TheTuath-de-danaans, or Mahabadeans, being thus far proved as the first occupiers of Iran, it may be asked, How happens it that no Persian historians, anterior to Mohsan Fani, have noticed their existence? In the first place, I answer thatthey allhave mentioned them, howeverunconsciouslyby themselves, orinadvertentlyby others. And even had this not been the fact—had not a single syllable been recorded, bearing reference to their name, the remote era, in itself, of their detachment from that country, would be the best possible apology for the omission.
The professed writers upon Persia belong all to a recent period; and the magazines which they consulted, for the scanty information which they furnish, were either Arabs or Greeks—the former a body of predatory warriors, whose only insight into letters arose from the opportunities which their rapines had supplied them; and the latter, a community who, insensible to the beauties of moral truth, took delight in distorting even the most commonplace occurrences into the most unnatural incredibilities and misshapen incongruities.
But independently of these causes, another more powerful one had before long co-operated. A rival dynasty, starting up from amongst themselves, succeeded, by the issue of a religious revolution, to effect their expulsion; and that once ascertained—the doorsof admission ever after closed against their return—the victors were not satisfied with the monopoly of civil power, but they must wreak their vengeance still more, by the erasure of every vestige of the former sway.
In this devastating course, the Round Towers, as the temples of their figurative veneration, were particularly obnoxious; and, accordingly, we may be assured, that it was owing to the durability of those edifices, and not to the clemency of the assailants, that any one of them has been able to survive the hurricane.
Who, you will ask, were those destroyers? They were thePish-de-danaans. And so energetically did they prosecute their extinguishing plan, aided, besides, by the antiquity of its remote occurrence, that all writers upon that country, before the compilers of theDabistan, have set them down as its first dynasty, making the Kaianians, the Askanians, and the Sassanians, their successors.
Here I am obliged, in compliance with the justice of my subject, to expose an error of a gentleman, whom I would rather have overlooked.
“TheTuatha-dadanof the Irish,†says Vallancey, “are thePish-dadanof the Persiansâ€; which he pretends to prove as follows:—“First, then,†says he, “TuathandPishare synonymous in the Chaldee, and both signify mystery, sorcery, prophets, etc.; they are both of the same signification in the Irish; therefore byPish-dadanandTuatha-dadan, I understand the Dadanites, descended of Dedan, who had studied the necromantic art, which sprang from the Chesdim, or Chaldeans.â€
Of a piece with this was his assertion thatNuaghaAirgiodlamhof the Irish, wasZerdustof the Persians! And wherefore, think you, reader? Because, forsooth,Airgiodlamhsignifiessilver-hand, and Zerdust,gold-hand! Yes, but he made out another analogy, and it is worth while to hear it, viz. that Nuagha had hishand cut offby a Fir-Bolggeneral; while Zerdust’slife was taken awayby a Turanianchieftain!!!
This is but anitemin that great ocean of incertitude in which that enterprising etymologist had, unfortunately, been swallowed up. Having perceived by the perusal of the manuscripts of our country, that there must have been a time when it basked in thesunshineof literary superiority; yet unable tangibly to grapple with it, having noclueinto theoriginof itssacredrepute, or the collateral particulars of itsdate,nature, orpromoters, he was tossed about by the ferment of aparturientimagination, without the saving ballast of adiscriminatingfaculty.
The General’s work, accordingly, is one which must be read with great reserve; not because that it does not offer many valuable hints, but because that its plan is socrude, and its matter soill-digested,—the same thing beingcontradictedin one place, which wasaffirmedin another, or elserepeatedinterminably, without regard tomethodor tostyle,—that when you have waded through the whole, you feel you have derived from it no other benefit than that of whetting your avidity for acorrectinsight into those subjects, of which the author, you imagine, must have had someidea, but which also, it is evident, however indefatigable he was in the attempt, he had not, himself, the power to penetrate.
The great praise, therefore, which I would awardto this writer, is that, with one leg almost in the grave, he sat down, in the enthusiasm of a youthful aspirant, to master the difficulties of the Irish tongue, which,mutilatedthough it be, andbegrimedby disuse, he knew was, notwithstanding, the only sure inlet to thegeniusof the people, as well as to thearcanaof their antiquities, the most precious, as they are, and fruitful, of any country on the surface of the globe.
But though his perseverance had rendered him the bestIrishianof his age, and of many ages before him, yet has he committedinnumerable blunders, even in the exposition of the most simple words; and the question now in point will verify this declaration, with as much exactitude as any other that could be adduced.
Tuath, then, andpishare by no meanssynonymous; neither do they signifymysteryorprophets, except in a secondary light. In their original acceptation, they are theantipodesof each other, as much asmaleis tofemale, and asrelativeis tocorrelative.[268]
They are the distinctive denominations for thegenital organsof both sexes, respectively—TuathsignifyingLingam; andPish,Yoni.
I have already explained thatTuathis but a modification of the wordBudh—the finaldhof the latter having been changed into the finalthof the former, only for euphony; because that prefixed tode-danaanthe collision of the twod’s—asBud-de-danaan—would not sound well; it was, therefore, madeButh-de-danaan; and—the initialsbandtbeing always convertible,—hence becameTuath-de-danaan.
The case was exactlyoppositewith respect topish: I mean so far as the alteration of two of its letters is concerned.Pithis theusualmethod of pronouncing that term: nor is it, except when followed by ad, that it assumes the other garb. But asdh, in the former instance, was commuted intoth, soth, in this latter, is still further intosh; therefore, instead ofPith-de-danaan, we make itPish-de-danaan.
