“Woman, the poetry of Nature,” says an elegant writer of the present day, “has ever been the theme of the minstrel, and the idol of the poet’s devotion. The only ideas we entertain of a celestial nature are associated with her; in her praise the world has been exhausted of its beauties, and she is linked with the stars and the glories of the universe, as if, though dwelling in alowliersphere, she belonged to asuperiorworld.”
This deification of thefemale characterwas the truesubstanceof those imaginarygoddesses, so sadly disfigured by the circumscribed stupidity of Greek and Roman mythologists.Juno,Baaltis,Diana,Babia,Venus,Aphrodite,Derceto,Militta,Butsee,Semiramis,Astarte,Io,Luna,Rimmon,Lucina,Genitalis,Ourania,Atargatis, etc. etc., were all but fictitious and ideal forms, resolving themselves intoone and the same representationof that sweetest ornament of the creation,woman; and the same terms being applied to themoon, with the samesymbolicforce and the sametypicalsignificance, illustrates the aptitude of thattributaryquotation, with which this chapter has commenced, and to the beauty of which the heart of every “man that is born of woman” must feelingly respond.
Europa itself, now geographically appropriated, as a denomination, to one of the quarters of the globe,was originally synonymous with any of the above-mentioned names; and partook in the acquiescence paid by adoring millions to the all-fascinating object of so refined an allegory.
Of all those various epithets, however vitiated by time, or injured by accommodation to different climates and languages, the import—intact and undamaged—is still preserved in theprimitive Irish tongue, and in that alone; and with the fertility of conception whereby it engenderedall myths, and kept the human intellect suspended by itsverbal phantasmagoria, we shall find thedriftand thedesign, thetypeand thething typified, united in the ligature of oneappellative chord, which to theenlightenedand thefewpresented a chastened yet sublime and microscopicmoraldelineation; but to theprofaneand themanywas an impenetrable night producing submission the most slavish, and mental prostration the most abject; or, whenever a ray of theequivoquedid happen to reach their eyes—perverted, with that propensity which we all have to the depraved, into the most reckless indulgence and the most profligatelicentiousness.
In the limits here prescribed for the development of ouroutline—which even the most heedless must have observed, instead of being compressed, as intended within the compass of one volume could more easily have been dilated to the magnitude of four—it cannot be supposed that I could dwell, with much minuteness, upon the several collateral particulars to which I may incidentally refer. As, however, thattwofold tenourto which I have above alluded, may require something more in the way of illustration, I shall take any two of the aggregate ofnames there collected, and in them exemplify what has been said.
Suppose them to beMilittaandAstarte. Of these, then, the first meansappetency, such as is natural between the sexes; and the seconddalliance, of the samemutualsort; and while both alike typify thedelightsoflove, they both equally personate themistressof thestarryfirmament whose influence was courted for the maturity of all such connection, as the season of her splendour is the most suitable for its gratification.
FromAstarte(Ασταρτη), the Greeks formedAster(Αστηρ) a star, thereby retaining but one branch of this duplicity. The Irish deduced from it the well-known endearment,Astore; and I believe I do not exaggerate when I affirm that, in the whole circuit of dialectal enunciations, there exists not another sound calculated to convey to a native of this country so many commingling ideas oftender pathos, and ofexalted adventure, as this syllabic representation of thelunardeity.[234]
Such wasSabaism,—composed of love, religion, and astrology: such too wasBudhism, as I have already shown; andPhallismbeing but another name, equivalent with this latter, it follows that the whole three—Sabaism,Budhism, andPhallism—are, to all intents and purposes, butidentically one.
This being about to be demonstrated, a few pages forwards, asthe oldest species of worship recognised upon earth, it were needless, one would hope, to enter into a comparison in point of antiquity betweenit and any of its living derivatives. But as many learned men, misled by that cloud which heretofore enveloped the subject, have promulgated the belief thatBrahminismwas the parent stock, whenceBudhism, with its adjuncts, diverged as a scion, I shall, omitting others, address myself to the consideration of Mr. Colebrooke’s arguments, which I select from the mass in deference to a character so honourably interwoven with the revival of Eastern literature.
“The mythology of the orthodox Hindus,” says this venerable and good man, “their present chronology, adapted to astronomical periods, their legendary tales, and their mystical allegories, are abundantly extravagant, but the Jains and the Bauddhas surpass them in monstrous exaggerations of the same kind. In this rivalship of absurd fiction it would not be unreasonable to pronounce that to be the most modern which has outgone the rest.”
His second position is, that “the Greek writers who mention the Bramins, speak of them as a flourishing society, whereas the Budhists they represent as an inconsiderable handful: therefore,” etc.
To the first I shall oppose Dr. Buchanan’s testimony, who states that “however idle and ridiculous the legends and notions of the worshippers of Bouddha may be, they have been in a great measure adopted by the Brahmins,but with all their defects monstrously aggravated.”
And even had we not this rebutting evidence the inference in itself is decidedly weak; for it would go equally to establish thatRomanismis more recent thanProtestantism, as containing a greater number of ceremonial observances than this latter does: whereas the reverse is whatreasonwould lead us to conclude,namely, thatritual multiplicationsare the growth oflongevity, and that the retrenchment of their number is what reformation aspires to.
I make a free-will offering, unrestricted and unimpeded, of all the value that can belong to Grecian historians—the Greeks, whom their own countryman, Lucian, so justly banters as distinguished for nothing so much as a total indifference to truth! But admitting them to be as veracious as they were notoriously not so, the intercourse, of the very earliest of them, with India and its dependencies, was much too modern, to allow their statements to be further conclusive, than as refers to the time being: and I am very ready to allow that, at the particular moment described, the Budhists were in the wane, while the Brahmins ruled ascendant—nay, that there were but a few straggling votaries of the former creed then existing at all in that country, the latter, though schismatics from the ecclesiastical root, having, by gaining over the civil power on their side, effected their expulsion many ages before.
