call’d in very old times_, Dracontium, _and not understood.
The first temples made in form of the symbol of the deity. Why
mankind should make the serpent the symbol of the deity? Of
symbols in general. Their antiquity and use. It was the first
kind of writing, even_ antediluvian. _The serpent of high account
from_ China _to_ Britain. _Of the nature of the serpent. The
extraordinary beauty of the creature. Its wonderful motion
without legs, thought to be like that of the gods. The wisdom of
the serpent consider’d. Symbolically understood. Its bifid tongue
the symbol of eloquence. Its enchanting power real. By the eyes,
by the ears. Whence emblematic of the preachers of the gospel,
and of our Saviour himself. On these, and many other accounts,
esteem’d a divine animal, and chosen to symbolize the first
begotten son of God, or first product of the divine fecundity._
2. _Of the nature of the formation of symbols. The serpent a
prophylactic symbol. Of the brazen serpent, typical of our
Saviour. Of the emerods of the_ Philistines, _whence the_ Phalli
_of the heathen. A serpent the symbol of Messiah in many views._
In my description of _Abury_, and its parts, I endeavour’d to make
every thing as plain as I could from fact and view; but now we come
to our speculative part, I can only propose to entertain, perhaps,
the reader’s curiosity, with what light I could gather from ancient
learning concerning it.
We have seen by our description, that the plan on which _Abury_ is
built, is that sacred hierogram of the _Egyptians_, and other ancient
nations, the circle and snake. The whole figure is the circle, snake,
and wings. By this they meant to picture out, as well as they could,
the nature of the divinity. The circle meant the supreme fountain
of all being, the father; the serpent, that divine emanation from
him which was called the son; the wings imported that other divine
emanation from them which was called the spirit, the _anima mundi_.
This is that figure which _Kircher_ names _ophio cyclo-pterygomorphos_,
and discourses largely of. But that we may have a better understanding
of it than hitherto has been, we shall open our mind concerning this
abstruse matter by degrees.
_Dracontia_ was a name among the first learned nations, for the very
ancient sort of temples, of which they could give no account, nor
well explain their meaning upon it. _Strabo_ XIV. this was a name of
this kind of patriarchal temple, of which _Abury_ is one, deduc’d
to later times, whilst the thing itself, and manner of building, was
disus’d and forgot.
[Illustration:
TAB. XXVIII.
_Stukeley f. 1723._
_The Geometry of Silbury hill._]
_Servius_ on the second _Æneid_, writes, “_anguis_ is a proper name of
the water-snake, _serpens_ of the land, _draco_ of those belonging to
temples.” By which, ultimately, our representations must be meant, tho’
probably by the author not understood, as having no acquaintance with
our kind of works. But it unavoidably brings to our mind the temples
of the ancients kept by dragons, which we so frequently meet with in
classical history. And we may well presume they mean such temples as
this of _Abury_, _Dracontia_.
“The serpent,” says _Maximus_ of _Tyre_, _Dissert._ 38. “was the great
symbol of the deity to most nations, and as such was worshipped by
the Indians.” The temples of old made in the form of a serpent, were
called for that reason, _Dracontia_. The universality of this regard
for serpents, shews the high antiquity of the symbol, and that it was
antediluvian.
To give us light into the affair, first it will be convenient to
discourse a little concerning the nature of the serpent, and why
mankind should make it a symbol of divinity. For it looks a little
strange, after our first mother was seduc’d from her innocence, by the
devil under this form, that so high a regard should be paid to it.
The first learning in the world confided chiefly in symbols. The wisdom
of the _Chaldeans_, _Phœnicians_, _Egyptians_, _Jews_, of _Zoroaster_,
_Sanchoniathon_, _Pherecydes Syrus_, _Pythagoras_, _Socrates_, _Plato_,
of all the ancients, that is come to our hand, is symbolic. “It was
the mode,” says _Serranus_, on _Plato_’s _Symposium_, “of the ancient
philosophers, to represent truth by certain symbols and hidden images.
