Chapter V

Nimrod, the son of Cush, “the mighty hunter before the Lord,” was the first person,[75] according to Vossius,[76] who introduced the worship of the _sun_ as a deity. Disgusted with the roving character of his previous life, and tired of peregrination, he resolves to build himself a permanent abode, and persuades his followers to embark in the design, “lest they be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”[77] Mankind had already relapsed into the follies of their antediluvian ancestors. The awful lesson of the watery visitation was read to them in vain, and again they verified what God had before that memorable epoch with sorrow declared, “that every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.”[78]

In Babel, the city thus agreed upon to be built, as the anchor of their stability and the basis of their renown,--we find a “_Tower_” mentioned, “whose top may _reach_,” says our version (but should it not rather be _point_?) _towards heaven_.

What was the object of this architectural elevation?

Not certainly, as some have supposed, as a place of refuge in apprehension of a second deluge; for in that case, it is probable, they would have built it on an eminence, rather than on a _plain_, _whereas_ the Bible expressly tells us they had selected the latter.

Much less could it be, what the poets have imagined, for the purpose of scaling the celestial abodes, and disputing with Jehovah the composure of His sovereignty.

What, then, was it intended for?

Undoubted as an acknowledgment, however vitiated and depraved, of dependence upon that Being, whose acts shine forth in universal love, but whose spiritual adoration was now partially lost sight of, or _merged_ in the homage thus primarily tendered to the _lucid offspring_ of his _omnipotent fiat_.

This tower, so erected by Nimrod, in opposition to the established system of religious belief, and which, therefore--but from a _nobler_ reason than what was generally imagined, viz. his researches in astronomy, and the application thereto of instruments--procured him the appellation of _rebel_ from _nemh_, heaven, and _rodh_, an assault, was, I hesitate not to say, a temple constructed to the celestial host, the sun, moon, and stars, which constituted the substance of the _Sabian idolatry_.[79]

Shinaar, in Mesopotamia, was the theatre of this dread occurrence--this appalling spectacle at once of man’s weakness and God’s omnipotence:--Here the Noachidæ had been then fixed; and the name by which this innovation upon their previous usages is transmitted, viz. _Ba-Bel_, corroborates the destination above assigned.[80]

The word “Baal,” in itself an appellative, at first served to denote the true God amongst those who adhered to the true religion; though, when it became common amongst the idolatrous nations, and applied to idols, He rejected it. “And it shall be in that day that you shall call me Ishi, and shall call me no more Baali.”[81] Another name by which the _Godhead_ was recognised was Moloch. The latter, indeed, in accuracy of speech was the name assigned him by the Ammonites and Moabites--both terms, however, corresponded in sense, “Moloch” signifying king, and “Baal” Lord, that is, of the heavens; whence transferring the appellation to the Sun, as the _source_ and _dispenser_ of all _earthly favours_, he was also called Bolati, _i.e._, “Baal the _bestower_,” as was the moon, Baaltis, from the same consideration: whilst the direct object of their internal regard was not, undoubtedly, that globe of fire which illumines the firmament and vivifies terrestrials, but, physically considered, _nature_ at large, the _fructifying germ_ of universal _generativeness_.

The Sun, it is true, as the source of light and heat, came in as _representative_ for all this adoration. Thus viewed, then, it would appear that the origin of the institution may have been comparatively harmless. God being invisible, or only appearing to mortals through the medium of His acts, it was natural that _man_, left to the workings of unaided reason, should look on yon mysterious luminary with mingled sentiments of gratitude and awe. We have every reason, accordingly, to think, that solar worship at first was only emblematical, recognising, in the effulgence of the orb of day, the creative power of Him, the

“Father of all, in every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
_Jehovah_, _Jove_, or _Lord_”--

who sent it forth on its _beneficent_ errand.

As such, originally they had no temples dedicated to the occasion; they met in the open air, without the precincts of any earthly shrine: there they poured forth their vows and their thanksgivings, under the aërial canopy of the vaulted expanse; nor can it be denied but that there was something irresistibly impressive in such an assemblage of pious votaries, paying their adoration to the throne of light in the natural temple of his daily splendours.[82]

The degeneracy of man, however, became manifest in the sequel, and, from the frequency of the act, the type was substituted in room of the thing typified. “Solum in cœlis deum putabant solem,” says Philobibliensis, in his interpretation of Sanchoniathon. Nor did it stop here, but, proceeding in its progress of melancholy decay, swept before it the barriers of reason and moral light; and, from the bright monarch of the stars, who rules the day, the seasons, and the year, with perpetual change, yet uniform and identical, bowed before the grosser element of _material fire_, as his symbol or corporeal representative.

But the worst and most lamentable is yet untold. The sign again occupied the place of the thing signified, and the human soul was prostrated, and human life often immolated, to propitiate the favour of earthly fire, now by transition esteemed a god. They had, it is true, from a _faint_ knowledge of the sacred writings, and a perverted exercise of that inspired authority, something like an excuse for, at least, a decent attention in the ordinary management of that useful article. In Lev. vi. 13 it is said: “The fire upon the altar shall ever be burning, it shall never go out.” This injunction given by the Lord to Moses, to remind His people of the constant necessity of sacrifice and prayer, the Gentiles misconstrued into reverence for the fire itself, and “quoniam omnes pravi dociles sumus,” hence the ready admission with which the doctrine was embraced, and the general spread of that which was at first but partial and figurative.

Indeed we find that God Himself had appeared to Moses in a “flame of fire in the midst of a bush” (Ex. iii. 2), and in presence of the whole Israelitish host (Ex. xix. 18). “The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai, as the smoke of a furnace;” while in Ex. xiii. 21, it is declared that “the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light.” So accordingly we find Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 24, when challenging the priests of the false divinities, propose a decision by fiery ordeal. “Call you on the name of your gods,” he says, “and I will call upon the name of the Lord: and the God that answereth by _fire_, let him be God; and all the people answered, it is well spoken.”

