SUB-SECTION I.
The original of that mother, so widely worshipped, there is reason to
believe, was Semiramis, * already referred to, who, it is well known,
was worshipped by the Babylonians, * and other eastern nations, * and
that under the name of Rhea, * the great Goddess "Mother."
It was from the son, however, that she derived all her glory and her
claims to deification. That son, though represented as a child in his
mother's arms, was a person of great stature and immense bodily powers,
as well as most fascinating manners. In Scripture he is referred to
(Ezek. viii. 14) under the name of Tammuz, but he is commonly known
among classical writers under the name of Bacchus, that is, "The
Lamented one." * To the ordinary reader
The name of Bacchus suggests nothing more than revelry and
drunkenness, but it is now well known, that amid all the abominations
that attended his orgies, their grand design was professedly "the
purification of souls," * and that from the guild and
defilement of sin. This lamented one, exhibited and adored as a little
child in his mother's arms, seems, in point of fact, to have been the
husband of Semiramis, whose name, Ninus, by which he is commonly known
in classical history, literally signified "The Son."
* As Semiramis, the wife, was worshipped as Rhea, whose grand
distinguishing character was that of the great goddess "Mother,"
* the conjunction with her of her husband, under the name of Ninus, or "The
Son," was sufficient to originate the peculiar worship of the
"Mother and Son," so extensively diffused among the
nations of antiquity; and this, no doubt, is the explanation of the fact
which has so much puzzled the inquires into ancient history, that Ninus
is sometimes called the husband, and sometimes the son of Semiramis. *
This also accounts for the origin of the very same confusion of
relationship between Isis and Osiris, the mother and child of the
Egyptians; for as Bunsen shows, Osiris was represented in Egypt as at
once the son and husband of his mother; and actually bore, as one of his
titles of dignity and honour, the name "Husband of the
Mother." *
This still further casts light on the fact already noticed, that the
Indian God Iswara is represented as a babe at the breast of his own wife
Isi, or Parvati.
Now, this Ninus, or "Son," borne in the arms of
the Babylonian Madonna, is so described as very clearly to identify him
with Nimrod. "Ninus, king of the Assyrians," * says
Trogus Pompeius, epitomised by Justin, "first of all changed
the contented moderation of the ancient manners, incited by a new
passion, the desire of conquest. He was the first who carried on war
against his neighbours, and he conquered all nations from Assyria to
Lybia, as they were yet unacquainted with the arts of war." *
This account points directly to Nimrod, and can apply to no other. The
account of Diodorus Siculus entirely agrees with it, and adds another
trait that goes still further to determine the identity. That account is
as follows:--"Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian
kings," mentioned in history, performed great actions. Being
naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory that results
from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave
and vigorous like himself, trained them up a long time in laborious
exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the
fatigues of war, and to "face dangers with intrepidity." *
As Diodorus makes Ninus "the most ancient of the Assyrian
kings," and represents him as beginning those wars which
raised his power to an extraordinary height by bringing the people of
Babylonia under subjection to him, while as yet the city of Babylon was
not in existence, this shows that he occupied the very position of
Nimrod, of whom the Scriptural account is, that he first "began
to be mighty on the earth," and that the "beginning
of his kingdom was Babylon." As the Babel builders, when their
speech was confounded, were scattered abroad on the face of the earth,
and therefore deserted both the city and the tower which they had
commenced to build, Babylon as a city, could not properly be said to
exist till Nimrod, by establishing his power there, made it the
foundation and starting-point of his greatness. In this respect, then,
the story of Ninus and of Nimrod exactly harmonise. The way, too, in
which Ninus gained his power is the very way in which Nimrod erected
his. There can be no doubt that it was by inuring his followers to the
toils and dangers of the chase, that he gradually formed them to the use
of arms, and so prepared them for aiding him in establishing his
dominions; just as Ninus, by training his companions for a long time "in
laborious exercises and hardships," qualified them for making
him the first of the Assyrian kings.
The conclusions deducted from these testimonies of ancient history
are greatly strengthened by many additional considerations. In Gen. x.