It leads us gradually, sweetly, yet most efficaciously, towards the
contemplation of the first being, which is the end of all philosophy
and theology.” We may add, it was the method of ancient divines too,
from the beginning to our Saviour’s time. No one cultivated it more
than he, in all his sermons and discourses, which were affecting, well
wrought up, lively, apposite, entertaining in the highest degree. Some
of them complete _dramas_. And in general, we must conclude, it gives a
beautiful gloss and amiable face to truth.
That the Druids studied in this enigmatic and symbolic way, appears
from what we are writing upon; and _Diogenes Laertius_, in his proem,
affirms it of them. He ranks them with the _Magi_, _Chaldeans_,
and _Gymnosophists_, gives some of their doctrines, and makes them
rather ancienter than the _Egyptians_, meaning the learned among
the _Egyptians_. He says, “the _Gymnosophists_ are descended of the
_Magi_, and some affirm the _Jews_ too.” He means the ancestors of
the _Jews_, _Abraham_ in particular. I believe, Druids, _Chaldeans_,
_Gymnosophists_, and _Egyptians_, all descended, or rather disciples of
the _Magi_, who were the first and patriarchal priests after the flood.
_Sanchoniathon_ calls _Shem_ (as I take it) by the name of _Magus_, as
the prince of the order. He says the _Egyptians_ vail their doctrines
under the figure of beetles, _snakes_, birds, and other animals. And
it seems to be the origin of animal worship in _Egypt_. Thus _Gale_,
in his _court of the gentiles_, P. I. p. 64. again P. II. p. 35. “the
ancient mode of expressing things worthy of memory, by hieroglyphic
forms, notes, and symbols, was very common amongst the ancients, in the
oriental parts especially, both poets and philosophers; and exceeding
proper for that infant state of the world, wherein knowledge was so
imperfect and impolite. And we need no way doubt but that this symbolic
kind of discourse, or language, had its original from the divine
œconomy which God prescribed in his infant church, consisting of many
terrene images and sensible forms, symbols and types, for the shadowing
forth highest contemplations and heavenly mysteries. Which way of
conveying and preserving knowledge is not only helpful to the memory,
grateful to the fancy and judgment, but also very efficacious for the
moving of the affections.”
A symbol is an arbitrary, sensible sign of an intellectual idea. And I
believe the art of writing at first was no other, than that of making
symbols, pictures, or marks of things they wanted to express. So
that every letter was the picture of an idea. This was the first and
antediluvian way of writing, before alphabet writing was invented. This
latter was a postdiluvian invention, in my opinion. The reasons I shall
give on another more immediate occasion. _Servius_, on the _Æneid_ V.
_septem ingens gyros_, speaking of the snake encompassing _Anchises_’s
tomb, writes, that this method was prior to alphabet-writing. I believe
the _Chinese_ method of writing to be the antediluvian one; and the
like, perhaps, may be affirmed of the _Egyptian_ hieroglyphics. The
_Egyptians_ had the good sense, when alphabet writing was communicated
to them, to embrace it, tho’ the _Chinese_ will not. Still the
_Egyptians_ retain’d a particular veneration for their former method,
and dedicated it to sacred uses altogether.
This symbol of the snake and circle, which is the picture of the temple
of _Abury_, we see on innumerable _Egyptian_ monuments. Always it holds
the uppermost, the first and chief place; which shews its high dignity.
Mr. Selden, upon the _Arundel marbles_, p. 132, says, “this figure
in abbreviated writing, among the _Greeks_, signifies Δαιμων, the
_deity_.” [symbol] And Kircher, in his third tome, affirms the like of
the _Brachmans_ of the _East-Indies_.
I can by no means admit it to be an _Egyptian invention_. The
_Egyptians_ took this, and hieroglyphic writing in general, from the
common ancestors of mankind. This is sufficiently prov’d from the
universality of the thing, reaching from _China_ in the east, to
_Britain_ in the west, nay, and into _America_ too.