To screen those two ligaments ofsexualfamiliarity from the peril of profane and irreverent acceptations, all the investiture ofmagicwas shrouded upon them. The vocabulary ofloveand ofreligionbecame one and the same:mysteryandenchantmentwere identified, and thenegotiationsof the earth, and therevolutionsof the heavens, were blended with thewitcheryofamative sway.
In this universality of domain, no one of those dearhelpmateshad a greater portion of honour assigned to it than the other. They were equal in power, and alike in attributes. And to set thisequalitybeyond the contingencies of doubt, it was withal arranged, that whileeach, primarily, retained itsdistinct sexualinterpretation, they shouldboth, secondarily, harmonise under anothermutualexposition; and what more appropriate one could be devised than that of theinfluencewhich they exercised? and of theveilwith which they were guarded?
Magic, therefore, andmystery, were the twosecondaryimports, in which both wereunited; and theambiguitythus occasioned was what cast Vallanceyupon that shoal, which proved similarly fatal to many a preceding speculator.
To exemplify—Budh, orTuath, in its literal and substantive acceptation, implies theLingam; collaterally,magic; and by convention,mystery,prophets,legislators, etc.Pish, in like manner, orPith, denotes, literally, theYoni; collaterally,magic; and by convention,mystery,prophets,legislators, etc. And the offshoots of either, in an inferior and deteriorated view, such asBudh-ogfrom the former, andPish-ogfrom the latter, intimate, indiscriminately,witchcraft,wizard, orwitch.
Now the wordsDe-danaans, having been already illustrated as meaningGod-Almoners, if we prefix to them, severally,TuathandPish, they will becomeTuath-de-danaans, andPish-de-danaans; the former expressing, literally,Lingam-God-Almoners; and the latter, literally,Yoni-God-Almoners; and both equally, by convention,Magic-God-Almoners.
As we have had exhibited numerous representations of the homage paid to thepaternalmember of this theocracy, perhaps I may be permitted to adduce a single quotation demonstrative of the honours shown to hismaternalcolleague.
“The Chinese,†says the author ofRites and Ceremonies, “worship a goddess, whom they callPuzza, and of whom their priests give the following account:—They say that three nymphs came down from heaven to wash themselves in a river, but scarce had they got into the water before the herbLotos[269]appeared on one of their garments, with its coralfruit upon it. They were surprised to think whence it could proceed; and the nymph upon whose garment it was could not resistthe temptation of indulging herself in tasting it. But by thus eating some of it, she becamepregnant, and was delivered of a boy, whom she brought up, and then returned to heaven. He afterwards became a great man, a conqueror and legislator, and the nymph was afterwards worshipped under the name ofPuzza.â€[270]
And thus we see thatBudhandPishwere the actual regulators of the solar universe.
Time, however, dissolved the chain which linked together thosemysterious absolutes: or, rather, thezealotsof each contrived to sever an attachment, which was intended by nature to be reciprocal and mutual.[271]War, devastating, desecrating war, spread abroad over the plain! Human energies were evoked into an unknown activity! Men’s passions, always inflammable by the jealousy of partisanship, were here furthermore stimulated by the rancour of religion! And hearts were lacerated, and countries were depopulated in sustainment of the consequences of a physiological disquisition!!!
But what do you conceive to have been the topic at issue? Verily, it was whether themale or the female contributed more largely to the act of generation!—those who voted for thefemaleside ranging themselves under the banners ofPish, and those for themaleunder the standard ofBudh, while both equallyappealed to heaven for adjudication of their suit, by arrogating to themselves the adjunct ofDe-danaans, or God-Almoners.
“Not but the human fabric from its birthImbibes a flavour of its parent earth,As various tracts enforce a various toil,The manners speak the idiom of the soil.â€
Whether or not, however, the result is to be considered as decisive of the matter in dispute, one thing at least is certain, namely, that thePish-God-Almoners obtained the victory; and theBudh-God-Almoners were thrown upon the ocean; over whose bosom, wafted to our genial shores, they did not only import with them all the culture of the East, with its accompanying refinement and polished civilisation; but they raised the isle to that pinnacle of literary and religious beatitude which made it appear to the fancies of distant and enraptured hearers more the day-dream of romance than the sober outline of an actual locality.
I shall now illustrate a part of those truths by the Indian history of the circumstances, as copied from their Puranas, by one who had no anticipation of my differently-drawn conclusions, and one, in fact, who did not know either thesceneor thesubstanceof the occurrence which he thus transcribes.
“Yoni, thefemale nature, is also,†says Wilford, “derived from the same root (yu, to mix). Many Pundits insist the Yavanas were so named from their obstinate assertion of a superior influence in thefemaleover thelingaormale nature, in producing a perfect offspring. It may seem strange that a question of mere physiology should have occasioned not only a vehement religious contest, but even a bloody war;yet the fact appears to be historically true, though the Hindu writers have dressed it up, as usual, in a veil of historical allegories and mysteries, which we should call obscene, but which they consider as awfully sacred.
“There is a legend in the Servarasa, of which the figurative meaning is more obvious. When Sati, after the close of her existence as the daughter of Dascha, sprang again to life in the character of Parvati, or Mountain Spring, she was reunited in marriage to Mahadeva. This divine pair had once a dispute on the comparative influence of the sexes in producing animated beings, and each resolved, by mutual agreement, to create apart a new race of men.[272]The race produced by Mahadeva were very numerous, and devoted themselves exclusively to the worship of themale deity; but their intellects were dull, their bodies feeble, their limbs distorted, and their complexions of many different hues. Parvati had, at the same time, created a multitude of human beings, who adored thefemale poweronly, and were all well shaped, with sweet aspects and fine complexions. A furious contest ensued between the two races, and theLingajaswere defeated in battle; but Mahadeva, enraged against theYonijas, would have destroyed them with thefire of his eye, if Parvati had not interposed and spared them;[273]but he would sparethem only on condition that they should instantly leave the country, with a promise to see it no more; and from theYoni, which they adored as the sole cause of their existence, they were named Yavanas.â€
It is evident that a mistake has been committed in the above narrative, making thevictorsthe persons who were obliged to quit! and we know from testimony, adduced upon a different occasion, that instances of such confusion were neither unfrequent nor uncommon.[274]But even admitting it to be accurate, the apparent contradiction is easily reconciled; as it is probable that the contest was protracted for along period of time, before it was ultimately decided in favour of one party; and, in the alternations of success, one side being up to-day, and another uppermost to-morrow, what could be more natural than that a colony of theYavanas, orPish-de-danaans,—which is the same,—should have fled for shelter to India, before that the auspices of their arms, propelled by thefair causewhich they vindicated, had, at length, accomplished the overthrow of their adversaries.
