THE UNCONSCIOUS ORIGIN OF THE HERO
Prepared by the previous chapters, we approach the personification of
the libido in the form of a conqueror, a hero or a demon. With this,
symbolism leaves the impersonal and neuter realm, which characterizes
the astral and meteorologic symbol, and takes human form: the figure of
a being changing from sorrow to joy, from joy to sorrow, and which, like
the sun, sometimes stands in its zenith, sometimes is plunged in darkest
night, and arises from this very night to new splendor.[341] Just as the
sun, guided by its own internal laws, ascends from morn till noon, and
passing beyond the noon descends towards evening, leaving behind its
splendor, and then sinks completely into the all-enveloping night, thus,
too, does mankind follow his course according to immutable laws, and
also sinks, after his course is completed, into night, in order to rise
again in the morning to a new cycle in his children. The symbolic
transition from sun to man is easy and practicable. The third and last
creation of Miss Miller’s also takes this course. She calls this piece
“Chiwantopel,” a “hypnagogic poem.” She gives us the following
information about the circumstances surrounding the origin of this
phantasy:
“After an evening of care and anxiety, I lay down to sleep at about
half past eleven. I felt excited and unable to sleep, although I was
very tired. There was no light in the room. I closed my eyes, and then
I had the feeling that something was about to happen. The sensation of
a general relaxation came over me, and I remained as passive as
possible. Lines appeared before my eyes,—sparks and shining spirals,
followed by a kaleidoscopic review of recent trivial occurrences.”
The reader will regret with me that we cannot know the reason for her
cares and anxieties. It would have been of great importance for what
follows to have information on this point. This gap in our knowledge is
the more to be deplored because, between the first poem in 1898 and the
time of the phantasy here discussed (1902), four whole years have
passed. All information is lacking regarding this period, during which
the great problem surely survived in the unconscious. Perhaps this lack
has its advantages in that our interest is not diverted from the
universal applicability of the phantasy here produced by sympathy in
regard to the personal fate of the author. Therefore, something is
obviated which often prevents the analyst in his daily task from looking
away from the tedious toil of detail to that wider relation which
reveals each neurotic conflict to be involved with human fate as a
whole.
The condition depicted by the author here corresponds to such a one as
usually precedes an intentional somnambulism[342] often described by
spiritualistic mediums. A certain inclination to listen to these low
nocturnal voices must be assumed; otherwise such fine and hardly
perceptible inner experiences pass unnoticed. We recognize in this
listening a current of the libido leading inward and beginning to flow
towards a still invisible, mysterious goal. It seems that the libido has
suddenly discovered an object in the depths of the unconscious which
powerfully attracts it. The life of man, turned wholly to the external
by nature, does not ordinarily permit such introversion; there must,
therefore, be surmised a certain exceptional condition, that is to say,
a lack of external objects, which compels the individual to seek a
substitute for them in his own soul. It is, however, difficult to
imagine that this rich world has become too poor to offer an object for
the love of human atoms; nor can the world and its objects be held
accountable for this lack. It offers boundless opportunities for every
one. It is rather the _incapacity to love which robs mankind of his
possibilities_. This world is empty to him alone who does not understand
how to direct his libido towards objects, and to render them alive and
beautiful for himself, for Beauty does not indeed lie in things, but in
the feeling that we give to them. That which compels us to create a
substitute for ourselves is not the external lack of objects, but our
incapacity to lovingly include a thing outside of ourselves. Certainly
the difficulties of the conditions of life and the adversities of the
struggle for existence may oppress us, yet even adverse external
situations would not hinder the giving out of the libido; on the
contrary, they may spur us on to the greatest exertions, whereby we
bring our whole libido into reality. Real difficulties alone will never
be able to force the libido back permanently to such a degree as to give
rise, for example, to a neurosis. _The conflict, which is the condition
of every neurosis, is lacking._ The resistance, which opposes its
unwillingness to the will, alone has the power to produce that
pathogenic introversion which is the starting point of every psychogenic
disturbance. The resistance against loving produces the inability to
love. Just as the normal libido is comparable to a steady stream which
pours its waters broadly into the world of reality, so the resistance,
dynamically considered, is comparable, not so much to a rock rearing up
in the river bed which is flooded over or surrounded by the stream, as
to a backward flow towards the source. A part of the soul desires the
outer object; another part, however, harks back to the subjective world,
where the airy and fragile palaces of phantasy beckon. One can assume
the dualism of the human will for which Bleuler, from the psychiatric
point of view, has coined the word “ambitendency”[343] as something
generally present, bearing in mind that even the most primitive motor
impulse is in opposition; as, for example, in the act of extension, the
flexor muscles also become innervated. This normal ambitendency,
however, never leads to an inhibition or prevention of the intended act,
but is the indispensable preliminary requirement for its perfection and
coördination. For a resistance disturbing to this act to arise from this
harmony of finely attuned opposition an abnormal plus or minus would be
needed on one or the other side. The resistance originates from this
added third.[344] This applies also to the duality of the will, from
which so many difficulties arise for mankind. The abnormal third frees
the pair of opposites, which are normally most intimately united, and
causes their manifestation in the form of separate tendencies; it is
only thus that they become willingness and unwillingness, which
interfere with each other. The Bhagavad-Gîtâ says, “Be thou free of the
pairs of opposites.”[345] The harmony thus becomes disharmony. It cannot
be my task here to investigate whence the unknown third arises, and what
it is. Taken at the roots in the case of our patients, the “nuclear
complex” (Freud) reveals itself as the _incest problem_. The sexual
libido regressing to the parents appears as the incest tendency. The
reason this path is so easily travelled is due to the enormous indolence
of mankind, which will relinquish no object of the past, but will hold
it fast forever. The “sacrilegious backward grasp” of which Nietzsche
speaks reveals itself, stripped of its incest covering, as an original
passive arrest of the libido in its first object of childhood. This
indolence is also a passion, as La Rochefoucauld[346] has brilliantly
expressed it:
“Of all passions, that which is least known to ourselves is indolence:
it is the most ardent and malignant of them all, although its violence
may be insensible, and the injuries it causes may be hidden; if we
will consider its power attentively, we will see that it makes itself,
upon all occasions, mistress of our sentiments, of our interests, and
of our pleasures; it is the anchor, which has the power to arrest the
largest vessels; it is a calm more dangerous to the most important
affairs than rocks and the worst tempest. The repose of indolence is a
secret charm of the soul which suddenly stops the most ardent pursuits
and the firmest resolutions; finally to give the true idea of this
passion, one must say that indolence is like a beatitude of the soul
which consoles it for all its losses and takes the place of all its
possessions.”