11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood,
casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the
authorised version, runs thus:--"Out of that land went fourth
Asshur, and builded Nineveh." This speaks of it as something
remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the
human race in general went forth from the same land. It goes upon the
supposition that Asshur had some sort of divine right to that land, and
that he had been, in a manner, expelled from it by Nimrod, while no
divine right is elsewhere hinted at in the context, or seems capable of
proof. Moreover, it represents Asshur as setting up in the IMMEDIATE
NEIGHBOURHOOD of Nimrod as mighty a kingdom as Nimrod himself, Asshur
building four cities, one of which is emphatically said to have been "great"
(ver. 12); while Nimrod, on this interpretation, built just the same
number of cities, of which none is specially characterised as "great."
Now, it is in the last degree improbable that Nimrod would have quietly
borne so mighty a rival so near him. To obviate such difficulties as
these, it has been proposed to render the words, "out of that
land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria." But
then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original
should have been "Ashurah," with the sign of motion
to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such
sign of motion affixed. I am persuaded that the whole perplexity that
commentators have hitherto felt in considering this passage, his arisen
from supposing that there is a proper name in the passage, where in
reality no proper name exists. Asshur is the passive participle of a
verb, which, in its Chaldee sense, signifies "to make
strong," * and, consequently, signifies "being
strengthened," or "made strong." Read thus,
the whole passage is natural and easy (ver. 10), "And the
beginning of his (Nimrod's) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh." A beginning naturally implies something to succeed,
and here we find it (ver.11); "Out of that land he went forth,
being made strong, or when he had been made strong (Ashur), and builded
Nineveh," etc. Now, this exactly agrees with the statement in
the ancient history of Justin: "Ninus strengthened the
greatness of his acquired dominion by continued possession. Having
subdued, therefore, his neighbours, when, by an accession of forces,
being still further strengthened, he went forth against other tribes,
and every new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the
peoples of the East." * Thus, then, Nimrod, or Ninus, was the
builder of Nineveh; and the origin of the name of that city, as "the
habitation of Ninus," is accounted for, * and light is
thereby, at the same time, cast on the fact, that the name of the chief
part of the ruins of Nineveh is Nimroud at this day. *
Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption
explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient
history greatly confirms the truth of the assumption itself. Ninus is
said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been
the founder of Babylon. If Ninus was in reality the first king of
Babylon, how could Belus or Bel, his father, be said to be the founder
of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we consider who was
Bel, and what we can trace of his doings. If Ninus was Nimrod, who was
the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for "Cush begat
Nimrod" (Gen. x. 8); and Cush is generally represented as
having been a ringleader in the great apostacy. * But again, Cush, as
the son of Ham, was Hermes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian
synonym for the "son of Ham." * Now, Hermes was the
great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans
as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods.
The distinguished Gesenius identifies him with the Babylonian Nebo, as
the prophetic god; and a statement of Hyginus shows that he was known as
the grand agent in that movement which produced the division of tongues.
His words are these: "For many ages men lived under the
government of Jove {evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of
the Hebrews}, without cities and without laws, and all speaking one
language. But after that Mercury interpreted the speeches of men (whence
an interpreter is called Hermeneutes), the same individual distributed
the nations. Then discord began." * Here there is a manifest
enigma. How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the
speeches of mankind when they "all spake one language"?
To find out the meaning of this, we must go to the language of the
Mysteries. Peresh, in Chaldee, signifies "to interpret;"
but was pronounced by old Egyptians and by Greeks, and often by the
Chaldees themselves, in the same way as "Peres," to "divide."
Mercury, then, or Hermes, or Cush, "the son of Ham,"
was the "DIVIDER of the speeches of men." He, it
would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for building the great
city and tower of Babel; and, as the well-known title of Hermes,--"the
interpreter of the gods," would indicate, had encouraged them,
in the name of God, to proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so
had caused the language of men to be divided, and themselves to be
scattered abroad on the face of the earth. Now look at the name of Belus
or Bel, given to the father of Ninus, or Nimrod, in connection with
this. While the Greek name Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of
the Chaldees, these were nevertheless two entirely distinct titles.
