Palaimon," the wrestler. Usov was a hunter, like the rugged Esau, and wore rough skins of beasts; in both stories the elder brother separated from the younger. Acrisius, the Phrygian Saturn 34, wrestled with his twinbrother Protus in his mother's womb, as Jacob did with Esau. Esau also was in early times interpreted by the Jews as Zamael, Satan, Old Serpent, Wild Boar.35 There was a similar contest not only between Osiris and Set-Typhon, the brothers, sons of Kronos, but also in the ingenious Phoenician myth of Pygmalion and Sichæus. Neither word has any claim to be Greek, they are both pure Phoenician. The one who is slain signifies "the pure" (Zakkai [Sichæus]), and therefore Movers' interpretation of Pygmalion is probable, namely Po'hem'Elyon, "the murderer of the Most high." As regards Egypt, we must bear especially in mind that the contest between Hypsuranios and Usov, as wind (Rua'h) and fire, is exactly like that of Set-Typhon (burning parching heat) and Osiris (invigorating sunheat). One of the pillars in the temple of Hercules at Tyre was lighted by day, the other by night; upon an altar of Hercules-Buzygos at Rhodes, one of the two sacrificial oxen was offered up amidst imprecations, probably to Adonis, the God of spring, as the ass or dog was to Typhon.36 The Tyrian Hercules was the same as Moloch, the king, Baal-Moloch, Malakh-Bel, as he is called 37 on the coins. No statues were erected to him at Cadiz or in Tyre, but he was worshipped in the latter with eternal fire, which lighted up the temple by night from the reflection on the 34 Hesych. s. v. Historically altered, Herod. i. 34. See Movers, p. 398. Atys, whom, according to him, Adrastus killed at the boarhunt, is also called Agathon, the good, who is slain on account of a quail. 35 Movers, p. 397. seqq.; conf. p. 36 Movers, p. 399. 430. seqq. and p. 538. 37 Ibid. p. 400. columns of smaragdus. Dogs were sacrificed to him as well as to Hecate and Melékhet-Artemis.38 In Babylonia, their neck or backbone (Is. lxvi. 3.), as well as that of the first-born of the ass, if they were not redeemed, was, according to the law of Moses (Ex. xiii. 13., xxxiv. 20.)39, broken in honour of him. The principal sacrifices offered to Hercules-Usov, as well as to his mythical companion Melékhet-Artemis, were human beings. In Laodicea of Phoenicia they might be ransomed by a doe, as Diana accepted that animal instead of Iphigenia. The wild boar was also sacred to the same Goddess. In like manner another Artemis caused the delicate Vernal Adonis to be slain by a boar, instead of by Mars as he is usually said to be. At Carthage, the practice of sacrificing their favourite children, and those of the highest rank, in honour of Hercules, continued down to their latest wars. The Grecian Hercules, who becomes insane, burns his own children as well as those of his twin-brother Iphicles, and murders his guest Iphitus. But in Asia the ruthless God sometimes also required this atrocious sacrifice. In Amathus, Malika (Moloch), "the inhospitable Zeus," sarcastically called "Jupiter hospes," had his bloody altar before the temple of Adonis (Lord) and Baaltis (Queen.) So had Saturn in Arabia, whom Nonnus compares with the Syrian God.40 These sacrifices were offered on occasions of great misfortune, but as a matter of course when there was excessive heat. If we sum up all these particulars, we shall find that Philo's account, which seems so ludicrous, not only becomes intelligible, but we can also understand how an isolated trait in the fable of the two brothers, which is so full of meaning, may have been mixed up with the history of the Jewish patriarchs. The simple original import was this: that Jacob, the pious, quiet, God 38 Movers, p. 404. seq. 39 Ibid, p. 406. seqq. 40 Ibid. p. 409. trusting, and God-serving grandson of Abraham, is spiritually the true wrestler with God (Yisrael). The epithet of Edom, as the wild indomitable Usov, explains itself. Lastly, we can understand how Set, Seth, the oldest mythological type of Western Asia, should be met with in Egypt, and, indeed, precisely in the same form; and that traces of its former divine signification are still extant in the name of the father of Enosh. IV. THE HUNTER AND THE FISHERMAN: ZAYYAD AND ZIDON. (§ 8.) Ir now only remains for us to elucidate more accurately our kosmological description of the Hunter and the Fisherman. We find mentioned among the late descendants of Hypsuranios and Usôus, Halieus and Agrieus, the Fisherman and the