Nothing of so high account among the _Chinese_, as the representation
of dragons and serpents, as we see in all their pictures and utensils;
nay, the very stamps upon their ink. ’Tis the genial banner of their
empire. It means every thing that is sacred among them. In baron
_Vischer_’s elegant book of ancient architecture, Tab. XV. you have the
picture of a _Chinese_ triumphal arch (of which there are many in the
city of _Pekin_) twice upon it is pictur’d, in a tablet over the front,
a circle and two snakes, as on _Egyptian_ works. They adorn their
temples, houses, habits, and every thing with this figure, as a common
_prophylaxis_. I apprehend it was from the beginning a sacred amuletic
character. ’Tis carv’d several times on the cornishes of the temple (I
take it so to be) of _Persepolis_, as we see in Sir _John Chardin_, _Le
Brun_, _Kæmfer_. Dragons were the _Parthian_ ensigns, from whom the
_Romans_ in later times took them, and our _saxon_ ancestors from the
_Romans_. ’Tis a known verse in the satyrist,
_Pinge duos angues, sacer est locus._
The Druids had no less a veneration for it, as we find by _Abury_ and
by their fondness of snake stone beads and the like, which _Pliny_
calls snakes’ eggs, and discourses on, largely, in relation to our
Druids.
[Illustration:
TAB. XXIX.
_A Group of Barrows on the side of the valley above Beckampton_
_A Group of Barrows upon Overton hill_]
Here we see the sacred regard paid to snakes from _China_ to _Britain_.
Still as we before suggested, it appears somewhat strange, when we
consider that the patriarchs, of whose age and times we are now chiefly
treating, were not ignorant of the evil deriv’d to mankind thro’ this
creature.
We may satisfy our selves about this difficulty, by considering, 1. the
natural history of the serpent, and 2. the nature of forming of symbols.
First, the natural history of this animal. Can we divest our selves
of original prejudice, we must allow the serpent kind, as to their
outward _appearance_, among the most beautiful creatures in the world.
The poets, those great masters of nature, are luxuriant in their
descriptions of them, comparing them to the most glorious appearance in
the universe, the rainbow. Thus _Virgil Æneid_ V.
_Cæruleæ cui terga notæ, maculosus & auro
Squamam incendebat fulgor; ceu nubibus arcus
Mille trahit varios, adverso sole colores._
Thus _Lucan_,
_Serpitis aurato nitidi fulgore dracones._
——_cristis præsignis & auro.
Igne micant oculi_—— Ovid. Met. 3.
Of _Cadmus_’s snake.
_Hephæstion_ II. writes concerning the _Hydra_ of _Hercules_, that
half his head was of gold. I saw a snake of such exquisite beauty in
_Surrey_. The motion and the appearance or bright golden colour, being
so like to angelick, seraphick beings; no wonder the ancients conceiv’d
so high a regard for the serpent, as to reckon it a most divine animal.
There is a kind of them bred in _Arabia_ and _Africa_, of a shining
yellow colour, like brass, or burnish’d gold, which in motion reflects
the sun-beams with inconceivable lustre. Some of them are said to have
wings, called _Seraphs_, _Saraphs_, _Seraphim_, mention’d _Deut._ xii.
15. this is the name given to the brazen serpent. And equally to the
angels and celestial messengers, who are described of this appearance,
in scripture. So the cherubim that supported the _Shechinah_ in
_Ezekiel_ i. 7. “sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.” The
divine appearance between the candlesticks in _Apocalypse_ i. 15. “His
feet were like to fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace.” Hence
his ministers are called a flame of fire. _Psalm_ civ. 4.
