_The Golden Calf of Aaron--Was it a Cone or an Animal?--The Prayer to
Priapus--Hymn to Priapus--The Complaint of Priapus._
In the thirty-second chapter of the Book of Exodus we have the following
remarkable account of certain Israelitish proceedings in the time of Moses
and Aaron:--"When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of
the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said
unto him, up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for _as for_ this
Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not
what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, break off the golden
earrings, which _are_ in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your
daughters, and bring _them_ unto me. And all the people brake off the
golden earrings which _were_ in their ears, and brought _them_ unto Aaron;
and he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool,
after he had made it a molten calf, and they said, 'These _be_ thy gods O
Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.' And when Aaron saw
_it_, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said,
'To-morrow is a feast to the Lord.' And they rose up early on the morrow,
and offered burnt offerings, and brought offerings, and brought peace
offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to
play."
There is no doubt this is a most remarkable, and, for the most part,
inexplicable transaction. That it was an act of the grossest idolatry is
clear, but the details of the affair are not so readily disposed of, and
some amount of discussion has in consequence arisen, which has cast
imputations upon the conduct of the ancient Jews not very favourably
regarded by the moderns.
The conduct of Aaron is certainly startling, to say the least of it, for
when the people presented their outrageous demand, coupled with their
insolent and contemptuous language about the man Moses, he makes no
remonstrance, utters no rebuke, but apparently falls in at once with their
proposal and prepares to carry it out. The question is, however, what was
it that was really done? What was the character of the image or idol, he
fashioned out of the golden ornaments which he requested them to take from
the ears of their wives, their sons, and their daughters?
The suggestion that anything of a phallic nature is to be attributed to
this transaction has been loudly ridiculed and indignantly spurned by some
who have had little acquaintance with that species of worship, but it is
by no means certain that the charge can be so easily disposed of. That
phallic practises prevailed, more or less, amongst the Jews is certain,
and however this matter of the golden image may be explained, it will be
difficult to believe they were not somehow concerned in it.
It may be a new revelation to some to be told that in the opinion of some
scholars the idol form set up by those foolish idolators was not that of a
calf at all, but of a cone. The Hebrew word _egel_ or _ghegel_ has been
usually taken to mean calf, but, say these gentlemen, erroneously so, its
true signification being altogether different. It is pleaded that it was
not at all likely that the Israelites should, so soon after their
miraculous deliverance from the house of bondage, have so far forgotten
what was due from them in grateful remembrance of that, as to have plunged
into such gross and debased idolatry as the adoration of deity under the
form of an animal. Also that it would have been inconsistent with their
exclamation when they saw the image, "This is thy God, O Israel, which
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt," and with Aaron's proclamation,
after he had built an altar before the idol for the people to sacrifice
burnt offerings on, "To-morrow is a feast to the Lord." It is urged from
these expressions that the only reasonable and legitimate inference is,
that the golden idol was intended to be the similitude or symbol of the
Eternal Himself, and not of any other God.
Certainly it is, as we have said, remarkable, and presents a problem not
at all easy of solution. Dr. Beke contends that in any case, it is
inconceivable that the figure of a calf should have been chosen to
represent the invisible God--he concludes, therefore, that the word _egel_
has been wrongly translated.
With regard to the etymology of the word, its root _agal_ is declared to
be doubtful, Fuerst taking it to mean _to run_, _to hasten_, _to leap_, and
Gesenius suggesting that its primary signification in the Ethiopic,
"_egel_ denoting, like golem, something _rolled_ or _wrapped together_, an
_unformed mass_; and hence _embryo_, _foetus_, and also _the young_, as
just born and still unshapen."
It is inferred from this, supposing it to be correct, that the primary
idea of this and kindred roots, is that of roundness, so that _egel_ may
readily mean any rounded figure, such as a globe, cylinder, or cone.
