENIUS. Orphica. Lipsiae, 1885.\n\nASU RAIH\u00c2N, called AL B\u00ceR\u00dbN\u00ce. Chronology of Ancient Nations. Translated\nfrom the Arabic by Dr C. Edward Sachau. 1879. See also AL-B\u00ceR\u00dbN\u00ce,\n_infra_.\n\nAcad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Comptes-Rendus des S\u00e9ances.\n4e S\u00e9rie. Paris, 1873, etc. In progress.\n\n_The Academy._ 1869, etc. In progress.\n\n_\u00c4gyptische Sprache, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr._ See _Zeitschrift, infra_.\n\nAL-B\u00ceR\u00dbN\u00ce. Alberuni\u2019s India. An English Edition with Notes and Indices\nby Dr Edward C. Sachau. 2 vols. 1910.\n\nALLINE, M. See _Xenia_.\n\nAM\u00c9LINEAU, E. Essai sur le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien. Paris, 1887. (_Annales\ndu Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, t. XIV.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Actes Coptes du martyre de St Polycarpe. 1888. See _Proceedings\nof Society of Biblical Archaeology_, vol. X.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Paris, 1891. (Notices et\nExtraits des MSS. de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale et autres Biblioth\u00e8ques,\nt. XXIX, 1^{\u00e8re} p^{tie}.)\n\nAMELUNG, W. Le Sarapis de Bryaxis. 1903. See _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, 4^o\ns\u00e9rie, t. II, p^{tie} ii.\n\nAnon. Cerinthus and the Gnostics. 1886. See the _London Quarterly\nReview_ for October, 1886.\n\nAnte-Nicene Christian Library. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James\nDonaldson. 24 vols. and 1 additional volume. Edinburgh, 1868 to 1897.\n\nAntiquaires de France, see Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des A. de F.\n\n_Archaeologia_: Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. See Society\nof Antiquaries of London.\n\nARCHELAUS, Bishop of Caschar. Acta (wrongly attributed to). See\nHEGEMONIUS.\n\n_Archiv f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Erforschung des alten Testaments._ Halle,\n1869-1872.\n\nAsiatic Society. See Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, etc.\n\nAssociation pour l\u2019encouragement des \u00c9tudes grecques. See _Revue des\n\u00c9tudes grecques_.\n\nAVEZOU, CH., et PICARD, CH. Bas-relief Mithriaque. 1911. See _Revue de\nl\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXIV.\n\nAURELIUS AUGUSTINUS. Augustini librum de Haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum. See\nOehler, Corpus Haereseologicum, vol. I.\n\nBADHAM, F. B. The Word Monogenes. See _The Academy_, 5 Sept., 1896.\n\nBARRETT, FRANCIS. The Magus or Celestial Intelligencer, being a Complete\nSystem of Occult Philosophy, 1801.\n\nBAUR, FERDINAND CHRISTIAN. Das Manich\u00e4ische Religionssystem. T\u00fcbingen,\n1831.\n\nBEAUSOBRE, ISAAC DE. Histoire critique de Manich\u00e9e et du Manich\u00e9isme.\nAmsterdam, 1734-9. 2 vols.\n\nBENN, ALFRED WILLIAM. The Philosophy of Greece. 1898.\n\nBERGER, PHILIPPE, Membre de l\u2019Institut. \u00c9tudes des Documents nouveaux\nfournis sur les Ophites par les Philosophoumena. Nancy, 1873.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les St\u00e8les Puniques de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale. See _Gazette\nArch\u00e9ologique_, 11^e ann\u00e9e (1876).\n\nBERNARD, J. H., Bishop of Ossory. The Odes of Solomon. Translated from\nthe Syriac Text. Cambridge, 1912. (Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol.\nIII.)\n\nBiblical Archaeology. See Society of Biblical Archaeology.\n\nBISSING, Freiherr F. W. von. Cult of Isis in Pompeian Paintings. Oxford,\n1908. See _Transactions of 3rd International Congress of Religions_.\n\nB\u00d6HMER, HEINRICH. Les J\u00e9suites. Traduit de l\u2019Allemand par Gabriel Monod.\nParis, 1910.\n\nBOUCH\u00c9-LECLERCQ, AUGUSTE. Histoire de la Divination. Paris, 1879-1882. 4\nvols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019Astrologie grecque. Paris, 1899.\n\n\u2014\u2014 La Politique religieuse de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e Soter et le culte de Serapis. See\n_Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. XLVI, 1902.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Reclus du Serap\u00e9um de Memphis. Paris, 1903. See PERROT, M\u00e9langes.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Histoire des Lagides. Paris, 1903-1907. 4 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019Intol\u00e9rance Religieux et Politique. Paris, 1912. (Biblioth\u00e8que de\nPhilosophie Scientifique.)\n\nBOURIANT, U. L\u2019\u00c9vangile de St Pierre (Fragments Grecs du livre d\u2019\u00c9noch).\nSee M\u00e9moires de la Mission Arch\u00e9ologique Fran\u00e7aise du Caire, t. IX,\nfasc. 1 (1892).\n\nBOUSSET, WILHELM. Hauptprobleme des Gnosis. G\u00f6ttingen, 1907.\n(Forschungen zur Religion und Litteratur des Alten und Neuen Testaments.\nHerausg. von Dr Bousset und Dr Hermann Gunkel.)\n\nBRANDT, A. J. H. WILHELM. Die Mand\u00e4ische Religion, ihre Entwickelung und\ngeschichtliche Bedeutung. Leipzig, 1889.\n\nBREASTED, JAMES HENRY, Ph.D. Ancient Records. Chicago, 1906. 4 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The History of Egypt. New York, 1909.\n\nBR\u00c9HIER, \u00c9MILE. La Cosmologie Stoicienne \u00e0 la Fin du Paganisme. See\n_Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXIV, 1911.\n\nBROOKE, ALAN ENGLAND. Fragments of Heracleon. Cambridge, 1891.\n(Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. I.)\n\nBRUNET DE PRESLE, CHARLES MARIN WLADIMIR. Le Serap\u00e9um de Memphis. Paris,\n1865. (M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions. M\u00e9moires pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par\ndivers savants. S\u00e9rie I, t. 2.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Papyrus grecs du Mus\u00e9e du Louvre. Paris, 1865. (Notices et\nExtraits des MSS. de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale et des autres\nBiblioth\u00e8ques, publi\u00e9s par l\u2019Institut de France, t. XVIII, Pt. 2.)\n\nBUDGE, ERNEST ALFRED THOMPSON WALLIS, Litt.D., etc. The Papyrus of\nNesi-Amsu. See _Archaeologia_, vol. LXII, Pt. 2 (1890).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Book of the Dead. 1898. 3 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The History of Egypt. 1902. 8 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Gods of the Egyptians. 1904. 2 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. 1910.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection. 1911. 2 vols.\n\nBUDGE, E. A. T. WALLIS, KING, L. W., and THOMPSON, R. CAMPBELL. The\nSculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great at Behistun. 1907.\n\nBUNSEN, CHRISTIAN CARL JOSIAS (Baron). Hippolytus and his Age. 1852. 4\nvols.\n\nBURROWS, RONALD. Discoveries in Crete. 1907.\n\nCALLISTHENES, Pseudo-. The History of Alexander the Great. Translated\nfrom the Syriac by E. A. Wallis Budge. Cambridge, 1887.\n\nCARNOY, A. Armaiti-\u00c2rmatay. Louvain, 1912. See _Le Mus\u00e9on_, n.s. t. XIII\n(1912).\n\nCASARTELLI, LOUIS CHARLES, Bishop of Salford. La Philosophie Religieuse\nde Mazd\u00e9isme. Paris, 1884.\n\nCHABAS, JEAN MARIE FRAN\u00c7OIS. Le Papyrus Magique Harris. Traduction et\ncommentaire d\u2019un MS. \u00c9gyptien. Chalon-sur-Sa\u00f4ne, 1860.\n\nCHANOT, E. DE. Statues Iconiques de Chypre. Paris, 1878. See _Gazette\nArch\u00e9ologique_, 1878.\n\nCHARLES, R. H., D.D., etc. Apocalyptical Literature. See Hastings,\nDictionary of the Bible, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Apocalyptical Literature, 1899. See Cheyne\u2019s Encyclopaedia Biblica,\n_s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Book of Enoch. Translated from the Ethiopic. Oxford, 1893.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Apocalypse of Baruch. Translated from the Syriac. 1896.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Assumption of Moses. Translated from the Latin. 1897.\n\n\u2014\u2014 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in\nJudaism, and in Christianity. 1899. (The Jowett Lectures.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Ascension of Isaiah. Translated from the Ethiopic. 1900.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Book of Jubilees. Translated from the Ethiopic. 1902.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. Translated from the Greek.\n1908.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R.\nH. Charles. Oxford, 1913. 2 vols.\n\nCHAVANNES, EDOURARD, et PELLIOT, PAUL. Un Trait\u00e9 Manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9 en\nChine. Paris, 1913. (Extrait du _Journal Asiatique_, 1911-1913.\nPagination of Journal given in Extrait and used in notes _infra_.)\n\nCHEYNE, THOMAS KELLY, D.D., etc. Prophecies of Isaiah. A new\ntranslation. 1889. 2 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Jewish Religious Life after the Exile. New York, 1898. (American\nLectures on the History of Religions.)\n\nCHEYNE, T. K., and BLACK, J. SUTHERLAND. See Encyclopaedia Biblica.\n\nCLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Clemens Alexandrinus. Edidit Otto St\u00e4hlin,\nLeipzig, 1905. (Die Griechischen Schriftsteller der ersten Drei\nJahrhunderte. Kirchenv\u00e4ter-Commission der Kgl. Preuss. Akad. der\nWissenschaften.)\n\n[CONINGTON, JOHN, Prof.] Origen\u2019s Philosophoumena. 1851. See _Quarterly\nReview_ for 1851.\n\n_Contemporary Review, The_. 1886, etc. In progress.\n\nCONYBEARE, FREDERICK CORNWALLIS. The Holy Spirit as a Dove, 1892. See\n_The Academy_, 3 Dec., 1902 (Paper read at meeting of Society of\nHistorical Theology).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Apology of Apollonius. 1894.\n\nCOOK, ARTHUR BERNARD. The Bee in Greek Mythology. 1895. See _Journal of\nHellenic Studies_, vol. XV. 1895.\n\nCOOK, STANLEY A. David. 1899. See Cheyne\u2019s Encyclopaedia Biblica,\n_s.h.v._\n\nCORDIER, HENRI, Memb. de l\u2019Institut, etc. Les Fouilles en Asie Centrale.\nParis, 1910. See _Journal des Savans_, 1910.\n\nCORY, ISAAC PRESTON. Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Chaldaean,\nEgyptian, Tyrian, Carthaginian, Indian, and Persian writers. First\nedition. 1832.\n\nCOURDAVEAUX, V. Tertullien. See _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t.\nXXIII (1891).\n\nCOURDAVEAUX, V. Cl\u00e9ment d\u2019Alexandrie. Paris, 1892. See _Revue de l\u2019Hist.\ndes Religions_, t. XXII (1892).\n\nCOWLEY, A. E. Samaritans. 1903. See Cheyne\u2019s Encyclopaedia Biblica,\n_s.h.v._\n\nCROOKE, W. The Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India.\nWestminster, 1896. 2 vols.\n\nCRUM, W. E. Prayer of the Virgin in Bartos. 1897. See _Proceedings of\nSociety of Biblical Archaeology_, vol. XIX (1897).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Catalogue of the Coptic MSS. in the British Museum. 1905.\n\nCUMONT, FRANZ. Textes et Monuments relatifs aux Myst\u00e8res de Mithra.\nBruxelles, 1896, 1899. 2 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Hypsistos. See _Revue de l\u2019Instruction Publique en Belgique_, 1897.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum. Bruxelles, 1898, etc. In progress.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain. Paris, 1906.\n(_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet._ Biblioth\u00e8que de Vulgarisation, t. XXIV.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Recherches sur le Manich\u00e9isme. Bruxelles, 1908, etc. In progress.\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019Aigle fun\u00e9raire des Syriens et l\u2019apoth\u00e9ose des Empereurs. Paris,\n1910. See _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXII (1910).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. Translated from\nthe French by J. B. Baker. New York, 1912. (American Lectures on the\nHistory of Religions.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra. Bruxelles, 1913.\n\nDAMASCIUS. De Primis principiis. See Cory\u2019s Ancient Fragments.\n\nDARESSY, GEORGES, Secr\u00e9taire du Mus\u00e9e du Caire. Un D\u00e9cret de l\u2019An XXIII\nde Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e Epiphane. See Recueil de Travaux, t. XXXIII (1911).\n\nDAREMBERG, CHARLES VICTOR, et SAGLIO, EDMOND. Dictionnaire des\nAntiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines. Paris, 1873, etc. In progress.\n\nDARMESTETER, JAMES. Ormuzd et Ahriman. Paris, 1877. (Biblioth\u00e8que de\nl\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes, fasc. XXIX.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Zend Avesta. Oxford, 1880-1887. 3 parts. (Sacred Books of the\nEast.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Essais Orientaux. Paris, 1883.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Zend Avesta. Paris, 1893. 3 vols. (_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, tt.\nXXI, XXII, XXIV.)\n\nDAVIDS, T. W. RHYS, Buddhist India. 1903. (Story of the Nations Series.)\n\nDECHARME, P. Cybele. See DAREMBERG et SAGLIO, Dictionnaire des\nAntiquit\u00e9s, _s.h.v._\n\nDEISSMANN, ADOLF, D.D. New Light on the New Testament from records of\nthe Graeco-Roman Period. Translated from the German by Lionel R. M.\nStrachan. Edinburgh, 1907.\n\nDELAGE, YVES, et GOLDSMITH, M. Les Th\u00e9ories de \u00c9volution. Paris, 1909.\n(Biblioth\u00e8que de Philosophie scientifique.)\n\nDEUBNER, LUDWIG. De Incubatione capita quatuor. Lipsiae, 1900.\n\nDeutsche Orient. Gesellschaft. _Mitteilungen._ Berlin, 1898, etc. In\nprogress.\n\nDIETERICH, ALBRECHT, Prof. Abraxas: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte.\nLeipzig, 1891. (Festschrift Usener.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 De Hymnis Orphicis. Marburg, 1891.\n\nDILL, Sir SAMUEL. Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western\nEmpire. 1899.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. 1904.\n\nD\u00d6LLINGER, JOHANN JOSEPH IGNAZ, D.D., etc. The Gentile and the Jew in\nthe Courts of Christ. Translated from the German by N. Darnell. 1902. 2\nvols. (German title: Judenthum und Heidenthum.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 First Age of Christianity and the Church. Translated from the German\nby H. N. Oxenham, 1906. (German title: Christentum und Kirche in der\nZeit der Grundlegung.)\n\nDREXLER, A. Isis. See Roscher\u2019s Lexikon der Mythologie, _s.h.v._\n\nDROYSEN, JOHANN GUSTAV. Histoire de l\u2019Hell\u00e9nisme. Paris, 1883. 3 vols.\nTraduite de l\u2019Allemande sous la direction de A. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq. (German\ntitles: Geschichte des Alexanders des Grossen; Geschichte des\nHellenismus.)\n\nDUCHESNE, Monsignor LOUIS, Membre de l\u2019Institut, etc. Early History of\nthe Christian Church from its Foundation to the end of the third\ncentury. Translated from the French. 1909, etc. In progress. (French\ntitle: Histoire ancienne de l\u2019\u00c9glise.)\n\nDUFOURCQ, ALBERT. De Manichaeismo apud Latinos. Paris. 1900.\n\nDUSSAUD, REN\u00c9. Les Papyrus jud\u00e9o-aram\u00e9ens d\u2019Elephantine. See _Revue de\nl\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXIV (1911).\n\nDYER, LOUIS. The Gods in Greece. 1891. (Lowell Lectures.)\n\nEgypt Exploration Fund. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 1898, etc. In progress.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_, 1914, etc. In progress.\n\nEncyclop\u00e9die, La Grande. Paris, 1887, etc. In progress.\n\nEncyclopaedia Biblica. Edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black.\n1899, etc. 4 vols.\n\nEncyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, Edinburgh, 1875-1889.\n\n\u2014\u2014 11th edition, Cambridge, 1910-1911.\n\nEPIPHANIUS OF CONSTANTIA (or Salamis). S. Epiphanii episcopi\nConstantiensis Panaria eorumque Anacephalaeosis. See Oehler, Corpus\nHaereseologicum, tt. 2, 3.\n\nERMAN, ADOLF, Ph.D., etc. Die \u00c4gyptischen Beschw\u00f6rungen. See _\u00c4gyptische\nZeitschrift_, 1883.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Life in Ancient Egypt. Translated from the German by H. M. Tirard.\n1894.\n\nHandbook of the Egyptian Religion. Translated from the German. 1905.\n(Handb\u00fccher des Kgl. Museums zu Berlin.)\n\nEtymologicum Magnum. Oxon. 1848.\n\nEVANS, Sir ARTHUR, P.S.A., etc. The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and\nits Mediterranean Relations. 1901.\n\n_The Expositor_, series 5. 1895, etc. In progress.\n\nFAYE, EUG\u00c8NE DE. Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9tude du Gnosticisme au II^e et au\nIII^e Si\u00e8cle. Paris, 1903. (Also in _Rev. de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_,\ntt. XLV and XLVI.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Formation d\u2019une Doctrine de Dieu au II^e Si\u00e8cle. See _Revue de\nl\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXIV (1911).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Gnostiques et Gnosticisme, \u00c9tude critique des documents du\nGnosticisme Chr\u00e9tien aux II^e et III^e si\u00e8cles. Paris, 1913.\n(Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes: Sciences Religieuses, t.\nXXVII.)\n\nFFOULKES, EDMUND SALUSBURY. Chiliasts. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary of\nChristian Biography; _s.h.v._\n\nFIVEL, L\u00c9ON. Le Dieu Glycon \u00e0 Nicom\u00e9die. Paris, 1879. See _Gazette\nArch\u00e9ologique_, 1879.\n\nFLEET, J. F., Ph.D., etc. The Day on which Buddha died. 1909. See\n_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1909.\n\nFL\u00dcGEL, GUSTAV, Ph.D., etc. Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften.\nLeipzig, 1862.\n\nFOAKES-JACKSON, F. J., B.D., etc. Some Christian Difficulties in the\nSecond and Twentieth Centuries. Cambridge, 1903. (Hulsean Lectures.)\n\nFORSHALL, JOSIAH. Description of the Greek Papyri in the British Museum.\n1839.\n\nFOSSEY, CHARLES. Les Fouilles Allemandes \u00e0 Boghaz-Keui. Paris, 1909. See\n_Journal des Savans_, 1909.\n\nFOUCART, GEORGE. Histoire des Religions et M\u00e9thode Comparative. Paris,\n1912.\n\nFOUCART, PAUL, Membre de l\u2019Institut, etc. Les Associations Religieuses\nchez les Grecs. Paris, 1873.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Recherches sur l\u2019origine et la nature des Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis. Paris,\n1895. (_Id._, t. XXXV.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Grands Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis. Paris, 1900. (Extrait des M\u00e9moires de\nl\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, t. XXXVII.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique. Paris, 1904. (_Id._, t. XXXVII.)\n\nFRANCK, ADOLPHE. La Kabbale. Paris, 1843.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien. See _Journal des Savans_, Avril, 1888.\n\nFRAZER, Sir J. G., D.C.L., etc. The Golden Bough. 1913-1915. 12 vols.\n\nFREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS, D.C.L., etc. Historical Essays. 1871-1892. 4\nvols.\n\nFRIEDL\u00c4NDER, M. Der vorchristliche j\u00fcdische Gnosticismus. G\u00f6ttingen,\n1898.\n\nFULLER, JOHN MEE. Ebionites. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Christian\nBiography, _s.h.v._\n\nFULLER, JOHN MEE. Tatianus. See _ibid._ _s.h.v._\n\nGARDNER, PERCY, Litt.D., etc. The Coins of the Greek and Scythic kings\nof Bactria and India in the British Museum. 1884.\n\nGARRUCCI, RAFFAELE. Les Myst\u00e8res du syncr\u00e9tisme Phrygien dans les\ncatacombes Romaines de Pr\u00e9textat. Paris, 1854.\n\nGASTER, MOSES, Ph.D., etc. The Apocalypse of Abraham. 1893. See\n_Transactions of Society of Biblical Archaeology_, vol. IX. pt 1 (1893).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Oldest Version of Midrash Megillah. Berlin, 1897. See Kohut\u2019s\nSemitic Studies.\n\n_Gazette Arch\u00e9ologique._ Paris. 1875-1887.\n\nGIBBON, EDWARD. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited by J.\nB. Bury, Litt.D., etc. 1897-1900. 7 vols.\n\nGIRAUD, FRAN\u00c7OIS, M.S.T., etc. Ophitae. Dissertatio historica theologica\nde eorum origine, placitis, ac fatis. Paris, 1884.\n\nGLEICHEN, ALFRED EDWARD WILFRID, Count. The Anglo-Egyptian Soudan. 1905.\n\nGOBLET D\u2019ALVIELLA, Le Comte. Ce que l\u2019Inde doit \u00e0 la Gr\u00e8ce. Paris, 1897.\n\nGRAUX, CH. M\u00e9langes: Recueil dedi\u00e9 \u00e0 la m\u00e9moire de C. G. Paris. 1884.\n\nGRIFFITH, F. LL., M.A., etc. Stories of the High Priests of Memphis.\nOxford, 1900.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The old Coptic Magical Texts of Paris. Leipzig, 1900. (Extract from\n_\u00c4gyptische Zeitschrift_, Bd XXXVIII. 1900.)\n\nGRIFFITH, F. LL., and THOMPSON, Sir HERBERT, Bart. The Demotic Magical\nPapyrus of London and Leiden. 1904.\n\nGROTE, GEORGE. A History of Greece. 1888. 10 vols.\n\nGR\u00dcBER, JOHANN NEPOMUC. Die Ophiten. W\u00fcrzburg, 1864. 2 vols.\n\nGUIGNEBERT, CHARLES. L\u2019\u00c9volution des Dogmes. Paris, 1910. (Biblioth\u00e8que\nde Philosophie Scientifique.)\n\nGUIGNIAUT, JOSEPH DANIEL. Les Religions de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Traduit de\nl\u2019Allemand par L. F. A. Maury et E. Vinet. Paris, 1825, etc. tt. 4.\n(German title: Symbolik, von A. F. Creuzer.)\n\nHAHN, AUGUST. Antitheses Marcionis gnostici. K\u00f6nigsberg, 1823.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Evangelium Marcionis ex auctoritate veterum monumentorum descripsit\nAugustus Hahn. Lipsiae, 1832. (Thilo\u2019s Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti,\nt. I.)\n\nHAL\u00c9VY, JOSEPH. Recherches Bibliques, Pt 1. Le T\u00e9tragramme. Paris, 1884.\nSee _Revue des \u00c9tudes juives_, t. IX. 1884.\n\nHARNACK, ADOLF, D.D., etc. \u00dcber das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia.\nLeipzig, 1891. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der\nAltchristlichen Literatur von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Outlines of the History of Dogma. Translated from the German by Neil\nBuchanan. 1894. 7 vols. (German title: Dogmengeschichte.)\n\nHARNACK, ADOLF, D.D., etc. What is Christianity? Translated from the\nGerman by T. B. Saunders. 1904. (German title: Das Wesen des\nChristentums.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries.\nTranslated from the German by James Moffatt. 1908. 2 vols. (German\ntitle: Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten Drei\nJahrhunderten.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Marcion. See Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. _s.h.v._\n\nHARNACK, A., and CONYBEARE, F. C. Manichaeans. See _ibid._ _s.h.v._\n\nHARRISON, Miss JANE. Prolegomena to History of Greek Religion. 1903.\n\nHARTLAND, EDWIN SIDNEY, F.S.A., etc. Ritual and Belief: Studies in the\nHistory of Religion. 1914.\n\nHASTINGS, JAMES, D.D., etc. A Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh,\n1900-1904. 5 vols.\n\nHATCH, EDWIN, D.D., etc. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon\nthe Christian Church. 1890. (Hibbert Lectures.)\n\nHAUSRATH, ADOLF. A History of New Testament Times. Translated from the\nGerman by C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 1878, etc. In progress. (German\ntitle: Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.)\n\nHEGEMONIUS. Acta Archelai. Edited by Charles Henry Beeson of Chicago.\nLeipzig, 1906. (Die Griechischen Schriftsteller der ersten Drei\nJahrhunderte. Kirchenv\u00e4ter-Commission der Kgl. Preuss. Akad. der\nWissenschaften.)\n\n_Hellenic Studies, Journal of._ See Society for Promotion of Hellenic\nStudies, _infra_.\n\nHERMATHENA. A series of Papers on Literature, Science, and Philosophy,\nby members of Trinity College, Dublin. Dublin, 1873, etc. In progress.\n\nHIERONYMUS, Pseudo-. Indiculus de Haeresibus. See Oehler, Corpus\nHaereseologicum, vol. I.\n\nHILD, J. A. \u00c9tude sur les D\u00e9mons dans la litt\u00e9rature et la religion des\nGrecs. Paris, 1881.\n\nHILGENFELD, ADOLF. Kritische Untersuchungen \u00fcber die Evangelien Justins,\nder Clementinischen Homilien und Marcions. Halle, 1850.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Das Apostolikon Marcions. Gotha, 1855. See _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr hist.\nTheol._, Bd 25 (1855).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum. Lipsiae, 1884. 4 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. Leipzig, 1884.\n\nHIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of Porte Romana. Philosophoumena, sive Haeresium\nomnium confutatio. E codice Parisino productum recensuit Latine vertit,\netc. Patricius Cruice. Paris, 1860.\n\nHOGARTH, DAVID G. Philip and Alexander of Macedon. 1897.\n\nHOLDICH, Sir THOMAS, K.C.M.G. The Gates of India. 1910.\n\nHORT, FENTON JOHN ANTHONY, D.D., etc. Colarbasus. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary\nof Christian Biography, _s.h.v._\n\nHORT, FENTON JOHN ANTHONY, D.D., etc. Bardaisan. _Ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Barbelo. _Ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\nHOWERTH, IRA W. What is Religion? See _International Journal of Ethics_.\n1903.\n\nHUBERT, H., et MAUSS, M. Esquisse d\u2019une th\u00e9orie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Magie.\nParis, 1904. (Published as _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Psychologique_, 7^e ann\u00e9e.)\n\nHUTTON, FREDERICK WOLLASTON, F.R.S. Darwinism and Lamarckism. 1899.\n\nHYVERNAT, H. Album de Pal\u00e9ographie Copte. Paris, 1868.\n\nINGE, WILLIAM RALPH, D.D., Dean of St Paul\u2019s. Christian Mysticism, 1899.\n(Bampton Lectures.)\n\nInstitut Fran\u00e7ais d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie orientale. _M\u00e9moires publi\u00e9s par les\nmembres de l\u2019Institut._ Le Caire, 1902, etc. In progress.\n\nInternational Congress of Religions, Third. _Transactions._ Oxford,\n1908. 2 vols.\n\n_International Journal of Ethics._ Philadelphia, 1890, etc. In progress.\n\nIRENAEUS, Bishop of Lyons. Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libros\nquinque adversus Haereses. Edidit W. Wigan Harvey, S.T.B., etc.\nCambridge, 1857. 2 vols.\n\nISIDORE OF SPAIN. Isidorus Hispalensis de Haeresibus. See Oehler, Corpus\nHaereseologicum, vol. I.\n\nJACOBI, H. G. The Antiquity of Vedic Culture. 1909-1910. See _Journal of\nthe Royal Asiatic Society_, 1909, 1910.\n\nJAMES, MONTAGUE RHODES, Litt.D., etc. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.\nCambridge, 1897. See (Apocrypha Anecdota) Cambridge Texts and Studies,\nvol. V.\n\nJANET, PIERRE, Membre de l\u2019Institut. L\u2019Automatisme Psychologique. Paris,\n1899.\n\nJASTROW, MORRIS, Ph.D., etc. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.\nBoston, U.S.A., 1898.\n\nJELLINEK, ADOLF, Ph.D., etc. \u00dcber das Buch der Jubil\u00e4en und das\nNoah-Buch. Leipzig, 1855.\n\nJENSEN, P., Ph.D., etc. Die Kosmologie der Babylonien. Strassburg, 1890.\n\nJ\u00c9QUIER, GUSTAVE. Le Livre de ce qu\u2019il y a dans l\u2019Had\u00e8s. Paris, 1894.\n\nJEVONS, FRANK BYRON, Litt.D. Introduction to the Study of Comparative\nReligion. New York, 1908. (Hartford-Lamson Lectures on the Religions of\nthe World.).\n\n_Jewish Quarterly Review._ London, 1888, etc. In progress.\n\nJOHNSON, SAMUEL. Oriental Religions and their relation to universal\nreligion: Persia. 1885.\n\nJOHNSON, WALTER. Byways of British Archaeology. 1912.\n\n_Journal des Savans._ Paris, 1816 etc. In progress.\n\n_Journal of Egyptian Archaeology._ See Egypt Exploration Fund.\n\n_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ See Society for the Promotion of Hellenic\nStudies.\n\n_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society._ See Royal Asiatic Society of\nGreat Britain and Ireland.\n\nJULICHER, A., D.D., etc. Essenes. See Cheyne\u2019s Encyclopaedia Biblica,\n_s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Gnosis. _Ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\nKEIM, CARL THEODOR. Celsus\u2019 Wahren Wort. Zurich, 1873.\n\nKENYON, Sir FREDERIC GEORGE, K.C.B. Greek Papyri in the British Museum.\nCatalogue with Texts. 1893.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 1912.\n\nKERN, OTTO, Ph.D., etc. De Orphei, Epimenidis, Pherecydis, Theogoniis\nQuaestiones criticae. Berlin, 1888.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Die Herkunft des orphischen Hymnenbuchs. 1910. See Carl, Robert,\nGenethliakon.\n\nKESSLER, KONRAD, Ph.D., etc. Forschungen \u00fcber die Manich\u00e4ische Religion.\nBerlin, 1889. Bd I (all published).\n\nKH\u00d4NI, THEODORE BAR, Bishop of Kashgar. Scholia. 1898. See Pognon,\nInscriptions Manda\u00eftes.\n\nKING, C. W. The Gnostics and their Remains. 1887.\n\nKING, LEONARD WILLIAM, Litt.D. The Seven Tablets of Creation. 1902. 2\nvols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Chronicles of Early Babylonian Kings. 1907. 2 vols.\n\nKOHLER, KAUFMANN. Pre-Talmudic Haggadah. 1895. See _Jewish Quarterly\nReview_, 1895.\n\nKOHUT, GEORGE ALEXANDER. Semitic Studies by various authors in memory of\nRev. Dr Alexander Kohut. Berlin, 1897.\n\nK\u00d6STLIN, K. R., D.D., etc. \u00dcber das gnostische System des Buchs Pistis\nSophia. T\u00fcbingen, 1854. (_Theologische Jahrb\u00fccher_, ed. Baur and\nZeller.)\n\nKRALL, JAKOB, Ph.D., etc. Tacitus und der Orient. Wien, 1880. 4 vols.\n(Untersuchungen aus der Alten Geschichte, Erster Heft.)\n\nKR\u00dcGER, T. HERMANN. Gnosticismus. See La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die, _s.h.v._\n\nKUENEN, ABRAHAM, D.D., etc. The Religion of Israel. Translated from the\nDutch by A. H. May. 1874. 3 vols. (Dutch title: De Godsdienst van Israel\ntot den ondergang van den Joodschen staat.)\n\nLAFAYE, GEORGES. Isis. See Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. des Antiquit\u00e9s,\n_s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Histoire du Culte des Divinit\u00e9s d\u2019Alexandrie hors de l\u2019\u00c9gypte. Paris,\n1884. (Biblioth\u00e8que des \u00c9coles Fran\u00e7aises d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et de Rome. Fasc.\n33^e.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019Initiation Mithriaque. Paris, 1906. (Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e Guimet.\nBibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XVIII (1906).)\n\nLANE, EDWARD WILLIAM. Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians.\nPaisley, 1896.\n\nLANGDON, STEPHEN, Ph.D., etc. A Preliminary Account of a Sumerian Legend\nof the Flood and the Fall of Man. 1914. See _Proceedings of the Society\nof Biblical Archaeology_, vol. XXXVI (1914).\n\nLANGLOIS, VICTOR. Collection des Historiens anciens et modernes de\nl\u2019Arm\u00e9nie. Paris, 1868, etc. 2 vols.\n\nLAYARD, Sir AUSTIN HENRY. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and\nBabylon. 1853.\n\nLEA, HENRY CHARLES. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.\n1887-1888. 3 vols.\n\nLE COQ, A. von. A Short Account of ... the First Royal Prussian (Second\nGerman) Expedition to Turfan in Chinese Turkestan. 1909. See _Journal of\nthe Royal Asiatic Society_, 1909.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Exploration Arch\u00e9ologique \u00e0 Tourfan. Paris, 1910. (Conf\u00e9rences au\nMus\u00e9e Guimet. Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XXXV (1910).)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Turkish Khuastuanift from Tun-huang, 1911. See _Journal of the Royal\nAsiatic Society_ for 1911.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Ch\u00f4tscho. Facsimile-Wiedergaben der wichtigeren Funde der Ersten Kgl.\nPreussen Expedition nach Turfan. Berlin, 1913. Bd 4.\n\nLEEMANS, CONRAD, Litt.Hum.D., etc. Papyri Graeci Musei Antiquarii\nPublici Lugduni Batavi. Lugduni Batavorum, 1883-1885. 2 vols.\n\nLEF\u00c9BURE, EUG\u00c8NE. L\u2019Importance du Nom chez les \u00c8gyptiens. See _Sphinx_,\nvol. I (1897).\n\nLEGGE, F. Witchcraft in Scotland. Paisley, 1891. See _Scottish Review_,\nvol. XX (1891).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Some Heretic Gospels. 1893. _Ibid._ vol. XXII (1893).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Devil Worship and Freemasonry. 1896. See _The Contemporary Review_,\n1896.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Sign Nutir or Neter. 1899. See _Proceedings of Society of\nBiblical Archaeology_, vol. XXI (1899).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Divination in the XVIIth Century. 1899. See _National Review_ for\n1899.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Names of Demons in the Magic Papyri. 1900. See _Proceedings of\nSociety of Biblical Archaeology_, vol. XXII (1900).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Titles of the Thinite Kings. 1908. See _Proceedings of Society of\nBiblical Archaeology_, vol. XXX (1908).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Legend of Osiris. 1911. _Ibid._, vol. XXXIII (1911).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Lion-headed God of the Mithraic Mysteries. 1912. _Ibid._, vol.\nXXXIV (1912).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Western Manichaeism and the Turfan Discoveries. 1913. See _Journal of\nthe Royal Asiatic Society_ for 1913.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis. 1914. See _Proceedings of\nSociety of Biblical Archaeology_, vol. XXXVI (1914).\n\nLENORMANT, FRAN\u00c7OIS. Dionysos Zagreus. Paris, 1879. See _Gazette\nArch\u00e9ologique_, 1879.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Baubo. See Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. des Antiq., _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Eleusinia. _Ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\nL\u00c9VI, SYLVAIN. Bouddhisme et les Grecs. Paris, 1891. See _Revue de\nl\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. XXIII (1891).\n\nL\u00c9VY, ISIDORE, Directeur anc^{n.} \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes Etudes. Sarapis.\nParis, 1913. Extrait de la _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_ (1911,\n1913).\n\nLIGHTFOOT, JOSEPH BARBER, Bishop of Durham. Epistles to Colossians and\nPhilemon. 1876.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Apostolic Fathers: revised texts with Introductions and English\ntranslations. 1891.\n\nLILLIE, ARTHUR. Buddhism in Christendom, or Jesus the Essene. 1887.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Buddha and Buddhism. Edinburgh, 1900.\n\nLIPSIUS, RICHARD ADALBERT, D.D., etc. Gospels Apocryphal. 1880. See\nSmith\u2019s Dictionary of Christian Biography, _s.h.v._\n\nLiterature, see Royal Society of, _infra_.\n\nLOBECK, CHRISTAN AUGUST. Aglaophamus, sive de Theologiae mysticae\nGraecorum causis. K\u00f6nigsberg, 1829. 2 vols.\n\nLOEB, ISIDORE. La Cabbale juive. See La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die, _s.h.v._\n\nLondon _Quarterly Review_, New series. 1899, etc. In progress.\n\nLORET, VICTOR. Les Enseignes Militaires des Tribus et les Symboles\nHi\u00e9roglyphiques des Divinit\u00e9s. Paris, 1902. See _Revue \u00c9gyptologique_\nfor 1902.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Quelques id\u00e9es sur la forme primitive de certaines Religions\n\u00c9gyptiennes. Paris, 1904. See _idem_ for 1904.\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019\u00c9gypte en Temps du Totemisme. Paris, 1906. (Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e\nGuimet. Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XIX (1906).)\n\nLOVATELLI, A. CAETANI. Il Culto d\u2019Iside in Roma. Roma, 1891.\n(Miscellanea Archeologica.)\n\nLUBBOCK, Sir JOHN, afterwards Lord Avebury. Origin of Civilization.\n1889.\n\nLUEBBERT, EDWARD, Ph.D., etc. Commentatio de Pindaro dogmatis de\nmigratione animarum cultore. Bonn, 1887.\n\nLUPTON, JOSEPH HART. Dionysius pseudo-Areopagitica. See Smith\u2019s\nDictionary of Christian Biography, _s.h.v._\n\nLYALL, Sir ALFRED, K.C.S.I., etc. Asiatic Studies. 1882.\n\nMAASS, ERNST, Ph.D., etc. Orpheus: Untersuchungen zur Griechischen\nR\u00f6mischen Altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und Religion. M\u00fcnchen, 1895.\n\nMCCRINDLE, J. W. The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great.\nWeetminster, 1893.\n\nMACDONALD, Miss L. Inscriptions relating to Sorcery in Cyprus. 1891. See\n_Proceedings of Society of Biblical Archaeology_, t. XIII (1891).\n\nMACGIFFERT, A. C. Prolegomena to the Church History of Eusebius. Oxford,\n1890. (Schaff and Wace, Nicene Library.)\n\nMACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D., etc. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions.\n1869.\n\nMAHAFFY, JOHN PENTLAND, D.D., etc. Alexander\u2019s Empire. 1887. (Story of\nthe Nations Series.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Greek Life and Thought. 1887.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Greek World under Roman Sway. 1890.\n\nMAHAFFY, JOHN PENTLAND, D.D., etc. The Empire of the Ptolemies. 1895.\n\nMALCOLM, Sir JOHN. A History of Persia. 1820. 2 vols.\n\nMALLET, D. Le Culte de Neit \u00e0 Sais. Paris, 1888.\n\nMARIETTE, FRAN\u00c7OIS AUGUSTE FERDINAND, Pasha. Dend\u00e9rah: description\ng\u00e9n\u00e9rale du grand temple de cette ville. Paris. 1875.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Serap\u00e9um de Memphis. Publi\u00e9 apr\u00e8s le MS. de l\u2019auteur par M. G.\nMaspero. Paris, 1882, etc. 2 vols.\n\nMARSHALL, J. T. Pre-existence of Souls. See Hastings, Dictionary of the\nBible, _s.h.v._\n\nMASPERO, Sir GASTON, Membre de l\u2019Institut, K.C.M.G., etc. \u00c9tudes de\nMythologie et d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00c9gyptiennes. Paris, 1893, etc. In progress.\nTt. 7. (Quoted _infra_ as \u201c\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol.\u201d)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Egyptian Souls and their Worlds. See \u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol. t. 1.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Hypog\u00e9es Royaux de Th\u00e8bes. See _id._, t. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Sur l\u2019Enn\u00e9ade. See _id._, t. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Dawn of Civilization. 1894. (A translation of t. I of Histoire\nAncienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient Classique _infra_.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqarah. Paris, 1894.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient Classique. Paris,\n1895-1897. Tt. III. (An English translation of these three volumes was\npublished by the S.P.C.K. in 1894-1900 under the titles of: The Dawn of\nCivilization, The Struggle of the Empires, and The Passing of the\nEmpires.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Comment Alexandre devenait Dieu. Paris, 1896. (Annuaire de l\u2019\u00c9cole\ndes Hautes \u00c9tudes. 1897.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 La Table des Offrandes. Paris, 1897. See _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des\nReligions_, t. XXXV (1897).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Histoire ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient. Paris, 1904.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Contes Populaires de l\u2019Ancienne \u00c9gypte. Paris (1905).\n\n\u2014\u2014 La Fille du Prince de Bakhtan. See last-named.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Review of J. Lieblein\u2019s Pistis Sophia, les conceptions \u00c9gyptiennes\ndans le Gnosticisme. Paris, 1909. See _Revue Critique_, 30 Sept., 1909.\n\nMATTER, JACQUES. Histoire critique du Gnosticisme. Paris, 1843, 1844.\nTt. 3.\n\nMAURICE, JULES. La Dynastie Solaire des Seconds Flaviens. Paris, 1911.\nSee _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, 4^e s\u00e9rie, t. XVIII (1911).\n\nMAURY, LOUIS FERDINAND ALFRED. Histoire des Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce\nAntique. Paris, 1857. Tt. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 La Magie et l\u2019Astrologie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 et en Moyen Age. Paris,\n1860.\n\n\u2014\u2014 D\u00e9couvertes sur l\u2019Egypte. Paris, 1885. See _Revue des Deux Mondes_\nfor September, 1885.\n\nMAX M\u00dcLLER, FERDINAND, P.C., etc. Lectures on the Original Growth of\nReligion as illustrated by the Religions of India. 1880. (Hibbert\nLectures.)\n\nDE M\u00c9LY, F. Le Livre des Cyranides. Paris, 1904. See _Compte-Rendu de\nl\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions_, Mai-Juin, 1904.\n\nMENANT (Mdlle) D. Parsis et Parsisme. Paris, 1904. (Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e\nGuimet. Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XVI (1904).)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Rites Fun\u00e9raires. Paris, 1910. See _id._, t. XXXV (1910).\n\nMOLINIER, R. P. Impr\u00e9cation grav\u00e9e sur plomb. Paris, 1897. See _M\u00e9moires\nde la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des Antiquaires de France_, s\u00e9rie VI, t. VIII\n(1897).\n\nMONCEAUX, PAUL. Orpheus. See Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. des Antiquit\u00e9s,\n_s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Orphici. See _ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Sabazios. See _ibid._, _s.h.v._\n\nMORET, ALEXANDRE. Le Rituel du Culte Divin Journalier en \u00c9gypte. Paris,\n1902. (_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet._ Biblioth\u00e8que des \u00c9tudes, t. XIV.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Verbe cr\u00e9ateur et r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur. See _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des\nReligions_, t. LXVII (1909).\n\nMORFILL, W. R. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Edited by R. H.\nCharles. Oxford, 1896.\n\nMORRISON, W. D. The Jews under Roman Rule. 1890. (Story of the Nations\nSeries.)\n\nMOULTON, JAMES HOPE, D.Lit., etc. Early Zoroastrianism. 1913. (Hibbert\nLectures, Second Series.)\n\nMOZLEY, JOHN RICKARDS. Lucianus. See Smith, Dictionary of Christian\nBiography, _s.h.v._\n\nM\u00dcLLER, CARL OTTFRIED. Introduction to a Scientific System of Mythology.\nTranslated from the German by John Leitch. 1844. 2 vols. (German title:\nProlegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 History of the Literature of Ancient Greece. Translated from the\nGerman by John Wm Donaldson. 1858. 2 vols. (German title: Geschichte der\ngriechischen Literatur bis auf das Zeitalter Alexanders.)\n\nM\u00dcLLER, F. W. K. Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan.\nBerlin, 1904. (Extract from _Abhandlungen des Kgl. Preuss. Akad. der\nWissenschaften_, 1904.)\n\n_Mus\u00e9on, Le._ \u00c9tudes philosophiques, historiques, et religieuses.\nLouvain, 1900, etc. In progress.\n\n_National Review, The._ Edited by Sir Alfred Austin and W. J. Courthope.\n1883, etc. In progress.\n\nNAVILLE, EDOUARD, D.C.L., etc. The Old Egyptian Faith. Translated from\nthe French by Colin Campbell. 1909. (Conf\u00e9rences au Coll\u00e9ge de France.\nFondation Michonis.)\n\nNEANDER, JOHANN AUGUST WILHELM, D.D. Antignostikus, or the Spirit of\nTertullian. Translated from the German by J. E. Rylands. 1851. (German\ntitle: Antignostikus: Geist des Tertullianus.)\n\nNEANDER, JOHANN AUGUST WILHELM, D.D. General History of the Christian\nReligion and Church. Translated from the German by Joseph Torrey. 1853.\n9 vols. (German title: Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion\nund Kirche.)\n\nNEUMANN, CARL FRIEDRICH. Marcions Glaubenssystem. 1866. See _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr die Hist. Theol._, Bd IV.\n\nOEHLER, FRANCISCUS. Corpus Haereseologicum. Berolini, 1856-1861. 3 vols.\n\nOPPERT, JULIUS. Le Peuple et la Langue des M\u00e8des. Paris, 1879.\n\nORELLI, JOHANN CASPAR von. Inscriptionum Latinarum selectarum amplissima\ncollectio. Turin, 1828. 2 vols.\n\nPARISOTTI, A. Ricerche sul culto di Iside e Serapide. Roma, 1888. (Studi\ne Documenti di Storia e Diritto.)\n\nPARTHEY, GUSTAV. Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums.\nBerlin, 1866. (Extract from _Abhandlungen der Kgl. Preuss. Akad. der\nWissenschaften_, 1865.)\n\nPATER, WALTER. Plato and Platonism. 1901.\n\nPATRICK, JOHN, D.D. The Apology of Origen in reply to Celsus. 1892.\n\nPERROT, G., M\u00e9langes pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es \u00e0, etc. Paris, 1903.\n\nPHILASTER OF BRESCIA. Philastrii Episcopi Brixiensis Haereseon\nCatalogus. See Oehler, Corpus Haereseologicum, vol. I.\n\nPINCHES, THEOPHILUS GOLDRIDGE, LL.D. The Religious Ideas of the\nBabylonians. 1893. See _Victoria Institute Transactions_.\n\nPistis Sophia, see VALENTINUS, _infra_.\n\nPLUTARCH OF CHAERONEA. \u00dcber Isis und Osiris, nach neuverglichenen\nHandschriften mit \u00dcbersetzung und Erla\u00fcterungen herausgegeben. Von\nGustav Parthey. Berlin, 1850.\n\nPOGNON, H., Membre de l\u2019Institut. Inscriptions Manda\u00eftes des Coupes de\nKhouabir. Paris, 1898.\n\nPORTER, FRANK C. Apocrypha. See Hastings, Dict. of Bible, _s.h.v._\n\nPOTTIER, E. La Collection Louis de Clercq. Paris, 1906. (Conf\u00e9rences au\nMus\u00e9e Guimet. Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XIX (1906).)\n\nPRAEDESTINATUS. De Haeresibus Liber. See Oehler, Corpus Haereseologicum,\nvol. I.\n\nPURSER, LOUIS CLAUDE, etc. Orphica. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Greek and\nRoman Antiquities, _s.h.v._\n\n_Quarterly Review, The._ 1890, etc. In progress.\n\nRADLOFF, W. Chuastuanift, das Bussgebet der Manich\u00e4er. St Petersburg,\n1909.\n\nRAMSAY, Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL. The Church in the Roman Empire. 1893.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford, 1895. 2 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 St Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. 1897.\n\n\u2014\u2014 A Historical Commentary on St Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Galatians. 1899.\n\nRAWLINSON, GEORGE, Canon, etc. History of Herodotus. New Edition. 1862.\n4 vols.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Sixth Oriental Monarchy. 1873.\n\nRAWLINSON, Sir HENRY CRESWICKE, K.C.B., etc. The Cuneiform Inscriptions\nof Western Asia. 1861, etc. In progress.\n\nRAYET, OCTAVE. Inscriptions du Mus\u00e9e de \u00c9cole \u00c9vang\u00e9lique \u00e0 Smyrne.\nParis, 1877. See _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, nouv. s\u00e9r. t. XXIII (1877).\n\nREADE, WILLIAM WINWOOD. The Martyrdom of Man. 1910.\n\nRecueil de Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la Philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie\n\u00c9gyptiennes et Assyriennes. Publi\u00e9 sous la direction de G. Maspero.\nParis, 1870, etc. In progress.\n\nREINACH, ADOLPHE. Review of Em. Schmidt\u2019s Kult\u00fcbertragungen. See _Revue\nde l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, t. LXVIII (1913).\n\nREINACH, SALOMON. Cultes, Mythes, et Religions. Paris, 1909-1912. 4\nvols.\n\nReligions, International Congress of. _Transactions_. Oxford, 1908.\n\nRENAN, JOSEPH ERNEST. Les Ap\u00f4tres. Paris, 1866. (Les Origines du\nChristianisme.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ. Paris, 1873 (_id._).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les \u00c9vangiles. Paris, 1877 (_id._).\n\n\u2014\u2014 L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne. Paris, 1879 (_id._).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Marc Aur\u00e8le. Paris, 1882 (_id._).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Influence of the Institutions, Thought and Culture of Rome on\nChristianity. Translated by Charles Beard. 1884. (Hibbert Lectures.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Histoire du Peuple d\u2019Israel. Paris, 1887. 5 vols.\n\nR\u00c9VILLE, ALBERT. Les Religions des Peuples Non-civilis\u00e9s. Paris, 1883. 2\nvols.\n\nR\u00c9VILLE, JEAN. La Religion \u00e0 Rome sous les S\u00e9v\u00e8res. Paris, 1886.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Quatri\u00e8me \u00c9vangile. Paris, 1901.\n\nREVILLOUT, EUG\u00c8NE. Les D\u00e9crets de Rosette et de Canope. Paris, 1877. See\n_Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_ for 1877.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Les Arts \u00c9gyptiens. Paris, 1880. See _Revue \u00c9gyptologique_ for 1880.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Le Livre d\u2019Incantation du Nome de Pandje (Oxyrinque). Planchettes\nBilingues. See _Revue \u00c9gyptologique_ for 1882 and 1892.\n\n_Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, III^e s\u00e9rie. Paris, 1883, etc. In progress.\n\n_Revue Critique d\u2019Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature._ Paris, 1866, etc. In\nprogress.\n\n_Revue des Deux Mondes_, III^e p\u00e9riode. Paris, 1874, etc. In progress.\n\n_Revue \u00c9gyptologique._ Paris, 1880, etc. In progress.\n\n_Revue des \u00c9tudes anciennes._ Bordeaux, 1899, etc. In progress.\n\n_Revue des \u00c9tudes grecques._ Paris, 1888, etc. In progress. (Published\nby L\u2019Association pour l\u2019encouragement des \u00c9tudes grecques.)\n\n_Revue des \u00c9tudes juives._ Paris, 1881, etc. In progress. (Published by\nla Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00c9tudes juives.)\n\n_Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions._ Paris, 1880, etc. In progress.\n(_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet._ Quoted _infra_ as _R.H.R._)\n\n_Revue d\u2019Histoire et Litt\u00e9rature Religieuses._ Paris, 1910, etc. In\nprogress.\n\n_Revue de l\u2019Instruction publique en Belgique._ Mons, 1865, etc. In\nprogress.\n\nROBERT, CARL. Genethliakon. Berlin, 1910. (_Festschrift_ on 60th\nbirthday.)\n\nROBINSON, J. ARMITAGE, D.D., etc. Appendix to the Apology of Aristides\n(by J. Rendel Harris). Cambridge, 1891. (Cambridge Texts and Studies,\nvol. I, No. 1.)\n\nROBIOU, F\u00c9LIX. De quelques MSS. Gr\u00e9co-\u00c9gyptiens du Louvre. Paris, 1884.\nSee Graux, M\u00e9langes.\n\nROCHAT, E. Essai sur Mani et sa Doctrine. Gen\u00e8ve, 1897.\n\nROGERS, ROBERT WM., LL.D., etc. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.\n1908. 2 vols.\n\nROSCHER, WILHELM HEINRICH. Lexikon der Mythologie. Leipzig, 1889, etc.\nIn progress.\n\nROSENBERG, FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC. Le Livre de Zoroastre. St Petersburg. 1904.\n\nROSSI, FRANCISCO. Di alcuni MSS. Copti nella Biblioteca Nazionale di\nTorino. Turin, 1883. (_Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di\nTorino_, 2^a serie, t. XLIII.)\n\n_Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland._ _Journal._ 1839,\netc. In progress. (Quoted _infra_ as _J.R.A.S._)\n\nRoyal Society of Literature. _Transactions._ 2nd series. 1843, etc. In\nprogress.\n\nRUELLE, G. E. Le Chant des Sept Voyelles Grecques. See _Revue des \u00c9tudes\nGrecques_, 1889.\n\nRZACH, ALOIS. Sibyllina Oracula. Prague, 1891.\n\nSALMON, GEORGE, D.D., etc. Caulacau. See Smith, Dictionary of Christian\nBiography, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Clementines. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Gnosticism. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Hippolytus Romanus. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Jaldabaoth. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Marcion. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Saturninus. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Simon Magus. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Valentinus. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Cross References in the Philosophumena. Dublin, 1885. See\n_Hermathena_, No. XI (1885).\n\nSANDAY, WILLIAM, D.D., etc. The Gospels in the Second Century. Oxford,\n1876.\n\n_Savans, Journal des._ See _Journal des Savans_.\n\nSAYCE, ARCHBALD HENRY, D.D. The Ancient Empires of the East. 1884.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Astronomy and Astrology of the Babylonians. 1874. See _T.S.B.A._,\nvol. III (1874).\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. Edinburgh, 1902.\n(Gifford Lectures.)\n\nSCHMIDT, CARL, Lic.D., etc. (of Berlin University). Gnostische Schriften\nin Koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus. Leipzig, 1892. (Texte und\nUntersuchungen of Gebhardt and Harnack.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Koptisch-gnostisch Schriften. Erster Bd. Leipzig, 1905. (Die\nGriechischen Christlicher Schriftsteller der ersten Drei Jahrhunderte.\nHerausg. von der Kirchenv\u00e4ter-Commission der Kgl. Preuss. Akad. der\nWissenschaften.)\n\nSCHMIDT, CHARLES GUILLAUME ADOLPHE (of Strasburg). Histoire et Doctrine\nde la Secte des Cathares ou Albigeois. Paris, 1849. 2 vols.\n\nSCHMIDT, MORIZ, and MERX, A. Die Assumptio Mosis. Halle, 1868. See\n_Archiv f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments_. 1868.\n\nSCHMIEDEL, PAUL W., D.D. Simon Magus. See Cheyne\u2019s Encyclopaedia\nBiblica, _s.h.v._\n\n\u2014\u2014 Community of Goods. See _idem_, _s.h.v._\n\nSCH\u00dcRER, EMIL. History of the Jewish People in the times of Jesus\nChrist. Translated from the German by Sophia Taylor and P. Christie.\nEdinburgh, 1865. 8 vols. (German title: Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes\nim Zeitalter Jesu Christi.)\n\nSCOT, REGINALD. The Discoverie of Witchcraft. 1651.\n\n_Scottish Review, The._ 1883, etc. In progress.\n\nSKEAT, WALTER WILLIAM. Malay Magic: an Introduction to the Folklore and\nPopular Religion of the Malay Peninsula. 1900.\n\nSMITH, Sir CECIL HARCOURT, LL.D. Orphic Myths on Attic Vases. 1890, See\n_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1890.\n\nSMITH, R. TRAVERS. Ephraim the Syrian. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary of\nChristian Biography, _s.h.v._\n\nSMITH, Sir WILLIAM, D.C.L. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.\n1890.\n\nSMITH, Sir WILLIAM, and WACE, HENRY, D.D., etc. A Dictionary of\nChristian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. 1877-1887. 4\nvols.\n\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des Antiquaires de France. _M\u00e9moires_, 6^e s\u00e9rie.\nParis, 1891, etc. In progress.\n\nSociety of Antiquaries of London. _Archaeologia_: Miscellaneous Tracts\nrelating to Antiquity. 1770, etc. In progress.\n\nSociety of Biblical Archaeology. _Transactions._ 1872-1893. 9 vols.\n(Quoted as _T.S.B.A._)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Proceedings._ 1879, etc. In progress. (Quoted _infra_ as _P.S.B.A._)\n\nSociety for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. The _Journal of Hellenic\nStudies_. 1880, etc. In progress. (Quoted _infra_ as _J.H.S._)\n\nS\u00d6DERBLOM, NATHAN. La Vie Future d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Mazd\u00e9isme. Paris, 1901.\n(_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet._ Bibl. d\u2019\u00c9tudes, t. IX.)\n\n_Sphinx_: Revue critique embrassant le domaine entier de l\u2019\u00c9gyptologie.\nUpsala (1896, etc.). In progress.\n\nST\u00c4HELIN, H. Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts. Leipzig, 1890.\n\nSTANLEY, ARTHUR PENRHYN, D.D., etc. Lectures on the History of the\nJewish Church. 1883. 3 vols.\n\nSTEINDORFF, GEORGE, Ph.D. Religion of the Ancient Egyptians. New York,\n1905. (American Lectures on the History of Religions.)\n\nSTEPHANI, LUDOLPH. Compte-rendu de la Commission Imp\u00e9riale\nArch\u00e9ologique. St Petersburg, 1850.\n\nSTEPHEN OF BYZANTIUM. _\u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9._ See Etymologicum Magnum, _s.h.v._\n\nSTOCK, ST GEORGE. Simon Magus. See Encyclopaedia Britannica, _s.h.v._\n\nSTOKES, G.T., B.D. Manes. See Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Christian Biography,\n_s.h.v._\n\nSTOOP, EM. DE, Ph.D., etc. La Diffusion du Manich\u00e9isme dans l\u2019Empire\nromain. Gand, 1909.\n\nSTRACK, HERMANN L. Le Sang et la fausse accusation du Meurtre Rituel.\nTraduite de l\u2019allemande par Salomon Reinach. Paris, n.d. [1892?].\n(German title: Blutaberglauber in der Menschheit.)\n\nSTRONG, HERBERT A., LL.D. The Syrian Goddess, being a translation of\nLucian\u2019s _de Dea Syria_. Edited by John Garstang, D.Sc. 1913.\n\nST\u00dcBE, R., Ph.D. J\u00fcdisch-Babylonische Zaubertexte. Halle, 1895.\n\nSYKES, PHILIP M., C.M.G., etc. Historical Notes on Khurassan. 1910. See\n_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ for 1910.\n\nTALBOT, H. FOX. On Ineffable Names. 1865. See _Transactions of the Royal\nSociety of Literature_, 2nd ser., vol. VIII (1866).\n\nTARN, WILLIAM WOODTHORPE. Antigonos Gonatas. Oxford, 1913.\n\nTAYLOR, C. Pirke Aboth. Cambridge, 1877.\n\nTERTULLIAN. Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia.\nEdidit Franciscus Oehler. Lipsiae, 1853-1861. 3 vols.\n\nTERTULLIAN, Pseudo- (Victorinus of Pettau?). Liber adversus omnes\nHaereses. See Oehler, Corpus Haereseologicum, vol. I.\n\nTHEON ALEXANDRINUS. Commentaire sur le premier livre de l\u2019Almagest de\nPtol\u00e9m\u00e9e. Par l\u2019Abb\u00e9 Halma. Paris, 1821. 2 vols.\n\nTHOMPSON, M.S. The Asiatic or Winged Artemis. 1909. See _Journal of\nHellenic Studies_, vol. XXIX (1909).\n\nTIELE, CORNELIUS PETRUS, Theol.D., etc. Elements of the Science of\nReligion. 1897. 2 vols. (Gifford Lectures.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Religion of the Iranian Peoples. Part I (all published).\nTranslated from the German by G. K. Nariman. Bombay, 1912. (German\ntitle: Geschichte der Religion im Altertum bis auf Alexander den\nGrossen. Bd II. Die Religion bei den iranischen V\u00f6lkern.)\n\nTURMEL, J. L\u2019Ang\u00e9lologie depuis le faux Denys l\u2019Ar\u00e9opagite. Paris, 1898.\nSee _Revue d\u2019histoire et litt\u00e9rature religieuses_, t. IV (1898).\n\nTYLOR, Sir. EDWARD BURNETT, D.C.L., etc. Primitive Culture. 1871. 2\nvols.\n\nVALENTINUS. Pistis Sophia. Opus gnosticum Valentino adjudicatur e codice\nM. S. Coptico Londinensi. Descripsit et Latine vertit M. G. Schwartze.\nEdidit J. H. Petermann. Berlin, 1851.\n\nVELLAY, CHARLES. Le Culte et les F\u00eates d\u2019Adonis-Thammuz. Paris, 1904.\n(_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet._ Bibl. d\u2019\u00c9tudes, t. XVI.)\n\nVETTIUS VALENS. Vettii Valentis Anthologiarum libri. Primum edidit\nGulielmus Kroll. Berolini. 1908.\n\nVictoria Institute. _Journal of the Transactions._ 1866, etc. In\nprogress.\n\nVITEAU, J., et MARTIN, FRAN\u00c7OIS. Les Psaumes de Salomon. Paris, 1911.\n\nWESSELY, KARL, Ph.D., etc. On the Spread of Judaeo-Christian Religious\nIdeas among the Egyptians. 1886. See _The Expositor_, ser. III, vol. IV\n(1886).\n\n\u2014\u2014 Ephesia Grammata. Wien, 1886. (Zw\u00f6lfter Jahresbericht \u00fcber das K.K.\nFranz-Joseph Gymnasium.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London. Wien, 1888.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Neue Griechische Zauberpapyri. Wien, 1893. (Denkschriften\nder Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.\nPhilosophisch-Historische Classe, Bd XLII.)\n\nWEST, EDWARD WILLIAM. Pahlavi Texts, Pts I-IV. Oxford, 1880. (Sacred\nBooks of the East. Vols. 5, 18, 24 and 37.)\n\nWHINFIELD, E. H. The Seven-headed Dragon. 1910. See _Journal of the\nRoyal Asiatic Society_.\n\nWIEDEMANN, ALFRED, Ph.D., etc. The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the\nImmortality of the Soul. Translated from the German. 1895. (German\ntitle: Die Unsterblichkeit der Seele nach alt\u00e4gyptischer Lehre.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians. Translated from the German.\n1897. (German title: Die Religion der alten \u00c4gypter.)\n\nWILLIAMS-JACKSON, ABRAHAM VALENTINE, Prof., etc. Zoroaster, the Prophet\nof Ancient Iran. New York, 1901.\n\nWOODS, F. H., B.D. The Hope of Israel. Edinburgh, 1896.\n\n_Xenia._ Athens, 1912.\n\nYUNG, \u00c9MILE, M.D. Hypnotisme et Spiritisme: les faits positifs et les\nfaits pr\u00e9sum\u00e9s. Gen\u00e8ve, 1890. (Conf\u00e9rences publiques prononc\u00e9es dans\nl\u2019Aula de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Gen\u00e8ve.)\n\nZABOROWSKI, M. S. Les Peuples Aryens d\u2019Asie et d\u2019Europe. Paris, 1908.\n\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00c4gyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde._ Leipzig, 1863,\netc. In progress. (Quoted _infra_ as _\u00c4.Z._)\n\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr historische Theologie._ Leipzig, 1852, etc. In\nprogress.\n\n\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe worships, beliefs, and religious practices of the age which saw the\nbirth and infancy of Christianity must always be the most interesting of\nall subjects to the student of history, nor are there many more\ndeserving the attention of the general reader. The opponent, quite as\nmuch as the adherent of Christianity, must admit that the early\nstruggles of the faith which is professed by nearly a third of the human\nrace, which for fifteen centuries wielded unchallenged sway over the\nwhole of Europe, and which has grown with the growth of European\ncolonization until it now has a firm settlement in every quarter of the\ninhabited world, must ever possess surpassing interest for humanity. Yet\nthe popular ideas on the subject are not only vague but erroneous. A\ngeneral notion that, shortly before the coming of Christ, the Pagans had\ntired of their old gods, and, lost to all sense of decency, had given\nthemselves up to an unbridled immorality founded on atheistic ideas, is\nprobably about as far as the man who has given no special study to the\nsubject would venture to go. Such a view, founded perhaps on somewhat\nmisty recollections of the Roman satirists and a little secondhand\nknowledge of the denunciations of the early Christian writers, is almost\nthe reverse of the truth. There has probably been no time in the history\nof mankind when all classes were more given up to thoughts of religion,\nor when they strained more fervently after high ethical ideals, than in\nthe six centuries which have been taken for the subject of this book[1].\n\nThe cause of this misconception is, however, clear enough. Half a\ncentury ago, the general public was without guide or leader in such\nmatters, nor had they any materials on which to form opinions of their\nown. The classical education which was all that the majority of men then\ngot, carefully left all such matters as the origins of Christianity on\none side. The treatises of the Fathers of the Church, for the most part\nwritten in late and inelegant Greek, were held to be too corrupting to\nthe style of scholars reared on the texts of the purest period to be\nattempted by any but professional theologians, by whom indeed they were\noften very imperfectly understood. Nor was much to be gathered from the\nprofane historians of the early Christian centuries, who maintained such\nan obstinate silence with regard to Christianity as to give rise to the\ntheory that they must have conspired to ignore the new religion of the\nlower classes as something too barbarous for ears polite[2]. Moreover,\nthe ruling maxim of education, especially of English education until the\nend of the XIXth century, was that it was better to know one thing\nthoroughly than to acquire a smattering of a great many, and that a\nscholar was better served by an intimate knowledge of second aorists\nthan by any wide extent of reading; while the comparative method of\nstudy was still confined to sciences of analysis like anatomy and\nphilology[3]. Above all, what has been called the catastrophic view of\nthe Christian religion was still in fashion. Although our spiritual\npastors and masters were never tired of reminding us that God\u2019s ways\nwere not as our ways, they invariably talked and wrote on the assumption\nthat they were, and thought an Omnipotent Creator with eternity before\nHim must needs behave like a schoolboy in control of gunpowder for the\nfirst time. Hence \u201cthe remarkable victory\u201d which, in the words of\nGibbon, the Christian faith obtained over \u201cthe established religions of\nthe earth\u201d was in the view of the orthodox chiefly due to the miraculous\npowers placed at the disposal of the primitive Church, and it was\nconsidered impious to look further for the cause of the despotic rule\nwhich in a comparatively brief space of time it succeeded in\nestablishing over the minds of men.\n\nFrom this state of things, the foundation of what is known as the\nscience of religions did much to deliver us. When non-Christian faiths,\nsuch as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Mohammedanism, came to\nbe systematically studied without preconceived hostility or desire to\njeer at their absurdities, it was seen that the same atmosphere of\nmiracle and legend had gathered round their infancy as round that of the\nChristian Church. Outside the regular or canonical scriptures\u2014if the\nphrase may be used\u2014of all of these faiths, there had evidently grown up\na vast literature of uncertain date and authorship in which the same\nstories were repeated and the same episodes introduced as in the\nChristian Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Lives of the Saints. It began to\ndawn upon us that, as the human mind under the same conditions generally\nworks in the same way, it was possible that all religions, whether true\nor false, might have gone through the same or similar stages of\ndevelopment[4].\n\nThat this view of the case was in itself a great step in advance,\neveryone will readily admit who can remember the horror with which any\nproposal to equate or even compare Christianity with any other religion\nwas once received. It was much helped, however, by another novel\nhypothesis which about that time had got over its period of obloquy and\nwas rapidly coming to the front, namely, the theory of evolution. When\nDarwin in his _Origin of Species_ enunciated the truth that as more\nanimals and plants than the earth can support come into existence every\nyear, it is only those varieties which are best fitted to their\nenvironment which survive the consequent struggle for existence, he\npractically gave us a new standpoint from which to contemplate Nature.\nHerbert Spencer, quickly grasping this principle and carrying its\napplication much further than Darwin had ventured to do, showed that it\ngoverned the development not only of animal forms but of the\nintellectual and moral faculties of man, of political and social\ninstitutions, and even of what he called \u201cecclesiastical institutions,\u201d\nwhich included religions themselves. With the general acceptance of this\nview, it followed that the success in point of popularity of any creed\nat any period of the world\u2019s history was not due to any sudden or\ncapricious exercise of the Divine will, but to the normal working of a\nuniversal and irresistible law.\n\nBut, at this point, we must stop a little to define what is meant by the\nscience of religions. Science, in this sense, has so far departed from\nits strict and etymological signification of knowledge, as to connote\nexact knowledge based upon ascertained fact, while a science is\ngenerally held to mean an organized system in which the largest possible\nnumber of related facts are gathered together with reference to one\ncommon subject of study. At first sight, it appears that nothing can be\nmore rigidly excluded by this definition than religion, which has been\ndefined as \u201cthe effective desire to be in right relation to the power\nmanifesting itself in the universe[5].\u201d This, which in some quarters\nwould be called the religion \u201cof the heart,\u201d can never form the subject\nof study based upon exact knowledge, because the relations between any\nhuman being and the power manifesting itself in the universe can be\nknown only, so far as we can see, to that being and to that power. But\nin the science under consideration, there is no question of religion\ngenerally, but of religions, which is a very different thing. By a\nreligion, we generally mean the assembly of beliefs, traditions, and\nforms of worship which go to make up a faith or cult, and this, as it\nmust, according to the experience of all history, have come into being\nthrough the agency of some man or men, should go through the same\nevolutionary process as all other human institutions. Hence there is at\nfirst sight a considerable probability that all religions whatever will\nbe found on examination to follow the same law of development by the\nsurvival of those best fitted to their environment that we have seen\noperative in the case of animal forms.\n\nHere, however, the Christian\u2014or for that matter, the adherent of any\nfaith which claims to have been founded by a special revelation\u2014finds\nhimself in the presence of a dilemma. His own faith, whether it be\nChristianity or another, is in his eyes true, as being not the work of\nman, but of God, and all others are false. How therefore are they to be\ncompared? Is the Jew, who believes the Law to have been delivered to his\npeople \u201camong the thunders of Sinai,\u201d the Parsi who is taught the\nspecial inspiration of Zoroaster by the \u201cOmniscient Lord\u201d Ahura Mazda,\nor the Mohammedan who thinks that Mohammed received the Koran from Allah\nhimself, to be told that his faith has developed according to the same\nlaws as that of the Christian, who is convinced that his has no other\nsource than the teaching of the Divine Founder of Christianity?\n\nTo this it may be said that the dilemma is more apparent than real, and\nis due to a like confusion of thought with that which seized upon many\nwhen the evolutionary theory was first promulgated. No argument was then\nmore common than that the Divine creation of the animals, including man,\nwas authoritatively revealed once for all in the first chapter of\nGenesis, and that the bare formulation of the idea that man\u2019s bodily\nform had developed by a long process of evolution and selection from\nthose of the lower animals was therefore a blasphemy that could only be\nuttered by atheistic men of science[6]. There is no occasion to go here\ninto the tissue of sophistries and misconceptions with which Mr\nGladstone, when confronted with this argument in controversy with M.\nAlbert R\u00e9ville, one of the founders of the science of religions, and\nwith M. R\u00e9ville\u2019s champion Prof. Huxley, tried to prove that the\nassertion of the doctrine of evolution was to be found in the Book of\nGenesis. It is sufficient to say that Darwin never affirmed that natural\nselection or the survival of the fittest was the cause of the variation\nof animal forms, but simply that it was the mode in which that\nvariation, however caused, operated[7]. In like manner, it may be said\nthat the science of religions by no means attempts to discuss the causes\nwhich lead to the institution of any particular religion, but deals\nmerely with the laws underlying its development when once instituted.\nThe Christian religion, like those of Moses, Zoroaster, and Mohammed,\nhowever Divine its origin, was, like them, propagated by men who founded\nthe Church, handed on the traditions, and gave form to the ceremonies.\nIs there, therefore, any reason why the same law of development should\nnot apply to this as well as to its rivals?\n\nThat the answer to this must be in the negative is at last beginning to\nbe generally admitted. Prof. Tiele, writing in 1897, was obliged to\nconfess that \u201cthe new science of religions was in many quarters regarded\nwith suspicion[8],\u201d but Dr Jevons, when lecturing at Hartford in 1908,\nwas able to say that \u201cthe time has happily gone by when the mere idea of\ncomparing Christianity with any other religion would have been rejected\nwith horror as treasonous and treacherous[9].\u201d Yet it may be doubted\nwhether the clouds have rolled completely away, and it is fairly certain\nthat the many learned and able Catholic priests who have done so much to\nelucidate the origins and tendencies of ancient religions other than\ntheir own have until lately avoided the discussion of their relations\nwith the earliest forms of Christianity. This is the more to be\nregretted, because they are in many cases peculiarly fitted for the\ninvestigation, and their acquaintance with the extra-Canonical Christian\nwriters before Constantine, hitherto much neglected by Protestant\ntheologians, would make their conclusions upon it especially valuable.\nYet it is along these lines that future inquiry will probably advance;\nand if, as most of us believe, the Christian religion has outdistanced\nand survived all its early competitors because it was better fitted than\nthey to its environment, it is of great importance even from the point\nof view of the most rigid orthodoxy, that we should have a clear\nconception of what that environment was. Fortunately the gaps in our\nknowledge have been in great measure filled by the work of Continental\nscholars outside the pale of the Catholic Church, who have been\nindefatigable of late years in discovering documents, editing texts, and\npublishing monuments which throw great light on the history of the\nreligions which at the outset competed with Christianity for the favour\nof the Graeco-Roman world. A summary of these labours is one of the\nobjects aimed at in the following pages.\n\nIf, now, we attempt to examine what these competitors were, we find at\nthe outset that a good number of those which we once thought formidable\nmay be eliminated from the list. Judaism, for instance, although the\nmatrix in which Christianity was formed, was never at any time in\neffective rivalry with it. The words of the Gospel as to the Pharisees\ncompassing sea and land to make one proselyte have misled the unwary\ninto supposing that the number of Jewish proselytes was at one time or\nanother large[10]; but it must be remembered that it was the Sadducees\nand not the Pharisees who were the dominant party in the Jewish State,\nand that these last formed but a very small part of the total population\nof Judaea[11]. The Sadducees from their Hellenizing tendencies were much\nmore likely to go over to the faith of the Gentiles than to make any\ngreat effort for their conversion, and both they and the Essenes, who\nformed in Josephus\u2019 day the third party among the Jews, were too much\nset on procuring, by different means, the temporal supremacy of Israel,\nto care much about admitting any proselyte to share in it[12]. Although\na few undistinguished persons of Gentile blood may have become converts\nto Judaism between the birth of Christ and the fall of the Temple, their\nnumber can never have been at any time important; and after 69 A.D., the\nfurious hostility that arose between Jew and Gentile made any further\nconversions to the Jewish faith practically impossible. Never, so far as\nwe know, did Judaism aim at becoming, and certainly never had the\nslightest chance of appearing as, a world-religion.\n\nNot less hopeless, in this respect, was the case of the Graeco-Roman\npantheon. The late Mr Long\u2019s picture of \u201cDiana or Christ,\u201d representing\na young woman called upon by a sympathetic Roman magistrate to choose\nbetween sacrificing to the statue of the many-breasted Artemis of\nEphesus and condemnation to death as a Christian, attained great\npopularity in its day, and shows with fair clearness the view of the\nrelations between Paganism and early Christianity supposed at the end of\nthe last century to have been current in the first. Yet hardly anything\ncould give a falser idea of the religious history of the period. The\nofficials of the Roman Empire in time of persecution sought to force the\nChristians to sacrifice, not to any of the heathen gods, but to the\nGenius of the Emperor and the Fortune of the City of Rome; and at all\ntimes the Christians\u2019 refusal was looked upon not as a religious but as\na political offence[13]. For the rest, the worship of the Olympian gods\nhad, when Christianity came to the surface, almost entirely died out,\nand both Greek and Latin writers bear witness to the contempt with which\nit was regarded by both races at the beginning of our era. Cicero, while\nadmitting that the world is governed by the providence of the gods,\nrejects all the myths attached to them as impious, and declares that the\n\u201cDeity who is diffused in every part of Nature\u201d appears as the earth\nunder the name of Ceres, as the sea under that of Neptune, and so\non[14]. Plutarch, too, is plainly a monotheist, who worships \u201cthe one\neternal, passionless Spirit far removed from the world of chance and\nchange and earthly soilure\u201d of Greek philosophy[15]; and, while\nlamenting the decay of faith which has led to the cessation of oracles,\nthinks that all the manifestations of the Divine providence are the work\nof no great deity, but of a crowd of inferior powers or demons who are\nhardly in a greater superiority of position to man than the fairies of\nour childhood[16]. Whatever rivalry the Christian Church had to face in\nits infancy, it had none to fear from the deities of Olympus.\n\nIt has been said, however, and to a certain extent accepted, that the\nfirst efforts of Christianity were sorely hindered by the followers of\nthe great Greek philosophers. In this there is a certain amount of\ntruth, for the Neo-Platonic school did indeed enter into an alliance\nwith the few remaining worshippers of the Pagan gods which forced them\ninto an attitude of opposition to Christianity. But this was at a date\nsome time after the compact with Constantine, and consequently later\nthan that within the scope of this book. Nor is it likely that at an\nearlier date philosophy and Christianity appealed to the same class of\nminds, and that they thus entered into serious competition with each\nother. As the late Dr Hatch has said, \u201cthe earliest forms of\nChristianity were not only outside the sphere of Greek philosophy, but\nthey also appealed on the one hand, mainly to the classes which\nphilosophy did not reach, and on the other hand, to a standard which\nphilosophy did not recognize[17].\u201d Faith, not reason, was the quality\nthat the Apostles and their immediate successors sought in their\nhearers, and Celsus was probably not far wrong when he said that the\nrule of admission into the infant Church was \u201cLet no educated man enter,\nno wise man, no prudent man, for such things we deem evil; but whoever\nis ignorant, whoever is unintelligent, whoever is simple, let him come\nand be welcome[18].