The subterranean temples of Gyah, Ellora, Salsette, Elephanta, and those other monuments of piety and civil eminence which still shed a lustre over India, and which no subsequent state of the arts could rival, much less eclipse, owe their existence to an era anterior to this catastrophe. The Budhists were the architects when in the zenith of human power. The sculptures and devices establish this fact: for of the whole list of deities personated in those inscriptions, the Brahmins have retained none but such as suited their purpose. These, in all conscience, were numerous enough; and as the Brahmins, when at the helm, permitted not the introduction of“strange gods,” it is evident that those, which they have in common with the Budhists, are butcullingsfrom the “mother-church,” ill-understood and worse interpreted; the similarity, however, being still so great as, after a lapse of centuries, to give rise to the question of, whether the stem or the branch, the sire or the offspring, had the priority in point of time!
“J’ai remarqué,” says the philosopher Bailly, “que les Brames aimaient à être appellés Paramènes, par respect pour la mémoire de leurs ancêtres, qui portoient ce nom.”[235]Monsieur Gebelin is more explicit. “Pausanias nous dit, que Mercure, le même que Butta, ou Budda, un des fondateurs de la doctrines des Paramènes, ou Brames, est appellé Paramon.”[236]
This Paramon, who had seceded from the Budhist doctrine, and placed himself at the head of that sect who still bear his name, was the son ofBudh-dearg, a religious denomination, most painfully inexplicable to inquirers into those matters, but whichone, at least, from his acquaintance with the Irish language, should have better known. “I think,” says Vallancey, “deargis a contraction fordarioga, rex supremus, which corresponds with the Chaldæandarag, dux, an epithet given toBudya!”
All those words, in fact,dearg,darioga, anddarag, areone and the same, adjuncts, it is true, of Budya, but meaning neitherdux,rex, norsupremus, except inasmuch as they werehisepithets, the correct rendering beingred, which, added to Budh, signifies theRed Lingam, theSardana-palus, theEocad, thePenis sanctus, thegodofnature, theruber palus, theHelio-go-balus, thecorporeal spirit, theagent of production, thetype of life, as it is also theconcurrent symbol of universal dissolution.
These several terms, which are, each and all, convertible, pourtray not only the procreative powers of themaleworld personified, but likewise its symbols, which were theRound Towers; and not these only, butObelisks[237]also, andnaturally erectstones,[238]which though not circularly fashioned, yet typified, in their ascension, the upward bent of all vegetable growth.
This is the true solution of those enigmaticallithoi, by which the ancients represented thebountyof Providence.Maghodywas the name appropriated to him under this character; and the import of this word conveying, literally, the idea of theGood God, shows the philosophic feeling, no less than it does the religious seriousness, of the grateful contrivers.[239]And while reminded by the thought, perhaps I may bepermitted, with humble deference, to suggest to literary gentlemen occupied in the translation of Eastern manuscripts, that whenever they meet with any proper name of the inconceivable Godhead, or of any place or temple devoted to his use, and beginning with the wordMagh; such asMagh-Balli-Pura;[240]they should not renderMaghbygreat,—which hitherto had been the practice,—but bygood; as it is not thepowerof the divinity that is thereby meant to be signified, but hisbounty: such as his votaries chiefly supplicated, and such as was most influential to ensure their fealty.
“Christnah, the Indian Apollo, is the darling,” says Archer, “of the Hindoo ladies; and in his pranks, and the demolishing pitchers of milk, or milk-pitchers, has acquired a fame infinitely surpassing that enjoyed by the hero of the agreeable ditty entitledKitty of Coleraine!”
I confess I do not understand the levity of temperament which betrays itself in this witticism. For my part I cannot contemplate any form of religion without a sensation of awe. There may be much imposture, much also of hypocrisy, and no small share of self-delusion amongstindividualsof every sect, but sincerity will be found in theaggregateof each: and wherecertaintyis not attainable by finite comprehensions, nay, whereunityis incompatible with freedom of thought and will, it would more become us, methinks, to make allowance for each other’s weaknesses, than to vilify any worship, which, after all, may only differ from our own as to mode. Christianity, beyond a question, does not inculcate such intolerance. Thetruefollower of that faith recognisesin everyaltaran evidence of common piety; perceives in every articulation of the name ofLord, a mutual sense of dependence and a similar appeal for succour; and taking these as inlets into the character of the supplicant, he traces an approximation to that hope whereby he is himself sustained, and rejoices in the discovery: yet it is no less true, that, when superadded to these generalities, he beholds the “image” of his Creator, acknowledging the mission of the second Godhead, and, by reliance on the all-fulness of his immaculate atonement, immersed in the waters of regenerating grace, his bosom expands withmoregladness, and he welcomes the stranger as a brother.
That the rebuke here intended is not gratuitous or uncalled for, I refer to the testimony of Sir William Jones, who, with some infusion, I regret, of the same irony and incredulity, offers the following portrait, the result of tardy conviction of the superhuman qualifications of this identical Christnah, viz.: “The prolix accounts of his life are filled with narratives of a most extraordinary kind, and most strangely variegated. This incarnate deity of Sanscrit romance was not only cradled, but educated among shepherds. A tyrant, at the time of his birth, ordered all the male infants to be slain. He performed amazing, but ridiculous miracles, and saved multitudes partly by his miraculous powers, and partly by his arms: and raised the dead, by descending for that purpose into the infernal regions. He was the meekest and best tempered of beings; washed the feet of the Brahmans, and preached indeed sublimely, but always in their favour. He was pure and chaste in reality, but exhibited every appearance of libertinism. Lastly, he was benevolent and tender, and yet fomented and conducted a terrible war.”