This object, however, once obtained,—full masters of their wishes, and sole arbiters of Iran,—they were not satisfied with the mere extinction of all the symbols of their predecessors,—save and except theTowerswhich stood proof to their attacks,—but they established there instead a code, as well political as moral, more consonant with their own prejudices: and the wonder would be great, indeed, if, after thistriumphant assertion offemalepower, gratitude and religion should not both combine in making thetypeof that influence—the sacredcrescent, oryoni—the personification of their doctrines; andwoman herself, all-lovely and all-attractive, the concentrated temple of their divinity upon earth!
Such was the commencement of the Pish-de-danaan dynasty in Persia; and its influence still operating, after a long interval of time, is what the historian unconsciously describes in the following terms, viz.:—
“If we give any credit to Ferdosi, most of the laws of modern honour appear to have been understood and practised with an exception in favour of the ancient Persians, whose duels, or combats (which were frequent), were generally with the most distinguished among the enemies of their country or the human race. The great respect in which the female sex was held was, no doubt, the principal cause of the progress they had made in civilisation. These were at once the cause of generous enterprise and its reward. It would appear that in former days the women of Persia had an assigned and honourable place in society; and we must conclude that an equal rank with the male creation, which is secured to them by the ordinances of Zoroaster, existed long before the time of that reformer, who paid too great attention to the habits and prejudices of his countrymen, to have made any serious alterations in so important a usage. We are told by Quintus Curtius, that Alexander would not sit in the presence of Sisy-gambis till told to do so by that matron, because it was not the custom in Persia for sons to sit in presence of their mothers. There can be nostronger proof than this anecdote affords, of the great respect in which the female sex were held in that country at the period of his invasion.â€[275]
“Without thee, what were unenlightened man?A savage roaming through the woods and wildsIn quest of prey; and with the unfashioned furRough clad; devoid of every finer art,And elegance of life. Nor happinessDomestic, mixed of tenderness and care,Nor moral excellence, nor social bliss,Nor grace, nor love, were his.â€[276]
But you will say that I have ventured nothing like proof, of the paradoxical affirmation propounded a short while ago, as to theTuath-de-danaanshaving been mentioned, by all Eastern writers, in connection with Persia; and yet unnoticed, the while, by themselves, not less than unheeded by their readers?
True: I but awaited the opportunity which has just arrived.
Are you not aware, then, how that all Oriental writers, when referring to Budha, who was born at Maghada, in South Bahar, state that he was the son ofSuad-dha-dana? And have I not already shown you thatSuadhandTuathwere but disguises of each other, and both resolvable into Budh?
Those first components, therefore, in each being the same, look at the entire compound words,Tuath-de-danaan, andSuad-dha-dana, and are not the rest, also, infallibly identical?
Admitting this, you reply, how could they, in that early age, make their way to Ireland? which, from its extreme position, must have been the very last place they would have thought of!
If the question refers to the route pursued, I decline its solution, as not necessary for my design. “A piece of sugar, or a morsel of pepper, in a neglected corner of a village inn, would be a certainproof,†says Heeren, “of the trade with either Indies, even if we possessed no other evidences of the commerce of the Dutch and English with those countries.†And when I have already made the coincidences between the two Irans and their inhabitants, their forms of worship, their language and mode of life, to be historical axioms, I surely cannot be expected to waste labour upon such a trifle, which sinks into nothing againstevidencesof the actual fact.[277]
But if the length of the voyage be the obstacle insinuated, then would I find some difficulty to—do what?—keep my muscles grave: as if, forsooth, the adventurous sons of man could only, slowly and imperceptibly, and like so many ants pushing a load before them, introduce themselves, inch by inch, and in measured succession, into the diversified terraqueous globe spread abroad for their enjoyment!—when we have direct demonstration that such was far from having been the case in the instance of a colony which, starting from Tyre, and leaving behind on all sides the most inviting and delicious countries, planted itself down, perhaps from the mere spirit of romance, in the circumscribed little island of Cadiz, long before Carthage or Utica had existence even in name!
No, sir; we must not be so fond of derogating from the ancients all participation in those embellishments which promote society. Asia was the cradle of the whole human race; and thence, as its population overflowed, migratory herds in different states ofcivilisation, and with different forms of religious culture, poured in their successive colonies with multitudinous inundation into the other continental lands; but with more zeal, and with stronger preference, into those compact little nests which have been significantly denominated the “Isles of the Gentiles.â€
Vessels rode over the briny surges with as proud a canvas as now receives the gale.[278]The model of the ark would be lesson sufficient to instruct an enterprising generation in the science of naval architecture: and we may well suppose that, of all pursuits cultivated by human art, this would have occupied the very foremost regard by a people just rescued, through its salutary instrumentality, from the desolating scourge of an all-swallowing abyss.