This dangerous passion, belonging above all others to primitive man,
appears under the hazardous mask of the incest symbol, from which the
incest fear must drive us away, and which must be conquered, in the
first place, under the image of the “terrible mother.”[347] It is the
mother of innumerable evils, not the least of which are neurotic
troubles. For, especially from the fogs of the arrested remnants of the
libido, arise the harmful phantasmagoria which so veil reality that
adaptation becomes almost impossible. However, we will not investigate
any further in this place the foundations of the incest phantasies. The
preliminary suggestion of my purely psychologic conception of the incest
problem may suffice. We are here only concerned with the question
whether _resistance_ which leads to introversion in our author signifies
a conscious external difficulty or not. If it were an external
difficulty, then, indeed, the libido would be violently dammed back, and
would produce a flood of phantasies, which can best be designated as
schemes, that is to say, plans as to how the obstacles could be
overcome. They would be very concrete ideas of reality which seek to
pave the way for solutions. It would be a strenuous meditation, indeed,
which would be more likely to lead to anything rather than to a
hypnagogic poem. The passive condition depicted above in no way fits in
with a real external obstacle, but, precisely through its passive
submission, it indicates a tendency which doubtless scorns real
solutions and prefers phantastic substitutes. Ultimately and essentially
we are, therefore, dealing with an internal conflict, perhaps after the
manner of those earlier conflicts which led to the two first unconscious
creations. We, therefore, are forced to conclude that the external
object cannot be loved, because a predominant amount of libido prefers a
phantastic object, which must be brought up from the depths of the
unconscious as a compensation for the missing reality.
The visionary phenomena, produced in the first stages of introversion,
are grouped among the well-known phenomena[348] of hypnagogic vision.
They form, as I explained in an earlier paper, the foundation of the
true visions of the symbolic autorevelations of the libido, as we may
now express it.
Miss Miller continues:
“Then I had the impression that some communication was immediately
impending. It seemed to me as if there were re-echoed in me the words,
‘Speak, O Lord, for Thy servant listens; open Thou mine ears!’”
This passage very clearly describes the intention; the expression
“communication” is even a current term in spiritualistic circles. The
Biblical words contain a clear invocation or “prayer,” that is to say, a
wish (libido) directed towards divinity (the unconscious complex). The
prayer refers to Samuel, i:3, where Samuel at night was three times
called by God, but believed that it was Eli calling, until the latter
informed him that it was God himself who spoke, and that he must answer
if his name was called again—“Speak, O Lord, for Thy Servant hears!” The
dreamer uses these words really in an inverse sense, namely, in order to
produce God with them. With that she directs her desires, her libido,
into the depths of her unconscious.
We know that, although individuals are widely separated by the
differences in the contents of their consciousness, they are closely
alike in their unconscious psychology. It is a significant impression
for one working in practical psychoanalysis when he realizes how uniform
are the typical unconscious complexes. Difference first arises from
individualization. This fact gives to an essential portion of the
Schopenhauer and Hartmann philosophies a deep psychologic
justification.[349] The very evident uniformity of the unconscious
mechanism serves as a psychologic foundation for these philosophic
views. The unconscious contains the differentiated remnants of the
earlier psychologic functions overcome by the individual
differentiation. The reaction and products of the animal psyche are of a
generally diffused uniformity and solidity, which, among men, may be
discovered apparently only in traces. Man appears as something
extraordinarily individual in contrast with animals.
This might be a tremendous delusion, because we have the appropriate
tendency always to recognize only the difference of things. This is
demanded by the psychologic adaptation which, without the most minute
differentiation of the impressions, would be absolutely impossible. In
opposition to this tendency we have ever the greatest difficulty in
recognizing in their common relations the things with which we are
occupied in every-day life. This recognition becomes much easier with
things which are more remote from us. For example, it is almost
impossible for a European to differentiate the faces in a Chinese
throng, although the Chinese have just as individual facial formations
as the Europeans, but the similarity of their strange facial expression
is much more evident to the remote onlooker than their individual
differences. But when we live among the Chinese then the impression of
their uniformity disappears more and more, and finally the Chinese
become individuals also. Individuality belongs to those conditional
actualities which are greatly overrated theoretically on account of
their practical significance. It does not belong to those overwhelmingly
clear and therefore universally obtrusive general facts upon which a
science must primarily be founded. The individual content of
consciousness is, therefore, the most unfavorable object imaginable for
psychology, because it has veiled the universally valid until it has
become unrecognizable. The essence of consciousness is the process of
adaptation which takes place in the most minute details. On the other
hand, the unconscious is the generally diffused, which not only binds
the individuals among themselves to the race, but also unites them
backwards with the peoples of the past and their psychology. Thus the
unconscious, surpassing the individual in its generality, is, in the
first place, the object of a true psychology, which claims not to be
psychophysical.
Man as an individual is a suspicious phenomenon, the right of whose
existence from a natural biological standpoint could be seriously
contested, because, from this point of view, the individual is only a
race atom, and has a significance only as a mass constituent. The
ethical standpoint, however, gives to the human being an individual
tendency separating him from the mass, which, in the course of
centuries, led to the development of personality, hand in hand with
which developed the hero cult, and has led to the modern individualistic
cult of personages. The attempts of rationalistic theology to keep hold
of the personal Jesus as the last and most precious remnant of the
divinity which has vanished beyond the power of the imagination
corresponds to this tendency. In this respect the Roman Catholic Church
was more practical, because she met the general need of the visible, or
at least historically believed hero, through the fact that she placed
upon the throne of worship a small but clearly perceptible god of the
world, namely, the Roman Pope, the Pater patrum, and at the same time
the Pontifex Maximus of the invisible upper or inner God. The sensuous
demonstrability of God naturally supports the religious process of
introversion, because the human figure essentially facilitates the
transference, for it is not easy to imagine something lovable or
venerable in a spiritual being. This tendency, everywhere present, has
been secretly preserved in the rationalistic theology with its Jesus
historically insisted upon. This does not mean that men loved the
visible God; they love him, not as he is, for he is merely a man, and
when the pious wished to love humanity they could go to their neighbors
and their enemies to love them. Mankind wishes to love in God only their
ideas, that is to say, the ideas which they project into God. By that
they wish to love their unconscious, that is, that remnant of ancient
humanity and the centuries-old past in all people, namely, the common
property left behind from all development which is given to all men,
like the sunshine and the air. But in loving this inheritance they love
that which is common to all. Thus they turn back to the mother of
humanity, that is to say, to the spirit of the race, and regain in this
way something of that connection and of that mysterious and irresistible
power which is imparted by the feeling of belonging to the herd. It is
the problem of Antæus, who preserves his gigantic strength only through
contact with mother earth. This temporary withdrawal into one’s self,
which, as we have already seen, signifies a regression to the childish
bond to the parent, seems to act favorably, within certain limits, in
its effect upon the psychologic condition of the individual. It is in
general to be expected that the two fundamental mechanisms of the
psychoses, transference and introversion, are to a wide extent extremely
appropriate methods of normal reaction against complexes; transference
as a means of escaping from the complex into reality; introversion as a
means of detaching one’s self from reality through the complex.
After we have informed ourselves about the general purposes of prayer,
we are prepared to hear more about the vision of our dreamer. After the
prayer, “the head of a sphinx with an Egyptian headdress” appeared, only
to vanish quickly. Here the author was disturbed, so that for a moment
she awoke. This vision recalls the previously mentioned phantasy of the
Egyptian statue, whose rigid gesture is entirely in place here as a
phenomenon of the so-called functional category. The light stages of the
hypnosis are designated technically as “Engourdissement” (stiffening).