Mahony, also, is a reluctant witness to the same effect. “The religion of Bhoodha,” says he, “as far as I have had any insight into it, seems to be founded on a mild and simple morality. Bhoodha has taken for his principleswisdom,justice, andbenevolence; from which principles emanate ten commandments, held by his followers as the true and only rule of their conduct. He places them under three heads,thought,word, anddeed; and it may be said that the spirit of them is becoming and well-suited to him, whose mild nature was first shocked at the sacrifice of cattle.”[241]
I have already shown that Budha is but a title, embodying an abstract; that, therefore, it was not limited to one individual, but applied indiscriminately to a series. As I shall soon bring this succession nearer toour own fire-hearths, and, in a way, perhaps, which may, else, electrify over-sensitive nerves, it may be prudent that I should premise another citation, descriptive of an answer, made by a dignitary of their creed, to the last-mentioned author upon his enunciating a principle of the Hindoo doctrine. “The Hindoos,” rejoined the priest, “must surely be little acquainted with this subject, by this allusion to only one (incarnation). Bhoodha, if they mean Bhoodha Dhannan Raja, became man, and appeared as such in the world at different periods, during ages before he had qualified himself to be a Bhoodha. These various incarnations took place by his supreme will and pleasure, and in consequence of his superior qualifications and merits. I am therefore inclinedto believe, that the Hindoos, who thus speak of the incarnation of a Bhoodha, cannot allude to him whose religion and law I preach, who is now a resident of the hall of glory, situated above the twenty-sixth heaven.”
Now it is stated in the Puranas, that a giant, named Sancha-mucha-naga, in the shape of asnake, with a mouth like ashell, and whose abode was in a shell, having two countenances, was killed byChristnah; and as this irresistibly directs our reflection to the early part of the Book of Genesis, I shall adduce what Mr. Deane has set forth on this latter head.
“The tradition of the serpent,” says he, “is a chain of many links, which, descending from Paradise, reaches, in the energetic language of Homer,
‘Τοσσον ἕνερθ’ ἀϊδεω, ὅσον ουρανός ἐστ’ ἀπο γαίης,’
but conducts, on the other hand, upwards to the promise, that ‘the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.’... The mystic serpent entered into the mythology of every nation, consecrated almost every temple, symbolised almost every deity, was imagined in the heavens, stamped upon the earth, and ruled in the realms of everlasting sorrow.... This universal concurrence of traditions proves a common source of derivation, and the oldest record of the legend must be that upon which they are all founded. The most ancient record of the history of the serpent-tempter is the Book of Genesis! In the Book of Genesis, therefore, is the fact from which almost every superstition connected with the mythological serpent is derived.”[242]
That “the oldest record of the legend must be thatupon which they are all founded,” no one can gainsay, inasmuch as the parent is always senior to the offspring: but it is not quite such atruismthat “the most ancient record of the history of the serpent-tempter is the Book of Genesis.” Before a line of it was ever written, or its author even conceived, the allegory of the serpent was propagated all over the world. Temples, constructed thousands of years prior to the birth of Moses, bear the impress of its history. “The extent and permanence of the superstition,” says the erudite ex-secretary of the Asiatic Society, now Professor of Sanscrit in the University of Oxford, “we may learn from Abulfazl, who observes that in seven hundred places there are carved figures of snakes, which they worship. There is, likewise, reason to suppose that this worship was diffused throughout thewholeof India, as, besides, the numerous fables and traditions relating to theNagas, orsnake-gods, scattered through the Puranas, vestiges of it still remain in the actual observances of the Hindus.”
To explore the origin, however, of this Ophite veneration, all the efforts of ingenuity have hitherto miscarried: and the combination ofsolarsymbols with it, in some places of its appearance, has, instead of facilitating, augmented the difficulty. “The portals of all the Egyptian temples,” observes theGentleman’s Magazine, “are decorated with the same hierogram of thecircleand theserpent. We find it also upon the temple of Naki Rustan, in Persia; upon the triumphal arch at Pechin, in China; over the gates of the great temple of Chaundi Teeva, in Java; upon the walls of Athens; and in the temple of Minerva, at Tegea—for the Medusa’s head, socommon in Grecian sanctuaries, is nothing more than the Ophite hierogram, filled up by a human face. Even Mexico, remote as it was from the ancient world, has preserved, with Ophiolatreia, its universal symbol.”[243]
How would Mr. Deane account for this commixture? “The votaries of the sun,” says he, “having taken possession of an Ophite temple, adopted some of its rites, and thus in process of time arose the compound religion, whose god was named Apollo.”
But, sir, the symbols arecoeval, imprintedtogetherupon those edifices at thevery momentof their construction; and, therefore, “no process of time” was required to amalgamate a religion whose god (it is true) was Apollo, but which was already inseparable, and, though compound, one.
I have before established the sameness of design which belonged, indifferently, tosolarworship and tophallic. I shall, ere long, prove that the same characteristic extends equally toophiolatreia; and ifthey all three be identical, as it thus necessarily follows, where is the occasion for surprise at our meeting thesun,phallus, andserpent, the constituent symbols of each,embossed upon the same table, andgroupedunder the samearchitrave?
“Here,” says a correspondent in the supplement to theGentleman’s Magazineof August last, “we have the umbilicatedmoonin her state of opposition to the sun, and the sign of fruitfulness. She was also, in the doctrines of Sabaism, the northern gate, by which Mercury conducted souls to birth, as mentioned by Homer in his description of the Cave of the Nymphs, and upon which there remains a commentary by Porphyry. Of this cave Homer says—
‘Fountains it had eternal, and two gates,The northern one to men admittance gives;That to the south is more divine—a wayUntrod by men, t’ immortals only known.’