“Well, then, at all events,â€â€”I fancy I hear you exclaim,—“you admit the story of thedeluge?â€
Certainly; and that ofNoah, and theark, and thedove, and theraven. But did I not, also, concede the story of thegiants, and of theserpent? of thesons of God, and of thetree of knowledge? Nay,have I not put the truth of those particulars beyond the possibility of scepticism, much more ofdenial? But, believe me, that theliquidwhich composed this “deluge†was more of the colour ofclaretthan it was ofwater;—that there was no more ofwoodortimberin the construction of this “ark†than there was in that of the “tree of knowledgeâ€â€”that those two latter were congenial and correspondent to each other,—in their configuration and intention,—andthatfleshandbloodwere the elements of which they were both composed.
“For all that meets the bodily sense, I deemSymbolical, one mighty alphabetFor infant minds———â€
Could the coincidence of measure[279]between the great Egyptianpyramidat its base, and that of the Noachicark, in ancient cubits,[280]have been accidental, do you imagine? And if not, what community of purpose, do you think, had been subserved by such numerical analogy?
Thetriangle, in the old world, was a sacred form. It represented the properties—capacity and dilatation—of thefemalesymbol. Lucian, in hisAuction, states the following dialogue as having occurred between Pythagoras and a purchaser, viz.:—
Pyth.How do you reckon?
Pur.One, two, three, four.
Pyth.Do you see? What you conceivefour, these areten; and a perfecttriangle, and ouroath.
Now, Pythagoras, though a Samian, was educated in Egypt; and the religious mysteries, with whichhe had been there imbued, are what is so profanely ridiculed by this infidel scoffer.
It is not my province to justify the ceremonial of the Egyptians, any further than as indicative of gratitude to the Godhead; but the reflection must suggest itself to every observant mind, that they are never calledidolatersin any part of the Pentateuch; and Plutarch, in addition,positively assertsthat “they had inserted nothing into their worship without a reason,—nothing merely fabulous,—nothing superstitious; but their institutions have reference either to morals or something useful in life, and bear a beautiful resemblance, many of them, to somefactsinhistory, or someappearanceinnature.â€
If we investigate the secret of this Pythagorean asseveration, we shall find that the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, thrice joined, and touching each other, as it were, in three angles, in this manner—
constitute an equilateraltriangle, and amount also, in calculation, toten. While theinwardmystery, couched under its figure, embracedall that was solemn in religion and in thought, being, in fact, the index ofmaleandfemaleunited—the unit, in the centre, standing for the Lingam.
Look now at the form of the great Egyptian pyramid; and is it not precisely that of the above triangle? Is there not, also, anapertureinto it, aboutthe middle as here?[281]And when to all, we add the notion ofwellsof water withinside, is not the demonstration complete, that the goddess of theLotos, the soft promoter ofdesire, the arbitress ofman, and the compeer of theangels, was the honoured object of its symbolical erection?[282]
In 1 Pet. iii. 20, it is asserted that only “eight persons†were preserved in the ark. Let us suppose them to have been Noah andhiswife, with his three sons andtheirwives. At a comparatively short interval after the date assigned to this event,—at most but 352 years,—on Abraham’s arrival in the land of Egypt, we find a flourishing kingdom, an organised police, a systematic legislature, and comprehensive institutions, diffused over its surface. All the other parts of the world, we must be ready to presume, if not equally enlightened, were, at least, as populous; and I put it to your good sense to decide, whethereightindividuals could, within that period, not only procreate so plentifully as to replenish the whole earth, but enlighten it, additionally, with such a coruscation of science, as no subsequent era has been since able to eclipse?
Indeed, the Scriptures themselves give us, elsewhere, to understand that St. Peter did not correctly interpret this history. “Come thou,†says Gen. vii. 1, “andall thy house, into the ark!†Thisgracious invitation, at so critical a juncture, would have been too welcome a proffer to be lost sight of by anyone who could make it available; and must not we suppose that thedomesticsto whom the extension was addressed, with their several dependants and collateral offspring, would have been glad and happy to grasp at it with delight?
But the name of the type itself is worth a hundred deductions from equivocal premises. Thecofferof the law, thecoffinof Joseph, themoney chestof the temple, are all severally translatedark, and recorded in Hebrew by the word ×רוןaron: but the “arkof Noahâ€[283]and Moses’s “ark of bulrushesâ€[284]are peculiarly designated, תבתThebit, or תבהtebah.[285]
What is the meaning of these mysterious terms?
“Quo spectanda modo, quo sensu credis, et ore?â€
As theTauof the Hebrews is, indifferently, in power,TandTh,Thebithas as good a right to be spelled with, as without, anhat the end of it,—and, indeed, a better right, considering the elements whereof it is compounded.Thebith, then, is the proper and true sound, and the mystery of its import I thus unravel.
Its first syllable,The, signifiessacredorconsecrated;[286]and since the lettersbandpare commutable—bithis the same aspith, that is,CteisorYoni. The wordsThe-bith, then, together, in all the attraction of truth, intimate theconsecrated Cteis; or thesacred Yoni![287]
ButPith, itself, is only aconversion of Fidh, the initial lettersPandFbeing always interchangeable, and not more so than the penultimatestandd. AndFidh, in its abstract and original position, such as we have early seen it, ismasculine, the plural ofBudh, conveying variously the significations ofLingams,trees, andbulrushes. Here, however, where it isfeminine, its sexreversed, and theanatomyofnaturepourtrayed by thephysicsoflanguage, the idea of thebulrushesalone presents itself; and thebasketin which Moses wassavedfrom the waters, and which was made of such reeds, was appropriately denominated by this mysterious symbol, as a type of thevirginityin which the Messiah was to be incarnated, not less than of theredemptionwhich was to accrue from His sufferings.
Another stage has been thus advanced; and lo! the beautiful union which subsists,as to design, between the results of our discoveries, and the consoling assurances of pure Christianity!
