MORE AS TO THE BARNACLE AND THE GOOSE
IT is clear that there was a widespread tradition known to the learned
in the early centuries of the Christian era, according to which there
existed in some distant Eastern land a tree which bore buds or fruits
which became converted into birds. Connected with this, and perhaps
really a part of it, there existed a tradition that marine "barnacles"
gave birth to geese from within their shells, or are in some way
converted into geese. The two stories were in some localities and
narrations combined, though in others they were distinct. On the coast
of Ireland the early missionaries of the Church (learned men acquainted
with the traditions of their time) identified the migratory brent goose
with the bird said to be produced by the barnacle; and elsewhere, on
the Scottish coast, the barnacles were (it was reported) found growing
on trees. There is no such resemblance between barnacles and brent
geese as to have suggested to the Irish monks the regular and natural
conversion of one into the other. It seems most probable that the
learned churchmen knew the traditional story already before arriving
in Ireland, and applied it to the barnacles and the geese which
they discovered around them. Eventually the word "barnacle" without
qualification was applied to the geese, as we see in Gerard's account
given in the last chapter. Is there, it may be asked, anything further
known as to such a tradition, and the place and manner of its origin?
In the absence of such knowledge, an ingenious attempt was made by my
old friend, Professor Max Müller, to account for the tradition by the
similarity of the names, which he erroneously supposed had been given
_independently_ to the barnacle and to the "Hibernian" goose. I will
refer to this below, but now I will proceed to give the most probable
solution of the mystery as to the tradition of the tree, the goose,
and the barnacle. Its discovery is not more than twenty years old, and
is due to M. Frederic Houssay, a distinguished French zoologist of the
Ecole Normale, who published it in the "Revue Archeologique" in 1895.
It has not hitherto been brought to the notice of English readers, and
I shall therefore give a full account of it.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--Fanciful designs by Mykenæan artists, showing
change of the cuttle-fish (octopus or "poulpe") into a bull's head and
other shapes.
a, Octopus drawn on a goblet from Crete, the arms reduced to two, the
eyes detached.
b and c, Bull's head variations of the octopus, from designs found at
Koban in the Caucasus.
d, Spiral treatment of the arms of the octopus (a pose actually seen in
living specimens).
e, f, Human faces painted on Cretan jars across the whole width of the
neck, the design being derived from the octopus with detached eyes as
in Fig. a. Such designs survive long after their origin is forgotten,
as (according to M. Houssay) the legend of the barnacle and the goose
survived two thousand years after the Mykenæan drawings assimilating
one to the other had been forgotten.]
The solution is as follows: The Mykenæan population of the islands of
Cyprus and Crete, in the period 800 to 1000 years before Christ, were
great makers of pottery, and painted large earthernware basins and
vases with a variety of decorative representations of marine life, of
fishes, butterflies, birds, and trees. Some of these are to be seen in
the British Museum at Bloomsbury, where I examined them a few years
ago. Others have been figured by the well-known archæologists, MM.
Perrot and Chipiez, in the sixth volume of their work, "L'Ossuaire de
Crète." M. Perrot consulted M. Houssay, in his capacity of zoologist,
in regard to these Mykenæan drawings, which bear, as M. Houssay states,
the evidence of having been designed _after nature_ by one who knew
the things in life, although they are not slavishly "copied" from
nature. These early Mykenæan painters on pottery were members of a
community who worshipped the great mother--"Nature"--as Astarte or
Aphrodite risen from the foam of the sea. Being sailors and fishermen,
marine life was even more familiar to them than that of the land, and
they placed little models of sea animals as votive offerings in the
temples of the great mother, and also honoured her in decorating their
pottery with marine creatures. The little fish, Hippocampus, called
the sea-horse, the sea-urchin, the octopus, the argonaut and its
floating cradle, the sea-anemone, and the butterfly-like Pteropod,
were subjects used by these artists for which they found terrestrial
counterparts. The sea-horse was convertible decoratively into a true
horse, with intermediate phases imagined by the artists; the sea-urchin
into a hedgehog, the sea-anemone into a flower, and the Pteropod into
a true butterfly. These artists loved to exercise a little fancy and
ingenuity. By gradual reduction in the number and size of outstanding
parts--a common rule in the artistic "schematizing" or "conventional
simplification" of natural form--they converted the octopus and the
argonaut, with their eight arms, into a bull's head with a pair of
spiral horns (Fig. 14). In the same spirit it seems that they observed
and drew the barnacle floating on timber or thrown up after a storm
on their shores. They detected a resemblance in the marking of its
shells to the plumage of a goose, whilst in the curvature of its stalk
they saw a resemblance to the long neck of the bird. The barnacle's
jointed plumose legs or cirri and other details suggested points of
agreement with the feathers of the bird. They brought the barnacle and
the goose together, not guided thereto by any pre-existing legend, but
by a simple and not uncommon artistic desire to follow up a superficial
suggestion of similarity and to conceive of intermediate connecting
forms. Some of their fanciful drawings with this purpose are shown in
Figs. 15, 16, and 17. These (excepting the drawing of the barnacle
lying within its opened shell) are copied from M. Houssay's paper
on the subject, and were taken from the work of M. Perrot on Cretan
pottery.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--The Goose and the Barnacle.