Hunter, with whose names we have already identified the Phoenician words ZAYYAD and ZIDON. Neither of them has any meaning but primitive Sidonian, the eponyme of Sidon, Zidon. The root zud signifies to hunt as well as to fish: from the former comes zayad hunting; from the latter zidon, fishing. Here, therefore, the two meanings stand side by side, as the double eponyme. It may also imply that fishing and hunting were the earliest pursuits. The sense, therefore, is this: Hypsuranios, the victorious God, created man, the primeval Sidonian, as a hunter and fisherman, i. e. in the forests by the sea shore, as Phœnicia had or was considered to have. This was a very natural idea, inasmuch as man was supposed to have risen out of the sea provided with fishing-boats, as the Maltese believe at the present day.41 41 I am indebted for this to the late Mr. Hookham Frere, the friend of Canning, and Minister at Madrid; a man so well known for his C. Third Fragment of the Second Kosmogony of Philo. KHUSOR-HEPHÆSTOS AND MELOCH (MOLOCH): KAIN AND ADAM. We had got down to the creation of men as Sidonians, or as original fishermen and hunters. Now comes the third kosmogony, a very short but conclusive one. It begins with the great Opener of the Kosmic egg, the ordainer of the world, and ends with the primitive man, the Earth-born. We therefore term it the Hephaestos kosmogony. Philo, or his authority, either owing to a blunder or from intentional perversion of the myth, tacked it on to the preceding kosmogony in the following words: . . Khusor .. .. § 9. "From them (the hunter and fisherman) were descended two brothers, . and Melekh; and from them came the Artificer and the Earth-born, or primitive Father." This fragment is a very singular one. The extract of Eusebius, even after correcting what is obviously an error of transcript, bears on the face of it evident marks of hasty composition. But it follows, partly from the evidence of our having already come to the conclusion of all kosmogony, namely the human race, partly from the contents themselves, that we have here the beginning of an independent fragment, a fresh account wholly unconnected with what goes before. For we know from Eudemus, that Khusorvein of humour, like that of Aristophanes and of Foote. A learned Maltese, on whom he could rely, informed him that his countrymen, when they talked without reserve upon religious subjects, used to say: "Every body knows that Adam was the first man; but we alone know that he possessed fishing-boats." This can be nothing but a Phoenician reminiscence. Vulcan is the Demiurge, the Creator, and we shall have evidence of it again hereafter. But, in spite of the singularity of this intervening portion, it is quite clear we are come to a close when we begin with the Earth-born, the man sprung out of the earth. We will endeavour to unravel the details seriatim. Khusor-Vulcan is merely the older of two brothers, who discovered the working of iron, i. e. of minerals in general, or, according to others, the building of walls and houses with bricks baked probably in the fire. Now we have met with him as the primeval artificer, the creator of the world. The only peculiarity here is the application of his skill to fishing, and, which is inseparable from it, the use of rafts of light construction. He is also the first navigator. All this suits perfectly the character of the Phoenicians. But what is said about the brother? In the ordinary text he is omitted altogether, whereas Khusor-Vulcan is stated to be also Zeus-Meilichios (the friendly); and lastly, his brothers (the brothers of the twin) are said to have invented the art of building walls with (baked) bricks. But, according to our restoration, Philo stated that the brother's name was Melekh, i. e. the king, ruler (Zeus), which Melekh was usually called in Kanaan Molokh or Molekh, the cruel God in whose honour children were cast into the fire, and consumed in the flames. He was the great God and patron of Karthage, and was held in universal honour throughout Phoenicia. The Phoenician and Punic mode of pronouncing his name is indeed precisely the same as the Hebrew Melekh, whence comes Melikertes = Melikart. The latter, like Khusor-Vulcan, might be compared with Zeus, the father and king of Gods and men. The point which strikes us as remarkable is that both he and his ingenious elder brother are said to have made the paltry discovery of the art of building with bricks. For the smelting and working of iron are very |