“TheCross, in Gentile rites, was the symbol of reproduction and resurrection. It was, as Shaw remarks, ‘the same with the ineffable image of eternity that is taken notice of by Suidas.’ TheCrescentwas the lunar ship or ark that bore, in Mr. Faber’s language, the Great Father and the Great Mother over the waters of the deluge; and it was also the emblem of the boat or ship which took aspirants over the lakes or arms of the sea to the Sacred Islands, to which they resorted for initiation into the mysteries: and over the river of death to the mansions of Elysium; theCockatricewas the snake-god. It was also the basilisk or cock-adder. ‘Habetcaudem ut coluber, residuum vero corpus ut gallus.’ The Egyptians considered the basilisk as the emblem of eternal ages: ‘esse quia vero videtur ζωῆς κυριεύειν καὶ θανάτον, ex auro conformatum capitibus deorum appingebant Ægyptii.’ What relation had this with the Nehustan or Brazen Serpent, to which the Israelites paid divine honours in the time of Hezekiah? What is the circle with the seasons at the equinoxes and solstices marked upon it?—the signs of the four great pagan festivals celebrated at the commencement of each of these seasons? The corner of the stone which is broken off probably contained some symbol. I am not hierophant enough to unriddle and explain the hidden tale of this combination of hieroglyphics. We know that the sea-goat and the Pegasus on tablets and centeviral stones, found on the walls of Severus and Antoninus, were badges of the second, and the boar of the twentieth legion; but this bas-relief seems to refer, in some dark manner, to matters connected with the ancient heathen mysteries. The form of the border around them is remarkable. The stone which bears them was, I apprehend, brought in its present state from Vindolana, where, as I have observed, an inscription to the Syrian goddess was formerly found. The station of Magna also, a few years since, produced a long inscription to the same goddess in the Iambic verse of the Latin comedians; and a cave, containing altars to Mithras, and a bust of that god, seated between the two hemispheres and surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, besides other signa and ἄγαλματα of the Persian god, was opened at Borcovicus only about ten years since. These, therefore, and other similar remains, found in the Romanstations in the neighbourhood of Vindolana, induce me to think that the symbols under consideration, and now for the first time taken notice of, were originally placed near the altars of some divinity in the station of the Bowers-in-the-Wood. I know of no establishment that the Knights Templars had in this neighbourhood.”
The modesty of “V. W.” is not less than his diligence; and both, I consider, exemplary and great. But he will excuse me when I tell him that theCross, theCrescent, and theCockatrice, are stillmaidensubjects after his hands. Neither Faber, Shaw, nor Suidas, pretend even to approach those matters, save in theiremblematicsense; and, as every emblem must have a substratum, I for one, cannot content myself with that remote and secondary knowledge which is imparted by theexoteric type, but must enter the penetralia, and explore the secrets of theeisoteric temple.
“As an old serpent casts his scaly vest,Wreaths in the sun in youthful glory dress’d;So, when Alcides’ mortal mould resign’d,His better part enlarg’d, and grew refin’d;August his visage shone; almighty JoveIn his swift car his honoured offspring drove:High o’er the hollow clouds the coursers fly,And lodge the hero in the starry sky.”[244]
“Chilly as the climate of the world is growing—artificial and systematic as it has become—and unwilling as we are to own the fact, there are few amongst us but who have had those feelings once strongly entwined around the soul, and who have felt how dear was their possession when existing, and how acute the pang which their severing cost. Fewer still were the labyrinths unclosed in which their affections lay folded, but in whose hearts the name ofwomanwould be found, although the rough collision with the world may have partially effaced it.”
This instinctive influence, which the daughters of Eve universally exercise over the sons of Adam, is not more irresistible in the present day, than it proved in the case of their great progenitor.Love, however disguised—and how could it be more beautifully than by the scriptural penman?—love, in its literal and all-absorbing seductiveness, was the simple but fascinating aberration couched under the figure of theforbidden apple.
All the illusions of fancy resolve themselves into this sweet abyss. The dreams of commentators may, therefore, henceforward be spared; the calculations of bookmakers, on this topic, dispensed with:whatever bemyfate, one consolation, at least, awaits me, that in addition to theTowers, I shall have expounded the mysteries of Genesis.
In theIrishlanguage, which, as being that of ancient Persia, orIran, must be the oldest in the world, and of which theHebrew, brought away by Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees,[245]is but a distant and imperfect branch,—well, in this primordial tongue, the nursery at once of science, of religion, and of philosophy, allmysteries, also, have been matured: and it will irrefutably manifest itself, that in it, exclusively, was woven that elegantly-wrought veil, of colloquial illusiveness, which shrouds thenatureof our first parents’ downfall.
How, think you, was this accomplished? By assigning to certain terms a twofold signification, of which one represented a certainpassion,quality, orvirtue, and the other itssensible index. To the latter alone had themultitudeany access; while the sanctity of the former was guarded against them by all the terrors of religious interdicts.
For instance, in the example before us,Budh, orFiodh,—which is the same thing,—means, primarily,lingam, and secondarily, atree. Of these, the latter, which was the popular acceptation, was only theoutward signalof the former, which was theinwardmystifiedpassion, comprehended only by the initiated. When, therefore, we are told that Eve was desired not to taste of thetree,i.e.Budh, we are to understand that she was prohibited whatBudhmeant in its true signification, viz.lingam: in other words, that when cautioned against theBudh, it was not aninsensible tree, its symbolic import, that was meant thereby, but thevital phallus, itsanimateprototype:—that, in short, “missisambagibus,” the wordBudhwas to be taken,not figuratively, butliterally.[246]
FROM THE RUINS OF THE PALENCIAN CITY.
Again, in this cradle of literary wonders—the Irish language—every letter in its alphabet expresses some particulartree; but its second,Beth,—whence theBetaof the Greeks, and a formative only ofBudh, the radix,—signifies in addition to thetreewhich it represents[247]—knowledgealso! Andhere, obvious as light, and impregnable to contradiction, you have the tree of knowledge, in natural nakedness, divested of all the mystery of pomiferous verbiage, and identified in attributes, as in prolific import, with the name and essence of the sacredBudh![248]
Here then we have, at length, arrived at thefountain-headandsourceof themysteryofBudhism. Eve herself, I emphatically affirm, was thevery first Budhist. And, accordingly, we find that, in former ages, women universally venerated theBudh, and carried images of it, as a talisman, around their necks and in their bosoms![249]
But if Eve was the first Budhist, the first priest of the Budhist order was her first-born, but apostate son Cain: and in his acknowledging the bounty ofBudh, thesun, who matures the fruits of the earth,—and thereby recognising Jehovah only as the God ofnatureand ofincrease,—rather than in looking forward by faith to the redemption byblood, as a different sacrifice would have intimated, consisted “the whole front and bearing” of his treason and offence.[250]
“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth at the door”[251]—the means of propitiation are within your immediate reach.
