law, is as distinct from the stauros or pole of Osiris as is the Vritra who opposes Indra from the subtle serpent which tempts the woman into transgression. But in both cases the terms applied to the one are, according to the mind of later thinkers, blended with the language used of the other, and on the subject of the cross both ideas have notably converged. But the cross of shame and the cross of life are images which can be traced back to times long preceding the dawn of Christianity. In his chapter on the Legend of the Cross Mr. Gould, Curious Myths, ii. 79, gives a drawing of a large cross found in the pavement of a Gallo-Roman palace at Pont d'Oli, near Pau. In the centre of this cross is a figure of the water-god, with his trident (another form of the rod of Hermes) surrounded by figures of fishes (the vesica piscis or Yoni). Mr. Gould also gives engravings of a large number of crosses of various shapes which are certainly not Christian, and then expresses his belief that the cross was a Gaulish sign. Doubtless it was, but Mr. Gould has himself shown that it was also Egyptian. It is unfortunate that he should have looked on this subject as one which might be suitably dealt with by means of conjectures, assumptions, and arbitrary conclusions. He needed not to enter upon it at all; but having done so, he was bound to deal with the facts. Among the facts which he notices are the cross-shaped hammer or fylfot of Thor, and the cross of Serapis or Osiris: he also mentions a coin of Byblos on which Astartê is represented as holding 'a long staff surmounted by a cross and resting her foot on the prow of a galley,' (96), and an inscription to Hermes Chthonios in Thessaly accompanied by a Calvary cross' (98). Having collected these with many other specimens, Mr. Gould contents himself in one page (94) with saying that no one knows and probably no one ever will know what originated the use of this sign' (the cross with the ovoid handle) ‘and gave it such significance.' Elsewhere (105), he asserts that the sign had a religious signification, and that all these crosses (108), were symbols of the Rain-god. We can but ask for the reason; but from Mr. Gould we get only the assurance that he sees no difficulty in believing that the Cross, as a sacred sign, formed a portion of the primeval religion, and that trust in the cross was a part of the ancient faith which taught men to believe in a Trinity and in the other dogmas which Mr. Gladstone declares to have been included in the revelation made to Adam on the Fall. The difficulty of accepting Mr. Gould's solution of the matter lies in the absurdities into which the theory must lead everyone who adopts it. To assert baldly that the phallic hypothesis is untenable, is unphilosophical; to say that he has reasons which he cannot give in a work addressed to general readers is to assign an excellent

reason for not treating the subject at all, but certainly not for dismissing the question with the dictum that he has examined the evidence for a given hypothesis and found it wanting. Every fact mentioned by Mr. Gould through the article points to the very conclusion which he curtly pronounces untenable.

In an illustration inserted in his Tales of the West Highlands, iii. 339, Mr. Campbell has 'copied all the fish which are figured on the Sculptured Stones of Scotland, together with some of the characteristic ornaments which accompany them.' Among these the phallic serpent and the budding thyrsos are conspicuous enough.

I have confined myself in this chapter to the citation of facts which few probably will dispute; I am not bound, therefore, to examine theories which do not take into account all these facts or their bearings on each other. But I refer gladly to an article in the 'Edinburgh Review,' January 1870, on the Pre-Christian Cross, as bringing together a mass of facts, every one of which points in the direction indicated by the earliest form of the emblems under discussion. Of the reviewer's theory as to their origin and meaning, I can but say that it is a theory resting on assumption. It may be true, but until it is proved, it cannot satisfy those who object to having one set of facts put aside in order to explain another. The reviewer's conclusion is that the worship of the cross or tree was suggested by the date-palm, the prince of vegetation,' and asks 'what better picture or more significant characters could have been selected for the purpose than a circle and a cross; the one to denote a region of absolute purity and perpetual felicity; the other those four perennial streams that divided and watered the several quarters of it?' I confess myself quite unable to see either the force of this, or any connexion between the symbols and the ideas; but on the other hand we have the indisputable facts that the earliest form of the cross (a word which has acquired a meaning so equivocal as to mislead almost every one who uses it) is simply the pole or the Tau, and that with this stauros or pole, the ring, or the boat-shaped sign, has from the first been associated in every country. These are everywhere the earliest forms, and for these alone we must in the first instance account. To go off to later developements in which the sign has assumed something like the form of the date-palm is a mere hysteron-proteron. When it has been disproved that the Linga and Yoni have in every country been regarded as the emblems of vitality and reproduction, and as such have been used everywhere to denote the vivifying power of the sun, and therefore adopted as emblems in his worship, we may go on to test the value of theories which, until this is done, have no base to stand on. I feel confident

BB 2

that on further consideration the reviewer will see that the facts which he has brought together do not support his conclusions.

I avail myself, further, of this opportunity of referring to a suggestive paper by Mr. N. G. Batt, on the Corruption of Christianity by Paganism, Contemporary Review, March 1870, and of quoting his remarks on the phallic character of the columns used by the 'pillared saints.'

'One of the most extraordinary accommodations of heathen ideas to corrupt Christianity is the now obsolete form of asceticism, introduced by Simon Stylites in the neighbourhood of Antioch, and very popular during the last age of the Roman empire. We are told by Lucian in his interesting treatise on the Syrian goddess, that in Hierapolis on the Euphrates there stood a renowned temple of the Assyrian Juno, in front of which two columns, each thirty cubits high, were set up in the shape of phalli. "Now it was the annual custom for a priest to climb to the top of one of these pillars by the aid of a cord drawn round the column and his own body, in the same manner as the gatherers of dates ascend their palm-trees. And the reason of his going up is this, that most people think that from this height he converses with the gods, and asks blessings for all Syria. He remains there seven days, drawing up his food by a rope. The pilgrims bring some gold and silver, and others brass money, which they lay down before him, while another priest repeats their names to him, upon which he prays for each offerer by name, ringing a bell as he does so. He never sleeps, for if he did it is said that a scorpion would bite him. Moreover, this temple exhales a most delightful perfume like that of Arabia, which never leaves the garments of such as approach it." Now with the classical author's account compare the narrative of Evagrius four centuries later. "Simon of holy memory originated (?) the contrivance of stationing himself on the top of a column forty cubits high, where, placed between earth and heaven, he holds communion with God, and unites in praises with the angels, from earth offering his intercessions on behalf of men, and from heaven drawing down upon them the divine favour."

In other words, the so-called Christian practice was indubitably heathen; and the heathen rite was indubitably phallic.

INDEX.