\u201d To this state of mind the password of the early\nChristian communities, _Maran atha_, is a sufficient key. The confident\nexpectation of the nearness of the Parusia or Second Advent for the\nprimitive Christian overwhelmed all other considerations. \u201cThe Lord is\nat hand and His reward\u201d was the one fact that he wished to keep before\nhim. What need to trouble about the Highest Good or the hundred other\nquestions that vexed the souls of the philosophers?\n\nThe religions competing with Christianity which are left after this\nelimination may be classed in three categories. First come the Oriental\nreligions native to countries lying to the south and east of the\nMediterranean and therefore mainly outside the sphere of Hellenic\nculture until after the conquests of Alexander. These religions, born or\nnurtured in Asia Minor, Persia, and Egypt, so soon as Alexander had\ncarried out his project of the marriage of Europe and Asia, poured\nwestward in a flood which a Roman satirist compared to the Orontes\nemptying itself into the Tiber, and gained, according to a well-known\nlaw in the history of religions, a far greater influence over the minds\nof men than they had exercised in their native home. The second category\ncomprises the many strange sects which the first Fathers of the Church\ngrouped together under the generic name of Gnostics. The faith which\nthese professed was not, as it is sought to show later, one founded on\nreligion at all but rather on magic, and had long been present in germ\nas a sort of heresy or alternative belief underlying the worship of the\ngods of Olympus. Finally, there arose the ambitious religion of Manes,\nwhich aimed at sweeping into one vast synthesis or eclectic church the\nthree religions of Zoroaster, Buddha, and Christ, which at the time of\nits institution divided between them the allegiance of the civilized\nworld.\n\nEach of these categories shall be dealt with in turn; but before doing\nso, it may be well to say something upon the state of our knowledge\nconcerning them. Until lately, it was a commonplace of religious history\nthat the Catholic Church had destroyed as far as possible all traces of\nthe religions that she had supplanted, which was picturesquely expressed\nin the phrase that in her victory she had burned the enemy\u2019s camp. That\nthis was her conscious policy may be gathered from the advice given by a\nPope of the VIIth century, to \u201cbreak the idols and consecrate the\ntemples\u201d of the heathen[19]; but of late many relics of the ancient\nfaiths which had before escaped us have been disinterred by the care of\nscholars. During the last century, the lost heresiology of Hippolytus\nand considerable fragments of works by Gnostic authors were brought to\nlight in circumstances to be described in their place[20], while the\npresent decade has not only added to our stock of Gnostic fragments, but\nhas revealed to us on the western frontier of China a hoard of\nManichaean documents rich beyond our hopes[21]. These are not only\nvaluable by reason of the information they afford, but give us ground\nfor the belief that, as the interest in such matters becomes more widely\nspread, many more documents throwing light upon the subject will appear.\n\nOne word may be said in conclusion as to the relations of these rival\nreligions between themselves. Whoever studies the documents here\ndescribed cannot fail to be struck by the fact that certain ideas,\nphrases, and even words, seem common to them all. At the time that these\ndocuments were written this similarity excited no remark from the\northodox, as it was at once disposed of by the theory that these\nreligions were one and all the invention of the Devil, and therefore\nnaturally bore traces of their common origin. This explanation, however\nconvenient, does not satisfy the demands of modern criticism, and it is\ntherefore necessary to look further. One way of accounting for the\nphenomenon is to suppose that many if not all of the analogies noticed\nare due to the mistakes of scribes and translators, who, when dealing\nwith expressions unfamiliar to them, were naturally inclined to repeat\nthe same phrases over and over again. This, as all know who have had to\ndo with ancient manuscripts, is accountable for much, and it is\nextremely likely that a monk of the Vth or VIth century transcribing an\naccount of the opinions of, for instance, the Ophites who flourished in\nPhrygia before the birth of Christ at the same time with those of the\nManichaeans found in Rome three centuries later, would not hesitate to\nexpress views essentially different by the same phrases and even the\nsame words. Add to this the jumble that persons untrained in philology\nnaturally make between names in a foreign language and those of similar\nsound in their own tongue, coupled with the fixed idea of finding in the\ntraditions of the heathen a confirmation of the historical truth of the\nHebrew Scriptures, and you have some explanation of the cause which\nmakes many proper names recur unexpectedly in otherwise unrelated\ndocuments. Thus the Armenian bishop, Moses of Chorene, in narrating the\nstory which he says he obtained from Berossus, the Chaldaean historian\nwho wrote at the beginning of our era, says that \u201cBefore the building of\nthe Tower of Babel and the multiplication of tongues among the human\nrace, after the navigation of Xisuthros [_i.e._ Hasis-adra, the\nBabylonian Noah] in Armenia, Zervan, Titan, and Japhet were princes of\nthe land. These persons,\u201d he adds, \u201cseem to be Shem, Ham, and\nJaphet[22].\u201d Zervan is the name given by a late sect of Zoroastrians to\nthe \u201cBoundless Time\u201d whom they placed at the origin of all things, while\nTitan belongs to the Hellenic mythology, and Japhet may either be\nSaturn\u2019s brother Iapetus, or the patriarch of the Book of Genesis. It is\nto be conjectured that Berossus did not use these three names in the\napposition quoted or probably at all, and we can only guess vainly at\nthe real names which are concealed under those which Moses of Chorene\nhere gives.\n\nBut when all allowance is made for mistakes like these, there remains a\nfund of ideas common to all or many of the religions hereafter treated\nof, which cannot be explained away by any theory of verbal\ninaccuracy[23]. As an instance of this, let us take the notion of an\narchetypal or heavenly man created ages before the appearance upon earth\nof terrestrial man, who was nevertheless made in the image and after the\nlikeness of his predecessor. This idea, as will be shown later, is met\nwith among the Phrygian Ophites, where \u201ca Man and a Son of Man\u201d were\nsaid to be the origin of all subsequent things, as in the Avestic\nliterature of Persia where Gay\u00f4mort, the son, according to one story, of\nthe Supreme God Ahura Mazda by his daughter Spenta-armaiti, is made at\nonce the pattern and the source of the whole human race. The borrowings\nof Zoroastrianism from Babylonia were not few, and we might conceive\nthis to be the survival of some old Babylonian tradition, such as that\nwhich modern critics believe to have been the origin of the Creation and\nFlood stories of Genesis; and this theory is strengthened by the\npredominant part which this \u201cFirst Man\u201d plays in Manichaeism, itself a\nBabylonian faith, where the Turkestan MSS. show him as a sort of\nintermediary between the gods of light and this earth. But how shall we\naccount for the fact that in one of the earliest documents of the\n_Pistis Sophia_, the collection of Gnostic writings hereafter\ndescribed[24], a great angel named Je\u00fb, who is spoken of many times as\nthe \u201coverseer of the light\u201d and the arranger of the Cosmos, is also\nalluded to as the \u201cFirst Man,\u201d in a way which shows that the writer did\nnot doubt that the allusion would be comprehended by his readers without\nfurther explanation[25]? The _Pistis Sophia_, although doubtless written\nin Greek in the first instance, comes to us in a Coptic dress, and the\ndocuments therein contained show more affinities with the Egyptian than\nwith the Persian religion. How therefore can we account for the same\nidea appearing at almost the same time in countries between the peoples\nof which there was always bitter hostility, and which were separated\nmoreover by the Arabian Desert and the whole breadth of Asia Minor?\n\nIt seems to the present writer that no solution of this and of the\nnumerous other difficulties of which this is but one example can be\nprofitably suggested, until we know more than we do at present about the\norigin and dates of Zoroastrianism. Although this religion is still with\nus in the beliefs of the modern Parsis, there is none about the origin\nof which we know less, or concerning the antiquity of which there is\ngreater discrepancy between ancient and modern writers. Thus, while\nPlutarch, quoting as is generally supposed Theopompos of Chios who\nflourished in the IVth century B.C., declares that Zoroaster himself\nwrote 5000 years before the Trojan War[26], modern writers of authority,\nlike Prof. Williams-Jackson and Mdlle Menant, are inclined to bring down\nthe date of the eponymous prophet or reformer of the Persian religion to\n700 B.C.[27] The discrepancy is too great to be bridged over by any\ncompromise, and the question has been further complicated by the\ndiscovery a few years ago of inscriptions which show that Mithras, the\nPersian god whose worship formed the most dangerous rival to that of the\nChristian Church immediately before its alliance with Constantine, was\none of the most exalted deities of the presumably Aryan Hittites or\nMitannians at a date not later than 1272 B.C.[28] Signs are not wanting\nthat discovery in the near future may take this line of advance, and if\nit should turn out that the religion which Zoroaster reformed was\nestablished in Northern Mesopotamia before the Homeric age, we may have\nto reconstruct all our ideas of the origin of the Greek religion. There\nseems no use therefore in dilating upon hypotheses which the course of\nresearch may in a very few years prove to be entirely erroneous[29].\n\nIn the meantime, the thing of immediate importance seems to be to get\nthe documentary evidence already at our disposal as far as possible\nbefore the public, and this is attempted in the pages which follow. The\ndifferent religions are there arranged in the chronological order of\ntheir greatest activity in the West with the belief that this course\nwill prove most convenient to the reader.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  For the pre-Christian centuries, the rise of ethical religions like\n  that of the Greek Isis (see Chap. II _infra_) and of Mithras (see\n  Chap. XII) is perhaps sufficient proof of this. For the\n  post-Christian, see Tertullian\u2019s remarks as to the interest excited\n  among the heathens by problems like the origin of evil (_de\n  Praescript._ c. VII.). As to their striving after morality, see Eug\u00e8ne\n  de Faye, \u201cFormation d\u2019une Doctrine de Dieu au IIme Si\u00e8cle,\u201d _Rev.\n  Hist. Rel._ t. LXIII. (Jan.-Fev. 1911) pp. 1, 2, for authorities. See,\n  too, Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1890, pp. 291, 292 and Harnack as\n  there quoted.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  W. M. Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman Empire_, 1893, pp. 263, 264.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Tiele, in his Gifford Lectures delivered in 1895, remarks on the\n  ridicule with which the learned Hellenists of his youth received the\n  efforts of those whom they called the _comparativi_. See _Elements of\n  the Science of Religion_, 1897, vol. I. p. 7.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  No better proof can be given of the change in public opinion in such\n  matters than the comparison of Gibbon\u2019s words with regard to \u201cthe\n  miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church\u201d (_Decline and\n  Fall_, Bury\u2019s edition, vol. II. p. 2) and the way the subject is\n  treated in the article \u201cWonders\u201d in Cheyne\u2019s _Encyclopedia Biblica_,\n  1903.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  The definition is that of Ira W. Howerth, _International Journal of\n  Ethics_, 1903, p. 205.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  See Tiele, _op. cit._ vol. I. pp. 5 _sqq._ The controversies raging\n  round Darwin\u2019s theory when first put forward are well summarized by F.\n  W. Hutton in his _Darwinism and Lamarckism_, 1899, _passim_. Cf.\n  Delage and Goldsmith, _Les Th\u00e8ories\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00c9volution_, Paris, 1909, pp.\n  28, 29.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  See Hutton, _op. cit._ p. 111.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Tiele, _op. cit._ vol. I. p. 11.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  F. B. Jevons, _Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion_,\n  1908, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Like the late Dean Stanley, who in his Lectures on the _History of the\n  Jewish Church_, talked about the synagogue of the Jewish settlement in\n  Rome under the first Emperors \u201cfascinating the proud Roman nobles by\n  the glimpse it gave of a better world\u201d (vol. III. p. 410).\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  According to Josephus (_Antiq._ XVIII. i. 3, 4) they did not amount to\n  more than 6000 men distributed throughout the whole of Palestine.\n  Morrison thinks that \u201cthe Pharisaic party had no attraction for the\n  great bulk of the population,\u201d _The Jews under Roman Rule_ 1890, p.\n  307.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  See Chap. V _infra_.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  See Neander, _General Hist. of the Christian Religion and Church_,\n  Eng. ed. 1853, vol. I. p. 126.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  _De Natura Deorum_, c. XXVIII. The statement is put into the mouth of\n  Balbus whose arguments Cicero declares to have in his opinion \u201cthe\n  greater probability.\u201d See also Athenagoras, _Legatio_, c. XXII. and\n  Minucius Felix, c. XIX. With such interpretations or mythoplasms,\n  Philo of Alexandria was familiar. Cf. F. C. Conybeare, _Apology of\n  Apollonius_, 1894, p. 9.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, 1904, p. 419.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  _De Iside et Osiride_, c. XXV.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Origen, _contra Celsus_, t. III. c. 44. Cf. Hatch, where last quoted.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Cf. Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire_,\n  1899, p. 38, n. 4. See also the edict of Constantine quoted in the\n  concluding chapter, _infra_. The steps which led up to the policy are\n  well summarized by Walter Johnson, _Byways of British Archaeology_,\n  1912, p. 25.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  See Chap. VII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  See Chap. XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Langlois, _Collection des Historiens de l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_, Paris, 1868, t. I.\n  p. 388.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  The late Dr Salmon\u2019s theory that writers like Hippolytus may have been\n  taken in by a forger who made one document do duty for many different\n  sects is given in Chap. VII _infra_, but the arguments in its favour\n  are not conclusive.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  See Chap. X _infra_.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Sir Gaston Maspero, \u201cSur l\u2019Enn\u00e9ade,\u201d _R.H.R._ Jan.-Fev. 1892, p. 8,\n  says that the Egyptians regarded Osiris as the First Man, and J\u00e9quier\n  repeats the statement in his _Livre de ce qu\u2019il y a dans l\u2019Had\u00e8s_,\n  Paris, 1894, pp. 9-10. Yet there seems no evidence that the Egyptians\n  ever knew him under that name.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _De Is. et Os._ c. XLVI.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  See (Mdlle) D. Menant, \u201cParsis et Parsisme,\u201d _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e\n  Guimet_, 1904, and Prof. Williams-Jackson as there quoted. The same\n  date is accepted with some hesitation by Prof. Hope Moulton in his\n  _Early Zoroastrianism_ (Hibbert Lectures), 1913, pp. 17 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See H. G. Jacobi, \u201cThe Antiquity of Vedic Culture,\u201d _Journal of the\n  Royal Asiatic Society_, 1909, pp. 720 _sqq._, where the texts relied\n  upon are given and discussed. The correspondence which followed upon\n  this paper (see _J.R.A.S._ 1909, 1910) is full of interest. Fossey,\n  \u201cLes Fouilles Allemandes \u00e0 Boghaz-Keui,\u201d _Journal des Savans_, July,\n  1909, p. 316, would make the date of the inscription about 1900 B.C.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  After this was in print, there came to hand Mr Stephen Langdon\u2019s\n  translation of the Sumerian tablet from Nippur found by him at\n  Philadelphia, which narrates in a new and modified form the earliest\n  Babylonian legend of the Creation. From this it appears that the\n  goddess Nin-harsag, either on her own account or as the agent of the\n  god En-ki or Ea, \u201ccreated two creatures with heads, feet, and face as\n  a model for mankind.\u201d See Mr Langdon\u2019s Preliminary Note in the\n  _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1914, p. 196, n.\n  23. A full transliteration and translation is promised later in the\n  _P.S.B.A._ If Mr Langdon\u2019s reading of the tablet is accepted, this may\n  well prove to be the origin of all the \u201cFirst Man\u201d legends mentioned\n  on p. lxi, _supra_.\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n                       THE CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER\n\n\nA glance at the map of Asia at the coming of Alexander will convince us\nthat all but a corner of the world known to the ancients was then ruled\nby a single power. The Persian Empire, sprawling like a huge octopus\nover the centre of the continent, dominated it from its four capitals at\nthe head of the Persian Gulf, and stretched without a break from the\nCaspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. In its eastern provinces were comprised\nwhat is now Russian Turkestan from Krasnovodsk to Kashgar, with the\nKhanates and the Pamirs, all Afghanistan, Seistan, Baluchistan, the\nNorth-West Province, and part of the Punjab. On the western side of the\nGreat Central Desert came the countries which we now call Persia and\nTurkey in Asia containing in themselves a territory half the size of the\nContinent of Europe, together with the rich province to the south of the\nCaucasus which has lately passed into the grip of Russia. From here one\nlong tentacle had stretched across the Sinaitic Peninsula and had seized\nEgypt; and, although another had shrunk back hurt from its attack on\nGreece, it yet held positions on the Bosphorus and the Hellespont which\nformed a standing menace that the raid might be repeated. Apart from the\nGreek States which, as has been well said, the Great King found easier\nto control through their own venal orators than to conquer by his\nsoldiers, there remained outside his sway only the trading republic of\nCarthage and the Italian cities just rising into prominence. Travellers\u2019\ntales, more than usually improbable and untrustworthy, were, indeed,\ntold of great countries swarming with men and fabulous monsters lying\nbeyond the African and Indian deserts on the southern, and the great\nranges of mountains on the eastern, frontier of the Empire[30]; but\nthese gave as little concern to its rulers as did the fringe of\nbarbarian tribes, Cimmerians, Hyperboreans, Gauls, and Scyths, who\nfilled up the space between the civilized world and the imaginary ring\nof waters which was called the Outer Ocean.\n\nThat this vast dominion should be loosely compacted was of the nature of\nthings. The twenty or more provinces into which it was divided enjoyed a\nlarge measure of self-government, and had preserved, for the most part,\ntheir native laws and customs unaltered. Each of these divisions was\nruled by a satrap who, like a Chinese viceroy, was allowed to maintain\narmies and even fleets of his own. But a check, imperfect no doubt but\nstill existent, was exercised over his proceedings by the presence of a\nRoyal Secretary in each satrapy, whose business it was to supervise the\naccounts, and to send up regular reports to the capital of the doings,\nof his coadjutor[31], while the troops were under the command of a\ngeneral appointed directly by the Crown. From time to time, also, a\nRoyal Commissioner called the King\u2019s Eye visited the province with a\nstrong guard to hear complaints and to see that all was in order[32].\nThe satrap, too, only held his post during his master\u2019s pleasure, and\nwas liable at any moment to be removed to another province, degraded, or\nput to death, on the strength of a simple letter bearing the Royal Seal;\nand the tribute which each satrapy had to pay to the Great King being\nsettled at a fixed and known amount, there was less chance than under\nsome similar systems of devolution that the satrap might squeeze out of\nhis subjects a sum far greater than that which he transmitted to the\nTreasury[33]. Above all, the Persians were of Aryan stock, and early\nshowed signs of the talent for governing older races which seems to have\nstuck to the Aryans throughout their history. They made excellent roads,\nand established swift running posts that did much to make communication\neasy between the most important parts of their empire; while, as the\nsatraps\u2019 standing armies were composed either of native Persians or\nhired mercenaries, the subject populations had an opportunity, rare\nenough in the ancient world, of peacefully developing their internal\nresources without constant fear of disturbance by foreign enemies, or\nforced participation in wars of aggression[34]. It was only when the\nword went forth from Babylon or Susa, Ecbatana or Persepolis, for the\ncalling-out of the Ban of the whole Empire that the other than Persian\nsubject of Artaxerxes or Darius had to join the levy of his satrapy,\nand, on orders given to him through an interpreter, to assist the Great\nKing in crushing some rebellious satrap or repelling foreign invasion.\nAt other times, he must have known him only as a kind of divinity,\nhaving power to throw down and to set up, to whom he might cry, not\nalways in vain, against the oppression of his own immediate ruler. Those\nwriters are no doubt justified who say that the government of the\nPersian Empire was to the humbler classes of Asiatics a great\nimprovement upon any that had preceded it[35], and that the rule of the\nGreat King never awoke the fierce resentment in its subjects aroused by\nthe tyranny of the Semitic Assyrians, or of the Chaldeans who were, in\ngreat part, of Mongoloid blood [36]. It was doubtless the memory of this\ngolden age, glorified as remembrances generally are by the lapse of\ncenturies, that brought about the reaction to the Persian form of\ngovernment and culture which we shall have to discuss later in the\ncountries bled white by the Roman proconsuls.\n\nThroughout this vast realm, Alexander\u2019s coming brought about a change\nsuch as the civilized world has never seen before or since. Among the\nworld-conquerors who have been hailed as heroes in after times,\nAlexander\u2014surely the greatest individual known to history\u2014stands\ndistinguished by the loftiness of his aims and the swiftness with which\nthey were attained. It is wonderful that a boy of twenty with an army\nthat cannot have exceeded 50,000 men all told should succeed in\novercoming practically the whole of Asia in less time than it took the\nBritish Empire with the third of a million to break down the armed\nresistance of a few thousand Boers. More wonderful is it that he should\na little later contrive to transport a force of about 100,000,\ncomprising infantry, cavalry and artillery, over the three thousand\nmiles that separate Macedonia from Karachi, at the same time preserving\nsuch perfect communication with his base that he seems never to have\nremained for long without letters from Europe, while the stream of\nrecruits that reached him from the same source must have been continuous\nand unchecked[37]. Such a feat which, with all the aid which steam and\nelectricity can give us, would still tax to the utmost the powers of our\ngreatest modern generals, becomes almost miraculous when we think that\nthe greater part of his line of communications must have lain through\nrecently subjugated lands, and that his own advance led him into\ncountries unmapped and known only to him by the half fabulous tales of\nhis enemies[38]. But the most astonishing thing about these exploits is\nthat they were all performed with the conscious aim of making Asia\nGreek[39], and in this respect, as in all others, they were both\noriginal and successful. Everywhere that Alexander passed, he left\nbehind him cities peopled by a mixture of his own veterans, of those\ncamp followers which, then as now, have always stuck to a European army\non the march, and of natives of the country either found on the spot or\ndrawn from some other part of Asia; and the permanence of these\nfoundations still bears witness to the foreseeing eye of their founder.\nAlexandria in Egypt, Candahar, Secunderabad, all preserve to this day\nthe memory of his royal name, and the continued importance of Khojend,\nSamarcand, Herat, Merv, and Cabul out of the many other Alexandrias that\nhe established on his conquering way show that his statesmanlike\nperception of the chief markets of the East was as sure as his\nstrategical insight[40]. Nor did he neglect other means of carrying out\nthe great design that he had at heart. In the great feast at Susa, which\nhe celebrated on his return from India, the \u201cmarriage of Europe and\nAsia,\u201d which had always formed his guiding idea, took visible shape. He\nhad already wedded\u2014it is said for love\u2014the beautiful Roxana, a princess\nfrom Bactria in the Eastern (or Upper) Provinces of his new Empire[41],\nand now he took as a second consort Statira, the daughter of Darius,\nwho, as the scion of the last native king of Persia, may be taken as the\nrepresentative of its western centre. Nearly a hundred of his superior\nofficers and some ten thousand of his humbler followers hastened to\nfollow his example and to receive Asiatic brides with the rich dowries\nassigned them by the Conqueror[42]. Moreover the thirty thousand\nyouthful recruits from his new conquests, whom he had ordered five years\nbefore to be trained in the Macedonian discipline and the Greek\nlanguage, now arrived[43], and Alexander set to work with his usual\nenergy to diffuse through his European army strong drafts of his Asiatic\nsubjects in order to cement still further the alliance between the two\nContinents. Had he lived, it would have been a mixed army of Asiatics\nand Europeans that he would have led the following year to the conquest\nof the western world[44].\n\nDestiny, however, is, as men would have said in those days, stronger\nthan the immortal gods, and Alexander\u2019s early death put an instant stop\nto all ideas of further conquest. It is idle, until we know the causes\nof things, to speculate on what might have been; but it seems probable\nthat if Nearchus\u2019 expedition had sailed, the Conqueror\u2019s warlike plans\nwould once again have proved to have been perfectly laid, that he would\nhave crushed Carthage as easily as Thebes and Tyre, and that the Italian\nStates would have received the same master as the Bactrians and\nIndians[45]. Yet so far as our immediate purpose is concerned,\nAlexander\u2019s work was done once for all, and the policy typified as the\nmarriage of Europe and Asia was perhaps as well served by his death as\nby his life. During Persian times, the Court of the Great King had\nalways proved a magnet drawing to itself with irresistible force the\never-restless Greeks, and the road to Susa was trodden in turn by\npoliticians like Alcibiades, leaders of mercenaries like Xenophon, and\nGreek philosophers, artists, and courtezans innumerable. The traffic in\nmercenaries alone must have been enormous when we find Greek troops\nforming the stiffening of those huge armies of Darius which Alexander\noverthrew at the Granicus, Issus, and Arbela[46]; while as for the other\nsex, Themistocles, when turning his back on his own country, could find\nno better or safer mode of approaching the Persian Court than in a\nclosed litter supposed to be conveying a Greek woman to the harem of the\nGreat King[47]. But when the century-long wars for the succession to\nAlexander broke out upon his death, there straightway appeared five\ncourts where before there had been but one, and these were now ruled\nover by Greek and not by Persian kings. Mercenaries of all kinds were in\nurgent demand in every one of them, while the setting free of the\nmillions in bullion and specie found by Alexander in the Persian\ncapitals caused an outbreak of luxury like that which followed in\nGermany the payment of the French milliards. Soon every Greek who had\nstrength, beauty, or talents to sell was on foot to seek his or her\nfortune in Asia, and with them went everywhere the petty Greek trader,\nas enterprising and as fearless in pursuit of gain as those countrymen\nof his whose booths Lord Kitchener saw set up on the field of Omdurman\nbefore the rout of the Mahdists was complete, and whose _locandas_ still\ngreet one in the smallest villages on the Nile. The stream of\nfortune-hunters, now in full flood, quickly overflowed from the ancient\ncapitals to the numerous Antigonias, Antiochias, Lysimachias,\nNicomedias, and Seleucias which the new kings everywhere founded in\nimitation of their dead master, and even the most distant provinces\nbegan to receive their quota of Greek citizens and Greek culture. As has\nhappened more than once in history, Asia woke suddenly from her sleep,\nand acquired a veneer of foreign manners in hardly longer time than it\nhas taken Japan in our own days to adopt European armaments, teaching\nand dress. When the Parthians overcame Crassus, the Roman captives found\nthe barbarian victors amusing themselves with the plays of\nEuripides[48]; while the Bactrian and Indian provinces, which the rise\nof the Parthian power cut off from the western part of Alexander\u2019s\nEmpire, conceived such a taste for Greek art that the statues of Buddha\nwith which their capitals were afterwards decorated were carved\naccording to Greek instead of Hindu canons[49]. The so-called Indo-Greek\nkings of these parts, the Euthydemi, Diodoti, and Eucratidae, of whom we\nknow hardly more than the names, no more thought of using other than\nGreek designs and inscriptions for their coins than did the rulers of\nPergamum or Antioch[50]. The generation that had seen Alexander face to\nface was hardly in its grave before the marriage of Europe and Asia had\nbecome a very real and pregnant fact.\n\nThe importance of this for the history of religions can hardly be\nexaggerated. Greek was spoken everywhere throughout Asia, and for the\nfirst time in the world\u2019s history the inhabitants of the civilized part\nof the earth had a common tongue in which they could communicate their\nideas to each other. No doubt the language spoken by the offspring of\nGreek colonists and their native spouses was not the tongue of Sophocles\nor of Demosthenes any more than it was \u201cthe strong-winged music of\nHomer\u201d; but it was a better medium for the transmission of metaphysical\ntheories than the founder of any world-religion has ever had at his\ndisposal before or since. The missionaries whom modern nations send into\nthe distant parts of the earth for the propagation of the Christian\nfaith find one of their worst difficulties in the impossibility of\nrendering its doctrines into the languages of peoples at another stage\nof culture from themselves; but no such barrier between teacher and\ntaught existed in the empire created by Alexander\u2019s genius. The result\nof this possibility of intercommunication of ideas was at once apparent.\nAnxious to show that they too had a pedigree, the older nations of the\nworld seized the opportunity to inform their new masters of their own\nhistory and traditions; and, as all history was in those days sacred\nhistory, they thus introduced to the Greeks their gods and their beliefs\nas to the divine governance of the world. The sacred books of the\nChaldeans, of the Egyptians, of the Jews, and no doubt of many other\npeoples whose records are now lost to us, were translated into Greek;\nand thus the science of the history of religions was born. Writers like\nDiodorus Siculus and Plutarch are still our chief guides for the\nreligions of the earliest populated parts of the ancient world; but how\ncould these compilers have handed down to us the traditions they have\npreserved save for writers like Berossus, Manetho, and Philo of Byblus,\nwho themselves wrote in Greek? Plutarch tells us that when he spent a\nyear in Rome during the reign of Trajan, he did not find it necessary to\nlearn Latin, his native tongue being apparently understood by everybody.\nOne may wonder how much of the sayings and doings of the Founder of\nChristianity would have come down to us, had they not been first\nrecorded in the \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae or _lingua franca_ of the whole East[51].\n\nThere were, however, other ways in which Alexander\u2019s conquests prepared\nthe way for a religion which could make appeal to men of every nation\nand language. Nothing is more difficult for those brought up in a\nmonotheistic faith, with its inbred contempt for the worshippers of many\ngods, than to realize how the ancients regarded the Divine. The peoples\nof classical antiquity seem to have everywhere believed in the gods of\ntheir neighbours as absolutely as they did in their own, for they\nimagined that their deities had, like men, only a limited sphere of\naction, or, to put it scientifically, were subject to the same\nconditions of space as their worshippers. Thus, the Syrians thought that\nYahweh of Israel was a mountain god, who could not help his people when\nfighting in the plains[52], and the Philistines believed that the ark in\nwhich he lived would bring prosperity or disaster to the place in which\nit happened to be for the time being[53]. This is almost an exact\nparallel to the tale of the prince of Bactria, whose daughter was freed\nfrom demoniacal possession by an image of the Egyptian god Khonsu sent\ninto Asia _ad hoc_, whereupon he decided that it would be wise to keep\nso powerful a god in his own country, and did so until frightened by a\ndream into sending the statue back[54]. But such ideas, however natural\nthey may be to isolated or backward peoples, soon lost their hold upon\nthe acute and logical Greeks, when they came into contact with civilized\nnations having pantheons differing widely from their own. The\nphilosophers, indeed, by dint of hard reasoning on the subject, had\nformed before the time of Alexander a conception of the Supreme Being\nwhich does not differ materially from that of the educated Christian of\nthe present day. \u201cLoyal,\u201d says Pater, \u201cto the ancient beliefs, the\nancient usages, of the religions of many gods which he had found all\naround him, Socrates pierces through it to one unmistakable Person, of\nperfect intelligence, power, and goodness who takes note of him[55]\u201d;\nand the same thing might be said with even greater certainty of the\ndeductions of Aristotle[56], whose declared monotheism caused him to be\nadopted in the Middle Ages as one of the Doctors of the Church. But\nthere is no reason to believe that such lofty conceptions ever\ninfluenced in the slightest the beliefs of the common people, who alone\ncount for anything in the evolution of the organized body of beliefs and\npractices which we call a religion. Socrates so successfully concealed\nhis opinions in this respect from everybody but Plato, that the clear\nand practical mind of Xenophon seems to have never seen in him anything\nbut a polytheist[57]: and that Aristotle\u2019s monotheistic teachings were\nnot intended for the common herd may be judged from the correspondence,\nwhether actual or imaginary, between him and Alexander himself, in which\nthe hero reproaches his former tutor for having published doctrines\nwhich should only be taught by word of mouth, and learns in reply that\nhis metaphysical theories would be unintelligible save to those whom he\nhad himself instructed in philosophy[58].\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that the great mass of Alexander\u2019s subjects,\nwhether Asiatics, Egyptians or Greeks, would require something more than\nthe sublime theorizing of the philosophers before their religious ideas\ncould be turned in the direction of monotheism. Nine hundred years\nbefore, Amenhotep IV of Egypt had indeed been led by his adoration of\nthe material sun to put forward a religious reform which had as its\nprincipal feature the proclaiming abroad that there was only one God, in\nwhose sight all mankind was equal; but the sole effect of this premature\nattempt to elevate the religion of his people was the loss of the\nexternal possessions of Egypt, and the posthumous branding of his own\nmemory as that of a criminal. Possibly, too, the Hebrew Psalmists and\nProphets had formed a like conception of the Deity when they asserted\nthat among the gods there was none like unto Yahweh[59]; but that this\nidea seldom penetrated to their hearers is plain from their incessant\ndenunciation of these last for \u201cwhoring after\u201d other gods. The mere\nannouncement of the unity of God had therefore in itself an insufficient\nattraction for the masses, and for the doctrine to be popular they had\nto be led to it by other ways than those of argument or authority. Now\nAristotle noted with his usual shrewdness of observation that the form\nof religion in a state generally follows with fair closeness that of its\ntemporal government[60], so that men will be more inclined to believe in\nwhat the Greeks called \u201cmonarchy,\u201d or the active rule of One First\nCause, if they live under a despot or absolute king than if they are\nmembers of a democracy. But when did the world either before or after\nhis time see such a beneficent and godlike despot as Alexander? The\nrobber-kings of Assyria had been accustomed to sweep across Western Asia\nleaving behind them, as they boasted in their inscriptions, a trail of\nvassal rulers impaled or flayed alive, of burnt cities, and of plundered\npeoples. The Persians, as has been said, had more idea of the rights of\ntheir inferiors, and did not regard their subject territories as mere\nfields for exploitation; but the life of sensual luxury into which their\nkings sooner or later subsided had its natural outcome in harem\nintrigues and assassinations which deprived the central power of a great\npart of its otherwise effective control over its satraps. But Alexander\nwas in this, as in all other respects, the perfect type of the\nbenevolent master who thinks more of his servants\u2019 welfare than of his\nown personal gratification. Neither his mother Olympias, domineering and\nmasterful as she was, nor his first mistress Barsine the widow of\nMemnon, nor his wife Roxana of whom he is said to have been enamoured,\nnor the Persian princess Statira to whom he gave his hand out of policy,\ncould boast that they ever influenced by one hairsbreadth the direction\nof his sovereign will. As for his justice, the swift punishment that he\nmeasured out on his return from India to those of his officers whom he\nfound guilty of oppression and malversation showed that under his\nfar-seeing eye there would be none of those abuses of delegated power\nfrom which the satrapial system had suffered under his predecessors[61].\nModern historians have sometimes called him cruel; but in political\nmatters severity is often the truest mercy, and the blood that he shed\nat Thebes and in Bactria probably saved a hundred times the number of\nlives which unchecked rebellion would have made it necessary to\nsacrifice; while the accidental and unpremeditated death of Clitus may\nwell be pardoned to one who found not only his dignity as man but his\nroyal authority wantonly outraged by a friend whom he had distinguished\nby exceptional marks of kindness. In every other respect his record is\nstainless. Although opposed at every step of his short career by orators\nand demagogues who saw in him the only obstacle to their unrestrained\nplunder of the fatherland, no legend has survived to his dishonour. On\nthe contrary, all that we hear of him shows us for the first time in the\nworld\u2019s history a conqueror who was at the same time a just and wise\nruler, merciful to his fallen foe, scorning even in war to take mean\nadvantage[62], and chivalrous to the weak to a degree that his age could\nneither understand nor imitate[63]. And with all this, he united in his\nown person those superficial advantages which have always been quick to\nwin for their possessor the devotion of the mob. To a talent for\ngeneralship which neither Hannibal, Caesar, nor any modern general has\nequalled, he joined a personal bravery which often reached the level of\nrecklessness and was always to be found in the forefront of the hottest\nbattle. Whether we see him charging at the head of the Companion cavalry\nin the three great battles with Darius, pursuing with a handful of his\nguard the routed Persian army after Arbela, or first over the wall at\nMooltan, Alexander is always performing these feats of hardihood which\nin a leader strike more than anything the imagination of his soldiers.\nAdd to this a generosity which made him willing to strip himself of his\npossessions to enrich his friends, a personal delight in that pomp and\npageantry which forms the most direct road to the hearts of the\nproletariat, and a form, face and figure so distinguished that their one\ndefect was for centuries after imitated by all who wished to be thought\nmodels of manly beauty[64], and we can no longer wonder that his\ncontemporaries looked upon him as more than human. This wise and\nprovident ruler of the world that he had conquered was at the same time\na youth beautiful as Apollo, chivalrous as Bayard, clean as Galahad. Is\nit surprising that his name alone of all the conquerors of the East has\nendured through all changes of creed and culture, that the fierce chiefs\nof the Central Asian tableland still boast of him as their progenitor,\nand that the whole Mahommedan world still hold him the king of the\nbelieving Genii? No Caesar, Attila, or Genghiz Khan has ever thus\nimpressed the imagination of future ages[65].\n\nThus Alexander\u2019s coming gave an enormous impulse to that monarchical\nprinciple of government which from his time onward was to reign supreme\nfor nearly two thousand years. Philosophers and sophists hastened to\ndeclare that democracy\u2014as was indeed the fact\u2014had proved itself\nincapable of governing, and that in the rule of one man was to be found\nthe natural order of things and the only security for a well-ordered\nState[66]. Every one of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander hurried\nin turn to assume the diadem, and Rome had no sooner contrived to crush\nher rival republic of Carthage than she too fell under the sway, first\nof dictators whose power was admittedly despotic, and then of emperors\nwhose constitutional limitations were about the same as those of\nAlexander. That this was certain in time to react upon the universal\nconception of the Divine, followed directly from the law underlying\nreligious phenomena which had been enunciated by Aristotle: but, before\nthis could make way among the Greeks, thus suddenly promoted to the\nposition of the ruling race, it was necessary that their own gods should\nbe assimilated to those of their eastern fellow-subjects, or in other\nwords, should be shown to be the same divinities under different names.\nNow, a movement with this object, even before Alexander\u2019s coming, had\nbeen set on foot in Greece itself, and was in fact the natural outcome\nof the ideas as to the origin and governance of the universe brought\nthere by the philosophers of Ionia[67]. It was all very well for the\nmasses\u2014then as now, much given to pragmatism or the reduction of every\nabstract idea to its most material and practical expression\u2014to believe\nthat the power of every god was limited to an area of so many square\nfeet surrounding his image or sanctuary; but how could such a notion be\nheld by philosophers who had sought out the causes of things, by\ntravellers who had visited neighbouring countries in pursuit of\nknowledge, or by soldiers who had fought there, and had found it\nnecessary to pay reverence to gods other than their own? It is said that\nin naturalistic religions like those of Greece, there is always a\ntendency to consider as identical divinities with the same or like\ncharacteristics\u2014to consider for instance all gods with solar attributes\nas but different forms of the sun-god\u2014and the Greeks of the fourth\ncentury B.C. had thus taken many foreign gods into their pantheon. It\nwas, as Socrates found out to his cost, an offence to bring the worship\nof new gods into the city; but the difficulty was got over by the theory\nthat the foreign divinity was only another form of some god already\nworshipped by the citizens[68], and by keeping his cult as private as\npossible. Later, when the popularity of the new deity seemed to be\nassured, an oracle of Delphi was generally secured authorizing the\nadoption of his worship under the name of his nearest Greek analogue,\nand in this way many foreign worships were brought into Athens\nitself[69]. Bendis, the moon-goddess of Thrace, had there from early\ntimes a temple or Bendideion[70], and the Syrian Adonis was publicly\nwailed for in the city when Alcibiades was setting out for Sicily[71].\nThis, too, was the more natural because the Greeks always acknowledged\nthat their older divinities originally came to them from foreign parts.\nThe myths in which the traditions of their origins were preserved gave\nCrete or Asia Minor as the birthplace of Zeus, an island in the Aegean\nas that of Apollo and Artemis, and the whole scene of the earthly trials\nof Demeter and Persephone was laid partly in Eleusis and partly in\nAsia[72]. As for Africa, Herodotus boldly asserts that the \u201cnames\u201d of\nalmost all the gods worshipped by the Greeks came from Egypt[73], and,\nalthough this is certainly not literally true, it gave him an excuse for\nidentifying all the Egyptian deities of whom he had any knowledge with\nthe Greek divinities whom he thought they resembled. But when\nAlexander\u2019s conquests had made the different subject nations really\nacquainted with each other\u2019s religion, the process of _theocrasia_ or\nthe fusion of one god with another received an impulse that carried it\nbeyond all bounds[74]. The divinities of Asia Minor were naturally the\nfirst to be taken into the Greek pantheon, especially by the Athenians,\nalways mindful of their Ionian kinship; and the many-breasted goddess of\nEphesus, Cybele of Pessinus with her consort Atys or Attis, and the\nSidonian Astarte, were all worshipped in Greece after identification\nwith different Greek deities in the manner that had served to naturalize\nthe \u201cThracian\u201d or Thessalian Dionysos, and the (probably) Egyptian\nHermes[75]. As we shall see later, the Phrygian Sabazius and the Cretan\nZagreus had already preceded them in secret, and Persian, Jewish, and\nperhaps Indian gods were to follow. From Greece, the passion for\n_theocrasia_ spread both eastward and westward. The Greek kings of Upper\nIndia found it necessary to identify on their monuments the gods of\ntheir native subjects with the divinities of Homer[76], and those of the\nCentral Provinces and of Asia Minor did the same with such effect that\nit is almost impossible for us to distinguish their many Artemises,\nAphrodites, and different forms of Zeus from the gods worshipped under\nsimilar names in ancient Greece[77]. As for the West, the Romans, even\nbefore they became the masters of the world, took over the Greek\npantheon _en bloc_ by the simple process of calling their own Italian\ndeities by Greek names; and if we still speak of Zeus as Jupiter, Athena\nas Minerva, Ares as Mars, and Hermes as Mercury, it is by reason of the\nsyncretism brought into fashion by Alexander\u2019s conquests.\n\nNeither must we forget that the deification of Alexander during his\nlifetime brought an entirely new conception of the Divine into the\nEuropean world. The divinization of the king was indeed no new thing in\nEgypt, where the Pharaoh from the earliest times was looked upon after\nhis enthronement as the living form of the sun-god Horus; but to the\nreligious ideas of the Greeks it was evidently a surprising shock. The\ndistinguishing attribute of a Greek god was his deathlessness or\nincorruptibility; and although heroes like Theseus and Heracles were\nfabled to have become immortal and therefore fit subjects for worship,\nthis was only because they were in the natural way the progeny of the\ngods themselves, and as such were taken into heaven by their fathers\nafter death and the purging away of their mortal nature[78]. Alexander,\non the other hand, demanded from the Greeks as from his other subjects\ndivine honours during his life, and these were accorded to him with\nservile readiness by the governments of Athens and other Greek\ncity-states, the Spartans not excepted[79]. What he meant exactly by\nthis demand it would be hard to say, because his supposed sonship to\nAmen on which it was ostensibly based, was, as Sir Gaston Maspero has\nshown, merely the form by which, on a change of dynasty, the priests of\nAmen were accustomed to legitimize the accession to the throne of a king\nwho could show no right thereto but force[80]. It is evident, too, that\nAlexander did not himself take his deification very seriously, since he\nallowed its propriety to be discussed before him at a wine-party[81];\nand his apologists, Arrian and Plutarch, are possibly well-founded when\nthey declare that it was a mere political device to secure the grudging\nobedience of his Macedonian countrymen[82]. But his successors in this\nmatter went far beyond him. Ptolemy and Arsinoe, without any pretence of\ndivine descent, were proclaimed \u201cSaviour-gods\u201d for their Greek as well\nas for their Egyptian subjects quite apart from any identification of\nthemselves with Horus or any other native deity. Antigonus, when\nclaiming to be the _strategos_ or generalissimo of the whole Empire, was\nhailed as a god, which drew from the rough old king a repartee more\npointed than decent[83]. So, too, was his son, Demetrius the City Taker,\nalthough at the time of his deification he had not even an independent\nkingdom of his own, but was merely ruling Greece as the viceroy of his\nfather. And the barriers between the Divine and the human being thus\nbroken down, men\u2019s minds soon became so familiar with the idea that they\nnot only thought men might become gods, but declared that the gods were\nonly deified men. The Athenians in the hymns that they sang to Demetrius\ndeclared that he was the only true god, and that the others were either\nasleep or too far off to be taken into account, or were not really gods\nat all[84]. But it is not with impunity that the religious ideas of a\npeople can be thus suddenly and violently affronted. Within a few years\nfrom Alexander\u2019s death, Cassander\u2019s friend and envoy Euhemerus put\nforward, with the aid of a literary fraud something like that of\nPsalmanazar, the theory that all the gods worshipped by the Greeks had\nonce been kings or at least distinguished men and women upon earth[85]\u2014a\ndoctrine that was received with as much enthusiasm in the Rome of the\nRepublic as it once evoked in our own days among the followers of\nHerbert Spencer[86]. Later, the Epicurean philosophy, with its happy\ngods neither interfering with nor caring about the doings of mankind,\ncame to the assistance of this rather crude atheism. Although the Stoic\nphilosophers in their turn tried to introduce a more lofty idea of the\nDeity, it was probably not until late Roman times that they ever\nobtained anything like a grip on the people. Whether for good or ill, it\nis certain that the Greeks after Alexander\u2019s death never returned to the\nsimple faith in their national gods which had sufficed for their\nforefathers.\n\nThis is a point that it is important to remember, because without it, it\nis hard to understand the passion for innovation in religious matters\nwhich seems for the next three centuries to possess unchecked sway over\nmankind. It appeared as if Alexander, who indeed had made all things\nnew, had set free the gods of the ancient world to wander from one end\nof his Empire to the other, and the desire to proselytize appears for\nthe first time in the world\u2019s history. Buddhism must have been prevalent\nin India for nearly a century before Alexander; but when it became the\nreligion of the state in the reign of Asoka, grandson of that\nChandragupta or Sandracottus who had talked with Alexander face to face,\nthe Indian king boasted that he had sent out missionaries for the\npropagation of his new faith to the courts of Antiochus of Syria,\nPtolemy of Egypt, Antigonus of Macedonia, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander\nof Epirus[87]. Whether the Indian missionaries ever reached the kings to\nwhom they were sent may be doubted, and it is certain that these last\ndid not pay the attention to them that Asoka claims; but it is quite\npossible that to the impulse given by such missions may be attributed\nsome of the practices of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, and perhaps the\nmonastic seclusion affected by certain worshippers of the Alexandrian\ngod Serapis[88]. But if Buddhism could thus find its way westward from\nso distant a country as India, how much more must this have been the\ncase with the other Oriental religions with which the Greeks had already\nsome slight acquaintance, and which, as we shall see in the sequel,\npoured into Europe in such a flood that Juvenal compared it to the\nOrontes emptying itself into the Tiber. That the Greeks, ever eager for\nsome new thing, were quick to avail themselves of the new ideas thus\nthrust upon them was only to be expected. But this rage for novelty was\ntoo violent to be content to follow the slow process of assimilation or\n_theocrasia_ which was prevalent before Alexander. Religious\nassociations for the worship of foreign gods were formed in which we\nmay, if we like, see the first germs of the Christian Church[89]. In\nthese each member had to pay a subscription towards the expenses of the\ncult, and the office-bearers instead of being appointed by the State\nwere either taken from the members in rotation or chosen by lot. That\nthese confraternities, as we should now call them, were at first\ncomposed of natives of countries other than Greece is shown by their\nclustering in the port of the Piraeus as the quarter where foreigners\nnaturally congregated[90]; and their male members for the most part\nconsisted of slaves, freedmen, and stranger merchants, who thus found a\nmeeting-place in what was to them a foreign country. Their worship too\nwas secret or rather was confined to members of the confraternity only,\nwhile its correctness of form was preserved by means of written books or\nrituals, thereby presenting many points of resemblance to that of the\nlater Gnostics. But the superstitious, and especially the women who were\nalways in Greece much addicted to _theoxenia_ or the reception of\nstrange gods, were early attracted by them, and they soon spread to\nevery great city in the Empire. Thus we see for the first time in\nhistory bodies of men and women banded together, irrespective of\nnationality and social rank, for the purpose of religious observances,\nand religion becoming recognized as the affair of the individual rather\nthan of the state, while each member of the association was directly\ninterested in its extension. In this way, the Greeks became worshippers\nnot only of their own sufficiently numerous deities but of those of well\nnigh the whole East as well. Their inscriptions show that Persian,\nPhrygian, and Lydian gods were worshipped by these associations,\ntogether with a whole crowd of Semitic deities among whom, if M. Cumont\nis right, there may even have been included the God of Israel[91].\n\nThe influence that these confraternities exercised in familiarizing the\nminds of the Greek citizens with the religious practices and tenets of\nforeign countries must have been very great. Every such association had\na temple of its own, in which it offered sacrifices to its own\nparticular god. But, after providing for this, the greater part of the\nsubscriptions went in providing a periodical banquet at which its\nmembers could meet for social intercourse, and to which they were no\ndoubt sometimes allowed to bring guests. But at these gatherings, as\napparently at all others of the confraternity, all were equal, and there\nwere no distinctions of rank. Moreover, in addition to the foreign\nmembers for whom the institution was originally designed, they must\nearly have begun to admit Greeks; and these were generally, though not\nalways, persons who were in the first instance led to them by a leaning\nto foreign superstitions, and particularly to that orgiastic ritual with\nwhich the worship of the Asiatic gods was generally associated in Greek\nminds. It is noteworthy that among the Greek names inscribed upon the\nstelae containing the lists of members that have come down to us, those\nof women are far more numerous than those of men. Yet they seldom seem\nto have been of the highest class in their own community, and it is\ndifficult to conceive of a Greek matron leaving her gynaeceum to take\npart with slaves and freedmen in nocturnal feasts or orgies. Among those\nwhom we know otherwise as belonging to these confraternities are Phryne\nthe celebrated courtezan, Tryphera and Aristion, who followed the same\nmanner of life[92], and Glaucothea the mother of \u00c6schines and a\nperfume-seller, a trade then considered as disreputable as in the reign\nof Louis XIV[93]. On the other hand, it seems to follow from what\nPlutarch says, that King Philip of Macedon first saw and loved Olympias,\nmother of Alexander, at a meeting of one of these confraternities[94],\nand it is possible that outside Greece proper they lost something of\ntheir disreputable associations.\n\nIt must not be supposed, however, that these associations concerned\nthemselves entirely with what we now call religion. The state, in cities\nlike Athens, regarded them with great jealousy, and did its best to\nprevent them from forming a hierarchy by stipulating that their officers\nshould only hold office for a year. This naturally prevented any\ncontinuity of policy such as a corporation like the priesthood of Amen\ncould pursue, and set their chiefs upon making hay while the sun shone.\nIgnorant and degraded as most of their members were, and generally\nengaged in the pursuit of gain, it is not astonishing that they should\nthus have lent themselves to the worst and most dangerous because most\nprofitable superstitions. The priests and especially the priestesses of\nthe confraternities were always ready to lend themselves to the\npractices of divination and magic, to the sale of love-philtres and\npoisons[95], the interpretations of dreams and miraculous cures. To\nthese charlatans came everyone who wanted his or her fortune told, or\nwho wished to get rid of a rival, or to obtain the favour of a\ndisdainful lover, or was simply tormented with idle fears or by some\nbodily disease incurable by regular means.\n\n    \u201cThe set of charlatans and market-men who hang about and wait round\n    the altars of the Great Mother and Serapis; and who manufacture\n    oracles either out of their own heads or by haphazard out of certain\n    books for the benefit of house-slaves and silly women\u201d\n\nis the contemptuous way in which Plutarch describes these impostors[96].\nYet even in this way much was doubtless done to spread the knowledge of\nforeign religions; for many must have resorted to the foreign temples\nfor magic or divination who would never have thought of joining the\nassociation by which they were maintained, and in magic it is always the\nleast known gods and those worshipped by the races of lowest culture who\nare thought to be the most powerful. Moreover, many of these\nassociations in time purified themselves by a sort of process of\nelimination from these undesirable accessories, and, so soon as they\nsucceeded in attracting the adhesion of a sufficient number of\nrespectable people, managed to get the god they were formed to worship\nenrolled among the native deities of the state or city. It was in this\nway that foreign gods like Serapis and Mithras, from being the\ndivinities of a handful of foreign slaves, merchants or hostages, came,\nas we shall see, to occupy the highest places in the national worship of\nthe Roman Empire. Thus Lucian tells us the story of the impostor\nAlexander of Abonoteichos, who with the help of a tame serpent with a\ncardboard mask gave himself out as the priest of an incarnation of\nAsklepios the Greek god of healing, and founded an association for its\nworship in Nicomedia in Bithynia. Later, he persuaded one Rutilianus, a\nman of consular rank who seems to have had influence at the Court of\nMarcus Aurelius, to join him in the propagation of his new cult and even\nto marry his daughter[97]. But the worship that he thus set up must have\nafterwards been recognized by the city of Nicomedia, for we find the\nrepresentation of its god Glycon upon a Nicomedian coin of the time of\nthe Emperor Gordian, the husband of Tranquillina[98].\n\nIt was apparently in these associations that the new spirit now manifest\nin the religion of the ancient world began to take organized shape.\nAmong the Persians and Egyptians the priests were officers of state\nliving on the property of their several corporations, and therefore with\na natural leaning, except in the rare cases where their privileges or\nproperty were threatened by the Crown, against all innovations and\ninterference with the established order of things. Among the Greeks,\nboth in Hellas itself and in her colonies oversea, the priests with a\nvery few exceptions were chosen from the native-born citizens at large\neither for their personal beauty, or for the wealth which enabled them\nto give in honour of the gods magnificent pageants and other\nfestivals[99]. In no case did they regard themselves as having any\nteaching or pastoral mission, and were in no way interested in\nincreasing the number of the worshippers of the god to whose service\nthey were elected for a short term. Hence, their chief preoccupation was\nto keep strictly to precedent in the celebration of the public acts of\nworship entrusted to them, and they would have looked with horror on any\nalteration of the traditional rites. But in the associations founded for\nthe worship of foreign gods, affairs were conducted on utterly different\nlines. There seems to have been a healthy spirit of emulation among the\nsuccessive holders of the priestly office, for the vote of thanks\ninscribed on marble and displayed in the temple for the admiration of\nthe confraternity was the distinction most sought after by them, and the\ndeprivation of it was the most serious penalty exacted for dereliction\nof duty[100]. In order to obtain these rewards, it is plain that the\nofficers had to carry out to the full the Apostolic injunction to be all\nthings to all men, and there is actually a case on record where a\npriestess is praised because during her term of office she has offended\nnobody. This complaisance seems to have extended itself from the\nofficials to the deities worshipped, who seem often to have been quite\nwilling to fulfil a double office, and to appear as Aphrodite or Astarte\nto the Syrian and as Cybele to the Phrygian members of the\nassociation[101]. By these means, they made it possible for several\nnationalities to belong to the same association.\n\nThere was probably, however, a more intellectual side to this spirit of\naccommodation. All, or nearly all, of these associations celebrated\nmysteries or sacred dramas based on the same lines as the Eleusinian and\nsetting forth, it would seem, the passion, death, and resurrection of\nsome god. These plays, when we consider the relatively slender number of\nthe initiates and the limited means at their disposal, must generally\nhave been acted with maimed and abbreviated rites in which a good deal\nwas left to the imagination of the beholder. But this very fact must\nhave set the always curious and inquisitive Greeks upon enquiry into the\nnature and origin of the scenes thus indicated rather than acted, and\nthis in its turn must have led to many discussions and explanations of\nthe gods there portrayed. For such conversations, too, there must have\nbeen far greater opportunities in the case of those _thiasi_,\n_orgeones_, or _erani_ (as these associations were called), where\nmembers were few and in the habit of meeting each other daily than with\nthe Eleusinian rites which were celebrated only once or twice a year and\nthen in the presence of a huge crowd dispersed immediately after to the\ndifferent parts of the Hellenic world. It is hardly putting it too\nstrongly to say that anything like propagandism must have been confined\nto the smaller societies.\n\nTo sum up, then, Alexander united the whole civilized world for the\nfirst time under a single head and gave to it a common language and\nculture. By the natural gifts of his extraordinary personality, he at\nthe same time set before it a perfect model of kingship and thus ensured\nthe persistence of the monarchical principle for two millenia. This, his\nconscious work, had a direct effect on the evolution of monotheism,\nwhile in other respects his conquests proved the turning point in the\nhistory of religions. By breaking down the barriers which racial and\nlingual divisions had hitherto set up between different nations of the\nearth, these conquests led to a great fusion of the religions hitherto\nprofessed by them, and thus opened the door to the world-religions which\nwere afterwards to share between them his vast Empire. Before his coming\nwe see the ancient world divided into separate communities each with its\nown pantheon and forms of worship and neither knowing nor caring greatly\nabout those of its neighbours. But immediately after, all this is\nchanged. The interchange of ideas between East and West has thrown the\ndifferent religions of the world as it were into a melting-pot, in which\nthe germs of a different grouping of the human race are dimly visible.\nThe spirit of proselytism is abroad, and man now wants to impress his\nown ideas of the Divine upon his fellows. Above all, we see the\nbeginning of those great associations of mankind for religious purposes\nwhich are henceforth to be the principal factors in the world\u2019s history,\nand whose evolution has continued unchecked down to the present day. All\nthose that followed Alexander were in this respect nothing more than his\nconscious or unconscious imitators. The great princes and generals who\nafter his death parted his Empire among them, and the Romans who\ngradually ate up the fragments left to these princes\u2019 effete\ndescendants, could but carry on the work set on foot by the Great\nConqueror. As Mr Hogarth has said, very little that he did was ever\nundone, and for good or ill, he has taken his place among the\nimmortals[102]. Thus, from the scientific point of view, there is none\namong the forerunners of Christianity who did more to prepare and make\nready its way than Alexander.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Such as the Arimaspi or one-eyed inhabitants of Russia, about whom\n  Herodotus (Bk III. c. 116) quotes the legend that they stole gold from\n  its griffin guardians, and those _myrmeces_ or great ants whom\n  Megasthenes (Strabo, Bk XV. c. 1, \u00a7 44) and other writers describe as\n  digging for gold on the Thibetan frontier\u2014a story of which more than\n  one rationalistic explanation has been suggested.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Rawlinson\u2019s _Herodotus_ (1862 edition), II. p. 462 for authorities.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Maspero, _Histoire ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient_, Paris, 1904, p.\n  706. Rawlinson, _op. cit._ p. 463, thinks this practice lapsed early,\n  but Xenophon seems clear that it was in force in his time\n  (_Cyropaedia_, Bk VIII. c. 6).\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  He was probably allowed a reasonable sum for the maintenance of his\n  court and government; but if he exceeded this, was liable to severe\n  punishment. This appears from the execution by Alexander, on his\n  return from India, of the satraps who had been guilty of extortion. He\n  seems to have purposely preserved the Persian laws and customs on this\n  point unaltered.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  This is the opinion of Rawlinson, _op. cit._ pp. 460 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Rawlinson, _op. cit._ p. 464; Winwood Reade, _Martyrdom of Man_, 1910,\n  p. 56; Sayce, _Ancient Empires of the East_, 1884, pp. 250, 251;\n  Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 721.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Oppert, _Le Peuple et la Langue des M\u00e8des_, Paris, pp. 17 _sqq._;\n  Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 559, n. 11.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Sir Thomas Holdich, in his excellent book _The Gates of India_ (p.\n  104), says that when he defeated the Aspasians or Yusufzai in the\n  Kuner Valley he sent the pick of their cattle back to Macedonia to\n  improve the native breed. Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk IV. c. 25, however,\n  in quoting the story from Ptolemy, says only that Alexander \u201cwished to\n  send them\u201d to till the soil. It seems impossible that they could have\n  survived the journey before the days of steamships. Still more\n  incredible is the story in Plutarch, _Life of Alexander_, c. L. that\n  when Alexander was at Prophthasia (probably Farrah in Seistan), he\n  received some grapes grown on the coast of Greece. But such stories,\n  although coloured by age, may serve to show how perfect his\n  communications were always thought to have been.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Holdich, _op. cit._ _passim_, says that he must have had information\n  from Persian sources, and that his route must have been laid\n  beforehand. Sir Thomas\u2019 opinion, as that of a soldier as well as a\n  student, is entitled to much respect. Yet the instances of Genghiz\n  Khan and other Oriental invaders are perhaps against any such\n  necessity.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Freeman, _Historical Essays_, 1873, second series, pp. 192, 193.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Khojend was probably Alexandria _eschata_ or the furthest (East).\n  Samarcand, of which the ancient name was Maracanda, is said by Baber\n  to be a foundation of Alexander\u2019s. Herat was Alexandria Ariana, and\n  Merv probably Alexandria Margiana, while Cabul seems to have been\n  Ortospana. Among the other Alexandrias which have retained their old\n  importance are Alexandria Arachosiana or Candahar, Alexandria\n  Caucasiana or Begram, and Alexandria Sogdiana or Hyderabad. See J. W.\n  McCrindle, _Invasion of India by Alexander the Great_, 1896, pp. 36\n  _sqq._, and Droysen, _Histoire de l\u2019Hell\u00e9nisme_, (French edition),\n  Paris, 1883, I. pp. 408 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ p. 481.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  See last note. The second marriage is dramatically described by\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. pp. 638, 639. Cf. Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk VII.\n  c. 4; Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. LXX.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Arrian, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 6; Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. LXXI. Cf.\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 646.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 660. It was probably the fear of this\n  mixture that caused the quarrel between him and his Macedonians at\n  Opis. See Arrian, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 8; Plutarch, _Alexander_, c.\n  LXXI.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 34. Mahaffy, _Alexander\u2019s Empire_, 1887, p.\n  38, thinks that the Romans could never have withstood Alexander\u2019s\n  cavalry and siege artillery, although he notes that Livy patriotically\n  decided otherwise.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I., pp. 186, 240, 333. There were 30,000 Greek\n  mercenaries fighting on the side of Darius at Issus, and 4000 of these\n  remained faithful till his death. _Ibid._ I. p. 368.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Plutarch, _Themistocles_, c. XXVI.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Plutarch, _Crassus_, c. XXXIII. The play acted was the _Bacchae_, and\n  a Greek tragic actor, one Jason of Tralles, had been imported for the\n  principal part. In the essay _De Alex. fortitudine_, I. c. 5, Plutarch\n  says that no sooner had Alexander subdued Asia than Homer became a\n  favourite reading-book, and Persian, Susianan, and Gedrosian boys\n  learned to chant the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. pp. 244, 255.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Sylvain L\u00e9vi, \u201cBouddhisme et les Grecs,\u201d _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des\n  Religions_, 1891, p. 2; Percy Gardner, _Catalogue of Bactrian and\n  Indian Coins in British Museum_. Arts other than the plastic also\n  received attention. Amitrochates, son of the famous Chandragupta or\n  Sandracottus, wrote to Antiochus (Soter?) to buy him some sweet wine,\n  dried figs, and a sophist. He received the other commodities, but was\n  told that it was not lawful to sell sophists in Greece. See Athenaeus,\n  _Deipnosophistae_, Bk XIV. c. 67 quoting Hegesander.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 66. Cf. the _Omnis Oriens loquitur_ of St\n  Jerome _Prol. ad Epist. ad Galatas_; and Deissmann, _New Light on the\n  New Testament_ (English edition), 1907, p. 30.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  1 Kings xx. 23.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  1 Sam. iv. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cLa Fille du Prince de Bakhtan\u201d in _Contes Populaires de\n  l\u2019Ancienne \u00c9gypte_, Paris, p. 159.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Pater, _Plato and Platonism_, 1901, pp. 85, 86.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Aristotle, _Metaphysica_, Bk XI. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Xenophon, _Memorabilia_, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 1-5.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. VII.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  So F. H. Woods, _The Hope of Israel_, Edinburgh, 1896, p. 205, where\n  he speaks of the religion of the Prophets and Psalmists, as \u201cgiving,\n  on the whole, by far the most perfect and, as compared with other\n  ancient literature, practically a unique example of monotheism.\u201d Yet\n  as Winwood Reade points out, Solomon must have thought there were\n  other gods than Yahweh, because he worshipped other gods; _op. cit._\n  _supra_, p. 201.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Aristotle, _Politica_, Bk I. c. 2, \u00a7 7. Cf. Max M\u00fcller, _Religions of\n  India_ (Hibbert Lectures), 1880, p. 292.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Arrian, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 27.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  See his repudiation of the night attack advised at Arbela: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd, \u201cI steal no victory!\u201d Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. XXXI.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Plutarch, _op. cit._ c. XXI. and c. XXX.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  The wry neck or, in Mr Hogarth\u2019s words, \u201cthe famous inclination of his\n  beautiful head towards the left shoulder\u201d was imitated by dandies as\n  late as the time of Severus. For authorities see Hogarth, _Philip and\n  Alexander of Macedon_, 1897, p. 278, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 218 and p. 479, n. 1. Major P. H. Sykes\n  lately found an inscription in Khorassan to Sulayman Shah who reigned\n  from 1667-1694 A.D. containing the words \u201cHis audience-chamber is the\n  Sun; his Army the Stars; his authority is like Alexander\u2019s,\u201d _Journal\n  of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1910, pp. 1152, 1153.