The word Sphinx in the whole civilized world signifies the same as
riddle: a puzzling creature who proposes riddles, like the Sphinx of
Oedipus, standing at the portal of his fate like a symbolic proclamation
of the inevitable. The Sphinx is a semi-theriomorphic representation of
that “mother image” which may be designated as the “terrible mother,” of
whom many traces are found in mythology. This interpretation is correct
for Oedipus. Here the question is opened. The objection will be raised
that nothing except the word “Sphinx” justifies the allusion to the
Sphinx of Oedipus. On account of the lack of subjective materials, which
in the Miller text are wholly lacking in regard to this vision, an
individual interpretation would also be excluded. The suggestion of an
“Egyptian” phantasy (Part I, Chapter II) is entirely insufficient to be
employed here. Therefore we are compelled, if we wish to venture at all
upon an understanding of this vision, to direct ourselves—perhaps in all
too daring a manner—to the available ethnographic material under the
assumption that the unconscious of the present-day man coins its symbols
as was done in the most remote past. The Sphinx, in its traditional
form, is a half-human, half-animal creature, which we must, in part,
interpret in the way that is applicable to such phantastic products. The
reader is directed to the deductions in the first part of this volume
where the theriomorphic representations of the libido were discussed.
This manner of representation is very familiar to the analyst, through
the dreams and phantasies of neurotics (and of normal men). The impulse
is readily represented as an animal, as a bull, horse, dog, etc. One of
my patients, who had questionable relations with women, and who began
the treatment with the fear, so to speak, that I would surely forbid him
his sexual adventures, dreamed that I (his physician) very skilfully
speared to the wall a strange animal, half pig, half crocodile. Dreams
swarm with such theriomorphic representations of the libido. Mixed
beings, such as are in this dream, are not rare. A series of very
beautiful illustrations, where especially the lower half of the animal
was represented theriomorphically, has been furnished by
Bertschinger.[350] The libido which was represented theriomorphically is
the “animal” sexuality which is in a repressed state. The history of
repression, as we have seen, goes back to the incest problem, where the
first motives for moral resistance against sexuality display themselves.
The objects of the repressed libido are, in the last degree, the images
of father and mother; therefore the theriomorphic symbols, in so far as
they do not symbolize merely the libido in general, have a tendency to
present father and mother (for example, father represented by a bull,
mother by a cow). From these roots, as we pointed out earlier, might
probably arise the theriomorphic attributes of the Divinity. In as far
as the repressed libido manifests itself under certain conditions, as
anxiety, these animals are generally of a horrible nature. In
consciousness we are attached by all sacred bonds to the mother; in the
dream she pursues us as a terrible animal. The Sphinx, mythologically
considered, is actually a fear animal, which reveals distinct traits of
a mother derivate. In the Oedipus legend the Sphinx is sent by Hera, who
hates Thebes on account of the birth of Bacchus; because Oedipus
conquers the Sphinx, which is nothing but fear of the mother, he must
marry Jocasta, his mother, for the throne and the hand of the widowed
queen of Thebes belonged to him who freed the land from the plague of
the Sphinx. The genealogy of the Sphinx is rich in allusions to the
problem touched upon here. She is a daughter of Echnida, a mixed being;
a beautiful maiden above, a hideous serpent below. This double creature
corresponds to the picture of the mother; above, the human, lovely and
attractive half; below, the horrible animal half, converted into a fear
animal through the incest prohibition. Echnida is derived from the
All-mother, the mother Earth, Gaea, who, with Tartaros, the personified
underworld (the place of horrors), brought her forth. Echnida herself is
the mother of all terrors, of the Chimaera, Scylla, Gorgo, of the
horrible Cerberus, of the Nemean Lion, and of the eagle who devoured the
liver of Prometheus; besides this she gave birth to a number of dragons.
One of her sons is Orthrus, the dog of the monstrous Geryon, who was
killed by Hercules. With this dog, her son, Echnida, in incestuous
intercourse, produced the Sphinx. These materials will suffice to
characterize that amount of libido which led to the Sphinx symbol. If,
in spite of the lack of subjective material, we may venture to draw an
inference from the Sphinx symbol of our author, we must say that the
Sphinx represents an original incestuous amount of libido detached from
the bond to the mother. Perhaps it is better to postpone this conclusion
until we have examined the following visions.
After Miss Miller had concentrated herself again, the vision developed
further:
“Suddenly an Aztec appeared, absolutely clear in every detail; the
hands spread open, with large fingers, the head in profile, armored,
headdress similar to the feather ornaments of the American Indian. The
whole was somewhat suggestive of Mexican sculpture.”
The ancient Egyptian character of the Sphinx is replaced here by
American antiquity—by the Aztec. The essential idea is neither Egypt nor
Mexico, for the two could not be interchanged; but it is the subjective
factor which the dreamer produces from her own past. I have frequently
observed in the analysis of Americans that certain unconscious
complexes, i.e. repressed sexuality, are represented by the symbol of a
Negro or an Indian; for example, when a European tells in his dream,
“Then came a ragged, dirty individual,” for Americans and for those who
live in the tropics it is a Negro. When with Europeans it is a vagabond
or a criminal, with Americans it is a Negro or an Indian which
represents the individual’s own repressed sexual personality, and the
one considered inferior. It is also desirable to go into the particulars
of this vision, as there are various things worthy of notice. The
feather cap, which naturally had to consist of eagles’ feathers, is a
sort of magic charm. The hero assumes at the same time something of the
sun-like character of this bird when he adorns himself with its
feathers, just as the courage and strength of the enemy are appropriated
in swallowing his heart or taking his scalp. At the same time, the
feather crest is a crown which is equivalent to the rays of the sun. The
historical importance of the Sun identification has been seen in the
first part.[351]
Especial interest attaches to the hand, which is described as “open,”
and the fingers, which are described as “large.” It is significant that
it is the hand upon which the distinct emphasis falls. One might rather
have expected a description of the facial expression. It is well known
that the gesture of the hand is significant; unfortunately, we know
nothing about that here. Nevertheless, a parallel phantasy might be
mentioned, which also puts the emphasis upon hands. A patient in a
hypnagogic condition saw his mother painted on a wall, like a painting
in a Byzantine church. She held one hand up, open wide, with fingers
spread apart. The fingers were very large, swollen into knobs on the
ends, and each surrounded by a small halo. The immediate association
with this picture was the fingers of a frog with sucking discs at the
ends. Then the similarity to the penis. The ancient setting of this
mother picture is also of importance. Evidently the hand had, in this
phantasy, a phallic meaning. This interpretation was confirmed by a
further very remarkable phantasy of the same patient. He saw something
like a “sky-rocket” ascending from his mother’s hand, which at a closer
survey becomes a shining bird with golden wings, a golden pheasant, as
it then occurs to his mind. We have seen in the previous chapter that
the hand has actually a phallic, generative meaning, and that this
meaning plays a great part in the production of fire. In connection with
this phantasy, there is but one observation to make: fire was bored with
the hand; therefore it comes from the hand; Agni, the fire, was
worshipped as a golden-winged bird.[352] It is extremely significant
that it is the mother’s hand. I must deny myself the temptation to enter
more deeply into this. Let it be sufficient to have pointed out the
possible significance of the hand of the Aztec by means of these
parallel hand phantasies. We have mentioned the mother suggestively with
the Sphinx. The Aztec taking the place of the Sphinx points, through his
suggestive hand, to parallel phantasies in which the phallic hand really
belongs to the mother. Likewise we encounter an antique setting in
parallel phantasies. The significance of the antique, which experience
has shown to be the symbol for “infantile,” is confirmed by Miss Miller
in this connection in the annotation to her phantasies, for she says:
“In my childhood, I took a special interest in the Aztec fragments and
in the history of Peru and of the Incas.”