Let us now proceed a little farther in this course—
“Sanctos ausi recludere fontes,â€[288]
and connect these truths with theTuath-de-danaans and thePish-de-danaans.
“Noah was a just man,†observes the scriptural historian, “andperfect in his generations; and Noah walked with God.â€[289]
The name of this patriarch implies literally aboat: the character assigned him is not so well understood.
To succeed in the investigation we must have recourse to the context: and here the first thing that strikes us is the observation “that the earth wascorruptbefore God, and filled withviolence; for allfleshhad corrupted his way upon the earth.â€[290]
A passage in the New Testament will be the best comment upon this subject, where the patience of God with the iniquities of mankind being at length exhausted, it is said, that He “gave them over to areprobate mind,†“to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.â€[291]
But Noah did not participate in those unhallowed abominations, and he accordingly “found grace in the eyes of the Lord.â€[292]
We now, therefore, see the propriety of the name assigned to hisark;[293]—and the intimation of approval conveyed by the divine command of “Come thou and all thy house into it,†was but another form of the injunction elsewhere conveyed, to the same effect, in the words, “Be ye fruitful and multiply.â€[294]
Noah, then, andKaiomurs[295]were one and the same person, the reformer of the human species, and thefirst monarch of the Pish-de-danaan dynasty.Yavanawas another name appropriated to him, and equivalent withNoah, excepting only that the former is literal, and the latter figurative. An advantage, however, arises from this difference, for when we know thatYavanameans theyoni, andNoahaboat, and that both were equally characteristic of the same individual character, we conclude that the latter denomination was but the symbol of the former—that, in fact, it was thelunar boat,[296]or thecrescent, theconcha Veneris, and the type ofcomfort[297]that was veiled under the mystery of this ambiguous device.
This fact once explained, you have the immediate solution of those “semicircular implements†souniversal throughout this island, and which Ledwich acknowledges “have created more trouble to the antiquarians to determine their use, than all the other antiquities put together.â€
These are all made of the finest gold, and, as emblems of theyoni, which was the Ramanpalladium, used to have been worn asbreast-plates by the priests and sovereigns. They would sometimes, also, exhibit them as ornaments to thehead-dress: and when so designed the two terminating angles used to have been furnished with circular cups, whereby they would better adhere to the part: of such, likewise, we have the following specimen.[298]
Yunis the usual mode of pronouncingYavana;and as the veneration of posterity for the virtues of this legislator, at a moment when vice had threatened a general decay,[299]led them to consider him a god, he hence obtained the prefix ofDeoorDeu, which along with that ofCali, whose champion he showed himself, make up the romantic, emblematic and nominal representation ofDeucaliyun.[300]
“Safe o’er the main of life thevesselrides,Whenpassionfurls her sails, andreasonguides;Whilst she who has that surest rudder lost,Midst rocks and quicksands by the waves is tost;No certain road she keeps, nor port can find,Toss’d up and down by every wanton wind.â€[301]
The struggles for ascendency between contending parties are not the growth of a day; still less are they unstained by the effusion of blood.Delugewas no very extravagant hyperbole to apply to such a carnage; for independently of our knowing thateveryvisitation, whether byfire,water, orsword, was so denominated by the Easterns, we have the Scriptures themselves illustrating this use of the term in applying it to the description at a far later period of an equally severe and no less distressing catastrophe.
“Now, therefore, the Lord bringeth upon him the waters of the river, strong and many, even the King of Assyria and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow andgo over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of Thy land, O Immanuel.â€[302]
But how, you ask, account for the marine strata, and other remains, found within the earth’s recesses?
I answer they were there embedded and inanimate, before ever man was placed above them as a denizen.
“It is clearly ascertained,†says Cuvier “that the oviparous quadrupeds are found considerably earlier, or in more ancient strata than those of the viviparous class. Thus the crocodiles of Harfleur and of England are found immediately beneath the chalk. The great alligators and the tortoises of Maestricht are found in the chalk formation, but these are both marine animals. This earliest appearance of fossil bones seems to indicate that dry lands and fresh waters must have existed before the formation of the chalk strata; yet neither of that early epoch, nor during the formation of the chalk strata, nor even for a long period afterwards, do we find any fossil remains ofmammiferous landquadrupeds. We begin to find the bones of the mammiferous sea animals, namely, of the lamantin and of seals, in the course of shell limestone which immediately covers the chalk strata in the neighbourhood of Paris. But no bones of the mammiferous land quadrupeds are to be found in that formation; and notwithstanding the most careful investigations I have never been able to discover the slightest trace of this class excepting in the formations which lie over the coarse limestonestrata: but on reaching these more recent formations, the bones of land quadrupeds are discovered in great abundance.
“As it is reasonable to believe that shells and fish did not exist at the period of the formation of the primitive rocks, we are also led to conclude that the oviparous quadrupeds began to exist along with the fishes, while the land quadrupeds did not begin to appear till long afterwards, and until the coarse shell limestone had been already deposited, which contains the greater part of our genera of shells, although of quite different species from those that are now found in a natural state. There is also a determinate order observable in the disposition of those bones with regard to each other, which indicates a very remarkable succession in the appearance of the different species.
“All the genera which are now unknown, as the Palæotheria, Anapalæotheria, and with the localities of which we are thoroughly acquainted, are found in the most ancient of the formations of which we are now treating, or those which are placed directly over the coarse limestone strata. It is chiefly they which occupy the regular strata which have been deposited from fresh waters, or certain alluvial beds of very ancient formation, generally composed of sand and rounded pebbles.