"Adopting this," says Dr. Beke,--"a cone, as the true meaning of the
Hebrew word in the text, the sense of the transaction recorded will be,
that Moses having delayed to come down from the Mount, the Israelites,
fearing that he was lost, and looking on the Eternal as their true
deliverer and leader, required Aaron to make for them Elohim--that is to
say, a visible similitude or symbol of their God who had brought them up
out of the land of Mitzraim. Aaron accordingly made for them a golden
_cone_, as an image of the flame of fire seen by Moses in the burning
bush, and of the fire in which the Eternal had descended upon Sinai, this
being the only visible form in which the Almighty had been manifested. Of
such a representation or symbol, a sensuous people like the Israelites
might without inconsistency say, 'This is thy God, O Israel, which
brought thee up out of the land of Mitzraim;' at the same time that Aaron,
after having built an altar before it, could make proclamation and say,
'To-morrow is the feast to the Eternal,' that is to say, to the invisible
God, whose _eidolon_ or visible image this _egel_ was."
It is admitted by the advocates of this theory that there are certain
things in the English version which appear adverse to it. For instance, it
is said that all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in
their ears, and brought them to Aaron; and he received them at their hand,
and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf,
from which it might be inferred, it is said, that the idol was first
roughly moulded and cast by the founder, and then finished by the
sculptor.
It is urged however, that it is generally admitted by scholars that the
original does not warrant this rendering, the words "after he had," which
are not in the text, having been added for the purpose of making sense of
the passage, which, if translated literally, would read, "He formed it
with a graving tool, and made it a golden calf," a statement, says Dr.
Beke, which in spite of all the efforts made to explain it, is
inconsistent with the rest of the narrative, which repeatedly says, in
express terms, that the idol was a molten image.
In order to get rid of this difficulty, several learned commentators have
interpreted the word _hhereth_ (graving-tool) as meaning like _hharith_, a
bag, pocket, or purse, causing the passage to read, "He received them at
their hands, and put it (the gold) into a bag, and made it a golden calf."
Dr. Beke thinks this untenable on the ground that as Aaron must
necessarily have collected the golden earrings together before casting
them into the fire, it is hardly likely that express mention would be made
of so trivial a circumstance as that of his putting them into a bag merely
for the purpose of immediately taking them out again.
The root _hharath_, according to Gesenius, has the meaning of to cut in,
to engrave; and one of the significations of the kindred root _pharatz_ is
to cut to a point, to make pointed. "Hharithim, the plural of hhereth, is
said to mean purses, bags for money, so called from their long and round
shape, perhaps like an inverted cone; whence it is that Bochart and others
acquired their notion that Aaron put the golden earrings of the Israelites
into a bag."[15]
Dr. Beke remarks:--"If the word _hhereth_ signifies a bag, on account of
its resemblance to an inverted cone, it may equally signify any other
similarly-shaped receptacle or vessel, such as a conical fire-pot or
crucible; and if the golden earrings were melted in such a vessel, the
molten metal, when cool, would of course have acquired therefrom its long
and round form, like an inverted cone, which is precisely the shape of the
_egel_ made by Aaron, on the assumption that this was intended to
represent the flame of fire. Consequently, we may now read the passage in
question literally, and without the slightest violence of construction, as
follows: 'And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in
their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their
hands, and placed it (the gold) in a crucible, and made it a molten cone;'
this cone having taken the long and rounded form of the crucible in which
it was melted and left to cool."
An argument in favour of this reading is certainly supplied by Exodus
xxxii. 24, where Aaron is represented as saying to Moses, when trying to
excuse his action, "I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them
break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there
came out this calf" [or cone?]. It is contended that "the whole tenour of
the narrative goes to show that the operation of making the idol for the
children of Israel to worship must have been a most simple, and, at the
same time, a very expeditious one, such as the melting of the gold in a
crucible would be, but which the moulding and casting of the figure of a
calf, however roughly modelled and executed, could not possibly have
been."