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lagides_, Paris, t. I. p. 130, n. 2,\n  points out that there was hardly a philosopher during the next three\n  centuries who did not write a treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  A parallel movement seems to have taken place in Babylonia, where all\n  the gods were at one period identified with Marduk or Merodach. See\n  Pinches, \u201cReligious Ideas of the Babylonians,\u201d _Transactions of the\n  Victoria Institute_, 1893, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Maury, _Histoire des Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique_, Paris, 1857, III.\n  p. 73.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Demosthenes, _v. Midias_, p. 53; Herodotus, Bk VII. c. 189. Such gods\n  were called by the peculiar epithet of \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9. See inscription\n  from Smyrna quoted by Rayet, _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1877, pp. 115-128.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Xenophon, _Hellenica_, Bk II. c. 4.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Plutarch, _Alcibiades_, c. CXVIII. Cf. Aristophanes, _Lysistrata_, ll.\n  387 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk II. c. 50.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 698.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  See Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, t. III. cc. 15, 16. Aristophanes,\n  _Horae_ fragment 1 of Didot, and _Aves_, l. 874, is practically the\n  earliest witness for their introduction into Athens. Cf. the Scholiast\n  upon the last passage quoted, for their identification with Greek\n  deities. M. Paul Foucart, _Les Associations Religieuses chez les\n  Grecs_, Paris, 1873, pp. 57 and 85, shows the great rush of foreign\n  gods into Attica after the Persian War and the mode in which their\n  worship was propagated.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Percy Gardner, _Catalogue of Coins_, etc., _passim_. Goblet\n  d\u2019Alviella, _Ce que l\u2019Inde doit \u00e0 la Gr\u00e8ce_, Paris, 1897, p. 73, notes\n  that these coins reproduce \u201cthe usual type of the classical divinities\n  Hercules, Dionysos, Poseidon, Helios, Pallas, Artemis, Nik\u00e9.\u201d\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 73.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Callisthenes appears to have used this argument against the\n  deification of Alexander during his lifetime, Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk\n  IV. c. 11. Cf. Budge, _Pseudo Callisthenes\u2019 History of Alexander the\n  Great_, Cambridge, 1889, Bk III. c. 19, p. 135; Plutarch, _Pelopidas_,\n  c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 668.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cComment Alexandre devenait Dieu.\u201d _Annuaire de l\u2019\u00c9cole des\n  Hautes \u00c9tudes_, Paris, 1897; _id._ _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ t. VI. pp. 286\n  _sqq._\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Mr Hogarth, _Philip and Alexander_, pp. 197 _sqq._, rightly points out\n  that he never instituted any cult of himself, as did Demetrius\n  Poliorcetes.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. XXVIII.; Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk VII. c. 29.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XXIV.; _id. Apophthegmata Antigon_. 7.\n  Cf. Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 295. Mr Tarn in his _Antigonos\n  Gonatas_, Oxford, 1913, p. 251, would transfer the story to his\n  grandson, but his reasoning is not convincing.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Athenaeus, _Deipnosoph_. Bk VI. c. 62.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 22 and note 2.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Euhemerus\u2019 work was one of the first Greek books to be translated into\n  Latin. See Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ c. 42.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 341, n. 3. Rhys Davids, _Buddhist India_,\n  1903, p. 298, thinks it possible that the missions although duly\n  recorded on stone were never sent.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  See Chapter II _infra_.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Foucart, _Les Associations Religieuses_, etc., pp. 66-84. Cf. Maury,\n  _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, II. p. 427. The composition of hymns was\n  peculiarly the care of these associations; Foucart, _op. cit._ p. 114.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Foucart, _op. cit._ p. 85.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Franz Cumont, \u201cHypsistos,\u201d _Revue de l\u2019Instruction publique en\n  Belgique_, 1897, pp. 5-6; _id._ _Les Religions Orientales dans le\n  Paganisme Romain_, Paris, 1906, p. 155 and note.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Foucart, _Ass. Rel._ pp. 135, 136, 158.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  See Chapter IV _infra_.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. II.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  See Foucart, _op. cit._ p. 158, for the cases of Ninos and Theoris,\n  priestesses who were condemned for such traffic.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Plutarch, _Pythian Responses_, c. XXV.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Lucian, _Alexander or Pseudomantis_, _passim_. The story is well\n  summarized by Sir Samuel Dill, in _Nero to Marcus_, pp. 473 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  L\u00e9on Fivel, \u201cLe Dieu Glycon \u00e0 Nicom\u00e9die,\u201d _Gazette Arch\u00e9ol._ 1879, p.\n  186.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, II. pp. 418 _sqq._ Cf. D\u00f6llinger,\n  _Judenthum und Heidenthum_ (English edition), I. p. 214.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Foucart, _Ass. Rel._ pp. 33-35.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  _Id._ _op. cit._ pp. 150, 151.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Hogarth, _Philip and Alexander_, pp. 277, 282. Cf. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq in\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. vii.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n                       THE ALEXANDRIAN DIVINITIES\n\n\nWhen Alexander\u2019s marshals began immediately after his death to divide\nhis Empire among them, and Ptolemy the son of Lagos claimed and received\nfor his share the province of Egypt, his more ambitious fellows must\nhave smiled at his moderation. Egypt was an acquisition that had never\nbeen properly assimilated by the Persians, and although subjugated by\nCambyses very early in their history, had more than once broken out into\nsuccessful rebellion. Its inhabitants, then as now, were a race\nseparated from the rest of the world by peculiarities of climate,\ndevotedly attached to their own traditional institutions, and bitterly\nand obstinately hostile to the foreigner. Moreover, the enormous\nresources of the country were undeveloped, the importance of its new\ncapital of Alexandria as the natural entrep\u00f4t of trade between East and\nWest[103] had not then been made manifest, and the agricultural wealth\nwhich was afterwards to make Egypt the granary of Europe had been ruined\nby civil commotions and foreign invasions. Although Alexander was hailed\nby the Egyptians as a deliverer, and, like other conquerors before and\nafter him, found little difficulty in coming to terms with the colleges\nof greedy and unpatriotic priests who were ready to welcome any foreign\nmaster so long as their own position was assured[104], he seems to have\nfelt less interest in the unwarlike and servile _fellahin_ than in the\nfree warriors of Bactria and India who had fought so gallantly against\nhim. Hence, he paid little attention to their government, and Cleomenes,\nthe ruler he had set over Egypt, thus found himself free to practise\nextortion on a scale which would certainly have brought down upon him\nthe condign vengeance of his master had it taken place further\neast[105]. Or perhaps the Great Conqueror, among whose gifts the habit\nof attending to everything in its turn must certainly be reckoned,\nthought it well to let all things grow together till the harvest, in the\nconsciousness that the campaign in Arabia, on which he was bent when\nstruck down by the fatal fever, would bring him close to the confines of\nEgypt and therefore in a position to investigate on the spot the\ncomplaints against Cleomenes which had already come to his ears. Be this\nas it may, one of Ptolemy\u2019s first acts on reaching his satrapy was to\nseize Cleomenes and to put him to death, a proceeding which had, we\nlearn, the full approval of his new subjects. This was but the earliest\nof a long list of benefits which his rule was to confer upon them, and\nwhich under his successors were to raise Egypt to a greater height of\nprosperity than she had ever enjoyed under her native Pharaohs.\n\nIt soon became evident also, that in choosing Egypt for his portion\nPtolemy knew very well what he was about. While its western frontier was\nthe Libyan desert and its southern was guarded by the cataracts, its\nnorthern coast was so badly off for harbours as to make it difficult to\nattack by sea, and it was practically unassailable from the east save at\nthe Pelusiac or Port Said mouth of the Nile, and then only by an enemy\nmarching through Syria[106]. Ptolemy, therefore, had ample time to\nconsolidate his power by annexing Cyrene, making friends in his turn\nwith the Egyptian priesthoods, and spending the money raised by\nCleomenes\u2019 exactions in the enlistment of an army of mercenaries[107].\nHe also waylaid the body of Alexander on its way to the tombs of the\nMacedonian kings at Aegae, and installed it in a splendid sepulchre\ncalled the Sema at Alexandria, thereby securing to himself, in the\nopinion of the time, a talisman of great power[108]. It was not long\nbefore the wisdom of these preparations was put to the proof; for, two\nyears after Alexander\u2019s death, Perdiccas, the Regent of the Empire, had\nthe new satrap tried in his absence for treason, and led a great army\nout of Asia Minor by way of Damascus to attack him. He found Ptolemy\nwaiting for him in force at Pelusium, and after some of the royal troops\nhad gone over to the enemy, and those under Perdiccas in person had\nsuffered a severe repulse near Bubastis, Perdiccas was deposed and\nmurdered[109]. The new settlement of the Empire which followed at\nTriparadeisos confirmed Ptolemy in the possession of Egypt, and left him\nin comparative peace to organize a kingdom which only ended three\ncenturies later with Cleopatra[110].\n\nOf the able and statesmanlike measures which Ptolemy took towards this\nend, only one need concern us here. The plan may have been Alexander\u2019s\nown, for no one was more likely to know Alexander\u2019s later mind than\nPtolemy, who had been his master\u2019s companion from his youth, had shared\nhis exile when banished by Philip, and had distinguished himself in\nIndia as one of his most trusted lieutenants. It is not impossible that\namong Alexander\u2019s plans for the government of his Empire, a religion\ncommon to both Greek and barbarian may have been included; for it is\ndifficult otherwise to explain the active part that he took in the\ndifferent religious observances of all his subjects, while the constant\ninquisitiveness concerning them which he showed can hardly have been\nmerely archaeological[111]. At all events, soon after Ptolemy found\nhimself secure in the possession of Egypt, he set himself to work to\nfound a religion that should unite both his Greek and his Egyptian\nsubjects in the bonds of a common faith. At first sight, no two things\ncan seem more dissimilar than the religions of the two nations; but\nthere was one point where they drew very near to each other, and it was\nto this that Ptolemy addressed himself.\n\nNow religion in Egypt had always been very much in the hands of a\nprofessional priesthood who here, as elsewhere in Africa, formed\norganized corporations greedy for political sway, and sometimes proved\nmore powerful than the king himself[112]. So far as the monuments show,\nthe first of these corporations in point of time was that of the\nworshippers of the sun-god Ra, the chief seat of whose worship was Annu,\nOn, or Heliopolis in the Delta. Its members were apparently the\nreligious advisers of the Vth or Pyramid-building Dynasty, and to them\nmust be attributed the earliest or Heliopolitan recension of the _Book\nof the Dead_ engraved on the walls of the chambers in the Saqqarah\nPyramids. This corporation seems to have flourished unchecked until the\nHyksos conquest, but was succeeded, when the invaders were cast out, by\nthat of the priests of Amen of Thebes who, after crushing the \u201cheresy\u201d\nor religious revolt of King Amenhotep IV, gradually became the supreme\npower in the state, and established the theocracy or rule of the\npriest-kings, under which Egypt went rapidly down the hill. The\ndecadence was stayed for a time by an uprising of the Libyan\nmercenaries, who placed their leader Sheshonq or Shishak, Solomon\u2019s\nsuzerain, upon the throne, and thus founded the XXIInd Dynasty. The\ndeposed corporation of Amen thereupon transferred themselves to Ethiopia\nor Nubia, where they established a theocracy on the model of that at\nThebes, and whence they returned later with an army of Sudanese to again\nenslave their native country. But Piankhi and his Ethiopians found\nthemselves unable to rule Egypt from Napata, and when they finally\nretired behind the Cataracts, there was a brief but brilliant revival of\nold Egyptian ideas under the Saite or Philhellene kings of the Delta,\nwho called in Greek and Carian mercenaries to the support of their\nthrone. It was in their time that Herodotus visited the country, and\nEgypt began again to play its part in the stirring events then fast\ncoming upon Western Asia. It seems probable also that under them, the\nreligious corporations, among whom the priests of Ptah of Memphis, one\nof the oldest of the gods of Egypt, for the first time take a prominent\nplace, regained the influence which they had never wholly lost. Then\ncame the Persian invasion, and although Egypt made more than one\nsuccessful attempt to shake off the yoke of the foreigners, it was at\nlast riveted firmly on her neck. After the flight of Nectanebo, the last\nking of the XXXth Dynasty, she was never again ruled by a prince of\nEgyptian blood[113].\n\nDuring this long period\u2014which is often quoted, not without reason, as\nthe classic instance of the evils attending the Priest in Power\u2014the mass\nof the Egyptian people had clung firmly to the worship of one god whose\nvogue goes back to very early times. While the rich and powerful were\nraising temples to Ra and Amen and showering wealth upon their\npriesthoods, the poorer classes remained faithful to Osiris and the gods\nof his cycle with such effect that most of the other divinities found it\nnecessary to include him in their own cults. In the very earliest\nrecension of the _Book of the Dead_, we find Osiris invoked together\nwith Ra in a way that gives no hint that one has any superiority over\nthe other[114]; in the great recension of the XVIIIth Dynasty, Osiris\nand Ra, already made into the \u201cking of the gods\u201d by his union with Amen,\nare said to have \u201cjoined souls\u201d and become one[115]; and in the Saitic\nperiod, Osiris became united with Ptah and a very ancient divinity\ncalled Seker, in a triune deity called Ptah-Seker-Osiris to whom\neveryone looked for happiness after death[116]. So, when the bull Apis\ncame to be adored, he was said to be the \u201clife of Osiris,\u201d meaning\nprobably his earthly incarnation[117], and there is fairly good evidence\nthat Osiris had long before absorbed into himself the personality of\nseveral older deities, such as Khent-Amentit \u201cLord of Amenti,\u201d and Apuat\n\u201cthe opener of the ways[118].\u201d It is plain, therefore, that the practice\nof _theocrasia_ which we have seen rife among the Greeks was known to\nthe Egyptians from the very earliest times[119]. Yet, all this was\neffected without there ever having been a special priesthood or college\nof priests of Osiris such as undoubtedly existed in the case of Ra,\nAmen, and probably Ptah. It seems really a case of the survival of the\nfittest, or, in other words, of the choice by the Egyptian people of the\nworship of the god best suited to their wants, in spite of the\nwell-meant attempts of their rulers to draw their attention to other\ndeities.\n\nThe reason for this obstinacy of choice is perhaps to be found in the\nlegend or myth of Osiris, which was at once more consistent and more\ndirect in its appeal to human sympathies than those handed down\nconcerning the other gods of Egypt. We are told that Osiris was the\nfirst-born of Nut the sky-goddess by Geb the earth-god, that he appeared\nupon earth as a man among men, and became king of Egypt, which he ruled\nwisely and well, teaching the Egyptians the art of agriculture, giving\nthem just laws, and instructing them in the proper worship of the gods.\nLater, he travelled over the whole earth, civilizing and subduing the\nnations not by force of arms but by persuasion and especially by the art\nof music which he took with him. On his return, he was entrapped and\nmurdered by his jealous brother Set or Typhon who, with the aid of\nseventy-two conspirators and an Ethiopian queen called Aso, shut him up\nin a coffin and threw him into the Nile, by which his body was carried\nout to sea. We further learn that his sister-wife Isis, who had reigned\nin his stead during his absence, mourned greatly for his loss and\nwandered far and wide seeking and lamenting him, until she heard from\nsome children that the coffin containing his remains had been carried\naway by the Tanitic mouth of the Nile. Following this, she found that it\nhad been washed ashore at Byblus in Phoenicia and had been overgrown by\na magnificent tamarisk, which the king of the country had had cut down\nand made into the roof-tree or pillar supporting his house. Then Isis\ndisguised herself as a servant and became the nurse of the king\u2019s son,\nwhom she would have made immortal but for the timidity of his mother,\nwho cried out when she saw the child surrounded by the flames which were\nto burn away his mortality. On this, the goddess revealed herself, took\naway the pillar containing the coffin, and attempted to revive the\ncorpse that it contained by her embrace. Afterwards, she gave birth to\nher son Horus, whom she destined from his cradle to be the avenger of\nhis father. Meanwhile, the murderer Set had seized the throne of Egypt,\nand while hunting by moonlight came across the corpse of Osiris, which\nhe tore into fourteen pieces, and scattered them throughout the land.\nConsequently Isis, who was at the time visiting Horus at nurse in her\ncity of Buto, had to begin again her wanderings, sailing over the swamps\nin a boat of papyrus, and burying the fragments of the body of Osiris\nwherever she found them. One part, however, she could not find, this\nhaving been thrown into the Nile and devoured by fishes; and henceforth\nOsiris became king of the Underworld, where he rules for ever over the\ndead, welcoming those who successfully win through the ordeal of the\njudgment that all must undergo, and providing for them a happy life like\nthat which the rich live on earth, in which agriculture plays a\nprominent part. Then Horus grew up to man\u2019s estate, and having provided\nhimself with horse, fought three desperate battles with Set, many of\nwhose followers came over to him. But, although he defeated his foe, he\ndid not put an end to his existence, and Set still lives, haunting the\ndeserts and wild places, and even, according to one variant of the\nstory, ruling for a time over the south of Egypt (or perhaps only a part\nof it), while the sway of Horus over the north remained unchallenged. As\nfor the other gods of the cycle, Nephthys, the twin sister and\nreflection of Isis, was the wife of Set, but preferred to throw in her\nlot with Osiris, by whom she had a son, Anubis the jackal, the messenger\nof Osiris, who possessed many of the attributes of the Greek Hermes. So,\ntoo, Thoth, the ibis, was the judge who pronounced, or perhaps merely\nrecorded, the final partition or arrangement between Horus and Set, and\nmost of the other members of the Egyptian Pantheon were brought into the\ncycle one way or the other.\n\nThis is the legend of Osiris, as we find it in the tract _de Iside et\nOsiride_, which is generally attributed to Plutarch and was certainly\nwritten in the first century A.D. It has not been met with earlier in a\nconnected form; but its main incidents are sufficiently corroborated by\nthe monuments of the time to convince us that it fairly represents the\npopular belief of the Egyptians during the Ptolemaic period[120].\nPlutarch, or the writer who assumed his name, gives us more than one\nexplanation of it coupled with analogies drawn from other mythologies,\nwhich exhibit considerable archaeological knowledge and show us how far\nthe comparative study of religions had proceeded even in his time. When\nhe fails, it is generally from lack of acquaintance with the earlier\nforms of the religions of Egypt, which had evidently become in those\ndays as much a mystery to the priests as to their flocks, and which the\nlabours of modern Egyptologists have but recently begun to recover for\nus. Looked at by their light, and stripped of its many transparent\ninconsistencies and anachronisms, it seems plain that the story is not\nsimple but compound, and represents an attempt to fuse together the\nreligious ideas either of different peoples or of the same people at\ndifferent stages of culture[121]. In the first place, we see in it the\nanimal gods of Egypt\u2014Horus the falcon, Set the unknown animal or _scha_\nsacred to him, Anubis the jackal, and Thoth the ibis\u2014whom we now know to\nhave been the totems or rallying-signs of the different tribes who\ninvaded Egypt, probably from other parts of Africa, in predynastic\ntimes. The _Sches-Hor_ or Followers of Horus are so often alluded to in\nearly dynastic texts that there can be no doubt that the tribe who had\nthe falcon for their banner were originally the royal or leading tribe\nof these invaders. The memory of this fact was preserved in the custom,\ngoing back to the beginning of the Ist Dynasty, which assigned to the\nruler of Egypt on his coronation a special name differing from that by\nwhich he was usually known, and borne in a rectangle representing the\nfa\u00e7ade or front of a palace surmounted by a hawk[122]. Recent\nexcavations at Abydos in Upper Egypt have shown that this custom was\nonly once broken in the long course of Egyptian history, when a king of\nthe IInd or IIIrd Dynasty, whose name is read Perabsen, cast out the\nfalcon from above the _srekh_ or rectangle containing his \u201chawk\u201d or\nHorus name, and crowned it instead with the animal representing Set.\nThis breach of conventional usage\u2014whether significant of a political or\na religious revolution or of some predominating foreign influence cannot\nbe exactly determined\u2014was healed by his immediate successor Khasekhmui,\nwho bore both the falcon and the Set-animal above his _srekh_ with an\ninscription proclaiming himself \u201cHe who has caused the two gods to be at\npeace\u201d; after which the rulers of Egypt returned to the hawk-crowned\n_srekh_, which was never again abandoned down to the last-known example\nunder the Roman emperors. We may assume then that the fundamental\nstratum of the Osiris legend was a tradition more or less historical\nwhich preserved the memory of a struggle for supremacy occurring in the\nearliest historical times between the tribes represented by Horus and\nSet respectively. As the horse was a late comer into Egypt, and seems to\nhave been introduced there by the Bedouins of the Sinaitic peninsula,\nwhere Perabsen\u2019s predecessors left their inscriptions, we may even read\ninto it the statement that, while the Horus or falcon tribe were helped\nin the war by Bedouin cavalry, the followers of Set sought aid from the\nNubian or \u201cEthiopian\u201d tribes above the Cataracts[123].\n\nTo this foundation, however, there must have been added a myth conceived\nby a race in possession of a much higher degree of culture and greater\nimaginative powers than any with which the predynastic or protodynastic\nEgyptians can be credited. The earliest gods of Egypt of whom we have\nany record were, as we have seen, either animals or inanimate objects, a\nfact which is sufficiently explained by their totemic origin[124]. But\nspread throughout the basin of the Mediterranean, we find from the\nearliest times the worship of a god who was from his birth never\nanything but a man and a man who suffered a veritable death and passion\nbefore his resurrection and deification. Thus, in Crete we have the\nlegend of the infant Zagreus, son of Zeus and Persephone, who was\ntreacherously seized by the earth-born Titans, torn in pieces, and\ndevoured, but was afterwards reborn as Dionysos to reign over gods and\nmen[125]. So, too, in Cyprus, Syria, and Phoenicia, we hear of Adonis,\nthe lover of Aphrodite, done to death by the boar\u2019s tusk, but returning\nyearly from the shades to spend part of the year with his mistress. In\nAsia Minor, again, was told the story of Atys, lover of Cybele, mother\nof the gods, who fatally mutilated himself in a fit of madness, but\nafter death was resuscitated, and thereafter reigned with Cybele over\nall Nature. All these three legends bear too close a resemblance to that\nof Osiris for the four to have grown up independently, and although the\npoint is not free from doubt, it is improbable that Egypt was the source\nfrom which the others were derived[126]. No direct connection in ancient\ntimes can be traced between Egypt and the inland country of Phrygia,\nwhich seems to be the birthplace of the majority of these legends; while\nit is of great importance to remember that Isis, Osiris\u2019 queen and\nsister, is represented in the early Egyptian myths as merely a magician\nor witch cunning in spells[127], whereas in the Phrygian and Syrian\nlegends the consort of the dying god is the \u201cmother of all living\u201d or in\nother words Nature herself. It seems therefore probable that the legend\nof Osiris, like so many other things in Egypt, was African as to its\nbody, but Asiatic or European as to its head.\n\nIt was therefore natural that in this legend of Osiris, Ptolemy should\nfind the desired point of contact between the religions of the Egyptians\nand the Greeks. The religious institution which commanded the most\nrespect among the Greeks of his time was undoubtedly the Mysteries of\nEleusis[128], which were yearly celebrated with a circumstance that drew\nupon them the attention of the whole Hellenic world. Messengers went\nforth every year from Eleusis to all countries where Athenians could be\nfound, to proclaim the Sacred Truce that was to ensure peace during the\ncelebration of the Mysteries. Then on the appointed day in September,\nenormous numbers of Greeks from all parts of the world gathered together\nin Athens for a festival that lasted for nearly two weeks. First came\nthe assembly of the worshippers and the proclamation of the hierophant\nthat none but those unpolluted by crime and of intelligible speech\n(_i.e._ not barbarians) might take part in the Mysteries. Then followed\nthe solemn procession when the sacred objects, upon which none but the\ninitiated might look, were brought from Eleusis under strong guard and\nlodged in the Eleusinion at the foot of the Acropolis, their arrival\nbeing formally notified to the priestess of Athena, the tutelary deity\nof the city. Next was made the proclamation of \u201cTo the sea, the\ninitiates!\u201d when all who were to take part in the ceremonies descended\nto the harbour of Phalerum[129] to wash themselves and the animals\nintended for sacrifice in the salt water, in the belief that, as\nEuripides said, \u201cSea-waves wash away all sin.\u201d After a time spent in\nsacrificing and austerities very proper for bringing the worshippers\ninto a receptive state of mind, there was formed the long procession\nwhich paced the Sacred Way, twelve miles long, from Athens to Eleusis,\nbeguiling the road with hymns and choruses addressed to Iacchos, the\ninfant Dionysos[130], who was supposed to lead the procession from his\nAthenian temple, the Iaccheion, with a pause at the bridge over the\nCephisus, where the crowd exchanged coarse jokes and sarcasms in a\nmanner peculiarly Attic. Then came the arrival by night of the\nprocession at the Telesterion or Hall of Initiations at Eleusis, the sky\nabove which was made light by the glare of the torches[131]. There,\nafter more sacrifices, a sacred banquet, in which it is not impossible\nthat the mystic _cyceon_ or consecrated drink was partaken of, and\nsacrifices in the temples of Demeter, of Hades, and of Persephone with\nwhich the Hall was surrounded, the initiates were shown a sacred drama,\nlike the mystery-plays of the Middle Ages, acted by the priests of the\ncult, whose office, contrary to the custom of Greek cults generally, was\nconfined to two families in which it was hereditary and highly paid.\nThis drama, the details of which were kept strictly secret and can only\nbe gathered from hints appearing in writers of a comparatively late\ndate, seems to have set forth the Rape of Persephone, daughter of\nDemeter the earth-goddess, who was known and worshipped throughout\nGreece and her colonies as the teacher of agriculture and giver of laws\nto mortals. The initiates saw \u201cwith their own eyes\u201d the capture of\nPersephone, when playing with her companions in the sunny fields of\nEleusis[132], by Hades or Pluto the king of the dead, who takes her to\nhis own gloomy abode beneath the earth, and the wanderings of Demeter in\nsearch of her lost child. Then they were shown how Demeter came to the\nhouse of Celeus, king of Eleusis, how she became nurse to the king\u2019s\nchild Demophoon, and was detected by his mother attempting to burn away\nhis mortal part in the way which the Egyptian legend attributed to\nIsis[133]. The next act, probably reserved for epopts or initiates of\nthe second year only, exhibited the union of Zeus with Demeter[134], and\nthe birth from the latter of a mysterious child in whom some see the\nIacchos who conducted the procession from Athens to Eleusis, but who was\ncertainly Dionysos in one or other of his forms[135]. We know also that\nthe initiates took part in wanderings in dark passages and over\nobstacles and difficulties, which were supposed to give them an idea of\nthe sufferings of the uninitiated dead in the next world, and that they\nwere then restored to upper air in a blaze of brilliant light, were\nshown the mysterious objects brought with such care from Eleusis to\nAthens and back again, were given a glimpse of the beatitudes awaiting\nthe dead who had been initiated in their lifetime, and were at the same\ntime instructed in certain mysterious phrases or formulas which it seems\nfair to conclude they were to treasure as passwords through the realms\nof Hades[136]. It seems probable from this that the initiates were\nsupposed to accompany Hermes the Psychopomp or \u201cleader of souls\u201d as the\nmessenger of Zeus to the underworld, there to accomplish the deliverance\nof Persephone and to witness her restoration to the heavenly regions\nwhere she was again united to her sorrowing mother. Finally, there\nappeared Triptolemus, Celeus\u2019 son and Demeter\u2019s pupil, setting out in\nhis car drawn by serpents to spread the knowledge of agriculture\nthroughout the world, \u201can ear of corn reaped in silence\u201d being, as we\nlearn from a Christian writer, the \u201cmighty and wonderful and most\nperfect mystery\u201d exhibited to the highest degree of initiates[137].\n\nIt will be noticed that we have spoken hitherto of initiates; for none\nmight enter the Telesterion unless they had previously been initiated,\nand two young Acarnanians who unwittingly did so were formally tried for\nsacrilege and put to death[138]. This initiation, or entry into the\nranks of those privileged to behold these wonderful sights, began at the\nLittle Mysteries, which were celebrated six or seven months before the\nGreat or Eleusinian Mysteries properly so called, at Agra on the left\nbank of the Ilissus. These mysteries of Agra were under the control of\nthe same sacred families as the Mysteries of Eleusis, for which they\nformed a necessary preparation. They were kept, if possible, even more\nstrictly secret than the Great Mysteries, and the only direct evidence\nthat has come down to us as to their nature tells us that they also took\nthe form of a sacred drama, and that the scenes there enacted were taken\nfrom the legend of Dionysos[139]. This Dionysos, however, was not in the\nfirst instance the Theban god of wine born from Semele and celebrated by\nthe poets, but his Cretan namesake Dionysos Zagreus or \u201cthe hunter,\u201d who\nwas said to have been begotten by Zeus in the form of a serpent upon his\nown daughter Persephone, and while still a child was, as has been\nmentioned above, torn in pieces by the earth-born Titans from jealousy\nat hearing that the child was to be made the ruler of the world. It was\nalso said that the scattered members of the baby-god were collected by\nDemeter, put together and revivified, a myth which late researches seem\nto show was alluded to in the Anthesteria, a festival celebrated in the\nDionysion at Athens in the same Anthesterion or \u201cflower month\u201d as the\nLittle Mysteries. There is much reason to think that the Anthesteria\nshowed forth in a manner unintelligible to the beholders unless\notherwise acquainted with the details of the legend, the\nputting-together of the different members\u2014said to be fourteen in\nnumber\u2014of the infant Dionysos, his subsequent resurrection, and his\nmarriage with a priestess called \u201cthe Queen\u201d who doubtless represented\nDemeter or Persephone. The inference seems unavoidable that it was some\npart of this legend that was acted in a manner impossible to\nmisunderstand or mistake before the eyes of those admitted to the Little\nMysteries[140].\n\nWe see then that between the legend of Osiris as told by Plutarch and\nthe legend of Eleusis as set forth in the Mysteries there were\nresemblances so close as to make it almost impossible that one should\nnot be derived from the other, unless we are prepared to consider them\nas having a common origin. As Osiris was torn into fourteen pieces, so\nwas Dionysos, the difference in the agents of this \u201cdiaspasm,\u201d as it was\ncalled, being due to the exigencies of Egyptian traditional history. The\nwanderings of Isis, again, find an exact parallel in those of Demeter,\nthe object of the search differing slightly in the two cases, while the\nmysterious birth of Horus, the successor of Osiris, corresponds point\nfor point with that of Dionysos in his second form of Iacchos. That both\nstories may have had their source in the folk-lore explaining the\nphenomena of the annual decay and rebirth of vegetation, Dr Frazer has\nshown with great attention to detail in _The Golden Bough_ and\nelsewhere[141] to be possible; but this was too philosophical an idea\nfor the sixth century B.C., when the Mysteries of Eleusis were founded\nor reduced to order[142]. Herodotus, a century later, no doubt expressed\nthe views of the learned of his day when he asserted that the worship of\nDionysos was brought into Greece from Egypt[143], and among modern\nscholars M. Foucart, who has done more than anyone to collate the few\nrelics that remain to us of the Eleusinian worship, fully supports him\nin this. It is therefore plain that the resemblances between the\nDionysiae and the Egyptian worship were many and salient. Hence Ptolemy\nfound his way clear when he invited Timotheos the Eumolpid, a member of\none of the sacred families in which the Eleusinian priesthood was, as\nhas been said, hereditary, and associated with him the Egyptian priest\nManetho in the task of founding a religion which should be common to\nEgyptians and Greeks alike[144].\n\nIn framing this new religion, the first care of the king and his\nadvisers was evidently to avoid shocking the religious and artistic\nfeelings of the Greeks. Ptolemy Soter\u2019s position seems to have been much\nlike that of a modern Governor-General of India; for, while he was not\nonly tolerant but careful of the religious susceptibilities of the\nnative Egyptians, his own Court remained in everything predominantly or\nexclusively Greek. In Alexandria, the site of which under the native\nPharaohs had been the small fishing village of Rhacotis, he had\npractically virgin soil, in which it is doubtful whether any Egyptian\ntemple existed, and it was consequently, as Alexander intended it should\nbe, in all respects a Greek city. Greek was the language there spoken,\nand it was to the care taken by Alexandrian scholars to preserve the\nlanguage and literature of Hellas in its native purity, that we are\nindebted for most of what we know of the classic tongue at its best. Its\nlarge garrison consisted almost entirely of Greek soldiers drilled and\narmed in the Macedonian fashion, and to the great University or Museum,\nwhich Ptolemy\u2019s munificence founded for the sustentation of scholars,\nthere flocked learned men from every part of the Hellenic world[145].\nHere, indeed, was the first instance of the endowment of research; and\nthe experiment had important results for most of the modern sciences,\nnot excluding that transmutation of metals which made such wild work\namong some of the best brains of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but\nwhich Sir William Ramsay has lately shown to be more capable of\naccomplishment than could have been expected from an alchemist\u2019s dream.\nAt the Museum, Eratosthenes, \u201cthe Inspector of the Earth,\u201d first set on\nfoot the serious study of geography, Hipparchus laid the sure\nfoundations of the modern science of astronomy, and Hero invented the\nfirst steam engine. The investigation of those secondary laws by which\ntheir insight perceived nature to be governed was indeed the constant\noccupation of King Ptolemy\u2019s \u201cstuffed capons,\u201d as Timon of Phlya\ncontemptuously called them[146]. But these philosophers would have been\nthe first to receive with scorn the proposition that anyone should be\nasked to worship the \u201cbrutish gods\u201d of Egypt under those animal forms in\nwhich they had long been known to the more simple minded Egyptians.\nOsiris, the \u201cbull of Amenti,\u201d as he is called in the early texts, was\nworshipped under the actual form of the bull Apis at Memphis and as a\nram or goat at Mendes. Isis was often portrayed with the cow\u2019s head\nwhich commemorated one of the incidents of her myth as set forth by\nPlutarch. Horus, who was in fact an older god than either of them, was,\nas the totem of the royal tribe of the first invaders, worshipped at\nEdfu and elsewhere as a hawk, and although the Egyptian priests kept up\nas long as possible the distinction between this \u201cHorus the elder\u201d and\nHorus the son of Isis, it is certain that their Greek worshippers saw no\ndifference between the two. While Timotheos was doubtless willing to\nrecognize the Eleusinian deities, of whose worship his family were the\ntraditional guardians, in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus,\nhe must have been sure that he could not ask his art-loving countrymen\nto do them homage in the guise of beasts or birds.\n\nThe difficulty was got over in a way that was characteristic enough.\nThe _theocrasia_ or fusion of one god with another which we have\nseen playing such a prominent part in the religion of both Egyptians\nand Greeks, was of the very essence of the religion of Eleusis. At\nno time from the earliest mention of the Eleusinian worship onwards,\nis it possible to draw any sharp dividing line between Demeter and\nher daughter Persephone, or as Mr Louis Dyer rather flamboyantly\nputs it, Demeter and Persephone were at Eleusis \u201cregarded as one,\nbeing so filled with mutual love that all barriers between them\nmelted away[147].\u201d \u201cExcepting,\u201d he says again, \u201cin her days of\nthoughtless youth, Demeter\u2019s Persephone is Demeter\u2019s self twice\ntold,\u201d and the same dogma seems to have been prematurely revealed by\nXenophanes of Colophon, who was exiled for his declaration that all\nthe gods of his fellow-countrymen were but varying forms of the one\ndeity. This identity of the goddesses of Eleusis must have been\nconstantly present to the mind of the Greeks, who hardly ever spoke\nof Demeter and Persephone save as \u201cthe Goddesses Twain\u201d or as the\nMother-and-Daughter. But this was only the first step in what was\ncalled without circumlocution the \u201cmystic _theocrasia_[148],\u201d which\nwent so far as to include in the persons of the Eleusinian deities\nnearly all the gods of the Hellenic pantheon. In the original Cretan\nlegend, the infant Dionysos is the son of Zeus, whom he is destined\nto succeed upon his throne, as Zeus had succeeded in the Homeric\nmyths his father Kronos, and this last, _his_ father Ouranos. But\nthe Zeus of Eleusis was by no means the Zeus of Olympos whom Homer\nhails as \u201cfather of gods and men,\u201d but who had to yield the empire\nof the seas to his brother Poseidon and that of the netherworld to\nhis brother Hades. Originally known at Eleusis as \u201cthe God\u201d only, as\nDemeter with or without her daughter was called \u201cthe Goddess,\u201d the\nEleusinian god was also invoked as Zeus Chthonios or the infernal\nZeus, called by euphemism Zeus Eubuleus (Zeus of Good Counsel),\nPluto (Bringer of Riches) and other similar names[149]. But by\nwhatever name he was called, he was always the king of the dead, and\nwas thus again brought near to Dionysos, whom Heraclitus of Ephesus,\ntwo centuries before Alexander, had declared to be the same god as\nHades, lord of the netherworld[150]. In this double capacity,\nDionysos was therefore the brother, father, and spouse of his\nconsort Demeter, of whom he was also the child. He might therefore\nbe considered one of the first instances known in the history of\nreligions as a god who was, according to the way in which he was\nregarded, either father or son[151]. Nor did the _theocrasia_ stop\nhere. The Asiatic forms of Dionysos, whether we call them Atys,\nAdonis or by any other name, were often represented as of both\nsexes, a doctrine which is also denoted by Dionysos\u2019 Orphic epithet\nof Mise, and led to his being portrayed in effeminate shape[152].\nHence, Dionysos and Demeter or Persephone might be regarded as the\nGod under both the male and female aspect. Moreover, Zeus was said\nto have ordered the corpse of Dionysos to be buried at Delphi, where\nsecret ceremonies were celebrated in connection with it by five\npriests called Hosioi; and this seems to have led to the idea common\nto the classic poets Pindar, Aeschylus, and Euripides, that Dionysos\nand Apollo were different forms of the same god, a theory which is\nexpressly confirmed by Plutarch[153]. But Apollo \u201cthe Far-Darter\u201d\nwas always to the Greeks a sun-god, and Horus from the first had the\nsame character among the Egyptians, the emblem of the sun-disk being\noften added to the Horus-hawk of their protocol by the Pharaohs of\nthe New Empire. Thus the identification of the gods of the Osiris\ncycle with their Greek analogues was complete. It was agreed that\nOsiris was to be represented as the Greek Hades, Isis as Demeter,\nand the child Horus as Apollo. Herodotus and probably other Greek\nwriters had long before made the same identifications[154].\n\nThis settled, the question of the material forms under which the triad\nwas to be worshipped by Ptolemy\u2019s new subjects became easy. A convenient\ndream, so runs the story told in Roman times, revealed to the king the\nexistence of a statue of Hades or Pluto at Sinope in Pontus that was\nexactly fitted to his purpose[155]. It is said to have been of colossal\nsize, the work of Bryaxis, the fellow-worker of Scopas, and to have been\ncomposed of a mixture of the most precious metals with fragments of\ngems, the whole being coloured with a dark varnish. This statue was\ngiven up by\u2014or according to another version was stolen from\u2014the city of\nSinope, and was installed with great pomp in the magnificent temple or\nSerapeum built for it at Alexandria, which for centuries formed one of\nthe wonders of the Hellenistic world. It doubtless formed the model for\nall the later representations of the new god called henceforth Serapis\n(in Egyptian, Asar-hapi or Osiris in his manifestation as Apis), which\nresemble each other in all important particulars. They show a bearded\nman of mature age, whose features have much of the majesty and dignity\nof the Phidian Zeus. On his head he wears the _modius_, a crown of\nbasket-work on which are sometimes represented olive trees and which is\nsaid to be a reproduction of the _calathos_ or consecrated basket\ncarried in the sacred procession to Eleusis, and doubtless possessed for\nthe initiated some mystical or symbolical meaning[156]. He is generally\nrepresented with an eagle at his feet, and by the side of him appears a\ntriple monster which may perhaps represent the classical Cerberus with a\nserpent twisted round its body and equipped with the heads of a lion, a\ndog, and a wolf. It seems, therefore, that in choosing this statue the\nfounders of the Alexandrian religion had quite turned their backs on the\nlighter and more joyous aspects of the mystic Dionysos, and intended to\nregard him as the god of the dead merely[157]. The same was not the case\nwith his consort Isis, who is generally represented as a young matron of\nstately appearance having sometimes the crescent moon on her head, and\nsometimes a crown of lotus flowers interspersed with ears of corn. She\nis dressed in a fringed tunic reaching to her feet, having over her\nshoulders a mantle tied by its ends between the breasts in a peculiar\nknot. In one hand she bears the _sistrum_ or rattle used in her worship,\nand in the other a horn of abundance or other emblem, while the head is\nfrequently covered by a long veil. Both the attitude and the dress are\nalways of the strictest modesty, and the features wear an expression of\ngentle benevolence, in which it is possible to see a trace of\nmelancholy. The Alexandrian Horus is seldom represented otherwise than\nin child form, the type being taken from the Egyptian Horus known as\nHar-pa-khrat (Horus the Child) of which the Alexandrians made\nHarpocrates. In this form he was represented with his finger in his\nmouth in accordance with the usual Egyptian ideogram for childhood, and\nthis gave rise to the story among the Greeks that he was the god of\nsilence. Sometimes he is shown with wings like the classical Eros,\nfrequently seated on the lotus or with the lotus flower on his head, and\nvery often with the hawk which formed his proper emblem[158]. He was\nseldom represented in a group containing Serapis, although bas-reliefs\nand statues showing Serapis and Isis together are common; but groups\nrepresenting Isis suckling Horus have been found in some numbers.\nGenerally it may be said that the _modius_ on the head is the\ndistinguishing mark of the figure of Serapis, the peculiar breast-knot\nthat of Isis, while Horus can seldom be recognized with certainty save\nby the gesture of the forefinger in the mouth or, as the Greek artists\npreferred to represent it, on the lips. From this time forward, the\nAlexandrian Greeks could worship the chief deities of their native\nfellow-citizens under forms which they felt to be worthy of the Divine.\n\nThus, the worship of the great Egyptian triad under their Greek forms\nwas inaugurated, as was our own English Reformation in the sixteenth\ncentury, as a measure of statecraft, by a king who hardly cared to\nconceal that in doing so he had only his own interest to serve. Yet it\nmay be said at once, that so far as its political purpose was concerned,\nthe Alexandrian religion was from the outset foredoomed to failure. The\nEgyptians of Philhellenic times were of all the nations of the earth at\nonce the most superstitious and the most fanatically attached to their\ntraditional modes of worship. Although until the rise of the theocracy,\nthe importation of foreign gods was not unknown, under the Ethiopians,\nthe Persians, and Alexander, the Egyptians had not scrupled to sacrifice\ntheir nationality to their religion, and to accept a foreign governor so\nlong as the worship of their native gods under types that had been\nobserved by them for more than four millennia remained untouched. How\nthen could they be expected to recognize their native deities in forms\nbeautified and dignified by Greek art indeed, but so foreign to all\ntheir traditional ideas that nothing distinctly Egyptian about them\nremained?\n\nTo this question there could be but one answer, and it is not\nextraordinary that the native Egyptians proved as recalcitrant to their\nnew king\u2019s endeavour to unite them in a common worship with their Greek\nmasters as the Jews did under the somewhat similar attempt of Antiochus\nEpiphanes. The Egyptian priests allowed Ptolemy to set up at Memphis,\nwhich had become since the ruin of Thebes the religious capital of the\ncountry, a Serapeum, doubtless modelled on that of Alexandria, by the\nside of the native temple established for the delectation of the living\nApis and for the solemn burial of his predecessors: but they took care\nthat it should be separated from the Egyptian Serapeum by a long avenue\nof sphinxes, and that no Greek prayers should ever be allowed to defile\nthe purity of the native Egyptian sanctuary[159]. Moreover, Egypt,\nresembling in this perhaps all countries with strongly marked\ngeographical characteristics, has exhibited through all ages a wonderful\npower of conquering her conquerors, or, in other words, of forcing her\nforeign rulers to accept the ideas that they found there, instead of\nadopting at their instance innovations on customs consecrated by\ncenturies of usage. Hence the Ptolemies, as time went on, found it\nnecessary to pay ever more and more attention to the native Egyptian\nreligion, and Ptolemy V Epiphanes was crowned at Memphis, as is recorded\non the Rosetta Stone, with all the religious ceremonies that made him in\nthe eyes of the Egyptians the living Horus, son of the sun-god, the\nbeloved of Ptah and the rest, as fully as any of the ancient\nPharaohs[160]. All the Ptolemies, too, seem to have spent very\nconsiderable sums on the restoration and keeping-up of the temples in\nEgypt dedicated to such thoroughly native gods as Amon of Thebes and\nHorus of Edfu, besides those at Philae and elsewhere raised not to the\nAlexandrian but to the Egyptian Osiris and his cycle. What truth there\nis in the statement of Macrobius that Ptolemy Soter compelled by\n\u201ctyranny\u201d the Egyptians to take Serapis into their temples, it is\nimpossible to say; but as his image in Greek form has never been found\nin any of them, it is plain that the priests must have found some way of\nevading the royal order, if it were really given[161].\n\nPtolemy, however, was building better than he knew, and the hybrid cult\nwhich the provident old soldier had fashioned as an instrument of\ngovernment turned out to be the first, and not the least successful, of\nthe world-religions for which Alexander\u2019s conquests left clear the way.\nDuring the wars of the Diadochi, all the powers who at any time found\nthemselves Ptolemy\u2019s pawns in the mighty war game then played on a board\nstretching from India to Thrace, thought to curry favour with their rich\nally by giving countenance to his new religion. An association of\nSarapiasts or worshippers of Serapis held their meetings in the Piraeus\nnot long after the institution of the Alexandrian cult[162]; and before\nthe death of Ptolemy Soter, a Serapeum was built in Athens over against\nthe Acropolis itself[163]. Cyprus, Rhodes, Antioch, Smyrna, and\nHalicarnassus were not long in following suit, and before the end of the\ncentury several of the islands of the \u00c6gean together with Boeotia, which\nwas said by some to be the native country of Dionysos, had adopted the\nnew worship. In the second century B.C., the temples of the Alexandrian\ngods were to be found in Delos, Tenedos, Thessaly, Macedonia and the\nThracian Bosphorus in Europe, and in Ephesus, Cyzicus and Termessus\namong other places in Asia Minor[164]. But their greatest triumph was\nawaiting them further west. Invited by Hiero II into Sicily, they were\nnot long in working their way up the coast, and a hundred years before\nour era a temple to Serapis was in existence at Puteoli[165]. It was\nevidently no new foundation and had probably been built some fifty years\nearlier, at which date perhaps the first Isium at Pompeii was also in\nexistence[166]. Somewhere about 80 B.C., the Alexandrian worship was\nintroduced into Rome itself, and thereafter no action of the authorities\nwas able to expel it[167]. Its temples were more than once thrown down\nby order of the consuls; but they were always rebuilt, and in 43 B.C.,\nthe aedile Marcus Volusius, who had been proscribed by the triumvirs,\nfound the linen robe and the dog\u2019s head mask of a priest of Isis the\nmost efficient disguise in which to escape Sulla\u2019s bravos[168]. Under\nthe Empire, the temple of Isis in the Campus Martius became one of the\nfashionable resorts of the Roman youth; and, although Tiberius seized\nthe occasion of a real or pretended scandal in connection with it to\nexile a large number of the faithful to Sardinia, his successors were\nthemselves initiated into the faith; while under Nero the worship of the\nAlexandrian gods was formally recognized by the state[169]. From that\ntime, it followed the Roman arms into every quarter of the ancient\nworld, and its monuments have been found in Morocco, Spain, France,\nGreat Britain, Germany, and the Danube provinces. Ridicule was as\npowerless to stop its march as persecution, and the satire of Juvenal\nand Martial had no more effect on it than the banter of the New Comedy,\nwhich was quick to observe that even in Menander\u2019s day the gilded youth\nof Athens swore \u201cby Isis\u201d or \u201cby Horus[170].\u201d Under the Antonines, it\nprobably reached its apogee, when the Emperor Commodus appeared in the\nprocessions of the cult among the bearers of the sacred images, and few\nRomans seem to have been aware that the Alexandrian gods were not Roman\nfrom the beginning. Like Ptolemy\u2019s master, Ptolemy\u2019s gods might have\nboasted that they commanded the allegiance of the whole civilized\nworld[171].\n\nThe causes of this astonishing success must be looked for within the\nreligion itself. No name has come down to us of any prophet or priest of\nthe Alexandrian religion possessing a commanding personality like St\nPaul, Mohammed, Luther, or Calvin; and we must therefore conclude that\nit was its own intrinsic merits which thus commended it to so many\nwidely-differing peoples[172]. Foremost among these was, it would seem,\nits extraordinary timeliness. Alexander\u2019s conquests had broken down the\nbarriers that speech and race had set up between neighbouring peoples,\nand had at the same time united many hundreds of jealous and discordant\nstates under a single head. In the many royal courts which had been set\nup as a result of the partition of Alexander\u2019s Empire, philosophers of\nevery school were chanting the political advantages of an enlightened\nmonarchy over the greedy scramble for place and power inseparable from\ndemocracy, and the doctrine was bound sooner or later to be applied to\nreligion[173]. We have seen how far both Egyptians and Greeks had before\nthen carried the practice of _theocrasia_, but the founders of the\nAlexandrian religion were not slow in pushing it to its only legitimate\nconclusion. Serapis, unlike the Greek Zeus, from the first declined to\nbrook any partition of his empire over nature. \u201cWouldst thou know what\ngod I am,\u201d said his oracle at the Alexandrian Serapeum to Nicocreon, the\nCypriote king. \u201cI myself will tell thee. The heavenly cosmos is my head;\nthe sea my belly. My feet are the earth; my ears are in the aether. My\nfar-beaming eye is the radiant light of the sun[174].\u201d In other words,\nSerapis is himself the universe, which is probably the meaning to be\nattached to the name given to Osiris in the _Book of the Dead_ which\nEgyptologists translate \u201cLord of Totality.\u201d But Aeschylus had already\nsaid the same thing about Zeus[175], and as the gods of the Greeks were\nnever anything else than the powers of nature, Serapis thus comprised in\nhis single person the whole Greek pantheon. Hence \u201cSerapis alone is\nZeus\u201d came to be a sort of watchword in the Alexandrian religion to be\nendlessly repeated on statues, gems, and all the other material relics\nof the cult[176]. A little later and we find Serapis drawing to himself\nthe worship of all the Mediterranean gods who had a common origin with\nOsiris and Dionysos. Adonis, as appears from the beautiful idyll of\nTheocritus, in the reign of Ptolemy Soter\u2019s successor was worshipped as\nanother form of Osiris in the royal palace itself[177]. Atys, Cybele\u2019s\nlover, was also identified with him[178]; and, as the Stoic philosophy,\nwhich taught that all the gods were but different forms of the one\nDivine energy, came into fashion, Serapis was equated with the numerous\nsun-gods whose worship poured in from the Semitic east. \u201cThe eternal\nsun\u201d came to be one of his most-used epithets, and he is often invoked\nas the equivalent of the Greek Helios and of the Persian sun-god\nMithras[179]. Nor did his consort long remain behind him. \u201cI, the parent\nof the works of nature\u201d is the style in which Isis announces herself to\nher votary Lucius in Apuleius\u2019 romance,\n\n    \u201cqueen of all the elements, earliest offspring of the ages, highest\n    of godheads, sovereign of the Manes, first of the heavenly ones,\n    one-formed type of gods and goddesses. The luminous heights of\n    heaven, the health-giving breezes of the sea, the sad silences of\n    the lower world, I govern by my nod. I am she whose godhead, single\n    in essence, but of many forms, with varied rites and under many\n    names, the whole earth reveres. Hence the Phrygians, first born of\n    men, call me Pessinuntica, Mother of the Gods; here the first\n    inhabitants of Attica, Cecropian Minerva, there the wave-rocked\n    Cypriotes, Paphian Venus; the arrow-bearing Cretans, Diana Dictynna;\n    the three-tongued Sicilians, Stygian Proserpine; the Eleusinians,\n    the ancient goddess Ceres;\u2014others Juno, others Bellona, these\n    Hecate, those Rhamnusia; and they who are lighted by the first rays\n    of the sun-god on his rising, the Ethiopians, the Africans, and the\n    Egyptians skilled in the ancient teaching, worshipping me with\n    ceremonies peculiarly my own, call me by my true name, Queen\n    Isis[180].\u201d\n\nAs we shall see later (p. 64, _infra_) her spouse Osiris claimed also to\nbe the highest of godheads; and the final unity of the Divine essence to\nwhich the \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 was logically bound to lead could hardly be\nstated in clearer language[181].\n\nThus, we see that what has been called a monotheistic pantheism instead\nof an incoherent mass of local worships was one of the advantages of the\nAlexandrian cult. But in the religion of the crowd, feeling plays a more\nimportant part than reason, and the idea which it first gave mankind of\nwhat would be now called the \u201cfatherhood of God\u201d was probably by far its\nmost alluring feature. It has frequently been said that the Greeks\nalthough they feared, did not love their gods, and so far as the Homeric\ndeities are concerned, it is difficult to see why they should. Apollo\nopenly expresses his contempt for \u201cpitiful mortals, who like unto leaves\nnow live in glowing life, consuming the fruit of the earth, and now\nagain pine unto death[182],\u201d Hera does not hide her scorn for \u201cthe\ncreatures of a day,\u201d and the help that Athena gives the Greeks in their\nwar against Troy is expressly said to be due to no kindlier feeling than\nrage at the slight which Paris had put upon her beauty[183]. As for the\nEgyptian religion, if it ever exhibited the lofty conceptions and\nsublime ideas with which the earlier Egyptologists were inclined to\ncredit it, it had long before Ptolemy\u2019s time lost all trace of them, and\nhad degenerated into \u201ca systematized sorcery\u201d in which the gods were\ncompelled to grant merely material benefits directly they were demanded\nwith the proper ritual[184]. But when we turn from the Greek and\nEgyptian creeds to the new faith which was compounded from the two, we\nare at once struck by the complete change which seems to have come over\nthe worshippers\u2019 conception of the Divine. Isis, from the wily magician\nof Pharaonic Egypt, has now become \u201cthe haven of peace and the altar of\npity[185].\u201d\n\n    \u201cO thou holy and eternal protectress of the race of men\u201d\n\nare the terms with which Lucius addresses her,\n\n    \u201cthou who ever givest good gifts to comfort-needing mortals, thou\n    dost bestow upon the lot of the wretched the sweet affection of a\n    mother. There is no day nor night nor smallest moment which is not\n    occupied with thy good deeds. Thou dost protect mankind by sea and\n    land, and scattering the storms of life dost stretch forth to them\n    thy saving hand, with which thou dost even spin anew the hopelessly\n    twisted web of the Fates, and dost temper the blasts of fortune and\n    restrain the hostile courses of the stars[186].\u201d\n\nSo \u00c6lius Aristides in his encomium of Serapis written after having been\nsaved from shipwreck, as he considered, by the direct intervention of\nthe god, tells us that Serapis is the god who \u201cpurifies the soul with\nwisdom, and preserves the body by giving it health[187],\u201d that he alone\n\n    \u201cis adored by kings as by private persons, by the wise as by the\n    foolish, by the great as by the small, and by those on whom he has\n    bestowed happiness as well as those who possess him alone as a\n    refuge from their trouble[188],\u201d\n\nthat he is \u201cthe protector and saviour of all men[189],\u201d \u201cthe most loving\nof the gods towards men[190],\u201d \u201cgreatly turned towards mercy[191],\u201d and\n\u201cthe light common to all men[192].\u201d We hardly want his elaborate\ndemonstration that Serapis alone of all the gods is ready to assist him\nwho invokes him when in need, to convince us that the reign of the\nwarlike gods and goddesses of Homer\u2014always, as Renan says, brandishing a\nspear from the top of an acropolis\u2014is over, and that instead of them man\nhas at last found\n\n                       ... \u201cGods, the friends of man\n                       Merciful gods, compassionate\u201d\n\nwho would certainly \u201canswer him again,\u201d as a father would his children.\n\nThe providence and beneficence of the Alexandrian gods towards man,\nmoreover, extended beyond the grave. In Homer, we find a conception of\nthe next world which for dreariness and hopelessness is only paralleled\nby the Jewish ideas concerning Sheol. \u201cNay, speak not comfortably to me\nof death, great Odysseus,\u201d says the shade of Achilles to the hero who\nhas called him up from Hades. \u201cRather would I live upon the soil as the\nhireling of another, even with a landless man who had no great\nlivelihood, than bear sway among all the dead who are no more[193].\u201d But\nthe Eleusinian Mysteries were hailed as giving deliverance from these\nhorrors, and as robbing death of much of its terrors for those who had\nbeen initiated. \u201cBlessed is he,\u201d says Pindar in a passage in which\ncommentators agree to see a direct allusion to the Mysteries, \u201cwho has\nseen the things that are under the earth. He has seen the end of life;\nhe has seen also the God-sent beginning[194].\u201d \u201cThrice blessed,\u201d says\nSophocles, \u201care they among mortals, who after having beheld these\nmysteries, go to the house of Hades: for it is theirs alone there to\nlive, but to the others there will arrive all ills[195].\u201d The Homeric\n_Hymn to Demeter_, which may be about a century earlier than Pindar, is\nas emphatic as he as to the saving grace of initiation. \u201cHappy,\u201d it\nsays, \u201cis the man on earth who has seen these things. But he who has not\nbeen initiated in these holy rites, who has not shared in them, never\nhas the same lot, when he has utterly faded away in the dark\ngloom[196].\u201d Those who believe with M. Foucart in the Egyptian origin of\nthe Eleusinian rites will doubtless see in this a direct borrowing from\nthe Egyptian views regarding the beatitude awaiting the justified or\n\u201ctriumphant\u201d dead who in life had been worshippers of Osiris. How much\nor how little of the Osirian faith as to the state of these worshippers\nin the next world passed into the Alexandrian religion cannot now be\nsaid; but it is certain that the protection of Isis and Serapis was held\nto be as powerful in the life beyond the tomb as in this.\n\n    \u201cWhen the term of thy life is spent,\u201d\n\nsays the apparition of the goddess to Apuleius\u2019 Lucius,\n\n    \u201cand thou at length descendest to the lower regions, there also,\n    even in the subterranean hemisphere, thou, dwelling in Elysian\n    fields, will often adore me who art propitious to thee, and whom\n    thou shalt see shining among the shades of Acheron and reigning over\n    the secret places of Styx[197].\u201d\n\nSo, too, Aristides says of Serapis, that he is \u201cthe Saviour and leader\nof souls, leading souls to the light and receiving them again[198],\u201d\nthat \u201che raises the dead, he shows forth the longed-for light of the sun\nto those who _see_, whose holy tombs contain endless numbers of sacred\nbooks[199],\u201d and that \u201cwe can never escape from his sway, but he will\nsave us, and even after death we shall be the objects of his\nprovidence[200].\u201d We may imagine, if we please, although there is really\nno proof of any connection between the two, that in its assertion of the\nfatherhood of God as in earthly matters, the Alexandrian religion owed\nsomething to the Stoic philosophy; but it is fairly certain that in the\nglimpses it afforded of the next world, its inspiration must have been\ndrawn either from Eleusis or from Egypt.\n\nWhat we know, too, of the actual worship of the Alexandrian triad shows\nthat it was designed to attract the devotion of the multitude with a\nskill that argues the existence behind it of many centuries of\npriestcraft. It is still a moot point whether Herodotus was well-founded\nwhen he asserted the existence of \u201cmysteries\u201d in the Egyptian\nreligion[201]; and it is quite clear that the scenes in the earthly life\nof Osiris and the gods of his cycle which in the case of their Greek\ncounterparts were carefully concealed from all but initiates, were in\nEgypt openly portrayed on the walls of the temples[202]. But Timotheos\nand Manetho must have been too well aware of the prestige attaching\nthroughout the Hellenic world to the secret worships of such centres of\nreligion as Eleusis and Samothrace to forgo its advantage for their new\nreligion; and the Alexandrian gods too had a system of initiation which\nseems to have been modelled upon that of the \u201cGoddesses Twain.\u201d Thanks\nto Apuleius we can, up to a certain point, follow the Alexandrian course\nof initiation step by step. Those whom Isis singled out as fitted for\nher service[203]\u2014which we may without uncharitableness interpret as\nmeaning those whom the priests thought likely to be of use to the\nreligion\u2014were assigned a \u201cmystagogue\u201d who no doubt gave them such\ninstructions as he thought fit in the meaning of the rites which he saw\nperformed in the temple, and the incidents in the life of the gods to\nwhich they were attached. When after a course of such instruction, which\nwas of varying length, the mystagogue was convinced of the soundness of\nthe aspirant\u2019s vocation, the formal initiation began. In strict\naccordance with a ritual which Apuleius assures us was written down in\nEgyptian characters and carefully preserved in the secret places of the\nsanctuary (_opertis adyti_), the aspirant underwent a solemn lustration\nwith water or baptism at the hands of the priest, and was ordered to\nabstain from all food which had had life, from wine and from the company\nof the other sex for a space of ten days[204]. This period was doubtless\nspent as far as possible within the temple precincts, much importance\nbeing attached to the prolonged contemplation of the statue of the\ngoddess, which was, as we have seen, fashioned in a manner worthy of\nGreek art, and was further adorned with rich robes and jewels after the\nmanner of the Catholic images of the Virgin. At the expiration of the\nten days\u2019 retreat, the candidate was clothed in a linen garment and was\nexhibited to the general body or congregation of the faithful who\npresented him with gifts. The secret ceremonies were then performed\nbefore him, the nature of which are only revealed to us in the guarded\nwords of Apuleius\u2019 hero:\n\n    \u201cI approached the bounds of death, and, borne through all the\n    elements, returned again to the threshold of Proserpine which I had\n    already trod. I saw at midnight the sun shining with pure light, I\n    came before the Gods of the Upper and Lower World, and I worshipped\n    them from anigh[205].\u201d\n\nCollating these hints\u2014which Apuleius tells us are all that it is lawful\nfor him to give\u2014with what we know of the origin of the Alexandrian\nreligion and with the scraps of information that have come down to us\nregarding other ceremonies of a like nature, we may gather from this\nthat the candidate underwent a mock death, being probably made to enact\nin his own person the passion of Osiris and his shutting-up in a\ncoffin[206], that he was shown the happy lot of the initiated and the\ncorrespondingly miserable fate of the uninitiated in the life after\ndeath, that he was subjected to certain \u201ctrials,\u201d or proofs of his\ncourage and sincerity, by fire, water, earth, and air, and that he was\nfinally shown in a brilliant light the glorious company of the gods\nrepresented either by their images, or by priests arrayed with their\nbest-known attributes. Nothing seems to have been omitted that could\nimpress the imagination of the neophyte, and when the night of\ninitiation was at length over, he was again displayed before the\ncongregation of worshippers clothed in what was known as the Olympian\ngarment (_stola Olympiaca_) consisting of a dress of byssus or linen\nembroidered with flowers, over which was cast a rich mantle decorated\nwith figures of fabulous animals, and bearing in his right hand a\nflaming torch, while on his head was a crown of palm-leaves with leaves\nprojecting, as he says, \u201clike rays of light.\u201d In this costume he was\nplaced in a wooden pulpit before the statue of the goddess in the public\nportion of the temple, and was thus exhibited for the adoration of the\ncrowd, when the ceremony of opening took place[207]. As the last stage\nof the secret rite seems to have been the successive imposition upon the\ninitiate of twelve robes, doubtless typifying the twelve signs of the\nZodiac, we hardly want the rayed crown, and the explicit words of\nApuleius to inform us that in this costume he was intended to represent\nthe material sun (_exornatus instar Solis et in vicem simulacri\nconstitutus_)[208]. The sun-god, however, was in the later phases of the\nEgyptian religion not Osiris but either Ra or Horus[209], and this\nlast-named god was in the Alexandrian triad equated with the Greek\nApollo. It therefore seems likely that the initiate represented here the\nchild of Isis begotten, as has been said, by Osiris after his death and\npassion, and this corresponds with the statement put into the mouth of\nIsis and preserved by Proclus: \u201cI am that which has been, is, and will\nbe. My garment none has lifted. The fruit which I bore has become the\nsun[210].\u201d It is significant that the later and especially the Christian\nwriters speak of Osiris and not Horus as the son of Isis; but the\ndistinction between father and son in the Egyptian triads was never\nsharply defined, and there are many signs that Horus, the son of Isis,\nwas looked upon as Osiris re-born[211].\n\nThe initiation strictly so-called was concluded with a banquet provided\nby the initiate in which he celebrated what he was henceforth to regard\nas his natal day, as his formal entry into the religion was considered\nby him as a re-birth. Nor was this all. Twelve months after his\ninitiation into the first degree or Mysteries of Isis, Apuleius\u2019 hero is\nsummoned to undergo a further initiation, this time into the mysteries\n\u201cof the Great God and highest progenitor of the Gods, the unconquered\nOsiris (_magni dei deumque summi parentis, invicti Osiris_),\u201d of which\nwe are only told that a further preparation of ten days was necessary\nand that the aspirant was in addition \u201cenlightened by the nocturnal\norgies of the princely god Serapis (_insuper etiam Serapis principalis\ndei nocturnis orgiis illustratus_)[212].\u201d Very shortly after this a\n_third_ initiation was prescribed to Lucius and was backed up by a dream\nin which Osiris \u201cthe God of the great Gods, or rather the Highest of the\nGreater Gods and the Greatest of the Highest and the Ruler of the\nGreatest (_deus deum magnorum potior et majorum summus et summorum\nmaximus et maximorum regnator Osiris_)\u201d appears to him; but we learn\nnothing of the nature of this fresh initiation, save that it was\npreceded like the two others by a ten-days\u2019 fast[213]. No other text or\nmonument that has yet come to light gives any hint as to the revelations\nmade in these two last degrees or initiations; but it seems likely from\nthe words above quoted that they were concerned with the true nature of\nOsiris[214], and that he must have been finally proclaimed to the\ninitiate as the one and only Source of Being. The apparent inconsistency\nbetween this and Isis\u2019 own statement given above that she is herself the\n\u201chighest of godheads ... first of the heavenly ones, one-formed type of\ngods and goddesses\u201d can perhaps be got over by supposing that the\nSupreme Being was supposed to be at once the father and mother of the\ninferior gods, an idea of which there are many traces in the Egyptian\nmyths of later Pharaonic times[215]. Some connection between Osiris in\nhis Egyptian form and the Greek wine-god Bacchus may be implied by the\ndream which heralded the second initiation showing \u201cone clothed in\nconsecrated linen robes, and bearing thyrsi, ivy and certain things\nwhich I may not mention[216]\u201d; but M. Baillet has found a bronze statue\nof the Ptolemaic period in which Osiris is represented with grapes and a\nvine-shoot[217], and it is therefore unlikely that any identification of\nthe kind formed part of the secrets reserved for initiates[218].