Through the two analyses of children which have been published we have
attained an insight into the child’s small world, and have seen what
burning interests and questions secretly surround the parents, and that
the parents are, for a long time, the objects of the greatest
interest.[353] We are, therefore, justified in suspecting that the
antique setting applies to the “ancients,” that is to say, the parents,
and that consequently this Aztec has something of the father or mother
in himself. Up to this time indirect hints point only to the mother,
which is nothing remarkable in an American girl, because Americans, as a
result of the extreme detachment from the father, are characterized by a
most enormous mother complex, which again is connected with the especial
social position of woman in the United States. This position brings
about a special masculinity among capable women, which easily makes
possible the symbolizing into a masculine figure.[354]
After this vision, Miss Miller felt that a name formed itself “bit by
bit,” which seemed to belong to this Aztec—“the son of an Inca of Peru.”
The name is “Chi-wan-to-pel.” As the author intimated, something similar
to this belonged to her childish reminiscences. The act of naming is,
like baptism, something exceedingly important for the creation of a
personality, because, since olden times, a magic power has been
attributed to the name, with which, for example, the spirit of the dead
can be conjured. To know the name of any one means, in mythology, to
have power over that one. As a well-known example I mention the fairy
tale of “Rumpelstilzchen.” In an Egyptian myth, Isis robs the Sun god Rê
permanently of his power by compelling him to tell her his real name.
Therefore, to give a name means to give power, invest with a definite
personality.[355] The author observed, in regard to the name itself,
that it reminded her very much of the impressive name Popocatepetl, a
name which belongs to unforgettable school memories, and, to the
greatest indignation of the patient, very often emerges in an analysis
in a dream or phantasy and brings with it that same old joke which one
heard in school, told oneself and later again forgot. Although one might
hesitate to consider this unhallowed joke as of psychologic importance,
still one must inquire for the reason of its being. One must also put,
as a counter question, Why is it always Popocatepetl and not the
neighboring Iztaccihuatl, or the even higher and just as clear Orizaba?
The last has certainly the more beautiful and more easily pronounced
name. Popocatepetl is impressive because of its onomatopoetic name. In
English the word is “to pop” (popgun), which is here considered as
onomatopoesy; in German the words are _Hinterpommern_, _Pumpernickel_;
_Bombe_; _Petarde_ (_le pet_ = flatus). The frequent German word _Popo_
(Podex) does not indeed exist in English, but flatus is designated as
“to poop” in childish speech. The act of defecation is often designated
as “to pop.” A joking name for the posterior part is “the bum.” (Poop
also means the rear end of a ship.) In French, _pouf!_ is onomatopoetic;
_pouffer_ = _platzen_ (to explode), _la poupe_ = rear end of ship, _le
poupard_ = the baby in arms, _la poupée_ = doll. _Poupon_ is a pet name
for a chubby-faced child. In Dutch _pop_, German _Puppe_ and Latin
_puppis_ = doll; in Plautus, however, it is also used jokingly for the
posterior part of the body; _pupus_ means child; _pupula_ = girl, little
dollie. The Greek word ποππύζω designates a cracking, snapping or
blowing sound. It is used of kissing; by Theocritus also of the
associated noise of flute blowing. The etymologic parallels show a
remarkable relationship between the part of the body in question and the
child. This relationship we will mention here, only to let it drop at
once, as this question will claim our attention later.
One of my patients in his childhood had always connected the act of
defecation with a phantasy that his posterior was a volcano and a
violent eruption took place, explosion of gases and gushings forth of
lava. The terms for the elemental occurrences of nature are originally
not at all poetical; one thinks, for example, of the beautiful
phenomenon of the meteor, which the German language most unpoetically
calls “Sternschnuppe” (the smouldering wick of a star). Certain South
American Indians call the shooting star the “urine of the stars.”
According to the principle of the least resistance, expressions are
taken from the nearest source available. (For example, the transference
of the metonymic expression of urination as _Schiffens_, “to rain.”)
Now it seems to be very obscure why the mystical figure of Chiwantopel,
whom Miss Miller, in a note, compares to the control spirit of the
spiritualistic medium,[356] is found in such a disreputable neighborhood
that his nature (name) was brought into relation with this particular
part of the body. In order to understand this possibility, we must
realize that when we produce from the unconscious the first to be
brought forth is the infantile material long lost in memory. One must,
therefore, take the point of view of that time in which this infantile
material was still on the surface. If now a much-honored object is
related in the unconscious to the anus, then one must conclude that
something of a high valuation was expressed thereby. The question is
only whether this corresponds to the psychology of the child. Before we
enter upon this question, it must be stated that the anal region is very
closely connected with veneration. One thinks of the traditional fæces
of the Great Mogul. An Oriental tale has the same to say of Christian
knights, who anointed themselves with the excrement of the pope and
cardinals in order to make themselves formidable. A patient who is
characterized by a special veneration for her father had a phantasy that
she saw her father sitting upon the toilet in a dignified manner, and
people going past greeted him effusively.[357] The association of the
anal relations by no means excludes high valuation or esteem, as is
shown by these examples, and as is easily seen from the intimate
connection of fæces and gold.[358] Here the most worthless comes into
the closest relation with the most valuable. This also happens in
religious valuations. I discovered (at that time to my great
astonishment) that a young patient, very religiously trained,
represented in a dream the Crucified on the bottom of a blue-flowered
chamber pot, namely, in the form of excrements. The contrast is so
enormous that one must assume that the valuations of childhood must
indeed be very different from ours. This is actually the truth. Children
bring to the act of defecation and the products of this an esteem and
interest[359] which later on is possible only to the hypochondriac. We
do not comprehend this interest until we learn that the child very early
connects with it a theory of propagation.[360] The libido afflux
probably accounts for the enormous interest in this act. The child sees
that this is the way in which something is produced, in which something
comes out. The same child whom I reported in the little brochure “Über
Konflikte der kindlichen Seele,” and who had a well-developed anal
theory of birth, like little Hans, whom Freud made known to us, later
contracted a habit of staying a long time on the toilet. Once the father
grew impatient, went to the toilet and called, “Do come out of there;
what are you making?” Whereupon the answer came from within, “A little
wagon and two ponies.” The child was making a little wagon and two
ponies, that is to say, things which at that time she especially wished
for. In this way one can make what one wishes, and the thing made is the
thing wished for. The child wishes earnestly for a doll or, at heart,
for a real child. (That is, the child practised for his future
biological task, and in the way in which everything in general is
produced he made the doll[361] himself as representative of the child or
of the thing wished for in general.[362]) From a patient I have learned
a parallel phantasy of her childhood. In the toilet there was a crevice
in the wall. She phantasied that from this crevice a fairy would come
out and present her with everything for which she wished. The “locus” is
known to be the place of dreams where much was wished for and created
which later would no longer be suspected of having this place of origin.
