With regard to the etymology of the word, its root _agal_ is declared to be doubtful, Furst taking it to mean _to run_, _to hasten_, _to leap_, and Gesenius suggesting that its primary signification in the Ethiopic, "_egel_ denoting, like golem, something _rolled_ or _wrapped together_, an _unformed ma.s.s_; and hence _embryo_, _foetus_, and also _the young_, as just born and still unshapen."

It is inferred from this, supposing it to be correct, that the primary idea of this and kindred roots, is that of roundness, so that _egel_ may readily mean any rounded figure, such as a globe, cylinder, or cone.

"Adopting this," says Dr. Beke,--"a cone, as the true meaning of the Hebrew word in the text, the sense of the transaction recorded will be, that Moses having delayed to come down from the Mount, the Israelites, fearing that he was lost, and looking on the Eternal as their true deliverer and leader, required Aaron to make for them Elohim--that is to say, a visible similitude or symbol of their G.o.d who had brought them up out of the land of Mitzraim. Aaron accordingly made for them a golden _cone_, as an image of the flame of fire seen by Moses in the burning bush, and of the fire in which the Eternal had descended upon Sinai, this being the only visible form in which the Almighty had been manifested. Of such a representation or symbol, a sensuous people like the Israelites might without inconsistency say, 'This is thy G.o.d, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Mitzraim;' at the same time that Aaron, after having built an altar before it, could make proclamation and say, 'To-morrow is the feast to the Eternal,' that is to say, to the invisible G.o.d, whose _eidolon_ or visible image this _egel_ was."

It is admitted by the advocates of this theory that there are certain things in the English version which appear adverse to it. For instance, it is said that all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron; and he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf, from which it might be inferred, it is said, that the idol was first roughly moulded and cast by the founder, and then finished by the sculptor.

It is urged however, that it is generally admitted by scholars that the original does not warrant this rendering, the words "after he had," which are not in the text, having been added for the purpose of making sense of the pa.s.sage, which, if translated literally, would read, "He formed it with a graving tool, and made it a golden calf," a statement, says Dr.

Beke, which in spite of all the efforts made to explain it, is inconsistent with the rest of the narrative, which repeatedly says, in express terms, that the idol was a molten image.

In order to get rid of this difficulty, several learned commentators have interpreted the word _hhereth_ (graving-tool) as meaning like _hharith_, a bag, pocket, or purse, causing the pa.s.sage to read, "He received them at their hands, and put it (the gold) into a bag, and made it a golden calf."

Dr. Beke thinks this untenable on the ground that as Aaron must necessarily have collected the golden earrings together before casting them into the fire, it is hardly likely that express mention would be made of so trivial a circ.u.mstance as that of his putting them into a bag merely for the purpose of immediately taking them out again.

The root _hharath_, according to Gesenius, has the meaning of to cut in, to engrave; and one of the significations of the kindred root _pharatz_ is to cut to a point, to make pointed. "Hharithim, the plural of hhereth, is said to mean purses, bags for money, so called from their long and round shape, perhaps like an inverted cone; whence it is that Bochart and others acquired their notion that Aaron put the golden earrings of the Israelites into a bag."[15]

Dr. Beke remarks:--"If the word _hhereth_ signifies a bag, on account of its resemblance to an inverted cone, it may equally signify any other similarly-shaped receptacle or vessel, such as a conical fire-pot or crucible; and if the golden earrings were melted in such a vessel, the molten metal, when cool, would of course have acquired therefrom its long and round form, like an inverted cone, which is precisely the shape of the _egel_ made by Aaron, on the a.s.sumption that this was intended to represent the flame of fire. Consequently, we may now read the pa.s.sage in question literally, and without the slightest violence of construction, as follows: 'And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hands, and placed it (the gold) in a crucible, and made it a molten cone;'

this cone having taken the long and rounded form of the crucible in which it was melted and left to cool."

An argument in favour of this reading is certainly supplied by Exodus x.x.xii. 24, where Aaron is represented as saying to Moses, when trying to excuse his action, "I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf" [or cone?]. It is contended that "the whole tenour of the narrative goes to show that the operation of making the idol for the children of Israel to worship must have been a most simple, and, at the same time, a very expeditious one, such as the melting of the gold in a crucible would be, but which the moulding and casting of the figure of a calf, however roughly modelled and executed, could not possibly have been."

This cone or phallic theory met with a by no means ready reception by Jewish scholars; it had not been broached many days before it was energetically attacked and its destruction sought both by ridicule and argument. It has been admitted, however, that philologically there is something in it, more even, says Dr. Benisch, than its advocate Dr. Beke has made out. The former goes so far as to state that its root, not only in Hebrew, but also in Chaldee and Arabic, primarily designates roundness; and secondarily, that which is the consequence of a round shape, facility of being rolled, speed, and conveyance; consequently, that it may therefore be safely concluded that it would be in Hebrew a very suitable designation for a cone. "Moreover, the same root in the same signification is also found in some of the Aryan languages. Compare the German 'kugel'

(ball) and 'kegel' (cone)."