These titles were both alike often given to the same god, but they had
totally different meanings. Baal, as we have already seen, signified
"The Lord;" but Bel signified "The
Confounder." When, then, we read that Belus, the father of
Ninus, was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt, in
what sense it was that the title of Belus was given to him? It must have
been in the sense of Bel the "Confounder." And to
this meaning of the name of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct
allusion in Jeremiah i. 2, where it is said "Bel is
confounded," that is, "The Confounder is brought to
confusion." That Cush was known to Pagan antiquity under the
very character of Bel, "The Confounder," a statement
of Ovid very clearly proves. The statement to which I refer is that in
which Janus "the god of gods," * from whom all the
other gods had their origin, * is made to say of himself: "The
ancients....called me Chaos." * Now, first this decisively
shows that Chaos was known
not merely as a state of confusion, but as the "god of
Confusion." But, secondly, who that is at all acquainted with
the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one
of the established forms of the name of Chus or Cush? * Then, look at
the symbol of Janus * , whom "the ancients called Chaos," and
it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of Cush, when he
is identified with Bel, "The Confounder." That symbol
is a club; and the name of "a club" in Chaldee comes
from the very word which signifies "to break in pieces, or
scatter abroad." * He who caused the confusion of tongues was
he who "broke" the previously united earth (Gen. xi.
1) "in pieces," and "scattered"
the fragments abroad. How significant, then, as a symbol, is the club,
as commemorating the work of Cush, as Bel, the
"Confounder"? And that significance will be all the more
apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of Gen. xi. 9, and finds
that the very word from which a club derives its name is that which is
employed when it is said, that in consequence of the confusion of
tongues, the children of men were "scattered abroad on the face
of all the earth." * The word there used for scattering abroad
is Hephaitz, * which, in the Greek form becomes Hephaizt, and hence the
origin of the well-known but little understood name of Hephaistos, as
applied to Vulcan, "The father of the gods." *
Hephaistos is the name of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as "The
Scatterer abroad," as Bel is the name of the same individual
as the "Confounder of tongues." Here, then, the
reader may see the real origin of Vulcan's Hammer, which is just another
name for the club of Janus or Chaos, "The god of
Confusion;" and to this, as breaking the earth in pieces,
there is a covert allusion in Jer. i. 23, where Babylon, as identified
with its primeval god, is thus apostrophised: "How is the
hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken!" Now, as the
tower-building was the first act of open rebellion after the flood, and
Cush, as Bel, was the ringleader in it, he was, of course, the first to
whom the name Merodach, "The great Rebel," * must
have been given, and, therefore, according to the usual parallelism of
the prophetic language, we find both names of the Babylonian god
referred to together, when the judgment on Babylon is predicted: "Bel
is confounded: Merodach is broken in pieces" (Jer.i.2). The
Judgment comes upon the Babylonian god according to what he had done. As
Bel, he had "confounded" the whole earth, therefore
he is "confounded." As Merodach, by the rebellion he
had stirred up, he had "broken" the united world in
pieces; therefore he himself is "broken in pieces."
So much for the historical character of Bel, as identified with Janus
or Chaos, the god of confusion, with his symbolical club. * Proceeding,
then, on these deductions, it is not difficult to see how it might be
said that Bel or Belus, the father of Ninus, founded Babylon, while,
nevertheless, Ninus or Nimrod was properly the builder of it. Now,
though Bel or Cush, as being specially concerned in laying the first
foundations of Babylon, might be looked upon as the first king, as in
some of the copies of "Eusebius's Chronicle" he is
represented, yet it is evident from both sacred history and profane,
that he could never have reigned as king of the Babylonian monarchy,
properly so called; and accordingly, in the Armenian version of the "Chronicle
of Eusebius," which bears the undisputed palm for correctness
and authority, his name is entirely omitted in the list of Assyrian
kings, and that of Ninus stands first, in such terms as exactly
correspond with the Scriptural account of Nimrod. Thus, then, looking at
the fact that Ninus is currently made by antiquity the son of Belus, or
Bel, when we have seen that the historical Bel is Cush, the identity of
Ninus and Nimrod is still further confirmed.