A, Drawing of a Ship's Barnacle attached to a piece of timber by its
"peduncle" or stalk, which represents the neck of a goose, if we regard
the shell-covered region as the goose's body. From a sketch by M.
Frederic Houssay published in the "Revue Archæologique," January 1895.
B, Copy of a drawing on an ancient Mykenæan pot found in Crete, and
figured by M. Perrot in his "Ossuaire de Crète" vol. vi. p. 936. It is
a fantastic blend of the goose and the barnacle. The barnacle's stalk
is given a beak and an eye; the body of the bird corresponds to the
shells of the barnacle both in shape and marking. There are no wings or
legs, but the curious single limb which I have marked pe is obviously
the same thing as that marked pe in figure C, which represents the
barnacle when cut open so as to show the structures within the shell,
pe is the rod-like body at the end of which the seminal duct opens.
It is seen in the drawing of the expanded barnacle (Fig. 10), lying
between the two groups of six forked and jointed legs or "cirri."
C, A correct modern drawing of a ship's barnacle, with the shells of
one side removed so as to show the six double legs of one side, the
seminal rod (pe), and the internal organs. This is what Sir Robert
Moray and his mediaeval predecessors saw on opening the barnacle's
shell and described as "a young bird complete in every detail."]
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--Copy of a series of modified geese painted
on an early Mykenæan pot, figured by M. Perrot. Each has two jointed
appendages on the back, which suggest the wing feathers of the bird or
two of the jointed legs (cirri) of the barnacle, which issue in life
from this part of the barnacle's shell. The legs of the geese are very
small and absent in the fifth. The markings on the body differ in each
bird, but recall the shell of the barnacle divided into several valves
marked with parallel striations. They may also pass for the plumage of
the bird.]
The intention of the artist to fantastically insist on intermediate
phases between goose and barnacle is placed beyond doubt by certain
details. For instance, in Fig. 16, the little jointed processes on
the back of the goose marked a, correspond in position to the cirri
or legs of the barnacle. They are reduced in number to two, and
simplified in form so as to pass for the tips of the wings of the
goose. The goose's own feet are represented in their natural position.
The most extraordinary piece of resemblance in detail is that given
in Fig. 15, B, which is a copy of a very much "barnaculized" goose
from one of these ancient dishes. What does the Mykenæan artist mean
to represent by the strange single leg-like limb marked pe? When we
carefully examine the barnacle's soft body concealed by its shell, it
becomes obvious that this leg-like thing corresponds to the single
stalk-like body, ending in a bunch of a few hairs which is marked pe in
Fig. 15, C. This last-named figure is a careful modern representation
of the soft living barnacle, as seen when the shells of one side are
removed. The cylindrical body pe of Fig. 15, C, which is drawn by the
Mykenæan artist on an exaggerated scale in Fig. 15, B, is the external
opening of the seminal duct of the barnacle. It is remarkable that the
Mykenæan pottery-painter had observed the soft "fish" of the barnacle
so minutely as to select this unpaired and very peculiar-looking
structure, and represent it of exaggerated size attached in its proper
position on the barnacle-like body of a goose. This very striking
transference of a peculiar and characteristic organ of the barnacle to
the body of the goose by the artist seems not to have been noticed by
M. Houssay.
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--Two drawings on pottery of modified geese,
from Perrot's "Ossuaire de Crète." The three lines above the back of
the upper figure probably represent the legs or cirri of the barnacle,
which are represented by two jointed appendages in the geese shown in
Fig. 16.]
M. Houssay further points out the existence on some of the Mykenæan
pottery of drawings (see "L'Ossuaire de Crète," by MM. Perrot and
Chipiez) of leaves attached to tree-like stems. These leaves (Fig.
