Agni, thou art a sage, a priest, a king,
Protector, father of the sacrifice;
Commissioned by our men thou dost ascend
A messenger, conveying to the sky
Our hymns and offerings, though thy origin
Be three fold, now from air and now from water,
Now from the mystic double _Arani_.[44]
Count Goblet d'Alviella combats the hypothesis of Burnouf that the
Swastika when turned to right or left, passed, the one for the male and
the other for the female principle, and declares, on the authority of Sir
George Birdwood, that it is, in modern India, a popular custom to name
objects which appear in couples as having different sexes, so that to say
"the male Swastika" and the "female Swastika," indicating them by the
pronouns "he" or "she," would be expressed in the same manner when
speaking of the hammer and the anvil or of any other objects used in
pairs.[45]
Ludwig Müller, in his elaborate treatise, gives it as his opinion that the
Swastika had no connection with the Tau cross or with the _Crux ansata_,
or with the fire wheel, or with arani, or agni, or with the mystic or
alphabetic letters, nor with the so-called spokes of the solar wheel, nor
the forked lightning, nor the hammer of Thor. He considers that the
triskelion might throw light on its origin, as indicating perpetual
whirling or circular movement, which, in certain parts of southern Asia as
the emblem of Zeus, was assimilated to that of Baal, an inference which he
draws from certain Asiatic coins of 400 B. C.
Mr. R. P. Greg[46] opposes this theory and expresses the opinion that the
Swastika is far older and wider spread as a symbol than the triskelion, as
well as being a more purely Aryan symbol. Greg says that Ludwig Müller
attaches quite too much importance to the sun in connection with the early
Aryans, and lays too great stress upon the supposed relation of the
Swastika as a solar symbol. The Aryans, he says, were a race not given to
sun worship; and, while he may agree with Müller that the Swastika is an
emblem of Zeus and Jupiter merely as the Supreme God, yet he believes that
the origin of the Swastika had no reference to a movement of the sun
through the heavens; and he prefers his own theory that it was a device
suggested by the forked lightning as the chief weapon of the air god.
Mr. Greg's paper is of great elaboration, and highly complicated. He
devotes an entire page or plate (21) to a chart showing the older Aryan
fire, water, and sun gods, according to the Brahmin or Buddhist system.
The earliest was Dyaus, the bright sky or the air god; Adyti, the infinite
expanse, mother of bright gods; Varuna, the covering of the shining
firmament. Out of this trinity came another, Zeus, being the descendant of
Dyaus, the sky god; Agni, the fire; Sulya, the sun, and Indra, the rain
god. These in their turn formed the great Hindu trinity, Brahma, Vishnu,
and Siva--creator, preserver, and destroyer; and, in his opinion, the
Swastika was the symbol or ordinary device of Indra as well as of Zeus. He
continues his table of descent from these gods, with their accompanying
devices, to the sun, lightning, fire, and water, and makes almost a
complete scheme of the mythology of that period, into which it is not
possible to follow him. However, he declines to accept the theory of Max
Müller of any difference of form or meaning between the Suavastika and the
Swastika because the ends or arms turned to the right or to the left, and
he thinks the two symbols to be substantially the same. He considers it to
have been, in the first instance, exclusively of early Aryan origin and
use, and that down to about 600 B. C. it was the emblem or symbol of the
supreme Aryan god; that it so continued down through the various steps of
descent (according to the chart mentioned) until it became the device and
symbol of Brahma, and finally of Buddha. He thinks that it may have been
the origin of the Greek fret or meander pattern. Later still it was
adopted even by the early Christians as a suitable variety of their cross,
and became variously modified in form and was used as a charm.
D'Alviella[47] expresses his doubts concerning the theory advanced by
Greg[48] to the effect that the Swastika is to be interpreted as a symbol
of the air or of the god who dwells in the air, operating sometimes to
produce light, other times rain, then water, and so on, as is represented
by the god Indra among the Hindus, Thor among the Germans and
Scandinavians, Perkun among the Slavs, Zeus among the Pelasgi and Greeks,
Jupiter Tonans, and Pluvius among the Latins. He disputes the theory that
the association of the Swastika sign with various others on the same
object proves its relationship with that object or sign. That it appears
on vases or similar objects associated with what is evidently a solar disk
is no evidence to him that the Swastika belongs to the sun, or when
associated with the zigzags of lightning that it represents the god of
lightning, nor the same with the god of heaven. The fact of its appearing
either above or below any one of these is, in his opinion, of no
importance and has no signification, either general or special.
D'Alviella says[49] that the only example known to him of a Swastika upon
a monument consecrated to Zeus or Jupiter is on a Celto-Roman altar,
erected, according to all appearances, by the Daci during the time they
were garrisoned at Ambloganna, in Britain. The altar bears the letters I.
O. M., which have been thought to stand for Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The
Swastika thereon is flanked by two disks or rouelles, with four rays, a
sign which M. Gaidoz believes to have been a representative of the sun
among the Gaulois.[50]
Dr. Brinton[51] considers the Swastika as being related to the cross and
not to the circle, and asserts that the Ta Ki or Triskeles, the Swastika
and the Cross, were originally of the same signification, or at least
closely allied in meaning.
Waring,[52] after citing his authorities, sums up his opinion thus:
We have given remarks of the various writers on this symbol, and it
will be seen that, though they are more or less vague, uncertain, and
confused in their description of it, still, with one exception, they
all agree that it is a mystic symbol, peculiar to some deity or other,
bearing a special signification, and generally believed to have some
connection with one of the elements--water.