But when we look at what is said of Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, the
evidence receives an additional development. That evidence goes
conclusively to show that the wife of Ninus could be none other than the
wife of Nimrod, and, further, to bring out one of the grand characters
in which Nimrod, when deified, was adored. In Daniel * xi.38, we read of
a god called Ala Mahozine * --i.e., the "god of
fortifications." Who this god of fortifications could be,
commentators have found themselves at a loss to determine. In the
records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been
commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands
forth there with any prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the
existence of a goddess of fortifications, every one knows that there is
the amplest evidence. That goddess is Cybele, who is universally
represented with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on
her head. Why was Rhea or Cybele thus represented? Ovid asks the
question and answers it himself; and the answer is this: The reason he
says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, "because
she first erected them in cities." * The first city in the world
after the flood (from whence the commencement of the world itself was
often dated) that had towers and encompassing walls, was Babylon; and
Ovid himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that
city, who was believed to have "surrounded Babylon with a wall
of brick." * Semiramis, then, the first deified queen of that
city and tower whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have been
the prototype of the goddess who "first made towers in
cities." When we look at the Ephesian Diana, we find evidence to
the very same effect. In general, Diana was depicted as a virgin, and
the patroness of virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different.
She was represented with all the attributes of the Mother of the gods ,
and, as the Mother of the gods, she wore a turreted crown, such as no
one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded of the tower of
Babel. Now this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly
identified with Semiramis. * When, therefore, we remember that Rhea or
Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, was, in point of fact, a Babylonian
goddess, * and that Semiramis, when deified, was worshipped under the
name of Rhea, * there will remain, I think no doubt as to the personal
identity of the "goddess of fortifications."
Now there was no reason to believe that Semiramis alone (though some
have represented the matter so) built the battlements of Babylon. We
have the express testimony of the ancient historian, Megasthenes, as
preserved by Abydenus, that it was "Belus" who "surrounded
Babylon with a wall." * As "Bel," the
Confounder, who began the city and tower of Babel, had to leave both
unfinished, this could not refer to him. It could refer only to his son
Ninus, who inherited his father's title, and who was the first actual
king of the Babylonian empire, and, consequently Nimrod. The real reason
that Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, gained the glory of finishing the
fortifications of Babylon, was, that she came in the esteem of the
ancient idolaters to hold a preponderating position, and have attributed
to her all the different characters that belonged, or were supposed to
belong, to her husband. Having ascertained, then, one of the characters
in which the deified wife was worshipped, we may from that conclude what
was the corresponding character of the deified husband. Layard
distinctly indicates his belief that Rhea or Cybele, the
"tower-crown" goddess, was just the female counterpart of
the "deity presiding over bulwarks or fortresses;" *
and that this deity was Ninus, or Nimrod, we have still further evidence
from what the scattered notices of antiquity say of the first deified
king of Babylon, under a name that identifies him as the husband of
Rhea, the "tower-bearing" goddess. That name is
Kronos or Saturn. * It is well known that Kronos, or Saturn, was Rhea's
husband; but it is not so well known who was Kronos himself. Traced back
to his
original, that divinity is proved to have been the first king of
Babylon. Theophilus of Antioch shows that Kronos in the east was
worshipped under the names of Bel and Bal; * and from Eusebius we learn
that the first of the Assyrian kings, whose name was Belus, was also by
the Assyrians called Kronos. * As the genuine copies of Eusebius do not
admit of any Belus, as an actual king of Assyria, prior to Ninus, king
of the Babylonians, and distinct from him, that shows that Ninus, the
first king of Babylon, was Kronos. But, further, we find that Kronos was
King of the Cyclops, who were his brethren, and who derived that name
from him, * and that the Cyclops were known as "the inventors
of tower-building," * occupied a position exactly
correspondent to that of Rhea, who "first erected (towers) in
cities." If, therefore, Rhea, the wife of Kronos, was the
goddess of fortifications, Kronos or Saturn, the husband of Rhea, that
is, Ninus or Nimrod, the first king of Babylon, must have been
Alamahozin, "the god of fortifications." *
The name Kronos itself goes not a little to confirm the argument.
Kronos signifies "The Horned one." * As a horn is a
well-known Oriental emblem for power or might, Kronos, "The
Horned one," was, according to the mystic system, just a
synonym for the Scriptural epithet applied to Nimrod--viz., Gheber, "The
mighty one" (Gen. x. 8), "He began to be mighty on
the earth." The name Kronos, as the classical reader as well
aware, is applied to Saturn as the "Father of the gods." We
have already had another "father of the gods" brought
under our notice, even Cush in his character of Bel the Confounder, or
Hephaistos, "The Scatterer abroad;" * and it is easy
to understand how, when the deification of mortals began, and the "mighty"
Son of Cush was deified, the father, especially considering the
part which he seems to have had in concocting the whole idolatrous
system, would have to be deified too, and of course, in his character as
the Father of the "Mighty one," and of all the
"immortals" that succeeded him. But, in point of fact, we
shall find, in the course of our inquiry, that Nimrod was the actual
Father of the gods, as being the first of deified mortals; and that,
therefore, it is in exact accordance with historical fact that Kronos,
the Horned, or Mighty one, is, in the classic Pantheon, known by that
title.