\n\nThis, therefore, seems to be all that can be usefully said about the\nsecret part of the worship of the Alexandrian gods. But the founders of\nthe cult must have always borne in mind that while in every religion\nthere are a few devotees who are prepared to go all lengths in theology\nor enquiry into the nature of their gods, the majority are attracted to\nit more from a vague desire to enter into amicable relations with the\nspiritual world than from any other feeling. Even with the Mysteries of\nEleusis, it is fairly certain that only a very small proportion of those\nwho attended the ceremonies really grasped the full meaning of what they\nsaw and heard. \u201cMany are the thyrsus-bearers,\u201d quotes Plato in this\nconnection, \u201cbut few are the mystes[219]\u201d; and it is plain that, as the\nTelesterion at Eleusis could at the outside accommodate three thousand\npersons, the greater part of the huge crowd in the Iacchos procession\nmust have come only to look on[220]. But even this more or less careless\nmultitude did much to spread the fame of the Eleusinian religion, while\nit was doubtless from their ranks in the first instance that the true\ninitiates were drawn. With this in view, the Alexandrian priests laid\nthemselves out to cater for the half-convinced crowd as well as for\ntheir real devotees, and did so with a success which put the Eleusinian\nMysteries entirely in the shade. In this, they were much helped by the\npractice of the native Egyptian temples in Pharaonic times which has\nbeen clearly set forth by M. Moret. Every day in every temple in Egypt\nthere seems to have been a solemn Service of Opening when the statue of\nthe god was taken from its resting-place, purified with incense,\ndressed, and anointed before the doors were opened, and the public, or\nperhaps only the king as representing mankind in general, were admitted\nto adore the god[221]. This practice was copied with great fidelity in\nthe worship of the Alexandrian gods, and \u201cthe morning opening of the\ntemple\u201d (_templi matutinas apertiones_) became an elaborate ceremony in\nwhich the white curtains which hid the statue of Isis from the gaze of\nthe worshippers were drawn back (_velis candentibus reductis_), and it\nwas displayed blazing with actual robes, gems, and ornaments, like a\nMadonna in Southern Europe at the present day[222]. We also learn from\nApuleius that prayers to the goddess were offered at the same time,\nwhile one of the priests made the circuit of the different altars within\nthe temple, pouring before each of them a libation of Nile water, and\n\u201cthe beginning of the First Hour\u201d was solemnly proclaimed, with chants\nand shouts which have been compared to the muezzin of the Mahommedans,\nbut which more probably resembled the choral singing of a morning hymn\nby the assembled congregation[223]. We know also from a casual allusion\nin one of Martial\u2019s Epigrams, that the eighth hour was also celebrated\nby a chant of the priests, and it seems likely that this announced the\nclosing of the temple to the profane, and was attended by similar\nsolemnities to those of the opening[224]. But it is abundantly plain\nthat between these hours the temple remained open for what may be called\nprivate worship, and that this took the form of meditation or silent\nadoration before the statue of Isis. Apuleius\u2019 Lucius repeatedly speaks\nof the pleasure that he derived even before his initiation from the\nprolonged contemplation of the goddess\u2019s image[225], and the Roman poets\nare full of allusions to the devout who passed much of their time seated\nbefore her statue on benches, the place of which is clearly marked out\nin Isiac temples like that of Pompeii[226]. That such \u201cmeditations\u201d were\nthought to have in them a saving grace is apparent from a passage in\nOvid, where he tells us that he had seen one who had offended \u201cthe\ndivinity of the linen-clad Isis\u201d sitting before her altar[227], and it\nalso seems to have been part of the necessary preparation for those who\nsought initiation. When we consider that the Eleusinian festivals were\ncelebrated at the most but twice a year, and then only in one part of\nGreece, we see how greatly the daily services and frequentation of the\ntemples in nearly every large town in the West must have operated in\ndrawing to the Alexandrian worship the devotion of the citizens.\n\nIn addition to these, however, there were far more elaborate ceremonies\nof which we obtain a passing glimpse. At Herculaneum, were found early\nin last century two mural frescoes portraying scenes in the worship of\nIsis, and of an Isis who, from the style of the paintings and the place\nwhere they were found, can be no other than the Alexandrian goddess. One\nof these, now in the Museum at Naples, shows a temple surrounded by\ntrees, the porch of which is approached by a staircase and is guarded by\ntwo sphinxes[228]. Before the door and at the head of the stairs stands\na priest with the shaven crown of the Alexandrian priesthood, holding\nwith both hands an urn breast-high, while behind him are two others, one\nof whom (probably a woman) is completely clothed, wears long hair, and\nshakes a sistrum, while the other is naked to the waist and has his head\nshaved like the central figure. At the foot of the staircase is another\npriest bearing a sistrum in his left hand and a sort of pointed baton or\nhiltless sword in his right[229], with which he seems to be commanding a\nbody of persons of both sexes, who from the shaven crowns of the men are\nevidently a congregation or college of initiates, and are ranged in two\nrows upon the steps. In the foreground are three altars, the middle one\nwith a fire burning on it, which an attendant is fanning, while on the\nright of this is a flute-player seated on the ground, having in front of\nhim a priest with a wand like that before described in either hand, and\non the left a man and a woman shaking sistra. The scene evidently\nrepresents a religious service of some kind, and this may possibly be,\nas M. Lafaye suggests, the Adoration of the Sacred Water or water of the\nNile, which as Plutarch and Apuleius both hint, was considered the\nemblem of Osiris[230]. If so, we may further suppose that the initiates\nare here singing antiphonally, or in two choirs, the hymn to Serapis, a\nparticular air on the flute being, as we shall see, sacred to that god.\nThe other fresco shows a temple porch like its fellow, although the\nsteps leading up to it are fewer in number and the two sphinxes on\neither side of the opening are here replaced by two Doric pillars\nornamented with garlands. The central figure is a bearded man of black\ncomplexion, crowned with the lotus and a chaplet of leaves. One hand\nrests on his hip, and the other is raised in the air, which attitude,\nperhaps from its likeness to that of the statue known as the Dancing\nFaun, has given rise to the idea that it is a sacred dance which is here\nrepresented[231]. Behind this figure are two women, one of whom plays a\ntympanum or tambourine, two children, and a priest or initiate with\nshaven crown, sistrum in hand, and naked to the waist. In the foreground\nis the altar seen in the other fresco, with a flame rising from it, and\nstanding to the right of it a priest with a sistrum and another musical\ninstrument in his hands, a flute-player, a child, a kneeling man, a\nwoman clothed in a long garment and bearing, besides the sistrum, a\npalm-branch, and other worshippers. On the left is a priest with a\nsistrum, a child bearing in one hand a basket and in the other a small\nurn, while a woman crowned with leaves, with a sistrum and a dish filled\nwith fruits, kneels at the head of the steps. From the black complexion\nof the principal figure, M. Lafaye considers that he may represent\nOsiris himself and that he is here shown at the moment of resurrection,\na scene which he considers, not without reason, may have formed the\nconcluding act in one of the sacred dramas or mystery-plays undoubtedly\nassociated with the worship of the god. If so, it is unlikely that it\nformed part of the initiation into the Mysteries, the particulars of\nwhich were carefully concealed from the profane and would hardly have\nbeen painted on the walls of temples or dwelling-houses. It seems more\nprobable that the scene in question, whatever be its meaning, was acted\nin pantomime in, or rather before, the temple at a particular period of\nthe year, that the uninitiated were allowed to be present at it as well\nas at the Adoration of the Sacred Water, and that these two therefore\nwere familiar and attractive objects to the populace throughout the\nRoman world.\n\nThat the Passion\u2014as it was distinctly called\u2014and Resurrection of Osiris\nwere yearly and openly celebrated by the worshippers of the Alexandrian\ngods with alternate demonstrations of grief and joy, the classical poets\nhave put beyond doubt. The celebration took place in the month of\nNovember and began with a ten-day fast on the part of all the faithful\nwhich was often spent in the temples. Then followed the representation\nof the passion of and the seeking for Osiris, and its result, which a\nChristian writer of the IIIrd century A.D.[232] thus sums up:\n\n    \u201cYou behold the swallow[233] and the cymbal of Isis, and the tomb of\n    your Serapis or Osiris empty, with his limbs scattered about....\n    Isis bewails, laments and seeks after her lost son[234], with her\n    Cynocephalus[235] and her bald-headed priests; and the wretched\n    worshippers of Isis beat their breasts, and imitate the grief of the\n    most unhappy mother. By and by, when the little boy is found, Isis\n    rejoices, and the priests exult. Cynocephalus the discoverer boasts,\n    and they do not cease year by year either to lose what they find, or\n    to find what they lose.\u201d\n\n\u201cThese,\u201d he says, \u201cwere formerly Egyptian rites, and now are Roman\nones\u201d; and it is plain that all the incidents of which he speaks were\nperfectly familiar to the Roman people. Juvenal[236] speaks of the\nbald-headed multitude uttering lamentations and running to and fro, and\nof their exultant cries when Osiris is found; and the banquets in the\ntemples and great festivals and public games which celebrated the\n\u201cFinding of Osiris\u201d when the Alexandrian worship was recognized by the\nstate must have made the recurrence of this chief festival of the\nAlexandrian religion familiar to every one[237].\n\nHow many lesser festivals than these formed part of its public\nceremonial we do not know, but they were probably numerous enough. The\nRoman calendars tell us of a festival of Isis Pharia, probably in her\ncapacity of tutelary goddess of Alexandria, and of another of Serapis,\nboth in the month of April, while Plutarch speaks of the Birth of Horus\ncelebrated, as was natural with a sun-god, after the vernal equinox,\nwhen nature awakens and the sun begins to show forth his power. But\nthere was another spring festival which took place on the 5th of\nMarch[238] to mark the reopening of navigation and commerce after the\ndeparture of winter, in which the faithful went in procession to the sea\n(or probably in its absence to the nearest water), and there set afloat\na new ship filled with offerings which was known as the vessel of Isis.\nApuleius has left us a description of this festival at once so lively\nand so imbued with the spirit of the devout Isiacist, that it may be\npardonable to quote from it at some length. The procession, which in the\ncase he is describing sets forth at dawn from the gates of Cenchreae the\neastern port of Corinth, is heralded by a carnival in which burlesque\nrepresentations of magistrates, gladiators, hunters, and fishermen\njostle with caricatures of ancient Greek heroes and demigods like\nBellerophon and Ganymede. After this had dispersed, \u201cthe procession\nproper of the Saviour Goddess,\u201d he says, set itself in motion, and may\nbe described in his own words[239]:\n\n    \u201cWomen shining in white garments displayed their joy by divers\n    gestures, and crowned with spring blossoms strewed from their laps\n    flowers upon the road over which marched the holy throng. Others,\n    with glittering mirrors held behind them, showed to the advancing\n    Goddess their ready service. Others, who bore ivory combs, by the\n    motion of their arms and the twining of their fingers represented\n    the combing of her royal hair, while yet others sprinkled the ways\n    with drops of sweet-smelling balsam and other unguents. A great\n    crowd also of both sexes followed with lamps, torches, candles and\n    other kinds of lights making propitious with light the source of the\n    heavenly stars. Thereafter came gentle harmonies, and reeds and\n    flutes sounded with sweetest modulations. A graceful choir of chosen\n    youths followed, shining in snowy dresses of ceremony and singing a\n    beautiful hymn which by grace of the Muses a skilful poet had set to\n    music, although its theme recalled the prayers of our forefathers.\n    Then came flute-players consecrated to the great Serapis, who on the\n    slanted reed held under the right ear, repeated the air usual in the\n    temple of the God, in order that everyone might be warned to make\n    room for the passage of the holy things. Then pressed on the\n    multitude of those who had been initiated into the divine mysteries,\n    both men and women of every rank and age, shining in the pure\n    whiteness of their linen robes, the women with hair moist with\n    perfume and covered with a transparent veil, the men with closely\n    shaven hair and glistening heads. Earthly stars of the great\n    religion were these, who made a shrill tinkling with brazen silver\n    or even gold sistra. Then came the priests of the holy things, those\n    distinguished men who, tightly swathed in white linen from the\n    breast-girdle to the feet, displayed to view the noble emblems of\n    the most mighty God. The first held forth a lamp shining with clear\n    light, not exactly resembling those which give light to nocturnal\n    banquets, but in the form of a golden boat and emitting a broader\n    flame through its central opening. The second, clothed in the same\n    way as the first, carried in his two hands the little altars, _i.e._\n    the _auxilia_ to which the helping foresight of the high Goddess has\n    given a peculiar name. The third bore a palm-tree with tiny golden\n    leaves, and likewise the _caduceus_ of Mercury. The fourth exhibited\n    the emblem of Equity, a left hand represented with outstretched\n    palm, which from its inborn disinclination to work, and as being\n    endowed with neither skill nor expertness, seems better suited to\n    typify Equity than the right. He also bore a golden vase in the\n    rounded shape of a female breast, from which he poured libations of\n    milk. The fifth carried a winnowing-fan composed of golden wires,\n    and yet another an amphora.\n\n    \u201cWithout interval, the Gods who have deigned to walk with the feet\n    of men go forward. Here\u2014dread sight!\u2014is he who is the messenger\n    between the supernal and the infernal deities. Upright, of a\n    complexion black in some parts, golden in others, Anubis raises on\n    high his dog\u2019s head, bearing in his left hand the _caduceus_, and\n    shaking in his right the budding palm-branch[240]. Close upon his\n    footsteps, follows a cow, held on high in an erect posture\u2014the cow,\n    fertile image of the Goddess who brings forth all things\u2014which one\n    of the blessed ministry with pantomimic steps bears seated on his\n    shoulders. The chest containing the mysteries was carried by\n    another, thus wholly concealing the hidden things of the sublime\n    religion[241]. Yet another bore within his happy bosom the revered\n    likeness of the Supreme Divinity, resembling neither a domestic\n    animal, nor bird, nor wild beast, nor even man himself; but yet to\n    be revered in the highest degree alike for its skilful invention,\n    and for its very novelty, and also as that unspeakable evidence of\n    the religion which should be veiled in complete silence. As to its\n    outward form, it was fashioned in glittering gold\u2014an urn hollowed\n    out with perfected art with a round base and carved externally with\n    the marvellous images of the Egyptians. Its mouth was not much\n    raised and jutted forth in an extended spout with a wide stream;\n    while on the opposite side was attached the handle bent far out with\n    a wide sweep, on which sate an asp in wreathed folds uplifting the\n    swollen stripes of his scaly neck.\u201d\n\nThis description will leave little doubt on the mind of the reader as to\nthe supreme importance in the religion of the urn which is being held up\nfor the adoration of the faithful in the fresco from Herculaneum before\ndescribed; and this is borne out by a bas-relief in the Vatican in which\na similar urn to that described by Apuleius is represented as being\ncarried in procession[242]. \u201cThey say,\u201d says Hippolytus speaking of the\nworshippers of Isis, \u201cthat Osiris is water,\u201d and Celsus, according to\nOrigen, confirms him in this[243]. According to this last, Isis\nrepresented the earth, and the doctrine may therefore be an allegory\nrepresenting the fertilization of the land by the Nile. It is more\nlikely, however, that it is to be attributed to one of the older\ncosmogonies current in Egypt, wherein water, personified by the god Nu,\nis the origin of everything[244]. The main point to note for our present\npurpose is that an urn or vase containing liquid, was, in the public\nceremonies of the Alexandrian religion, the recognized symbol of the\nSupreme Being.\n\nApuleius next describes the procession as having reached the seashore\nwhere the images of the gods were arranged in order[245]:\n\n    \u201cThen the Chief Priest, pouring forth with chaste mouth the most\n    solemn prayers, consecrated and dedicated to the goddess, after\n    having thoroughly purified it with a lighted torch, an egg, and some\n    sulphur, a ship made with the highest art and painted all over with\n    the wonderful pictures of the Egyptians. The shining sail of this\n    blessed bark had the words of a prayer woven in it; and these words\n    reiterated the petition that the navigation then commencing might be\n    prosperous. And now the mast was stepped, a round piece of pine,\n    lofty and smooth, and conspicuous from the handsome appearance of\n    its truck, and the poop with its twisted goose-neck shone covered\n    with gold-leaf, while the whole hulk was gay with polished citron\n    wood. Then all the people, both the religious and the profane,\n    heaped emulously together winnowing-fans laden with spices and such\n    like offerings, and poured upon them crumbled cakes made with milk,\n    until the ship, filled with magnificent gifts offered in fulfilment\n    of vows, was loosed from its moorings and put to sea with a gentle\n    breeze that seemed to spring up on purpose. After her course became\n    indistinct to us by reason of the distance that she was from our\n    eyes, the bearers of the holy things again took up each his own\n    load, and joyfully returned to the fane in the same solemn\n    procession as before. But when we arrived at the temple, the Chief\n    Priest and the bearers of the divine effigies, and those who have\n    been already initiated into the ever to be revered secrets, entering\n    into the chamber of the Goddess put away the breathing images with\n    due ceremony. Then one of them, whom men call the Scribe, standing\n    before the doors and having called together as if for a discourse\n    the company of the Pastophori[246]\u2014which is the name of this\n    sacrosanct college\u2014forthwith recited from a lofty pulpit prayers\n    written in a book for the Great Prince, the Senate, the Equestrian\n    Order, and the whole Roman people, their sailors and ships, and all\n    who are under the sway of our native land, and then closed the\n    address according to the Greek rite thus: \u2018Let the people\n    depart[247].\u2019 Which announcement was followed by a shout of the\n    people showing that it was favourably received by all. Then the\n    multitude, rejoicing exceedingly and bearing olive-branches,\n    laurel-twigs, and chaplets, after having kissed the feet of a statue\n    of the goddess fashioned in silver which stood on steps [within the\n    porch?], departed to their own homes.\u201d\n\nWhat most strikes one in this account by an eye-witness, which must have\nbeen written about the year 170 A.D., is the entirely modern tone of it\nall. In the scene that passes under Lucius\u2019 eyes, there is hardly\nanything that might not be seen at an Italian _festa_ at the present\nday. The joyous crowd, respectful rather than devout, and not above\nintroducing a comic or rather a burlesque element into the day\u2019s\nrejoicing, the images and sacred vessels carried solemnly along, the\ncrowd of tonsured priests, and the chants and hymns sung in chorus, the\nreturn to the temple, with its prayers for Church and State, and its\ndismissal of the people\u2014all these are paralleled every day in countries\nwhere the Catholic Church is still dominant. Not less modern, too, is\nthe way in which Lucius alludes to the faith of which all these things\nillustrate the power. For him, there is no other god than Isis\u2014\u201cthou who\nart all[248],\u201d as one of her votaries calls her on his tombstone, in\nwhom \u201csingle in essence, though with many names[249],\u201d all other gods\nare contained. Hence, he can think of no other religion than her\nworship. It is always with him \u201cthe holy\u201d or \u201cthe sublime religion,\u201d and\nthe goddess is she whom the whole earth adores. It is she in whom one\ncan trust not only for happiness beyond the tomb, but for present help\nin all the troubles of this life, and to devote oneself to her service,\nto thoroughly learn, to understand her nature, is the proudest lot which\ncan befall man while upon earth. Hence all her initiates were \u201cearthly\nstars,\u201d her priests were all happy or blessed in that they were allowed\nto be near and even to carry and handle the divine images, and the\nreligion was a real bond which united people of all ranks and ages. We\nfeel that we have here got a very long way from the time when the power\nof each god was supposed to be limited to the small space surrounding\nhis sanctuary.\n\nThat this change had been brought about by the work of the Isiac\npriesthood, there can be little doubt. Between the foundation of the\nAlexandrian religion by Ptolemy and the date at which Apuleius wrote, a\nspace of five centuries elapsed, and this must have seen many changes in\nthe constitution of what may be called the Isiac Church. The Greeks\nalways set their faces against anything like a priestly caste set apart\nfrom the rest of the community, and the priests of the Hellenic gods\nwere for the most part elected, like modern mayors of towns, for a short\nterm only, after which they fell back into the ranks of the laity with\nas little difficulty as do municipal officers at the present day. The\nEleusinian Mysteries were indeed committed to certain families in whom\ntheir priesthood was hereditary; but no professional barriers existed\nbetween these families and the rest of the citizens; and we find\nCallias, the \u201ctorch-bearer\u201d and one of the highest officials at the\nMysteries, not only fighting in the ranks at Marathon, but\ndistinguishing himself by his \u201ccruelty and injustice\u201d in retaining an\nunfair share of the plunder for himself[250]. The Eumolpidae and\nLycomidae of Eleusis, also, were probably maintained not by any\ncontribution from the state, but by the revenues of the temple lands and\nby the fee of a few obols levied from each initiate. But the Alexandrian\nChurch in Egypt must from the first have been endowed and probably\nestablished as well. To judge from the analogous case of the dynastic\ncult or worship of the sovereign, which Ptolemy Soter set up, the\n\u201csublime religion\u201d was in its native Egypt maintained by a tax on the\nrevenues of those _wakf_ or temple lands held in mortmain with which the\nnative gods of Egypt were so richly provided from the earliest times.\nWhen the Alexandrian religion became a missionary faith and established\nitself in Athens and other parts of the Hellenic world, it no doubt\ndepended in the first instance on the voluntary contributions of the\nassociations of Sarapiasts or Isiaci founded for its maintenance. But we\nmay be sure that politic princes like the first three Ptolemies, who\nwere besides the richest and most opulent of all the Successors of\nAlexander, did not let these outposts of their empire languish for lack\nof funds, and we may guess that the subscriptions of their members were\nsupplemented in case of need by large donations from the King of Egypt\nor from those who wished to stand well with him. When the faith passed\ninto Western Europe and into territories directly under Roman sway, it\nhad already attained such fame that a large entrance-fee could be\ndemanded from the initiates, and Apuleius tells us more than once that\nthe amount of this was in every case fixed by a special revelation of\nthe goddess, and was no doubt only limited by the length of the\naspirant\u2019s purse and the strength of his vocation[251]. Like other Greek\npriests of the time, also, the ministers of the Alexandrian religion\nfound a way of adding to their income by the practice of divination or\nforetelling the future, and the oracle of Serapis at Alexandria soon\nbecame as celebrated in the Hellenistic world as that of Delphi. There\nwere probably more ways than one of consulting this; but the one which\nseems to have been specially its own, and which afterwards spread from\nEgypt into all the temples of the faith in other countries, was by the\npractice of _incubatio_ which meant sleeping either personally or by\ndeputy in the precinct of the god until the consultant had a dream in\nwhich the god\u2019s answer was declared. Such a practice seems to date from\nthe dream sent to Ptolemy Soter at the foundation of the religion, and\ndoubtless formed a great source of revenue to its priesthood[252]. The\nhighest personages in the Roman Empire deigned to resort to it, and\nVespasian was vouchsafed a divine vision in the temple of Serapis when\nhe consulted the god about \u201cthe affairs of the Empire[253].\u201d Not\nunconnected with this were the miraculous cures with which Serapis,\noriginally perhaps by confusion with Asklepios the Greek god of\nhealing[254], was credited. The sick man was given a room in the temple\nprecincts, where he doubtless lived the regular and orderly life of a\nmodern hospital, and before long dreamed of a remedy for the malady on\nwhich his thoughts were concentrated. As the mind sometimes influences\nthe body, and a belief in the healing power of the medicine is often of\nmore importance than its nature, he very often recovered, and was no\ndoubt expected to be generous in his offerings to the god who had\nintervened in his cure. Nor were worse means of raising money unknown to\nthe Alexandrian priests, unless they have been greatly belied. They are\nsaid to have acted as panders and procurers for the rich, and it was the\nseduction of a noble Roman lady by a lover who assumed the garb of the\ngod Anubis which led to their expulsion from the Pomoerium under\nTiberius[255]. Astrology, too, which depended entirely on mathematical\ncalculations and tables, was peculiarly an Alexandrian art, and the same\nManetho who had been one of the persons consulted at the founding of the\nAlexandrian religion was said to have taught its principles to the\nGreeks. Whether this be so or not, it is certain that in Ovid\u2019s time the\nAlexandrian priests used to beg in the streets of Rome after the fashion\nof the Buddhist monks from whom they may have indirectly borrowed the\npractice, and that it was thought \u201cunlucky\u201d to reject their\nimportunities[256].\n\nIt is plain, however, that, by the time Apuleius wrote, the necessity\nfor any such shifts had passed away. The Alexandrian religion had then\nbecome a state religion, and was served by a fully organized and\npowerful priesthood. As there were not less than seven temples of Isis\nin Rome itself, the number of the Roman faithful must have been very\nconsiderable, and on their offerings and the gifts of the state, a large\nstaff of priests was maintained. We hear not only of a high priest in\neach temple to whom all the lesser ministers of the cult were apparently\nsubject[257], but of hierophants, scribes, stolists or wardrobe-keepers,\nsinging-men and singing-women, and a host of subordinate functionaries\ndown to the _neocoros_ or temple-sweeper and the _cliduchos_ or guardian\nof the keys. Women as well as men were eligible for some of these\noffices, and the inscriptions tell us of a female _oneirocrites_ or\ninterpreter of dreams and of several _canephorae_ or carriers of the\nsacred basket, besides many priestesses whose functions are not\ndefined[258]. The high priest and the more important officers lived in\nthe temple and probably devoted their whole time to its service[259];\nbut the lesser offices seem to have been capable of being held\nconcurrently with lay occupations, like that of the churchwardens at the\npresent day. But one and all were devoted to the faith and its\npropagation, and formed in the words of Apuleius \u201ca sacred soldiery\u201d for\nits extension and defence. It is probable that they were all drawn in\nthe first instance from the ranks of the initiates only.\n\nThese were what may be called the secular clergy of the Alexandrian\nChurch; but there was in addition a body of devotees attached to it\nwhose mode of life singularly reminds us of that afterwards adopted by\nthe Christian monks. A lucky chance has revealed to us some fragments of\npapyrus found on the site of the Serapeum at Memphis, which contain\namong other things the petitions of a Macedonian named Ptolemy the son\nof Glaucias to King Ptolemy VI Philometor about the year 166 B.C.[260]\nFrom these it is evident that there were at that time a body of recluses\nlodged in the Serapeum who were vowed to a seclusion so complete that\nthey might not stir forth from their cells under any pretence, and when\nthe king visited Memphis he had to speak with his namesake and\npetitioner through the window of the latter\u2019s chamber. These recluses\nwere in some way devoted to the service of the god, and their stay in\nthe temple was to all appearance voluntary, although in Ptolemy\u2019s case,\nit had at the time he wrote lasted already fifteen years. He does not\nseem to have been driven to this by poverty, as he speaks of a\nconsiderable property left him by his father; and as the object of his\npetitions is to champion the rights of two priestesses of Serapis who\nhad been wrongfully deprived of their dues of bread and oil by the\nofficials of the temple, he seems to have been in some sort given to the\nperformance of \u201cgood works.\u201d How he otherwise occupied his time, and\nwhether his title or description of \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 implied any connection with\nthe oracle of Serapis is still a disputed point. Yet the correspondence\nin which his name appears shows clearly the existence within the\nSerapeum of a large population of both men and women living at the\nexpense of the temple revenues, some of whom took part in the ritual of\nthe services there celebrated, while others were fixed by their own vows\nin the strictest seclusion. Whichever way the controversy alluded to\nabove is decided, it seems plain that there is here a parallel between\nthe practice of the Catholic Church with its division of the clergy into\nregular and secular and the Alexandrian religion, which until the\ndiscovery of the papyri some fifty years ago was entirely unsuspected.\n\nIt has been said above that the Alexandrian religion reached its apogee\nin the time of the Antonines. How it came to decline in power cannot be\ntraced with great exactness, but it seems probable that it only lost its\nhold on the common people from the greater attractions presented by\nother religions competing with it for the popular favour. Other cults\nbegan to press in from the East, including the worship of Mithras, which\nin the time of Diocletian finally supplanted it in the favour of the\nstate, and acquired perhaps a stronger hold on the army from reasons to\nbe examined in detail when we come to deal with the Mithraic religion.\nBut the rise of Christianity is in itself sufficient to account for its\ndecline in popularity among the lower classes of the Empire. To them the\nCatholic Church, purged and strengthened by a sporadic and intermittent\npersecution, offered advantages that the Alexandrian religion could\nnever give. In this last, the possession of wealth must always have\nassured its possessor a disproportionate rank in the religion, and\nwithout the expenditure of a large sum of money, it was impossible, as\nwe have seen, to arrive at its most cherished secrets. Nor do we find in\nany of the few documents of the faith that have come down to us any\nparallel to that wide and all-embracing spirit of charity which in its\nearly days made the Christian Church a kind of mutual benefit society\nfor all who were willing to enter into her fold. To the poorest as to\nthe wealthiest, the Catholic Church, too, always held out the promises\nof a faith to be understood by all and free from the mystery with which\nthe cardinal doctrines of the Alexandrians were shrouded from all but\nthe highest initiates. Its promises of happiness beyond the grave also\nwere extended to even the most degraded, and the fulfilment of them was\ntaught to be dependent on conduct within the reach of even the pauper or\nthe repentant criminal rather than on the long, difficult and expensive\ncourse of instruction which its rival demanded. Nor were more material\ninducements neglected. The highest offices within the Church were open\nto the lowest of its members, and it was quite possible for a slave or a\nfreedman to ascend the chair of Peter, there to negotiate on equal terms\nwith emperors and proconsuls. Unlike the religions of the ancient world\nwhich were first converted by Alexander\u2019s conquests from national into\nuniversal cults, the Christian religion was from its foundation\norganized on the democratic lines laid down in the text: \u201cHe that is\ngreatest among you shall be your servant[261].\u201d Moreover, the\npredictions of the Christian missionaries as to the immediate coming of\nthe Second Advent began to spread among the masses outside the Church,\nand found a soil ready to receive them in the minds of superstitious men\ntrampled on by the rich, harried by the tax-gatherers, and torn this way\nand that by constant insurrections and civil wars stirred up, not by the\nRoman mob (kept quiet as it was with State doles) but by its too\nambitious masters. Quite apart from the spiritual comfort that it\nbrought to many, and from the greater unity and simplicity of its\ndoctrines, we can hardly wonder that the proletariat everywhere turned\neagerly to the new faith.\n\nThe effect of this upon the Alexandrian religion must have been fatal.\nUnfortunately the destruction of pagan literature has been so great that\nwe know hardly anything about its decline from the mouths of its\nadherents[262]. What we are able to perceive is that the persons who\nadhered to the Alexandrian faith after the time of the Antonines\ngenerally practised many other religions as well. Alexander Severus had\nin his palace a _lararium_ or private chapel in which, like most of the\nlater Roman emperors, he placed statues of the gods whose worship he\nparticularly affected. We find there Serapis and Isis, indeed, but\nsurrounded with a great crowd of other divinities together with the\nimages of philosophers like Socrates and Apollonius of Tyana, and\u2014if the\nAugustan History is to be believed\u2014that of the Founder of Christianity\nHimself[263]. So, too, the funeral inscription of Ulpius Egnatius\nFaventinus, an augur of high rank who flourished in the reign of Valens\nand Valentinian, records that the dead nobleman was a priest of Isis,\nbut a hierophant of Hecate, a hieroceryx of Mithras, and a \u201cchief\nHerdsman\u201d of Bacchus as well. So, again, Fabia Aeonia Paullina, wife of\nVettius Praetextatus, a Prefect and Consul Designate of about the same\nperiod, describes herself on her tombstone as consecrated at Eleusis to\nDionysos, Demeter, and Persephone, and a hierophantis of Hecate, but\nmerely a worshipper of Isis[264]. We see here a great change from the\nexclusive fervour of Apuleius\u2019 Lucius, who thinks it only just that Isis\nshould require him to devote his whole life to her service.\n\nBut a violent end was soon to be put even to the public exercise of the\nAlexandrian religion. The conversion of Constantine had left it\nunharmed, and we find Julian writing to the Alexandrians during his\nbrief reign as if the supremacy of their religion in Egypt\u2019s capital at\nany rate was assured[265]. But under Theodosius, an order was obtained\nfrom the Emperor for the demolition of the \u201cheathen\u201d temples at\nAlexandria, and Theophilus, \u201cthe perpetual enemy of peace and\nvirtue[266],\u201d who was bishop of the city at the time, was not the man to\nallow the decree to remain a dead letter. According to the\necclesiastical historians[267], he began operations on the temple of\nDionysos, which he converted into a Christian church. In the course of\ndoing so, he professed to have discovered certain emblems of virility\nwhich seem to have been used in the Mysteries to illustrate the legend\nof the Diaspasm or tearing in pieces of the god, and these he had\nparaded through the city as evidence of what the heathens, according to\nhim, worshipped in secret. The same emblems were also used in the\nworship of Isis, where they probably were shown to initiates as\nexplaining the loss of the generative power by Osiris after his death\nand passion[268]. Hence their profanation was in the highest degree\noffensive to the last adherents of the Alexandrian religion, who, few in\nnumber but formidable from their position and influence, threw\nthemselves into the world-famed Serapeum and determined to resist the\ndecree by force of arms. The Christian mob of Alexandria, hounded on by\nthe bishop and his monks, assaulted the temple which the philosopher\nOlympius and his followers had converted into a temporary fortress, and\nmany attacks were repulsed with loss of life to the besiegers. At\nlength, a truce having been negotiated until the Emperor could be\ncommunicated with, a fresh decree was obtained in which the defenders of\nthe temple were promised a pardon for their share in the riot, if the\nSerapeum were quietly given up to the authorities. This offer was\naccepted, and Theophilus had the pleasure of seeing Bryaxis\u2019 colossal\nstatue of Serapis demolished under his own eyes without the event being\nfollowed by the predicted earthquake and other catastrophes which we are\ntold the Christians as well as the heathens confidently expected. The\nmagnificent Serapeum with all its wealth of statues and works of art was\ndestroyed, and a church dedicated to the Emperor Arcadius was afterwards\nerected on its site.\n\nThus in the year 391, the chief seat and place of origin of the\nAlexandrian religion was laid waste, and the religion itself perished\nafter a successful reign of seven centuries. Ecclesiastical writers say\nthat this was followed by the conversion of several of the \u201cHellenists\u201d\nor adherents of the worship of Serapis and Isis to Christianity[269],\nand there seems every likelihood that the story is founded on fact. Is\nthis the reason why we find so many of the external usages of\nIsis-worship preserved in or revived by the Catholic Church? Macaulay,\nin speaking of the contest between Catholicism and Protestantism at the\nReformation compares it to the fight between Hamlet and Laertes where\nthe combatants change weapons. The comparative study of religions shows\nthat the phenomenon is more widespread than he thought, and that when\none religion finally supplants another, it generally takes over from its\npredecessor such of its usages as seem harmless or praiseworthy. The\ntraditional policy of the Catholic Church in this respect was declared\nby Saint Gregory the Great, when he told the apostle to the Saxon\nheathens that such of their religious and traditional observances as\ncould by any means be harmonized with orthodox Christianity were not to\nbe interfered with[270], and this was probably the policy pursued with\nregard to the converts from the worship of Serapis. Gibbon[271] has\npainted for us in a celebrated passage the astonishment which \u201ca\nTertullian or a Lactantius\u201d would have felt could he have been raised\nfrom the dead to witness the festival of some popular saint or martyr in\na Christian church at the end of the fifth century. The incense, the\nflowers, the lights, and the adoration of the relics of the saint would\nall, we are told, have moved his indignation as the appanage of\nheathenism. Yet none of these things would have been found in a temple\nlike that of Delphi, where probably no more than one worshipper or\nsacred embassy penetrated at a time, and where nothing like\ncongregational worship was known. It was, however, the mode of worship\nto which the Hellenistic world had become daily accustomed during the\nseven centuries that the Alexandrian religion had endured, and it is not\nto be wondered at that the converts brought it with them into their new\nfaith. The worship of the Virgin as the Theotokos or Mother of God which\nwas introduced into the Catholic Church about the time of the\ndestruction of the Serapeum, enabled the devotees of Isis to continue\nunchecked their worship of the mother goddess by merely changing the\nname of the object of their adoration, and Prof. Drexler gives a long\nlist of the statues of Isis which thereafter were used, sometimes with\nunaltered attributes, as those of the Virgin Mary[272]. The general use\nof images, the suspension in the churches of _ex voto_ representations\nof different parts of the human body in gratitude for miraculous cures\nof maladies[273], and the ceremonial burning of candles, may also be\ntraced to the same source; while the institution of monachism which had\ntaken a great hold on Christian Egypt, is now generally attributed to St\nPachomius, who had actually been in his youth a recluse of Serapis[274].\nProf. Bury, who thinks the action of the earlier faith upon the later in\nthis respect undeniable, would also attribute the tonsure of the\nCatholic priesthood to a reminiscence of the shaven crowns of the\ninitiates of Isis, to which we may perhaps add the covering of women\u2019s\nheads in churches[275].\n\nThese instances are for the most part fairly well known, and some have\nbeen made use of in controversy between Protestants and Catholics; but\nit is probable that there were also many resemblances between the\nexternal usages of the two faiths which would, when they flourished side\nby side, strike even the superficial observer, but the traces of which\nare now well nigh lost[276]. \u201cThose who worship Serapis are Christians,\nand those who call themselves bishops of Christ are vowed to Serapis,\u201d\nwrote the Emperor Hadrian[277] from Alexandria on his visit there in\nA.D. 124, and this would possibly explain the respectful and almost\nmournful tone in which, as Renan noted, the Christian Sibyl announces to\nSerapis and Isis the end of their reign[278]. It is not impossible that\nthe resemblance which thus deceived the Emperor was connected with the\ncelebration of the Eucharist among certain sects of Christians[279]. The\nAdoration of the Sacred Water as the emblem of Osiris, which we have\nseen represented on the Herculaneum fresco, has many points in common\nwith the exhibition of the Sacrament of the Mass to the people, and it\nis possible that the words of consecration were not altogether different\nin the two cases. \u201cThou art wine, yet thou art not wine, but the members\nof Osiris,\u201d says a magic papyrus in the British Museum in the midst of\nan address to \u201cAsklepios of Memphis,\u201d the god Esculapius being one of\nthe gods with whom Serapis in his day of power was most often\nconfounded[280]. So, too, M. Revillout has published an _amatorium_ or\nlove-charm in which the magician says, \u201cMay this wine become the blood\nof Osiris[281].\u201d It is true he sees in it a blasphemous adaptation of\nthe Christian rite; but this is very unlikely. It has been shown\nelsewhere[282] that many\u2014perhaps all\u2014of the words used in the ceremonial\nmagic of the period are taken from the rituals of religions dying or\nextinct, and the papyrus, which dates somewhere about the IVth century\nA.D., may possibly have here preserved for us a fragment of the ritual\nin use in the Alexandrian temples. \u201cGive him, O Osiris, the cooling\nwater\u201d is the epitaph often written by the worshippers of Isis on the\ntombs of the dead[283], and it may seem that we have here a hint of\nmystic communion with the deity brought about by the drinking of his\nemblem.\n\nThe resemblances between the Alexandrian and the Christian religion thus\nsketched, refer, however, merely to matters which are either external or\nsuperficial, or which, like the worship of the Virgin, the use of images\nand relics, and the institution of monachism, could be abandoned, as was\nthe case at the German Reformation, without necessarily drawing with\nthem the repudiation of the cardinal tenets of Christianity. That the\nChristian Church owed at her inception any of her more fundamental\ndoctrines to the Alexandrian religion is not only without proof, but is\nin the highest degree unlikely. The Apostles and missionaries of the\nApostolic Age, living as they did in daily expectation of the return of\ntheir Risen Lord, had no need to go to an alien faith for the assertion\nof His divinity, of the truth of His resurrection, or of His power of\nsalvation; nor do the Fathers of the Ante-Nicene Church speak of Serapis\nand Isis as entitled to any peculiar reverence or as differing in any\nrespect from the other gods of the heathen. Whether the tenets of the\nAlexandrian religion may not have had some influence on the discussions\nwhich raged round the definition of the Divine nature and attributes at\nthe earlier Ecumenical and other Councils of the Church is another\nmatter. The conception of the Supreme Being as a triune god was a very\nold one in Egypt, and reappeared, as we have seen, unchanged in the\nworship of Serapis, Isis, and Horus. \u201cThus from one god I became three\ngods,\u201d says Osiris in his description of his self-creation in a papyrus\ndated twelve years after the death of Alexander[284]; and the\ndividing-line between the three persons of the Alexandrian triad is so\noften overstepped that it is plain that their more cultured worshippers\nat one time considered them as but varying forms of one godhead[285].\nHence, the Trinitarian formulas set out in the Creeds of Nicaea and of\nSt Athanasius would be less of a novelty to those familiar with the\nAlexandrian religion than to those brought up in the uncompromising\nmonotheism of the Jews. Too little is known of the steps by which the\nfull assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity was reached for any\ndiscussion of the matter to be here profitable[286]. The deepest\ninfluence that the Alexandrian religion exercised upon the Church was\nprobably not direct, but through those scattered and heretical sects\nwhich, although finally condemned and anathematized by her, yet ever\nacted as feeders by whom she obtained converts from among the heathen.\nTo these we may now turn our attention.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire des Lagides_, Paris, 1903, etc. t. I. p.\n  121. Dr Mahaffy, _Empire of the Ptolemies_, 1895, p. 11, thinks\n  differently, but the importance of the city to the present day is\n  against him.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op. cit._ t. I. p. 104. Cf. Mahaffy, _E.P._ p. 4.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  Droysen, _Hist. de l\u2019Hell\u00e9nisme_, t. II. p. 96; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op.\n  cit._ t. I. pp. 13, 14; Mahaffy, _E.P._ p. 25.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  As Demetrius the City-Taker, found to his cost. Cf. Mahaffy, _E.P._ p.\n  57.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 14; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op. cit._ I. p. 15.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 103.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lag._ I. pp. 24, 25.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  _Ibid._ I. p. 26.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ I. pp. 346, 699, 670. Cf. D. G. Hogarth, _Philip\n  and Alexander_, p. 144.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  As when they seized the throne of Egypt at the close of the XXth\n  Dynasty. So in Nubia in the time of the Ptolemies, the king was a mere\n  puppet in the hands of the priests, who used to send him word when\n  they thought that he had reigned long enough. For the story of\n  Ergamenes (Ark-amen), who put an end to their rule, see Diodorus\n  Siculus, III. 6. 3, or Budge, _History of Egypt_, 1899, vol. VIII. pp.\n  166 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  See Breasted, _History of Egypt_, New York, 1909, _passim_; cf. Budge,\n  _op. cit._\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Wiedemann, _The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the Immortality of the\n  Soul_, 1895, p. viii; Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ I. pp. 123, 167; _ibid._\n  II. p. 196, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, 1904, I. pp. 148, 149; Erman,\n  _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, 1906, p. 81.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Erman, _op. cit._ p. 188. The fusion of Osiris with Ptah and Seker was\n  a good deal older than the Saites. Cf. Wiedemann, _Religion of the\n  Ancient Egyptians_, 1897, pp. 134, 135; Budge, _Osiris and the\n  Egyptian Resurrection_, New York, 1911, I. p. 45.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, II. p. 196.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Budge, _G.E._ II. pp. 118, 156, 264. So Naville, _Journal of Egyptian\n  Archaeology_, 1914, pp. 7, 8. M. Maspero thinks Apuat was originally\n  god of Siut and only a temple-companion of Osiris at Abydos, _Rev.\n  Critique_, 1904, pt. 2, pp. 194, 195.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, New York, 1905, p.\n  53; Erman, _H.E.R._ pp. 56, 57; Naville, _The Old Egyptian Faith_,\n  1906, pp. 146, 147.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Essai sur le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, Paris, 1887, p. 144;\n  Budge, \u201cPapyrus of Nesi-Amsu,\u201d in _Archaeologia_, 1890, pt 2, p. 404;\n  Maspero, _The Dawn of Civilization_, 1894, pp. 172-174; Erman,\n  _H.E.R._ p. 32; Budge, _G.E._ II. p. 150. Manifest allusions to the\n  legend are to be found in the Pyramid Texts. Cf. Maspero, _Les\n  Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqarah_, Paris, 1894, pp. 105 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  This idea is treated at length in \u201cThe Legend of Osiris\u201d in the\n  _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1911, pp.\n  139-154. See also \u201cThe Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,\u201d _P.S.B.A._\n  1914, pp. 79 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  See \u201cThe Titles of the Thinite Kings\u201d in _P.S.B.A._ 1908, pp. 86-94,\n  121-128, 163-177.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  In Plutarch\u2019s time the Ethiopians had a queen called Candace as in\n  Acts viii. 27. Cf. Strabo, Bk XVII. c. 1, \u00a7 54. One wonders whether\n  Plutarch in speaking of Aso did not confuse this title with an epithet\n  of Thueris, the hippopotamus-goddess and wife of Set, who is called in\n  a late magical text \u201cThueris, the great of sorcery, cat of Ethiopia.\u201d\n  See Griffith and Thompson, _Stories of the High Priests of Memphis_,\n  Oxford, 1900, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  This is most clearly shown by M. Victor Loret in _L\u2019\u00c9gypte au Temps du\n  Tot\u00e9misme_, Paris, 1906, _passim_. Cf. the same author\u2019s articles in\n  _Rev. \u00c9gyptol._ 1902 and 1904.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See Chapter IV, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  See \u201cThe Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp.\n  94-98, for this culture god of the Eastern Mediterranean. The original\n  home of the myth was, possibly, Babylonia. Cf. \u201cLegend of Osiris\u201d in\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1911, quoted above.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  See the story of Ra and Isis, Budge, _G.E._ pp. 360 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  By far the best and most consistent account of the Eleusinian\n  Mysteries is that given by M. Paul Foucart in his three memoirs,\n  _Recherches sur l\u2019origine et la nature des Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis_, _Les\n  Grands Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis_, and _Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique_. All\n  these appeared in the _M\u00e9moires_ of the Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, tt.\n  XXXV. (1895), XXXVII. (1900), and XXXVIII. (1904) respectively.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  Foucart, _Les Grands Myst\u00e8res_, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Iacchos was identified with Dionysos at least as early as the time of\n  Sophocles. Cf. _Antigone_, ll. 1130 _sqq._, and Dyer, _The Gods in\n  Greece_, 1891, p. 133. Very likely, as M. Foucart suggests, he was\n  originally the personification of the cry repeated by the procession\n  of the initiated. See _Grds. Myst._ p. 122.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  It had an opening in the roof for this purpose. Foucart, _Grds. Myst._\n  p. 137.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  So Clement of Alexandria, _Protrepticus_, c. II. The scene of the Rape\n  is laid in many different places. The Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_ calls\n  it \u201cthe Mysian plain,\u201d meaning probably Mysia in Asia Minor. A\n  scholiast on Hesiod puts it in Sicily, Bacchylides in Crete, Orpheus\n  in \u201cthe parts about Ocean,\u201d Phanodemus in Attica, Demades in \u201cwoodland\n  glades.\u201d See Abel, _Orphica_, Fragm. 212, p. 239. Cf. Maury,\n  _Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique_, t. I. p. 479.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ p. 49; _id._ _Grds. Myst._ pp. 68, 69.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  M. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 55-60, will not allow that Iacchos\n  was ever identified with Dionysos and believes him to have been only\n  the genius that led the procession. Dyer, on the other hand (_op.\n  cit._ p. 128), makes Iacchos the young or second Dionysos born of\n  Semele. But Aristophanes, _Frogs_, l. 321, and Strabo, Bk X. c. 10 (p.\n  402 Didot), both give him a higher position in the Mysteries than M.\n  Foucart would assign to him, and the older opinion that he was the\n  child whose birth was there shown seems to hold good. Cf. Maury, _Rel.\n  de G. A._ t. II. p. 341, and Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk II. c. 16, \u00a7 3 (p.\n  50, Didot). So Stephani, _Compte Rendu de la Commission Imperiale\n  Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1859 (St Petersburg), p. 37, where monumental evidence\n  is given in its support. Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des\n  Antiquit\u00e9s_, _s.v._ Eleusinia (by F. Lenormant); Clem. Alex.\n  _Protrept._ c. II.; Libanius, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, vol. I. pp. 447, 448\n  (Reiske).\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ p. 66.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 1, p. 171, Cruice. The whole\n  drama is described by Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ pp. 43-74 q.v.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Livy, XXXI. 14. Cf. Foucart, _Grds. Myst._ p. 94. They betrayed\n  themselves by asking questions which showed they had not been\n  initiated. Hence the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac or sacred objects could hardly have been\n  statues, as some have thought.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ p. 68; Stephen of Byzantium in Hesychius,\n  _Etymologium Magnum_, _s.v._ \u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce Ant._\n  II. p. 324. All that Stephen says is that here was acted a pantomime\n  (\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1) of the things that happened to Dionysos.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  All these ceremonies of the Anthesteria are reconstructed and\n  described by M. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 107-163. That the\n  tearing in pieces of Dionysos and the consequent origin of man was\n  taught in the Little Mysteries seems to follow from Pindar\u2019s words\n  (_Threnoi_ Frag. X. 7, p. 102, Cod. B\u00f6.) that those who have been\n  initiated have seen \u201cthe God-given beginning of life.\u201d Transmigration\n  seems to have been also taught in them (see Plutarch, _Consolatory\n  Letter_, \u00a7 X.). There were therefore three degrees of initiation at\n  Eleusis: (1) The Little Mysteries showing the history of Dionysos, (2)\n  The Great Mysteries with the Rape of Persephone and the Wanderings of\n  Demeter, and (3) The Epopsy (open to initiates of the second year\n  only), showing the marriage of Zeus and Demeter and the birth of the\n  new Dionysos.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Frazer, _The Golden Bough_ (third edition), Part IV, c. 5; Part V,\n  vol. i, pp. 12, 263.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  The end of the Athenian monarchy and flight of the Pisistratids took\n  place about 500 B.C. (see Chapter IV, _infra_). The Eleusinia were\n  probably reformed not long before.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk II. c. 49; Diod. Sic. Bk I. c. 96, \u00a7 4 _sqq._ It may, on\n  the other hand, have been introduced from Asia Minor or the\n  Mediterranean Islands, where it was certainly prevalent at a very\n  early date. See articles in _P.S.B.A._ for 1911 and 1914 above quoted.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XXVIII; Tacitus, _Hist._ IV. cap. 83, 84.\n  Plutarch calls Timotheos the \u201cexegete,\u201d _i.e._ the interpreter or\n  dragoman; so that his being a Eumolpid would seem to rest on the\n  testimony of Tacitus only; but there were \u201cexegetes\u201d attached to the\n  Eumolpids at Eleusis, see Foucart, _Grds. Myst._ pp. 79 _sqq._\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lagides_, I. p. 118, thinks the names\n  Timotheos and Manetho only cover the fact that the new religion was\n  compounded from the Eleusinian and the Osirian cult.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (_Hist. des Lagides_, I. p. 129, n. 2) thinks the\n  tradition that the Museum was founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus\n  erroneous. The date of Demetrius of Phalerum\u2019s leaving Athens to take\n  charge of it marks it as the foundation of Ptolemy Soter. Cf. Mahaffy,\n  _Empire of Ptolemies_, pp. 91, 92.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  See Mahaffy, _op. cit._ p. 98.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Dyer, _Gods in Greece_, pp. 178, 179, and pp. 73, 74. An inscription\n  making the identification has been found at Smyrna. See O. Rayet in\n  the _Rev. Arch\u00e9ologique_ for 1877, pp. 175-178, where its date is put\n  at the middle of the third century B.C., and the vases of Gerhard\n  there quoted. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, II. p. 362; F. Lenormant\n  in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Antiquit\u00e9s_, _s.v._ Eleusinia, p.\n  549, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Damascius, _Vit. Isidor_, \u00a7 106. For definition of term, see _ibid._\n  \u00a7\u00a7 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ p. 34. He suggests that the real names were\n  \u201cineffable,\u201d _i.e._ only revealed to initiates. Xenocrates, whose date\n  may be put at 396-314 B.C., seems to have known of a supernal and\n  infernal Zeus (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 11), and a fragment\n  attributed to Euripides identifies Zeus with Hades (_id._ _loc.\n  cit._).\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XXVIII.; Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  This was noticed by Clement of Alexandria, who (_Strom._ Bk V. c. 14)\n  says that Homer and Orpheus both \u201cshow forth\u201d the Christian doctrine\n  in this respect. The verse he quotes from Orpheus makes Dionysos both\n  the father and son of Zeus. Cf. Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Frag. 237.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  As in the Orphic verse: \u201cZeus is a male, Zeus is an immortal virgin,\u201d\n  Abel, _Orphica_, Fr. 46. Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 140, points out\n  that Xenocrates and the Stoics both made the same assertion. Cf.\n  authorities quoted by him and Euripides, _Bacchae_, ll. 330-350. A\n  statue from Smyrna showing a markedly effeminate type of Dionysos is\n  to be seen at the Ashmolean Museum.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, lib. I. c. 18, for authorities; also Pindar,\n  _Threnoi_, X. 8, p. 116 (Bergk); Plutarch, _On the E at Delphi_, c.\n  IX.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte des Divinit\u00e9s d\u2019Alexandrie_, Paris, 1884, pp. 6-12, and\n  authorities there quoted. Cf. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 66, 67.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  So Plutarch and Tacitus where before quoted. The conflicting\n  traditions on the subject have been reconciled by Krall, _Tacitus und\n  der Orient_, Th. I. Bd iv. 83, 84. Cf. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. de la\n  Divination_, t. III. p. 378, n. 1; _id._ _Hist. de Lagides_, t. I. p.\n  118; Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. pp. 16, 17. There is little doubt that the\n  statue of Bryaxis represented Asklepios as Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (_Rev.\n  Hist. Rel._ 1902, pp. 26, 27) surmises. Isidore L\u00e9vy sums up the whole\n  question in the _Revue_ last quoted, 1911, pp. 146, 147, and 1913, pp.\n  308 _sqq._ So Ad. Reinach, _Rev. cit._ pt 2, p. 69. The statue is\n  described by Rufinus Aquilensis, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 23. Cf.\n  Dionysius, _Periegetes_, ll. 254, 256 (Didot, _Geogr. Gr. mi._ t. II.\n  p. 116); Amelung, _Rev. Arch\u00e9ol._, 1903, pt 2, pp. 187-204.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  Probably it had some reference to his character as god of vegetation,\n  as shown by his epithet of \u201cFrugifer.\u201d The explanation of Macrobius,\n  _Saturnalia_, I. c. 20, which refers it to the sun, is absurd. Perhaps\n  it may be connected with his epithet of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03b3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u201creceiver of many.\u201d\n  So \u00c6l. Aristides speaks of him as the receiver of souls. See p. 60\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  See last note. The eagle was adopted as a kind of family crest by the\n  Ptolemies and appears on all their coins. See examples in Mahaffy,\n  _Emp. of the Ptolemies_, _passim_. What is probably a reproduction of\n  Bryaxis\u2019 statue is now at Naples and is described by Lafaye, _op.\n  cit._ p. 274.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  See Lafaye, pp. 259, 260. Except in amulets, representations of\n  Harpocrates are not very common. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 92.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Maury in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Sept. 1855, p. 1073; Mariette, _Le\n  S\u00e9rapeum de Memphis_, ed. Maspero, Paris, 1882, I. pp. 114, 115, 124.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lagides_, I. pp. 232, 233. Cf. Mahaffy,\n  _Empire of Ptolemies_, pp. 204 _sqq._ The Egyptianizing tendencies of\n  the later Ptolemies shown by the decrees of the priests on the Rosetta\n  and Canopus Stones were first pointed out by Revillout in the _Revue\n  Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1877, pp. 331 _sqq._ A new decree of the same kind\n  under Epiphanes has been published by M. Daressy, _Recueil de Travaux_\n  etc., 1911, pp. 1 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Macrobius, _Saturn._ Bk I. c. 7.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  Foucart, _Les Associations Religieuses_, p. 207, Inscr. 24; _C.I.G._\n  No. 120. The tablet is now in the British Museum.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 35; Pausanias, Bk I. c. 18, 4.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 35-388; _id._ _Dictionnaire des Antiquit\u00e9s_ of\n  Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Isis; Drexler in Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon der\n  Mythologie_, _s.v._ Isis, esp. p. 379.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 40; _C.I.L._ I. 577.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Lafaye, see last note.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 44 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 44-47. For the story of Marcus Volusius see\n  Appian, _de Bello Civili_, Bk IV. c. 6, \u00a7 47.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Tibullus, _Elegiacs_, I. iii. 23; _ibid._ I. vii. 27; Ovid, _Am._ II.\n  xiii. 7; _id._ _op. cit._ II. xiv. The story of the expulsion is told\n  by Josephus, _Antiquities_, XVIII. c. 3. Cf. Lafaye, _op. cit._ chap.\n  III _passim_.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  _Comicor. Graecor. Fragmenta_ of Didot, pp. 517 and 629, and Lafaye,\n  _op. cit._ p. 31.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. et loc. cit._ and especially p. 62.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  So Parisotti, _Ricerche sul culto de Iside e Serapide_, Roma, 1888, p.\n  52 _sqq._; and Dill, _Nero to Marcus_, pp. 564, 565: \u201cThe history of\n  the Isiac cult at Rome from Sulla to Nero is really the history of a\n  great popular religious movement....\u201d\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  See Chapter I, _supra_, pp. 12, 14. Cf. Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p.\n  471.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Macrobius, _Saturn._ Bk I. c. 20. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (_R.H.R._ 1902, t.\n  XLVI. p. 19, n. 1) says these lines are a forgery of late date. Krall,\n  _Tacitus_, etc. Th. I, Bk iv., is of the contrary opinion. Nicocreon\n  of Cyprus was certainly a contemporary of Ptolemy Soter, and helped\n  him against Perdiccas.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 14. So \u00c6lius Aristides, _in Serapidem_,\n  p. 91 (Dindorf), says that Serapis \u201cis present in all things and fills\n  the universe.\u201d\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc., pp. 306, 307, 324, 325, for examples. Cf.\n  Inscription from Kios in Bithynia given by Robiou in _M\u00e9langes Graux_,\n  Paris, 1884, pp. 601, 602; Parisotti, _op. cit._ p. 55.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  Theocritus, _Idyll_, XV.; Damascius, _Vit. Isidor._ 106; Socrates,\n  _Hist. Eccl._ Bk III. c. 23. In _Le Culte d\u2019Adonis-Thammuz_, Paris,\n  1901 (pp. 51-54, 69, 109), M. Ch. Vellay has shown the fusion in early\n  Christian times of the legends of Adonis, Atys and Osiris.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Part IV, p. 357 and n. 1; cf. Stephen of\n  Byzantium, _s.v._ \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2; D\u00f6llinger, _Jud. und Heid._ I. p. 145;\n  Decharme in Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Cybele for authorities.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  Julian, _ad Reg. Sol._ Orat. IV. cc. 135, 136; Eusebius, _Praep. Ev._\n  Bk III. c. 15; Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in British Museum_, 1893, p. 65;\n  Wessely, _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris_, etc., Wien, 1888, pp.\n  61 _sqq._; Leemans, _Papyri Graeci Mus. Ant. Pub. Lugduni-Batavi_,\n  Leyden, 1885, II. pp. 26, 27; Parthey, _Zwei griech. Zauberpapyri_,\n  Berlin, 1866, p. 127.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_, Bk XI. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  So Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, Oxford, 1895, I. p. 92,\n  says that \u201cthe essential idea\u201d of the mysteries was that all the gods\n  there worshipped were but different forms of the one. In the \u201cGreek\n  Worship of Serapis and Isis,\u201d I have endeavoured to show how this idea\n  was elaborated in the cult of the Alexandrian divinities.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  Homer, _Iliad_, XXI. 462 (translation by Lang, Leaf and Myers).\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Cf. Penelope\u2019s speech on the jealousy of the gods, _Odyssey_, XXIII.\n  208.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Sayce, _Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia_ (Gifford Lectures),\n  Edin. 1902, p. 201; Naville, _The Old Egyptian Faith_, pp. 308, 309;\n  Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol_. I. p. 163 and II. p. 277.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 15.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  _Ibid._ c. 25.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Aristides, _in Serapid._ p. 89.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  _Ibid._ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 90.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 97.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  _Ibid._ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 100.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  _Odyssey_, XI. 491 _sqq._ (Butcher and Lang\u2019s translation).\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Pindar, _Threnoi_, Frag. X. p. 102, Cod. B\u00f6.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Sophocles, _Triptolemus_ (Plutarch, _de Audiendis Poetis_, 21 F),\n  Frag. 348 of Didot.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_, ll. 480 _sqq._ So an inscription on the\n  statue of a hierophant quoted by M. Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019El._ p. 55, says\n  that death to the initiated is not an evil but a good.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  Aristides, _in Serapid._ p. 93.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 95.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 96.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  Maspero says (\u201cLes Hypog\u00e9es Royaux de Thebes,\u201d _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. p.\n  178) that \u201cif ever there were in Pharaonic Egypt mysteries and\n  initiates, as there were in Greece and Greek Egypt,\u201d it was in the\n  time of decay evidenced by the rare books preserved in the tombs of\n  the kings of the XXth and later Dynasties. Later, _ibid._ p. 180, he\n  says that they must have been confined to a very small class. Cf.\n  _ibid._ p. 278.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  _E.g._ the mystic marriage of Zeus or Dionysos with Demeter, which\n  according to Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 1, \u00a7 8, p. 171,\n  Cruice, and Clement of Alexandria, _Protrept._ c. II., formed the\n  crowning scene of the Eleusinian Mysteries. At Dendera, the\n  corresponding union of Osiris and Isis, from which, according to M.\n  Foucart, the Eleusinian legend was derived, was depicted in the most\n  realistic way on the temple walls. See Mariette, _Dend\u00e9rah_, Paris,\n  1875, t. IV. pl. 65 _sqq._, or Budge, _G.E._ pp. 132-137.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 21, _queis tamen tuto possint magna\n  religionis committi silentia, numen deae soleat elicere_.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  _Ibid._ cc. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  _Op. cit._ end of c. 23.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  Perhaps this is the meaning of the formula said by Clement of\n  Alexandria, _Protrept._ c. II., to be repeated by the initiates at\n  Eleusis: \u201cI have fasted ... I have drunk of the cyceon ... I have\n  entered into the chest (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2).\u201d\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ c. 24.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  See last note.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  Ra was always the material sun; while Horus was probably in ancient\n  times the god of the sky: Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ t. II. p. 229. With\n  the Middle Empire the emblem of Ra began to be added to that of Horus\n  as the \u201ccrest\u201d of the Pharaoh\u2019s cognizance, showing that the king was\n  himself regarded as the representative of a composite divinity,\n  Horus-Ra. Cf. \u201cTitles of Thinite Kings,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ 1908, p. 89.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Proclus, _in Timaeum Platonia_, I. 30 D. (Schneidewin).\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  Minucius Felix, _Octavius_, c. XXI.; Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, Bk I. c.\n  36; Athenagoras, _Presbeia_, c. XXII. Cf. also Griffith and Thompson,\n  _Stories of High Priests of Memphis_, pp. 107, 121; Maspero, _\u00c9t.\n  \u00c9gyptol._ II. p. 246, and especially p. 361; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp. 92,\n  93.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 27.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 28.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  \u00c6lius Aristides (_in Serapid._ p. 88) refuses to discuss this; but\n  Athenagoras (see note 5 p. 63, _supra_) says that when the members of\n  the body of Osiris were found, they were presented to Isis with the\n  remark that they were the fruits of the vine Dionysus and that Semele\n  was the vine itself. But see p. 65, _infra_. Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._\n  c. LXXIX. says that \u201cthe priests of these days,\u201d meaning, as is\n  evident from the context, the priests of the Alexandrian divinities,\n  \u201ctry to conceal\u201d the fact that Osiris rules over the dead. The old\n  religion of Egypt never did; but perhaps this, too, was part of the\n  secret teaching of the Alexandrian Mysteries.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. pp. 254-255, 361, 446; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p.\n  92.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ c. 27.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  \u201cOsiris-Bacchus\u201d in _\u00c4gypt. Zeitschr._ 1878, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Unless we suppose that the statue was one of those used in the\n  mysteries, see note 3 p. 64, _supra_. Plutarch, however, in his\n  address to Klea makes no secret of the identification. See _de Is. et\n  Os._ c. XXXV.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  Plato, _Phaedr._ in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Fragm. 228. Olympiodorus says\n  that the verse comes from Orpheus.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Dyer, _Gods in Greece_, p. 209. He thinks the crowd sometimes numbered\n  30,000, relying upon the story in Herodotus, Bk VIII. c. 65, of the\n  Spartan who before the battle of Marathon heard the Iacchos-song sung\n  \u201cas if by 30,000 persons.\u201d Cf. Foucart, _Les Gds. Myst._ p. 136.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Moret, _Le Culte Divin Journalier en \u00c9gypte_, Paris, 1902, p. 9.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ c. 20. Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 136, gives the\n  \u201ctrousseau\u201d of a statue of Isis found in Spain including earrings,\n  necklaces, etc.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  See the scene in the Herculaneum fresco described on p. 68, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  Martial, Bk X. Epig. 48. Apuleius, _Met._ c. 17, describes the\n  ceremonies which included a solemn dismissal of the people, and the\n  kissing by them of the feet of a silver statue of the goddess.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ c. 19.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. pp. 118, 119, and Plate facing p. 192. Cf. Ovid,\n  Propertius and Tibullus, where quoted by Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 120.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Ovid, _Pontic. Epist._ Bk I. Ep. 1, v. 51.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  The Baron von Bissing thinks this is a copy of the Serapeum of\n  Alexandria. See _Transactions_ of the Third International Congress of\n  Religions, Oxford, 1908, I. pp. 225 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  Is this the _bacchos_ or short rod carried by the faithful in the\n  Iacchos-procession at Eleusis? See Scholiast in _Knights_ of\n  Aristophanes, l. 408 (p. 48 of Didot).\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  Hippolytus puts it quite plainly: \u201cNow Osiris is water.\u201d See\n  _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 7, p. 149, Cruice. Cf. Lafaye, _Culte_,\n  etc. p. 115. So Origen, _c. Cels._ Bk V. c. 38, says that the fables\n  of Osiris and Isis lead men to worship cold water and the moon.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  von Bissing in the paper quoted in note 1 p. 68, _supra_, suggests\n  that this is the dance of the god Bes.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Minucius Felix, _Octavius_, c. 21.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  The swallow refers to the story that Isis changed herself into a\n  swallow who flitted round the pillar containing the coffin of Osiris.\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  Evidently a confusion between Horus and Osiris which would have been\n  impossible had not the Isiacists looked upon Horus as Osiris re-born.\n  Cf. Lactantius, _Institutes_, Bk I. c. 21, where the same confusion\n  occurs; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  The \u201cdog-headed\u201d Anubis.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Juvenal, _Satir._ VI. l. 533; _ibid._ VIII. l. 30.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 128.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 120.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ cc. 9, 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  Is this the \u201cgolden bough\u201d of initiation? Cf. Baillet,\n  \u201cOsiris-Bacchus,\u201d cited p. 65, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  Probably the _pudendum_ of Osiris. See Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_,\n  Bk V. c. 7, p. 149, Cruice; Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 16; Clem.