A pathological phantasy in place here is told us by Lombroso,[363]
concerning two insane artists. Each of them considered himself God and
the ruler of the world. They created or produced the world by making it
come forth from the rectum, just as the egg of birds originates in the
egg canal. One of these two artists was endowed with a true artistic
sense. He painted a picture in which he was just in the act of creation;
the world came forth from his anus; the membrum was in full erection; he
was naked, surrounded by women, and with all insignia of his power. The
excrement is in a certain sense the thing wished for, and on that
account it receives the corresponding valuation. When I first understood
this connection, an observation made long ago, and which disturbed me
greatly because I never rightly understood it, became clear to me. It
concerned an educated patient who, under very tragic circumstances, had
to be separated from her husband and child, and was brought into the
insane asylum. She exhibited a typical apathy and slovenliness which was
considered as affective mental deterioration. Even at that time I
doubted this deterioration, and was inclined to regard it as a secondary
adjustment. I took especial pains to ascertain how I could discover the
existence of the affect in this case. Finally, after more than three
hours’ hard work, I succeeded in finding a train of thought which
suddenly brought the patient into a completely adequate and therefore
strongly emotional state. At this moment the affective connection with
her was completely reëstablished. That happened in the forenoon. When I
returned at the appointed time in the evening to the ward to see her she
had, for my reception, smeared herself from head to foot with excrement,
and cried laughingly, “Do I please you so?” She had never done that
before; it was plainly destined for me. The impression which I received
was one of a personal affront and, as a result of this, I was convinced
for years after of the affective deterioration of such cases. Now we
understand this act as an infantile ceremony of welcome or a declaration
of love.
The origin of Chiwantopel, that is to say, an unconscious personality,
therefore means, in the sense of the previous explanation, “I make,
produce, invent him myself.” It is a sort of human creation or birth by
the anal route. The first people were made from excrement, potter’s
earth, or clay. The Latin _lutum_, which really means “moistened earth,”
also has the transferred meaning of dirt. In Plautus it is even a term
of abuse, something like “You scum.” The birth from the anus also
reminds us of the motive of “throwing behind oneself.” A well-known
example is the oracular command, which Deucalion and Pyrrha, who were
the only survivors from the great flood, received. They were to throw
behind them the bones of the great mother. They then threw behind them
stones, from which mankind sprang. According to a tradition, the Dactyli
in a similar manner sprang from dust, which the nymph Anchiale threw
behind her. There is also humorous significance attached to the anal
products. The excrements are often considered in popular humor as a
monument or memorial (which plays a special part in regard to the
criminal in the form of _grumus merdæ_); every one knows the humorous
story of the man who, led by the spirit through labyrinthian passages to
a hidden treasure, after he had shed all his pieces of clothing,
deposited excrement as a last guide post on his road. In a more distant
past a sign of this kind possessed as great a significance as the dung
of animals to indicate the direction taken. Simple monuments (“little
stone figures”) have taken the place of this perishable mark.
It is noteworthy that Miss Miller quotes another case, where a name
suddenly obtruded itself, parallel to the emerging into consciousness of
Chiwantopel, namely, A-ha-ma-ra-ma, with the feeling that it dealt with
something Assyrian.[364] As a possible source of this, there occurred to
her “Asurabama, who made cuneiform bricks,”[365] those imperishable
documents made from clay: the monuments of the most ancient history. If
it were not emphasized that the bricks are “cuneiform,” then it might
mean ambiguously “wedged-shaped bricks,” which is more suggestive of our
interpretation than that of the author.
Miss Miller remarks that besides the name “Asurabama” she also thought
of “Ahasuerus” or “Ahasverus.” This phantasy leads to a very different
aspect of the problem of the unconscious personality. While the previous
materials betrayed to us something of the infantile theory of creation,
this phantasy opens up a vista into the dynamics of the unconscious
creation of personality. Ahasver is, as is well known, the Wandering
Jew; he is characterized by endless and restless wanderings until the
end of the world. The fact that the author has thought of this
particular name justifies us in following this trail. The legend of
Ahasver, the first literary traces of which belong to the thirteenth
century, seems to be of Occidental origin, and belongs to those ideas
which possess indestructible vital energy. The figure of the Wandering
Jew has undergone more literary elaboration than the figure of Faust,
and nearly all of this work belongs to the last century. If the figure
is not called Ahasver, still it is there under another name, perhaps as
Count of St. Germain, the mysterious Rosicrucian, whose immortality was
assured, and whose temporary residence (the land) was equally
known.[366] Although the stories about Ahasver cannot be traced back any
earlier than the thirteenth century, the oral tradition can reach back
considerably further, and it is not an impossibility that a bridge to
the Orient exists. There is the parallel figure of Chidr, or “al
Chadir,” the “ever-youthful Chidher” celebrated in song by Rueckert. The
legend is purely Islamitic. The peculiar feature, however, is that
Chidher is not only a saint, but in Sufic circles[367] rises even to
divine significance. In view of the severe monotheism of Islam, one is
inclined to think of Chidher as a pre-Islamitic Arabian divinity who
would hardly be officially recognized by the new religion, but might
have been tolerated on political grounds. But there is nothing to prove
that. The first traces of Chidher are found in the commentaries of the
Koran, Buchâri and Tabare and in a commentary to a noteworthy passage of
the eighteenth sura of the Koran. The eighteenth sura is entitled “the
cave,” that is, after the cave of the seven sleepers, who, according to
the legend, slept there for 309 years, and thus escaped persecution, and
awoke in a new era. Their legend is recounted in the eighteenth sura,
and divers reflections were associated with it. The wish-fulfilment idea
of the legend is very clear. The mystic material for it is the immutable
model of the Sun’s course. The Sun sets periodically, but does not die.
It hides in the womb of the sea or in a subterranean cave,[368] and in
the morning is “born again,” complete. The language in which this
astronomic occurrence is clothed is one of clear symbolism; the Sun
returns into the mother’s womb, and after some time is again born. Of
course, this event is properly an incestuous act, of which, in
mythology, clear traces are still retained, not the least of which is
the circumstance that the dying and resurrected gods are the lovers of
their own mothers or have generated themselves through their own
mothers. Christ as the “God becoming flesh” has generated himself
through Mary; Mithra has done the same. These Gods are unmistakable
Sun-gods, for the Sun also does this, in order to again renew himself.