The meaning of this name Kronos, "The Horned one,"
as applied to Nimrod, fully explains the origin of the remarkable
symbol, so frequently occurring among the Nineveh sculptures, the
gigantic HORNED man-bull, as representing the great divinities in
Assyria. The same word that signified a bull, signified also a ruler or
prince. * Hence the "Horned bull" signified "The
Mighty Prince." thereby pointing back to the first of those "Mighty
ones," who, under the name of Guebres, Gabrs, or Cabiri,
occupied so conspicuous a place in the ancient world, and to whom the
deified Assyrian monarchs covertly traced back the origin of their
greatness and might. This explains the reason why the Bacchus of the
Greeks was represented as wearing horns, and why he was frequently
addressed by the epithet "Bull-horned," as one of the
high titles of his dignity. * Even in comparatively recent times, Togrul
Begh, the leader of the Seljukian Turks, who came from the neighbourhood
of the Euphrates, was in a similar manner represented with three horns
growing out of his head, as the emblem of his sovereignty . * This,
also, in a remarkable way accounts for the origin of one of the
divinities worshipped by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors under the name
of Zernebogus. This Zernebogus was "the black, malevolent,
ill-omened divinity," * in other words, the exact counterpart
of the popular idea of the Devil, as supposed to be black, and equipped
with horns and hoofs. This name analysed and compared with the
accompanying woodcut , from Layard, * casts a very singular light on the
source from whence has come the popular superstition light on the source
from whence has come the popular superstition in regard to the grand
Adversary. The name Zer-Nebo-Gus is almost pure Chaldee, and seems to
unfold itself as denoting "The seed of the prophet Cush." We
have seen reason already to conclude that, under the name Bel, as
distinguished from Baal, Cush was the great soothsayer or false prophet
worshipped at Babylon. But independent inquirers have been led to the
conclusion that Bel and Nebo were just two different titles for the same
god, and that a prophetic god. Thus does Kitto comment on the words of
Isaiah xlvi. 1: "Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth,"
with reference to the latter name: "The word seems to come from
Nibba, to deliver an oracle, or to prophesy; and hence would mean an
'oracle,' and may thus, as Calmet suggests ('Commentaire Literal,' in
loc.), be no more than another name for Bel himself, or a characterising
epithet applied to him; it being not unusual to repeat the same thing,
in the same verse, in equivalent terms." * "Zer-Nebo-Gus,"
the great "seed of the prophet Cush," was, of
course, Nimrod; for Cush was Nimrod's father. Turn now to Layard, and
see how this land of ours and Assyria are thus brought into intimate
connection. In the woodcut referred to, first we find "the
Assyrian Hercules," * that is "Nimrod the
giant," as he is called in the Septuagint version of Genesis,
without club, spear, or weapons of any kind, attacking a bull. Having
overcome it, he sets the bull's horns on his head, as a trophy of
victory and a symbol of power; and thenceforth the hero is represented,
not only with the horns and hoofs above, but from the middle downwards,
with the legs and cloven feet of the bull. Thus equipped he is
represented as turning next to encounter a lion. This, in all
likelihood, is intended to commemorate some event in the life of him who
first began to be mighty in the chase and in war, and who, according to
all ancient traditions, was remarkable also for bodily power, as being
the leader of the Giants that rebelled against heaven. Now Nimrod, as
the son of Cush, was black, in other words, was a negro. "Can
the Ethiopian change his skin?" is in the original, "Can
the Cushite" do so? Keeping this, then, in mind, it will be
seen that in that figure disentombed from Nineveh, we have both the
prototype of the Anglo-Saxon Zer-Nebo-Gus, "the seed of the
prophet Cush," and the real original of the black Adversary of
mankind, with horns and hoofs. It was in a different character from that
of the Adversary that Nimrod was originally worshipped; but among a
people of a fair complexion, as the Anglo-Saxons, it was inevitable
that, if worshipped at all, it must generally be simply as an object
of fear; and so Kronos, "The Horned one," who wore
the "horns," as the emblem both of his physical might
and sovereign power, has come to be, in popular superstition, the
recognised representative of the Devil.