“The most celebrated of the unknown species belonging to known genera, or to genera nearly allied to those which are known, as the fossil elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamos, and mastodon, are never found with the more ancient genera, but are only contained in alluvial formations. Lastly, the bones of species which are apparently the same with thosethat still exist alive, are never found except in light and alluvial dispositions.â€
From all which, this philosopher draws the following just conclusion, namely:—“Thus we have a collection of facts, a series of epochs anterior to the present time, and of which the successive steps may be ascertained with perfect certainty, though the periods which intervened cannot be determined with any degree of precision. These epochs form so many fixed points, answering as rules for directing our inquiries respecting this ancient chronology of the earth.â€
To return—“God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.â€[303]
Now, we see that the earth hasnotbeen destroyed, andthis single circumstance, in itself, ought to have been enough to show us that the whole register was but figurative. Theravenand thedovewere indispensable auxiliaries to the structure of the allegory: the former typifies themassacrethat prevailed during the period of the contest; and the latter, in its meek and its tender constancy, the invariable attendant, besides, ofVenusand theboat, characteristically pourtrays the overtures made for an accommodation, until, after a second embassy, theolive-branchof peace was saluted, and the cessation of hostilities was the consequence.[304]
Behold, then, the folly of those dreamers who would makeThebithso called, as if thearkhad rested upon it! Why, sir, in the entire catalogue oflocalnames, there is no one half so common as that ofThebithandThebæ! And surely you will not claim for youridealman-of-war, in addition to other properties, that ofubiquityalso, by making it perch upon all those places, at one and the same time!
No, these scenes have been all denominated from the form of religion which they recognised, and of which thePith,Yoni, orsacred Boat, was the conventional sign: as the countries ofPhut, that is,But, andBuotan, were so designated likewise, from their adopting theoppositesymbol, namely, theBudh,Phallus, orsacred Lingam!
Perplexed in this entanglement, and tossed about in “a sea of speculation,†Mr. Jacob Bryant, in some respects a clever man, after a fatiguing cruise of somewhat more than half a century, fell at last a victim in the general shipwreck.
“Your wise men don’t know much of navigation.â€
TheGentiles, says he, worshipped Noah’sark! Yes they did; butnot in the sense in which he understood it.[305]
Anotheraxiomof his is, that theDelugemust have really happened, because that thetraditionof it isuniversal! To this, also, I chime in my affirmative response, and proclaim, yea. But thetraditionof thetree of knowledgeis equallyuniversal. And though theground workofboth occurred, and wassubstantively true, yet was thedescriptionofneithermore than a gracefulallegory; while the salutaryalarmimparted under this guise, and the monitorylessonsuggested by its horrors, inamusingthe fancy,edifiedit, at the same moment, by keeping before it apictureof thatspiritual desolation, whichsinleaves in thecitadelof thesoul.[306]
“Moses,†says the apostle, “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.â€[307]
Now Strabo assures us that the Egyptians of his day were as ignorant as he was himself of the origin of their religion, of the import of their symbols, and of their national history. They pretended to retain someevanescenttraces thereof in the time of Diodorus; but so scrupulously exact were they in the concealment of their tenour, that to pry into them, profanely, was morally impossible.
Herodotus himself, who neglected no channel of information, found it no easy matter to glean a fewinitiatoryscraps from them. And even these were accompanied with such solemn denunciations, that his embarrassment is betrayed when but alluding to their tendency.
If, during Moses’s residence at Pharaoh’s Court, his opportunities of insight were greater, it is still self-evident that the accomplishments which he obtained were more of a secular character than of a religiouscast—that thecourtierwas the first object of the young princess’s directions, and the qualifications of thestatesmanher next ambition for her charge. Themysteriesof the priests were too awful, and too sanctified, to be debased to the routine of a schoolboy’s rehearsal; and even when ripening age did bespeak a more chastened mind, the communication of their contents was obscured by the interposition of an almost impenetrable umbrage.
Thus palliated by types, Moses did, however, imbibe from the Egyptians all the knowledge which they then possessed of the nature of their ceremonies; and the record of theFall, theDeluge, and theCreationare the direct transcripts of the instruction so conveyed. But though it is undeniable, from theirsymbols, that the Egyptians must have been well apprised of theconstitutionof those rites, yet am I as satisfied as I am of my physical motion, that the foldings of thatweb, in which they were so mysticallydoubled, was lost to their grasp in the labyrinths of antiquity.
Moses, therefore, could not havelearnedfrom the Egyptians more than the Egyptians themselves hadknown. He related the allegory as he hadreceivedit from them: and it is, doubtless, to his ignorance of itsambiguousinterpretation,accessible only through that language in which it was originally involved, that we are indebted for a transmission,so essentially Irish.
ThePish-de-danaan dynasty which rose upon the ruins of theTuath-de-danaans, inIran, was itself, in after ages, ejected from that country.Egyptwas the retreat of their shattered fortunes; and there, during their abode, under the name of theShepherd-kings,they erected thePyramids, in honour ofPith, orPadma-devi, but at an age long anterior to what may be presumed from Manetho.[308]
Previously, however, to their arrival in Egypt, Shinaar in Mesopotamia afforded them an asylum. Here it was that Nimrod broke in:[309]and as I have before buttransiently glancedat that circumstance, I shall now revert to it with more precision.
Between the tenets of thePish-de-danaans and those of theirTuath-de-danaan predecessors, there was but a single point of dissentient belief. The language, the customs, the manners and modes of life of both were the same. To all intents and purposes they were one identical people.
But as the former had imagined that theYonialone was the author ofprocreation, while the others claimed that honour for their own symbol, theLingam, an animosity ensued, which was not allayed even by the consciousness, thateach, secretly, worshipped the type of theother’screed.