Naturally, it is not to be assumed that astronomy came first and these
conceptions of gods afterwards; the process was, as always, inverted,
and it is even true that primitive magic charms of rebirth, baptism,
superstitious usages of all sorts, concerning the cure of the sick,
etc., were projected into the heavens. These youths were born from the
cave (the womb of mother earth), like the Sun-gods, in a new era, and
this was the way they vanquished death. In this far they were immortal.
It is now interesting to see how the Koran comes, after long ethical
contemplations in the course of the same sura, to the following passage,
which is of especial significance for the origin of the Chidher myth.
For this reason I quote the Koran literally:
“Remember when Moses said to his servant, ‘I will not stop till I
reach the confluence of the two seas, or for eighty years will I
journey on.’
“But when they reached their confluence they forgot their fish, and it
took its way in the sea at will.
“And when they had passed on, Moses said to his servant, ‘Bring us our
morning meal, for now we have incurred weariness from this our
journey.’
“He said, ‘What thinkest thou? When we repaired to the rock for rest,
then verily I forgot the fish; and none but Satan made me forget it,
so as not to mention it; and it hath taken its way in the sea in a
wondrous sort.’
“He said, ‘It is this we were in quest of.’ So they both went back
retracing their footsteps.
“Then found they one of our servants to whom we had vouchsafed our
mercy, and whom we had instructed with our knowledge;[369]
“Moses said to him, ‘Shall I follow thee that thou teach me, for
guidance of that which thou hast been taught?’
“He said, ‘Verily, thou canst by no means have patience with me; and
how canst thou be patient in matters whose meaning thou comprehendest
not?’”—Trans. Rodwell, page 188.
Moses now accompanies the mysterious servant of God, who does divers
things which Moses cannot comprehend; finally, the Unknown takes leave
of Moses, and speaks to him as follows:
“They will ask thee of Dhoulkarnein (the two-horned).[370] Say: ‘I
will recite to you an account of him.’
“Verily, we established his power upon the earth and we gave him a
means to accomplish every end, so he followed his way;
“Until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it to set in a
miry forest; and hard by, he found a people....”
Now follows a moral reflection; then the narrative continues:
“Then he followed his course further until he came to the place where
the sun rises....”
If now we wish to know who is the unknown servant of God, we are told in
this passage _he is Dhulqarnein, Alexander, the Sun; he goes to the
place of setting and he goes to the place of rising_. The passage about
the unknown servant of God is explained by the commentaries in a
well-defined legend. The servant is Chidher, “the verdant one,” the
never-tiring wanderer, who roams for hundreds and thousands of years
over lands and seas, the teacher and counsellor of pious men; the one
wise in divine knowledge—the immortal.[371] The authority of the Tabari
associates Chidher with Dhulqarnein; Chidher is said to have reached the
“stream of life” as a follower of Alexander, and both unwittingly had
drunk of it, so that they became immortal. Moreover, _Chidher is
identified by the old commentators with Elias_, who also did not die,
but _who was taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot_. Elias is
_Helios_.[372] It is to be observed that Ahasver also owes his existence
to an obscure place in the holy Christian scriptures. This place is to
be found in Matthew xvi:28. First comes the scene where Christ appoints
Peter as the rock of his church, and nominates him the governor of his
power.[373] After that follows the prophecy of his death, and then comes
the passage:
“Verily, I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Here follows the scene of the transfiguration:
“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun,
and his raiment was white as the light.
“And behold there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
“Then answered Peter and said unto Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to
be here; if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for
thee and one for Moses and one for Elias.’”[374]
From these passages it appears that Christ stands on the same plane as
Elias, without being identified with him,[375] although the people
consider him as Elias. The ascension places Christ as identical with
Elias. The prophecy of Christ shows that there exist aside from himself
one or more immortals who shall not die until Parousai. According to
John xxi: 22nd verse, the boy John was considered as one of these
immortals, and in the legend he is, in fact, not dead but merely
sleeping in the ground until Parousai, and breathes so that the dust
swirls round his grave.[376] As is evident, there are passable bridges
from Christ by way of Elias to Chidher and Ahasuerus. It is said in an
account of this legend[377] that Dhulqarnein led his friend Chidher to
the “source of life” in order to have him drink of immortality.[378]
Alexander also bathed in the stream of life and performed the ritual
ablutions. As I previously mentioned in a footnote, according to Matthew
xvii: 12th verse, John the Baptist is Elias, therefore primarily
identical with Chidher. Now, however, it is to be noted that in the
Arabian legend Chidher appears rather as a companion or accompanied
(Chidher with Dhulqarnein or with Elias, “like unto them”; or identified
with them[379]). There are therefore, two similar figures who resemble
each other, but who, nevertheless, are distinct. The analogous situation
in the Christian legend is found in the scene by the Jordan where John
leads Christ to the “source of life.” Christ is there, the subordinate,
John the superior, similar to Dhulqarnein and Chidher, or Chidher and
Moses, also Elias. The latter relation especially is such that Vollers
compares Chidher and Elias, on the one side, with Gilgamesh and his
mortal brother Eabani; on the other side, with the Dioscuri, one of whom
is immortal, the other mortal. This relation is also found in Christ and
John the Baptist,[380] on the one hand, and Christ and Peter, on the
other. The last-named parallel only finds its explanation through
comparison with the Mithraic mysteries, where the esoteric contents are
revealed to us through monuments. Upon the Mithraic marble relief of
Klagenfurt[381] it is represented how with a halo Mithra crowns Helios,
who either kneels before him or else floats up to him from below. Mithra
is represented on a Mithraic monument of Osterburken as holding in his
right hand the shoulder of the mystic ox above Helios, who stands bowed
down before him, the left hand resting on a sword hilt. A crown lies
between them on the ground. Cumont observes about this scene that it
probably represents the divine prototype of the ceremony of the
initiation into the degree of Miles, in which a sword and a crown were
conferred upon the mystic. Helios is, therefore, appointed the Miles of
Mithra. In a general way, Mithra seems to occupy the rôle of patron to
Helios, which reminds us of the boldness of Hercules towards Helios.