The chief objection lies in the fact that there are various pa.s.sages in the Scriptures where the word occurs, whose contexts clearly show that the idea intended was that of a living creature, and that the unbroken usage of language, from the author of Genesis to that of Chronicles, shows that the term had never changed its signification, viz.: that of calf, bullock, or heifer. In Levit. ix. 2, 3, 8; 1 Sam. xxviii. 26; Ps. xxix. 6; Isa. xi.

6; Isa. xxvii. 10; Mic. vi. 6, for instance, there can be no mistake that the reference is to the living animal, and a reference to the Hebrew concordance shows that the term, inclusive of the feminine (heifer), occurs fifty-one times in the Bible, in twenty-nine cases of which the word indisputably means a living creature. Dr. Benisch therefore asks, "Is it admissible that one and the same writer (for instance, the Deuteronomist) should have used four times this word in the sense of heifer (xxii. 4 and 6; xxi. 3), and once in that of cone (ix. 16) without implying by some adjective, or some turn of language, that the word is a h.o.m.onyme? Or that Hosea, in x. 11, should clearly employ it in the sense of heifer, and, in viii. 5, in that of cone? A glance at the concordance will show that, in every one of the more important books, the word in question occurs most clearly in the sense of calf, and never in a pa.s.sage which should render a different translation inadmissible. On what ground, therefore, can it be maintained that, in the days of the author of the 106th Psalm, the supposed original meaning of cone had been forgotten, and that of calf subst.i.tuted?"

The reply to the objection that one and the same word is not likely to have been used by the same or contemporaneous writers in two different senses, and that the word has a uniform traditional interpretation, is that in the Hebrew, as in the English, considerable ambiguity occurs, and that the same word sometimes has two meanings of the most distinct and irreconcilable character. As regards the second objection, says Dr. Beke, which is based on the unbroken chain of tradition for about two thousand years, it can only hold good on the a.s.sumption that the originators of the tradition were infallible. If not, an error, whether committed intentionally or unintentionally in the first instance, does not become a truth by dint of repet.i.tion; any more than truth can become error by being as persistently rejected. The Doctor contends that when the Jews became intimately connected with Egypt, and witnessed there the adoration of the sacred bull Apis, they fell into the error of regarding as a golden calf the _egel_, or conical representation of the flame of fire, which their forefathers, and after them the Ten Tribes, had worshipped as the similitude of the Eternal, but of which they themselves, as Jews, had lost the signification. If this was the case, it is only natural that the error should have been maintained traditionally until pointed out.

So stands the argument with regard to the theory of its being a golden cone, and not the figure of a calf that Aaron made out of the people's ornaments, and the worship of which so naturally provoked the wrath of Moses. There is much to be said in its favour, though not enough, perhaps, to make it conclusive. The propounder of it expressed his regret that he was under the necessity of protesting against the allegation that he had imputed to the Israelites what he calls the obscene phallic worship. "Most expressly," he says, "did I say that the molten golden image made by Aaron at Mount Sinai was a plain conical figure, intended to represent the G.o.d who had delivered the people from their bondage in the land of Mitzraim, in the form in which alone He had been manifested to them and to their inspired leader and legislator, namely that of the flame of fire." This is perfectly true, but those who are intimately acquainted with the phallic faiths of the world will find it difficult to disa.s.sociate the conical form of idol from those representations of the human physical organ which have been found as objects of adoration in so many parts of both the eastern and western hemispheres.

Supposing the philological argument to possess any weight--and that it does has been admitted even by those who regret the cone theory,--there are other circ.u.mstances which certainly may be adduced in confirmation thereof. For instance, the word _cheret_ translated graving-tool, may mean also a mould. Again, it does not appear at all likely that the quant.i.ty of gold supplied by the ear-rings of the people would be sufficient to make a solid calf of the size. True, it may have been manufactured of some other material and covered with gold; but the easier solution of the difficulty certainly seems that which suggests that Aaron took these ornaments and melted them in a crucible of the ordinary form, afterwards turning out therefrom, when cold, the golden cone to which the people rendered idolatrous worship.

The whole subject is surrounded with difficulty, and men of equal learning and ability have taken opposite sides in the discussion, supporting and refuting in turn. Pa.s.sing over the dispute as to whether Aaron simply received the ear-rings in a bag or whether he graved them with an engraving tool,--the first warmly argued by Bochart, and the latter by Le Clerc--a dispute we can never settle owing to the remarkable ambiguity of the language, we may briefly notice the question, supposing it was a calf made by Aaron, what induced and determined the choice of such a figure?