Secondly, consider the _motion_ of a serpent,’tis wonderful; perform’d
without the help of legs, nay incomparably quicker than their kindred
of the crocodile and lizard kind, which have four legs: ’tis swift,
smooth, wavy, and beautiful. The ancients conceiv’d it to be like
the walking of the gods; whence the notion of deify’d heroes, with
serpents’ feet. _Pherecydes Syrus_ says, the gods have snakes’ feet:
meaning their motion was smooth and sweeping, without the alternate use
of legs.
_Heliodorus_ III. speaks of the wavy motion of the gods, not by opening
their feet, but with a certain aerial force; it was call’d _incessus_.
_Non ambulamus, sed incedimus_, says _Seneca_.
_Ast ego, quæ divûm_ incedo _regina, Jovisque
Et soror & conjunx_—— Virg. Æn. 1.
_Et vera_ incessu _patuit dea_.
So the prophet _Ezekiel_ describes the motion of the alate globes under
the cherubims’ feet; as it ought to be understood, _Ezek._ i. 12.
_Sanchoniathon_ the _Phœnician_ in _Euseb._ _p. e._ I. 7. writes, that
the nature of serpents is divine. “’Tis the most spiritual animal of
all and fiery; that it performs all its various motions by its spirit,
without other organs;” and much more of this kind, to our purpose.
_Jerem._ xlvi. 22. The shout and the march of an army is compar’d to
the motion of a serpent.
Thirdly, from the form, pass we to the _mind_ of the serpent, if we
may be allowed so to talk. The wisdom of this creature is celebrated
from the time of creation itself. _Moses_ writes, it was more subtle
than any other creature, _Genes._ iii. 1. Our Saviour recommends to the
ministry, to imitate the prudence of serpents, as well as the innocence
of doves: he makes it the symbol of Christian prudence. The psalmist
compares the slyness of the wicked to the serpent, which refuses to
be charmed. _Aristotle_ writes, that this animal is very crafty; but
if we inquire into authors, concerning this wisdom of the creature,
nothing occurs satisfactory: in truth ’tis figurative and symbolical;
meaning the charm of rhetorick and oratory, taken from the divided
tongue of this creature, and more especially regarding the preachers
of evangelical truths: διγλωσσία among the antients was prudence. Our
Saviour in the forecited place of the apocalypse, is represented with
a two-edged sword in his mouth, meaning the efficacy of preaching.
The people affirmed, “never man spake like this man;” and he sent the
divine spirit of eloquence and languages upon his apostles, in the
likeness of cloven tongues of fire.
_Servius_ on the second _Æneid_, speaking of the tongue of _Laocoon_’s
serpent,
_Sibila lambebant linguis vibrantibus ora_,
tells us, no creature moves its tongue with so much swiftness; so that
it seems triple.
————_tresque vibrant linguæ_————
Says _Ovid_ of _Cadmus_’s snake.
• • • • •
The tongue was the only active arms of the apostles, as the bifid
tongue of the serpent is its only weapon; and which, as the ancients
thought, carried life and death with it.
From the numerous and credible accounts I have seen, snakes, I am
persuaded, have a power of charming, by looking steadfastly with their
fiery eyes, on birds, mice, and such creatures as they prey upon.
They are put into such an agony, as to run by degrees into their open
mouth. Further, snakes were thought to have an inchanting power, not
only with their eyes, but likewise by whispering into the ears: for
by that whispering they communicated a prophetick and divine spirit.
The scholiast of _Euripides_ writes, of _Helenus_ and _Cassandra_,
that serpents licking their ears, so sharpened their hearing, that
_they_ only could hear the counsels of the gods; and became great
prophets thereby. This incantation by the ears, is elegantly apply’d
by the fathers, in their writings, to the preachers of the gospel,
and to our Saviour himself. _Clemens in pædagog._ V. calls him Επωδὸς
the inchanter, as the learned _Spanheim_ observes: and often St.
_Chrysostom_ uses the like expression.
[Illustration:
TAB. XXX.