This cone or phallic theory met with a by no means ready reception by
Jewish scholars; it had not been broached many days before it was
energetically attacked and its destruction sought both by ridicule and
argument. It has been admitted, however, that philologically there is
something in it, more even, says Dr. Benisch, than its advocate Dr. Beke
has made out. The former goes so far as to state that its root, not only
in Hebrew, but also in Chaldee and Arabic, primarily designates roundness;
and secondarily, that which is the consequence of a round shape, facility
of being rolled, speed, and conveyance; consequently, that it may
therefore be safely concluded that it would be in Hebrew a very suitable
designation for a cone. "Moreover, the same root in the same signification
is also found in some of the Aryan languages. Compare the German 'kugel'
(ball) and 'kegel' (cone)."
The chief objection lies in the fact that there are various passages in
the Scriptures where the word occurs, whose contexts clearly show that the
idea intended was that of a living creature, and that the unbroken usage
of language, from the author of Genesis to that of Chronicles, shows that
the term had never changed its signification, viz.: that of calf, bullock,
or heifer. In Levit. ix. 2, 3, 8; 1 Sam. xxviii. 26; Ps. xxix. 6; Isa. xi.
6; Isa. xxvii. 10; Mic. vi. 6, for instance, there can be no mistake that
the reference is to the living animal, and a reference to the Hebrew
concordance shows that the term, inclusive of the feminine (heifer),
occurs fifty-one times in the Bible, in twenty-nine cases of which the
word indisputably means a living creature. Dr. Benisch therefore asks, "Is
it admissible that one and the same writer (for instance, the
Deuteronomist) should have used four times this word in the sense of
heifer (xxii. 4 and 6; xxi. 3), and once in that of cone (ix. 16) without
implying by some adjective, or some turn of language, that the word is a
homonyme? Or that Hosea, in x. 11, should clearly employ it in the sense
of heifer, and, in viii. 5, in that of cone? A glance at the concordance
will show that, in every one of the more important books, the word in
question occurs most clearly in the sense of calf, and never in a passage
which should render a different translation inadmissible. On what ground,
therefore, can it be maintained that, in the days of the author of the
106th Psalm, the supposed original meaning of cone had been forgotten, and
that of calf substituted?"
The reply to the objection that one and the same word is not likely to
have been used by the same or contemporaneous writers in two different
senses, and that the word has a uniform traditional interpretation, is
that in the Hebrew, as in the English, considerable ambiguity occurs, and
that the same word sometimes has two meanings of the most distinct and
irreconcilable character. As regards the second objection, says Dr. Beke,
which is based on the unbroken chain of tradition for about two thousand
years, it can only hold good on the assumption that the originators of the
tradition were infallible. If not, an error, whether committed
intentionally or unintentionally in the first instance, does not become a
truth by dint of repetition; any more than truth can become error by being
as persistently rejected. The Doctor contends that when the Jews became
intimately connected with Egypt, and witnessed there the adoration of the
sacred bull Apis, they fell into the error of regarding as a golden calf
the _egel_, or conical representation of the flame of fire, which their
forefathers, and after them the Ten Tribes, had worshipped as the
similitude of the Eternal, but of which they themselves, as Jews, had
lost the signification. If this was the case, it is only natural that the
error should have been maintained traditionally until pointed out.
So stands the argument with regard to the theory of its being a golden
cone, and not the figure of a calf that Aaron made out of the people's
ornaments, and the worship of which so naturally provoked the wrath of
Moses. There is much to be said in its favour, though not enough, perhaps,
to make it conclusive. The propounder of it expressed his regret that he
was under the necessity of protesting against the allegation that he had
imputed to the Israelites what he calls the obscene phallic worship. "Most
expressly," he says, "did I say that the molten golden image made by Aaron
at Mount Sinai was a plain conical figure, intended to represent the God
who had delivered the people from their bondage in the land of Mitzraim,
in the form in which alone He had been manifested to them and to their
inspired leader and legislator, namely that of the flame of fire." This is
perfectly true, but those who are intimately acquainted with the phallic
faiths of the world will find it difficult to disassociate the conical
form of idol from those representations of the human physical organ which
have been found as objects of adoration in so many parts of both the
eastern and western hemispheres.