Upon his journey towards Geryon, Helios burns too hotly; Hercules, full
of anger, threatens him with his never-failing arrows. Therefore, Helios
is compelled to yield, and lends to the hero his Sun ship, with which he
was accustomed to journey across the sea. Thus Hercules returns to
Erythia, to the cattle herds of Geryon.[382] On the monument at
Klagenfurt, Mithra is furthermore represented pressing Helios’s hand,
either in farewell or as a ratification. In a further scene Mithra
mounts the Chariot of Helios, either for the ascension or the “Sea
Journey.”[383] Cumont is of the opinion that Mithra gives to Helios a
sort of ceremonious investiture and consecrates him with his divine
power by crowning him with his own hands. This relation corresponds to
that of Christ to Peter. Peter, through his symbol, the cock, has the
character of a sun-god. After the ascension (or sea journey) of Christ,
he is the visible pontiff of the divinity; he suffers, therefore, the
same death (crucifixion) as Christ, and becomes the great Roman deity
(_Sol invictus_), the conquering, triumphant Church itself, embodied in
the Pope. In the scene of Malchus he is always shown as the miles of
Christ, to whom the sword is granted, and as the rock upon which the
Church is founded. The crown[384] is also given to him who possesses the
power to bind and to set free. Thus, Christ, like the Sun, is the
visible God, whereas the Pope, like the heir of the Roman Cæsars, is
_solis invicti comes_. The setting sun appoints a successor whom he
invests with the power of the sun.[385] Dhulqarnein gives Chidher
eternal life. Chidher communicates his wisdom to Moses.[386] There even
exists a report according to which the forgetful servant of Joshua
drinks from the well of life, whereupon he becomes immortal, and is
placed in a ship by Chidher and Moses, as a punishment, and is cast out
to sea, once more a fragment of a sun myth, the motive of the “sea
journey.”[387]
The primitive symbol, which designates that portion of the Zodiac in
which the Sun, with the Winter Solstice, again enters upon the yearly
course, is the goat, fish sign, the αἰγωκέρως. The Sun mounts like a
goat to the highest mountain, and later goes into the water as a fish.
The fish is the symbol of the child,[388] for the child before his birth
lives in the water like a fish, and the Sun, because it plunges into the
sea, becomes equally child and fish. The fish, however, is also a
phallic symbol,[389] also a symbol for the woman.[390] Briefly stated,
the fish is a libido symbol, and, indeed, as it seems predominately _for
the renewal of the libido_.
The journey of Moses with his servant is a life-journey (eighty years).
They grow old and lose their life force (libido), that is, they lose the
fish which “pursues its course in a marvellous manner to the sea,” which
means the setting of the sun. When the two notice their loss, they
discover at the place where the “source of life” is found (where the
dead fish revived and sprang into the sea) Chidher wrapped in his
mantle,[391] sitting on the ground. According to another version, he sat
on an island in the sea, or “in the wettest place on earth,” that is, he
was just _born from the maternal depths_. Where the fish vanished
Chidher, “the verdant one,” was born as a “son of the deep waters,” his
head veiled, a Cabir, a proclaimer of divine wisdom; the old Babylonian
Oannes-Ea, who was represented in the form of a fish, and daily came
from the sea as a fish to teach the people wisdom.[392] His name was
brought into connection with John’s. With the rising of the renewed sun
all that lived in darkness, as water-animal or fish, surrounded by all
terrors of night and death,[393] became as the shining fiery firmament
of the day. Thus the words of John the Baptist[394] gain especial
meaning:
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”
With Vollers we may also compare Chidher and Elias (Moses and his
servant Joshua) with Gilgamesh and his brother Eabani. Gilgamesh
wandered through the world, driven by anxiety and longing, to find
immortality. His path led him across the seas to the wise Utnapishtim
(Noah), who knew how to cross the waters of death. There Gilgamesh had
to dive down to the bottom of the sea for the magical herb which was to
lead him back to the land of men. When he had come again to his native
land a serpent stole the magic plant from him (the fish again slid into
the sea). But on the return from the land of the blessed an immortal
mariner accompanied him, who, banished by a curse of Utnapishtim, was
forbidden to return to the land of the blessed. Gilgamesh’s journey had
lost its purpose on account of the loss of the magic herb; instead he is
accompanied by an immortal, whose fate, indeed, we cannot learn from the
fragments of the epic. This banished immortal is the model for Ahasver,
as Jensen[395] aptly remarked.
Again we encounter the motive of the Dioscuri, mortal and immortal,
setting and rising sun. This _motive is also represented as if projected
from the hero_.
The Sacrificium Mithriacum (the sacrifice of the bull) is in its
religious representation very often flanked by the two Dadophores,
Cautes and Cautopates, one with a raised and the other with a lowered
torch. They represent brothers who reveal their character through the
symbolic position of the torch. Cumont connects them, not without
meaning, with the sepulchral “erotes” who as genii with the reversed
torches have traditional meaning. The one is supposed to stand for death
and the other for life. I cannot refrain from mentioning the similarity
between the Sacrificium Mithriacum (where the sacrificed bull in the
centre is flanked on both sides by Dadophores) to the Christian
sacrifice of the lamb (ram). The Crucified is also traditionally flanked
by the two thieves, one of whom ascends to Paradise, while the other
descends to Hell.[396] The idea of the mortal and the immortal seems to
have passed also into the Christian worship. Semitic gods are often
represented as flanked by two Paredroi; for example, Baal of Edessa,
accompanied by Aziz and Monimoz (Baal as the Sun, accompanied by Mars
and Mercury, as expressed in astronomical teachings). According to the
Chaldean view, the gods are grouped into triads. In this circle of ideas
belongs also the Trinity, the idea of the triune God, in which Christ
must be considered in his unity with the Father and the Holy Ghost. So,
too, do the two thieves belong inwardly to Christ. The two Dadophores
are, as Cumont points out, nothing but offshoots[397] from the chief
figure of Mithra, to whom belongs a mysterious threefold character.
According to an account of Dionysus Areopagita, the magicians celebrated
a festival, “τοῦ τριπλασίου Μίθρου.”[398][399] An observation likewise
referring to the Trinity is made by Plutarch concerning Ormuzd: τρὶς
ἑαυτὸν αὐξήσας ἀπέστησε τοῦ ἡλίου.[400] The Trinity, as three different
states of the unity, is also a Christian thought. In the very first
place this suggests a sun myth. An observation by Macrobius 1:18 seems
to lend support to this idea:
“Hæ autem ætatum diversitates ad solem referuntur, ut parvulus
videatur hiemali solstitio, qualem Aegyptii proferunt ex adyto die
certa, ... æquinoctio vernali figura iuvenis ornatur. Postea statuitur
ætas ejus plenissima effigie barbæ solstitio æstivo ... exunde per
diminutiones veluti senescenti quarta forma deus figuratur.”[401][402]
As Cumont observes, Cautes and Cautapates occasionally carry in their
hands the head of a bull, and a scorpion.[403] Taurus and Scorpio are
equinoctial signs, which clearly indicate that the sacrificial scene
refers primarily to the Sun cycle; the rising Sun, which sacrifices
itself at the summer solstice, and the setting Sun. In the sacrificial
scene the symbol of the rising and setting Sun was not easily
represented; therefore, this idea was removed from the sacrificial
image.
We have pointed out above that the Dioscuri represent a similar idea,
although in a somewhat different form; the one sun is always mortal, the
other immortal. As this entire sun mythology is merely a psychologic
projection to the heavens, the fundamental thesis probably is as
follows; just as man consists of a mortal and immortal part, so the sun
is a pair of brothers,[404] one being mortal, the other immortal. This
thought lies at the basis of all theology in general. Man is, indeed,
mortal, but there are some who are immortal, or there is something in us
which is immortal. Thus the gods, “a Chidher or a St. Germain,” are our
immortal part, which, though incomprehensible, dwells among us
somewhere.