Nor must it be supposed that _here_ we are upon undebatable ground; on the contrary, the same divergence of opinion prevails as with respect to the previous question. Fr. Moncaeus said that Aaron got his idea on the mountain, where he was once admitted with Moses; and on another occasion with Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders. This writer and others tell us that G.o.d appeared exalted on a cherub which had the form of an ox.

Patrick says that Aaron seems to him to have chosen an ox to be the symbol of the Divine presence, in hope that people would never be so sottish as to worship it, but only be put in mind by it of the Divine power, which was hereby represented,--an ox's head being anciently an emblem of strength, and horns a common sign of kingly power. He contends that the design was simply to furnish a hieroglyphic of the energy and power of G.o.d.

The usual explanation is that Aaron chose a calf because that animal was worshipped in Egypt. That the Israelites were tainted with Egyptian idolatry is plain from Joshua's exhortation:--"Now therefore, fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the G.o.ds which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and serve ye the Lord" (Josh, xxiv., 14). Also Ezekiel xx., 7 and 8:--"They did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt."

There is no deficiency of evidence respecting the worship of the ox in Egypt. Strabo says one was kept at Memphis, which was regarded as a divinity. Pliny repeats the story and says that the Egyptians called this ox Apis, and that it had two kinds of temples, the entrance to one being most pleasant, to the other frightful. Herodotus says of this idol:--"Apis or Epatus, is a calf from a cow which never produced but one, and this could only have been by a clap of thunder. The calf denominated Apis, has certain marks by which it may be known. It is all over black, excepting one square mark; on its back is the figure of an eagle, and on its tongue that of a beetle."

It certainly seems tolerably clear that the worship of the calf came out of Egypt, but so much difficulty surrounds the question of whether the Egyptian worship preceded or followed that of Aaron's calf, that we are inclined to endorse the opinion of a modern writer, and say we suspend our judgment respecting the precise motive which determined Aaron to set up a calf as the object of Israelitish worship, and conclude that had he offered any other object of worship, whether some other animal, or any plant, or a star, or any other production of nature, the learned would have asked, "Why this rather than some other?" Many would have been the divisions of opinion on the question; each one would have found in antiquity, and in the nature of the case, probabilities to support his own sentiment, and perhaps have exalted them into demonstrations.[16]

The mention of a cone in connection with the matter now under consideration, and as the form of Aaron's idol, suggests other examples of the same figure which are said to have had a phallic form. The Paphian Venus, for instance, was represented by a conical stone: of which Tacitus thus speaks:--"The statue of the G.o.ddess bears no resemblance to the human form. It is round throughout, broad at one end, and gradually tapering to a narrow span at the other, like a goat; the reason of this is not ascertained. The cause is stated by Philostratus to be symbolic."

Lajard (_Recherches sur la Cult de Venus_) says:--"In all Cyrian coins, from Augustus to Macrinus, may be seen in the place where we should antic.i.p.ate to find a statue of the G.o.ddess, the form of a conical stone.

The same is placed between two cypresses under the portico of the temple of Astarte, in a medal of aelia Capitolina; but in this instance the cone is crowned. In another medal, struck by the elder Philip, Venus is represented between two Genii, each of whom stands upon a cone or pillar with a rounded top. There is reason to believe that at Paphos images of the conical stone were made and sold as largely as were effigies of Diana of the Ephesians.

"Medals and engraved stones demonstrate that the hieratic prescriptions required that all those hills which were consecrated to Jupiter should be represented in a conical form. At Sicony, Jupiter was adored under the form of a pyramid."

PRAYER TO PRIAPUS.

Delight of Bacchus, Guardian of the groves, The kind restorer of decaying loves: Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee implore, Whose maids thy pow'r in wanton rites adore: Joy of the Dryads, with propitious care, Attend my wishes, and indulge my pray'r.

My guiltless hands with blood I never stain'd, Or sacrilegiously the G.o.d's prophan'd: Thus low I bow, restoring blessings send, I did not thee with my whole self offend.

Who sins through weakness, is less guilty thought; Indulge my crime, and spare a venial fault.

On me when fate shall smiling gifts bestow, I'll (not ungrateful) to your G.o.d-head bow; A sucking pig I'll offer to thy shrine, And sacred bowls brimful of generous wine; A destin'd goat shall on thy altar lie, And the horn'd parent of my flock shall die; Then thrice thy frantic vot'ries shall around Thy temple dance, with smiling garlands crown'd, And most devoutly drunk, thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.

HYMN TO PRIAPUS.

Bacchus and Nymphs delight O mighty G.o.d!

Whom Cynthia gave to rule the blooming wood.

Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee adore, And Lydians in loose flowing dress implore, And raise devoted temples to thy pow'r.