In many and far-severed countries, horns became the symbols of
sovereign power. The corona or crown, that still encircles the brows of
European monarchs, seems remotely to be derived from the emblem of might
adopted by Kronos, or Saturn, who, according to Pherecydes, was
"the first before all others that ever wore a crown." *
The first regal crown appears to have been only a band, in which the
horns were set. From the idea of power contained in the
"horn," even subordinate rulers seem to have worn a circlet
adorned with a single horn, in token of their derived authority. Bruce,
the Abyssinian traveller gives examples of Abyssinian chiefs thus
decorated , in regard to whom he states that the horn attracted his
particular attention, when he perceived that the governors of provinces
were distinguished by this head-dress. * In the case of sovereign
powers, the royal head-band was adorned sometimes with a double,
sometimes with a triple horn. The double horn had evidently been the
original symbol of power or might on the part of sovereigns; for, on the
Egyptian monuments, the heads of the deified royal personages have
generally no more than the two horns to shadow forth their power. As
sovereignty in Nimrod's case was founded on physical force, so the two
horns of the bull were the symbols of that physical force. And, in
accordance with this, we read in "Sanchuniathon,"
that "Astarte put on her own head a bull's head as the ensign
of royalty." * By-and-by, however, another and a higher idea
come in, and the expression of that idea was seen in the symbol of the
three horns. A cap seems in course of time to have come to be associated
with the regal horns. In Assyria the three-horned cap was one of the "sacred
emblems," * in token that the power connected with it was of
celestial origin,--the three horns evidently pointing at the power of
the trinity. Still, we have indications that the horned band, without
any cap, was anciently the corona or royal crown. The crown borne by the
Hindoo god Vishnu, in his avatar of the Fish, is just an open circle or
band, with three horns standing erect from it, with a knob on the top of
each horn . * All the avators are represented as crowned with a crown
that seems to have been modeled from this, consisting of a coronet with
three points, standing erect from it, in which Sir William Jones
recognises the Ethiopian or Parthian coronet. * The open tiara of Agni,
the Hindoo god of fire, shows in its lower round the double horn, * made
in the very same way as in Assyria, * proving at once the ancient
custom, and whence that custom had come. Instead of the three horns,
three horn-shaped leaves came to be substituted ; * and thus the horned
band gradually passed into the modern coronet or crown with the three
leaves of the fleur-de-lis, or other familiar three-leaved adornings.
Among the Red Indians of America there had evidently been something
entirely analogous to the Babylonian custom of wearing the horns; for,
in the "buffalo dance" there, each of the dancers had his head
arrayed with buffalo's horns; * and it is worthy especial remark, that
the "Satyric dance," * or dance of the Satyrs in
Greece, seems to have been the counterpart of this Red Indian solemnity;
for the satyrs were horned divinities, and consequently those who
imitated their dance must have had their heads set off in imitation of
theirs. When thus we find a custom that is clearly founded on a form of
speech that characteristically distinguished the region were Nimrod's
power was wielded, used in so many different countries far removed from
one another, where no such form of speech was used in ordinary life, we
may be sure that such a custom was not the result of mere accident, but
that it indicates the wide-spread diffusion of an influence that went
forth in all directions from Babylon, from the time that Nimrod first
"began to be mighty on the earth."