_Stukeley del._
_Milbarrow _in_ Monkton _215 f. long 55 broad set round with great
Stones, the broad end Eastwᵈ. the narrow end W. drawn 10 Iuly 1723_]
All these put together, I take to be some good reasons (to omit
several more for brevity’s sake) for the extraordinary veneration
paid to this creature, from all antiquity. Our oldest heathen writer
_Sanchoniathon_ says, the _Phœnicians_ call’d it _agathodæmon_, the
good angel. _Epies_ the _Phœnician_ in _Eusebius_ pronounces it a most
divine animal. _Maximus_ of _Tyre_ before quoted writes, that the
serpent was the great symbol of the deity, in most nations, even among
the _Indians_. _Sigismund_ in his _Muscovite_-history, says the like of
the _Samogitians_, in the northern parts of that vast empire. _Gaguin_
in his _Sarmatia_, of the _Lithuanians_. So _Scaliger_ in his notes
on _Aristotle_ of animals, concerning the people of _Calicut_ in the
_East-Indies_; all books of travels into the _West-Indies_, the like.
This sufficiently proves the notion nearly as old as mankind.
From these notions in antiquity, arose the strange humour of the ophite
sect or heresy, who affirm the seducer serpent was the son of God.
_Epiphanius_, _Tertullian_, St. _Augustin_ and others speak of it. They
kept a serpent in a box and worshipped it.
2. We are to consider the nature of forming of symbols. The serpent
simply, as it was curs’d of God, and composite, as hanging on a tree,
was symbolical of Christ: according to the sense both of _Jewish_ and
Christian writers.
We have seen the serpent in very advantageous light, which was in
order to remove our prejudice, by the high notion its natural history
presents us, to which much might have been added. But this is not
necessary in the formation of symbols, for if we should think this a
mean and contemptible animal, unworthy to convey to us so great an
idea, I answer, it was one of the arts of the inventors of symbols and
emblems, to picture out the highest things by what we may esteem the
lowest subjects: a beetle, for instance, is the symbol of no less than
what the heathen call _anima mundi_; and to picture out the greatest
good by its contrary. Just as _Isaiah_ in the prophetical style calls
that most excellent prince king _Hezekiah_, by the name of dragon,
basilisk, cockatrice, and fiery flying serpent, xiv. 26. This is
understood not in regard to any pravity of his own disposition, but in
regard to the enemies of God’s people, to whom he was as a dragon, a
divine avenger against enemies, a protector of his own. Again consider
the serpent as a prophylactick symbol, and the highest of sacred
characters, thought most effectually to guard against and drive off all
evil power. It was the method in making these prophylactick symbols,
to take the figure of the thing we want to remedy. A most remarkable
and apposite instance of this nature, is the famous brazen serpent
erected by _Moses_, being suspended on a cross-pole, like that on which
military banners are hung. They that were bitten by the fiery serpents,
were order’d to look on this, and be whole. So that manifestly the
symbol is to excite faith and obedience. They are the proper cure, not
the intrinsick efficacy of the symbolical figure, _Wisd._ xvi. 6, 7.
All writers _Jewish_ and Christian with one mouth assert, this was
a type of the Messiah. _Philo_ is in a rapture about it; supposes
somewhat extraordinary, future, is meant thereby. _Rabbi Moses
Gerundinensis_ writes thus. “It seems to me, concerning this mystery,
that ’tis agreeable to the course of the divine law, as to miraculous
works, that the mischief should be remedied by a thing similar to that
which caus’d it.” And it makes the miracle more illustrious and divine,
that God should direct a snake to cure those bitten by snakes.
Others of the rabbin are of the same way of thinking, as _David
Kimchi_, _Michlol_ II. And _Abarbenel_ upon the place, f. 305. And
_Nachmanides_. Our Saviour applies the _Mosaic_ serpent directly to
himself; no wonder then that the Christian fathers do so. _Christus
veluti serpens in cruce pependit_, says St. _Ambrose_. _Moebius_
treats largely of this resemblance between _Christ_ and the serpent,
_exercitatio de æneo serpente_, p. 63. Highly honour’d was the serpent,
that, as it had been the instrument of introducing the greatest evil
to mankind, to it was directed God’s word when he promised to us the
greatest good, the Messiah, imply’d in those words, _Gen._ iii. 15. He
_shall bruise thy head_: αυτος in the LXX.