The endearing tone in which this is conveyed bespeaks an appeal to some usage familiar to the party. It betokens indisputably, that on previous occasions, when Cain had acted “well,” he had met with no rejection. And for the truth of this Jehovah refers to the defendant’s own experience and self-convincing consciousness.
Cain, therefore, was a priest under a former dispensation, and a favoured one, too, and his being deprived of this office, or, in other words, “cast off from the presence of the Lord,” was the great source and origin of his present wretchedness.
But if a priest, he must have been so to a larger congregation than his father, mother, and brother: and besides, he, as well as Abel, must have hadwives; but the Scriptures do not tell us that Adam and Eve, as individuals, had anydaughters; it follows, therefore, that the consorts of the two brothers must have sprung from someotherparents. There, then, were more men and women on the earth than Adam and Eve: and this is still further confirmed by the apprehensions expressed by Cain himself, after the murder of Abel, lest he might be slain by someone meeting him.
Yes, in the paradisaical state, before “sin entered into the world,” the earth was as crowded with population as it is at present, and Adam and Eve are only put as representatives, male and female, of the entire human species all over the globe.[252]
Here I cannot do better than set the reader right as to the rendering of a subsequent text, which says that “God set a mark upon Cain lest any one meeting him should kill him”; nor can I recollect another instance wherein human ingenuity, while struggling after truth, has been more directly instrumental in the dissemination of error.
One would suppose that the setting “a mark upon” a person, instead of allaying his fears of being molested by those meeting him, should, on the contrary, aggravate them, from its extraordinary aspect. Besides, in the innumerable fantasies which commentators have conjured up as specifications of this “mark,” no vestige whatsoever has been yet traced on the human form to justify the inference.
We are obliged, therefore, at last, to recur to thetruth, and it fortunately happens that this is accessible by only translating the original as it should properly be, thus, viz. “And GodgaveCain asignlest any meeting him, should kill him.”
The only question now is what thatsignwas, which Godgaveto Cain? And to resolve this, we have but to bethink ourselves of his dereliction,—namely, the offering worship to Budh,i.e.nature, or thesun: and his refusing to sacrifice, in consequence of such devotion, anything endowed withlife, of which Budh,i.e.Lingam,—according to the double acceptation of the word,—was the type, as it is also thesignof Budh, the sun,—and we have infallibly developed the answer and the secret.
Stamping the nature of his crime, and at the same time indicating that, in the now fallen condition of man, this badge of his revolt would be rather a security against trespass, and a passport to acceptancethan an inducement to annoyance, God shows to Cain, as much in derision as in anger, thesubstantialimage of that deity to which he had but just before done homage, viz. Budh; and thereupon, Cain goes, and, on “the land a wanderer,” he erects thissigninto a deifiedRound Tower.
Perhaps the reader would like to have somecollateralproofs for these startling interpretations. I shall give them, as convincing as the solution itself is irrefutable and true.
The Maypole festival, which the Rev. Mr. Maurice has so satisfactorily shown to be but the remains of an ancient institution of India and Egypt (he should have added Persia, and, indeed, placed it first), was, in fact, but part and parcel of this Round Tower worship. May the 1st is the day on which its orgies were celebrated; nor is the custom, even now, confined to the British Isles alone, but as naturally prevails universally throughout the East, whence it emanatedof oldto us. Lest, too, there should be any mistake as to the object of adoration, we are told in the second volume of theAsiatic Researches, in a letter from Colonel Pearce, that Bhadani,i.e.Astarte,i.e.Luna,i.e.Venus,i.e.“Mollium mater cupidinum,” was the goddess in whose honour those festivities were raised.
Now as astronomy was connected with all the ceremonies of the ancients, the sun’s entrance into Taurus, which in itself bespeaks the vigour of reanimated productiveness at the vernal equinox, was the symbol in the heavens associated by the worshippers with this allegorical gaiety. But this event takes place a little earlier every year than the preceding one, by reason of what astronomers call theprecession,so that at present it occurs at a season far more advanced than it did at first.
Theory and observation both concur in establishing that 72 years is the period which the equinox will take to precede 1 degree of the 360 into which the heavens are divided,—2160 years 30 degrees, that is, one sign,—and 25,920, 360 degrees, or the twelve signs of the Zodiac. If, therefore, we compute at this rate the precise year at which the vernal equinox must have coincided with the 1st of May,—which must certainly have been the fact at the origin of the institution,—it will prove to have been about the four thousandth before the Christian era, which exactly corresponds with the time of Cain, and irrefutably confirms the origin which I have assigned to the worship of the Budh, Tower, Phallus, or Maypole.
Mr. Maurice’s position deserves to be remarked. “I have little doubt, therefore,” says he, “that May-day, or at least the day on which the sun entered Taurus, has been immemorially kept as a sacred festival from the creation of the earth and man, originally intended as a memorial of that auspicious period and that momentous event.”
It is with extreme reluctance that I would dissent from a writer who has contributed so largely as the gentleman before us towards the restoration of literature; but since we agree as to theeraof the origin of the festival, andsubstantiallyas to itsdesign, I have the less hesitation in recording my belief thatit was not the creation of the earth or of manthat was intended to be commemorated, but the commencement of anew dispensation, consequent uponman’s defection.[253]
Lord, from the Shaster, quotes the following abstract, marking the opinion of the Easterns themselves, as to Adam and Eve having had many contemporaries. This relates an interview between a different couple. “Being both persuaded that God had a hand in this their meeting, they took council from this book, to bind themselves in the inviolable bond of marriage, and with the courtesies interceding between man and wife, were lodged in one another’s bosoms: for joy whereof the sun put on his nuptial lustre, and looked brighter than ordinary, causing the season to shine upon them with golden joy; and the silver moon welcomed the evening of their repose, whilst music from heaven, as if God’s purpose in them had been determinate, sent forth a pleasing sound, such as useth to fleet from the loud trumpet, together with the noise of the triumphant drum. Thus proving the effects of generation together, they had fruitful issue, and so peopled the East, and the woman’s name was Sanatree.”