There was another way in which Nimrod's power was symbolised beside's
by the "horn." A synonym for Gheber, "The mighty
one," was "Abir," while "Aber"
also signified a "wing." Nimrod, as Head and
Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who were
the instruments of establishing his power, was "Baal-aberin,"
"Lord of the mighty ones." But "Baal-abirin"
(pronounced nearly in the same way) signified "The winged
one," * and therefore in symbol he was represented, not only
as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull--as showing
not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones under
his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to
put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast
extent of his might, he was represented with great and wide-expanding
wings. To this mode of representing the mighty kings of Babylon and
Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and as successors, there is manifest
allusion in Isaiah vii. 6-8: "Forasmuch as this people refuseth
the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and
Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them
the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria,
and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall
pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even
unto the neck; and the STRETCHING OUT OF HIS WINGS shall FILL the
breadth of thy land, O Immanuel." When we look at such figures
as those which are here presented to the reader , with their great
extent of expanded wing, as symbolising an Assyrian king, what a
vividness and force does it give to the inspired language of the
prophet! And how clear is it, also, that the stretching forth of the
Assyrian monarch's WINGS, that was to "fill the breadth of
Immanuel's land," has that very symbolic meaning to which I
have referred--viz., the overspreading of the land by his "mighty
ones," or hosts of armed men, that the king of Babylon was to
bring with him in his overflowing invasion! The knowledge of the way in
which the Assyrian monarchs were represented, and of the meaning of that
representation, gives additional force to the story of the dream of
Cyrus the Great, as told by Herodotus. Cyrus, says the historian, dreamt
that he saw the son of one of his princes, who was at the time in a
distant province, with two great "wings on his shoulders, the
one of which overshadowed Asia, and the other Europe," * from
which he immediately concluded that he was organising rebellion against
him. The symbols of the Babylonians, whose capital Cyrus had taken, and
to whose power he had succeeded, were entirely familiar to him; and if
the "wings" were the symbols of sovereign power, and
the possession of them implied the lordship over the might, or the
armies of the empire, it is easy to see how very naturally any suspicion
of disloyalty affecting the individual in question might take shape in
the manner related, in the dreams of him who might harbour these
suspicions.
Now, the understanding of this equivocal sense of "Baal-aberin"
can only explain the remarkable statement of Aristophanes, that at
the beginning of the world "the birds" were first
created, and then, after their creation, came the "race of the
blessed immortal gods." * This has been regarded as either an
atheistical or nonsensical utterance on the part of the poet, but, with
the true key applied to the language, it is found to contain an
important historical fact. Let it only be borne in mind that "the
birds"--that is, the "winged ones" --symbolised
"the Lords of the mighty ones," and then the meaning
is clear, viz., that men first "began to be mighty on the earth;"
and then, that the "Lords" or Leaders of "these
mighty ones" were deified. The knowledge of the mystic sense
of this symbol accounts also for the origin of the story of Perseus, the
son of Jupiter, miraculously borne of Danae, who did such wondrous
things, and who passed from country to country on wings divinely
bestowed on him. This equally casts light on the symbolic myths in
regard to Bellerophon, and the feats which he performed on his winged
horse, and their ultimate disastrous issue; how high he mounted in the
air, and how terrible was his fall; and of Icarus, the son of Daedalus,
who, flying on wax-cemented wings over the Icarian Sea, had his wings
melted off through his too near approach to the sun, and so gave his
name to the sea where he was supposed to have fallen. The fables all
referred to those who trod, or were supposed to have trodden, in the
steps of Nimrod, the first "Lord of the mighty ones," and
who in that character was symbolised as equipped with wings.
Now, it is remarkable that, in the passage of Aristophanes already
referred to, that speaks of the birds, or "the winged
ones," being produced before the gods, we are informed that he
from whom both "mighty ones" and gods derived their origin,
was none other than the winged boy Cupid. * Cupid, the son of Venus,
occupied, as will afterwards be proved, in the mystic mythology the very
same position as Nin, or Ninus, "the son," did to
Rhea, the mother of the gods. * As Nimrod was unquestionably the first
of "the mighty ones" after the Flood, this statement
of Aristophanes, that the boy-god Cupid, himself a winged one, produced
all the birds or "winged ones," while occupying the
very position of Nin or Ninus, "the son," shows that
in this respect also Ninus and Nimrod are identified. While this is the
evident meaning of the poet, this also, in a strictly historical point
of view, is the conclusion of the historian Apollodorus; for he states
that "Ninus is Nimrod." * And then, in conformity
with this identity of Ninus and Nimrod, we find, in one of the most
celebrated sculptures of ancient Babylon, Ninus and his wife Semiramis
represented as actively engaged in the pursuits of the chase, * --"the
quiver-bearing Semiramis" being a fit companion for "the
mighty Hunter before the Lord." 2bab008.htm
|