\n  Alex. _Protrept._ c. II., says the Corybantes did the same thing with\n  that of Bacchus.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Lafaye in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Isis.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  See note 3 p. 68, _supra_. Cf. Leemans, _Papyri Gr._ pp. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. p. 345, says this Nu was \u201cneither the\n  primordial water, nor the sky, but a very ancient god, common to all\n  humanity,\u201d whom he compares to the Thian of the Chinese, the Dyaus of\n  the pre-Vedic, and the Uranos-Oceanos of the pre-Hellenic peoples. \u201cAt\n  the beginning,\u201d he continues, \u201che is himself the Celestial Ocean.\u201d\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 16.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  The bearers of the sacred Pastos (box or coffin?). He says elsewhere\n  that this particular college dated from \u201cthe days of Sulla,\u201d _i.e._\n  87-84 B.C.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  The reading has been contested, but is well established. Cf. the\n  concluding words of the Mass: \u201cIte, missa est.\u201d\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  \u201c_Una quae es omnia_,\u201d _C.I.N._ 3580. The stone was found at Capua.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  Plutarch, _Aristides_, c. V.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Apuleius, _Met._ cc. 21, 28, 30.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  See p. 48, _supra_. Oracles given in dreams were, however, an old\n  institution in Egypt. See the dream of Thothmes IV concerning the\n  Sphinx, Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 325, and _Ancient Records_,\n  Chicago 1906, vol. II. No. 815.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  Tacitus, _Hist._ Bk IV. cc. 81, 82.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Asklepios or Esculapius was one of the gods absorbed by Serapis. It is\n  most probable that the great statue by Bryaxis in the Alexandrian\n  Serapeum was originally an Asklepios. See Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Rev. de\n  l\u2019Hist. des Rel._ 1902, pp. 26, 27, 28. There seems also to have been\n  a chapel to him in the Greek Serapeum at Memphis. See Brunet de\n  Presle, \u201cLe S\u00e9rap\u00e9um de Memphis,\u201d Paris, 1865, pp. 261-263. Cf.\n  Forshall, _Greek Papyri in the British Museum_, 1839, p. 33, and note\n  1 p. 80, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  Josephus, _Antiquities_, Bk XVIII. cc. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  Lovatelli, _Il Culto d\u2019Iside in Roma_, Roma, 1891, p. 174; Ovid,\n  _Pontic. Epist._ Bk I. Ep. I.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  As M. Lafaye (_Culte_, etc. p. 132) points out, the hierophant in\n  Apuleius calls the other priests \u201chis company,\u201d _suus numerus_ (_Met._\n  c. 21).\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  For all these, see Lafaye, _op. cit._ chap. VII: _Le Sacerdoce_.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 150.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  These fragments are scattered among the different European museums.\n  Some are in the Vatican Library and were published by Mgr. Angelo Mai\n  in 1833 (Brunet de Presle, \u201cLes Papyri Grecs du Louvre,\u201d _M\u00e9m. de\n  l\u2019Acad. des Inscript._ XVIII. pt 2 (1865), p. 16), others in the\n  Leyden Museum (Leemans, _Papyri Graeci_, I. pp. 6 _sqq._), others in\n  the Louvre (Brunet de Presle, _op. cit._ p. 22), and the largest\n  number in the British Museum (Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 1). The whole\n  story, so far as it has been ascertained, is told by Brunet de Presle,\n  _op. cit._ pp. 261-263, and by Sir Frederic Kenyon, _op. cit._ pp.\n  1-5, and the questions arising out of it are admirably summed up by M.\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq in his article, \u201cLes Reclus du S\u00e9rap\u00e9um de Memphis\u201d in\n  _M\u00e9langes Perrot_, Paris, 1903, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Matth. xxiii. 11. Cf. the Pope\u2019s title of \u201cServant of the Servants of\n  God\u201d (_Servus servorum Dei_).\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  Julian in his letters (_Ep._ 52) speaks of Alexandria even in his time\n  as being given up to the worship of Serapis. It is probable that in\n  this, as in other matters, the philosophic Emperor believed what he\n  wished to believe. Yet his contemporary, Ammianus Marcellinus, _Hist._\n  Bk XXII. c. 16, \u00a7 20, speaks of the elements of the sacred rites being\n  still preserved there in secret books, by which he seems to be\n  referring to the worship of the Alexandrian divinities.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  See Renan, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1884, p. 197, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  Orelli, _Inscript. Latin. select._ pp. 406-412. All these have now\n  been transferred to the _Corp. Inscr. Latin._ _q.v._\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  See note 2 p. 82, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury\u2019s edition), III. p. 200.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Theodoret, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 23; Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c.\n  16 Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk VII. c. 15.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  See note 1 p. 73, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Socrates, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 17.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  Renan, _Marc Aur\u00e8le_, Paris, 1882, p. 630, for authority. Cf. Gibbon,\n  _Decline and Fall_ (Bury\u2019s edn.), IV. pp. 78, 79.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  Gibbon, _op. cit._ III.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Drexler in _Roscher\u2019s Lexikon_, _s.v._ Isis. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la\n  Gr\u00e8ce_, t. II. p. 222.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Amm. Marcell. _op. cit._ Bk XXII. c. 13. According to Deubner, _De\n  incubatione_, Leipzig, 1900, c. IV. Cyril of Alexandria had to\n  establish the worship of two medical saints in the Egyptian hamlet of\n  Menuthis near Canopus to induce the people to forget the miraculous\n  cures formerly wrought there in the sanctuary of Isis.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  Bury in Gibbon, _op. cit._ vol. IV. Appendix 3, p. 527.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  Cf. Apuleius\u2019 description of the veiling of the women\u2019s heads in the\n  Isis procession, p. 72, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  A writer in Maspero\u2019s _Recueil de Travaux_ for 1912, p. 75, mentions\n  that the Isiac _sistrum_ or rattle is still used by the Christians of\n  Abyssinia.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Vopiscus, _Saturninus_ (_Hist. August. Scriptor._ VI. t. II. pp.\n  718-730). The authenticity of the letter has been defended by\n  Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, 1891, I. p. 481. The date is fairly\n  well fixed by the death of Antinous in 122 A.D., and Hadrian\u2019s visit\n  to Syria a few years later. Ramsay (_Church in Roman Empire_, 1903, p.\n  336) makes it 134 A.D.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Renan, _Marc Aur._ p. 433.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  In the Catholic Church at this period the Eucharist was celebrated, if\n  we may judge from the _First Apology_ of Justin Martyr (c. LVI), in a\n  very simple manner, but apparently in the presence of all the\n  faithful. In that part of the Apostolical Constitutions (Bk VIII. c.\n  66), which is probably later in date than Justin, the catechumens,\n  heterodox, and unbelievers are directed to be excluded before\n  consecration (see Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 301). It does not\n  follow that the ceremonial was as simple with the Gnostics. Marcus is\n  said by Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 6, pp. 116, 117, Harvey) to have made the\n  mixture of wine and water in the cup to appear purple and to overflow\n  into a larger vessel; while similar prodigies attend the celebration\n  in the _Pistis Sophia_ and the _Bruce Papyrus_, for which see Chap. X,\n  _infra_. As such thaumaturgy was intended to astonish the onlookers,\n  it is probable that the elements were displayed before the whole\n  congregation. That the later form of the ritual of the Christian\n  sacraments was taken from the Gnostics, see Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_,\n  pp. 295-305, and 307-309, and de Faye, _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9t. du\n  Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, pp. 106, 107.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 105. Sir Frederick Kenyon questions the\n  _theocrasia_ of Serapis and Esculapius, but see Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Rev.\n  Hist. Rel._ 1902, p. 30.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  Revillout, _Rev. \u00c9gyptol._ 1880, p. 172.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  \u201cThe Names of Demons in the Magic Papyri,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ 1901, pp. 41\n  _sqq._\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 96, and inscriptions there quoted.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  Budge, \u201cPapyrus of Nesi-Amsu,\u201d p. 442.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  See \u201cThe Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp. 93,\n  94.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  That the Trinitarian doctrine of the Creed of Nicaea evolved gradually\n  will now, I suppose, be admitted by all. Mr Conybeare, _Apology of\n  Apollonius_, 1894, p. 14, probably goes too far when he says that \u201cthe\n  doctrine of the Trinity in Unity\u201d is not met with till the end of the\n  third century. So Guignebert, _L\u2019\u00c9volution des Dogmes_, Paris, 1910,\n  pp. 293, 294, tells us how in his opinion the dogma followed \u201cat some\n  distance\u201d the assertion of the Divinity of Christ. Harnack, _Expansion\n  of Christianity_, Eng. ed. 1904, II. pp. 257, 258, seems to attribute\n  the first formulation of the dogma to Tertullian who, according to\n  him, owed something to the Gnostics. It is at any rate plain that\n  neither Hermas, nor the Apologists, nor Irenaeus, nor Clement of\n  Alexandria, nor Origen were in accord with later orthodoxy on the\n  point. Monsignor Duchesne, _Early History of the Christian Church_,\n  Eng. ed. 1909, p. 20, puts the matter very frankly when he suggests\n  that the average Christian troubled himself very little about it.\n  \u201cThis is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity,\u201d he says after\n  defining it, \u201cnot certainly as it was formulated later in opposition\n  to transient heresies, but as it appeared to the general conscience of\n  the early Christians.... The generality of Christians in the first\n  century even in apostolic days stood here almost exactly at the same\n  point as present-day Christians. Theologians knew, or at any rate\n  said, far more about it.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n                        THE ORIGIN OF GNOSTICISM\n\n\nThe worship of the Alexandrian gods was in every sense a religion. Not\nonly did it form a common bond between men and women of different rank\nand origin, but it had its roots in the idea of propitiating the\nspiritual world. In the belief of its votaries, the blessings of health,\nof riches, of long life, and of happiness in this world and the next,\nwere the gifts of Serapis and Isis, which they might extend to or\nwithhold from mortals as seemed to them good[287]. But now we approach\nbeliefs and practices, for the most part formed into organized cults,\nwhich were founded on the opposite idea. Those treated of in this and\nthe seven succeeding chapters all have as their common root the notion\nthat it is possible instead of propitiating to compel the spiritual\npowers. If these beings, greater and stronger than man as they were\nthought to be, were once invoked by their real names and with the proper\nceremonies, it was said that the benefits demanded of them would follow\nas a matter of course without regard to the state of mind of the\napplicant and without the volition of the invisible ones themselves\nentering into play. This idea appears so early in the history of\nreligions that it is thought by some to be the very source and origin of\nthem all. A number of able writers, of whom Lord Avebury[288] was one of\nthe earliest, and Dr Frazer[289] is one of the latest examples, contend\nthat there was a time in the history of mankind when man trusted\nentirely to his supposed powers of compulsion in his dealings with the\ninvisible world, and that the attempt to propitiate it only developed\nout of this at a later period. It may be so, and the supporters of this\ntheory are certainly not wrong when they go on to say that the same idea\nprobably inspired those earliest attempts at the conquest of Nature\nwhich formed the first gropings of man towards natural science[290]. Up\ntill now, however, they have failed to produce any instance of a people\nin a low state of culture who practise magic\u2014as this attempted\ncompulsion of the spiritual world is generally called\u2014to the exclusion\nof every form of religion; and until they do so, their thesis cannot be\nconsidered as established. On the contrary, all researches into the\nmatter lead to the conclusion that magic generally begins to show itself\nsome time after the religious beliefs of a people have taken an\norganized shape, and most prominently when they have passed their period\nof greatest activity[291]. This is particularly noticeable in the case\nof Ancient Egypt, which affords, as M. George Foucart has lately shown\nwith much skill[292], a far more lively and complete picture of the\nevolution of religious ideas than can be found in the beliefs of\nsavages. Here we see beliefs and practices, once religious in every\nsense of the term, gradually becoming stereotyped and petrified until\nall memory of their origin and reason is lost, and the religion itself\nlapses into the systematized sorcery before referred to.\n\nThis phenomenon appears with great regularity in history; and it is an\nobservation very easily verified that the practice of magic generally\nspreads in places and times where the popular religion has become\noutworn[293]. As, moreover, enquiry shows us that words taken from the\nrituals of dead faiths play the chief part in all ceremonial magic[294],\nwe might be led to conclude that magic was but an unhealthy growth from,\nor the actual corruption of, religion. But if this were the case, we\nshould find magicians despoiling for their charms and spells the rituals\nof cults formerly practised in their own countries only; whereas it is\nmore often from foreign faiths and languages that they borrow. The\ntendency of all peoples to look upon earlier and more primitive races\nthan themselves as the depositaries of magical secrets is one of the\nbest known phenomena[295]. Thus, in modern India, it is the aboriginal\nBhils and Gonds who are resorted to as sorcerers by the Aryans who have\nsupplanted them[296], while the Malays seem to draw their magic almost\nentirely from the beliefs of their Arab conquerors[297]. So, too, in\nEgypt we find that the magicians of the XIXth Dynasty made use in their\nspells of foreign words which seem to be taken from Central African\nlanguages[298], and those of early Christian times use Hebrew phrases\nwith which they must for the first time have become acquainted not very\nlong before[299].\n\nAt the same time there are many proofs that magic is something more than\na by-product of religion. No people, however backward, who do not\npractise magic in some or other of its forms, have yet been discovered;\nwhile at the same time it has always persisted among those nations who\nconsider themselves the most highly civilized. Thus, we find the\nMincopies who inhabit the Andaman Islands and are thought by some to be\nthe lowest of mankind, threatening with their arrows the spirit that is\nsupposed to cause tempests, and lighting fires on the graves of their\ndead chiefs to drive him away[300]. At the other end of the scale we\nhave the story of the Scottish Covenanter,\n\n    \u201cJohn Scrimgeour, minister of Kinghorn, who, having a beloved child\n    sick to death of the crewels, was free to expostulate with his Maker\n    with such impatience of displeasure, and complaining so bitterly,\n    that at length it was said unto him, that he was heard for that\n    time, but that he was requested to use no such boldness in time\n    coming\u201d:\n\nand a similar story is told of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the\nJesuits[301]. It seems then that magic is so inextricably intertwined\nwith religion that the history of one of them cannot be effectually\nseparated from that of the other, and neither of them can be assigned\nany priority in time. This does not mean, however, that they are\nconnected in origin, and it is probable that the late Sir Alfred Lyall\nwas right when he said that magic and religion are in their essence\nantagonistic and correspond to two opposing tendencies of the human\nmind[302]. The same tendencies lead one man to ask for what he wants\nwhile another will prefer to take it by force, and it is even possible\nthat the same alternative of choice is sometimes manifested in the lower\nanimals[303].\n\nNow it is evident that in the practice of cults where the idea of the\ncompulsion of the invisible powers is prominent, the essential factor\nwill be the _knowledge_ of the proper means to be adopted to attain the\nend sought. But this does not at once strike the observer, because at\nfirst sight these appear to be the same as those used in the cults which\nrest on the idea of propitiation. Prayers and sacrifices indeed appear\nin magical quite as often as in the case of propitiatory rites, but the\nreason of them is entirely different. Prayer in a religion\u2014could any\nsuch be found\u2014entirely free from all admixture of magic or compulsion,\nwould be based on the attempt to move the pity of the divinity invoked\nfor the miserable and abased state of the suppliant, or by some other\nmeans. A striking example of this can be found in the Assyrian prayers\nfrom the palace of Assur-bani-pal, which might be, as the rubric informs\nus, made to any god[304]. Says the suppliant:\n\n       \u201cO my god my sins are many, my transgressions are great.\n       I sought for help, and none took my hand.\n       I wept, and none stood by my side;\n       I cried aloud, and there was none that heard me.\n       I am in trouble and hiding, and dare not look up.\n       To my god, the merciful one, I turn myself, I utter my prayer.\n       The feet of my goddess I kiss and water with tears....\n       O Lord, cast not away thy servant....\u201d\n\nThe same spirit may be noticed in the early religions of the Greeks,\nalthough here the worshipper uses, as his means of propitiation,\nflattery rather than entreaty, as when the Achilles of the _Iliad_ tries\nto move Zeus by an enumeration of his different titles, addressing him\nas \u201cFather Zeus, that rulest from Ida, most glorious, most great[305],\u201d\nand Athena is appealed to by Nestor in the _Odyssey_ as \u201cDaughter of\nZeus, driver of the spoil, the maiden of Triton[306]\u201d and so on. As,\nhowever, magical ideas come to the front, we find these prayers giving\nway to others containing neither appeals for mercy nor flattery, but\nmerely long strings of names and attributes, all designed to show an\nacquaintance with the antecedents and supposed natural disposition of\nthe divinity addressed, and inspired by the fear that the one name which\nmight exert a compelling effect upon his answer might accidentally have\nbeen omitted[307]. So, too, the sacrifices, which in early times were\nchosen on the sole principle of giving to the god what was best and\ncostliest, came later to be regulated by the supposed knowledge of what\nwas especially appropriate to him for reasons based on sympathetic magic\nor the association of ideas. Thus, swine were sacrificed to Demeter,\nhe-goats to Dionysos, cattle and horses to Poseidon, and rams to\nHeracles[308], instead of the animals, chosen only for their youth and\nbeauty and with or without gilded horns, that we read about in the\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_[309]. Clearly such distinctions necessitate a much\ncloser knowledge of the divine nature than where the answer to prayer or\nsacrifice depends merely on the benevolence of the deity.\n\nIt is also evident that such ideas will give rise to curiosity with\nregard to the nature and history of the gods, to their relations with\none another, and to the extent and division of their rule over Nature,\nwhich would hardly affect those who think that all events depend simply\nupon the nod of the super-human powers[310]. Hence it is evident that\none of the first consequences of a large admixture of magic in a\nreligion will be a great increase of myths and legends in which the\nactions of the gods will be recounted with more or less authority, and\nsome observed natural phenomenon will be pointed to as evidence of the\ntruth of the stories narrated[311]. Moreover, the means by which the\nconsequence of any voluntary or involuntary transgression of the\nsupposed commands of the gods can be averted will be eagerly sought\nafter, and these, whether they take the form of purifications,\nlustrations, or other expiatory rites, will all be strictly magical in\ncharacter, and will generally consist in the more or less detailed\nrepresentation of some episode in their history, on the well-known\nprinciple of magic that any desired effect can be produced by imitating\nit[312]. In all these cases it is knowledge and not conduct which is\nrequired, and thus it is that _gnosticism_ or a belief in the importance\nof acquaintance with the divine world, its motives, and the influences\nto which it is subject, enters into religion. Then it comes about that\nman begins to trouble himself about the origin of the universe and its\nend, the cause of his own appearance upon the earth, and the position\nthat he occupies in the scale of being. Hence theogonies or tales\nrelating how the gods came into existence, and their kinship to one\nanother, cosmogonies or accounts of the creation of the world, and\napocalypses or stories professing to reveal the lot of man after death\nand the fate to which our universe is destined, take shape to an extent\nunknown to religions which remain merely or chiefly propitiatory.\n\nThere is, however, another and a less sublime kind of knowledge which is\neverywhere associated with the appearance of gnosticism. This is the\nknowledge of ceremonies and formulas, of acts to be done and of words to\nbe said, which are thought to exercise a compelling effect on the\nsupra-sensible world, and which we may class together under the generic\nname of ceremonial magic. Our acquaintance with these at the period\nunder discussion has lately been much enlarged by the decipherment and\npublication of the so-called Magic Papyri found for the most part in\nEgypt and now scattered throughout the principal museums of Europe[313].\nThese turn out on investigation to be the manuals or handbooks of\nprofessional sorcerers or magicians, and to range in date from the IIIrd\ncentury before to the IVth or Vth after Christ. They contain, for the\nmost part without any order or coherence, details of the different\nceremonies used for the personal aggrandizement of the user, for gaining\nthe love of women and (conversely) for putting hate between a man and\nhis wife; for healing disease and casting out devils; for causing\ndreams, discovering thieves, and gaining knowledge of the thoughts of\nmen and of things past and to come; and for obtaining, by other than\ndirect means, success in athletic competitions. In others, we find\ndirections for evoking gods or spirits who may thus be bound to the\nservice of the magician, for raising the dead for necromantic purposes,\nand for the destruction of enemies, mingled with technical recipes for\nmaking ink and for the compounding of drugs. A feature common to nearly\nall these charms is their illustration by certain roughly-drawn pictures\nand formulas which seem at first to be mere strings of letters without\nsense.\n\nA few specimens of these charms may help to make this description\nclearer. In a papyrus now in the British Museum which is said from the\nwriting to date from the IVth century A.D.[314], we find the following\ncharms for obtaining an oracular response in a dream:\n\n    \u201cTake of the inner leaves of the laurel and of virgin earth and\n    wormwood seeds flour and of the herb cynocephalium (and I have heard\n    from a certain man of Heracleopolis [now Ahnas el-Medineh] that he\n    takes of the leaves of an olive-tree newly sprouted).... It is\n    carried by a virgin boy ground up with the materials aforesaid and\n    the white of an ibis\u2019 egg is mixed with the whole compound. There\n    must also be an image of Hermes clad in the chlamys, and the moon\n    must be rising in the sign of Aries or Leo or Sagittarius. Now let\n    Hermes hold the herald\u2019s wand, and do thou write the spell on\n    hieratic paper. And take a goose\u2019s windpipe, as I also learned from\n    the Heracleopolite, and insert it into the figure so as to be able\n    to blow into it. When you wish for an oracular answer, write the\n    spell and the matter in hand, and having cut a hair from your head,\n    wrap it up in the paper and tie it with a Phoenician knot, and put\n    it at the feet of the caduceus, or, as some say, place it upon it.\n    Let the figure be in a shrine of limewood, and when you wish for an\n    oracular answer place the shrine with the god at your head, and make\n    invocation, offering frankincense on an altar and some earth from a\n    place where there is growing corn, and one lump of sal ammoniac. Let\n    this be placed at your head and lie down to sleep after first saying\n    this, but giving no answer to anyone who may address you:\n\n    \u201cHermes, lord of the world, inner circle of the moon\n    Round and square, originator of the words of the tongue\n    Persuading to justice, wearer of the chlamys, with winged sandals\n    Rolling an ethereal course under the lower parts of the earth\n    Guide of spirits, greatest eye of the sun\n    Author of all manner of speech, rejoicing with lights\n    Those mortals whose life being finished are under the lower parts of\n       the earth.\n    Thou art called the foreknower of destinies, and the divine vision\n    Sending oracles both by day and by night.\n    Thou dost heal all the ills of mortals with thy medicines.\n    Come hither, blessed one, greatest son of perfect memory\n    Appear propitious in thy own shape, and send a propitious form\n    That by the excellence of thy divining art I, a hallowed man, may\n       receive what I need.\n    O Lord grant my prayer, appear and grant me a true oracle!\n\n    \u201cMake the adjuration at the risings of the sun and moon.\u201d (The\n    inscription to be written on the paper wrappings of the figure.)\n\n            \u201c_Huesemigad\u00f4n, Orth\u00f4 Baub\u00f4, no\u00ea od\u00eare soire soire\n            Kanthara, Ereschchigal, sankist\u00ea, dodekakist\u00ea_\u201d etc.\n\nIn this charm we have nearly all the typical elements of the magic of\nthe period. The windpipe of a goose or other long-necked animal was, we\nlearn from Hippolytus, inserted into the hollow head of the metal statue\nof the god, in order that the priest might use it as a speaking tube,\nand thus cause the statue to give forth oracular responses in a hollow\nvoice[315]. Hence its use would be thought particularly appropriate when\nan oracle was sought, although in circumstances where it would be\nineffective for purposes of deceit. The fragment of a hymn in hexameter\nverse to a god whom it addresses as Hermes is doubtless of great\nantiquity and taken from the ritual of some half-Greek, half-Oriental\nworship such as we may imagine to have been paid to the Cabiri, in which\na god identified by the Greeks with their own Hermes was particularly\nhonoured. The words of the spell to be written on the paper are by no\nmeans the mere gibberish they seem, although they have been so corrupted\nthat it is almost impossible to recognise even the language in which\nthey are written. The word _Huesemigad\u00f4n_ is, however, an epithet or\nname of Pluto the ruler of Hades, and occurs in that connection, as has\nbeen shown elsewhere, in many of these magic spells[316]. The _Orth\u00f4\nBaub\u00f4_ which follows it is generally found in the same context and seems\nto cover the name of that Baubo who plays a prominent part in the\nMysteries of Eleusis and appears to have been confused in later times\nwith Persephone, the spouse of Pluto[317]. _Ereshchigal_ [Eres-ki-gal],\nagain, is a word borrowed from the first or Sumerian inhabitants of\nBabylonia, and means in Sumerian \u201cthe Lady of the great (_i.e._ the\nnether) world,\u201d being a title frequently used for Allat the goddess of\nhell, who appears in the very old story of the Descent of Ishtar and is\nthe Babylonian counterpart of Persephone[318]. Why she should have been\ncalled _dodekakist\u00ea_ or the 12th cannot now be said; but it is possible\nthat we have here a relic of the curious Babylonian habit of giving\nnumbers as well as names to the gods, or rather of identifying certain\nnumbers with certain divinities[319]. On the whole, therefore, it may be\njudged that the words of the spell once formed part of the ritual of a\nSumerian worship long since forgotten and that they travelled across\nWestern Asia and were translated as far as might be into Greek, when\nthat language became the common tongue of the civilized world after\nAlexander\u2019s conquests.\n\nThis may be taken for a spell having its origin in, or at any rate\ndepending for its efficacy upon, the relics of some Western Asiatic\nfaith. The following taken from another papyrus now in the Biblioth\u00e8que\nNationale at Paris shows acquaintance with the Egyptian\nreligion\u2014probably through the Alexandrian or Isiacist form of it\ndescribed in Chapter II\u2014and is perhaps a more salient example of the\ncompulsive element common to all magic, but particularly associated with\nthe Egyptian magicians. It is given in the shape of a letter purporting\nto be addressed by a certain Nephotes to the Pharaoh Psamtik whom the\nGreeks called Psammetichos, and who managed, as has been said above, to\ndrive out the Ethiopians and to rule Egypt by the help of Greek\nmercenaries. There is no reason to suppose that this attribution is\nanything more than a charlatanic attempt to assign to it a respectable\norigin; but it is probable from certain indications that it was really\ntaken from an earlier hieratic or demotic MS. of pre-Christian times. It\nhas been published by Dr Karl Wessely of Vienna[320] and is written in\nGreek characters of apparently the IIIrd century A.D.\n\n    \u201cNephotes to Psammetichos king of Egypt, the ever living, greeting.\n    Since the great god [Serapis?] has restored to thee an eternal\n    kingdom, and Nature has made thee an excellent adept, and I am also\n    willing to show forth to thee the love of art which is mine\u2014I have\n    sent to thee this ceremony, a holy rite made perfect with all ease\n    of working, which having tested, you will be amazed at the\n    unexpected nature of this arrangement. You will see with your own\n    eyes in the bowl in what day or night you will and in what place you\n    will. You will see the god in the water, receiving the word from the\n    god in what verses you will. [It will reach also?] the world-ruler\n    and if you ask a question of him he will speak even of all the other\n    things you seek. [A description of the ointment to be used doubtless\n    once followed, but has been omitted in the Paris MS.[321]] Having\n    thus anointed yourself and having put together before the rising of\n    the sun in this form (?) what things you will, when the third day of\n    the moon has come, go with the mystagogue upon the roof of the\n    house, and spread upon the earth a clean linen cloth, and having\n    crowned yourself with black ivy at the 5th hour after noon, lie down\n    naked on the linen cloth, and order him [the mystagogue] to bind\n    your eyes with a bandage of black linen; and having laid yourself\n    down like a corpse [or, on your back?], close your eyes, making the\n    sign of consecration towards the sun with these words:\u2014\n\n    \u201cO mighty Typhon of the sceptre on high, sceptred ruler, God of\n    Gods. King _Aberamenth\u00f4u_[322], hill shaker, bringer of thunder,\n    hurricane, who lightens by night, hot-natured one, rock shaker,\n    destroyer of wells, dasher of waves, who disturbs the deep with\n    movement. _Io erb\u00eat autauim\u00eani._ I am he who with thee has\n    uprooted the whole inhabited world and seeks out the great Osiris\n    who brought thee chains. I am he who with thee fights on the side\n    of the gods (some say against the gods). I am he who has shut up\n    the twin sides of heaven, and has lulled to sleep the invisible\n    dragon, and who has established the sea [and?] the red springs of\n    rivers. Until thou shall no longer be lord of this dominion, I am\n    thy soldier, I was conquered [and hurled] headlong by the gods. I\n    was thrown down by [their] wrath in vain [or, because of the\n    void]. Awake! I come as a suppliant, I come as thy friend, and\n    thou wilt not cast me out, O earth-caster. King of the gods.\n    _aemonaebar\u00f4therreeth\u00f4rabeane\u00efmea_[323]. Be strong, I entreat!\n    Grant me this grace that, when I shall command one of the gods\n    themselves to come to my incantations, I may see them coming\n    quickly! _Na\u00efne basanaptatou eaptou m\u00ean\u00f4 phaesm\u00ea paptoum\u00ean\u00f4ph\n    aesim\u00ea trauapti peuchr\u00ea, trauara ptoum\u00eaph, mouraianchouchaphapta\n    moursaaramei. Ia\u00f4 aththarauim\u00eanoker boroptoum\u00eath attaui m\u00eani\n    charchara ptoumai lalapsa trauei trauei mam\u00f4phortoula[324] ae\u00eaio\n    iou o\u00ea\u00f4a eai ae\u00eai\u00f4i ia\u00f4 a\u00eai ai ia\u00f4_[325]. On your repeating this\n    three times, there will be this sign of the alliance[326]. But you\n    having the soul of a magician will be prepared. Do not alarm\n    yourself, for a sea-hawk hovering downwards will strike with his\n    wings upon your body[327]. And do thou having stood upon thy feet\n    clothe thyself in white garments, and in an earthen censer scatter\n    drops of frankincense speaking thus: \u2018I exist in thy sacred form.\n    I am strong in thy sacred name. I have lighted upon the\n    flowing-forth of thy good things, O Lord, God of Gods, king demon.\n    _Atthouin thouthoui tauanti la\u00f4aptat\u00f4\u2019._ Having done this, you may\n    descend like a god, and will command the [order?][328] of Nature\n    through this complete arrangement of autoptic [_i.e._ clairvoyant]\n    lecanomancy. It is also a way of compelling the dead to become\n    visible. For when you wish to enquire concerning [any] events, you\n    must take a brazen jar or dish or pan, whichever you will, and\n    fill it with water, which if you are invoking the celestial gods\n    must be living [Qy. running or sparkling?]; but, if the\n    terrestrial divinities, from the sea; and if Osiris or Sarapis,\n    from the river [Nile?]; and, if the dead, from a well. Take the\n    vessel upon your knees, pour upon it oil made from unripe olives,\n    then bending over the vessel repeat the following invocation and\n    invoke what god you will and an answer will be given to you and he\n    will speak to you concerning all things. But if and when he shall\n    have spoken, dismiss him with the dismissal which you will wonder\n    at, using the same speech.\n\n    \u201cSpeech to be said over the vessel. _Amoun auantau laimoutau riptou\n    mantaui imantau lantou laptoumi anch\u00f4mach araptoumi._ Hither, such\n    and such a god! Be visible to me this very day and do not appal my\n    eyes. Hither to me such and such a god! giving ear to my race [?].\n    For this is what _anch\u00f4r anch\u00f4r achachach ptoumi chancho charach\u00f4ch\n    chaptoum\u00ea ch\u00f4raharach\u00f4ch aptoumi m\u00each\u00f4chaptou charach ptou chanch\u00f4\n    charach\u00f4 ptenach\u00f4cheu_, a name written in a hundred letters, wishes\n    and commands. And do not thou, most mighty king, forget the\n    magicians among us; because this is the earliest name of Typhon, at\n    which tremble the earth, the abyss, Hades, heaven, the sun, the\n    moon, the place of the stars and the whole phenomenal universe. When\n    this name is spoken, it carries along with its force gods and\n    demons. It is the hundred-lettered name, the same name as last\n    written. And when thou hast uttered it, the god or the dead person\n    who hears it will appear to thee and will answer concerning the\n    things you ask. And when you have learned all things, dismiss the\n    god only with the strong name, the one of the hundred letters,\n    saying \u2018Begone, Lord, for thus wills and commands the great god!\u2019\n    Say the name and he will depart. Let this treatise, O mighty king,\n    be kept to thyself alone, being guarded from being heard by any\n    other. And this is the phylactery which you should wear. It should\n    be arranged on a silver plate. Write the same name with a brazen pen\n    and wear it attached with a strip of ass\u2019s skin[329].\u201d\n\nThe purpose of the charm just given is, as will be seen, to produce\napparitions in a bowl containing liquid after the fashion still common\nin the near East[330]. It amply bears out the remark of Iamblichus that\nthe Egyptian magicians, differing therein from the Chaldaean, were\naccustomed in their spells to threaten the gods[331], and many other\ninstances of this can be found in other passages of the magic papyri.\nBut it should be noticed that in this case the magician is dealing with\na power thought to be hostile alike to man and to the beneficent gods.\nTyphon, who is, as Plutarch tells us, the Greek equivalent of the\nEgyptian Set, was looked upon in Hellenistic times as essentially a\npower of darkness and evil, who fights against the gods friendly to man\nwith the idea of reducing their ordered world to chaos. Yet the magician\navows himself on his side, and even speaks of his name as being able to\ncompel the heavenly gods, to whom he must therefore be superior.\nIamblichus tries to explain this, and to refine away the obvious meaning\nof such spells, but their existence certainly justifies the accusation\nof trafficking with devils brought by the early Christian Fathers\nagainst the practisers of magic.\n\nAnother charm may be quoted for the purpose of showing the acquaintance,\nsuperficial though it was, with the religions of all nations in the\nHellenistic world and the indifference with regard to them which the\npractice of magic necessitated. It appears in the papyrus in the British\nMuseum last quoted from and is directed to be spoken over \u201cthe lamp\u201d\nwhich plays so great a part in all magical processes[332]. Of its real\nor supposed author, Alleius Craeonius, nothing is known:\n\n    \u201cA spell of All\u00eaius Craeonius spoken over the lamp. _\u00d4chmarmach\u00f4_,\n    the _noura\u00ef chr\u00eamillon_ sleeping with eyes open, _nia_, Ia\u00f4\n    equal-numbered[333] _soumps\u00eanis siasias_, Ia\u00f4 who shakes the whole\n    inhabited world, come hither unto me and give answer concerning the\n    work [_i.e._ the matter in hand] _kototh phouphnoun nouebou\u00ea_ in the\n    place prepared for thy reception [?]. Take an inscription[334] with\n    on the obverse Sarapis seated holding the royal sceptre of Egypt and\n    upon the sceptre an ibis. On the reverse of the stone, carve the\n    name and shut it up and keep it for use. Take the ring in your left\n    hand, and a branch of olive and laurel in your right, shaking it\n    over the lamp[335], at the same time uttering the spell seven times.\n    And, having put it (the ring) upon the Idaean finger[336] of your\n    left hand, facing and turning inwards [Qy. away from the door of the\n    chamber?] and having fastened the stone to your left ear, lie down\n    to sleep returning no answer to any who may speak to you:\n\n    \u201c\u2018I invoke thee who created the earth and the rocks [_lit._ the\n    bones] and all flesh and spirit and established the sea, and shakes\n    the heavens and did divide the light from the darkness, the great\n    ordering mind, who disposes all, the everlasting eye, Demon of\n    Demons, God of Gods, the Lord of Spirits, the unwandering \u00c6on. Iao\n    ou\u00eai [Jehovah?] hearken unto my voice. I invoke thee the ruler of\n    the gods, high-thundering Zeus, O king Zeus Adonai, O Lord Jehovah\n    [?]. I am he who invokes thee in the Syrian tongue as the great god\n    _Zaala\u00ear iphphou_[337] and do thou not disregard the sound in Hebrew\n    _ablanathanalba_[338] _abrasil\u00f4a_. For I am _silthach\u00f4ouch lailam\n    blasal\u00f4th_ Ia\u00f4 ie\u00f4 _nebuth sabiothar b\u00f4th arbath ia\u00f4_ Ia\u00f4th Sabaoth\n    _patour\u00ea zagour\u00ea Baruch adonai el\u00f4ai iabraam_[339] _barbarau\u00f4\n    nausiph_, lofty-minded, everliving, having the diadem of the whole\n    ordered world, _siep\u00ea saktiet\u00ea_ of life (twice) _sph\u00ea nousi_ (twice)\n    _sietho_ (twice). _Chtheth\u00f4nirinch \u00f4\u00eaa\u00ea\u00eaol a\u00f4\u00ea Ia\u00f4 asial Sarap\u00eaols\u00f4\n    ethmour\u00easini sem lau lou lurinch._\u2019\n\n    \u201cThis spell loosens chains, blinds, brings dreams, causes favours,\n    and may be used for any purposes you wish.\u201d\n\nIn this spell, we have Zeus and Yahweh associated with Serapis in the\napparent belief that all three were the same god. Although the magician\nparades his learning by using the name of one of the Syrian Baals, and\nit is possible that some of the unintelligible words of the invocation\nmay be much corrupted Egyptian, he is evidently well acquainted with\nHebrew, and one of the phrases used seems to be taken from some Hebrew\nritual. It is hardly likely that he would have done this unless he were\nhimself of Jewish blood; and we have therefore the fact that a Jewish\nmagician was content to address his national god as Zeus and to make use\nof a \u201cgraven image\u201d of him under the figure of the Graeco-Egyptian\nSerapis in direct contravention of the most stringent clauses in the Law\nof Moses. A more striking instance of the way in which magicians of the\ntime borrowed from all religions could hardly be imagined.\n\nThe uncertain date of the charms under discussion prevent any very\ncogent argument as to their authorship being drawn from them; but there\nare other grounds for supposing that the use of magic was never so\nwide-spread as in the last three centuries before and the first three\ncenturies after the birth of Christ, and that this was mainly due to the\ninflux of Orientals into the West. One of the indirect effects of\nAlexander\u2019s conquests was, by substituting Greek kings for the native\nrulers who had till then governed the countries lying round the Nile and\nthe Euphrates, to break up the priestly colleges there established, and\nthus to set free a great quantity of the lower class of priests and\ntemple-servants who seem to have wandered through the Hellenistic world,\nselling their knowledge of curious arts, and seeking from the credulity\nof their fellows the toilless livelihood that they had till then enjoyed\nat the expense of the state. The names given to the most famous of these\ncharlatans in the early Roman Empire\u2014Petosiris, Nechepso,\nAstrampsuchos[340], and Ostanes[341]\u2014are in themselves sufficient to\nshow their origin; and \u201cChaldaicus\u201d passed into the common language of\nthe time as the recognized expression for the professional exponent of\ncurious arts. Even in the time of Sulla there seems to have been no lack\nof persons who, if not magicians, were at all events professional\ndiviners capable of interpreting the Dictator\u2019s dreams[342], and the\nwriters of the Augustan age allude frequently to magic, such as that\ntaught by the papyri just quoted, as being generally the pursuit of\nforeigners. The Thessalian magicians are as celebrated in the Roman\ntimes which Apuleius describes as in those of Theocritus. The Canidia or\nGratidia of Horace had also a Thessalian who assisted her in her\nincantations[343]. But these, like the Chaldaean and Egyptian sorcerers\njust mentioned, were at the head of their profession, and in many cases\nmade large sums out of the sale of their services. The taste for magic\nof the poorer classes, slaves, and freedmen, was catered for by the\ncrowd of itinerant magicians, among whom the Jews (and Jewesses) seem to\nhave been the most numerous, who used to hang about the Circus\nMaximus[344]. Renan is doubtless perfectly right when he says that never\nwere the Mathematici, the Chaldaei, and the Goetae of all kinds so\nabundant as in the Rome of Nero[345]. Their prevalence in the great\ncities of the eastern provinces of the Empire may be judged from the\nfrequency of their mention in the New Testament[346].\n\nIt would, of course, be very easy to consider all such practices as the\nresult of deliberate and conscious imposture. This is the course taken\nby Hippolytus in the _Philosophumena_, in which the heresiologist bishop\ngives a description of the tricks of the conjurors of the IIIrd century\naccompanied by rationalistic explanations which sometimes make a greater\ndemand on the credulity of the readers than the wonders narrated[347].\nThese tricks he accuses the leaders of the Gnostics of his time of\nlearning and imitating, and the accusation is therefore plainly dictated\nby the theological habit of attempting by any means to discredit the\nmorals of those who dissent from the writer\u2019s own religious\nopinions[348]. But a study of the magic papyri themselves by no means\nsupports this theory of conscious imposture. The spells therein given\nwere evidently written for the use of a professional magician, and seem\nto have been in constant employment. Many of them bear after them the\nnote written in the hand of the scribe that he has tested them and found\nthem efficacious. The pains, too, which the author takes to give\nvariations of the process recommended in them\u2014as for example in the\nquotations from a \u201cman of Heracleopolis\u201d in the first of the spells\ngiven above\u2014all show that he had a more or less honest belief in the\nefficacy of the spells he is transcribing. The recording in the same\npapyri of what would be now called \u201ctrade secrets\u201d such as recipes for\nthe manufacture of ink all point the same way, and go to confirm the\nview that the magicians who made use of them, although willing to sell\ntheir supposed powers over the supernatural world for money, yet\nbelieved that they really possessed them.\n\nThis is the more likely to be true because many of the phenomena which\nthese spells are intended to produce are what would now be called\nhypnotic. The gods and demons invoked are supposed to appear sometimes\nin dreams, but more generally to a virgin boy gazing fixedly either at a\nlamp or at the shining surface of a liquid. This is, of course, the form\nof \u201ccrystal-gazing\u201d or divination by the ink-pool still used throughout\nthe East, a graphic description of which is given in Lane\u2019s _Modern\nEgyptians_[349]. In this case as in the charms for the healing of\ndisease\u2014especially of epilepsy and other nervous maladies\u2014given in the\nsame papyri, the active agent seems to be the power of suggestion,\nconsciously or unconsciously exercised by the operator or magician. A\nfull but popular explanation of these phenomena from the standpoint of\nmodern science will be found in the lectures on \u201cHypnotisme et\nSpiritisme\u201d delivered at Geneva by Dr \u00c9mile Yung in 1890[350], while the\nsubject has been treated more learnedly and at greater length by a great\nnumber of writers, among whom may be specially mentioned M. Pierre\nJanet[351], the successor and continuator of the researches of the\ncelebrated Charcot at the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re.\n\nThe influence that such practices exercised upon the development of the\npost-Christian sects or schools generally classed together under the\nname of Gnostic is not very clearly defined. It may, indeed, be said\nthat the great diffusion of the magical rites that took place during the\ncenturies immediately preceding, as in those immediately following, the\nbirth of Christ, predisposed men\u2019s minds to the search for a cosmogony\nor theory of the universe which should account for its evolution as part\nof an orderly and well-devised system rather than as the capricious and,\nas it were, incoherent creation of the gods. That some such force was at\nwork may be gathered from the fact that magical beliefs and practices\nseem to have crept into the religion of the whole civilized world at\nthis period. But that the schools calling themselves Gnostic owed their\ndevelopment directly or exclusively to them is an idea that must be\nrepudiated. Hippolytus, as has been said, does, indeed, make some such\ncharge, but only in general terms and without any evidence in its\nsupport. When later he goes through the sects _seriatim_, he only\nreiterates it in the cases of Simon Magus, of his successor Menander,\nand of Carpocrates of Antioch; and it is probable from the context that\nin all these cases he is only referring to what seemed to him the\nsuperstitious attention paid by the \u201cheretics\u201d in question to the\nexternals of worship, such as the use of pictures and statues, lights\nand incense, which seem in many cases to have been borrowed directly\nfrom paganism.\n\nThis attention to the details of ritual, however, did in itself contain\nthe germ of a danger to the survival of any organized cult in which it\nwas present in excess, which was to receive full illustration in the\nlater forms of Egyptian Gnosticism properly so-called. As will be shown\nin its place, the seed of Gnosticism fell in Egypt upon soil encumbered\nwith the d\u00e9bris of many older faiths which had long since passed into\nthe stage of decay. Nor could the earnestness or the philosophic insight\nof the great Gnostics of Hadrian\u2019s time, who started their propaganda\nfrom Alexandria, contend for long with the inherited preconceptions of a\ndegraded and stubborn peasantry who had learned for millennia to regard\nall religion as sorcery. Here Gnosticism degenerated quickly into magic\nof the least enlightened and basest kind, and thus lost all right to be\nconsidered in any sense a religion[352]. The case was different in other\nparts of the Roman Empire, where a better intellectual equipment and the\npractical syncretism or fusion of worships offered more favourable\nground for the development of new faiths not appealing to the members of\none nationality only.\n\nThat this idea of Gnosticism or of the importance of knowledge\u2014were it\nonly the knowledge of charms and spells\u2014in dealing with the spiritual\nand invisible world was bound to play a prominent part in the evolution\nof the world-religions which Alexander\u2019s conquests had rendered possible\nis therefore evident. Some writers have gone further and have declared\nthat Christianity itself may be \u201conly an episode\u2014though a very important\nepisode\u2014in the history of Gnosticism[353].\u201d But to say this, as will\npresently be shown, is to go too far, and Christianity, although she\nobtained many converts from those Gnostic sects with which the Church of\nthe Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages found itself in competition[354],\nyet proved in the long run to be the most bitter enemy of Gnosticism.\nFrom the first, the Catholic Church seems to have recognized that the\nideas which lay at the root of Gnosticism\u2014to which word I have ventured\nhere to give a meaning more extended than that which it connotes in\nheresiological writers\u2014were opposed to religion altogether; and if\nallowed to triumph would have had their end in the development of a\nscience, which, if not absolutely atheistic, would at least reduce the\nnecessary action of the spiritual world upon this to the vanishing\npoint[355]. It would indeed be quite possible to argue that such ideas\nmust always appear when a people of inferior culture, but of vigorous\nintellect, come into frequent contact for the first time with a material\ncivilization higher than their own. It is sufficient for the present\npurpose to have shown that they were widely spread during the centuries\nwhich immediately preceded the appearance of Christianity, and that they\ncount for something in the evolution of the many heretical sects who\ncame to trouble most seriously the peace of the Catholic Church in the\nearly centuries of our era. The same causes, however, must have been at\nwork some time before, and it is impossible to explain some of the\nfeatures of Gnosticism in its more extended sense without going back to\nan early period of Greek history. For it was in Greece that the Orphic\nteaching first appeared, and it is to this that most of the\npost-Christian Gnostic heresies or sects attributed, not untruly, their\nown origin.\n\nConnected in practice with, yet entirely different in origin from, this\nmagic was the astrology or star-lore which after the conquest of the\nEuphrates valley by the Persians began to make its way westwards. It\nwould seem that its birthplace was the plains of Chaldaea, where the\nclear air brings the starry expanse of the sky nearer, as it were, to\nthe observer than in the denser and more cloudy atmosphere of Europe,\nwhile the absence of rising ground not only enables him to take in the\nwhole heaven at a glance, but gives him a more lively idea of the\nimportance of the heavenly bodies. There the careful and patient\nobservation of the Sumerian priests at a period which was certainly\nearlier than Sargon of Akkad (_i.e._ 2750 B.C.) established the fact\nthat certain groups of stars appeared and disappeared at regular\nintervals, that others moved more swiftly than their fellows, and that\nthe places of both with reference to the apparent path of the sun varied\nin a way which corresponded with the recurrence of the seasons.\nPrimitive man, however, does not distinguish between _post hoc_ and\n_propter hoc_, or rather he assumes unhesitatingly that, if any natural\nphenomenon occurs with anything like regularity after another, the first\nis the cause of the second. Hence the swifter stars soon came to be\nclothed in the minds of the early astronomers with attributes varying\nwith the phenomena of which they were supposed to be the cause. Thus,\nthe planet or \u201cwandering\u201d star which we call Jupiter came to be known as\nthe \u201cgod of good winds,\u201d the Hyades and Pleiades were looked upon as the\nbringers of rain, and the stars whose appearance ushered in the cold and\ndarkness of winter were considered as hostile to man[356]. As time\nprogressed, however, these observations accumulated\u2014largely, one would\nthink, because of the imperishable material on which they were\nrecorded\u2014and it then began to be perceived that the movement of the\nheavenly bodies were not due to their individual caprice or will, but\nwere dictated by an inexorable and unchangeable law. In the drawing of\nthis conclusion, the patient and logical mind of the Mongoloid\ninhabitants of Sumer, ever mindful at once of the past and the future of\nthe race, no doubt played its full part.\n\nThe effect of this change in the mental attitude of man towards the\nuniverse was to introduce an entirely new conception into religion. At\nfirst the Babylonians, pushing, as man generally does, the application\nof their last discovery further than the facts would warrant, declared\nthat all events happened in a regular and prearranged order; and that\nman could therefore predict the happening of any event directly he knew\nits place in the series. Thus in the \u201castrological\u201d tablets preserved in\nthe palace of Assur-banipal at Nineveh, some of which certainly go back\nto the reign of Sargon of Akkad[357], we read:\n\n    \u201cIn the month of Nisan 2nd day, Venus appeared at sunrise. There\n    will be distress in the land.... An eclipse happening on the 15th\n    day, the king of Dilmun is slain, and someone seizes his throne....\n    An eclipse happening on the 15th day of the month Ab the king dies,\n    and rains descend from heaven, and floods fill the canals.... An\n    eclipse happening on the 20th day, the king of the Hittites in\n    person seizes the throne.... For the 5th month an eclipse on the\n    14th day portends rains and the flooding of canals. The crops will\n    be good, and king will send peace to king. An eclipse on the 15th\n    day portends destructive war. The land will be filled with corpses.\n    An eclipse on the 16th day indicates that pregnant women will be\n    happily delivered of their offspring. An eclipse on the 20th day\n    portends that lions will cause terror and that reptiles will appear;\n    an eclipse on the 21st day that destruction will overtake the riches\n    of the sea[358].\u201d\n\nThese events are evidently predicted from a knowledge of what happened\nimmediately after the occurrence of former eclipses and other celestial\nphenomena, and it is perhaps characteristic of the lot of man that most\nof them are unfavourable and that the disasters greatly outnumber the\ngood things. But it is plain that as time went on, the observers of the\nstars would begin to perceive that even such unusual celestial phenomena\nas eclipses occurred at intervals which, although long compared with the\nlifetime of a man, could yet be estimated, and that the element of\nchance or caprice could therefore be in great measure eliminated from\ntheir calculation. Then came about the construction of the calendar, and\nthe formation of tables extending over a long series of years, by which\nthe recurrence of eclipses and the like could be predicted a long time\nin advance. All this tended to the formation of different ideas of the\nlaws which, it was now seen, governed man\u2019s life, and the shape which\nthese now took were equally erroneous, although at first sight more\nrational than those held by the first observers.\n\nThis new idea was in effect that system of \u201ccorrespondences\u201d which\noccupied a prominent place in nearly all religious systems from the time\nof Assyria\u2019s apogee to the triumph of Christianity, and which through\nthe mediaeval Cabala may be said to retain to the present day some\nshadow of its former power over the minds of the superstitious. This was\nthe notion that the earth in effect is only a copy of the heavens, and\nthat the events which happen here below are nothing but a copy of those\nwhich are taking place above[359]. If any great catastrophe such as the\nfall of an empire like that of Assyria or the sudden death of a man\ndistinguished above his fellows like Alexander occurs, it is because of\nsome conjunction or meeting of hostile stars; and if some great and\nunexpected benefit such as universal peace or an abundant harvest smiles\nupon mankind, it is because those stars most generally favourable to him\nhave recovered temporary sway. The result was a sort of mapping-out of\nthe heavens into regions corresponding to those of the earth, and the\nassigning of a terrestrial \u201csphere of influence\u201d to each[360]. But as\nthe predictions made from these alone would have been too speedily and\ntoo evidently falsified in most cases by the march of events, it became\nnecessary to attribute a predominant influence to the planets, whose\nswifter and more irregular movements introduced new factors into the\nsituation. These planets were decided to be seven in number, Uranus and\nNeptune not having yet been discovered, and the Sun and Moon being\nincluded in the list because they were thought like the others to move\nround the earth. Hence all terrestrial things were assumed to be divided\ninto seven categories corresponding to the seven planets, the Moon,\nMercury, Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn, and to be in an\nespecial way under the influence of the heavenly bodies of which they\nwere the earthly representatives.\n\nInto the details of the so-called science of astrology thus founded, it\nis not our purpose to enter. To do so would occupy a greater space than\nis at our disposal, and would involve besides the discussion of a great\nmany documents only just beginning to come to light, and the exact\nmeaning of which is still uncertain[361]. But it may be mentioned here\nthat astrology entirely changed its character when it came into contact\nwith the dawning science of mathematics, which is perhaps the most\nenduring monument which bears witness to the fertility and inventiveness\nof the Greek mind. So soon as the observations of the Babylonians were\nplaced at their disposal, the Greek mathematicians set to work in real\nearnest to discover the laws of the universe and established the science\nof astronomy pretty much on the basis on which it stands at the present\nday. The discovery of the Metonic cycle, of the trigonometrical method\nof measuring the celestial sphere, and of the precession of the\nequinoxes all followed in succession, and the prediction of eclipses,\nconjunctions of stars, and other celestial phenomena which had before\nbeen more or less a matter of guesswork, now became a matter of\ncalculation presenting no mystery to anyone versed in mathematics. The\nheavens were mapped out, the stars catalogued, and tables were produced\nwhich enabled the place of any particular star to be found at a given\nmoment without the actual inspection of the heavens[362].\n\nThe result of this improved state of things was not long in reacting\nboth upon religion, and its congener, magic. On the first of these, the\neffect was much the same as that produced by the discoveries of\nCopernicus in the XVIth century and those of Darwin in the XIXth. We do\nnot know enough of the history of thought at the time to be aware if the\nGreek additions to the ascertained laws of Nature aroused the same\nresentment in priestly minds as did those of the Prussian and the\nEnglish philosophers; but it is evident that if they did so, the quarrel\nwas speedily made up. Every religion in the Graeco-Roman world which\nsought the popular favour after the discoveries of Hipparchus, took note\nof the seven planetary spheres which the geocentric theory of the\nuniverse supposed to surround the earth, and even those known before his\ntime, like Zoroastrianism and Judaism, hastened to adopt the same view\nof the universe, and to modify the details of their teaching to accord\nwith it. The seven stoles of Isis are as significant in this respect as\nthe seven-stepped ladder or the seven altars in the mysteries of\nMithras, while the seven Amshaspands of the Avesta and the attention\npaid to the seven days of the week by the Jews go to show how even the\nmost firmly held national traditions had to bow before it. As for magic,\nthe sevenfold division of things which implied that each planet had its\nown special metal, precious stone, animal, and plant, placed at the\ndisposal of the magicians an entirely new mode of compulsion which lent\nitself to endless combinations; while, for the same reason, special\nconjurations were supposed, as we have seen, only to exercise their full\ninfluence under certain positions of the stars. Perhaps the climax of\nthis state of things is reached in one of the Gnostic documents\ndescribed later, where the salvation of Christian souls in the next\nworld is said to be determined by the entry of one of the beneficent\nplanets into one or other of the signs of the Zodiac[363].\n\nOne of the most important results of this impulse was the sudden\nimportance thus given to the worship of the material sun, which\nhenceforth forms the centre of adoration in all non-Christian religions.\nAs we have seen, in the worship of Isis, the newly-made initiate was\nmade to personify the daystar in the public, as no doubt he had done in\nthe secret, ceremonies of the cult. All the post-Alexandrian legends of\nthe gods were turned the same way, and Serapis, Mithras, Attis were all\nidentified with the sun, whom philosophers like Pliny and Macrobius\ndeclared to be the one supreme god concealed behind the innumerable\nlesser deities of the Graeco-Roman pantheon[364]. Even the Christians\ncould not long hold out against the flood, and the marks of the\ncompromise to which the Catholic Church came in the matter may perhaps\nbe seen in the coincidence of the Lord\u2019s Day with Sunday and the\nChurch\u2019s adoption of the 25th day of December, the birthday of the\nUnconquered Sun-God, as the anniversary of the birth of Christ[365]. It\nis certainly by no accident that the emperors whose reigns immediately\npreceded the establishment of Christianity all turned towards the\nworship of the sun-god who was looked upon as the peculiar divinity of\nthe family to which Constantine belonged[366].\n\nTo Gnosticism, whether we use the word in the sense in which it has been\nused in this chapter, or in its more restricted connotation as the\ngeneric name of the earlier heresies which afflicted the nascent Church,\nthe development of astrology came as a source of new life. Henceforth to\nthe knowledge of the history of the personal dispositions and of the\ndesigns of the gods, had to be added that of the laws governing the\nmovements of the stars. Moreover, the new theory introduced into\nGnosticism an element which had hitherto been foreign to it, which was\nthe idea of destiny or of predetermined fate[367]. If all things, as the\nastrologers said, happened in a certain regular order of which the\nmovements of the stars were at once the cause and the symbol, it follows\nthat their course is determined beforehand, and may possibly be capable\nof being ascertained by man. Hence came in all the ideas as to the\npredestination of certain souls to happiness and of others to misery\nboth in this world and the next, which play such an important part in\nthe religions of the centuries under consideration, and the influence of\nwhich is by no means extinct at the present day. It is true that, as M.\nCumont has recently pointed out, man is never rigidly true to his\nbeliefs, and has generally invented some compromise by which either the\nfavour of the gods or his own conduct is supposed to free him from the\nworst effects of a predetermined fate. Such compromises appear furtively\nhere and there in Christian Gnosticism, but without sufficient\nprominence to take away the effect of the general notion that man\u2019s fate\nin the next world is determined before his birth in this.\n\nThe general effect of these considerations is, it is thought, that the\nGnosticism which came to trouble the peace of the Christian Church\nduring its infancy and adolescence had its roots, first in the decay of\nthe earlier faith, which showed itself in the popular taste for\ncosmogonical and other myths, until then wholly or partly absent from\nthe ideas of the more civilized nations of the Persian Empire. On the\ntop of this, came the great spread of ceremonial magic which seems to\nhave followed the first introduction of something like upright and just\ngovernment by the Aryan conquerors of the East; and then the idea of a\nuniverse ruled not by the unchecked will of capricious gods, but by the\nregular and ordered movement of the stars. The predestinarian view of\nthe fate of the individual which naturally follows from this last\nconception, as has just been said, was subject to exceptions and\ncompromises, but yet appears as a kind of background or framework to all\nthe religions (orthodox Christianity excepted) which came into\nprominence during the six centuries to which our survey is limited. But\nbefore dealing with those hitherto unnoticed, it is necessary that we\nshould glance at those pre-Christian forms of Gnosticism, the earliest\nof which was perhaps that which appeared simultaneously in most parts of\nthe Greek world at the beginning of the Vth century before Christ and is\ngenerally known as Orphism.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  Thus an Orphic verse, preserved by a commentator on Plato, says that\n  Dionysos \u201creleases whom he wills from travail and suffering.\u201d See\n  Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Fr. 208, p. 237. Servius in his commentary on\n  Virgil\u2019s First Georgic, after declaring that Dionysos or \u201cLiber Pater\u201d\n  is identical with the Osiris torn in pieces by Typhon, says that he is\n  called Liber because he liberates. Cf. fragment and page quoted.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Lubbock, _Origin of Civilisation_, 5th ed., pp. 332, 333, and 349.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  _The Golden Bough_, 3rd ed. pt I. vol. I. p. 226, n. 2. Cf. Hubert and\n  Mauss, _Esquisse d\u2019une Th\u00e9orie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Magie_, Paris, 1904, p.\n  8. Goblet d\u2019Alviella, reviewing Dr Frazer\u2019s 2nd edition, _Rev. Hist.\n  Rel._ t. XLVIII. (July-Aug. 1903), pp. 70, 79 rebuts his theory. Mr E.\n  S. Hartland, at the British Association\u2019s Meeting in 1906, propounded\n  the view that both magic and religion were based on the conception of\n  a transmissible personality or _mana_. Cf. _id._ _Ritual and Belief_,\n  1914, pp. 49 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  Hubert and Mauss, _op. cit._ p. 7.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Thus the German Reformation, which (whatever be its merits) was\n  certainly accompanied by a general questioning of ideas till then\n  considered the very basis of all religion, was followed by the\n  terrible outbreak known as the Witch Mania of the XVIth century. See\n  Mackay, _Extraordinary Popular Delusions_, 1869, pp. 101-191. Other\n  authorities are quoted in \u201cWitchcraft in Scotland,\u201d _Scottish Review_,\n  1891, pp. 257-288.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  _Histoire des Religions et M\u00e9thode Comparative_, Paris, 1912, pp.\n  21-61.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  See note 4 on p. 91, _supra_. Cf. also the great increase of magical\n  practices which followed the attempted overthrow of religion by the\n  philosophers after Alexander.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  Some instances, such as \u201chocus-pocus\u201d (_hoc est corpus meum_), are\n  given in _P.S.B.A._ XX. (1898), p. 149. An excellent example is found\n  in a spell to cause invisibility in a magic papyrus at Berlin where\n  the magician is directed to say among other words _anok peusire penta\n  set tako_ \u201cI am that Osiris whom Set murdered\u201d\u2014evidently a phrase from\n  some Egyptian ritual extinct centuries before the papyrus was written.\n  See Parthey, _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_, 1866, p. 127, l. 252.\n  Cf. Erman, \u201cDie \u00c4gyptischer Beschw\u00f6rungen\u201d in _\u00c4gyptische\n  Zeitschrift_, 1883, p. 109, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, 1871, I. pp. 102-104. Cf. Crookes,\n  _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India_, 1896, II. p. 283;\n  Hubert and Mauss, _op. cit._ pp. 26, 27; A. R\u00e9ville, _Religion des\n  Peuples non-civilis\u00e9s_, 1883, II. p. 173.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  Crookes, _op. cit._ II. p. 261, says that witchcraft in Northern India\n  is at present almost specialized among the Dravidian, or aboriginal\n  people\u2014of which fact Mr Rudyard Kipling makes great use in his\n  charming story \u201cLetting in the Jungle.\u201d\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  W. W. Skeat, _Malay Magic_, 1900, pp. 533 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Chabas, _Le Papyrus Magique Harris_, 1860, pp. 151, 162 _sq._ Erman,\n  _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. ed. p. 355, while admitting that the\n  Egyptians thought the words in question belonged to a foreign tongue,\n  says that they were \u201cpure inventions.\u201d He is certainly wrong, for some\n  of them can be identified.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  Leemans, _Papyri Graeci Mus. Antiq. Lugduni-Batavi_; Wessely,\n  _Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London_, and _Neue\n  Griechische Zauberpapyri_, Wien, 1893, _passim_. Cf. Kenyon, _Greek\n  Papyri in the British Museum_, p. 62. So in mediaeval magic, the words\n  in the spells unintelligible to the magician are generally Greek. See\n  Reginald Scot, _Discovery of Witchcraft_ (1651), p. 168.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  R\u00e9ville, _Rel. des Peuples non-civilis\u00e9s_, II. p. 164.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Scott in the _Heart of Midlothian_ quotes the first story, I think,\n  from Peter Walker, but I have not been able to find the passage. For\n  Ignatius Loyola, see B\u00f6hmer, _Les J\u00e9suites_, French ed. 1910, p. 10.\n  Cf. Alphand\u00e9ry, _R.H.R._ 1911, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  _Asiatic Studies_, 1882, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  _E.g._ well-fed dogs who worry sheep, and cats who steal fish and\n  other delicacies rather than have them given to them. The actions of\n  the animals show in both cases that they know that what they are doing\n  is displeasing to their owners.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Sayce, _Gifford Lectures_, pp. 420 _sqq._ For these penitential psalms\n  generally, see Jastrow, _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_,\n  Boston, 1898, chap. XVIII.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  _Il._ III. ll. 280 _sqq._ (Lang, Leaf, and Myers trans. p. 57).\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  _Odyss._ III. ll. 373 _sqq._ (Butcher and Lang trans. p. 43).\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  According to Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ I. p. 163, this was always the\n  case in Egypt, at least in historic times. \u201cPrayer,\u201d he says, \u201cwas a\n  formula of which the terms had an imperative value, and the exact\n  enunciation of which obliged the god to concede what was asked of\n  him.\u201d\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Maury, _Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique_, II. pp. 97 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  _Il._ X. l. 292; _Odyss._ XI. l. 30, and where before quoted.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Perhaps it is to this last view that we should attribute the\n  well-known indifference of the Semitic peoples to mythology and\n  science.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  _E.g._ the Rainbow in Genesis ix. 12-16. Erman, in his _History of\n  Egyptian Religion_, p. 31, points out that Egyptian mythology is found\n  only in magical books.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 3rd ed. pt I. vol. I. p. 52.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  The principal collections of these are indicated in note 3 on p. 93,\n  _supra_. Cf. \u201cThe Names of Demons in the Magic Papyri,\u201d _P.S.B.A._\n  1901.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  Kenyon, _Gk. Pap. in Brit. Mus._ p. 77. This is the date of the MS.\n  The spells themselves are probably much older.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  _Philosophumena_, Bk IV. c. 28. Hippolytus is probably wrong in\n  thinking this a conscious imposture. The magician, like his clients,\n  does not connect cause and effect in such cases. Sir Alfred Lyall told\n  Lord Avebury that he had often seen Indian sorcerers openly mixing\n  croton oil with the ink in which their charms were written so as to\n  produce a purgative effect when the ink was washed off and swallowed.\n  See Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  _P.S.B.A._ XXII. (1900), pp. 121 _sqq._ An explanation of the name is\n  attempted by Giraud, _Ophitae_, Paris, 1884, p. 91, n. 5.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Baubo. The name Ortho\n  perhaps suggests that of the very ancient goddess later called Artemis\n  Orthia, whose original name seems to have been Orthia only. Cf. M. S.\n  Thompson\u2019s paper \u201cThe Asiatic or Winged Artemis\u201d in _J.H.S._ vol.\n  XXIX. (1909), pp. 286 _sqq._, esp. p. 307.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  _P.S.B.A._ XXII. (1900), p. 121, and see Griffith and Thompson,\n  _Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden_, p. 61 and note.