Thegoddess, however, prevailed in the struggle, and her glories in Iran were great and far spread. Monarchs bowed at the nod of her omnipotence, and the earth swelled with the gestations of her praise.[310]“Sed ultima dies semper homini est expectanda.†A rude and a lawless swarm of stragglers, headed by an adventurer of commanding abilities and determined heroism,deluged, in turn, theBoatmen, or theNoachidæ,[311]and swamped them in aflood, assanguinaryand asdisastrousas that which they had, themselves, before, brought upon the adversaries of their zeal.
But it was not thebloodshedof the scene that affected them half so much as theinsultoffered by the erection of theTower![312]And as no clue can be so adequate for the analysis of thisenigmaas that which they themselves have bequeathed,—for it was from theYavanasorPish-de-danaans that Moses had been taught the fact,—I shall place such before your eyes, in all the eloquence of a self-interpreting dissyllable.
×ž× ×¨×œ is the name by which the scriptural recordperpetuates this structure.[313]If you put this into English letters, and read them regularly, from left to right, it will beLidgam. But the Hebrews read in the opposite direction, from right to left; and that is the very cause of the appearance of thedin the word; for asMagnil—reading backwards—would produce acacophony, thenof the original was left out, anddsubstituted, makingMagdil: reinstate, therefore, then, and enunciate the Hebrew word, as you would the Irish or the Sanscrit, and it will not only unmask thesecretof this long-disputed edifice, butbe,sound, andpersonate, in all the nicety of accentuation,Lingam, and thus prevent all further controversy about the character of theTowerof Babel.
“The waies through which my weary steps I guide,In this researche of old antiquitie,Are so exceeding riche, and long, and wyde,And sprinkled with such sweet varietie,Of all that pleasant is to eare and eye,That I, nigh ravisht with rare thought’s delight,My tedious travel quite forgot thereby;And when I gin to feel decay of might,It strength to me supplies and cheers my dulled spright.â€[314]
I have stated that it was from thePish-de-danaans or Yavana philosophers of Egypt that Moses had learned the allegories of the Deluge and of the Fall. I now add,that it was by them also he had been instructed in that consolatory assurance which told himthat the “Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.â€[315]
In truth, it was this very promise made to the ancestors of those people inParadise, which is but another name forIran,[316]that gave rise to theschismbetween them and theTuath-de-danaans.
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thyconception; in sorrow thou shaltbring forth children: and thydesireshall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.â€[317]
Thenatureof thecrimeis here clearly denoted by thesuitablenessof thepunishment.[318]But the same over-ruling Judge, who, in conformity with His justice, could not but chastise the violation of His injunctions, yet, in mercy to man’s weakness, and seeing that “he also is flesh,†condescended topromise that theinstrumentof hisseductionshould be also thevehicleof hisredeeming triumph.
“I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.â€[319]
Pinning their faith upon the literal fulfilment of these terms, which told them that thefemale, as such, would be the unaided author of abeing, whose healing effects would restore them to the inheritance so heedlessly forfeited, their veneration for thatsymbolof divine interposition became correspondingly unbounded; and their enthusiasm for the principle of its strict verification was what engendered the thought that in the general procreating scheme theyoniwas thevivifier.
TheTuath-de-danaans or Lingajas, on the other hand, were not less satisfied in their security; but looking upon the terms with a morespiritualinterpretation, and led by the operation of ordinaryphysicsto consider the question as adeviationfrom thegeneral rule, they erected the symbol ofmalecapability as the standard of their doctrine. And thus, while the zeal of both parties shook the very framework of society, yet did theyconcurin all theessentialsof their respective religions; and even the particulars of thatprospectby which they were both sustained, instead of operating as an exception to the universality of this truth, only confirm its import.
The Jews, who were butnewlybrought forward upon the stage, and who, in the inscrutable councils of heaven, were selected as the objects of God’simmediate superintendence, being informed of the tenour of the paradisaical hope, abused it more wantonly than ever did thePish-de-danaans or theTuath-de-danaans.
Unable to comprehend, from their narrow mental calibre, anyagencyin the form of a divineemanation, and yet fancying, each of them, that she would herself be the mother of the expected Redeemer, their women indulged in all the lusts ofdesire, and, where no opportunity offered for licensed gratification, revelled in the arms of incest.
This alone can apologise for that intensity of passion, exceeding even the dictates of natural thirst, and unrestrained by the consideration of decency or consanguinity, whereof we read in the Old Testament, respecting the Israelitish daughters;[320]while it also demonstrates that thecarnalityof their souls did not allow them thoroughly to understand the precise nature of thefavourdesigned.
Far otherwise the case with theintellectualraces, which they were now appointed to supersede.
“In order to reclaim the vicious, to punish the incorrigible, to protect the oppressed, to destroy the oppressor, to encourage and reward the good, and to show all spirits the path to their ultimate happiness, God has been pleased to manifest Himself, say the Brahmins, in a variety of ways, from age to age, in all parts of the habitable globe. When He acts immediately, without assuming a shape, or sending forth a new emanation, when a divine sound is heard from the sky, that manifestation of Himself is calledacasavani, or an ethereal voice: when the voiceproceeds from a meteor or a flame, it is said to beagnarupi, orformed of fire; but anavatarais a descent of the Deity in the shape of a mortal; and anavantarais a similar incarnation of an inferior kind, intended to answer some purpose of less moment. The Supreme Being, and the celestial emanations from Him, areniracara, or bodiless, in which state they must be invisible to mortals; but when they arepratya-sha, or obvious to sight, they becomesacara, or embodied, either in shapes different from that of any mortal, and expressive of the divine attributes, as Chrishna revealed himself to Arjun, or in a human form,which Chrishna usually bore, and in that mode of appearing the deities are generally supposed to be born of women without any carnal intercourse.â€[321]
Is this repugnant to the spirit of Christianity? No; it is its counterpart. “I know,†says Job, in the moment of inspiration, “that my Redeemer liveth.â€[322]Prophetically, you reply; and you back the opinion by our Saviour’s own appeal that “Abraham saw his day, and was glad.â€[323]
Abraham certainly believed by anticipation, but Job by retrospection. And if you will not think my assertion decisive of the matter, I will produce an authority to which you will more readily subscribe.
