Cox, George - Aryan Mythology Vol 2.pdf

370 APPEXDIX.
law, is as distinct from the stauros or pole of Osiris as is the Vritra
who opposes Indra from the subtle serpent which tempts the
woman into transgression. But in both cases the terms applied to
the one are, according to the mind of later thinkers, blended with
the language used of the other, and on the subject of the cross
both ideas have notably converged. But the cross of shame and
the cross of life are images which can be traced back to times
long preceding the dawn of Christianity. In his chapter on the
Legend of the Cross Mr. Gould, Curious Myths, ii. 79, gives a
drawing of a large cross found in the pavement of a Gallo-Roman
palace at Pont d'Oli, near Pau. In the centre of this cross is a
figure of the water-god, with his trident (another form of the
rod of Hermes) surrounded by figures of fishes (the vesica piscis or
Yoni). Mr. Gould also gives engravings of a large number of
crosses of various shapes which are certainly not Christian, and
then expresses his belief that the cross was a Gaulish sign. Doubt-
less it was, but Mr. Gould has himself shown that it was also
Egyptian. It is unfortunate that he should have looked on this
subject as one which might be suitably dealt with by means of con-
jectures, assumptions, and arbitrary conclusions. He needed not to
enter upon it at all ; but having done so, he was bound to deal with
the facts. Among the facts which he notices are the cross- shaped
hammer or fylfot of Thor, and the cross of Serapis or Osiris : he
also mentions a coin of Byblos on which Astarte is represented as
holding ' a long staff surmounted by a cross and resting her foot on
the prow of a galley,' (96), and an inscription to Hermes Chthonios in
Thessaly ' accompanied by a Calvary cross '
(98). Having collected
these with many other specimens, Mr. Gould contents himself in
one page (94) with saying that ' no one knows and probably no one
ever will know what originated the use of this sign ' (the cross with
the ovoid handle) ' and gave it such significance.' Elsewhere (105),
he asserts that the sign had a religious signification, and that all
these crosses (108), were symbols of the Rain- god. We can but ask
for the reason ;
but from Mr. Gould we get only the assurance that
lie sees no difficulty in believing that the Cross, as a sacred sign,
formed a portion of the primaeval religion, and that trust in the
cross was a part of the ancient faith which taught men to believe
in a Trinity and in the other dogmas which Mr. Gladstone declares
to have been included in the revelation made to Adam on the Fall.
The difficulty of accepting Mr. Gould's solution of the matter lies
in the absurdities into which the theory must lead everyone who
adopts it. To assert baldly that the phallic hypothesis is untenable,
is unphilosophical ; to say that he has reasons which he cannot
give in a work addressed to general readers is to assign an excellent