ThisMaypoleceremony, under the name ofPhallica,Dionysia, orOrgia, which last word, though sometimes applied to the mysteries of other deities, belongs more particularly to those of Bacchus,[254]was celebrated, at one time, throughout Attica with all the extravagance of religio-lascivious pomp. Archer, in hisTravels in Upper India, arrived at a village just a few hours only after the May gaieties were over, and found thepolestill standing. “The occasion,” says he, “was one of festivity, for all had strings of flowers about their heads, and they spoke of the matter as one of great pleasure and amusement.” As, however, he did not come in for the actual observances, I shall supply the omission by detailing the form of its celebration in our own country.
“Anciently,” says M‘Skimin, in hisHistory of Carrickfergus, “a large company of young men assembled each May-day, who were called May-boys. They wore above their other dress white linen shirts, which were covered with a profusion of various coloured ribbons, formed into large and fantastic knots. One of the party was called King, and the other Queen, each of whom wore a crown, composed of the most beautiful flowers of the season, and was attended by pages who held up the train. When met, their first act wasdancing to music round the pole, planted the preceding evening; after which they went to the houses of the most respectable inhabitants round about, and having taken a short jig in front of each house, received a voluntary offering from those within. The sum given was rarely less than five shillings. In the course of this ramble the King always presented a rich garland offlowers to some handsome young woman, who was hence called ‘the Queen of May’ till the following year.”
With this compare the description given by the author of theRites and Ceremonies of all Nations, of a similar worship as celebrated amongst the Banians. “Another god,” says he, “much esteemed and worshipped by these people, is calledPerimal, and his image is that of apole, or thelarge mast of a ship. The Indians relate the following legend concerning this idol. At Cydambaran, a city in Golcondo, a penitent having accidentally pricked his foot with an awl, let it continue in the wound for several years together; and although this extravagant method of putting himself to excessive torture was displeasing to the god Perimal, yet the zealot swore he would not have it pulled out till hesaw the god dance. At last, the indulgent god had compassion on him,and danced, and the sun, moon, and stars danced along with him. During this celestial movement, a chain of gold dropped from either the sun or the god, and the place has been ever since called Cydambaran. It was also in memory of this remarkable transactionthat the image of the god was changed from that of an ape to a pole, thereby intimating (adds the good-natured expositor of himself) that all religious worship should reach up towards heaven, that human affections should be placed on things above.”
Now, this mysteriousPeri-Malis but a euphony forPeri-Bal, that is, theBaal-Peorbefore explained: and when you remember the destination which I have there assigned him, you will perceive the propriety of his having been represented by amastor May-pole. As to the Indian legend, it only shows the antiquity of the rite, superadded to that religiousinvestmentwhich was meant as a shield against profanation.
Vallancey also mentions the following additional custom, which he himself witnessed in the county of Waterford:—“On the first day of May, annually, a number of youths, of both sexes, go round theparishtoevery couple married within the year, and oblige them to give a ball. This is ornamented with gold or silver coin. I have been assured, they sometimes expended three guineas on this ornament. Theballs are suspended by a thread, in two hoops placed at right angles, decorated with festoons of flowers. The hoops are fastened to the end of a long pole, and carried about in great solemnity, attended with singing, music, and dancing.”
Themummers, in like manner, who went about upon this day, demanding money, and with similar solemnities, as if for themoon in labour, were derived from the same origin. In Ceylon this practice is confined to “women alone,”[255]who, as the editor of theRites and Ceremonies, etc., informs us, “go from door to door with the image ofBudduin their hands, calling out as they pass, ‘Pray, rememberBuddu.’[256]The meaning is, that will enable them to sacrifice to the god. Some of the people give them money, others cotton thread, somerice, and others oil for the lamps. Part of these gifts they carry to the priests ofBuddu, and the remainder they carry home for their own use.”
The money collected in Ireland, on the same occasion, would appear to have been somewhat similarly expended, having been “mostly sacrificed to the jolly god; the remainder given to the poor in the neighbourhood.”
“Here, for a while, my proper cares resigned,Here let me sit in sorrow for mankind;Like yon neglected shrub, at random cast,That shades the steep, and sighs at every blast.”[257]
When I cast back my eye upon this narrative, through the long perspective of ages which it involves, I confess I feel incommoded by some misgivings of self-distrust. When I consider themightyindividuals, oftranscendentpowers and almostinexhaustibleresources, who, having reconnoitred its coast, eitherperishedin the impotency of effecting a landing, or, more wisely,recededfrom it as impregnable, I amthrown back, as it were, upon myself, and impeded by the comparison of my own littleness.
But if “God has often chosen the small things of the earth to confound the great”; and if success in past undertakings be any guarantee against the illusiveness of inward promise; if the roads be all chalked, the posts lighted, and the sentinels faithful, why,then, allow the influence of petty fears to mar, at all events, theprojectof an ennobling enterprise?
In that cherished volume, whence our first lessons upon religion have been deduced, and which, as embodying the principles of ourhappinesshere, and ourhopeshereafter, has been honoured with thepre-eminentand distinctive appellation of theBible, orBook, there occur numerous phrases ofmysteriousimport, butpregnantsignificancy, which pious men, unable to solve, have contented themselves with classifying as under the head of “abovereason”—“contrary,” and “according to,” being the two other constituents of their predicamental line.
Thoseconventionalterms whichexpediencyalone has invented are, to say the least, arbitrary; and as all men have an equal right to form aspecificationof their subject-matter, I shall, without disconcerting theorderof the abovedivision, endeavour only to rescue the points to which I refer from immersion in thefirstclass;[258]or—if allowed the latitude ofparliamentaryelocution—to take them out from the condemnation ofSchedule A.
To begin, then, with the following text, viz. “The sons of Godsaw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.”[259]
What do you understand by the expression “sons of God”?
His peculiar people, you reply; such, for instance, ascalled upon His name;[260]or, perhaps, Seth’s descendants in opposition to those of Cain, the unrighteous.