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  Probably, however, it refers to the number of letters in the name in\n  some more or less fantastic spelling or cryptogram. When Hippolytus\n  speaks of the Demiurge Ialdabaoth as \u201ca fiery God, a fourth number\u201d\n  (_Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice), there can be little\n  doubt that he is referring to the Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name\n  of Jehovah. Cf. the \u201chundred-lettered\u201d name of Typhon, p. 104,\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris und London_, pp. 24-26.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  The use of ointment for magical purposes is well known, and it was the\n  incautious use of an ointment of this kind which changed Lucius, the\n  hero of Apuleius\u2019 romance, into an ass. The use of ointments which had\n  the property of translating the user to the Witches\u2019 Sabbath\n  frequently occurs in the witch-trials of the Renaissance, and it has\n  been suggested that drugs producing hallucinations were thus applied.\n  The word \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae often found in these spells seems to point to some\n  ointment or preparation used in _all_ the magic ceremonies described.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  _Aber-amenti_: \u201cLord (lit. Bull) or Conqueror of Amenti,\u201d the Egyptian\n  Hades. The name is of frequent occurrence in all these spells. Jesus,\n  in one of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, is called\n  _Aberamenth\u00f4_, in circumstances that would make the title peculiarly\n  appropriate.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  A palindrome containing the same word or sentence written both\n  forwards and backwards. The phrase here given (_aemonaebar\u00f4th_) is\n  probably Hebrew, which the scribe may have known was written the\n  reverse way to most European languages. It is noteworthy that a\n  mistake in transcription is made when the phrase is written backwards.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  This sentence was probably once Egyptian from the frequent recurrence\n  of _p_ and _t_ as the initial letters of words. They are the masculine\n  and feminine forms of the definite article in Coptic.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  These \u201cboneless strings of vowels,\u201d as C. W. King calls them in his\n  _Gnostics and their Remains_, 1887, p. 320, are thought by him to\n  cover the name of Jehovah. Another theory is that they are a musical\n  notation giving the tone in which the spell is to be pronounced.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  \u03a3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The text gives the most usual meaning of the word: but it\n  may here mean something like the \u201cmaterialization\u201d spoken of by\n  spiritualists.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  The word used (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) properly means image. But no image or idol has\n  been mentioned. It is curious that in the Mithraic mysteries, we hear\n  of the initiates, apparently during the reception of a candidate,\n  \u201cstriking [him?] with birds\u2019 wings.\u201d Cf. the text attributed\n  (doubtfully) to St Augustine in Cumont, _Textes et Monuments relatifs\n  aux Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, Bruxelles, 1896, t. II. p. 8.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Some word like \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 seems to have been omitted by the scribe.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Because the ass was considered a Typhonic animal.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  The form of hypnotism known as crystal-gazing. A full description is\n  given in Lane\u2019s _Modern Egyptians_, 1896, pp. 276 _sqq._ Cf.\n  \u201cDivination in the XVIIth Century,\u201d _National Review_, 1899, pp.\n  93-104, for its practice in England.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  See the letter of Porphyry to Anebo quoting Chaeremon. That this\n  practice was peculiar to the Egyptian magicians is stated by\n  Iamblichus, _de Mysteriis_, Bk IV. c. 7. A good instance is given by\n  Maspero, \u201cSur deux Tabellae Devotionis\u201d in _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ 1893, t. II.\n  p. 297, where a magician threatens, if his prayer be not granted, to\n  go down into the secret places of Osiris and destroy his shroud.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in the British Museum_, pp. 79-81.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  Or isopsephic, _i.e._ composed of letters having an equal numerical\n  value. One of the many forms of juggling with words and letters\n  current in the early Christian centuries. The \u201cnumber of the beast\u201d in\n  Revelation xiii. 18, where, as is now generally admitted, 666 covers\n  the name of Nero Caesar which has that numerical value in Hebrew, is\n  the most familiar instance. Other instances can be found in the\n  Epistle of Barnabas, c. 9, Hilgenfeld, _N.T. extra Canonem receptum_,\n  Lips. 1884, and Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk VI. c. 48, p. 318,\n  Cruice.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  The context shows that a scarab set in a ring is indicated.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  A rude drawing representing the magician in this attitude often\n  appears in the margin of papyri such as that quoted in the text. See\n  Wessely, _Griech. Zauberp._ p. 118.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Doubtless the index, because the Idaean Dactyli were said to be the\n  _first_ of men.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  This seems to be a corruption of some name like Baal-zephon. The\n  confusion of \u03b6 for \u03b2 in these papyri is very common.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  A Hebrew name meaning \u201cThou art our father.\u201d It was thought especially\n  valuable because it could be read either way.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  Of these words, _Iaoth Sabaoth_ is \u201cJehovah of hosts\u201d; _patoure\n  zagoure_, \u201cwho openeth and shutteth\u201d (cf. Revelation i. 8); _Baruch\n  adonai eloai iabraam_, \u201cBlessed be the Lord God of Abraham.\u201d All are\n  fairly good Hebrew not very much corrupted.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  Astrampsuchos appears, oddly enough, as the name of one of the\n  celestial guardians of a heaven in one of the documents of the\n  Bodleian Bruce Papyrus which is described in Chap. X, _infra_. See\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce_, Paris, p. 109, who\n  transcribes it Etrempsuchos, while Schmidt (_Koptisch-gnostische\n  Schriften_, Leipzig, 1905, Bd. I. p. 345) writes Strempsuchos.\n  Hippolytus gives the name as that of one of the Powers worshipped by\n  the Peratae, _v. Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 14, p. 196, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  M. Maspero contends that this name is a corruption of an epithet of\n  Thoth. See _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ V. p. 259.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  See Plutarch, _Sulla_, _passim_, especially cc. IX. XXVIII. and\n  XXXVII. from which last it appears that he consulted \u201cthe Chaldaeans.\u201d\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  Horace, _Epode_, V.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  Juvenal, _Sat._ VI.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, Paris, 1873, p. 28, n. 4, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  Acts xiii. 8; _ibid._ xix. 13-19. Cf. Renan, _op. cit._ p. 421.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  Book IV. c. 4, _passim_, especially the device for making sheep cut\n  off their own heads by rubbing their necks against a sword, or for\n  producing an earthquake by burning upon coals the dung of an ichneumon\n  mixed with magnetic ore (pp. 99, 111, Cruice). Tertullian, _de\n  Praescript._ c. 43, accuses the Gnostics of frequenting magicians and\n  astrologers.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  _Philosophumena_, Bk IV. c. 15, pp. 112, 113, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  Paisley, 1896, pp. 277-284.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  _Hypnotisme et Spiritisme_, Gen\u00e8ve, 1890, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  _L\u2019Automatisme Psychologique_, Paris, 1899, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  This is treated more fully in Chap. X, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  Cf. \u201cCerinthus and the Gnostics\u201d in the _London Quarterly_, Oct. 1886,\n  p. 132.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  Thus Epiphanius had been a Nicolaitan, St Ambrose of Milan a\n  Valentinian, and St Augustine a Manichaean before joining the Catholic\n  Church.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  So Hippolytus objects not only to the astrology of his time, but to\n  the arithmetical calculations on which it was professedly based. The\n  estimates attributed to Archimedes of the relative distances of the\n  earth from the sun, moon and planets are marked out by him for special\n  condemnation. Cf. _Philosophumena_, Bk IV. c. 1, pp. 67-76, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  P. Jensen, _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_, Strassburg, 1890, pp. 140\n  _sqq._ and especially p. 295.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  See the tablets made for this king and published by Sir Henry\n  Rawlinson in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. III.\n  Many of these are translated by Sayce in \u201cThe Astronomy and Astrology\n  of the Babylonians,\u201d _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vol. III. (1874), pp.\n  145-339. I have taken the lowest date for Sargon, on the authority of\n  Mr King, _Chronicles of Early Babylonian Kings_, 1907, I. p. 17,\n  although the well-known text of Nabonidus would make him a thousand\n  years earlier. The origin of Babylonian astronomy is discussed by\n  Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, chap. XXIII. The immense\n  antiquity attributed to the Babylonian observations by the classical\n  authorities quoted in Sayce\u2019s paper may be considerably reduced if we\n  substitute lunar for solar years; yet there seems little doubt that\n  the star worship which arose from them went back to the \u201coldest period\n  of Babylonia.\u201d Cf. Sayce, _Gifford Lectures_, 1902, p. 480.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  Jastrow, _op. cit._ pp. 365 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Among modern German archaeologists Winckler and Jeremias have pushed\n  the effect of this \u201castral theory\u201d of the universe beyond all limits.\n  Their position is at once exposed and refuted by Rogers in _The\n  Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, 1908, pp. 212 to end. Yet such a\n  view of the universe as is given in the text was undoubtedly held by\n  many during the six centuries here treated of, and can be seen as it\n  were underlying most of the religions of the time. That it had its\n  origin in Babylonia seems most probable. See Cumont, _Astrology and\n  Religion among the Greeks and Romans_, 1912, pp. 1-26, and authorities\n  there quoted.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  Cumont (work last quoted), p. 18. The idea appears plainly enough in\n  astrological works like Ptolemy\u2019s _Tetrabiblos_. It was not confined\n  to Babylonia, for the Egyptians thought the earthly Nile corresponded\n  to a heavenly one.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  Cumont\u2019s _Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum_ of which 10\n  volumes have been published will be of great use in this respect. See\n  also Kroll\u2019s _Vettii Valentis Anthologiarum Libri_, 1908.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  Cumont, _Astrology and Rel._ pp. 12, 13. Cf. Theon of Alexandria\u2019s\n  _Commentary on the IIIrd book of the Almagest_ (Abb\u00e9 Halma\u2019s ed.),\n  1813, t. I. p. 1.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  In the _Pistis Sophia_ (for which see Chapter X, _infra_) the soul of\n  a sinless man who has not found the mysteries has to wait until the\n  planets Jupiter and Venus come into a certain aspect with the sun,\n  \u201cSaturn and Mars being behind them.\u201d It is then reincarnated and wins\n  for itself life eternal, pp. 387, 389 (Copt.).\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  Pliny, _N.H._ Bk II. c. 4. Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, Bk I. cc. 18-23.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  Goblet d\u2019Alviella in _Rev. Hist. Rel._ LXV. (May-June, 1912), p. 381.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  Aurelian and Diocletian each instituted a worship of the sun-god, the\n  deity of the second Flavian family.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  Cumont, _Astrology and Rel._ pp. 28, 29. He is probably right when he\n  points out that irregular phenomena like comets and shooting stars\n  gave a loophole for the opponents of a rigid predestinarianism of\n  which they were not slow to avail themselves.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n                  PRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE ORPHICI\n\n\nAll scholars seem now agreed that the legendary Orpheus never really\nexisted[368], and that the many verses and poems attributed to him were\nthe work of various hands, one of the earliest of their authors being\nOnomacritos of Athens, who fled with the Pisistratids to the court of\nDarius at Susa in the first decade of the Vth century B.C.[369] Yet\nthere is little doubt that the peculiar myths alluded to in these poems\nwere known at an early date in Crete, whence they probably found their\nway into Athens with Epimenides, the Cretan wizard or wise man who was\nsent for to purify the city from the guilt incurred by the murder of\nCylon[370]. This event evidently marks a turning on the part of the\nGreeks towards purifications and other magical rites unknown in Homer\u2019s\ntime[371]; but the tendency, to whomever due in the first instance,\nundoubtedly received a great impulse from the break-up of the\nPythagorean school in Italy about 500 B.C.[372] This event, which in its\neffects may be compared to the dispersion of the priestly corporations\nof Babylon and Egypt which followed Alexander\u2019s conquests, sent\nwandering a great number of speculative philosophers trained in the\nformation of associations for political and other purposes, and they\nprobably joined forces with a previously existing Orphic sect, nearly\nall the early Orphic poems being ascribed, with more or less likelihood,\nto Pythagoreans[373]. There are certain features in these poems which,\nif we met with them after the reform of the Zoroastrian religion by the\nSassanian kings, we should certainly attribute to Persian influence; but\nthis can hardly be done so long as we remain ignorant of what the\nPersian religion was in the time of the Achaemenides. The most probable\naccount of the matter is that the religious teaching attributed to\nOrpheus was of Asiatic and particularly of Phrygian provenance, that it\nhad long been current in Crete and the other islands of the\nMediterranean, that a part of it came into Greece through Thrace in the\ntime of the Pisistratids, and that it was finally put into an organized\nand consistent shape by those Pythagorean philosophers who made their\nway back to Greece after the overthrow of their political power in Magna\nGraecia[374]. It found in Pindar a warm adherent, and was well known to\nand spoken of with reverence by the three great tragic poets Aeschylus,\nSophocles, and Euripides[375]. Its greatest influence, however, was\nprobably exerted through the Eleusinian and other mysteries which it\ncaptured and transformed. It continued to dominate them from before the\ntime of Herodotus down to the prohibition of these secret rites by the\nChristian emperors, and Orpheus was thus said by everyone to be their\nfounder[376].\n\nThe whole of this teaching centred round the legend of Dionysos who is\ndescribed by Herodotus as the youngest\u2014that is to say the\nlast-adopted\u2014of the great gods of Greece[377]. This Orphic Dionysos was\nthe Cretan form of the god worshipped all round the Mediterranean, who\nwas always represented in human form, and as suffering a violent death\nand then rising again from the dead. But to this nucleus, the Orphic\npoets added at different times and by degrees a great quantity of other\nmyths which together formed a complete body of doctrine setting forth\nthe origin of the world, and of man, and his life after death. First,\nthey said, existed Chronos or Time \u201cwho grows not old,\u201d from whom sprang\nAether and the formless Chaos. From these was formed a silver egg which,\nbursting in due time, disclosed Eros, or Phanes the first born, a\nshining god, with wings upon his shoulders, at once male and female, and\nhaving within himself the seeds of all creatures. Phanes creates the Sun\nand Moon and also Night, and from Night begets Uranos and Gaea (Heaven\nand Earth). These two give birth to the Titans, among whom is Kronos,\nwho emasculates his father Uranos and succeeds to his throne. He is in\nturn deposed by Zeus, who swallows Phanes, and thus becomes the father\nof gods and men[378].\n\nThis part of the Orphic story comes to us almost entirely from\nNeo-Platonic sources, and possesses several variants. It is so\nmanifestly an attempt to reconcile the popular theology of Greece found\nin Homer and Hesiod with different Oriental ideas of the origin of the\nworld that we might consider it to have been concocted in post-Christian\ntimes, were it not that Aristophanes had evidently heard about Chaos and\nthe mundane egg, and its production of Eros and Night, which confused\ngenealogy he burlesques in _The Birds_[379]. It is probable also, as\nAlfred Maury pointed out, that this legend was first taken by the\nOrphics from the philosophers of Ionia, and especially from that\nPherecydes of Syros who is said to have been Pythagoras\u2019 master[380].\nAttempts have been made to derive it from Indian, Egyptian, Chaldaean,\nand even Jewish sources; but its resemblances to parallel beliefs among\nsome or all of these nations are too few and sparse for any useful\nconclusion to be drawn from them. One of its most marked features is its\nsuccession of divine rulers of the universe, which the Orphics made use\nof to exalt their own god Dionysos to the highest rank. The story they\ntold of this Dionysos was that he was originally the Phanes whom Zeus\nswallowed, but that at his second birth he became the offspring of Zeus\nby Persephone, the daughter whom Zeus had himself begotten on one of the\nearth-goddesses who is sometimes called Rhea, sometimes Cybele, and\nsometimes Demeter. Persephone, described by the Orphics as the\n\u201cespecial\u201d or \u201csingle\u201d daughter of Zeus[381], was seduced by her father\nin the form of a serpent, and in due course brought to light Dionysos,\nsometimes called Zagreus or \u201cthe Hunter.\u201d This god, who had the horns of\na bull[382], became the darling of his father, who destined him for his\nsuccessor and allowed him, while yet a child, to sit on his throne and\nto wield the thunder-bolts[383]. But the Titans, the monstrous sons of\nEarth, either spurred on by jealousy at the child being given the\nsovereignty of the world, or incited thereto by Hera, laid a plot for\nhis destruction. Beguiling him with childish toys such as a top, a hoop,\nand a mirror, they stole upon him unawares with blackened faces, and, in\nspite of his struggles and his transformation into many shapes, tore him\nlimb from limb, cooked his several members in a cauldron, and ate them.\nThe heart, however, was saved from them by Pallas Athene, who bore it to\nZeus, who swallowed it, and it thus passed into the Theban Dionysos, son\nof Zeus and Semele, who was in turn Zagreus re-born. Zeus also blasted\nthe Titans with his lightning, while he ordered Apollo to collect the\nuneaten members of the little god and to bury them at Delphi. A variant\nor perhaps a continuation of the story makes Demeter, having, as the\nearth goddess, received the members of the little god, put them together\nand revivify them, and join herself in marriage with the resuscitated\ncorpse, whence the infant Iacchos is born[384].\n\nIn this part of the story, also, the desire of the authors to fit it in\nwith the existing mythology is manifest. At Eleusis from very early\ntimes there had been worshipped with mysterious rites a divine couple\nwho were known only as \u201cthe God\u201d and \u201cthe Goddess[385].\u201d This pair were,\nas we may guess from an allusion in Hesiod, otherwise called Zeus\nChthonios or the infernal Zeus, god of the underworld, and Demeter[386],\nthe ancient earth-goddess, who was worshipped with her lover under the\nvarious names of Ma, Cybele, Astarte, Rhea and Isis throughout Asia\nMinor, Syria, Phoenicia and Egypt. As the lover of the earth-goddess in\nall these cases suffered death and resurrection, the Orphics had to work\nthese episodes into the history of their Dionysos Zagreus. But they\ncarried the idea further than any of their predecessors by connecting\nthis death and re-birth with the origin of man and his survival after\ndeath[387]. Man, they said, was made out of the ashes of the Titans, and\nwas therefore born to sorrow, his soul being buried in his body as in a\ncharnel-house[388]. But he also had within him a spark of the life of\nZagreus, the infant ruler of the universe[389], and this enables him to\npurify himself from the guilt of the earthborn Titans, and so to leave\nthe circle of existence and cease from wickedness. For that the soul of\nman after leaving his body went, unless purified, to inhabit the bodies\nof other men and even animals, passing from one to the other as in a\nwheel or endless chain, was a dogma which the Orphics had taken over\nfrom the Pythagoreans[390]. How now was this purification to be\nobtained?\n\nThe answer that the earlier Orphics gave to this question must have\nastonished the pleasure-loving and artistic Greeks. The true Orphic,\nthey were told, must make his whole earthly life a preparation for the\nnext. He must partake at least once of a mystic sacrifice, in which a\nliving animal was, in memory of the fate of Zagreus, torn in pieces and\neaten raw; but thereafter he must never again eat any food that has had\nlife nor even eggs, and he must observe perfect chastity[391], and wear\nonly linen garments even at his burial, nor must he go near a sepulchre.\n\n    \u201cWe aim at a holy life, whence I am become a mystes of Idaean\n    [_i.e._ Cretan] Zeus,\u201d says the Orphic in a surviving fragment of\n    Euripides\u2019 _Cretenses_, \u201cand having completed the life of\n    night-wandering Zagreus and the raw flesh-devouring feasts, I\n    uplifted the torches of the mountain mother, and having been\n    purified by expiatory offerings, I was hailed as Bacchus by the\n    Curetes.... But now clothed in white garments, I fly the generation\n    of mortals, and to a corpse I draw not nigh, and I shun the eating\n    of things which have had life[392].\u201d\n\nThe meaning of this is fairly plain and is in everything a great deal\nmore magical than religious. By a well-known rule common to nearly all\npeople in a low state of culture, the victim sacrificed to a god becomes\na god himself[393]; and, as the eating of the victim makes him part of\nthe eater, it has the same effect on the votary as the swallowing of\nPhanes by Zeus had upon this last, the Dionysiac soul in the participant\nof the sacrifice is thereby strengthened, and he becomes so far\nidentified with the god as to bear his name. Henceforth, however, he\nmust have no further dealings with Titanic matter, and in particular\nmust shun the corpse which represents the Titanic part of man without\nthe Dionysiac, and must do nothing which can start another being on \u201cthe\nceaseless round of changing existences[394].\u201d If he were successful in\nobserving these austerities to the end, he might hope that, when his\nsoul was released from its prison house, it would be reunited to\nDionysos, and rest for ever free from the stains of matter. This was in\neffect the formal teaching of Pythagoras with regard to the\ntransmigration of souls, and depended on the view that the soul, or\nincorporeal part of man, had once formed part of the soul of the\nuniverse diffused throughout Nature. \u201cI have heard,\u201d says Cicero, \u201cthat\nPythagoras and the Pythagoreans ... never doubted but that we possess\nminds plucked from the universal divine mind\u201d; a phrase that he explains\nin discussing the nature of the gods by saying that Pythagoras \u201cthought\nthere was a mind spread through and pervading the whole nature of things\nwhence our minds are plucked[395].\u201d A similar doctrine of transmigration\nappears clearly in Pindar[396], who was one of the first to give voice\nto the Orphic teaching, which his lays did much to diffuse. The addition\nthat the Orphic poets made to the doctrine was doubtless the attribution\nto Dionysos and the Eleusinian goddess of the task of presiding over and\narranging these rebirths.\n\nYet the austerities prescribed by the Orphic life, however fitted to a\nphilosophic school, could hardly be practised by people engaged in the\nbusiness of the world. It was impossible, as the Pythagoreans had\nprobably found, for people to devote themselves entirely to the welfare\nof their souls, and yet to live among their fellows. Hence some other\nmeans by which man could be assured a happy lot after death had to be\ndevised, and there seems no doubt that the post-Pythagorean Orphics\ntaught that this was to be found in participation in the mysteries or\nsecret rites already in existence in Greece before the commencement of\ntheir teaching. Whether the Eleusinian Mysteries were in their inception\nanything more than the worship of the Chthonian or infernal deities, as\nthe gods presiding over agriculture and vegetation considered as a\nsymbol of generation and death, is still undecided[397]; but there can\nbe no doubt that under Orphic influence they underwent a complete\nchange. Dionysos, identified with Hades or Zeus Chthonios, begins, after\nthe break-up of the Pythagorean school, to take part in them by the side\nof Demeter and Persephone, and the story of his mysterious birth from\nthe goddess, and his identification as Zagreus with Iacchos, the\nchild-god leading the procession, seems from this period onwards to have\nbeen told in them[398]. But the mode in which the Mysteries were\nregarded by the Greeks in general materially altered after the\nintroduction of the Orphic teaching, and this also can hardly be\nattributed to anything else than the direct influence of its professors.\nWe are told on all sides that no religious teaching formed part of the\nMysteries of Eleusis, and that on the contrary the initiates were simply\nshown certain scenes and objects, and heard certain mysterious words on\nwhich they were left to put their own interpretation[399]. But the\nOrphics discovered in them a sacramental or purifying grace which was\nthought to have a kind of magical effect on the lot alike in this life\nand after death of those who took part in them. It was enough to have\n_seen_ these mysteries, as the poets aver[400], for man\u2019s place in the\nnext world to be changed for the better, and thus it is the knowledge\nthus obtained, and not conduct or favour, which is thought to influence\nhis destiny. The doctrine thus baldly stated moved to indignation\nDiogenes the Cynic, who pointed out that Patecion the brigand, who had\nbeen initiated, had earned for himself by this one act happiness after\ndeath, while Epaminondas, best of patriots, by the fact that he had not\nbeen initiated, was condemned to be plunged in mud and to undergo other\ntortures[401].\n\nThe very important part in Orphic practice played by this belief in the\nmagical power of initiation has lately been put beyond doubt by the\ndiscovery of certain inscriptions in the tombs of worshippers of the\nOrphic deities at places so far apart as Petelia in Magna Graecia,\nCalabria, Eleutherna in Crete, Naples, and Rome. On palaeographic\ngrounds their dates are said to range over at least three centuries, the\nearliest having apparently been made in the IVth or IIIrd century B.C.,\nand the latest in the Ist or IInd century of our era. They are all\nengraved on thin gold plates, are in Greek hexameter verse, and in the\nopinion of scholars are all taken from the same ritual, and therefore\nafford evidence of the permanence and fixity as well as of the wide\nspread of the Orphic teaching[402]. They contain instructions to the\ndead as to the things to be done and avoided by him or her in the next\nworld and also the formulas to be repeated to the powers there met with,\nwhich will have the effect of magically procuring for the deceased an\nexalted rank among its inhabitants. One of the earliest in date, found\nat Petelia and now in the British Museum, runs thus:\n\n    \u201cThou shalt find to the left of the House of Hades a well-spring\n    And by the side thereof standing a white cypress.\n    To the well-spring approach not near;\n    But thou shalt find another by the Lake of Memory.\n    Cold water flowing forth, and there are guardians before it.\n    Say: I am a child of Earth and of Starry Heaven[403]\n    But my race is of Heaven (above). This you know yourselves.\n    And lo! I am parched with thirst and I perish, Give me quickly\n    The cold water flowing forth from the Lake of Memory[404].\n    And of themselves they will give me to drink from the Holy\n       Well-Spring.\u201d\n\nAnother set of plates from tombs at Eleutherna, now in the National\nMuseum at Athens, is to this effect:\n\n     \u201cI am parched with thirst and I perish.\u2014Nay, drink of Me\n     The well-spring flowing for ever on the right where the cypress is\n     Who art thou?...\n     Whence art thou? I am the son of Earth and of Starry Heaven.\u201d\n\nThe magical and gnostical purport of this is plain. As in the Egyptian\n_Book of the Dead_, to which these plates bear a great resemblance,\ntheir aim was to give the deceased person in whose tomb the inscription\nwas buried[405], the _knowledge_ of the infernal or subterranean regions\nwhich was to make his entry into them safe and profitable. That his soul\nor immaterial part was a part of Dionysos, the descendant of Uranos and\nG\u00ea[406], and more directly the offspring of Demeter the earth-goddess by\nZeus, the god of the sky, had already been shown to the dead on his\ninitiation. But it was necessary that he should prove to the gods of\ndeath and generation that he _knew_ this, when they would have no\nalternative but to admit him to all the privileges attached to his high\ndescent and the rank he had attained in the scale of being by\ninitiation. This is made plainer still by the statements put into the\nmouth of the dead by the gold plates from Naples, now in the Naples\nMuseum, which read thus:\n\n    \u201cOut of the Pure I come, Pure Queen of those Below,\n    And Eukles and Eubouleus[407] and other Gods and Demons;\n    For I also avow that I am of blessed race.\n    And I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous\n    Whether it is that Fate laid me low, or the Gods Immortal,\n    Or [that Zeus has struck me?] with star-flung thunderbolt\n    I have flown out of the sorrowful weary Wheel;\n    I have passed with eager feet to the Circle desired;\n    I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoena[408], Queen of the\n       Underworld\n    I have passed with eager feet to [_or_ from] the Circle desired;\n    And now I come a suppliant to Holy Persephone\n    That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed.\u201d\n\nThen comes Persephone\u2019s answer\n\n       \u201cHappy and Blessed One, Thou shalt be God instead of Mortal,\u201d\n\nwhile a prose formula \u201cA kid I have fallen into milk\u201d which seems to\nhave been a password among the Orphics is written in the midst of the\nverses and appears upon this and several of the other plates[409].\n\nIn the Naples plate, we have the teaching, more or less dimly indicated\nin the quotations from the Orphic poems which occur in classical and\npatristic writers, brought to a focus. The dead has during his earthly\nlife taken part in the mystic rites which have told him whence life\ncomes and whither it is tending. He now has the right to demand from the\ndeities who preside over the death and rebirth of mortals that he be\nrelieved from the endless round of incarnations; and he backs up this\nrequest by proof of the knowledge he possesses of their nature and his\nown origin, at the same time uttering passwords which he has received on\nhis initiation. The effect of this, although out of reverence\nrepresented as an act of grace on the part of the divinities addressed,\nis in fact magical or automatic. The powers addressed perforce grant the\nrequest of the dead and he becomes like them a god[410], freed from the\nnecessity for any further deaths and rebirths. The same idea is\ntraceable throughout the whole of the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_ from\nwhich it may have been directly derived[411], and also in other\nreligions with which it would seem the Orphic teaching can have had no\nconnection[412]. But the point to remember at present is that it appears\nhenceforward in all the cults or sects to which we have given the\ngeneric name of Gnostic[413].\n\nHow this idea was propagated in Greece and her colonies is a question\nover which still hangs a great deal of obscurity. There exist a great\nnumber of quotations from poems attributed to Orpheus, which were\nclearly the composition of the Orphic school, and all these are, like\nthe gold plates, in hexameter verse. These, as Damascius implies, were\nrecited by professional declaimers called Rhapsodists[414] at the\ndifferent games and festivals held in honour of the gods, as were once\nthe so-called Homeric Hymns and the poems of Pindar, which they perhaps\nsucceeded and displaced. In this way they doubtless became familiar to\nmany thousands who would otherwise never have heard of the Orphic\nteaching, and our conviction on this point is strengthened when we see\nhow very numerous the festivals in which the Chthonian gods were\ncelebrated really were. Besides Eleusis, we hear of the worship of\nDionysos, Demeter and Persephone as infernal deities in Achaea, in the\nArgolid, in Arcadia, in Messenia, in Sparta, and in other parts of the\nPeloponnesus[415]. It also spread through Boeotia, where the national\ncult of Dionysos no doubt ensured it a good reception, and thence early\npassed into the islands of the Aegean. Crete had, as we have seen,\npractised it even before it came to Athens; and Demeter and Persephone\nwere not only worshipped in Sicily, but were taken to be the tutelary\ngods of the island. The Ionian colonists also took the worship of the\nEleusinian triad with them into Asia and they were adored in parts of\nAsia Minor as far distant from Greece as Cyzicus[416]. At all, or nearly\nall, these places, mysteries were celebrated having more or less\nlikeness to those of Eleusis, and were followed by games and festivals\nlike the Eleusinia, at which the songs of the Rhapsodists would be\nheard[417]. The frequent Dionysia, or festivals of Dionysos, scattered\nall over the Greek-speaking world, but especially in its Northern or\nBalkan provinces, no doubt offered an even better opportunity for making\nknown these poems.\n\nThe Orphic poets, also, by no means confined their songs to the worship\nof the deities adored at Eleusis. The Thracians, including in that name\nthe inhabitants of Macedonia and Thessaly, always had extraordinary\nideas about the future life, and Herodotus describes how they used to\ngather weeping round the new-born child, bewailing his entry into this\nmiserable world, while they rejoiced over the death of any of their\nfellows, declaring that he had thus obtained a happy deliverance from\nhis troubles[418]. These, however, were the very doctrines of the\nOrphics, who declared that the body was the grave of the soul, and that\nthe life of the world to come was the only one worth living. Hence the\nmythical Orpheus was said to have been a Thracian, and the worship of\nBacchus or the Theban Dionysos as the god of wine to have come into\nAttica from Thrace by way of Boeotia, a theory which derives some colour\nfrom the orgiastic dances and ravings of the Maenads and Bacchanals, who\nseem therein to have reproduced the rites of the savage Thracians[419].\nWhen the Phrygian divinities\u2014Cybele the Mother of the Gods, and her\nconsort Attis\u2014were brought into Greece, the Orphics seized hold of their\nlegends also, and so transformed them that it is now impossible for us\nto tell how much of them is Asiatic, and how much is the result of\nOrphic interpolation[420]. The same thing may be said of the worship of\nthe Syrian Adonis, whose mystic death turned him into the spouse of\nPersephone, and enabled the Orphics to identify him with Eubuleus or the\ninfernal Zeus or Dionysos, and of that of the Thracian moon-goddess\nBendis, early worshipped in Athens, whom an Orphic verse preserved by\nProclus declares to be Persephone herself[421].\n\nThe foreign god, however, in whose worship the Orphic doctrine is most\nplainly visible was Sabazius, who also seems originally to have come\nfrom Phrygia. He is described in an early Greek inscription as \u201cLord of\nall[422]\u201d and said later to be the son of Cybele. The Greeks, however,\nquickly identified him with Dionysos Zagreus[423], and an orgiastic\nworship of him penetrated into Athens some time before Alexander\u2019s\nconquests. This seems to have been well known to Aristophanes, who\ndeclaims in the _Lysistrata_ against the \u201cwantonness\u201d of the Athenian\nwomen, who gave themselves up to the pursuit of this god and the Syrian\nAdonis[424]. But the associations formed for the worship of these\ndivinities seem to have been recruited almost entirely from among the\ncourtezans of the Piraeus and the trades dependent on them, and more\nthan one of its priestesses were put to death for \u201cimpiety\u201d or\ninterference with the religion of the State. The low estimation in which\nit was generally held may be judged from the invective of Demosthenes\nagainst his rival Aeschines, whose mother Glaucothea was a priestess of\nSabazius, and who had himself in his youth assisted her in her\nduties[425]:\n\n    \u201cWhen you became a man, you knew by heart the books of your mother\n    and helped her to make up others; and you nightly gave the initiated\n    the _nebride_ (fawn-skin) and baptized them and purified them,\n    wiping off the clay and bran, and raising them after the\n    purifications, teaching them to say \u2018I have shunned evil. I have\n    found good.\u2019... By day you led fine _thiasi_ (confraternities)\n    through the streets crowned with leaves of fennel and poplar, you\n    heading the procession and squeezing the broad-jawed serpents,\n    waving them above your head while you shouted _Evoe Sabo\u00ef_ and\n    danced _Hyes Attis, Attis Hyes_; and the old women hailed you as\n    leader of the dance, and chief, and chest-bearer, and sieve-bearer,\n    and with such like titles; while you received from them as your pay\n    sops and twisted loaves and cakes. Who would not think himself lucky\n    with such a life!\u201d\n\nThe whole of this tirade may be explained by reference to the Orphic\nteaching about Dionysos Zagreus. The fawn-skin or _nebride_ was worn, as\nappears on thousands of vases, in the Dionysiac rites as in those\nrelating to the burial of Osiris. The clay and bran are thought to refer\nto the disguise which the Titans assumed when stealing upon the infant\ngod, and the speech about shunning evil apparently denotes the putting\naway of the Titanic nature and the resolution in future to cultivate the\nDionysiac soul. The serpents are explained by a custom peculiar to the\nSabazian rites of putting a live serpent into the bosom of the\ninitiate\u2019s garment and taking it out at the foot in memory of the shape\nin which Zeus begot Dionysos on his daughter Persephone. The mystic cry\nof \u201cEvoe\u201d is a well known feature of the orgiastic worship of Dionysos;\nwhile \u201cSabo\u00ef\u201d seems to cover some name or epithet of Sabazius[426], and\nthe phrase \u201cHyes Attis\u201d shows the connection with Attis, whose identity\nwith Dionysos forms the subject of more than one Orphic Hymn[427]. In\nall this also it may be noticed that there is no pretence of considering\nconduct as influencing the destiny of the initiate or even of\nconciliating the divinity invoked. The whole of the rites described are\nentirely magical, and owe all their efficacy to the knowledge of the\nright means to be used to compel the spiritual world to perform the\nvotaries\u2019 will. It is obvious that people with such ideas will be in no\ngreat hurry to extend the advantage of their discoveries to others less\nlucky than themselves and will on the contrary do much to keep them a\nsecret confined to a few[428].\n\nDid the Orphics, however, at any time form themselves into a church or\nbrotherhood pledged to mutual support and the propagation of the faith?\nSome writers of authority have thought so[429]; but there seems to be no\nevidence available to warrant the supposition. Although the worshippers\nof Cybele, Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, the Eleusinian deities, and\nSabazius, were by no means averse from announcing the nature of their\nfaith on their tombstones, we nowhere find any funeral inscriptions\ndeclaring the dead to have belonged to any body of worshippers calling\nthemselves Orphici. A more likely theory is that the Orphics were banded\ntogether in the small independent associations known as Thiasi, Erani,\nor Orgeones[430], like those which we have seen founded at Athens and\nelsewhere for the worship of foreign gods. It would seem probable\nenough; but as yet all documentary evidence is entirely lacking.\nRecords, generally in the shape of stelas or tablets containing the\nlists of members and the regulations of the associations, have been\nfound in some numbers for the _thiasi_ of nearly all the gods honoured\nby the Orphic poets who were not the gods of the Greek States; but among\nthem no association calling itself Orphic has yet been discovered. What\nwe do know is, that in the days of Plato, there was a class of strolling\ncharlatans called Orpheotelestae who were accustomed to haunt the doors\nof the rich with a heap of books said to have been written by Orpheus,\nout of which they offered, in exchange for money, to perform ceremonies\nof purification and initiation which they affirmed would purge from the\nrecipient all trace of personal or inherited guilt and assure him a\nhappy lot in the next world[431]. They also told fortunes, offered to\ndispose of enemies, and sometimes gathered together in some numbers so\nas to make a more vivid and imposing representation of the pains of the\nuninitiated in Hades, and thus induce the superstitious to pay the price\nof their charms[432]. They had a certain amount of success, and\nTheophrastus in his _Characters_ exhibits his _Deisidaemon_ or\nSuperstitious Man as going to them with his wife and family to be\npurified once a month[433]. Such vagabonds could hardly have made a\nliving had there been any organized body ready to render like services\nin a regular way, and the fact of their existence and the contempt with\nwhich they are spoken of by the writers of the period go some way to\nshow that no more regular Orphic brotherhood or sect was ever known in\nGreece.\n\nThere have nevertheless come down to us upwards of eighty hymns\nattributed to Orpheus which all bear a certain likeness to each other\nand were evidently intended by the compiler for use in some religious or\nmagical ceremony[434]. They are, like all the fragments of Orphic poems\nthat we have, in hexameter verse, and most of them conclude with an\ninvocation to the divinity to whom they are addressed to be present or\nto aid in the accomplishment of some \u201cwork,\u201d while this invocation often\nalludes to \u201cmysteries\u201d and \u201cinitiates.\u201d More than one text of these\nhymns exist, and the differences between them are so small that it is\nplain that their contents must for a long time have been known and\nsettled. Much variety of opinion exists among the learned as to their\ndate, the theory of their first modern commentator being that they were\nthe actual hymns used in the Eleusinian Mysteries[435], while Petersen\nthought that they were composed in the Ist or IInd century of our era,\nalthough he admitted that some eight or nine of them were probably\nolder[436]. One of the latest and best opinions seems to be that of\nProf. Albrecht Dieterich, who thinks that the collection dates from the\nperiod between 200 B.C. and the birth of Christ, and that it was\nprobably made on the sea-coast of Asia Minor and that of Egypt near\nAlexandria[437]. That the hymns were brought together for some religious\nor magical use associated with the Orphic teaching, is evident from the\nPreface, which purports to be an address to Musaeus, the legendary son\nof Orpheus, although it is really an invocation to all the gods\nworshipped by the Orphics, including several who are not specially\naddressed in the hymns which follow. Of the 87 or 88 hymns common to\nmost of the codices, all but nine bear after their titles a\nspecification of the particular perfume\u2014frankincense, myrrh, spices and\nthe like\u2014to be burnt while they are sung or recited. Most of the texts\nbear also an endorsement in another hand reading \u201cComrade! use [it] with\ngood fortune!\u201d and this has induced Prof. Dieterich and others to\nconclude that the collection was made for the liturgic use of some\nconfraternity or _thiasus_ professing Orphic doctrines[438]. The\nfollowing Hymn to Persephone will perhaps give a fair notion of the\nlines upon which these hymns are framed:\n\n\n                        HYMN TO PERSEPHONE[439].\n\n\n    \u201cPersephone, daughter of great Zeus, come, thou beloved one,\n    Only-begotten[440] goddess, accept the offerings well pleasing to\n       thee.\n    Much-honoured consort of Pluto, dear giver of life,\n    Praxidice, decked with love-locks, chaste offspring of Deo.\n    Giver of birth to the Eumenides, queen of those below the earth,\n    Virgin whom Zeus begot in unspeakable nuptials[441]\n    Mother of the loud-shouting, many-formed Eubuleus[442].\n    Playfellow of the Hours, light-bringer of glorious form,\n    Dread ruler of all, virgin teeming with fruit\n    Brilliant-rayed, horned-one, the sole desire of mortals.\n    Vernal one, who rejoicest in the breath of the meadows\n    Who dost bring to light the sacred shape of green fruit buds.\n    Who in autumn time wast wedded in a ravished bed:\n    Who art alone the life and death of much-enduring mortals.\n    Persephone! For thou dost ever nourish and slay all things.\n    Hear, blessed goddess, and send up fruits from the earth\n    Granting us in abundance peace and gentle-handed health\n    And a life of happiness, such as leads old age untroubled\n    To thy realm, O queen, and to dread Pluto.\u201d\n\nBy the side of this we may perhaps put the Hymn to Dionysos in the same\ncollection. It is probably later than the other in date, the syncretism\nwhich equates Persephone with Aphrodite, Cybele, and Isis pointing to a\npost-Alexandrian origin.\n\n\n                  [HYMN] OF MISE\u2014PERFUME: STORAX[443].\n\n\n    \u201cI invoke the law-giving, rod-bearing, Dionysos\n    The never-to-be-forgotten seed, Eubuleus of many names\n    Who art[444] sacred and sacrosanct Mise, ineffable queen!\n    Male and female, of double nature, the redeemer [_or_\n       curse-loosing][445] Iacchos\n    Whether thou art delighting in the sweet-smelling temple of Eleusis\n    Or art solemnizing mysteries with the Mother in Phrygia,\n    Or art rejoicing in Cyprus with the fair-crowned Cytherea,\n    Or dost exult in the pure wheat-bearing plains\n    With thy mother divine, black-robed, august Isis\n    And thy busy nurses[446] near the Egyptian stream,\n    Be gracious and come thou benevolent to accomplish our tasks.\u201d\n\nWhatever date be assigned to these hymns, it is at least admitted by all\ncommentators that they were composed for the use of persons professing\nOrphic doctrines, and we shall be on safe grounds if we assume that they\nrepresent the later state of the Orphic teaching. Collating them with\nthe fragments of Orphic verses preserved in the quotations of writers\nduring the late Pagan and early Christian centuries, we are able to\nreconstitute the whole Orphic creed, as it was known shortly before the\ntriumph of Christianity. We see from this that the Orphics attributed\nthe actual beginning of the universe to their god Dionysos, who first\nappeared from the egg formed from Night or Chaos. In that manifestation,\nhe was bisexual[447], and thus mother, as well as father, of all the\ngods and goddesses of the popular pantheon, the swallowing of his heart\nby Zeus making him one with the Homeric \u201cfather of gods and men.\u201d His\nsecond birth was due to the ineffable, or mystic, union of Zeus and\nDemeter, and he was in infancy torn in pieces and eaten by the Titans as\nnarrated above. From the ashes of these last, men were born, while\nDionysos himself became Hades, the King of the Dead, over whom he rules\nwith his consort Persephone, the daughter, as Dionysos is the son, of\nZeus and Demeter, and perhaps known to the initiate as only the female\nform of her consort[448]. This pair preside over the life and death of\nmortals, the soul or Dionysiac spark within each man or woman having to\npass repeatedly through the bodies of other human beings and animals\nuntil finally purified, when it will be united with Dionysos and thus\nbecome god[449]. But the process can be made easier and shorter by the\nsaving grace of the Mysteries, which by the knowledge they confer on the\ninitiate of the constitution and ramification of the divine nature, of\nthe geography, so to speak, of the next world, and of the magical words\nand formulas to be there repeated, give him a vast advantage over his\nless favoured fellows[450]. The third incarnation of Dionysos, god of\nwine, begotten by the father of gods and men on Semele, daughter of\nCadmus, after the heart of the infant Zagreus had been sewn in his\nthigh, must be looked upon as a concession to the popular belief in a\ndifferent mythology. To those initiated, whether in the Eleusinian or in\nother mysteries, the last incarnation of Dionysos was that brought about\nby the union of Zeus in serpent shape[451] with Persephone, and he must\nhave been the child whose mystic birth was acted in the Mysteries of\nEleusis where he was identified with Iacchos, the leader of the\nprocession.\n\nThe effect of this creed, the real symbol of the greatest movement which\never took place within the religion of the pre-Christian Greeks, upon\nthe religions that followed its appearance, remains to be considered. In\nthe first place, Orphism went a great way towards weaning the minds of\nmen from the idea of separate gods for different nations, and towards\nteaching them that all their national and local deities were but\ndifferent forms of one great Power, who was himself the source of all\nbeing. There can be little doubt that the Orphics thus regarded their\ngod Dionysos, whom they made one with his father Zeus, and hailed as\nbeing in himself female as well as male, and the common type of all\ngoddesses as well as of all gods. By their readiness to identify him\nalike with the chthonian god of Eleusis, and with all the foreign\ngods\u2014Adonis, Attis, Sabazius, and Osiris\u2014with whom they were brought in\ncontact, they showed how far they were willing to go in the path of\nsyncretism; and, but for the rise of Christianity and other religions,\nthere can be little doubt but that the whole of the Graeco-Roman deities\nwould eventually have merged in Dionysos[452]. Yet although in this, as\nwell as in their sanguine idea of the perfectibility of man\u2019s nature,\nthe Orphics may seem to have done somewhat towards elevating and\npurifying religion, it seems plain that their influence was on the whole\nhostile to it, and had they ever aimed at and attained supreme power,\nwould have ended in the negation of all religion whatever. Whether the\nOrphics originally demanded from their followers any moral as well as\nmaterial purification cannot now be said; but the proceedings of the\nOrpheotelestae show us how very early in their teaching all such ideas\nwere dropped, and the magical theory of the efficacy of the Mysteries as\na means of salvation came to outweigh everything else in the eyes of\ntheir votaries. The compulsion of the gods, however, is an idea that,\nonce rooted in the mind of man, is sure to bring forth most unwholesome\nfruit; and Orphism seems to have brought with it from the beginning all\nthe worst practices of magic. The Orpheotelestae did not scruple, as has\nbeen said, to undertake to rid their initiates of an inconvenient\nadversary[453]; and although this may not at the outset have implied\nanything worse than idle curses, it was at any rate murder in intention,\nand in Greece, as everywhere else, early led to the calling-in of the\naid of poison. Magical rites, too, generally bring with them a more or\nless pronounced worship of devils or evil beings as such, and there are\nmany signs that the Orphics by no means confined their invocations to\npowers supposed to be friendly to man. Among the Orphic Hymns may be\nfound an invocation to the Titans, who were the legendary enemies of\nZeus Dionysos and all the celestial gods, and it is probable that this\ninstance is not a solitary one[454]. The worship of gods given up to\nevil generally results in the depravation of the morals of their\nvotaries, and the purposes for which they are invoked are seldom\nsublime. Most of this evil sorcery seems to have centred round the cult\nof Hecate, herself a mystery goddess revered at Eleusis and especially\ndear to the Orphics[455]. Down to the very end of paganism, and indeed,\nonward through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Hecate remained the\nmistress of magicians and the patron saint of sorcerers[456].\n\nOne other consequence of the Orphic teaching deserves to be noted. The\nsyncretistic tendency, which led the true Orphic to regard Zeus, Apollo,\nHades, and all the gods and goddesses of the popular pantheon as so many\nvarying forms of his own Dionysos, must have always rendered him\nindifferent as to what deity received his public devotions. Secure in\nthe sacramental grace bestowed upon him by the mere participation in the\nMysteries, and fortified by the knowledge of the formulas which were by\nthemselves sufficient to ensure him a happy lot in the next world, it is\nplain that he must always have held himself at liberty to adore any god\nor goddess worshipped by those among whom he found himself, and that he\nmust have been ready to conform outwardly to any religion which seemed\nto offer him any personal advantage. Knowledge, not faith, was to him\nthe one thing needful to the soul, and he would be as little likely to\nthink of enduring persecution for opinion\u2019s sake as to approve of\ninflicting it. The secret rites and the secret formulas comprised the\nwhole of his religion.\n\nTo sum up, then, the practical result of their speculations, the Orphics\ntaught that the universe had passed through several stages of evolution\nsince it was formed from chaos by its First God or Divine Workman. Each\nof these stages was described as the reign of a fresh ruler or supreme\ndivinity, who was the \u201cson\u201d of the foregoing or, as it would seem, a new\nincarnation of him. Man came into being through the mystic death and\ndispersion throughout the universe of one of the last of these\nincarnations, and therefore contains within himself a spark of the\nDivine nature which is capable of purification from the contamination of\nsoulless matter. This is effected in the ordinary way by a succession of\ndeaths and rebirths in the course of which man\u2019s soul would pass into\nthat of other animals and human beings. But the process was thought to\nbe shortened by participation in certain mysteries or secret rites\nhanded down by tradition, wherein the hidden constitution and purpose of\nNature were disclosed to the initiate, and he was equipped with\nmysterious names and formulas thought to possess magical power. These,\nby their mere utterance, gave him the right to demand his release from\nthe painful circle of rebirths which was the common lot of mankind, and\nin effect turned him into a being superior to man. The possession of\nthis wonder-working knowledge or gnosis was not however granted\nindiscriminately to all, but remained a secret confined to a favoured\nfew, who were pledged under sufficiently severe sanctions not to\ndisclose it. That all religions professed by mankind were equal and\nindifferent in the eyes of the Orphic seems to follow logically from\nthis, as does the position that he might himself profess any of them\nthat seemed to him expedient. We shall find all these features present\nin the many sects of post-Christian Gnostics.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  Lobeck in his _Aglaophamus_, K\u00f6nigsberg, 1829, vol. I. pp. 233-1104,\n  makes this clear. It was also the opinion of Aristotle according to\n  Cicero (_de Nat. Deor._ Bk I. c. 38). Other authorities are collected\n  by Purser in his article \u201cOrphica\u201d in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and\n  Roman Antiquities_, 1890, vol. II. who quotes with approval Preller\u2019s\n  remark that Orpheus was \u201ceine litterarische Collectivperson.\u201d See also\n  Paul Monceaux in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._\n  Orphica.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk VII. c. 6. Tatian, _adv. Graecos_, c. XLI.; Clem. Alex.\n  _Strom._ Bk I. c. 21; Sext. Emp. _Pyrrh. Hypotyp._ III. p. 115 B. Cf.\n  Purser, _art. cit._\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  K. O. M\u00fcller, _Hist. of the Literature of Ancient Greece_, Eng. ed.\n  vol. I. pp. 308, 309; and authorities quoted by O. Kern, _de Orphei,\n  Epimenidis Pherecydis Theogoniis_, Berlin, 1888, p. 6.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  The first mention of such rites is said to have been made by Arctinus\n  of Miletus in his _\u00c6thiopis_, where he describes Ulysses as purifying\n  Achilles for the murder of Thersites. See Grote\u2019s _History of Greece_,\n  4th ed. vol. I. pp. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  K. O. M\u00fcller, _op. cit._ I. pp. 310, 311.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 21.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  The search for its original home seems hopeless at present. It might\n  easily be connected with Babylonian beliefs, and the Orphic Dionysos\n  has too many features in common with Tammuz, the lover of Ishtar, for\n  the resemblance to be entirely accidental. But other elements in the\n  story, such as the mundane egg, are found in the Vedas, and may point\n  to an Indian origin. The discovery a few years ago at Boghaz Keui in\n  Cilicia of inscriptions showing that the Vedic gods were worshipped in\n  Asia Minor at least as early as 1270 B.C., makes it very difficult to\n  say whether the Vedic gods may not have reached India from Asia Minor\n  or _vice versa_. In this case, it is possible that Onomacritos may\n  have learned some of the legends at the Court of the Great King at\n  Susa.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  Pindar, _Isthm._ VI. i. 3; Aeschyl. _Sisyphus Drapetes_, fr. 242 of\n  Didot; Sophocles, _Antigone_, ll. 1121 _sqq._; Euripides, _Rhesus_,\n  ll. 942 _sqq._ Cf. D\u00f6llinger, _Jud. und Heid._ Eng. ed. vol. I. p.\n  259.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  Demosthenes, _adv. Aristog._ I. p. 773. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_,\n  II. p. 320; Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Orphica\n  and Eleusinia, for other authorities.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk II. cc. 145, 146.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  This is the \u201cTheogony of the Rhapsodists,\u201d which seems to have been\n  the most popular of all the Orphic theogonies. The different texts in\n  which it is preserved have been collected by Abel, _Orphica_, Lips.\n  1885, pp. 48-140. It is well summarized by Purser in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of\n  Antiq._ where before quoted. Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Orpheus.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  Aristoph. _Aves_, ll. 691-706.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  _Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce_, t. III. p. 310.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. See Orphic Hymn on p. 142, _infra_. Persephone has also\n  Zeus for her father in the Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_, l. 396. The\n  epithet cannot imply that she was his only daughter, as he had other\n  daughters among the Homeric gods, such as Athena and Aphrodite, but\n  rather that she was \u201cunique,\u201d or one of a kind. The mistaking of the\n  word \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 for \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 by Christian and Jewish writers has\n  led to much confusion; and Renan (_L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, Paris, 1879,\n  p. 200, n. 2) notes that George the Syncellus calls Bar Coziba, the\n  Jewish Messiah, \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. See the story of the begettal of Persephone\n  which Maury, _op. cit._ III. pp. 321, 322, quotes from Clement of\n  Alexandria and Arnobius. Both authors derive from it the name of Brimo\n  given to Demeter in the Mysteries. Cf. Chap. VIII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  Orphic Hymn XXX in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, where he is called\n  \u201cFirst-begotten, of a double nature, thrice-born, Bacchic king,\n  Hunter, Ineffable One, Hidden One, two horned, and of double form.\u201d\n  Cf. his epithet \u201cbull-faced\u201d in Orphic Hymn XLV. So Clement of\n  Alexandria quotes a verse from some unnamed poet that \u201cthe bull has\n  begotten a serpent, the serpent a bull,\u201d _Protrept._ c. II.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  As in the statue at Megalopolis in Arcadia described by Pausanias, Bk\n  VIII. c. 31, where Polycleitos portrayed the young god with a cup and\n  a _thyrsos_, besides wearing _cothurni_, but with the eagle and the\n  name of Zeus \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c2. Ael. Aristides, _in Dionysum_, says that Dionysos\n  is Zeus himself, a doctrine which Justin Martyr, _Cohort._ c. XV,\n  attributes to Orpheus.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  The story with full references to authorities is given by Maury, _Rel.\n  de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique_, t. III. pp. 342 _sqq._; Purser in Smith\u2019s _Dict.\n  of Greek and Roman Antiquities_, 1890, _s.v._ Orphica; Cecil Smith,\n  \u201cOrphic Myths on Attic Vases,\u201d _J.H.S._ 1890, pp. 343-351; Dyer, _The\n  Gods in Greece_, 1891, p. 128; Paul Monceaux in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s\n  _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Orphica. The eating of a god or other being\n  in order to obtain possession of the victim\u2019s qualities is a common\n  idea among primitive peoples, as is set forth at length in Frazer,\n  _Golden Bough_, 3rd ed. pt V, vol. II. ch. 10. It was familiar to the\n  Egyptians, as is seen in the Pyramid Texts of the VIth Dynasty, where\n  the glorified King Unas is represented as chasing, catching, cooking,\n  and eating the gods in the next world in order to assimilate their\n  powers. See Maspero, _Les Pyramides de Saqqarah_, pp. 67 _sqq._ So in\n  a magic papyrus now at Leyden, the magician threatens the god Set whom\n  he is invoking, that if he is not obedient, he will speak to \u201cthe\n  Great God\u201d (Serapis?) who will tear Set \u201climb from limb and give his\n  powers to a mangy dog sitting on a dung-hill to eat.\u201d See Leemans,\n  _Papyri Graeci_, vol. II. pp. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ pp. 27, 28.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  Foucart, where last quoted; Hesiod, _Works and Days_, l. 465 (p. 39,\n  Didot).\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  Such ideas may, however, have been current in the religions of the\n  Eastern Mediterranean long before Orphic times. Dr Budge in his book\n  _Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection_, I. p. 28, reiterates what he\n  has before stated elsewhere, _i.e._ that Osiris was to his worshippers\n  \u201cthe god-man, the first of those who rose from the dead,\u201d and that his\n  death and resurrection were therefore supposed to be in some way\n  beneficial to mankind. This is very likely, but I know of no Egyptian\n  text that in any way connects the creation of man with the death of\n  Osiris. On the contrary, a text which Dr Budge has himself published\n  makes men and women to come into being from the tears which came forth\n  from the eye of the god Khepera, here probably to be identified with\n  Nu, the primaeval Ocean or Deep. See Budge, _The Gods of the\n  Egyptians_, vol. I. p. 299. The Zoroastrian religion, in the late form\n  in which we have it in the _Bundahish_ (see West, _S.B.E._ Oxford,\n  1880, _Pahlavi Texts_, pt I.), does indeed make man spring from the\n  death of Gayomort, the First or Primaeval Man, slain by Ahriman. If we\n  choose to suppose that this conception went back to the times of\n  Zoroaster himself, that is to say, about 700 B.C., Onomacritos might\n  easily have found this part of the story at the Court of Susa. Cf.\n  Bousset, _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1907, pp. 215-223. It\n  is significant that, according to Pausanias, Bk VIII. c. 37, it was\n  Onomacritos who first made the Titans evil powers, or as he says\n  \u201ccontributing to the sufferings of Dionysos.\u201d\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ Bk III. c. 3, quotes this expression\n  from \u201cPhilolaos the Pythagorean.\u201d Athenaeus, _Deipnosophistae_, Bk IV.\n  p. 157 C (Teubner) from \u201cEuxitheus the Pythagoric.\u201d It evidently went\n  back to the earliest Orphic teaching reduced to writing.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  See Lobeck, _Aglaophamus_, I. p. 566, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u1fe6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The line is attributed to\n  Orpheus by Simplicius in his Commentary on Aristotle, _de Caelo_, II.\n  p. 168 (ed. Karsten). According to Proclus, _in Plat. Tim._ V. 380 A,\n  B, it was part of a prayer which Orphics used when being initiated in\n  the mysteries of \u201cDemeter and Cora.\u201d The Pythagorean doctrine of\n  transmigration and its adoption by the Orphics are well set out by\n  Luebbert in his _Commentatio de Pindaro dogmatis de migratione\n  animarum cultore_, Bonn, 1887, _q.v._\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  All these prohibitions persisted, and we meet with them in nearly all\n  the religions hereafter described including the Manichaean. The\n  filiation may well be direct, as such sects as the Valentinians grew\n  up in an atmosphere of Orphic teaching. If, however, it should appear\n  that the Orphic notions on this subject were derived from some Western\n  Asiatic source, it is plain that the Ophites and Manichaeans may have\n  drawn theirs from the same fount and independently.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  Euripides, _Cretenses_, p. 733 (Didot). The fragment is found in\n  Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 19. Cf. Euripides, _Hippolytus_,\n  l. 952.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  See Frazer and Maspero as quoted in note 3 p. 125, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  That this was the regular Orphic phrase is plain from the verse quoted\n  above, note 3 p. 127. Cf. the gold plates of Naples, p. 133, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  Cf. Luebbert, _op. cit._ p. v. The confusion in Cicero between\n  _animus_ and _anima_, or mind and soul, is curious. Cf. Olympiodorus,\n  _Comment. ad Plat. Phaed._ as given in Fr. 225 of Abel\u2019s _Orphica_ (p.\n  245).\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  Orpheus is mentioned in the IVth Pythian ode as the \u201cfather of songs,\u201d\n  and in fragments of the _Threnoi_ as \u201cthe golden-sworded son of\n  Oiagreus,\u201d p. 116 (Bergk). In the VIth Isthmian ode, Dionysos is made\n  the temple-companion or assessor (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) of Demeter. The delights\n  of the blessed dead are set forth in fragments of the _Threnoi_ (see\n  Fragment X. 1, 2, 3, 4 of Teubner, pp. 95, 96, Cod. Boeckh); their\n  reincarnation as heroes in a fragment from the same poem: _ibid._\n  Frag. X. 4, p. 98, Cod. B\u00f6.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  The earlier idea espoused by Creuzer and others (see Guigniaut,\n  _Religions de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9_, vol. III. _passim_, and especially pp.\n  1207, 1208) that the Chthonian gods were worshipped as the symbols of\n  generation and death seems a good deal nearer the truth than the\n  \u201cCorn-spirit\u201d theory set on foot by the _Golden Bough_ that they were\n  the gods of agriculture and vegetation. Of course both explanations\n  can be read into what we know of the Mysteries. Why these last should\n  have been kept secret even before the rise of Orphism is hard to see.\n  M. Paul Foucart\u2019s view that they came originally from a foreign\n  country (according to him from Egypt) offers one explanation of this;\n  but see n. 2 p. 139, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  So F. Lenormant in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Ant._ _s.v._\n  Eleusinia. See, too, his article on Dionysos Zagreus in the _Gazette\n  Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1879. So Purser in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Antiq._ as last\n  quoted (cf. article \u201cEleusinia\u201d). Aeschylus, _Sisyphus Drapetes_,\n  frag. 242, p. 238, Didot, and Alcmaeonis, in _Etymologicum Magnum_,\n  _s.h.v._ both know of Zagreus, and Sophocles, _Antigone_, ll.\n  1140-1154 identifies Dionysos and Iacchos.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  Synesius (Ptol. Episcop.), _Dion_ (Migne, _Script. Gr._ t. 66, pp.\n  1153-1156), says so plainly. Cf. Galen, _de Usu Partium_ (Kuhn\u2019s\n  _Medici Graeci_, Claudius Galenus, vol. IV. pp. 702, 703), and\n  Plutarch, _de Defect. Orac._ p. 422 (_Moralia_, vol. I. p. 514,\n  Didot).\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  Sophocles, _Triptolemus_ (Frag. 348, Didot). Homeric _Hymn to\n  Demeter_, ll. 480 _sqq._ (p. 565, Didot). See also Chap. II, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  Plutarch, _de audiend._ _Poet._ IV. 76 (Reisk); Diogenes Laertius,\n  _Vit. Phil._ c. VI.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  They have been many times described, especially by Kaibel and\n  Comparetti (for references see Monceaux in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s\n  _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Orphica). The translations in the text are\n  by Prof. Gilbert Murray and are taken from his Appendix to Miss Jane\n  Harrison\u2019s _Prolegomena to Study of Greek Religion_, 1903, _q.v._\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  The same phrase is used in the Orphic Hymn XIII. with regard to\n  Kronos, Abel, _Orphica_, p. 66.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  This idea reappears in one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_.\n  See Chap. X, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  So Aelius Aristides (_in Serapidem_, p. 98) speaks of the light of the\n  sun being restored by Serapis \u201cto those whose tombs contain holy\n  books.\u201d\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  As Foucart, _Culte de Dionysos_, p. 34, n. 3, has pointed out, this\n  cannot refer to the Titanic part of man, which he was enjoined by the\n  Orphics to mortify as far as possible. There is something to be said\n  for M. Foucart\u2019s view that the dead is here shown as another Osiris,\n  son of the earth-god Geb and the sky-goddess Nut. It is curious that\n  this last is always portrayed on Egyptian monuments with a\n  star-spangled body, while I know of no Greek representation of Uranos\n  which connects him with the stars.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  \u201cOf good counsel.\u201d A name of Dionysos, as appears from the Orphic\n  Hymns given later in this chapter.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  A name of Demeter, Persephone, and some other Chthonian goddesses. See\n  Aristophanes, _Thesmophoriazusae_, l. 286. It probably means merely\n  \u201cmistress.\u201d\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  It has been suggested that this is a figure for the initiated dead\n  receiving all that they wish. It should be noted, however, that in the\n  Zoroastrian religion the flood of molten metal which is to burn the\n  wicked is to feel to the faithful like warm milk. So N. S\u00f6derblom, _La\n  Vie Future d\u2019apr\u00e8s la Mazd\u00e9isme_, Paris, 1901, p. 266, quoting the\n  _Dinkard_ and the _Bundahish_. The phrase is discussed by M. Salomon\n  Reinach in _Revue Arch\u00e9ol._ 1901, II. pp. 202-213, and _Cultes, Mythes\n  et Religions_, Paris, 1909, t. II. pp. 123-134. M. Alline, in _Xenia_,\n  Athens, 1912, connects it with the supposed Orphic idea that blessed\n  souls inhabit the Milky Way.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  Perhaps not directly. There is some reason for thinking that the soul\n  of the true Orphic was supposed to pass through the intermediate\n  stages of hero and demon: see Hild, _\u00c9tude sur les D\u00e9mons_, Paris,\n  1881, p. 144, where the subject is excellently treated. Cf. Pindar,\n  _Threnoi_, Frag. X. 4, p. 98, Cod. B\u00f6. The deification of the dead was\n  also a Pythagorean doctrine, as appears in the _Aurea Carmina_, ll.\n  70, 71, ed. Gaisford.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  This is the suggestion of Foucart, _Myst. d\u2019\u00c9l._ p. 72. That the\n  Egyptian dead was supposed to become one with Osiris himself is an\n  idea that appears as early as the Pyramid Texts, cf. Maspero, _Les\n  Pyramides de Saqqarah_, _passim_, where the dead kings are each in\n  turn hailed as \u201cthis Osiris.\u201d\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  Buddhism, for instance, which can hardly have reached the West before\n  the death of Onomacritos.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  As in the _Pistis Sophia_, where Jesus says to his disciples, \u201cKnow ye\n  not that ye are all gods ...\u201d, p. 247 (Copt.).\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  For Damascius, _Quaest. de primis principiis_, see Abel\u2019s _Orphica_,\n  Frag. 48. Cf. as to Rhapsodists, Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, I. pp.\n  240, 345, 346.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  See Maury, _op. cit._ II. pp. 370 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  Maury, _op. cit._ II. p. 374.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  Such as the Mysteries of Samothrace, held in honour, according to one\n  account, of Pluto, Demeter, and Persephone, together with Hermes. See\n  Maury, _op. cit._ II. pp. 306 _sqq._ for authorities. It was at these\n  mysteries that Philip of Macedon was said to have first seen and loved\n  Olympias (Plutarch, _Alexander_, c. 2).\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk V. c. 4.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  See Maury, _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, II. p. 203, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  As in the Orphic Hymn to Mise given on p. 143, _infra_, where the\n  Eleusinian Dionysos, called also Eubuleus and Iacchos, is identified\n  with Cybele, the Cyprian Aphrodite, and the Egyptian Isis. See, too,\n  the Hymn \u201cof the Great Mysteries\u201d given in the _Philosophumena_ of\n  Hippolytus, where Dionysos is equated with Adonis, Osiris, the god of\n  Samothrace, Attis, and others. See n. 1 p. 139, and Chap. VIII,\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  See last note; Proclus, _in Plat. Polit._ p. 353 (Abel\u2019s _Orphica_,\n  Frag. 184).\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. _C.I.G._ t. II. No. 3791 (B\u00f6.). Cf. the Aeschylean\n  description of Zagreus as the \u201cHighest of All\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd)\n  quoted by Gaisford in his notes to _Etymologicum Magnum_ (see _Cycli\n  Fragmenta_ of Didot, _s.v._ Epigoni vel Alemaeonis).\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  Cf. the \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03b9\u03b5 ... \u1f42\u03c2 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd of Hymn XLVIII. Abel\u2019s\n  _Orphica_.