Supposing the philological argument to possess any weight--and that it
does has been admitted even by those who regret the cone theory,--there
are other circumstances which certainly may be adduced in confirmation
thereof. For instance, the word _cheret_ translated graving-tool, may mean
also a mould. Again, it does not appear at all likely that the quantity of
gold supplied by the ear-rings of the people would be sufficient to make a
solid calf of the size. True, it may have been manufactured of some other
material and covered with gold; but the easier solution of the difficulty
certainly seems that which suggests that Aaron took these ornaments and
melted them in a crucible of the ordinary form, afterwards turning out
therefrom, when cold, the golden cone to which the people rendered
idolatrous worship.
The whole subject is surrounded with difficulty, and men of equal learning
and ability have taken opposite sides in the discussion, supporting and
refuting in turn. Passing over the dispute as to whether Aaron simply
received the ear-rings in a bag or whether he graved them with an
engraving tool,--the first warmly argued by Bochart, and the latter by Le
Clerc--a dispute we can never settle owing to the remarkable ambiguity of
the language, we may briefly notice the question, supposing it was a calf
made by Aaron, what induced and determined the choice of such a figure?
Nor must it be supposed that _here_ we are upon undebatable ground; on the
contrary, the same divergence of opinion prevails as with respect to the
previous question. Fr. Moncaeus said that Aaron got his idea on the
mountain, where he was once admitted with Moses; and on another occasion
with Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders. This writer and others tell
us that God appeared exalted on a cherub which had the form of an ox.
Patrick says that Aaron seems to him to have chosen an ox to be the symbol
of the Divine presence, in hope that people would never be so sottish as
to worship it, but only be put in mind by it of the Divine power, which
was hereby represented,--an ox's head being anciently an emblem of
strength, and horns a common sign of kingly power. He contends that the
design was simply to furnish a hieroglyphic of the energy and power of
God.
The usual explanation is that Aaron chose a calf because that animal was
worshipped in Egypt. That the Israelites were tainted with Egyptian
idolatry is plain from Joshua's exhortation:--"Now therefore, fear the
Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which
your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and
serve ye the Lord" (Josh, xxiv., 14). Also Ezekiel xx., 7 and 8:--"They
did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did
they forsake the idols of Egypt."
There is no deficiency of evidence respecting the worship of the ox in
Egypt. Strabo says one was kept at Memphis, which was regarded as a
divinity. Pliny repeats the story and says that the Egyptians called this
ox Apis, and that it had two kinds of temples, the entrance to one being
most pleasant, to the other frightful. Herodotus says of this idol:--"Apis
or Epatus, is a calf from a cow which never produced but one, and this
could only have been by a clap of thunder. The calf denominated Apis, has
certain marks by which it may be known. It is all over black, excepting
one square mark; on its back is the figure of an eagle, and on its tongue
that of a beetle."
It certainly seems tolerably clear that the worship of the calf came out
of Egypt, but so much difficulty surrounds the question of whether the
Egyptian worship preceded or followed that of Aaron's calf, that we are
inclined to endorse the opinion of a modern writer, and say we suspend our
judgment respecting the precise motive which determined Aaron to set up a
calf as the object of Israelitish worship, and conclude that had he
offered any other object of worship, whether some other animal, or any
plant, or a star, or any other production of nature, the learned would
have asked, "Why this rather than some other?" Many would have been the
divisions of opinion on the question; each one would have found in
antiquity, and in the nature of the case, probabilities to support his own
sentiment, and perhaps have exalted them into demonstrations.[16]
The mention of a cone in connection with the matter now under
consideration, and as the form of Aaron's idol, suggests other examples of
the same figure which are said to have had a phallic form. The Paphian
Venus, for instance, was represented by a conical stone: of which Tacitus
thus speaks:--"The statue of the goddess bears no resemblance to the human
form. It is round throughout, broad at one end, and gradually tapering to
a narrow span at the other, like a goat; the reason of this is not
ascertained. The cause is stated by Philostratus to be symbolic."