Turn, sir, to the beginning of the first and second chapters ofJob, and read what you are there informed of.
“Now there was a day when thesons of Godcame to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” And, “Again, there was a day, when thesons of Godcame to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.”
Well, what is your answer now? or will it not be different from what it was before? Can you seriouslyimagine that it wasanyrace ofordinaryhuman beings that was thus denominated?Andare you not compelled to associate the idea with some one of the othersuperiorproductions of omnipotent agency?
I will make you, sir, if you have candour in your constitution, acknowledge the fact. Listen—“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding: when the morning stars sang together, and all thesons of Godshouted for joy.”[261]
Here allusion is made to a period antecedent to the existence of eitherCainorSeth. Themyriadsof revolving ages suggested by the interrogatory set evenfancyat defiance; nor are their limits demarked by thevagueandindefinite exordiumof even the talented and otherwise highly-favoured legislator, Moses himself.[262]And yet, in this incomprehensibleinaneof time, do we see thesons of God shouting for joy, before the species of man—at least in his degenerate sinfulness—had appeared upon this surface!
It is manifest, therefore, that someemanationof the Godhead, distinct frommerehumanity, is couched under the phrase of “the sons of God”; and accordingly we perceive that, when they “went in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,” it isemphaticallynoticed, as an occurrence ofunusualimpress, that “the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.”[263]
At the commencement of the verse, whence the last extract has been taken, you will find the name ofgiantmentioned; and instantly after, as if injuxtaposition, nay, as ifsynonymouswith it in meaning, is repeated “the sons of God”: thereby identifying both in nature and in character, and proving their sameness by their convertibility.
The Hebrew word from whichgianthas been translated, signifiesto fall: and what, do you suppose, constituted thisapostasy? In sooth, nothing else than thatcarnal intercourse, which they could not resist indulging with the “daughters of men,”when their senses told them they were lovely.[264]Thus do both names corroborate my truth; while both reciprocally illustrate each other.
“It may seem strange,” says Wilford, “that the posterity of Cain should be so much noticed in the Puranas, whilst that of the pious and benevolent Ruchi is in a great measure neglected. But little is said of the posterity of Seth, whilst the inspired penman takes particular notice of the ingenuity of the descendants of Cain, and to what a high degree of perfection they carried the arts of civil life.The charms and accomplishments of the women are particularly mentioned.‘The same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.’”
And again,—“We have been taught to consider the descendants of Cain as a most profligate and abominable race. This opinion, however, is not countenanced, either by sacred or profane history. That they were not entrusted with the sacred depositof religious truths, to transmit to future ages, is sufficiently certain. They might, in consequence of this, have deviated gradually from the original belief, and at last fallen into a superstitious system of religion, which seems, also, a natural consequence of the fearful disposition of Cain, and the horrors he must have felt, when he recollected the atrocious murder of his brother Abel.”
This, so far as it goes, is satisfactory enough; but it isgroping in the dark, andwithout a pilot. A few pages, in the distance, will, however, bring us to the right understanding of these points also; meanwhile, I return to the Mosaical record, for the insight therein afforded into the history of Cain.
We are told then that he “knew his wife, and she conceived and bareEnoch”: and as this name signifiesinitiation in sacred rites, as well as it does anassembly of congregated multitudes,—in which latter sense it was accurately applied to the “city” which he had “builded,”—it shows that the new religion bade fair for perpetuity.
Irad, the name of Enoch’s son, proves the crowning finish of the matured ceremonial, for intimating, as it does,consecrated to God, we are naturally led to connect its bearer with the profession of that worship which his name represented.
AsIradsignifiesconsecrated to God, soIrandoesthe land of those so consecrated; and accordingly we may be assured that it was inthat precise regionthat the Budhists had first established theinsigniaof their empire.[265]
Let us now inquire what light will theDabistanafford to our labours. It is known that Sir John Malcolm was no ready convert to its merits; his abridgment of it, therefore, cannot be suspected of any colouring; and, as I like the testimony of reluctant witnesses, I shall even makehimthe interpreter of its recondite contents.
“In almost all themodernaccounts of Persia,” says he, “which have been translated from Mahomedan authors,Kaiomursis considered thefirst king of that country; but the Dabistan, a book professedly compiled from works of the ancient Guebrs, or worshippers of fire, presents us with a chapter on a succession of monarchs and prophets who preceded Kaiomurs. According to its author the Persians, previous to the reign of Kaiomurs, and consequentlylong before the mission of Zoroaster, venerated a prophet calledMah-abad, or the Great (rather theGood) Abad, whom they considered as the father of men. We are told in the Dabistan thatthe ancient Persians deemed it impossible to ascertain who were the first parents of the human race. The knowledge of man, they alleged, was quite incompetent to such a discovery; but they believed, on the authority of their books, that Mah-abad was the person left at theend of the last great cycle, and consequently the father of the present world. The only particulars they relate of him are, that he and his wife, having survived the former cycle, were blessed with a numerous progeny, who inhabited caves and clefts of rocks, and wereuninformed of both the comforts and luxuries of life; that they were at first strangers to order and government, but that Mah-abad, inspired and aided by Divine Power, resolved to alter their condition; and, to effect that object,planted gardens,invented ornaments, andforged weapons. He also taught men to take the fleece from the sheep, and to make clothing; he built cities, constructed palaces, fortified towns, and introduced among his descendants all the benefits of art and commerce.
“Mah-abad had thirteen successors of his own family; all of whom are styledAbad, and deemed prophets. They were at once the monarchs and the high priests of the country; and during their reigns, the world, we are informed, enjoyed a golden age, which was, however, disturbed by an act of Azer-abad, the last prince of the Mahabadean dynasty, who abdicated the throne, and retired to a life of solitary devotion.
“By the absence of Azer-abad his subjects were left to the free indulgence of their passions, and every species of excess was the consequence.The empire became a scene of rapine and of murder.To use the extravagant expression of our author (the Dabistan),the mills, from which men were fed, were turned by the torrents of blood that flowed from the veins of their brothers; every art and science fell into oblivion; the human race became as beasts of prey, and returned to their former rude habitations in caverns and mountains.