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  _Lysistrata_, ll. 386-390. Cf. Foucart, _Les Ass. Rel._ pp. 61-64, who\n  quotes nearly all the available authorities in his notes. See also\n  Monceaux in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Sabazios.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  Demosthenes, _de Corona_, pp. 259 _sqq._ Cf. Foucart, _Les Ass. Rel._\n  p. 67, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  In the Orphic Hymn to Hippa (Hymn XLIX. Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, p. 84), the\n  mysteries of the \u201cpure Sabos?\u201d (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5) are alluded to in terms\n  which make it possible that the name was one of the epithets of the\n  Iacchos of Eleusis.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  In a hymn preserved for us by Hippolytus (_Philosophumena_, Bk V. c.\n  1, p. 176, Cruice) the \u201cmultiform Attis,\u201d who has just been declared\n  \u201cin a hymn of the Great Mysteries\u201d to be the god who is called Adonis,\n  Osiris, Adam (by the Samothracians), Corybas and Pappas, is thus\n  addressed: \u201cI will sing Attis, son of Rhea, not with the sound of\n  trumpets, nor with the Idaean flutes in harmony with the songs of the\n  Curetes. But I will mingle with my lay Phoebus\u2019 music of lutes. _Evoe\n  Evan_, since thou art Pan, since thou art Bacchus, since thou art the\n  shepherd of white stars.\u201d In the address to Musaeus with which the\n  collection of Orphic Hymns begins, the Mother of the Gods, Attis, Men,\n  Aphrodite Urania, and Adonis are invoked together. See Abel\u2019s\n  _Orphica_, p. 58. In Roman times Attis and Sabazius seem to be\n  identified, while Adonis is often confounded with them. See Maury,\n  _Rel. de la Gr\u00e8ce_, III. p. 102 and n. 4.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  This is, perhaps, the only satisfactory reason that can be assigned\n  for the secrecy with which the Mysteries of Eleusis, of the Great\n  Mother, and the rest were surrounded. The notion put forward by the\n  Fathers that the mystic rites were kept secret because of their\n  obscenity has little weight when we consider the Phallophoria and the\n  Terms, or street statues of Hermes, which were publicly exhibited. The\n  existence of secret rites among primitive folk like the black races of\n  Africa and the native Australians can be explained in the same way.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  Purser, _ubi cit._ _supra_, speaks of it as \u201can ascetic religious\n  brotherhood,\u201d as did K. O. M\u00fcller, _Introduction to a Scientific\n  System of Mythology_ (Eng. ed.), p. 318, and _Litt. of Ant. Greece_,\n  I. p. 307. D\u00f6llinger, _Jud. und Heid._ I. p. 161, says truly that\n  there is no evidence that at any time there existed a regularly formed\n  association of Orphici in Greece. So Monceaux in Daremberg and Saglio,\n  _s.v._ Orpheus.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  This was the opinion of Guigniaut, _Religions de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9_, Paris,\n  1825, t. III. p. 1203.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  Plato, _Republic_, Bk II. c. 7, is the classical passage. Cf.\n  D\u00f6llinger, _op. cit._ I. pp. 165-167, and references there given.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  See D\u00f6llinger as in last note.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  Theophrastus, _Characteres_, c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  There are 88 in the text published by Abel (_Orphica_, pp. 55-102).\n  This includes the Hymn to Ares generally classed among the Homeric\n  Hymns.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  The celebrated Thomas Taylor the Platonist. Pausanias, Bk IX. cc. 27\n  and 30, says that the Hymns of Orpheus were short and few, and that\n  the Lycomidae knew and sung them in the Mysteries.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  Abel, _Orphica_, p. 55, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  Dieterich, _de Hymnis Orphicis_, Marp. Catt. 1891. Otto Kern in the\n  _Festschrift_ presented to Prof. Carl Robert, 1910, points out that\n  there is no trace of the worship of the Emperor in the Hymns, and that\n  these must therefore all be anterior to the Christian era; also that\n  the Egyptian deities are so seldom named in them, that the collection\n  cannot have been made in Egypt. He thinks it comes from Asia Minor.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  The collection may have been used as an oracle or divining-book like\n  any other poems written in hexameters. See a curious instance of this\n  in Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in British Museum_, pp. 83 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  This is numbered XXIX. in Abel\u2019s text. This, and the hymns of Hecate,\n  Pluto, the Curetes, Dionysos Bassareus, the Ever-living Deliverer\n  (Bacchus), Aphrodite, Nemesis, Nomos, and the doubtful one to Ares are\n  the only hymns out of the original collection which have not the note\n  appended as to the perfume to be burnt.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u201cUnique,\u201d see n. 3 p. 124, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  So Clement of Alexandria, _Protrept._ c. II. speaks of \u201cthe mysteries\n  of Demeter, and Zeus\u2019 wanton embraces of his mother and the wrath of\n  Demeter ... also the entreaties of Zeus, and the drink of gall, the\n  plucking-out of the hearts of sacrifices and deeds we dare not name.\u201d\n  Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, Bk V. cc. 20, 21, tells substantially the\n  same story.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  See n. 2 p. 133, _supra_. In these hymns it is used always as an\n  epithet either of Bacchus or Hades with whom the mystic Bacchus was\n  identified.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  No. XLII. in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_. Persephone was called Mise Kore at\n  Pergamum (C. Radet, _Revue des \u00c9tudes anciennes_, January-March, 1911,\n  p. 77), which shows how closely she had become identified with her\n  consort. Otherwise the word is only known, I believe, as a name of\n  Dionysos.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  \u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  Doubtless the bees, who throughout Asia Minor were said to be the\n  attendants of the Great Goddess. The priestesses of the Ephesian\n  Artemis were called \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 or Bees, and there were \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 at\n  Eleusis. See Foucart, _Grds. Myst._ pp. 66, 67. Cf. Aristophanes,\n  _Frogs_, l. 1274. So were those of Cybele: cf. Lactantius, _Div.\n  Inst._ Bk I. c. 22. Cf. also, A. B. Cook, \u201cThe Bee in Greek Mythology\u201d\n  in _J.H.S._ XV. (1895), pp. 17 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c5\u1fc6. See Orphic Hymn VI. in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  As in the Orphic Hymn to Mise quoted above. Cf. Dyer, _op. cit._ pp.\n  178, 179.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  That this may have been thought to be the result of the mystic union\n  of the initiate with Dionysos seems possible from the statement of\n  Plutarch, that this last was born as a man, but by his merit was\n  translated from this earthly and suffering body, _Life of Pelopidas_,\n  c. XVI. Cf. Budge, _Pseudo-Callisthenes\u2019 Life of Alexander the Great_,\n  p. 135.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  A sort of echo of this is perhaps to be found in the idea prevalent in\n  the primitive Church that martyrs for the faith passed direct to a\n  state of blessedness without waiting like the rest of the faithful for\n  the Last Judgment. Cf. Revelation vi. 9-11; Neander, _Ch. Hist._ I. p.\n  463.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  Zeus Chthonios or the Zeus below the earth. The serpent was always to\n  the Orphic poets a symbol or pictorial representation of earth.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  This seems to be the upshot of the remarks in Pseudo-Callisthenes\n  (Budge, _op. cit._ _supra_), pp. 8, 12, 40-48, 127, 135. The same idea\n  is specially marked in the writings of Proclus and other\n  Neo-Platonists and by them attributed to Orpheus. Cf. Abel\u2019s\n  _Orphica_, _s.v._ Teletai, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n  Plato, _Republ._ Bk II. c. 7.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n  No. XXXVII. in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, p. 78.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n  See Maury, _La Magie et L\u2019Astrologie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 et en Moyen\n  \u00c2ge_, Paris, 1860, pp. 54, 55, for authorities. The Orphic Hymns above\n  quoted begin with an invocation to Hecate.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n  As in Shakespeare\u2019s _Macbeth_.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n                  PRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE ESSENES\n\n\nIt comes as rather a wrench to leave the graceful, if vain, speculations\nof the Greeks, with their joyous and free life and their passionate\nworship of beauty, which saw in every shifting aspect of nature the\nrevelation of some Being more perfect and glorious than man, for the\ngloomy and misanthropic monotheism of the Palestinian Jews. Nor is the\nchange made more pleasant when we consider the contrast between the\nideas of the two nations as to the perfectibility of man\u2019s nature and\nhis lot after death. While the Greeks under Orphic influence had come to\nlook upon their gods as usually well-disposed to mankind[457] and even\nwilling to share their power and place with, at any rate, a few\nhighly-gifted or fortunate men, the fanatics among the Jews who returned\nfrom the Babylonian Captivity seem to have seen in their national Deity\na jealous and uncompromising tyrant, possessed with a hatred for\nhumanity in general, and only extending a modified favouritism to one\nsmall nation not distinguished by any specially attractive\nqualities[458]. To this nation, Yahweh had, according to their own\ntraditions, promised exclusive temporal advantages; but in spite of this\npromise they had become in turn the slaves or tributaries of the\nEgyptians, the Philistines, the Assyrians, Chaldaeans, and Persians, and\nhad been more than once forcibly removed by their masters from the land\nthat they looked upon as their God-given inheritance. Moreover, the\ngrace, such as it was, of the Deity they worshipped was held by them to\nextend to this life only, after which they thought they would either\nperish like the beasts or would lead at the best a shadowy and\ncolourless existence in Sheol or Hades, like that which called forth the\ncomplaints of the Achilles of the _Odyssey_[459]. Hence the soil of\nJudaea at the coming of Alexander might have seemed to anyone to be as\nunlikely a field for the propagation of ideas resembling those of the\nOrphics as could well be imagined. But the Jews, with all their\npragmatism and narrowness of ideal, have always shown a power of\nassimilating the ideas of others and of adapting themselves to the\nusages of the peoples among whom they are cast by a sort of protective\nmimicry like that to which the preservation of certain insect types is\nsaid to be due. This quality had already stood them in good stead during\ntheir different periods of captivity in Egypt and Chaldaea, where before\nAlexander\u2019s conquests they had contrived to get a good deal of the\nfinancial management of their captors\u2019 affairs into their own hands, and\nwhere they doubtless acted as spies and guides to the armies of the\nGreat Conqueror[460]. For these services Alexander after his fashion\nroyally rewarded them; but the real crisis of the nation\u2019s fate\napproached when Alexander\u2019s work was done, and when the different\nnationalities which he had forced, as it were, into the melting-pot,\nbecame tired of acting as pieces in the war game played by his generals\nand successors, and began to look favourably upon the security offered\nby the Roman government. In this new order of the world, Palestine,\nwhich had hitherto owed its autonomous existence to the fact that it\nformed a useful buffer state or neutral ground separating the two great\npowers Egypt and Syria and was not vehemently desired by any other\nnation, saw the reason for her _quasi_-independence vanishing. Ptolemy\nSoter, with his usual prescience, had early seen the advantage of\ngetting this borderland into his own custody, and had captured\nJerusalem, it is said, one Sabbath morning, when the superstition of the\ninhabitants deterred them from defending it effectually[461]. The story,\nas thus told, probably owes something to the necessity for flattering\nthe national vanity; but it is evident that the politic Lagides knew how\nto reconcile the Jews to the easy yoke of their suzerainty, and under\nthe early Ptolemies the Jews remained generally faithful to Egypt. When\nEgypt\u2019s sway became enfeebled after the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator,\nAntiochus the Great seized upon Palestine, probably with the connivance\nof a part of its inhabitants[462]; and although it remained fairly\ncontented with its new masters until Antiochus\u2019 death, in the reign of\nhis successor, Antiochus Epiphanes, the Jews found themselves confronted\nwith a very disagreeable dilemma. For Antiochus Epiphanes, after his\nsuccessful attack upon Egypt had been frustrated by the Romans, saw\nplainly enough that only an empire united and homogeneous in faith and\nculture could resist for long the new power rising in the West[463], and\nresolved to force on the complete Hellenization of the Jews at all\nhazards. How he failed is told in the Books of the Maccabees, although\nhis failure brought little good to his rebellious subjects, who soon\npassed with the rest of his empire into the hands of the victorious\nRomans.\n\nTo this end, the splitting-up of the chosen people into warring sects\nmaterially contributed. Josephus, writing somewhere about the year 70\nA.D., tells us that there existed in his day three \u201cphilosophic\u201d sects\namong the Jews[464]. The first two of these were the Pharisees and\nSadducees familiar to everybody through their mention in the New\nTestament, and the third was the \u201cEssenes.\u201d These Essenes\u2014a name which\nby some has been thought to mean \u201cthe Pure[465]\u201d\u2014he describes as a small\nsect numbering not more than 4000 in all, and scattered throughout the\nvillages of Palestine. They lived entirely by manual labour, such as\nagriculture, and were extraordinarily hospitable to other members of the\nsame sect, so that an Essene never found it necessary to take anything\nwith him on a journey, but could always obtain what he wanted from his\nfellow-sectaries, even though personally unknown to them. As to their\ndoctrines, he tells us that though \u201cJews by birth\u201d they abjured\nmarriage[466], and only recruited their ranks by adoption. They\npractised, on the same authority, the fullest community of goods, and\nforbade conversation on worldly matters before the rising of the sun, at\nwhich they repeated certain traditional prayers, \u201cas if they made\nsupplication for his rising.\u201d Their meals were always eaten in common\nand in a sacramental manner, purification in cold water and the donning\nof white garments being a necessary preliminary[467]. Sobriety and\nrestraint in speech were, he says, among their most marked\ncharacteristics, and they avoided the taking of judicial oaths, averring\nthat \u201che who cannot be believed without swearing by God is already\ncondemned.\u201d Initiation into the sect was both long and difficult. The\nnovice on his first reception was presented with a hatchet, a girdle and\na white garment, but was not allowed to associate with the rest of the\norder, it being held that they would be defiled if he did so. In spite\nof this, he was forced to observe the austerities of the order for a\nyear before being allowed \u201cthe waters of purification,\u201d and for two\nyears further before being admitted to full association with the other\nmembers and the common meal[468]. After this probation, he was sworn on\n\n    \u201cthe most tremendous oaths to be just towards all men and faithful\n    to the order, not discovering any of their doctrines to others, no,\n    not though he should be compelled to do so at the risk of his life.\u201d\n\nMoreover, he had to swear\n\n    \u201cto communicate their doctrines to no one in any other manner than\n    that in which he had received them himself; to abstain from\n    robbery[469] and that he would equally preserve the books belonging\n    to the sect and the names of the angels.\u201d\n\nTheir doctrine concerning the future life was:\n\n    \u201cThat bodies are corruptible and that the matter of which they are\n    made is not permanent; but that souls are immortal, and continue for\n    ever; and that they come out of the most subtle air, and are united\n    to their bodies as in prisons, into which they are drawn by a\n    certain natural enticement[470]; but that when they are set free\n    from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long\n    bondage, rejoice and mount upward[471].\u201d\n\nFinally, Josephus tells us that the Essenes take great pains in\n\u201cstudying the writings of the ancients and choose out of them what is\nmost for the advantage of their soul and body,\u201d that they were much\ngiven to the practice of medicine, and had those among them \u201cwho\nundertake to foretell things to come by reading the holy books and using\nseveral sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the\ndiscourses of the prophets,\u201d\u2014a statement which is explained by another\npassage[472] wherein he tells us that they believed \u201cfate forms all\nthings and nothing befalls men but according to it.\u201d From yet another\npassage[473] we learn that they were excluded from the Temple worship\nand offered their sacrifices for themselves instead of through the\nregular Jewish priesthood[474].\n\nThat Josephus\u2019 account of the Essenes is fairly accurate and well\ninformed appears from the fact that Philo of Alexandria, writing some\nfifty years earlier than he, also asserts that they numbered \u201cin his\nopinion about 4000,\u201d and explains their abstention from the Temple\nworship as being due to their objection to sacrificing living\nanimals[475]. Philo further tells us that there were among them no\nmakers of warlike weapons, that they refrained from trade and had no\nslaves; but that their principal study was that of the Jewish Law and\nthe \u201cenquiry into the being of God and the creation of the universe.\u201d\nAccording to him, on the seventh or holy day when no work was done, they\nwere accustomed to meet together, when one\n\n    \u201ctakes up the holy volume and reads it, and another of the men of\n    the greatest experience [among them] comes forward and explains what\n    is not very intelligible, for a great many precepts are delivered in\n    enigmatical modes of expression and allegorically.\u201d\n\nHe at the same time confirms Josephus\u2019 statement as to their having all\ngoods in common.\n\nPliny in his _Natural History_ also speaks of the Essenes; but adds\nlittle to our knowledge, except the remark that it was the irksomeness\nof this present life which in his opinion gave rise to the sect[476]. Of\nthe Christian heresiologists, Hippolytus in his _Philosophumena_ merely\nrepeats the statements of Josephus with the doubtfully accurate addition\nthat the Essenes believed in a final conflagration of the world[477] and\nthe eternal punishment of the damned; while Epiphanius in his _Panarion_\nshows plainly that he had no first-hand knowledge of the Essenes and did\nnot understand the traditional accounts of the sect which must have been\nextinct a long time before he wrote[478]. Porphyry in his treatise _on\nAbstinence_ avowedly quotes from Josephus only[479].\n\nWe see, then, that all we really know about the Essenes is contained in\nthe accounts of Josephus and Philo; but on this slender foundation there\nhas been raised a vast superstructure of conjecture which the\nunprejudiced reader will probably consider too heavy for its base. The\nEssenes have been claimed by different writers as merely a strict order\nof Pharisees, as Zoroastrians, and as Buddhists. It has been argued that\nSt John Baptist was an Essene and even that Jesus Himself belonged to\nthe sect[480]. A more probable theory is that the Essenes derived some\nof their tenets from the Orphics, whose views were particularly\nprevalent at Alexandria in the time of the early Ptolemies, as well as\nin Asia Minor under the Seleucids. From the death of Alexander the Great\nuntil that of Antiochus Epiphanes, Palestine was, as we have seen,\nsuccessively under the sway of these two rival dynasties, and it was the\nrapid progress of the Jews towards Hellenization in culture, religion,\nand morals that brought about the Maccabaean uprising, in connection,\nwith which we first hear of the Essenes[481]. Hence this is the time\nwhen, if ever, we should expect the Orphic teaching to affect the Jews,\nand it is difficult to see whence the Essenes derived their views of the\npre-existence of the soul\u2014if that be indeed the construction to be\nplaced upon the scanty and obscure words of Josephus\u2014except from\nOrphism[482]. Save for this, however, there is no very cogent reason for\nattributing to this Jewish sect an Orphic origin. The use of white\ngarments is in a hot climate too general a practice to be really\ncharacteristic, while the abstinence from the procreation of children\nand from food that has had life, although common to the Essenes and the\nOrphics[483], may easily have come to the Jews from more quarters than\none. To the Essene refusal to take oaths and to engage in trade there is\nno parallel whatever in the Orphic teaching[484].\n\nBut, although there is thus little sign of a direct connection of the\nEssenes with the Orphics, there can hardly be any doubt that the Jewish\nsect were Gnostics in the larger sense in which the word is used above.\nThe one distinguishing fact which stands out from Josephus\u2019 account of\nthem is that they had secret doctrines of a kind differing from the\nbeliefs of the rest of the Jews. This is shown by the great pains taken\nby them in the choice of neophytes, the \u201ctremendous oaths\u201d by which\nthey, who forbade swearing in general, enforced secrecy upon them, and\nthe prohibition to confide their teaching to any save by a long and\ntedious process of initiation. The only hints we have as to the nature\nof these doctrines are contained in Philo\u2019s statement that they were\ngiven to the enquiry into the being of God and the creation of the\nuniverse, and in that of Josephus that the initiate into these secrets\nwas sworn \u201cto preserve the books of the sect and the names of the\nangels.\u201d Dr Kohler and other Jewish writers see in Philo\u2019s statement a\nreference to the speculations of the later Jewish Cabala upon what is\nthere called \u201cthe Mystery of the Chariot\u201d and \u201cthe Mystery of the\nCreation[485]\u201d; or in other words how the universe came forth from God\nand how it is governed. Although the proof of this is slender, it seems\nprobable from the tendency of the whole of the Apocryphal literature of\nthe time which dealt principally with the same subjects. It is evident\nthat the Essene interpretation of the Old Testament, then recently made\nfamiliar to the Jews by the Alexandrian translation into Greek known as\nthe Septuagint, must have been different in some respects from that of\nthe other Jews, and that it must have been in some way likely to shock\nthose who held by the traditional interpretation, as otherwise there\nwould have been no necessity for the Essenes to bind their neophytes to\nso strict a secrecy. From Philo\u2019s language on this point it would seem\nthat they interpreted both the Law and the Prophets in some non-natural\nmanner, and it is likely enough that this took the shape of the juggling\nwith the numerical values of the letters of which we find at least one\ninstance in the Revelation of St John, and to which we shall have to\nreturn later[486].\n\nWhat now can be said in explanation of Josephus\u2019 statement that the\nEssenes were sworn to secrecy as to the \u201cnames of the angels\u201d? The\npersonal name of no angel appears in the Old Testament except in the\nBook of Daniel, now generally admitted to have been written in the reign\nof Antiochus Epiphanes, and there is on the face of it no reason why any\nJew should wish to keep those there given\u2014Gabriel and Michael\u2014secret.\nBut the knowledge of the name of an inhabitant of the spirit world was\nat the time of which we are speaking held throughout the East to give a\nmagician full power over the being named, and this belief was universal\nin the magic of all the nations among whom the Jews had found themselves\nsince the Captivity[487]. There is thus every likelihood that the\nEssenes used \u201cthe names of the angels\u201d for magical purposes, and this is\nborne out by the tradition that it was as exorcists of demons and\nhealers of disease that they were afterwards celebrated[488]. The manner\nin which these names were used may be judged from the tradition among\nthe Jews that each tribe or order of demons was governed by an angel,\nand that his subjects were bound to obey upon being addressed by his\nname[489].\n\nIt was partly, and perhaps mainly, from this sect of the Essenes that\nthere came, according to the general opinion of scholars, the apocryphal\nor secret literature which, from the name of its principal book, may be\ndescribed under the generic name of Enochian[490]. In the _Book of\nEnoch_ in its various forms was set forth a vast system of teaching on\nmatters which the Canonical books of the Old Testament hardly touch.\nHere we have a complete cosmogony in which the mundane egg[491] of the\nOrphics plays its part; and the duties of the innumerable orders of\nangels and their connection with the heavenly bodies, the rebellion of\nSatan and his host against God, the fall of the Watchers, or angels set\nover the earth, through the beauty of mortal women, and the arrangement\nof the different heavens and hells all find a place in it[492]. But it\nalso deals at great length with that Messianic hope which had for two\ncenturies been dangled by the Prophets before Israel, and which, thanks\nto the materialistic sense in which it was interpreted by the vast\nmajority of Jews, was to lead directly to their extermination as a\nnation[493]. The _Book of Enoch_ and its many successors and imitators\nare full of predictions of the coming of a Messiah, who should lead the\nchosen race to the conquest of the world, and, what was to them probably\nan even more alluring prospect, to the overthrow and enslavement of all\nthe other peoples in it[494]. In the earlier parts of the Ethiopic\nversion\u2014which is in itself, as Dr Charles has pointed out, but \u201ca\nfragmentary survival of an entire literature that once circulated under\nthe name of Enoch[495]\u201d\u2014it is described how\n\n    \u201cthe Holy and Great One will come forth from His dwelling, the God\n    of the world, and going from thence He will tread on Mount Sinai and\n    appear with His hosts, and in the strength of His might appear from\n    heaven[496].\u201d\n\nThe judgment and destruction of all but the elect is next described, and\nthe hurling down of the sinning angels into \u201cthe abyss of fire,\u201d while\nthe elect\u2014that is, the Jews, or perhaps only the Essenes\u2014are to live\namong millennial blessings of a material kind and in the enjoyment of\nuniversal peace[497]. This seems to represent fairly the earlier Essene\nteaching upon this point, and there is reason to suppose that it was\nwritten before the Maccabaean struggles, after which the decadence of\nthe Syrian Empire under Antiochus Epiphanes\u2014hard pressed as he was by\nthe Romans on one side and the Parthians on the other\u2014allowed the Jews\nto obtain a temporary independence, and to set up a kingdom of their own\nfor the first and last time in their history[498]. But the wine of\nmilitary success and political independence proved too strong for the\nheads of the race which had hitherto been the tributaries and subjects\nof the Persian, the Greek, the Egyptian, and the Syrian Empires in turn,\nand, like their kinsmen the Arabs of Mohammed\u2019s time and the Mahdists in\nour own, nothing less would now satisfy the fanatical among them than\nuniversal domination. In the later parts of the same work, the\naspirations of the writers become more bloodthirsty and less spiritual,\nand we hear of a time \u201cWhen the congregation of the righteous will\nappear[499],\u201d a phrase which seems to cover the coming-forth of some\nsect or society till then kept in seclusion. \u201cThen,\u201d it goes on to say,\n\u201cwill the kings and the mighty perish and be given into the hand of the\nrighteous and holy[500].\u201d In another part of the same book, we hear of\nangels being sent to\n\n    \u201cthe Parthians and Medes, to stir up the kings and provoke in them a\n    spirit of unrest, and rouse them from their thrones, that they may\n    break forth from their resting-places as lions and as hungry wolves\n    among the flocks[501].\u201d\n\nThese are to make one final assault upon Jerusalem, and\n\n    \u201cto tread under foot the land of His elect ones and the land of His\n    elect ones will be before them a threshing floor and a path. But the\n    city of My righteous [_i.e._ Jerusalem] will be a hindrance to their\n    horses, and they will begin to fight among themselves, and their\n    right hand will be strong against themselves, and a man will not\n    know his brother, nor a son his father or his mother, till the\n    number of corpses through their slaughter is beyond count, and their\n    punishment be no idle one. And in those days Sheol will open his\n    jaws, and they will be swallowed up therein, and their destruction\n    will be at an end. Sheol will devour the sinners in the presence of\n    the elect[502].\u201d\n\nThis, according to the author who has made the most exhaustive study of\nthe Enochian literature yet attempted, must have been written after the\nspirit which had inspired the Maccabaean revolt had died away under the\ntyranny and luxury of the later Jewish kings[503]. It seems very\ndifficult, in the face of the many interpolations that the documents\nhave undergone at the hands of Jewish and even Christian writers, to\ndecide how much of these prophecies can be attributed directly to the\nsect of the Essenes; but there can be little doubt that they accurately\nrepresent the hope of supremacy over the nations which they shared with\nthe Pharisees and the other fanatics among the Jewish nation. Only thus\ncan we explain the community of goods and the very un-Jewish contempt\nfor money-making which formed the most singular features of Essene\npractice[504]. To those who expected to be immediately put in possession\nof the whole earth all desire for worldly advancement must have been a\nmatter of indifference. A similar conviction led to the maintenance of\nthe same practice in the Christian Church so long as she continued to\nbelieve in the nearness of the Parusia or Second Coming of her\nFounder[505].\n\nFrom this dream of universal dominion, nothing seemed able to arouse the\npoorer Jews. In vain did the Sadducees, who comprised those of the\nnation who had become rich either by trading with the Gentile or by\ndependence on the luxurious Jewish Court, try to persuade the people\nthat they had better make the best of the Hellenist culture thrust upon\nthem than try to arrest its progress by fighting against powers that\nwould crush them like glass when once sufficiently provoked[506]. In\nvain did the Syrian Empire, warned by the mistakes of Antiochus\nEpiphanes in Hellenizing the Jews against their will, accord them the\nlargest possible religious liberty and even acknowledge their right to\nself-government in exchange for tribute[507]. When the Romans, whom,\naccording to their own account, they had called in to protect them\nagainst their Syrian overlords, destroyed once for all their chance of\nremaining an independent state, they not only gave the Jews the fullest\nliberty to practise their own religion, but set over them first a vassal\nking and then tetrarchs of Semitic blood, who might be supposed to\nmoderate the too pronouncedly Western ideas of the Roman governor of\nSyria[508]. But these concessions were no more effective in inducing the\nJews to settle down quietly as the peaceful tributaries of a great\nempire than had been the severities of Antiochus. They seized every\nopportunity to revolt, every time with the accompaniment of horrible\natrocities committed upon those unfortunate Gentiles who for a moment\nfell into their power, until, some sixty years after the Destruction of\nthe Temple by Titus, Hadrian had to wage against them the awful war of\nextermination which extinguished their nationality for ever. At the Fair\nof the Terebinth, when every able-bodied Jew left alive in Palestine was\nsold into slavery, the nation must have realized at last the vanity of\nits dream[509].\n\nDuring this time, that is to say, between the years 168 B.C. and 135\nA.D., the flood of Apocalyptic literature never ceased to pour forth.\nAll of it was what is called pseudepigraphical, that is to say, the\nbooks of which it was composed were falsely attributed to Enoch, the\nsons of Jacob, Moses, Job, Ezra, Baruch, and other personages of the Old\nTestament. Not all of these have come down to us, but a considerable\nnumber of books have survived. The pre-Christian ones that we have,\nincluded, beside the Ethiopian _Book of Enoch_ quoted above, the\n_Testaments of the XII Patriarchs_, the _Psalms of Solomon_, and part of\nthe _Sibylline Oracles_. Later probably than the beginning of our era,\nappeared the _Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, which Dr Charles thinks was\nwritten in Egypt, the _Wisdom_ literature, certainly having the same\nplace of origin, the _Book of Jubilees_ or little Genesis, the\n_Assumption of Moses_, the rest of the _Sibyllines_, the _Apocalypse of\nBaruch_, the later books of _Maccabees_, and the _Fourth Book of\nEsdras_[510]. One and all of these deal with the glories before the\nJewish nation, when by supernatural help it will be able to turn the\ntables on its would-be civilizers, and one and all breathe the most\nvirulent hatred against every body who is not a Jew[511]. They show no\nconsensus of opinion as to the future lot of the Gentiles; for, while\nsome teach that the victories of the Messiah will end in their complete\nannihilation, others declare that they will be preserved to become, as\nIsaiah had prophesied, the servants and hand-maidens of the Jews, to\nbuild up the walls of Jerusalem, and to be the herdsmen, ploughmen, and\nvinedressers of Israel[512]. Others again, held that the Gentiles would\nbe hurled into Gehenna with the sinning angels[513]\u2014even those who were\ndead being raised again for that purpose\u2014and would there be tormented\nfor ever in the presence of the Jews, who were to find one of their\nchief pleasures in the sight of their sufferings[514].\n\n    \u201cAnd I saw all the sheep that had been left, and all the beasts of\n    the earth, and all the birds of the heaven,\u201d\n\nsays the pseudo-Enoch in a vision wherein he describes under this figure\nthe nations which had not been destroyed by the celestial hosts of the\nMessiah,\n\n    \u201cfalling down and doing homage to those sheep [_i.e._ the Jews] and\n    making petition to and obeying them in every thing[515].\u201d\n\nFor the world was made for the Jews and the perversity of the Gentiles\nwas divinely ordained for the express purpose that their \u201cpunishment\u201d\nmight be great[516].\n\n    \u201cAll this I have spoken before thee, O Lord,\u201d says the Apocryphal\n    Ezra, \u201cbecause thou madest the world for our sakes. As for the other\n    people which also came of Adam, thou hast said that they are\n    nothing, but are like unto spittle, and hast likened the abundance\n    of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel[517]. And now O Lord\n    behold, these heathen, which have ever been reputed as nothing, have\n    begun to be lords over us, and to devour us.... If the world now be\n    made for our sakes, why do we not enter into possession of our\n    world? How long shall this endure?\u201d And then comes Yahweh\u2019s answer:\n    \u201cBehold I will call together all the kings of the earth to reverence\n    me, which are from the rising of the Sun, from the South, from the\n    East, and Libanus: to turn themselves one against another, and repay\n    that they have done to thee. Like as they do yet this day unto my\n    chosen, so will I do also, and recompense in their bosom[518].\u201d\n    \u201cAfter the signs have come of which thou wast told before,\u201d says the\n    _Apocalypse of Baruch_, \u201cwhen the nations become turbulent, and the\n    time of My Messiah is come, He shall both summon all the nations,\n    and some of them He shall spare and some of them He shall slay.\n    These things therefore shall come upon the nations which are to be\n    spared by Him. Every nation which knows not Israel, and has not\n    trodden down the seed of Jacob, shall indeed be spared. And this\n    because some out of every nation shall be subjected to thy people.\n    But all those who have ruled over you, or have known you, shall be\n    given up to the sword[519].\u201d\n\nSo in the _Book of Jubilees_ we are told that God\n\n    \u201csanctified [Israel] and gathered it from amongst all the children\n    of men; for there are many nations and many peoples, and all are His\n    and over all hath He placed spirits in authority to lead them astray\n    from Him. But over Israel He did not appoint any angel or\n    spirit[520].\u201d\n\nAs for the delight in the sufferings of the damned Gentiles it is\npoetically expressed in the _Assumption of Moses_:\n\n    \u201cFor the Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne\n    And He will go forth from His holy habitation\n    And His wrath will burn on account of His sons\n\n    *****\n\n    And the horns of the Sun will be broken and he shall be turned into\n       darkness;\n    And the moon shall not give her light, and be turned wholly into\n       blood\n    And the circle of the stars shall be disturbed\n\n    *****\n\n    For the Most High will arise, the Eternal God alone,\n    And He will appear to punish the Gentiles\n    And He will destroy all their idols\n    Then thou, O Israel, shalt be happy\n    And thou shalt mount upon the neck of the eagle[521]\n    And the days of thy mourning will be ended\n    And thou shalt look from on high and shalt see thy enemies in\n       Gehenna,\n    And thou shalt recognize them and rejoice\n    And thou shalt give thanks and confess thy Creator[522].\u201d\n\nAnd in what has been called the Apocalypse of Salathiel, we hear that\nthe righteous Jews will \u201chave joy in seven ways\u201d:\n\n    \u201cFirst of all they shall see with great joy the glory of him who\n    receives them up, for they shall rest in seven orders. The first\n    order because they have striven with great labour to overcome \u2018the\n    innate evil thought[523]\u2019 which was fashioned together with them,\n    that it might not lead them astray from life into death. The second\n    order, because they see the round in which the souls of the ungodly\n    wander and the punishment that awaits them...[524]\u201d\n\nA comparison of the dates of these documents lends little support to the\nview that this hatred of the Gentiles was wrung from the Jews by\noppression; and there seems grounds for supposing that it had been\npresent to their minds ever since their return from the Captivity[525].\nTacitus was certainly justified when he speaks of the nation as animated\nby bitter enmity against the rest of the human race[526].\n\nHow far the Essenes were responsible for the whole of this later\nliterature, it is now impossible to say. Nearly every one of the books\nabove quoted have been claimed as of Essene origin by some scholar or\nanother[527], and those who, like Dr Charles, are inclined to reduce\nEssene influence upon them to a minimum, admit that considerable\ninterpolations have been made in most of the documents by Essene hands.\nMoreover, all those books which do not purport to be by Enoch himself\neither mention his name with peculiar reverence, or give the same\naccount of celestial physics and other matters as the Ethiopic Book of\nEnoch, or quote it directly[528]. There seems, therefore, little doubt\nthat all this literature came forth from the same school, and that it\nwas directly or indirectly the result of Essene teaching.\n\nA point more difficult to determine is how the Essenes managed to\nreconcile their secret doctrines with the reverence for the Mosaic Law\nand its promulgator which they undoubtedly professed[529]. There is no\ndirect evidence with regard to this save Philo\u2019s remark quoted above as\nto their allegorical interpretation of Scripture. This, too, may have\nhad its origin in Orphic practice, for we know that the Orphics were\naccustomed to carry allegory so far as to both materialize their gods,\nas when they spoke of Bacchus as Wine, and to deify abstractions, as\nwhen they made hymns to Health, Peace and other abstract conceptions as\nif they were actual persons[530]. But besides this, the Essenes probably\npractised a mode of interpretation peculiar to themselves, which they\nkept secret or confined to members of the sect. Something of the kind\nwas not unknown among the Greeks, for some of the Orphic gold plates\nfound in Magna Graecia are intended to be read acrostically[531], and\nthe Graeco-Egyptian magic papyri contain many instances of a similar use\nof the Homeric poems by which they could be converted into an oracle or\nfortune-telling book[532]. By such means any document can of course be\nmade to mean anything, and the Essenes seem to have added to this the\npractice of isopsephism or regarding words as equivalent in sense which\nhad the same numerical value. The most familiar instance of this is in\nthe Revelation of St John where \u201cthe number of the Beast\u201d is said to be\n\u201cthe number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six\u201d;\nor, in other words, Nero Caesar, whose name written in Hebrew letters is\nequivalent to the number given[533]. In like manner we read in the _Book\nof Enoch_, in the story of the sinning angels:\n\n    \u201cThis is the number of Kesbe\u00eal, who showed the head of the oath to\n    the holy ones when he dwelt high above in glory, and its name is\n    B\u00eaq\u00e2. And this angel requested Michael to show him the hidden name,\n    that they might mention it in the oath, so that those who revealed\n    all that was hidden to the children of men might quake before that\n    name and oath. And this is the power of that oath, for it is\n    powerful and strong, and he placed this oath Akae in the hand of\n    Michael[534].\u201d\n\nFrom the context, it would appear that the words Ak\u00e2e and B\u00eaq\u00e2 both\ncover the Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name of JHVH, by means of\nwhich omnific word it is said the heavens and earth were created[535].\nThe mysterious name of Taxo given in the _Assumption of Moses_ as that\nof the protagonist against Antiochus is doubtless to be interpreted in\nsome such fashion[536].\n\nOf the history of the Essenes as an organized sect, we know hardly\nanything. If we accept Josephus\u2019 account of their numbers as relating to\nhis own time[537], it would seem that they were flourishing at the date\nof the Destruction of the Temple under Titus. This event would probably\naffect them little directly, because, as we have seen, they took no part\nin the Temple worship; and, scattered as they were through the villages\nof Palestine, they may easily have escaped the punishment meted out by\nthe Romans to those towns which were the strongholds of the rebellion.\nBut it is extremely improbable that they can have survived the War of\nExtermination under Hadrian, when the partizans of the false Messiah\nkept up a futile resistance in the country as well as in the towns, and\nHadrian\u2019s general, Severus, had in consequence to lay the land\ndesolate[538]. Moreover, it is not improbable that the sect may have\ntaken an active part in the Revolt, which they may easily have looked\nupon as the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes, and may thus have\nperished under the stern measures of repression which the fanaticism and\nbarbarities of the rebels forced upon the conquerors. At any rate, we\nhear little more of the Essenes after this date. But the fantastic\nmethod of interpreting Scriptures which they practised and probably\nintroduced, lingered long, and, after being used by the earliest\nChristian writers[539], was revived, as has been said, by the Cabalists\nof the Middle Ages, and has even survived into our own time. It was\nespecially high in favour with those numerous bodies of heretics who in\nthe first three centuries of our era asserted that knowledge was the one\nthing needful for salvation and were thus called, both by themselves and\nby their opponents the Fathers of the Church, by the generic and\ndistinctive name of Gnostics[540].\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n  So Euripides makes Iphigenia (_I. in Taur._ l. 400) say, \u201cI think not\n  that any one of the gods is bad.\u201d Cf. J. A. Hild, _\u00c9t. sur les\n  D\u00e9mons_, pp. 53, 136. In sharp contrast to the Jewish idea exemplified\n  in Deuteronomy of a god whose \u201cname is Jealous\u201d is Plato\u2019s description\n  of the Creator in the _Tim\u00e6us_ (40 C.), \u201cHe is not jealous, for he is\n  good, and in him that is good no jealousy exists.\u201d\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n  It should be noted that what is said here of the Jews applies not to\n  the Hebrew race in general, but only to those members of it who\n  settled in Palestine after the return from the Captivity. Winwood\n  Reade puts the matter with no less truth than point when he says\n  (_Martyrdom of Man_, p. 203): \u201cThe people who did return were chiefly\n  the fanatics, the clergy, and the paupers. The harvest ... was worthy\n  of the seed.\u201d\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n  R. H. Charles, _A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life_\n  (Jowett Lectures), 1899, pp. 33-50, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n  J. P. Mahaffy, _Empire of the Ptolemies_, pp. 85, 86.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n  Droysen, _Hell\u00e9nisme_, II. p. 155.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n  Mahaffy, _op. cit._ p. 87 and n. 1; _ibid._ p. 293 and nn. 1 and 2.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n  W. D. Morrison, _Jews under Roman Rule_, pp. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n  Jos. _de Bell._ Bk II. c. 8, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n  Or \u201cthe Pious.\u201d See Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 327; A. J\u00fclicher in\n  _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Essenes, col. 1397, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n  There was, says Josephus, _loc. cit._ \u00a7 13, another order of Essenes\n  which married and had children. The reason given for the celibacy of\n  the first order is not the Orphic one, _ibid._ \u00a7 2.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n  Cf. the _Agapae_ or love-feasts of the Greek _thiasi_ and the\n  Christian Church. There is no authority, however, for supposing that\n  the meal was regarded by the Essenes as a sacrifice.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n  The girdle has been thought to be identical with the _kosti_ or sacred\n  thread of the Parsis. The use of the hatchet or pick was to bury the\n  _ejecta_, perhaps for sanitary reasons. The Essenes were said to be\n  further divided into four classes (Josephus, _loc. cit._ \u00a7 10), but\n  Josephus does not say what these classes were, and it is doubtful\n  whether there is any foundation for the statement.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n  _Ibid._ \u00a7 7. From the context, it would seem that \u201crobbery\u201d here means\n  the attempt to obtain possession of the secrets of the order by\n  stealth. In an earlier part of the same section the neophyte is said\n  to be sworn to \u201ckeep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from\n  unlawful gains.\u201d\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n  _I.e._ by sexual desire. The same idea is met with in the doctrines of\n  Simon Magus, see Chap. VI, _infra_, and in many other sects. Cf.\n  Cumont, _Recherches sur le Manich\u00e9isme_, Bruxelles, 1908, pt I. Appx\n  1, \u201cLa S\u00e9duction des Archontes\u201d for particulars.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n  Dr Kohler, apparently a Rabbi of New York, gives other particulars of\n  the Essenic initiation, including a song describing Heaven and Hell.\n  This he takes from the _Testament of Job_ described by him in the\n  Festschrift called Kohut\u2019s _Semitic Studies_, Berlin, 1897, pp. 265\n  _sqq._ Among other things, he thinks the initiate was told that Satan\n  was the cosmocrator, or ruler of the world, and that the sacred girdle\n  was an amulet which would enable him both to defy Satan\u2019s snares, and\n  to see the wonders of the world of angels. But I do not see that he\n  brings forward any proof that either this book or what he calls the\n  whole Job literature is attributable to the Essenes.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n  Joseph. _Antiq._ Bk XIII. c. 5, \u00a7 9.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n  _Id._ _op. cit._ Bk XVIII. c. 1, \u00a7 5.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n  Their supposed sun-worship seems to resolve itself into the usual\n  Jewish prayer at dawn, see Cheyne, _Jewish Religious Life after\n  Exile_, New York, 1898, note on p. 251, and J\u00fclicher, _Encyc. Bibl._\n  _s.v._ Essenes.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n  Philo Judaeus, _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_, c. XII.; _id._ _Apologia_ in\n  Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._ Bk VIII. c. 13. The authenticity of both\n  works has been attacked (for the controversy _v._ Morrison, _op. cit._\n  p. 347, n. 2) with some success. While therefore there can be no doubt\n  that they are from the pen of some of Philo\u2019s school, it is not\n  impossible that they may be later than Josephus and have copied his\n  statements.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n  Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Bk V. c. 15: _In diem ex aequo convenarum turba\n  renascitur large frequentantibus, quos vita fessos ad mores eorum\n  fortunae fluctus agitat._\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n  Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk IX. c. 27, pp. 465, 466, of Cruice.\n  Later, he attributes the same doctrine to the Pharisees. His desire to\n  show that in both cases it was derived by the Jews from the\n  Pythagoreans or the Stoics is manifest.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Panar._ Bk I. t. I. Haer. X. c. 1 (pp. 75, 76 of Oehler,\n  vol. II. pt 1). Epiphanius makes them a Samaritan sect.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n  Porphyrius, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n  J\u00fclicher in _Encyc. Bibl._ _ubi cit._ and Ritschl and Lucius there\n  quoted; J. B. Lightfoot, _Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon_,\n  1876, pp. 82-93, 348-419, and Hilgenfeld, _Die Ketzergeschichte des\n  Urchristenthums_, Leipzig, 1884, p. 156; Arthur Lillie, _Buddhism in\n  Christendom_, 1887, _passim_; _id._ _Buddha and Buddhism_, Edinburgh,\n  1900, pp. 159 _sqq._ Buddhism is however posterior in time to Orphism,\n  as Buddha did not die till B.C. 483 (see Fleet in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p.\n  22), which was some years after the break-up of the Pythagorean\n  school.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n  See note 1 p. 154, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n  There is no evidence of a belief in the pre-existence of the soul in\n  Persian religion until the rise of the worship of Mithras in the Ist\n  century B.C. See Chap. XII, _infra_. Marshall (Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of\n  Bible_, _s.v._ Pre-existence) would find proof of the doctrine among\n  the Jews in the Book of Wisdom and Philo. Both are much later than\n  Orphism.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n  But see note 2 p. 152, _supra_. Jewish priests after the Exile were\n  forbidden to wear wool or to touch corpses, prohibitions which have an\n  Orphic twang. See Ezekiel xliv. 17, 23.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n  So far from despising wealth, many of the Orphic Hymns pray for\n  riches. Cf. Hymns X. XIII. XIV. XIX. XL. etc. in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n  K. Kohler, _Testament of Job_, in Kohut\u2019s _Semitic Studies_, Berlin,\n  1897, pp. 281, 282; Isidore Loeb in _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, Paris,\n  _s.v._ La Cabbale Juive, p. 587.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n  Rev. xiii. 18. A. Hausrath, _History of New Testament Times_ (Eng.\n  ed.), 1878, vol. I. pp. 113-117, gives all the different processes of\n  what is called the \u201cPractical\u201d Cabala with illustrations. Cf. Ad.\n  Franck, _La Kabbale_, Paris, 1843, p. 167, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n  J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, 3rd ed. pt II. vol. I. pp. 318-334,\n  gives references to, I think, all the authorities for this belief,\n  which even at the present day is universal among primitive people.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n  Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 338, for authorities. Exorcism for the healing\n  of disease followed naturally from their demonology, which taught that\n  diseases were caused by demons. See Hausrath, _Hist. of N. T. Times_\n  (Eng. ed.), I. p. 127.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n  Hausrath, _op. cit._ I. pp. 124, 125; _Clementine Homilies_, Bk V. c.\n  5.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n  F. C. Porter in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of Bible_, _s.v._ Apocrypha, and\n  Wellhausen as there quoted. A list of the books comprised in the\n  expression used in the text with conjectural dates and authorship is\n  given by R. H. Charles in the same work, _s.v._ Apocalyptical\n  Literature. Cf. article under same heading (also by Charles) in\n  _Encyclopaedia Biblica_. Prof. Charles is less inclined than earlier\n  writers (_e.g._ Lightfoot and Kohler, _opp. cit._) to credit the\n  Essenes with the composition of the whole of this literature; but he\n  admits that part of the _Book of Enoch_, chap. cviii. 1-15, is by\n  Essene hands. The other parts attributed to the Essenes by Sieffert,\n  Tideman, and Cheyne are indicated by him in _The Book of Enoch_,\n  Oxford, 1893, pp. 13, 14, 21.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n  _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_ (Morfill and Charles trans.),\n  Oxford, 1896, p. 32.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, _cit. sup._ pp. 24-33.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n  _Id._ _op. cit._ chap. xc. 28-38; cf. _id._ _Crit. Hist._ p. 192.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, xc. 30.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n  _Id._ _op. cit._ chap. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n  _Id._ _op. cit._ chap. i. 8.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n  David had the Philistines for suzerain, as Solomon had Egypt, cf.\n  Stanley A. Cook, in _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ David, and Maspero, _Hist.\n  anc. des Peuples de l\u2019Orient_, 1904, pp. 391, 422. Their successors,\n  too, up to the Captivity seem to have always been tributaries to\n  Assyria, Chaldaea, or Egypt. After that event, they were of course\n  vassals to the Persian and Macedonian Empires.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, chap. xxxviii. 1.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n  _Op. cit._ chap. xxxviii. 5. Cf. xlvi. 4, \u201cAnd this Son of Man whom\n  thou hast seen will arouse the kings and the mighty ones from their\n  thrones, and will loosen the reins of the strong and grind to powder\n  the teeth of the sinners.\u201d\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n  _Op. cit._ chap. lvi. 5. This verse, which Dr Charles considers an\n  interpolation, was evidently written in 40 B.C., when a Parthian army\n  under Pacorus invaded Palestine and put a puppet of their own on the\n  throne of Jerusalem, and before 39 B.C., when Publius Ventidius Bassus\n  drove the Parthians back to their own country. Cf. Morrison, _Jews_,\n  etc., pp. 58-61, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, chap. lvi. 6-8.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n  Charles, _op. cit._ p. 108. He there puts the date of the Similitudes,\n  as this portion of the Book of Enoch is called, about a quarter of a\n  century before the Parthian invasion. In that case, the prediction in\n  the text would be about the only instance of fulfilled political\n  prophecy known. But the discrepancy is doubtless to be explained by\n  the theory of interpolation after the event.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n  As in the admittedly Essene portion of the _Book of Enoch_ (Charles,\n  _op. cit._ chap. cviii. 8): \u201cWho loved God and loved neither gold nor\n  silver, nor any of the goods of the world.\u201d\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n  Compare with this the desire to rid themselves of this world\u2019s goods\n  which seized upon the inhabitants of Western Europe in 1000 A.D., when\n  it was believed that the Second Advent was at hand, and donations to\n  the Church beginning \u201cin view of the approaching end of the world\u201d\n  were common.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _Hist. of Jewish People_ (Eng. ed.), II. pp. 157, 158.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n  Josephus, _Antiq._ Bk XIII. cap. 2, 3, where the tributes and taxes\n  are set forth. Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 360, notes that the Jews showed\n  no hostility to the tribute payable to the Greek kings, and that it\n  was the Roman system of taxation which most embittered their feelings\n  against the Gentiles.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n  Morrison, _op. cit._ pp. 41, 42.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n  Renan, in _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, chap. XI, tells the story with as\n  much grace as truth. His account is largely taken from the\n  investigations of Hartwig Derenbourg, himself of Jewish blood. Cf.\n  Morrison, _op. cit._ pp. 198-206.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n  They are arranged in the text as near as possible in the order of\n  their probable dates. As to these and on the question of authorship,\n  see Charles, _Crit. Hist._ pp. 172-226. The Sibylline Oracles can now\n  be consulted in the scholarly edition of Rzach (_Sibyllina Oracula_,\n  1891), and in Dr Charles\u2019 _Apocrypha of the O.T._ (see below). The\n  Greek text of the Psalms of Solomon with a French translation and\n  critical introduction has been published by Dr J. Viteau and M.\n  Fran\u00e7ois Martin (_Les Psaumes de Salomon_, Paris, 1911). (The Odes of\n  Solomon recently recovered for us by Dr Rendel Harris are most\n  probably Christian hymns.) The Latin text of the 4th Book of Esdras is\n  given by Bensly and James in Cambridge _Texts and Studies_, vol. III.\n  No. 2, and an English translation of part of it appears in the\n  Apocrypha of the A. V. (see _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_ for a good text and\n  commentary by Lupton). The _Wisdom Literature_, _i.e._ the _Wisdom of\n  Solomon_ and _Ecclesiasticus_, also appears in the Apocrypha of the\n  A.V., as do the Books of _Maccabees_. English versions of all the\n  other books with critical notes and introductions have been published\n  by Prof. Charles as follows: _Book of Enoch_, Oxford, 1893; _Book of\n  the Secrets of Enoch_, Oxford, 1896; _Apocalypse of Baruch_, 1896;\n  _Assumption of Moses_, 1897; _Book of Jubilees_, 1902; and _Testament\n  of the XII Patriarchs_, 1908. All the above appear in English dress in\n  Dr Charles\u2019 _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T._, Oxford, 1913.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n  See note 2 p. 149, _supra_. The essentially Jewish tendency towards\n  hyperbole and exaggeration in language must, however, be allowed for.\n  As someone has said, \u201cJacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated,\u201d in\n  the mouth of a Jew means little more than that on the whole the\n  speaker prefers Jacob to Esau. See also note 1 p. 163, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n  Isaiah xiv. 2; lx. 10; lxi. 5. All these passages are now said to be\n  post-Exilic by Charles, _Crit. Hist._ p. 115.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n  Charles, _Apocalypse of Baruch_, chap. xxx. 4, 5; chap. xxxvi. 11; 4\n  Esdras vii. 87.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, chap. xlviii. 9; lxii. 9-12.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n  _Op. cit._ chap. xc. 30.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n  See note 3 p. 166, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n  Cf. Isaiah xl. 15.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n  4 Esdras vi. 55-59; xv. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n  Charles, _Apocalypse of Baruch_, chap. lxxii. 2-6.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Jubilees_, chap. xv. 31, 32.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n  _I.e._ the Roman Empire.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n  Charles, _Assumption of Moses_, chap. x. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n  Evidently a reminiscence of the Zoroastrian demon who is opposed to\n  the Amshaspand Vohu Mano or \u201cGood Thought.\u201d See Chapter VI, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n  4 Esdras vii. 91-93.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n  The earliest document quoted is the part of the _Book of Enoch_ which\n  Prof. Charles considers was written between 166-161 B.C.; the latest,\n  the _Fourth Book of Esdras_, which he puts at 90 A.D. Yet he shows\n  that the hatred of the Gentiles and the hope that they would be\n  eternally destroyed or made slaves to Israel were present many\n  centuries earlier and are to be found in the writings attributed to\n  Ezekiel, Haggai, Joel, and Zachariah, as well as in Isaiah. Cf. _Crit.\n  Hist._ p. 160.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n  Tacitus, _Historia_, Bk V. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n  Thus Jellinek, _Ueber das Buch der Jubilaen und das Noah-Buch_,\n  Leipzig, 1855, _passim_, says that the Book of Jubilees is of Essene\n  origin, and Schmidt and Merx, _Archiv f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche\n  Erforschung des Alten Testaments_, I. II. (1868) pp. 111-152, make the\n  same claim for the _Assumption of Moses_ and so on. For the _Book of\n  Enoch_ itself see above.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n  For the quotations from Enoch in the _Testament of the XII Patriarchs_\n  see Charles, Introduction to that book, p. lix; for those in the _Book\n  of Jubilees_ see _B. of J._ pp. 13, 36, 37, 53, 62-64, 102, 134, 146,\n  150, 212, 213; in the _Apocalypse of Baruch_, see A. of B. p. 101 and\n  notes; in the _Assumption of Moses_, see _A. of M._ x. 4, 9.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n  Josephus, _ubi cit._ in note 4 p. 151, _supra_, says (\u00a7 8) that they\n  honoured the name of Moses next after that of God Himself; and that\n  any who blasphemed him was punished capitally.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n  Cf. Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Fr. 160, 161, 162, 202, 203, 204. From the\n  Orphics the practice passed into the Mysteries and the writings of the\n  post-Christian Gnostics. See Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1888, pp. 69,\n  74-75.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n  Like the Gold Plate of Caecilia Secundina, Chapter IV, p. 133,\n  _supra_. So the Sibylline Oracles contain the acrostic \u0399\u03a7\u0398\u03a5\u03a3 which\n  covers the name and titles of Jesus, Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, p.\n  535 and note. The Greeks must have caught the taste for such devices,\n  for an acrostic is found in a treatise on astronomy by Eudoxos of\n  Cnidos copied in the second cent. B.C. Many other instances are given\n  by Brunet de Presle, _Les Papyrus Grecs du Mus\u00e9e du Louvre_, Paris,\n  1865, pp. 43, 44. He says with some reason that the practice was\n  borrowed by the Greeks from the Jews.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n  Kenyon, _Gk. Pap. in B. M._, Papyrus CXXI, pp. 83 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n  Hausrath, _op. cit._ pp. 114-116, where many other instances are\n  given. The explanation of \u201cNero(n) Caesar\u201d as the Number of the Beast\n  is in fact as old as Irenaeus, who remarks that the variant 616 given\n  in some texts is due to the omission of the final _n_ in Latin. It\n  does not seem to be seriously disputed by any modern theologian.\n  Isopsephism however was not the invention of the Essenes, but of the\n  Babylonians, among whom it was in use, to judge from Berossos, in the\n  time of Alexander. See Alexander Polyhistor in Cory, _Ancient\n  Fragments_, 2nd ed. p. 25.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n  Charles, _Book of Enoch_, chap. lxix. 13-15. Cf. _id._, _The Apoc.\n  etc. of the O.T._, II. p. 234, where he has made some verbal\n  alterations in the reading.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n  Hausrath, _op. et_ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n  Charles, _A. of M._ chap. ix. 1, and the note beginning on p. 35, _op.\n  cit._ Hausrath, _op. cit._ _sup._ pp. 116, 117, thinks the name is\n  arrived at by the process called Atbash.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n  If the authenticity of the Fragment quoted above from Philo could be\n  established, it would seem probable that Josephus simply copied the\n  figure from this last, and that 4000 was the number of the Essenes\n  about 20 A.D.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 209.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n  Hausrath, _op. cit._ pp. 116, 117, for examples. By the method called\n  Temura he gets _Romah haged\u00f4lah_ for Armageddon in the Canonical\n  Apocalypse. So Justin Martyr, _Cohort._ c. XXIV. says that Moses is\n  unintelligible without mystic insight, and that the name of Christ\n  contains a hidden meaning (_2nd Apol._ c. VI.).\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n  Thus Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ Bk I. c. XII. \u00a7 11, p. 146, Harvey, makes\n  Marcus the heresiarch show that Alpha and Omega, the name given to\n  Jesus in Revelation, means the Dove which descended upon Him at His\n  baptism, because it has the same numerical value (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac) of 801.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n                  PRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: SIMON MAGUS\n\n\nWe see, then, that the Essenes, in spite of the quietism and love of\npeace that they professed, became in the long run either the instigators\nof political revolt or, at best, the tools of those who thought to make\nuse of the fanaticism excited by their teaching in order to throw off\nthe yoke of the Gentiles. But these fanatics were almost exclusively the\nJews of Judaea, whose adherence to their own institutions caused them to\nleave Babylon, where they were fairly well off, to be cooped up in a\nland which in no time can have yielded an easy subsistence to a large\nnumber of souls[541]. That people so circumstanced, confronted with a\npower vastly superior to their own, and resolutely bent on compelling\nits subjects to enter into its own system of orderly government, should\nhave looked to rebellion and supernatural help as their sole means of\nescape, was only to be expected. But there were besides a great number\nof Jews dispersed among the heathen, who had succeeded in acquiring vast\nwealth together with the power which wealth brings with it; and these\nwere by no means inclined to upset the settled order of things which the\nrise of the Roman Empire had brought into the East. To the humble\nfisherman, vinedresser or husbandman of Judaea, daily vexed and harassed\nby the Roman tax-gatherer and Roman police measures, the Roman peace,\nthe freedom from foreign conquest, and the higher standard of comfort\nthat came in with the legions, must have appeared far less desirable\nthan they did to the rich trader of Alexandria, Caesarea, or Damascus,\nwhose aptness in taking advantage of the foibles of his rulers had\nenabled him to imitate their luxury and in some cases to share their\npower[542]. Yet, with the tenacity peculiar to their nation, even these\nrich Jews outside Palestine, while adopting gladly enough the material\nbenefits of the Graeco-Roman civilization, clung firmly to the one\nexclusively national possession which remained to them, the Law of Moses\nwith all its observances. They were, however, quite sharp enough to see\nthat the rules laid down for the conduct of a loosely-compacted mass of\nnomad tribes suddenly flung among hostile neighbours were unfitted to a\nmore settled civilization; and the thinkers among them were put to much\npains to discover some means by which they could claim their share of\nHellenistic culture without ceasing to be Jews[543]. At first this\ngenerally took the form of pseudonymous writings bearing the name of\nsome author respected by the Greeks, and designed to prove that all the\nHellenistic arts, sciences, and doctrines were derived from the Hebrew\npatriarchs. Thus, verses were ascribed to Orpheus and the Sibyl, and\nhistorical works to Hecataeus of Abdera and a certain Aristaeus, having\nfor their object the praise of the Jewish nation, which were certainly\nnot written by the authors whose names were appended to them. So\nArtapanus\u2019 book \u201cOn the Jews\u201d claimed that the Egyptians were indebted\nto the Hebrews for all they knew, including even the worship of their\ngods, and that this went back to the days of Abraham, who availed\nhimself of his stay in Egypt to teach astrology to the Pharaoh of his\ntime[544].\n\nHistory, however, was at all times much less to the taste of the Jews\nthan metaphysics, and the many teachers of philosophy scattered through\nthe Hellenistic world found in them eager scholars, who were willing to\nlisten respectfully to any doctrine, so long as it could be shown to be\nnot inconsistent with their national religion and traditions. The most\nsincere attempt thus to combine Hellenic and Jewish teaching that has\ncome down to us is that of Philo of Alexandria, who wrote probably\nshortly after the Birth of Christ. In his system[545], God is\nundefinable and has no qualities that can be perceived by man. As He is\nabsolutely perfect, He cannot come into contact with matter, and all His\ndealings with it must therefore be conducted through intermediate\nbeings. These intermediate beings are the powers or attributes of God,\ninconsistently, as Zeller points out, figured by Philo \u201cas at once\nindependent hypostases and immanent determinations of the Divine\nexistence[546].\u201d All the Divine Powers are summed up in the Logos or\nWord of God, who is not only their chief but their source, and the great\nintermediary between God and the universe. He is neither unbegotten nor\nbegotten after the manner of finite things, but is the vicegerent and\nambassador of God, who constantly makes intercession for the world. As\nfor man, his soul is itself nothing but one of those powers of God which\nin another state of existence are called angels or daemons, and it is\nhis material body which is the source of all evil, and the prison of the\nsoul. Man can only free himself from this by resisting the allurements\nof the senses, which God puts it into his heart to do. By such\nresistance, he can exceptionally and occasionally acquire such virtue\nthat, even in this life, he may attain to the Divine Vision, when he\nwill be \u201clifted above and out of himself,\u201d and the Spirit of God will\nhenceforth dwell in him and \u201cstir him like the strings of a musical\ninstrument.\u201d In the ordinary way, however, his emancipation will only\ntake place when his soul returns to its original incorporeal condition,\na reward which is bestowed on those who have kept themselves free from\nattachment to this sensuous body[547].\n\nThat people holding tenets so far removed from anything in the Law and\nthe Prophets should form themselves into small sects or societies[548]\nand take other means for their propagation is only natural, and no doubt\nmany such sects of which we have lost all trace existed in secret among\nthe Hellenizing Jews at the beginning of the Christian era[549]. Such a\nsect were probably the Sethiani described by Hippolytus, whose \u201centire\nsystem,\u201d according to the author of the _Philosophumena_, was derived\nfrom \u201cthe ancient theologians Musaeus, Linus, and Orpheus, who\nelucidates especially the ceremonies of initiation as well as the\nMysteries themselves[550].\u201d So far as Hippolytus explains their system,\nwhich he appears to have very imperfectly understood, it set forth three\nprinciples, which he calls \u201cLight, Darkness, and an intermediate one\nwhich is Spirit\u201d; but all the passages quoted from the \u201cParaphrase of\nSeth,\u201d which he declares to be the work of the sect in question, refer\nfor their authority to the Old Testament, which it is evident the\nSethiani received as a real revelation[551]. But the one of these\nhalf-Jewish half-Gentile sects of which we have the most detailed\naccount is that which passed under the name of Simon Magus, whom the\nFathers of the Church were unanimous in describing as the parent and\norigin of all later Gnosticism[552].\n\nThis Simon, the New Testament describes as a man who had formerly \u201cused\nsorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself\nwas some great one: to whom all gave heed, from the least to the\ngreatest, saying \u2018This man is the great power of God[553]\u2019.\u201d The author\nof the Acts then goes on to say that Simon \u201cbelieved\u201d and was baptized\nby Philip, and that when Peter and John came from Jerusalem to Samaria,\n\u201che offered them money saying: Give me also this power, that on\nwhomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.\u201d It is from this\noffer, which seems to betray a desire to set up a Church of his own,\nthat his name, curiously enough, has since been associated in\necclesiastical law with the offence of buying and selling benefices or\ncures of souls[554]. Of Simon\u2019s future career, however, the Acts of the\nApostles tell us nothing save that he left Peter with the request for\nthe Apostle\u2019s prayers on his behalf. It is evident, from the text quoted\nabove, that both Simon\u2019s sorceries and his acclamation by the people as\n\u201cthe great power of God\u201d took place before his conversion to\nChristianity, whether this was real or feigned. Hence, Simon must have\nbeen at the time already the leader of a school or sect, and as the\nevents narrated are in the same book set out before the Conversion of St\nPaul and his preaching to the Gentiles, this sect must have been a\npre-Christian one[555].\n\nThat this sect was also one of those which sought to reconcile Judaism\nwith Hellenism seems antecedently probable. Samaria had been stripped of\na great part of its former inhabitants by Alexander the Great and\nPtolemy Soter, who had colonized it by \u201cMacedonian\u201d settlers, probably\nof Syrian blood[556]. These colonists had accepted without difficulty\nthe religious reforms of Antiochus Epiphanes, and had offered that king,\naccording to Josephus, to dedicate their temple on Mt Gerizim to Zeus\nHellenios[557]. Later, on the death of Antiochus, John Hyrcanus, the\nethnarch or high-priest of the Jews, on the same authority, \u201crevolted\nfrom the Macedonians,\u201d invaded Samaria, besieged its chief city and,\nwhen he gained possession of it, entirely demolished it[558]. Gabinius,\nwhen proconsul of Syria, rebuilt this and other cities which had been\ndestroyed by the Jews, and Herod the Great about 25 B.C. restored and\nbeautified it while renaming it Sebaste in honour of Augustus[559].