18, a, b, c) exhibit the same markings ("venation") which we see on
the bodies of the geese in Fig. 16, especially the middle one of the
five. The leaves (or fruits?) copied by M. Houssay from the Mykenæan
pottery are attached in a series to a stem--but no one, at present,
has suggested what plant it is which is represented. The corners of
the leaf or fruit to the right and left of its stalk are thrown into
a spiral--and the half leaf or half fruit represented in Fig. 18, b,
leads us on to that drawn in Fig. 18, c, in which the spiral corner is
slightly modified in curvature so as to resemble the head and neck of
the goose as drawn in Fig. 16. Though Fig. 18, c, is as yet devoid of
legs or wing feathers (compare Fig. 16, d), the black band along the
belly with the band of vertical markings above it agrees closely with
the design on the body of the middle goose of the series drawn in Fig.
16. As these are associated in the decoration of the Mykenæan artists,
it is fairly evident that the intention has been to manipulate the
drawing of the leaf or fruit so as to make it resemble the drawing of
the goose, whilst that in its turn is modified so as to emphasize or
idealize its points of resemblance to a barnacle.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--Leaves from the tree, drawn on a Mykenæan pot
which, according to M. Perrot, are fancifully designed so as to assume
step by step (a, b, c) the form of a goose. This appears either to
represent the tree which, according to legend, produced birds as buds
on its branches, or to be a fanciful design which gave rise to that
legend. The artist's intention of making the leaf gradually pass into
the semblance of a goose, is strongly emphasized by the purely fanciful
"venation" of the leaf which agrees with the equally fanciful ornament
of the bodies of the geese in Fig. 16, especially the middle one of the
series.]
It is true enough that the drawings from Mykenæan pots here submitted
cannot be considered as a complete demonstration that the legend of the
tree-goose originated with these drawings. But it must be remembered
that we have only a small number of examples of this pottery surviving
from a thousand years B.C. It is probable that the fanciful decorative
design of a master artist was copied and used in the painting of
hundreds of pots by mere workmen or inferior craftsmen, and that more
complete and impressive designs showing the fanciful transformation
of leaf or fruit to goose, and of goose to barnacle, existed both
before and after the making of the particular pots and jars which
have come down to us. The supposition made by M. Houssay (which I
entirely support) is that some later Levantine people--to whom these
decorated pots or copies of their decorations became known either in
the regular way of trade or as sailors' "curios"--were led to attempt
an explanation of the significance of the pictures drawn upon them,
and in accordance with a well-known and rooted tendency--interpreted
the fancies of the artist as careful representations of astonishing
fact. The existence of a tree which produces buds which become birds,
and of a barnacle which becomes transformed into a goose--is the
matter-of-fact interpretation of the few pictures of these animals
which have come down to us, modern men, painted on the few pots of that
remote Mykenæan industry now in our museums. It is not at all unlikely
that in the vast period of time between 1000 B.C. and 1000 A.D., the
more striking of these designs had been copied and familiarized in some
part of the ancient world. It is true that we do not at present know
in what part: we have not yet come across these designs of later date
than 800 B.C. The absence of the story of the tree-goose from Greek
and Roman lore is striking. Neither Aristotle nor Herodotus knew of
it, although it has been erroneously stated that they refer to it. Yet
the source of it was there in the Greek isles almost under their noses
(if one may speak of the noses of such splendid and worshipful men of
old) in the artistic work--otherwise not unknown to the Greeks--of a
civilization which preceded their own by hundreds of years. There is
other and ample evidence--as for instance that of the representation of
the "flying gallop" (see "Science from an Easy Chair," Second Series,
pp. 57 and 63), showing that Mykenæan art had little or no direct
effect on the Hellenes, although the reputation of the skill of the old
race in metal work came through many generations to them. Mykenæan art
seems to have migrated with Mykenæan settlers to the remote region of
the Caucasus. In the necropolis of Koban and other remote settlements,
Mykenæan designs in bronze and gold--including the horse in flying
gallop and octopods transformed to bull's heads--have been found and
pictured (Ernest Chantre, "Recherches anthropologique dans Caucase,"
4 vols.: Paris, 1886). They are believed to date from 500 B.C. It is
possible that in such remote regions or in some of the Greek islands
the pictures of the tree-goose and the barnacle may have survived until
the new dispensation--that is, until the days of the Byzantine Empire.