Thou Dryad's Joy, and Bacchus' Guardian, hear My conscious prayer with attentive ear.

My hands with guiltless blood I never stain'd, Nor yet the temples of the G.o.ds prophan'd.

Restore my strength, and l.u.s.ty vigour send, My trembling nerves like pliant oziers bend.

Who sins through weakness, is not guilty thought, No equal power can punish such a fault.

A wanton goat shall on your altars die, And spicy smoke in curls ascend the sky.

A pig thy floors with sacred blood shall stain, And round the awful fire and holy flame, Thrice shall thy priests, with youth and garlands crown'd, In pious drunkenness thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.

A TRANSLATION OUT OF THE PRIAPEIA.

THE COMPLAINT OF PRIAPUS FOR BEING VEILED.

The Almighty's Image, of his shape afraid, And hide the n.o.blest part e'er nature made, Which G.o.d alone succeeds in his creating trade.

The Fall this fig-leav'd modesty began, To punish woman, by obscuring man; Before, where'er his stately Cedar moved She saw, ador'd and kiss'd the thing she loved.

Why do the G.o.ds their several signs disclose, Almighty Jove his Thunder-bolt expose, Neptune his Trident, Mars his Buckler shew, Pallas her spear to each beholder's view, And poor Priapus be alone confin'd T'obscure the women's G.o.d, and parent of mankind?

Since free-born brutes their liberty obtain, Long hast thou journey-worked for souls in vain, Storm the Pantheon, and demand thy right, For on this weapon 'tis depends the fight.--PETRONIUS.

CHAPTER VI.

_Circ.u.mcision, male and female, in various countries and ages._

Circ.u.mcision is one of the most ancient religious rites with which we are acquainted, and, as practised in some countries, there seems reason to suppose that it was of a phallic character. "It can scarcely be doubted,"

says one writer, "that it was a sacrifice to the awful power upon whom the fruit of the womb depended, and having once fixed itself in the minds of the people, neither priest nor prophet could eradicate it. All that these could do was to spiritualise it into a symbol of devotion to a high religious ideal." Bonwick says: "Though a.s.sociated with sun worship by some, circ.u.mcision may be accepted as a rite of s.e.x worship." Ptolemy's _Tetrabiblos_, speaking of the neighbouring nations as far as India, says: "Many of them practise divination, and devote their genitals to their divinities."

It is not possible, perhaps, to speak with any degree of certainty about the origin of this rite; the enquiry carries the student so far back in history, that the mind gets lost in the mists of the past. It is regarded by some as a custom essentially Jewish, but this is altogether wrong; it was extensively practised in Egypt, also by the tribes inhabiting the more southern parts of Africa; in Asia, the Afghans and the Tamils had it, and it has been found in various parts of America, and amongst the Fijians and Australians. It has been argued, and with considerable plausibility, that it existed long before writing was known, and from the fact of its having been employed by the New Hollanders, its great antiquity may be inferred with certainty.

It has been noticed by historians that sometimes a nation will pledge itself to a corporal offering of such a kind, that every member shall constantly bear about its mark on himself, and so make his personal appearance or condition a perpetual witness for the special religion whose vows he has undertaken. Thus several Arabian tribes living not far from the Holy Land, adopted the custom, as a sign of their special religion (or, as Herodotus says, "after the example of their G.o.d"), of shaving the hair of their heads in an extraordinary fashion, viz., either on the crown of the head or towards the temples, or else of disfiguring a portion of the beard. Others branded or tattooed the symbol of a particular G.o.d on the skin, on the forehead, the arm, the hand. Israel, too, adopted from early times a custom which attained the highest sanct.i.ty in its midst, where no jest, however trifling, could be uttered on the subject, but which was essentially of a similar nature to those we have just mentioned.

This was circ.u.mcision.[17] It was this special character which no doubt gave rise to the idea so common amongst the uninformed that it was a Jewish rite.

Herodotus and Philo Judaeus have related that it prevailed to a great extent among the Egyptians and Ethiopians. The former historian says it was so ancient among each people that there was no determining which of them borrowed it from the other. Among the Egyptians he says it was inst.i.tuted from the beginning. Shuckford says that by this he could not mean from the first rise or original of that nation, but that it was so early among them that the heathen writers had no account of its origin.

When anything appeared to them to be thus ancient, they p.r.o.nounced it to be from the beginning. Herodotus clearly meant this, because we find him questioning whether the Egyptians learnt circ.u.mcision from the Ethiopians, or the Ethiopians from the Egyptians, and he leaves the question undecided, merely concluding that it was a very ancient rite. If by the expression "from the beginning," he had meant that it was originated by the Egyptians, there would not have been this indecision: and it is known that among heathen writers to say a thing was "from the beginning," was equivalent to the other saying that it was very anciently practised.