“Some sages, who viewed the state of the empire with compassion, intreated Iy-Affram, a saint-like, retired man, to assume the government. This holy man, who had received the title of Iy (pure), from hispre-eminent virtues, refused to attend to their request, till a divine command, through the angelGabriel, led him to consent to be the instrument of restoring order, and of reviving the neglected laws and institutions of Mah-abad. Iy-Affram founded a new dynasty, which was called the Iy-abad; who, after a long and prosperous reign, suddenly disappeared, and the empire fell again into confusion. Order was restored by his son, Shah Kisleer, who was with difficulty prevailed upon to quit his religious retirement to assume the reigns of government. His successors were prosperous till the elevation of the last prince of the dynasty, whose name was Mahabool. This monarch, we are told, was compelled by the increasing depravity of his subjects to resign his crown.
“He was succeeded by his eldest son, Yessan, who, acting under divine influence, supported himself in that condition which his father had abandoned. This prince founded a new dynasty, which terminated in his descendant, Yessan-Agrin. At the end of his reign the general wickedness of mankind exceeded all bounds, andGod made their mutual hostility the means of the Divine vengeance, till the human race was nearly extinct. The few that remained had fled to woods and mountains,when the all-merciful Creator called Kaiomurs, or Gilshah, to the throne.”
We only now want a key to unlock the portals of thisMagh-abadeanhousehold; and I flatter myself thatthis, which I am about to tender, will consummate to an accuracy that very desirable purpose.
Cain’s immediate progeny are they which are included under the above denomination. Their faith and worship are exactly symbolised under its derivative dress.Magh, as before explained, isgood; andAbad, aunit; that is, when combined, theGood One, orUnit, the author of fruitfulness and productiveness—in which light alone, as all-bountiful and all-generous, was he recognised by this family.
This unityof the Godhead was what wasreligiouslycomprehended under thePhallicconfiguration of the Round Tower erections; and this, furthermore, elucidates that heretofore enigmatical declaration of the Budhists themselves, viz. that the pyramids, in which the sacred relics are deposited, “be their shape what it will, are an imitation of the worldly temple of the Supreme Being.”[266]
But ifMagh-abadeanwas the name adopted by them with thisspiritualtendency,Tuath-de-danaanwas that which pictured them a sacerdotal institution. The last member of this compound I have already expounded. It remains that I develop what the two first parts conceal.
Tuath, then, is neither more nor less than a dialectal modification forBudh, which, according to the licence of languages, transformed itself, otherwise and indifferently, intoButt, Butta, Fiod, Fioth,Thot,Tuath,Duath,Suath, Pood, Woad; and in the two last forms—of which one is Gothic, and the other Tamulic—admitted a final syllable,—which was but an insignificant termination,—namely,en, makingPoodenandWoad-en; orPodenandWoden.
In these several variations, and the innumerable others which branch therefrom, while thesensibleidea is preserved underneath, there is superinduced another of a more refined complexion. Thus,Budh,while it primarily represents thesun, its type, thepenis; and again,itssign, atree, expresses also the attributes ofmagic,science,divination, andwisdom.
These were the consequences of thatmysteriousgarb in which the priests invested thetrueelements of their religion. Being themselves the sole possessors of its inward secrets, and all literature and erudition going hand in hand also therewith, it was so dexterously managed, that a sort of reverential feeling attached, not only to thosequalitiesin the abstract, but to the consecratedpersonageswho were their depositories. Hence, whileBudhcame to signifydivinationandwisdom,Budha, its professor, did adivineandwise man; andTuath, being only a modification of the former epithet,Tuathais the corresponding transmutation of the latter.
Tuatha, therefore, signifiesmagicians;[267]and so we have thefirstcomponent ofTuath-de-danaanselucidated. Thesecondrequires noŒdipusto solve it,Debeing but the vernacular term whereby was expressed theDeity; and as I have previously established the import ofDanaansto have beenAlmoners, it follows that the aggregate tenour of this religious-compound-denomination isthe Magician-god-almoners, or the Almoner-magicians of the Deity.
As fromBudhwas formedFiodh, so from Fiodh arose Fidhius; and as I have before shown thatHerculesandDeuswere synonymous terms, and both personifications of theSun, so, accordingly, we find that thissymbolicaladjunct was reciprocally appropriated to one as to the other.
I dwell upon those terms with the more impressive force, because thatthe spirit of no one of themhas ever before been developed.Me Deus Fidhius, andMe Hercules Fidhius, we where taught at school to consider as appeals to theGod of Truth, and theHercules of Honour. Most assuredly those virtues are comprehended under theradixof the greatmysteriousOriginal; but the dictionaries and lexicons that gave us those significations knew no more of what thatOriginalwas than they did of the connection between soul and body.
DeusFidhius, then, means God theBudha, and as such theAll-wise, theAll-sacred, theAll-amiable, and theAll-hospitable; andHerculesFidhius, that is,Herculesthe Budha, is, in sense and meaning, exactly the same.
The Latin wordFides, and the EnglishFaith, are but direct emanations from the same communion. A thousand other analogies must suggest themselves now in consequence. In a word, if you go through the circle of naturalreligionand artificialscience,—if you analyse the vocabulary of conventionaltasteand of modish etiquette, you will find theconstituent particlesof all the leading outlines resolve themselves into thephysicalsymbolisation of the radical Budh.
What inference, I ask my reader, would he draw from the above facts? Unquestionably that at theoutset of social life, mankind at large had used but one lingual conversation; and as theIrishis the only language in which are traced the germs of all the divergingradii,—nay, as it is thefocusin which all amicably meet,—it follows inevitably that it must have been the universal language of the first human cultivators—the nursery of letters, and the cradle of revelation.
“How charming is divine Philosophy!Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose,But musical as is Apollo’s lute,And a perpetual feast of nectared sweetsWhere no crude surfeit reigns.”