Another like case is that in 1 _Samuel_ v. the ark of God was taken
captive by the _Philistines_, and they dar’d to look into the venerable
secrecy thereof. The nation was smote in the hinder-parts, the
organs of generation, which the scripture modestly calls _emerods_,
_hæmorrhoidals_. Moreover a terrible pestilence killed many, and
a plague of mice at harvest-time came upon them, and devoured all
the fruit of their ground. In order to make an atonement, they sent
away the ark again, with golden figures of the emerods and mice, a
present accompanying of costly jewels, as a consecrated λουτρον, or
satisfaction to the God of the _Jews_. Here, by the way, we should be
blind if we did not see the origin of the _phallus_ among the heathen.
Therefore to apply this. In regard to the seeming difficulty we at
first took notice of, paying such a regard to an animal which the
ancestors of mankind had so much reason to detest. Did the devil injure
us under the form of a serpent? The like figure is the properest of
any to symbolize the remedy, the antidote against the poison whereby
the devil wrought man’s fall. Therefore, naturally, the same is to
symbolize the Messiah then promised, who is to work man’s redemption.
And St. _Athanasius_, Tom. II. _quæst._ 20. scruples not to make a
comparison between the union of the serpent and the devil, in the fatal
temptation; to the union of the divine and human nature in our blessed
Saviour. The venomous serpent is his human nature, sinful, infected by
the devil’s treachery; _he was made sin for us_, tho’ not contaminated
himself. Tho’ not venomous, he cures the venom of our nature. I observe
that the _rabbies_, tho’ they saw sufficiently, how necessarily the
_Mosaic_ serpent was applicable to the Messiah, yet they were somewhat
fearful therein, and of speaking their mind upon it, for fear of doing
ill, in comparing him to an accursed animal. But our Saviour himself
was not fearful in comparing himself to it, and the rather on that
account, took it for a very express type of his crucifixion, and of
his being accursed for our sakes, _Deut._ xxi. 25. _John_ iii. 14.
_Galat._ iii. 13, _i. e._ devoted as a sacrifice, an expiation, that
we being freed from the curse of sin, might obtain the blessing of
God. So our Christian writers explain the type between our Saviour and
the brazen serpent in the wilderness. _Bede_ in particular, on _John_
iii. And here we see the nature of types, where a man that undergoes
the curse and punishment of the law, becomes in reality a type of the
Messiah. A serpent which pictures out the evil principle, the like, 2
_Cor._ v. 21. Assuredly _Moses_, by the holy Spirit, meant it to regard
Christ’s crucifixion. A fit emblem of his divinity, thro’ that
remarkable quality of their throwing off old age with their skin, and
returning to youth again. For so the ancients thought:
_Anguibus exuitur tenui cum pelle vetustas._ Tibullus.
A fit emblem of his resurrection from the dead, and of returning to an
immortal life.
[Illustration:
TAB. XXXI.
_The Long Barrow S. of_ Silbury Hill.
_An Archdruids barrow._]
No wonder then, from such reasons as these, and others as obvious,
the ancients concluded this to be the most divine of all animals, and
thought it the aptest symbol of the Νους ἑτερος, the other, or second
mind of _Plato_, whom they affirmed to be the creator of the world. I
know not whether this notion of theirs did not farther contribute to
it; they thought these animals brought forth by the mouth. They have
too no limbs, or members for action, but exert their mighty power by
the mouth only; whence _Horus Apollo_ says, “a serpent is the symbol
of the mouth.” This well represents the omnific WORD, which _Suidas_
speaks of from _Trismegistus_, all perfect, fruitful, the workman,
creator of the world.
CHAP. XII.