Lajard (_Recherches sur la Cult de Venus_) says:--"In all Cyrian coins,
from Augustus to Macrinus, may be seen in the place where we should
anticipate to find a statue of the goddess, the form of a conical stone.
The same is placed between two cypresses under the portico of the temple
of Astarte, in a medal of Aelia Capitolina; but in this instance the cone
is crowned. In another medal, struck by the elder Philip, Venus is
represented between two Genii, each of whom stands upon a cone or pillar
with a rounded top. There is reason to believe that at Paphos images of
the conical stone were made and sold as largely as were effigies of Diana
of the Ephesians.
"Medals and engraved stones demonstrate that the hieratic prescriptions
required that all those hills which were consecrated to Jupiter should be
represented in a conical form. At Sicony, Jupiter was adored under the
form of a pyramid."
PRAYER TO PRIAPUS.
Delight of Bacchus, Guardian of the groves,
The kind restorer of decaying loves:
Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee implore,
Whose maids thy pow'r in wanton rites adore:
Joy of the Dryads, with propitious care,
Attend my wishes, and indulge my pray'r.
My guiltless hands with blood I never stain'd,
Or sacrilegiously the god's prophan'd:
Thus low I bow, restoring blessings send,
I did not thee with my whole self offend.
Who sins through weakness, is less guilty thought;
Indulge my crime, and spare a venial fault.
On me when fate shall smiling gifts bestow,
I'll (not ungrateful) to your god-head bow;
A sucking pig I'll offer to thy shrine,
And sacred bowls brimful of generous wine;
A destin'd goat shall on thy altar lie,
And the horn'd parent of my flock shall die;
Then thrice thy frantic vot'ries shall around
Thy temple dance, with smiling garlands crown'd,
And most devoutly drunk, thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.
HYMN TO PRIAPUS.
Bacchus and Nymphs delight O mighty God!
Whom Cynthia gave to rule the blooming wood.
Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee adore,
And Lydians in loose flowing dress implore,
And raise devoted temples to thy pow'r.
Thou Dryad's Joy, and Bacchus' Guardian, hear
My conscious prayer with attentive ear.
My hands with guiltless blood I never stain'd,
Nor yet the temples of the gods prophan'd.
Restore my strength, and lusty vigour send,
My trembling nerves like pliant oziers bend.
Who sins through weakness, is not guilty thought,
No equal power can punish such a fault.
A wanton goat shall on your altars die,
And spicy smoke in curls ascend the sky.
A pig thy floors with sacred blood shall stain,
And round the awful fire and holy flame,
Thrice shall thy priests, with youth and garlands crown'd,
In pious drunkenness thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.
A TRANSLATION OUT OF THE PRIAPEIA.
THE COMPLAINT OF PRIAPUS FOR BEING VEILED.
The Almighty's Image, of his shape afraid,
And hide the noblest part e'er nature made,
Which God alone succeeds in his creating trade.
The Fall this fig-leav'd modesty began,
To punish woman, by obscuring man;
Before, where'er his stately Cedar moved
She saw, ador'd and kiss'd the thing she loved.
Why do the gods their several signs disclose,
Almighty Jove his Thunder-bolt expose,
Neptune his Trident, Mars his Buckler shew,
Pallas her spear to each beholder's view,
And poor Priapus be alone confin'd
T'obscure the women's god, and parent of mankind?
Since free-born brutes their liberty obtain,
Long hast thou journey-worked for souls in vain,
Storm the Pantheon, and demand thy right,
For on this weapon 'tis depends the fight.--PETRONIUS.