\nThese events had intensified the hatred already existing between the\nJews and the Samaritans, and this was not diminished by the possession\nby the latter of the Mt Gerizim temple which was in some sort the rival\nof that of Jerusalem[560]. To judge from its later developments, the\nreligion of the Samaritans at the beginning of the Christian era\nretained little of Judaism besides a reverence for the Pentateuch or\nFive Books of Moses[561], and its other elements were apparently Greek.\nWe should therefore expect to find in Simon\u2019s teaching before his\nmeeting with the Apostles, a leaning towards a mixed religion in which\nGreek elements played the chief part, although the sanction attached to\nit might be Jewish.\n\nSuch an expectation is abundantly justified by the evidence of\npost-Apostolic writers. The documents known as the _Clementine Homilies_\nand _Recognitions_ are now generally admitted to be a kind of religious\nnovel or romance composed for edification, and no consensus of opinion\nexists as to their date, which has been taken by many learned critics as\nranging from the Ist to the IVth century A.D.[562]. They set forth with\nmuch detail how Simon, after his first meeting with St Peter in Samaria,\neverywhere opposed the chief of the Apostles, and followed him about on\nmany of his journeys, disputing with him at great length, until finally\nput to flight by the superior dialectic of Peter[563]. The Apocryphal\n_Acts of Peter and Paul_, which seem to be either wholly or in part\nearlier than 275 A.D., further narrate that Simon attempted to convert\nto his heresy the Emperor Nero, by flying over the Campus Martius at\nRome in a car drawn by demons; but was vanquished by St Peter, who by a\nsolemn adjuration caused him to fall violently to the earth and thus to\nperish miserably[564]. This story became later the universal tradition\nof the Catholic Church. All the patristic writers agree that Simon Magus\nwas accompanied in his missionary journeys by a woman of immoral life\nwhom he called the Ennoia or Thought of God, and declared to be a\nreincarnation of Helen of Troy[565], while one of the Clementine\ndocuments makes her, together with Simon, to have been among the\nfollowers of John the Baptist[566]. There is no external corroboration\nof either story; and such accusations of immorality were too frequently\nbandied about between the early Christians and their adversaries for any\nparticular weight to be laid upon them[567]. Nor need the latest German\ntheory, that Simon Magus is in the Clementine literature but a pseudonym\nfor St Paul as the supposed opponent of St Peter, be discussed\nhere[568].\n\nThe first writer who gives us any authoritative account of Simon\u2019s\npre-Christian teaching is Hippolytus, who in his _Philosophumena_ quotes\nfreely from a book which he attributes to Simon and calls the _Great\nAnnouncement_[569]. Whether this be really Simon\u2019s work or no, its\nquotation in the _Philosophumena_ at least proves that a sect bearing\nhis name existed in the sub-Apostolic age, and that they held the\ndoctrines set forth in Hippolytus\u2019 quotations from this document, which\ncan hardly have been due to anyone else in the first instance than Simon\nhimself[570]. In the _Great Announcement_ the First Cause of all things\nis declared to be fire, on the strength of the statement in Deuteronomy\nthat \u201cGod is a burning and consuming fire[571].\u201d This Infinite or\nBoundless Power, as he calls it, Simon held to be not simple but\ntwo-fold, having two natures, a hidden and a manifold one, so\nintermingled that \u201cthe hidden one is concealed in the manifest, and the\nmanifest comes into being from the hidden one,\u201d by which, as we shall\nsee later, he meant male and female. The manifest, again, can be\nperceived by the senses like things with an actual existence, while the\nhidden nature can only be apprehended by the mind, or in other words\nimagined. In all this he seems at first sight to be echoing, as\nHippolytus points out[572], the notions of Plato upon the Intelligible\n(\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd) and the Sensible (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), those of Aristotle on Power\nor Potentiality (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2) and Actual Existence (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), and, as\nHippolytus does _not_ say, those of Philo upon the First Cause and the\nLogos[573]. The Cosmos or ordered universe came into being, Simon goes\non to say, from the unbegotten or self-existent fire, by means of six\n\u201cRoots\u201d called respectively Mind (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) and Thought (\u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1)[574], Voice\n(\u03a6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae) and Name (\u1f4c\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1), Reason (\u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) and Desire (\u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\nAlthough it is not here formally stated, it is noteworthy that this is a\nsystem of couples or pairs, the name of one of each of the above pairs\nbeing masculine and the other feminine[575]. In these six, Simon\nimagined that the Boundless Power existed potentially, but not actually,\nthat is to say, that each of them represented one particular aspect or\nquality under which the Supreme Being might be considered, but had no\nexistence apart from Him, while it required the addition together of all\nthe six to make up His entire being. A similar conception seems to\nunderlie the Zoroastrian idea of the six Amshaspands, from which it is\nlikely enough that Simon copied this part of his system[576]. It is here\nthat we meet for the first time in Gnosticism with the idea of emanation\nor the flowing-forth of the Divine nature, which differs entirely from\nthat of creation, whether _e nihilo_ or from pre-existing matter,\ninasmuch as the emanation still remains connected with the parent source\nand never forms an entity distinct from it[577].\n\nWe see, then, that in Simon\u2019s system, the primal world was a hebdomad or\nconsisted of seven Powers, being the three pairs of Roots enumerated\nabove together with a seventh, their source, in whom they were all\nsummed up[578]. But after this, and apparently created by it, is a\nsecond or intermediate world, as to which the _Great Announcement_ thus\nexpresses itself:\n\n    \u201cUnto you therefore I say what I say, and write what I write. The\n    writing is this. There are two stocks of all the Aeons put together,\n    having neither beginning nor end, springing from one Root, the which\n    is Power-Silence, invisible, incomprehensible (\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)[579], Of\n    which two stocks, one appears above, which is a great Power, the\n    Mind of the universes, which pervades all things, and is male: the\n    other [appears] below, a great Thought, is female, and gives birth\n    to all things. Thus, these, corresponding to one another[580], form\n    a pair (\u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1), and show forth the Middle Space (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1), an\n    incomprehensible air having neither beginning nor end. In this is\n    the Father who sustains (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd) all things and nourishes all\n    those things which have a beginning and end[581]. This is he who\n    standeth, hath stood, and shall stand[582], being both a male and\n    female power after the likeness of the pre-existing Boundless\n    Power[583], which has neither beginning nor end, but exists in\n    Oneness (\u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2). For the Thought which came forth from the power\n    in Oneness became two[584]. And each of them was one. For he, when\n    he contained her within himself, was alone, nor was he the first,\n    although he existed before, but having appeared from himself, a\n    second came into being. But he was not called Father before\n    [Thought] had named him Father. Just as, then, he drawing forth\n    himself from himself manifested to himself his own Thought, so the\n    same Thought when she appeared did not create him, but, beholding\n    him, concealed the Father, that is to say, Power, within herself,\n    and [thus] there exists a male-and-female (_i.e._ hermaphrodite)\n    Power-and-Thought. For Power does not in any way differ from\n    Thought, they being one. Without the things which are above is found\n    Power; without those which are below, Thought. Thus, there is that,\n    also, which appeared from them, the which being one is found to be\n    two, a male-and-female containing the female within itself. This one\n    is Mind in Thought; for they, being one when undivided (\u1f00\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\n    from one another, are [yet] found to be Two[585].\u201d\n\nThis statement seems at first to be merely an explanation and recitation\nof what has been previously said as to the emanation of the \u201cRoots\u201d from\nthe Boundless Power, and by no means justifies the words of the _Great\nAnnouncement_ in which it is magniloquently proclaimed to be \u201cthe Book\nof the Showing-forth of Voice and Name from the Thought of the Great\nBoundless Power. Wherefore it will be sealed up and hidden and veiled\nand will rest in the habitation wherein the root of the worlds is\nestablished (\u0398\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9)[586].\u201d But when we examine the words just quoted\nby the light of the other systems said to be derived from Simon\u2019s, we\nsee that they really indicate the belief of the author in a succession\nof worlds, wherein every later or lower one is a reflection, as in a\nglass, of that which was above it[587]. These lower worlds, like the\nprimal one, should each contain three pairs of \u201cRoots,\u201d emanating from\none source like rays from a lamp or other source of light. It also seems\nthat this source is, alike in the primal world and its successors, in\nitself potentially both male and female, that is to say, the female\nnature, which alone has the power of conception or producing new beings,\nwas originally concealed within the other as a thought is concealed\nwithin the mind, and only becomes comprehensible when utterance is given\nto it. Hence each of these Powers or, as Simon here calls them for the\nfirst time, aeons, like the Supreme Being, has a double aspect. Seen\nfrom below, that is to say, as it appears to the aeon which succeeds it,\nit is female, that is to say, a source of being. To that which is above\nit, or earlier in emanation, it is male, that is to say, it is the cause\nof conception, and also the sustainer and director at once of the\nconceiver and of that which she conceives[588].\n\nWhy now did Simon, or whoever wrote under his name, use such obscure and\nat first sight unintelligible terms for his speculations on the nature\nof the Supreme Being and the origin of the world? Simply, it would seem,\nthat he might reconcile two things which like certain chemicals found\nthemselves in presence of each other without any affinity for\ncombination. These were the Mosaic Law which, since the Captivity, both\nJew and Samaritan held themselves bound to treat as divinely\ninspired[589], and the Greek \u201ctheological\u201d ideas which then pervaded the\nwhole civilized world and were at the time accepted by all educated men\nwho thought about such subjects in much the same way as are in these\ndays the conclusions of physical science[590]. This forced him and\nothers who attempted to found a religion acceptable to both Jew and\nGreek, to use language which could be interpreted in their own sense by\neither. His Supreme Being is One, as Israel declared that her God was\nOne, but, by a not immodest metaphor, he contains within himself the\npower of becoming both male and female, as Adonis, or Attis, or\nDionysos, or, to take the mythological person he most resembles, the\nOrphic Phanes, was both male and female[591]. Simon also goes out of his\nway to affirm that his first syzygy or pair, Mind and Thought, are in\nthe second world called Heaven and Earth, and thus forms a pretty close\nparallel to the Orphic couple Uranos and Ge[592]. But he is careful to\nmix with this explanations which shall also accord with the account of\ncreation given in the Book of Genesis. He who standeth, hath stood, and\nwill stand, _i.e._ the Eternal Being who is not liable to fall or\ncorruption, and is the \u201cFather\u201d of the \u201cMiddle Space\u201d is no less the \u201cI\nam that I am\u201d of Exodus than the Father of gods and men of Homer. So,\ntoo, his companion from the beginning, called Silence, because she has\nno independent existence until he gives utterance to his thought,\nresembles the Nux or Night of Orpheus from whom Phanes begot Heaven and\nEarth; but she is also, as Simon expressly says, the Spirit of God which\nmoved over the face of the waters in the Mosaic account of the\nCreation[593]. If, again, Simon makes his first pair of \u201cRoots\u201d in the\nsecond world Heaven and Earth, his second pair, Voice and Name, he\ndeclares to be equivalent to the Sun and Moon, and his third, Reason and\nDesire, to Air and Water[594]. This, he expressly says, is because the\nBook of Genesis says that three clear days elapsed before the Sun and\nMoon came into being, and these three \u201cdays\u201d are an allusion to the\nBoundless Power and the first pair Mind and Thought[595]. To a much\ngreater extent than Philo, therefore, Simon uses the religious\ntraditions of both Greeks and Hebrews to give sanction to his own\nspeculations.\n\nThe use of the word aeon, which our English Testament translates \u201cage\u201d\n(_saeculum_) as the generic name of the six Roots or Powers reflected in\nthe second universe, seems also to have peculiar signification in this\nconnection. Among the Greeks, Hesiod sang of a golden age, succeeded by\nothers of silver, of brass, of one unnamed metal, and finally one of\niron; and the Orphics, working after their manner on older materials,\nassigned the first of these ages to their god Phanes, and the others to\nNight, Uranos, Kronos, and Zeus in succession, asserting that the last\nage would be that of Dionysos[596]. The use of the word by Simon seems\nto show that he conceived his emanations or \u201cRoots\u201d as succeeding one\nanother and perhaps depending from one another like the links of a\nchain. But as he had already personified these emanations, we have the\ncurious result that he considered them both as persons\u2014or, to be more\naccurate, aspects of the Deity\u2014and spaces of time. Nor was this all. The\ngreat spread given to the Chaldaean star-worship throughout the East by\nthe events described in Chapter III above, had caused the stars to be\naccepted by every nation in the Hellenist world as the most convenient\ntypes of divinity[597]. The planets, including in that phrase the Sun\nand Moon, were all known by the names of the most important gods in the\nvarious pantheons of all the nations of antiquity, and were thought in\nsome not very clearly defined way to be identified with the divinities\nwhose names they bore[598]. Even before the time of Alexander, the\nPlatonic cosmogony had made of the stars and planets habitations where\nthe souls of men were supposed to rest on their way to mortal\nbodies[599]; and Philo, while admitting that the stars were the rulers\nof earthly things, could do no more than remind his readers that they\nwere not independent rulers, but only viceroys of Yahweh[600]. Hence\nSimon, when he called three of his aeons by the names of Earth, Sun, and\nMoon, made them places or worlds as well as persons and periods of time.\nIt was an extraordinary complication of ideas from which none of the\nGnostics who followed him succeeded in entirely freeing themselves[601].\n\nTo return, however, to Simon\u2019s system of emanations. Have we any right\nto consider that the Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, and Water and Air,\nwith which he peopled his second universe, were those which are\nperceptible by our senses, or did he regard them as existing above our\nken and as merely the patterns which were in their turn reflected into\nour universe? Hippolytus unfortunately breaks off his quotations from\nthe _Great Announcement_ at this point, and his own report of Simon\u2019s\ndoctrines is neither lucid nor implicitly to be trusted. Irenaeus,\nhowever, writing half a century before Hippolytus, declares that it was\nthe female aeon Thought, whom we have seen is equivalent in the second\nor intermediate world to Ge or Earth, \u201cwho, comprehending the wish of\nthe Father, descended to the lower regions, and there produced angels\nand the lower authorities (\u03b1\u03af \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) who made the universe\n(\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2)[602].\u201d If we believe, as seems most probable, that Simon\ncarried his theory of the lower world being a reflection of the upper\nthroughout all existing things, it follows that the second world,\ncontaining as we have seen Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, and Air and\nWater together with \u201cthe Father\u201d in whom the six were contained, was the\npattern or paradigmatic world which was reflected in the lower universe\nto which we belong. In this case it is probable that the six \u201cRoots\u201d\nagain changed their generic name, and after having been called powers\n(\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) in the primal world, and aeons in the second, were now\ndesignated angels and authorities. If this conjecture is right, we have\nhere a parallel to the chain of being fabled by the Orphics which,\nbeginning with the gods, descended through demi-gods, heroes, and demons\ndown to men. An accurate knowledge of the different ranks of this\nsupramundane hierarchy was, as has been said, of great importance for\nmagical purposes such as exorcism, and its description occupied a great\npart of the Enochian literature[603].\n\nSimon, however, had still to account for the creation of man and the\npart which he played in the scheme of the universe. His reverence for\nMoses prevented him from directly contradicting the statement in Genesis\nthat Yahweh \u201cformed man out of the dust of the ground,\u201d and this he\nechoes in the words of the Septuagint, which speaks of God moulding\n(\u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5) man by \u201ctaking dust (\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) from the Earth (\u0393\u1fc6).\u201d The part here\nplayed by the Yahweh of Genesis he transfers to \u201cthe Father\u201d of his\nsecond or intermediate world[604]; and as Genesis says that God made man\nin his own image, he is also compelled to say that man was originally\nmade in the likeness of the Father. But \u201cthe Father\u201d of Simon\u2019s\nintermediate world was, as we have seen, an hermaphrodite, or rather a\nmale containing a female power within himself[605]. Hence man was\noriginally both male and female, or in the words of the _Great\nAnnouncement_ \u201cnot simple, but double according to image and\nresemblance[606].\u201d But this was clearly not the man of this world as we\nknow him, but the Heavenly or Archetypal Man who remained in the world\nabove ours, and was, as Philo held, a man-woman[607]. How did Simon\naccount for the separation of the sexes, and its influence upon\nsubsequent humanity?\n\nThe answer to this question involves Simon\u2019s ideas as to the cause of\nevil in this world and the means by which man can escape from it. Man\nwas, as we have seen, formed out of dust, but to make him, in the words\nof Genesis, \u201ca living soul,\u201d it was necessary that he should be animated\nby the breath (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) of the Divinity. So efficiently was this done\nthat everyone, as Simon said, has within him potentially but not in act,\n\u201cthat which is blessed and incorruptible,\u201d that is to say, \u201cHe who\nstandeth, hath stood and will stand,\u201d or in other words the \u201cFather\u201d of\nthe intermediate world. \u201cHe it is,\u201d he goes on to say, \u201cwho stood above\nin the Unbegotten Power, who stands below, coming into being by\nreflection (\u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9) in the rush of the waters, and will stand above\nby the side of the blessed and Unbegotten Power if he should receive\nreflection or image (\u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7)[608].\u201d For \u201cthere are three who\nstand, and unless there are three aeons that stand, the unbegotten one,\nwho according to them [Qy. the Hebrews?] was borne over the face of the\nwater, is not in her proper place in the universe (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9)[609].\nThe which unbegotten one is fashioned by resemblance as perfect and\nheavenly, but becomes, in regard to Thought alone, inferior to the\nUnbegotten Power.\u201d This Unbegotten Power, he goes on to say in words\nthat remind one of several different myths[610], is the \u201cOne power\ncloven in twain above and below, who gives birth to itself, increases\nitself, seeks itself, finds itself, being its own mother, its own\nfather, its own sister, its own spouse (\u03c3\u03cd\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), its own daughter, its\nown son, a mother-father [and is] _one_, being the root of all the\nuniverses[611].\u201d It was the Thought of this Power who was charged with\nbringing the Divine Spark to this world; but apparently, while she was\nbrooding over the face of the waters, she was seized by the angels and\nauthorities whom she had produced, \u201cthrough motives of jealousy, because\nthey were unwilling to be looked upon as the progeny of any other\nbeing[612].\u201d These words are put into the mouth of Simon by Irenaeus,\nwho goes on to say that Thought was thus prevented from returning to the\nFather and was shut up in a human body. At this point, the account of\nIrenaeus agrees with that of the _Philosophumena_ which narrates that\n(according to Simon) the world-making angels caused Thought (Ennoia) to\nenter one body after another, including that of Helen of Troy (_causa\nteterrima belli_), until she finally entered into the body of Simon\u2019s\ncompanion Helena whom he found in a brothel at Tyre[613]. Hippolytus\nsays, however, that Simon made up this part of the story out of shame as\nregards his disciples[614] in order to explain his companying with\nHelena, and it may be noticed that he nowhere quotes the _Great\nAnnouncement_ in its support[615]. Epiphanius, who seems to have used\nthe same documents as Irenaeus, gives a different reason for the conduct\nof the world-making angels from that of Irenaeus, and makes out that\nthey were seduced by the beauty of \u201cEpinoia,\u201d as he calls Ennoia or\nThought, the female aeon who had come down, and detained her below out\nof sensual desire[616]. Both Irenaeus and Epiphanius are agreed that\nSimon in some way \u201credeemed\u201d Helena, although they do not say in what\nway, and Hippolytus declares that Simon having purified Helena, in like\nmanner brought salvation to men by his own discernment[617]. Why Simon\nshould thus have power of salvation he does not explain directly, but\nhe, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius alike tell us, by what seems to be a wilful\nor unconscious misinterpretation of the account in the New\nTestament[618], that Simon gave himself out as the Supreme God, who,\nseeing that the angels mismanaged this world from their desire for rule,\ncame here to put it right and descended through the different worlds,\nchanging his shape in each to accord with that of the rulers therein,\nuntil he appeared here as man, \u201calthough he was not a man[619].\u201d\nHippolytus further says, as does Irenaeus, that Simon was alleged \u201cto\nsuffer in Judaea in the likeness of Jesus, although in appearance only,\nand to have appeared to the Jews as Son, to the Samaritans as Father,\nand to the other nations as the Holy Spirit[620].\u201d His death he accounts\nfor by the story, found nowhere else in post-Christian literature, that\nat some place, the name of which has slipped out of the text of the\n_Philosophumena_, Simon\n\n    \u201ctaught sitting under a plane-tree. Moreover, exposure being at hand\n    through long delay, he said that if he were buried alive he would\n    rise again the third day. And a grave having been dug by his orders\n    by his disciples, he directed that he should be buried. His\n    disciples did what he commanded, but he remained there to this day.\n    For he was not Christ[621].\u201d\n\nIn all this account, Hippolytus gives an entirely different account from\nthat of the Clementines, with the manifest purpose of holding Simon up\nto obloquy as one of the \u201cfalse Christs\u201d predicted in the New Testament.\nIt is obvious also that, so far from giving us Simon\u2019s pre-Christian\nteaching, he is here handing down a garbled account of some tradition of\nthe heresiarch\u2019s disciples after his death.\n\nThat the stories told by the Fathers, except when they are quoting\nimmediately from the _Great Announcement_, are not a trustworthy account\nof Simon\u2019s doctrines is evident from their manifest inconsistency. If\nSimon\u2019s disciples believed, as Hippolytus says, in the lawfulness of\npromiscuous intercourse, why should he feel called upon to justify to\nthem by an artifice his connection with Helena? If, too, Simon, or the\nSupreme Being in his likeness, came down from the highest heaven to\nearth for the sake of redeeming his spouse Epinoia there held captive,\nwhy did he not return with her when recovered, and for what purpose did\nhe simulate death in Judaea? Nor is there any plausible reason assigned\nfor the angels\u2019 detention of Epinoia on earth by Hippolytus, which he\nattributes, like Irenaeus before him, to jealousy and the desire for\nrule, any more than by Epiphanius, who will have it to be caused by\ntheir concupiscence\u2014a story probably derived from the account of the\nWatchers in the _Book of Enoch_. Hippolytus makes Epinoia come to earth\nto establish, instead of taking away, the rule of the angels, who were\nby his account her own progeny; and if the angels were, as Epiphanius\nsays, inflamed with love for her, the last thing they would be likely to\ndo would be to transform her out of her first and heavenly shape, and\nfinally place her in a brothel\u2014as they are said to have done with\nHelena, Simon\u2019s mistress.\n\nThe key to Simon\u2019s theory on the connexion between the salvation of\nmankind and its division into sexes is probably to be found in a\nparagraph in the _Philosophumena_ in which Hippolytus seems to quote\ndirectly from the _Great Announcement_:\n\n    \u201cAnd because,\u201d he says, \u201cthe beginning of the generation of things\n    which are begotten[622] is from fire, he [Simon] devises (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9)\n    a certain similar figure. Generation of all such things exists,\n    [and] the beginning of the desire of generation comes from fire. So,\n    for example, to desire changeable generation is called being\n    inflamed with love. But the fire, which is one, undergoes two\n    changes. In the man,\u201d he says, \u201cthe blood which is hot and yellow as\n    typifying fire is changed into seed; but in the woman, the self-same\n    blood is changed into milk[623]. And the [result of the?] change of\n    the masculine blood is begetting; but the [result of the?] change of\n    the feminine, the nourishment of that which is begotten[624]. This,\u201d\n    he says, \u201cis the flaming sword turning both ways to guard the way to\n    the Tree of Life. For the blood turns into seed and milk, and that\n    power becomes [at once] mother and father of the things which are\n    born, and the increase of those which are nursed, having no need of\n    any external help and being sufficient unto itself. The Tree of\n    Life,\u201d he says, \u201cis guarded by the flaming sword turning both ways,\n    as we have said, [and] the seventh power which contains all things,\n    and which is stored up in the six powers, [comes forth?] from the\n    sword. For, if the flaming sword did not turn both ways, that\n    beautiful tree would be corrupted and destroyed. But if the Word\n    which is stored up potentially in them (the six powers), being the\n    lord of the proper place, is turned into seed and milk, within it is\n    born the Word of souls, beginning from the smallest spark, which\n    will be magnified and will increase and will become a boundless\n    power, unchangeable in the unchanging aeon, and it is born no more\n    until [it reaches?] the boundless aeon[625].\u201d\n\nThe meaning of this very complicated and confused imagery\u2014which we may\nbe sure Hippolytus has purposely made as obscure and ridiculous as\npossible\u2014seems to be this. In the two superior or heavenly worlds which\nwe have called the primal and the second, the \u201croots\u201d are male and\nfemale after the model of the Supreme Being. But this only means that\nthe female is the external manifestation of the male, _within_ whom she\nhas at one time been contained. No thought of sex, as we understand it,\nenters into their relations, and no progeny follows from their\nconjugation, the lower world coming into life after the pattern of the\nupper by an impulse which, although due in the first instance to the\nmale, is translated into action by the female member of the first\nsyzygy. But with our universe and the appearance of man, a change in the\nsystem takes place. Although our world, constituted after the heavenly\nmodel, contains the three pairs, Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, Air and\nWater, and is animated by the breath of life brought from above by\nEpinoia or Ennoia, man is formed from previously-existing matter and is\ntherefore largely made up of an element hostile or repugnant to God.\nLest the Divine spark within him should free itself from matter and\nreturn to the world above, each human soul has been divided, as Plato\ntells us in the _Symposium_[626], and the two parts placed in different\nbodies so that the male is imperfect without the female and the female\nwithout the male, and the soul can make no effort to raise itself in the\nworld of being until it meets and is conjoined with its affinity. This\nis probably in Simon\u2019s view the device of the angels, who have brought\nit about, according to Hippolytus, in order that Epinoia, the mother of\nlife, may remain longer in the world and therefore prolong their\nrule[627]. But they are defeated by the Divine arrangement, which\ncompels the two parts of the soul, after having once entered upon the\nround of mutable generation (\u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), to change into one\nbody after another according to the Orphic theory of transmigration\nuntil each meets with its twin. Thus did the soul of Helen of Troy pass\nfrom one body into another until in the shape of Helena of Tyre it met\nwith its own affinity in the body of Simon. Then it became again\nbisexual after the image of the boundless power to which it would again\nrise. Thus must it be with all mankind until all the souls are thus\ndisentangled from matter[628]. According to Hippolytus, this event is to\ncoincide with the deliverance (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of the world, which seems to mean\nthat it is to be freed from the rule of the angels. Irenaeus and\nEpiphanius twist this into the assertion that it is to be dissolved,\nwhile one of the later Gnostic documents says that it is to be \u201ccaught\nup,\u201d that is to say, reabsorbed by the world of which it is the image.\nBut Hippolytus expressly includes this last doctrine among those\ninvented by \u201cthose who imitated the error\u201d of Simon Magus, or in other\nwords by his successors[629], and it need not therefore be here\ndiscussed.\n\nWhence Simon derived the doctrine of which we get glimpses in the _Great\nAnnouncement_ will probably remain in doubt until we recover more\nfragments of that document. It appears likely, however, that he drew\nfrom a number of sources. Even in his day and after the wholesale\ndepopulation of Samaria by the Syrians, Egyptians, and Jews, there must\nhave remained many of the inhabitants who were lineal descendants of\nthat mixed Semitic and Persian stock who \u201cfeared the Lord and served\nbrazen images.\u201d Hence his speculations may well have been influenced by\nthe Persian religion of Zoroastrianism and Mazdeism, and some have\nthought that they can see in them traces of the primitive fire worship\nof the Magi[630]. Yet he need not have gone so far, for, as we have\nseen, his idea of fire as the origin of all things might well be taken\nfrom a too literal interpretation of a passage in the Samaritan\nPentateuch. So with regard to the six \u201croots,\u201d although they may have\nbeen mere copies of the Persian Amshaspands, they may also have come\nfrom a Pythagorean or Orphic source, since Athamas the Pythagorean is\nsaid to have taught that \u201cthere are four roots\u2014fire, water, air, earth;\nfor from these is the genesis of what is produced,\u201d and a verse of\nEmpedocles is preserved which makes the same assertion[631]. The\nlikeness of Simon\u2019s system to Egyptian and Alexandrian teaching is even\ncloser. In ancient Egypt there was, as M. Maspero thinks, a well-defined\nsystem of correspondences including three worlds, each of which was a\nlikeness or reflection of the preceding. At Hermopolis, too, there was\nworshipped an ogdoad or family of four pairs of gods and goddesses who\non the same authority were merely attributes of one higher deity[632].\nSo in the tract _de Iside et Osiride_[633], we are told that genesis or\ncoming into being is the image or reflection in matter of that which\nreally exists, and that Horus, who seems here to represent the\nperceptible world, is the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd or image of the \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or ideal\nworld, and is the child of this last world and matter. After all, there\nis little more in this than an extension of Plato\u2019s theory of ideas\nwhich are the paradigms or patterns of perceptible things: but as Simon,\naccording to the Clementines[634], had studied in Alexandria he may well\nhave acquired such a notion either from Plato\u2019s writings direct, or, as\nis more likely, from the Alexandrian religion of Serapis and Isis as set\nforth in the tract in question.\n\nOf the history of the Simonian sect, we know very little more than has\nbeen said. The Fathers accuse the Simonians of leading immoral lives, of\nteaching the advisability of promiscuous intercourse, and of being\naddicted to magic[635]. Irenaeus declares that they worshipped an image\nof Simon in the likeness of Jupiter, and another of Helena in the shape\nof Athena[636], to which Hippolytus adds that they were exceedingly\nangry if any one ventured to call these statues either Simon or Helena\nand instantly cast him forth of the sect as being ignorant of their\nmysteries[637]. Eusebius\u2014a very late witness\u2014adds to this that they\nworshipped these images with \u201cprostrations and incense and sacrifices\nand libations[638],\u201d which taken with the other statements seems to show\nthat the Simonians, or perhaps only the pre-Christian followers of\nSimon, really took part in the worship of the Greek gods Zeus and\nAthena, possibly by way of complaisance with the Greek and Roman rulers\nof Samaria, and that the likening of their statues to Simon and Helena\nwas only the patristic gloss on the fact. Epiphanius goes further and\nattributes to them \u201cmysteries of iniquity\u201d and secret and obscene rites,\nincluding the filthy parody of the Eucharist depicted by the late J. K.\nHuysmans in his novel of _L\u00e0-Bas_[639]. But this also was an accusation\ncommon to the adherents and opponents of Christianity at the time he\nwrote. He also says that their sacrifices were offered to \u201cthe Father of\nthe Universes\u201d (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd) through the rulers and authorities[640], and\nthat they thought that the God of the Jews was one of the angels in this\nlower universe who created man and divided the nations among them by\nlot[641], an idea of which there is a trace in the Book of Daniel[642].\nBut it is plain that Epiphanius, in his desire to prove that Simon is\nthe parent of all subsequent heresy, is here mixing together the\nopinions of different Gnostic sects with a result inconsistent even in\nhis own eyes. That the later Simonians had secret rites after the manner\nof those described by Lucian in the case of Alexander of\nAbonoteichos[643] is likely enough, but rests on no real proof[644].\n\nOf the extent and persistence of the religion set on foot by Simon we\nhave some few indications, although these, too, hardly agree with one\nanother. Irenaeus declares that he was succeeded in the leadership of\nthe sect by Menander[645], another Samaritan, and this is confirmed by\nEpiphanius, Philaster, and all the lesser writers on heresy down to and\nincluding Eusebius[646]. Although there seems nothing new in the\ndoctrine which they assign to Menander, it is very probable that, after\nSimon\u2019s death, the tenets of the sect underwent a good deal of\nmodification. According to Theodoret, the Simonians spread chiefly in\nSyria, Phrygia, and Rome[647]. Justin Martyr, writing in the reign of\nAntoninus Pius, speaks of their school as still existing apparently in\nRome[648]. Origen, in the following reign, says indeed in his tract\nagainst Celsus that there were no Simonians to be found anywhere\nthroughout the world[649]; but he was probably mistaken in this, as\nEusebius in the reign of Constantine speaks of them as still numerous,\nalthough forced to hide themselves[650]. After this, and so soon as the\nChurch, now triumphant, began in her turn to persecute, they no doubt\neither became converted to Christianity or joined other sects.\n\nIn these matters, as in many others concerning the Gnostics, the Fathers\nof the Church were badly informed. The Gnostic indifference to outward\nforms of religion made it very easy for any body of Gnostics to conceal\nthemselves in time of persecution[651], and thus to resist in the most\npractical way any attempt to estimate their true strength, or the\nrelations of the different sects to one another. Gnosticism was, as the\nChurch was to find out later, a hydra, the heads of which when cut off\nrenewed themselves with amazing rapidity. Moreover, the very essence of\nGnosticism was secrecy for all but the initiated, and if we may judge\nfrom the words of the _Great Announcement_ quoted above, the Simonians\ntook abundant care when they committed any of their doctrines to writing\nthat the result should be unintelligible without a good deal of previous\ninstruction. But if the fragments quoted are, as seems fairly certain,\nthe work either of Simon Magus himself or of some prominent and early\nmember of his school, the Fathers were abundantly justified in regarding\nhim as the source of all subsequent Gnosticism. The syncretic religion\nwhich they unfold seems to have been admirably adapted to catch those\n\u201cbarbarian\u201d enquirers, of whom there were evidently many in the first\nyears of our era, who were trying by might and main to reconcile the\ntraditions of Judaism with the Greek learning and culture for the first\ntime brought within their reach. The system of terribly forced\ninterpretation of the Jewish scriptures employed by the Simonians was\nprobably their own invention, and would certainly never have passed\nmuster in a community possessed of a modicum of literary sense[652]; yet\nit enabled them, as has been said, to turn their backs upon the plain\nmeaning of the books of the Old Testament. By their doctrine of\nemanation, whether derived from Persian sources or not, they contrived,\nperhaps for the first time, to bridge the huge gulf fixed by the\nphilosophy and physics of the time between their Supreme Being and the\ngross matter which was thought to exist independently of and in\nopposition to him; while their scheme of redemption, like that of the\nOrphics from whom they apparently borrowed, went far, as they boasted,\nto rob death of its terrors.\n\nThese features we find reproduced in the teachings of nearly every later\nsect and school into which we shall have to enquire, and although our\ninformation as to their doctrines is not exact enough to enable us to\ndetermine the extent of the obligations of all of them to the teaching\nof Simon, the chances are that in every case there was a more or less\nconscious borrowing. Nor did the influence of the Samaritan _magus_\ncease with the suppression of the many heresies which the Fathers\ndeclared to be inspired by him. His speculations as to the succession of\nheavens and of orders of heavenly beings passed into the teaching of the\nChurch[653] and obtained too firm a footing there to be dislodged until\nthe German Reformation. The memory of them extended even beyond its\npale, and while, in the VIIth century of our era, they came to inspire\nsuch cosmology as is taught in the Koran, the system of Sephiroth or\nsuccessive emanations of the Deity, which underlies the farrago of\nmystical nonsense called in the Middle Ages the Cabala of the Jews, is\ndirectly derived from them. It may even be said that the influence of\nSimon\u2019s doctrines is not even now extinct in Europe, for in the writings\nof Swedenborg, which still find exponents, many of his ideas seem to be\nrevived.\n\nThat Simon\u2019s system as described in the _Great Announcement_ was the\nresult either of deep philosophic speculation or of original thought can\nhardly be said. Its one novel feature was the rather clumsy fusion of\nthe Orphic cosmogony with the Mosaic account of creation, which reads\nlike a parody on Philo\u2019s well-thought-out doctrine. Philo was born,\napparently, about 25 B.C., and was therefore in all probability a few\nyears older than Simon, so that such a parody is not altogether\nimpossible. One of the main differences between the two systems is that\nto the asceticism of Philo and the Essenes Simon opposed, not perhaps a\nrecommendation to licence, but a theory making the union of the sexes\npart of the scheme for the redemption of mankind. By so doing, he\nprobably made a much stronger appeal to Samaritans and Jews alike than\ndid the strict celibacy demanded by Orphics, Essenes, and the other\npre-Christian Gnostics. It is probable also that he included in his\npropaganda some sort of thaumaturgy or wonder-working of the kind\nemployed, according to Lucian, by Alexander of Abonoteichos and,\naccording to Irenaeus, by the Jewish impostor Marcus. Although the\nstories about this in the Clementines are manifestly fiction, we cannot\nabsolutely reject the universal testimony of the Fathers that Simon and\nhis followers made use of incantations and magical arts, and these are\nprobably the \u201csorceries\u201d with which the writer of the Acts declares he\nbewitched the Samaritans. Charlatanism, or more or less conscious\nimposture of this kind, was rife, as will be presently shown, among the\nlower classes of Palestine in his day, and would agree well with the\nbombastic language of the extracts from the _Great Announcement_ which\nHippolytus has preserved for us.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n  The fanaticism of the Palestinian Jews in time affected their\n  co-religionists elsewhere, as when the Jews in Asia Minor rebelled and\n  committed atrocities in the reign of Trajan. See Morrison, _Jews under\n  Roman Rule_, p. 191, and Renan, _Les \u00c9vangiles_, Paris, 1877, p. 503.\n  Probably such outbreaks were condemned by those of the nation who had\n  anything to lose, as was certainly the case during the Revolt under\n  Hadrian.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n  Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 375; Mahaffy, _Greek Life and Thought_, 1887,\n  pp. 468-482; _Greek World under Roman Sway_, 1890, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _History of the Jewish People_, Eng. ed. II. pp. 157, 158.\n  One of the best proofs of this tendency is the fashion among all\n  classes of Jews at this period of giving their children Greek names.\n  See Mahaffy, _Greek Life and Thought_, p. 480. Even among the Apostles\n  we have Andrew and Philip.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._ II. pp. 206, 306, 309; Morrison, _op. cit._ p.\n  395.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._ II. pp. 369-380, following, as he tells us,\n  Zeller, gives an excellent and coherent account of Philo\u2019s system,\n  which see. As Sch\u00fcrer points out (_op. cit._ II. p. 368), Philo\n  \u201chellenized\u201d so thoroughly that practically the only Judaic elements\n  in his system are the assertion of monotheism, a contempt for\n  image-worship, and the claim that the Jews possessed through the\n  Mosaic revelation the highest religious knowledge.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._ II. p. 372. For a definition of hypostasis in this\n  connection and its original equivalence to \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and _substantia_ (as\n  in the _Quicunque vult_), see Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1888, p. 275.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n  Were those who did not attain to this height in Philo\u2019s opinion\n  annihilated or re-incarnated? His view that for the wicked this life\n  is the real hell (_De congr. erud. grat._ \u00a7 XI.) would suit either\n  theory; but in _de Cherub._ \u00a7 I. it is plain that he contemplates the\n  eternal punishment of the damned.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n  Secret, not from the jealous motive of the Gnostics, but because if\n  their opinions had become generally known they would have been cast\n  out of the synagogue.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n  So Renan, _Les \u00c9vangiles_, p. 452. It is quite possible that the sect\n  of the Essenes may have included many divisions.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n  Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 3, p. 218, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n  M. de Faye is probably right in saying (_\u00c9tude Critique des Documents\n  du Gnosticisme Chr\u00e9tien_, Paris, 1913, pp. 352, 353) that the Sethiani\n  were never a very important sect. St\u00e4helin\u2019s theory (_Die Gnostischen\n  Quellen Hippolyts_, Leipzig, 1890) that Hippolytus was deceived by a\n  forger who drew all his \u201cheresies\u201d from one document (see Chapter VII,\n  _infra_) is too fantastic to be correct, but it has done good service\n  in calling attention to the family likeness between most of the\n  systems which he sketches. Cf. E. de Faye, _Intro. \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9t. du Gnost._,\n  Paris, 1903, p. 68. We are not likely to reach any more definite\n  conclusion unless some lucky discovery reveals to us the sources of\n  Hippolytus\u2019 compilation.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, p. 191, Harvey; Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_,\n  Bk VI. c. 20, p. 267, Cruice; Augustine, _de Haeres. lib._ cc. I.,\n  II., III.; Praedestinatus, _de Haer._ Bk I. c. 1; Pseudo-Tertullian,\n  _adv. omn. Haer._ c. I. etc.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n  Acts viii. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n  From the story in Acts, it appears that what Simon tried to buy was\n  the power of ordination. The offence in modern ecclesiastical\n  jurisprudence seems to be the obtaining the priestly office by\n  purchase rather than by merit or gift.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n  Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, p. 51.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n  Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 351. Cowley in Cheyne\u2019s _Encyclopaedia\n  Biblica_, _s.v._ Samaritans, omits this; but see Josephus, _Ant._ Bk\n  XII. c. 2, \u00a7 1.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n  Josephus, _op. cit._ Bk XII. c. 5, \u00a7 1.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n  _Ibid._ _op. cit._ Bk XIII. c. 10, \u00a7 3.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n  _Ibid._ _op. cit._ Bk XV. c. 9, \u00a7 5.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n  \u201cNeither at Jerusalem, nor on this mountain [Gerizim] shall men\n  worship the Father,\u201d John iv. 21.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n  Cowley in _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Samaritans, col. 4260. According to\n  Renan, _Les \u00c9vangiles_, p. 451, the Samaritans at the beginning of our\n  era were divided into a great number of sects, all more or less\n  attached to Simon. The authorities he quotes are, however, too late to\n  establish this satisfactorily.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n  The question was discussed and resolved, as far as it could be in the\n  then state of our information, by Salmon in Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of\n  Christian Biography_, _s.v._ Clementines. Mgr. Duchesne, _Early\n  History of the Christian Church_, Eng. ed. 1909, p. 96, n. 2, sums up\n  in favour of their ultimate derivation from the _Preaching of Peter_\n  composed at the end of the IInd or beginning of IIIrd cent. He thinks\n  the Clementines orthodox save for a slight Arian tendency.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n  So Theodoret; but this was a common form in the patristic accounts of\n  such disputes. It is repeated in the dispute of Archelaus with Manes,\n  mentioned in Chapter XIII, _infra_, which see.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n  See Tischendorf\u2019s edition, _passim_. The age of the book may be\n  guessed by its containing the _Quo Vadis_ story quoted by Origen.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, p. 191, Harvey; Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 19,\n  p. 264, Cruice; Epiphanius, _Panar._ Bk I.; _Haer._ XXI. c. 2 (p. 125\n  of Oehler\u2019s vol. II. pt. 1).\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n  _Clementine Homilies_, II. c. 23.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n  Marcion and Marcus, both leaders of Gnostic sects, were both accused\n  by the Catholics of seduction, while the Pagans naturally put the\n  worst construction on the intimacy existing between confessors and\n  martyrs and their converts, as is evidenced by the story of Paul and\n  Thekla.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n  This seems to have been first set on foot by Baur and the T\u00fcbingen\n  school, and has lately been revived by Schmiedel in the _Encyc. Bibl._\n  _s.v._ Simon Magus. Even if we were to admit that it was well founded\n  with regard to the _Clementines_, it would not get rid of the\n  testimony of the Acts and of Justin Martyr that Simon Magus had an\n  actual historical existence.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7. \u201cDeclaration\u201d would perhaps be a better translation\n  of the word; but that given in the text is the one used by most\n  writers on the subject.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n  Simon\u2019s authorship of the book has been defended by Renan (_Les\n  Ap\u00f4tres_, Paris, 1866, p. 267 and note) and attacked by many other\n  writers. Salmon, _op. cit._, Schmiedel, _op. cit._, and Stock in the\n  _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (last edition), _s.v._ Simon Magus, aver\n  that there were two Simons, one the personage of the Acts, and the\n  other, a Gnostic leader of the IInd cent. to whom or to whose\n  followers the _Great Announcement_ is to be attributed. This theory,\n  although attractive, would prove too much; for Justin Martyr, himself\n  a Samaritan, has no doubt that Simon the heresiarch is the Simon of\n  the Acts, and if he is wrong in this, a matter which may well have\n  been within his own personal knowledge, Hippolytus is our best and\n  earliest authority for Simon\u2019s doctrines.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n  Deut. iv. 24.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 9, p. 247, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n  As when he says that the Logos is not God, but his reflection. See\n  Philo, _de Somn._ I. 41 (p. 656 of Mangey). \u201cJust as those who cannot\n  gaze upon the sun may yet gaze upon a reflection of it.\u201d Cf. Hatch,\n  _H. L._ p. 248.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n  Irenaeus and Epiphanius (where before quoted) both call this second\n  partner in the first pair of \u201cRoots\u201d \u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk\n  VI. c. 1, \u00a7 13, p. 251, Cruice, has \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. Does this mean\n  \u201cafter-thought\u201d or \u201csecond thought\u201d as showing her posteriority to\n  Nous? At any rate it is some indication that he is copying from a\n  different source than that of his predecessors. King (_Gnostics and\n  their Remains_, 2nd ed. p. 61) would translate \u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 by \u201cthought,\u201d\n  while he calls \u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u201cIntelligence.\u201d The Abb\u00e9 Cruice translates\n  \u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u201cConceptio.\u201d It seems here to mean Desire not in a fleshly\n  but a mental sense.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n  The names of \u1f4c\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03a6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae are placed in the reverse order to the\n  others, inasmuch as in this pair the feminine comes first. This is\n  curious because in the same section they are compared to the Sun and\n  Moon, the sex of which is transposed in several mythologies.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n  The names of the Amshaspands of Zoroaster are, _Vohu Mano_, or Good\n  Mind, and _Asha Vahishta_, or Truth; _Khshathra Vairya_, or Right Law,\n  and _Spenta Armaiti_, or Wisdom; _Haurvetat_, or Good Health, and\n  _Ameretat_ or Immortality. The likeness between this and Simon\u2019s\n  system has been noticed by, among others, Harvey the editor of\n  Irenaeus, in his Introduction to that author, pp. lxv _sqq._ For the\n  resemblance between post-exilic Judaism and Zoroastrianism, see\n  Cheyne, _Jewish Religious Life_, pp. 157, 210, 251, 257 _sqq._ But see\n  p. 197, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n  Emanation is well defined by Mallet (_Culte de Neit \u00e0 Sa\u00efs_, Paris,\n  1888, pp. 212, 213) as \u201ca perpetual flowing-forth, which does not\n  imply any effort, and which consequently neither exhausts nor even\n  diminishes the productive principle.\u201d Emanations, however, he goes on\n  to say, become weaker and less perfect the further they get from their\n  first source. The first mention I can find of the word is in Plutarch\n  (_de Is. et Os._ c. XLIX.) who says that the visible Cosmos is \u201cthe\n  flowing forth (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae) and displayed image of Osiris.\u201d\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n  Curiously enough, the author of the _Clementine Homilies_ adopts this\n  notion for orthodoxy, when he makes St Peter (XVII. c. 9) declare that\n  God possesses six \u201cextensions\u201d having the nature of six infinites and\n  that He with them makes up the \u201cmystery of the hebdomad.\u201d\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n  _I.e._ \u201cwhich cannot be grasped,\u201d \u201cintangible,\u201d as in the Athanasian\n  Creed.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9 \u201cset over against each other.\u201d It seems to be a term used\n  in logic.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n  This is _not_ the Supreme Father, but the Logos or his representative\n  in the world succeeding his. It is with this being that Simon\n  according to the author of the Clementines (_Hom._ II. c. 24)\n  identified himself.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n  \u1f49 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. This seems to be the expression which the\n  author of the Canonical Apocalypse is trying to reach in his fearful\n  solecism \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f41 \u1f66\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. See Revelation i. 4.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n  So the Supreme Being of Simon is androgyne.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n  The difficulty in deducing both male and female divinities from a male\n  or sexless Supreme being has led to some strange mythology. The\n  Egyptians cut the knot in an effective if coarse way. \u201cThus from one\n  god I became three gods,\u201d says the Egyptian deity \u201cthe Lord of the\n  Universe,\u201d in his account of the Creation. See Budge, \u201cPapyrus of\n  Nesi-Amsu,\u201d and _Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum_, pp.\n  xiii, xiv and 14, 15. Was the author of the Apophasis acquainted with\n  this story? The Clementines make Simon\u2019s associates Egyptians or\n  rather Alexandrians. See _Clem. Hom._ Bk IV. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 18, pp. 261, 262, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 9, p. 246, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, p. 39, makes this perfectly clear.\n  Cf. Ad. Franck, \u201cLe Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien\u201d in _Journal des Savans_,\n  Avril, 1888, pp. 212, 213. Hatch (_H.L._ p. 205) points out that it is\n  the doctrine of \u201cPhilo and the Platonists.\u201d\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n  As will be seen later, the post-Christian Gnostics of the IInd cent.\n  generally attributed the existence of evil to the escape of one of the\n  syzygies from the control of her spouse and her consequent fall into\n  matter. See Chapter VIII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n  The excessive reverence of the Samaritans for the Pentateuch is well\n  brought out by Cowley in the _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Samaritans. He says\n  it was the only part of the Jewish books which they took over and held\n  sacred (col. 4260). Simon in the _Great Announcement_ thought it\n  necessary to \u201cexplain\u201d each of the Five Books separately. See\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7\u00a7 15, 16, pp. 253-258, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n  Throughout all the philosophical and religious literature of the time,\n  it seems to have been sufficient to quote \u201cOrpheus and the other\n  theologists\u201d to command a hearing. See Clement of Alexandria,\n  _passim_, for examples.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n  See Chapter IV, p. 123, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n  See especially Fr. 239 in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 14, pp. 252, 253, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 13, pp. 251, 252, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n  _Ibid._ _loc. cit._ Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 39.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n  Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, pp. 186, 254, 255.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n  \u201cThe visible and generated Gods.\u201d So Alcmaeon of Crotona and\n  Xenocrates both call stars and planets gods. See Clem. Alex.\n  _Protrept._ c. VI.; Plato, _Timaeus_, c. XV. The prophets of the Jews,\n  indeed, blamed their co-religionists for \u201cworshipping the sun towards\n  the east\u201d as Ezekiel saw them doing in the Temple, or for \u201cserving all\n  the host of heaven\u201d as Jeremiah says the inhabitants of Jerusalem did;\n  but their reproaches make it plain that the bulk of the nation were in\n  this respect like their Gentile neighbours.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n  So Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk VI. c. 13, says the worship of the sun,\n  moon, and stars was instituted, so that the nations might not become\n  utterly godless.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n  See Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, Paris, 1899, p. 21, for\n  references.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n  Philo, _de Monarch_. Bk I. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n  Except perhaps Marcion. But we have so little literature remaining\n  which can with any certainty be attributed to the Marcionites that we\n  cannot speak with any certainty as to his phraseology. In his treatise\n  against the Valentinians (c. XX.) Tertullian gibes at that sect for\n  \u201cthinking the different heavens intelligent, and for making angels of\n  them.\u201d\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, \u00a7 2, p. 192, Harvey. Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk\n  I. c. 5, echoes the statement, and Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 19, p.\n  263, Cruice, gives what is probably the original Greek of Irenaeus.\n  Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 185, 186, points out that Philo held not only that\n  the angels were God\u2019s instruments in making the worlds, but the\n  patterns after which they were made. Cf. Philo, _de Monarch._ Bk II.\n  c. 6.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n  These \u201corders\u201d of supernatural beings passed into orthodox\n  Christianity. Cf. the \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 of Coloss. i. 16, whence the \u201cThrones, Dominations, Virtues,\n  Princedoms, Powers\u201d of Milton. The functions of all these different\n  orders are set out by Dionysius the Areopagite so-called, and present\n  a certain likeness to Simon\u2019s ideas as given in the text. See Lupton\n  in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Dionysius.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n  That is Zeus, \u201cFather of Gods and Men\u201d; not the Juppiter Optimus\n  Maximus of later philosophy.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n  Possibly an allusion to the \u201crib\u201d story of Genesis.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n  \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Hippolytus, Bk\n  VI. c. 1, \u00a7 14, p. 253, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n  So Philo, _Legg. Allegor._ III. p. 1089, Mangey; _Quis rer. divin._ p.\n  503 _id._ Cf. D\u00f6llinger, _Jud. und Heid._ Eng. ed. II. p. 430.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 17, p. 259, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n  See last note.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n  So Iacchos is at once the father, son, and spouse of Persephone. Horus\n  is by his identification with Osiris in like manner the son, spouse\n  and brother of Isis. The seeking and finding seems to be an allusion\n  to this last pair. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 17, p. 259, Cruice. For the \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 of\n  the text it is necessary to read \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 unless we are to believe\n  that the author is here repeating without rhyme or reason the\n  statement already made in the same sentence that the power he is\n  describing is its own mother and its own father. The expression\n  \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 is found in an address to Zeus attributed to Orpheus and\n  quoted by Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ Bk V. c. 14. Cf. Frgs. 238,\n  239 of Abel\u2019s _Orphica_. He remarks concerning it that, by this\n  \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, Orpheus meant not only birth from the \u039c\u1f74 \u1f64\u03bd, but also\n  \u201cgave occasion to those who bring in the emanations and perhaps\n  imagine a spouse of God,\u201d\u2014which gives some colour to the surmise that\n  Clement may have been acquainted with Simon\u2019s writings.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, \u00a7 2, p. 192, Harvey. A similar motive was\n  assigned by the Orphics for the murder of the infant Dionysos by the\n  Titans.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk I. c. 16, \u00a7 19, pp. 263, 264, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n  See _ibid._, p. 264, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n  Epiphanius, _op. cit._ Bk I., _Haer._ XXI. c. 11 (p. 125 of vol. II.\n  pt I. of Oehler). Probably this idea is a mere echo of the story in\n  Genesis vi. 2, of the \u201csons of God\u201d being captivated by the \u201cdaughters\n  of men,\u201d which is much insisted on in the Enochian literature. Cf.\n  Cumont, _Recherches sur le Manich\u00e9isme_; _La S\u00e9duction des Archontes_\n  or Chapter XIII, _infra_ for later elaborations of the legend.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n  \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n  \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. See note 3 p. 190, _supra_. The \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the\n  text seems to indicate that Simon discovered the way of salvation not\n  by any revelation from a higher power, but by his own intelligence and\n  examination. Cf. what he says (Hippolytus, _Phil._ Bk VI. c. 16, p.\n  256, Cruice) about the knowledge of Gentile writings being sufficient\n  for the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n  Acts viii. 9, 10, only says that Simon bewitched the people of\n  Samaria, giving himself out to be some great one (\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd); and that it was the people who said of him: \u201cThis man\n  is the so-called great power of God\u201d (\u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7). He was therefore only in the same position as Paul\n  and Barnabas in Phrygia when they were hailed by the populace as Zeus\n  and Hermes respectively. Cf. Acts xiv. 12.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, \u00a7 2, p. 193, Harvey; Epiphanius as in n. 1\n  _supra_. This episode of the Saviour changing his form so as not to be\n  recognized by the powers of the heavens through which he passes on his\n  way to earth, is a favourite one in the post-Christian Apocryphal\n  literature. Cf. R. H. Charles, _The Ascension of Isaiah_, p. 62. In\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ (for which see Chapter X, _infra_), Jesus in like\n  manner changes His appearance in each heaven on His descent to earth.\n  When He returns in His proper shape the spirits in every \u201cplace\u201d into\n  which He enters fling themselves on their faces and cry: \u201cHow did the\n  Lord of the Universe change himself, so that we knew him not?\u201d: see p.\n  21 Copt. _et al._ The \u201cDocetic\u201d theory which made the earthly body of\n  Jesus a phantasm or illusion appears again in the heresy of the\n  Valentinians and elsewhere. See Chapter IX, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ p. 265, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n  _Ibid._ \u00a7 20, p. 267, Cruice. The story here told is in direct\n  contradiction to the received tradition of the Church, that Simon met\n  his death when attempting to fly heavenward before the Emperor Nero.\n  That given in the text seems to be taken from the doings of some\n  Indian Yogi, and the idea of Simon teaching \u201csitting under a plane\n  tree\u201d is distinctly Buddhistic. It is mentioned by no other writer\n  than Hippolytus; but Justin Martyr (_First Apolog._ c. 26) says that\n  he persuaded his followers that he would never die, and that some in\n  Justin\u2019s day still believed this. A sort of echo of it appears in the\n  _Acts of Peter and Paul_, where it is said that the body of Simon\n  after being dashed to pieces was kept by the Emperor Nero for three\n  days \u201cto see whether he would rise again.\u201d\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n  Clement of Alexandria (_Paedagogus_, Bk I. c. 6) says practically the\n  same thing.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n  \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae,\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3. Note the curious jingle between \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae and \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae,\n  \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 17, pp. 259, 260, Cruice. That this refers\n  to the conjunction of man with his twin-soul or affinity is certain\n  from Hippolytus\u2019 former quotation from the _Apophasis_, that man was\n  made by God \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u201cnot single, but two-fold according to copy and resemblance\u201d: and that\n  he will \u201cperish with the world\u201d unless he be made into the likeness of\n  the Spirit who was borne upon the face of the waters, and who was,\n  like that of which it was the reflection, androgyne (Hippolytus, _op.\n  cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, p. 253, Cruice). \u201cBut if he be made into this\n  likeness,\u201d Hippolytus continues, \u201cand is born from an indivisible\n  point as it is written in the _Apophasis_, that which is small will\n  become great. And that which is great will exist in the boundless and\n  incorruptible aeon, which will not be born again.\u201d Besides the idea of\n  the indivisible point, which we shall meet with again in the Bruce\n  Papyrus (for which see Chapter X, _infra_), it seems evident that\n  Simon was here teaching that those who find their twin-souls will rise\n  in the scale of being and thus escape the cycle of changing existences\n  dreaded by the Orphics (see Chapter IV, _supra_). An explanation of\n  the metaphor of the flaming sword is suggested later. See note 3 on p.\n  67 of vol. II, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n  Plato, _Symposium_, cc. 17, 18. Diotima later on in the same Dialogue\n  says that it is an old story that those who are in love are seeking\n  their lost half. In one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, it is\n  said that \u201cthe servants of the Sphere of Destiny\u201d after making the\n  soul of man, divide it into two parts, and give one part to a man and\n  another to a woman who are then bound to come together (no matter how\n  far apart they may be) and to unite, when a new soul is the result\n  (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 346, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n  So in the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 37, Copt.), Jesus says that the angels\n  bound in the stars were, until His coming, in the habit of turning\n  about and devouring their own matter, from which the souls of men and\n  other animals were made, in order that their rule might endure the\n  longer.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n  Probably this is the meaning of the well-known saying of Jesus,\n  generally quoted as coming from the _Gospel according to the\n  Egyptians_, in answer to Salome\u2019s enquiry as to the time of the coming\n  of His kingdom: \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03ac \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f14\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5. \u201cWhen ye tread under foot the garment of shame, and\n  when the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male\n  with the female, neither male nor female.\u201d See Hilgenfeld, _N.T. extra\n  Canon. recept._, Lipsiae, 1884, vol. IV. p. 44. \u201cThe outside as the\n  inside\u201d may refer to the body and the rib which was in the Genesis\n  story taken out of it. So the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 378, Copt.) speaks\n  of \u201cthe Light of Lights, the places of Truth and Goodness, the place\n  of the Holy of Holies, the place of the Holy of all Holies, the place\n  in which there is neither male nor female, nor shape, but Light\n  everlasting, unspeakable.\u201d Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 146,\n  Cruice, carrying this a step further, speaks of heaven as a place\n  \u201cwhere there is neither male nor female, but a new creature, a new man\n  who is androgyne (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2).\u201d\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, \u00a7 19, p. 266, Cruice; Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16,\n  \u00a7 2, p. 194, Harvey; Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXI. c. 2, p. 124, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n  Franck, _Le Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 212.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ VI. c. 2.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n  Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. pp. 187 and 385.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n  _de Is. et Os._ cc. LIII. LIV. and LVI.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n  Clem. _Hom._ II. c. 22.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, \u00a7 3, p. 194, Harvey; Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk\n  VI. c. 1, \u00a7 20, p. 266, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n  Irenaeus and Hippolytus where last quoted.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n  Hippolytus where last quoted.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n  Epiph. _Haer._ XXI. c. 4 (p. 125, vol. II. pt I., Oehler).\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n  See last note.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n  Epiph. _Haer._ XXIV. c. 1, p. 145, Oehler. It is here attributed to\n  Basilides, but Epiphanius has before said that this last borrowed his\n  ideas from \u201cSimon and Satornilus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n  Dan. X. 13.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n  Lucian, _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n  Epiphanius says that Simon taught none could be saved unless he\n  learned [Simon\u2019s] system of initiation (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b1). See Epiph.\n  _Haer._ XXI. c. 4, p. 127, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 17, p. 195, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n  Epiph. _Haer._ XXII. p. 133, Oehler; Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk III.\n  c. 26. Cf. Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ c. 26. Schmiedel, _s.v._ Simon\n  Magus in _Encyc. Bibl._, says the exact contrary\u2014a curious slip.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n  Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ I. 1.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n  See note 7 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Celsus_, Bk VI. c. 11.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. eccl._ Bk II. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n  Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1. Eusebius, _H. E._ Bk II. c. 1, says,\n  speaking of his own times, that those who follow Simon\u2019s most\n  scoundrelly (\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd) heresy were baptized into the Church, and\n  kept their own doctrines in secret till detected and expelled. Cf.\n  Origen, _c. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 11.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n  It was of course quite different from the Cabalistic methods,\n  ridiculous as those were, of the Essenes and other Jews, from the\n  acrostics of the Orphics, and from the allegories of Philo. With a\n  touching belief in the verbal inspiration of the Pentateuch, Simon and\n  his followers claimed that every word of it must be true and a\n  revelation even when transferred into another context. Thus they\n  claimed to teach obstetrics from geographical phrases. The only modern\n  parallel is to be found among the Puritans of our own Civil War, who,\n  as Sir Walter Scott wrote, were accustomed to pervert the language of\n  Scripture by adapting it to modern events, and kept a Bible lying on\n  the Table of the House for reference as to the better conduct of its\n  business.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n  See J. Turmel, \u201cL\u2019Ang\u00e9lologie depuis le faux Denys l\u2019Ar\u00e9opagite,\u201d\n  _Rev. d\u2019Hist. et Litt. Rel._ Paris, t. IV. No. 3 (1898), pp. 219\n  _sqq._\n\nEND OF VOL. I.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.\n    \u25cb Superscripts which are a single character, such as \u201c4\u201d with a\n      superscript \u201ca\u201d, are shown by the caret \u201c^\u201d character before the\n      superscript, such as 4^a. Longer superscripts are wrapped in curly\n      brackets, such as p^{tie}.","title":"Forerunners and rivals of Christianity : $b being studies in religious history from 330 B.C. to 330 A.D., Vol. 1 (of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":101414}