Comparison with the sun teaches us over and over again that the gods are
libido. It is that part of us which is immortal, since it represents
that bond through which we feel that in the race we are never
extinguished.[405] It is life from the life of mankind. Its springs,
which well up from the depths of the unconscious, come, as does our life
in general, from the root of the whole of humanity, since we are indeed
only a twig broken off from the mother and transplanted.
Since the divine in us is the libido,[406] we must not wonder that we
have taken along with us in our theology ancient representations from
olden times, which give the triune figure to the God. We have taken this
τριπλάσιον Θεόν[407] from the phallic symbolism, the originality of
which may well be uncontested.[408] The male genitals are the basis for
this Trinity. It is an anatomical fact that one testicle is generally
placed somewhat higher than the other, and it is also a very old, but,
nevertheless, still surviving, superstition that one testicle generates
a boy and the other a girl.[409] A late Babylonian bas-relief from
Lajard’s[410] collection seems to be in accordance with this view. In
the middle of the image stands an androgynous god (masculine and
feminine face[411]); upon the right, male side, is found a serpent, with
a sun halo round its head; upon the left, female side, there is also a
serpent, with the moon above its head. Above the head of the god there
are three stars. This ensemble would seem to confirm the Trinity[412] of
the representation. The Sun serpent at the right side is male; the
serpent at the left side is female (signified by the moon). This image
possesses a symbolic sexual suffix, which makes the sexual significance
of the whole obtrusive. Upon the male side a rhomb is found—a favorite
symbol of the female genitals; upon the female side there is a wheel or
felly. A wheel always refers to the Sun, but the spokes are thickened
and enlarged at the ends, which suggests phallic symbolism. It seems to
be a phallic wheel, which was not unknown in antiquity. There are
obscene bas-reliefs where Cupid turns a wheel of nothing but
phalli.[413] It is not only the serpent which suggests the phallic
significance of the Sun; I quote one especially marked case, from an
abundance of proof. In the antique collection at Verona I discovered a
late Roman mystic inscription in which are the following
representations:
[Illustration]
These symbols are easily read: Sun—Phallus, Moon—Vagina (Uterus). This
interpretation is confirmed by another figure of the same collection.
There the same representation is found, only the vessel[414] is replaced
by the figure of a woman. The impressions on coins, where in the middle
a palm is seen encoiled by a snake, flanked by two stones (testicles),
or else in the middle a stone encircled by a snake; to the right a palm,
to the left a shell (female genitals[415]), should be interpreted in a
similar manner. In Lajard’s “Researches” (“The Cult of Venus”) there is
a coin of Perga, where Artemis of Perga is represented by a conical
stone (phallic) flanked by a man (claimed to be Men) and by a female
figure (claimed to be Artemis). Men (the so-called Lunus) is found upon
an Attic bas-relief apparently with the spear but fundamentally a
sceptre with a phallic significance, flanked by Pan with a club
(phallus) and a female figure.[416] The traditional representation of
the Crucified flanked by John and Mary is closely associated with this
circle of ideas, precisely as is the Crucified with the thieves. From
this we see how, beside the Sun, there emerges again and again the much
more primitive comparison of the libido with the phallus. An especial
trace still deserves mention here. The Dadophor Cautapates, who
represents Mithra, is also represented with the cock[417] and the
pineapple. But these are the attributes of the Phrygian god Men, whose
cult was widely diffused. Men was represented with Pileus,[418] the
pineapple and the cock, also in the form of a boy, just as the
Dadophores are boyish figures. (This last-named property relates them
with Men to the Cabiri.) Men has a very close connection with Attis, the
son and lover of Cybele. In the time of the Roman Cæsars, Men and Attis
were entirely identified, as stated above. Attis also wears the Pileus
like Men, Mithra and the Dadophores. As the son and lover of his mother
he again leads us to the source of this religion-creating incest libido,
namely, to the mother. Incest leads logically to ceremonial castration
in the Attic-Cybele cult, for the Hero, driven insane by his mother,
mutilates himself.[419] I must at present forego entering more deeply
into this matter, because the incest problem is to be discussed at the
close. Let this suggestion suffice—that from different directions the
analysis of the libido symbolism always leads back again to the mother
incest. Therefore, we may surmise that the longing of the libido raised
to God (repressed into the unconscious) is a primitive, incestuous one
which concerns the mother. Through renouncing the virility to the first
beloved, the mother, the feminine element becomes extremely predominant;
hence the strongly androgynous character of the dying and resurrected
Redeemer. That these heroes are nearly always wanderers[420] is a
psychologically clear symbolism. The wandering is a representation of
longing,[421] of the ever-restless desire, which nowhere finds its
object, for, unknown to itself, it seeks the lost mother. The wandering
association renders the Sun comparison easily intelligible; also, under
this aspect, the heroes always resemble the wandering Sun, which seems
to justify the fact that the myth of the hero is a sun myth. But the
myth of the hero, however, is, as it appears to me, the myth of our own
suffering unconscious, which has an unquenchable longing for all the
deepest sources of our own being; for the body of the mother, and
through it for communion with infinite life in the countless forms of
existence. Here I must introduce the words of the Master who has divined
the deepest roots of Faustian longings:
“Unwilling, I reveal a loftier mystery.—
In solitude are throned the Goddesses,
No Space around them, Place and Time still less:
Only to speak of them embarrasses.
They are THE MOTHERS!
“Goddesses unknown to ye,
The Mortals,—named by us unwillingly.
Delve in the deepest depths must thou to reach them:
’Tis thine own fault that we for help beseech them.
“Where is the way?
“No way! To the Unreachable,
Ne’er to be trodden! A way to the Unbeseechable,
Never to be besought! Art thou prepared?
There are no locks, no latches to be lifted!
Through endless solitudes shalt thou be drifted!
Hast thou through solitudes and deserts dared?
And hadst thou swum to farthest verge of ocean
And there the boundless space beheld,
Still hadst thou seen wave after wave in motion,
Even though impending doom thy fear compelled.
Thou hadst seen something—in the beryl dim
Of peace-lulled seas, the sportive dolphins swim;
Hadst seen the flying clouds, sun, moon and star;
Nought shalt thou see in endless Void afar—
Not hear thy footstep fall, nor meet
A stable spot to rest thy feet.
“Here, take this key!
The Key will scent the true place from all others;
Follow it down! ‘Twill lead thee to the Mothers.
“Descend then! I could also say: Ascend!
’Twere all the same. _Escape from the Created_
To shapeless forms in liberated spaces!
Enjoy what long ere this was dissipated!
There whirls the press, like clouds on clouds unfolding;
Then with stretched arm swing high the key thou’rt holding!
“At last a blazing tripod,[422] tells thee this,
That there the utterly deepest bottom is.
Its light to thee will then the Mothers show,
Some in their seats, the others stand or go,
At their own will: Formation, Transformation,
The Eternal Mind’s eternal recreation,
Forms of all Creatures,—there are floating free.
They’ll see thee not! for only wraiths they see.
So pluck up heart,—the danger then is great.
Go to the tripod ere thou hesitate,
And touch it with the key.”