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life ofthe Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.â€[324]
It will be in vain for you to attempt to parry the evidence of this startling text. No visionaryforesightwill accomplish its defeat: no idealsubstitutionswill shake its validity.
“How it came to pass,†says Skelton, “that the Egyptians, Arabians, and Indians, before Christ came among us, and the inhabitants of the extreme northern parts of the world, ere they had so much as heard of Him,paid a remarkable veneration to the sign of the cross, is to me unknown, butthe fact itselfis known. In some places this sign was given to men accused of a crime, but acquitted: andin Egypt it stood for the signification of eternal life.â€[325]
“V. W.†has asserted something similar;[326]but neither one nor the other has attempted to fathom its origin.
“The Druids,†adds Schedius, “seek studiously for an oak tree, large and handsome, growing up withtwo principal arms, in form of a cross, beside the main stem upright. If the twohorizontal armsare not sufficiently adapted to the figure, they fasten across-beam to it. This tree they consecrate in this manner. Upon the right branch, they cut in the back, in fair characters, the wordHesus: upon the middle or upright stem, the wordTaramis: upon the left branch,Belenus: over this, above the going off of the arms, they cut the name of God,Thau: under all, the same repeatedThau.â€[327]
“The form of the great temple,†observes Dr. Macculloch, “at Loch Bernera, in the Isle of Lewis the chief isle of the Hebrides, is that of across, containing, at the intersection, a circle with a central stone; an additional line being superadded on one side of the longest arms, and nearly parallel to it.Were this line absent, its proportion would be nearly that of the Roman cross, or common crucifix.â€
And then, in reply to the supposition of its having been converted by theChristiansinto this form, he avers that “the whole is too consistent, and too much of one age, to admit of such; while at the same time, it could not, under any circumstances, have been applicable to a Christian worship. Its essential part, the circular area, and the number of similar structures found in the vicinity, equally bespeak its ancient origin. It must, therefore, be concluded, that the cruciform shape was given by the original contrivers of the fabric; and it will afford an object of speculation to antiquaries, who, if they are sometimes accused ofheaping additional obscurity on the records of antiquity, must also be allowed the frequent merit of eliciting light from darkness.To them I willingly consign all further speculations concerning it.â€[328]... “Yet it seemsunquestionablethat the figure of a cross was known to the Gothic nations, and also used by thembefore they wereconverted to Christianity.â€[329]
I do not know whether or not would the Doctor deemmean “antiquary,†or if he did, inwhich classwould he assign me a place. I will undertake, notwithstanding, to solve this difficulty with as much precision as I have the others before it.
Theexistenceof the “cross,†and itsworship, anterior to the Christian era, being no longer liable to dispute, it remains only that we investigate thecausewhich it commemorates.[330]
Our first aid in this research will be the notice of its accompaniments; and when we find that it goes ever in the train of a particular divinity, are we not compelled to connect that divinity with the idea of a crucifixion?
Taut, amongst the Egyptians, is emblemised bythreecrosses.[331]The Scandinavians represent theirTeutatesby a cross. And a cross is the device by which the IrishTuathis perpetuated.
But these are all one and the same name, varied by the genius of the different countries. Thecentrefrom which theydiverge, as well as thefocusto which theyreturn, I have shown to beBudh: and as thissymbolof his worship is universally recognised, does not thecrucifixionthus implied identify his fate with that of the “Lamb slain from the beginning of the world�[332]
The Pythonicallegorywhich the Greeks have so obscured, in reality originated in this religious transaction. For what is their fable? Is it not thatApolloslew with hisarrowthe serpentPython? And as Apollo meansson of the Sun, is not thesubstanceof the whole, that theoffspring of a virgin’s womb—that is, anemanation of the Sun, orBudh—overcame by hisowndeath—typified by anarrow—sin andsensuality, of which theserpent,i.e.pith, is the symbol?
We are now prepared for the reception of that chronicle, transmitted through the Puranas, and noticed already at p. 221, viz. that a “giant, named Sancha-mucha-naga, in the shape of asnake, with amouthlike ashell, and whose abode was in ashell, havingtwo countenances, was killed by Christnah.â€
Thevery nameof this allegoric “giant†indicates themysterious snake—his being in theformof asnakeis but thepersonificationofsensuality; his having amouthlike ashellalludes to theconcha Veneris, or thePith; his having hisabodein thatshelldenotes its being theseatoftemptation; his havingtwo countenancesimplies thedisguisewhichsinassumes; and his beingslainbyChristnahdenotes that theSon of God, bymortification and self-denial, and the most rigid abstinence from all worldly pleasures, verified inHis own person the promise made in Paradise, and for theminor disquietudeswhichguiltentails—expressed by the “heel†being “bruised†by the “serpent,â€â€”inflicted ablow, which laid low his empire, and stamped the signal ofvictoryover his “head.â€[333]
“Ye search the Scriptures,†says our Saviour “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they whichtestifyof Me.â€[334]
Testificationcan be made only in the case of a past occurrence. It is never used in the way of prophecy. And in conformity with its true import, you will find, from Genesis to Revelation, the concurrent tenor of the Sacred Volume giving proof to the fact of Christ’s former appearance upon the earth as man!
But suppose me for a moment to descend from thisposition, and view those previous manifestations as ordinary subjects of history, then hear an outline of what is transmitted to us respecting one of them.