Once we can trace either the pictures or the legend up to that point,
there is no difficulty about admitting the radiation of the wonderful
story from that centre to the Jews of the Kabbalah, to Arabic writers,
and so to the learned men of the Christian Church and the seats of
learning throughout Europe and a great part of Asia.
Of the history of the legend during two thousand years we have no
actual knowledge. It remains for investigation. But undoubtedly these
Mykenæan pottery paintings remove the origin of the story to a period
two thousand years older than that of the Irish monks.
One additional fact I may mention as to the existence of the goose
and barnacle legend in the East. I am informed that in Java there is,
according to "native" story, a shell-fish the animal of which becomes
transformed into a bird--said to be a kind of snipe--and flies from
the shell. I have been shown the shell by a Dutch lady who has lived
in Java. It is a large fresh-water mussel, one of the Unionidæ. I have
failed to obtain, after inquiry, any further information as to the
prevalence or origin of this story in Java, and hope that some one who
reads this page may be able to help me.
Before leaving the story of the goose and the barnacle, the explanation
of the myth given by Prof. Max Müller in his lectures on the science of
language nearly fifty years ago, should be cited. It is an excellent
example of the misuse of hypothesis in investigation, and the attempt
to explain something which we cannot get at and examine by making a
supposition which it is even more difficult to examine and test.
Max Müller made use of the observation--a perfectly true and
interesting one--that a whole people or folk will be led to a wrong
conclusion, or to a belief in some strange and marvellous occurrence,
by the misunderstanding of a single word, attributing to that word
a sense which now fits the sound, but one quite different from that
with which the word was originally used in the tradition or history
concerned. Words are, in fact, misinterpreted after a lapse of time, or
when imported from distant lands, just as we have seen that pictures
and sculpture often have been. For instance, Richard Whittington, who
was Lord Mayor of London in 1398 and other later years, did business
in French goods, which was spoken of in the city as "achat," and
pronounced "akat." Hence in later centuries, when the prevalence of
Norman French was forgotten, it was stated (in a play produced in
1605) that Whittington owed his fortune to "a cat," and the story
of the wonderful cat and its deeds was built up "line upon line" or
"lie upon lie." Max Müller suggested that the story of the barnacle
and the goose could be similarly explained. The brant or brent goose
which frequents the Irish shore was, he supposes, called "berniculus"
by the Latin-speaking clergy as a diminutive of Hibernicus, meaning
"Irish." There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Max Müller
supposes that Hibernicus became "Hiberniculus," and then dropping the
first syllable became "Berniculus," and that this word was applied to
the "Irish goose." It might have been, but there is nothing to show
that it was. Meanwhile the ship's barnacle and other sea-shells were
called in the Celtic tongue "barnagh," "berniche," or "bernak," and the
hermit-crab is still called on the Breton coast, "Bernard l'hermite,"
a modification of "bernak l'hermite." There is no doubt that the word
"barnacle" as applied to the stalked shell-fish growing on ships'
bottoms is a diminutive of the Celtic word "bernak," or "barnak." It
became in Latin "barnacus," and then the diminutive "barnaculus," and
so "barnacle" was used for the little stalked shell-fish encrusting old
timber. According to Max Müller, later generations thus found the two
animals, goose and shell-fish, called by the same name, "bernikle," or
"barnacle." "Why?" they would ask: and then (he supposes) they would
compare the two and detect points of resemblance, until at last a very
devout and astute monk had the happy thought of declaring that the
Hibernian goose was called "berniculus," or "barnak-goose," _because_
it did not breed from eggs as other birds do, but is hatched out of
the shell of the shell-fish, also very naturally and rightly called
"berniculus," or barnak, as any one may see by carefully examining the
fish contained in the shell of the barnacle or little stalked "barnak,"
which has the complete form of a bird. Since, however, it is not a
bird, but a fish in nature and origin, this holy man declared that
the "berniculus," or "barnacle-goose," may be eaten on fast days. Max
Müller's explanation of the origin of the story is too adventurous in
its unsupported assumption that the particular goose associated with
the story was peculiarly Irish, or that, in fact, any kind of goose
was so. He also put aside the evidence of Father Damien (earlier than
the Irish story of Giraldus) referring the goose-tree to an island in
the Indies, and the report cited in the Oriental book the "Zohar."
However plausible Max Müller's theory may have appeared, it absolutely
crumbles and disappears in the presence of the Mykenæan pictures of
"barnaculized" geese, and trees budding birds--two thousand years older
than the Irish record, and nearly three thousand years earlier than the
essay of the charming and persuasive professor.