The infidels, therefore, who could not concede any superiority to the religion of the Hebrews, and yet could not deny those manifestations of divine support, thought they best proved their independence by instituting a rivalship, and got thereby the more confirmed in their original idolatry. Their bloody sacrifices themselves originated, we may suppose, in some similar way. God must, undoubtedly, have prescribed that rite to Adam, after his fall in Paradise, else how account for the “skins” with which Eve and he had covered themselves? The beasts to which they belonged could not have been slain for food; for it was not till a long time after that they were allowed to eat the flesh of animals. We may, therefore, safely infer that it was for a sin-offering they had been immolated; and the subsequent reproof given to Cain by the rejection of his oblation, evidently for the non-observance of the exact mode of sacrifice prescribed, coupled with the command issued to Abraham, to try his obedience, by offering up his own son, are undeniable proofs of the truth of this inference.

In “Ur” of the Chaldees, a name which literally signifies “fire,” the worship of that element first originated. Thence it travelled in its contaminating course, until all the regions of the earth got impregnated therewith. In Persia, a country with which _this island_ had, of old, the most _direct communication_, we also find a city denominated “Ur”; and who does not know that the Persians, having borrowed the custom from the Chaldean priests, regarded fire with the utmost veneration? Numerous as were the deities which that nation worshipped, “fire,” on every occasion, in every sacrifice--like the Janus of the Romans--was invoked the first. Their Pyrea, in which they not only preserved it ever burning, but worshipped it as a deity, have been noticed by Brisson--but without the necessary adjunct of their being an innovation.

Even the ordinary fire for culinary or social purposes participated in some measure in this hallowed regard; as they durst not, without violating the most sacred rules, and stifling the scruples of all their previous education, offer it the least mark of impious disregard, or pollute its sanctity by profane contact.

It was, however, only as symbolical of the _sun_ that _they_, like the Chaldeans, paid it this extraordinary reverence--a reverence not limited to mere religious rules, but which exercised control over and biassed the decisions of their most important secular transactions. Accordingly, we learn from Herodotus, lib. vii., as quoted by Cicero in “Verrem,” that when Datis, the prefect of Xerxes’ fleet, flushed with the result of his victory over Naxos and the city of Eretria in Eubœa, might easily have made himself master of the island of Delos, he however passed it over untouched in honour of that divinity before whom his country had bowed, having been sacred to Apollo or the sun, and reputedly his birthplace.

But do I mean to say that the Round Towers of Ireland were intended for the preservation of the sacred fire? Far, very far indeed, from it. That _some few_ of them were therewith connected--I say _connected, not appropriated_--may, I think, be well allowed; nay, it is my candid belief, so far as belief is compatible with a matter so unauthenticated. But having all through maintained that they were not all intended for one and the same object, I must have been understood, of course, by the numerous supporters of that fashionable proposition as including fire-worship within the compass of my several views. I put it, however, frankly to the most _ardent_ supporter of that theory, who for a moment considers the different _bearings_ and peculiarities of those several structures, comparing them first with one another, and then with the description of fire-receptacles which we read of elsewhere, whether he can dispassionately bring himself to say that all our Round Towers, or indeed above two of those at present remaining, could have been _even calculated_ for that purpose?

Where, let me ask, is it they will suppose the fire to have been placed? In the bottom? No; the intervening floors, of which the GREATER PORTION retain evident traces, would not only endanger the conflagration of the whole edifice, as it is most probable that they were made of wood, but would also prevent the egress of the smoke through the four windows at the top, for which use, they tell you, those apertures were inserted.

But I am answered that the tower of Ardmore, which has within it no vestiges of divisional compartments, could offer no hindrance to the ascent of the smoke, or its consequent discharge through the four cardinal openings. To which I rejoin, that if there had _ever_ been a fire lighted within that edifice, and continued for any length of time, as the sacred fire is known to have been kept perpetually burning, it would have been impossible for the inner surface of that stately structure to preserve the beautiful and white coating which it still displays through the mystic revolutions of so many ages. The same conclusion applies to the tower of Devenish, which, though it has no inside coating, yet must its elegant polish have been certainly deteriorated, if subjected to the action of a perpetual smoke.

The instance which is adduced of the four temples described by Hanway in his _Travels into Persia_, proves nothing. It certainly corresponds with the architectural character of some of our Round Towers, but leaves us as much in the dark as to the era and use of both as if he had never made mention of any such occurrence.

To me it is as obvious as the noon-day sun that _they too_ on examination would be found of a more comprehensive religious tendency than what could possibly relate to the preservation of the sacred fire; for it is well known that when temples were at all appropriated to this consecrated delusion, it was within a small _crypt_ or _arched vault_--over which the temple was erected--that it was retained. The Ghebres or Parsees, the direct disciples of Zoroaster, the reputed author of this improved institution, “build their temples,” says Richardson,[83] “over _subterraneous fires_.”

Whenever a deviation from this occurred, it was in favour of a low stone-built structure, all over-arched, such as that which _Hanway met with at Baku_, and _corresponding in every_ particular with the edifices of this description to be seen at Smerwick, county Kerry, and elsewhere throughout Ireland.[84]

The fire-house which Captain Keppel visited at a later period at Baku, in 1824, was a small square building, erected on a platform, with three ascending steps on each side, having a tall hollow stone column at every side, through which the flame was seen to issue, all _in the middle of a pentagonal enclosure_--comprising also a large altar, whereon naphtha was kept continually burning.

Now, could anything possibly _correspond more minutely_ with Strabo’s description of the Pyratheia than does this last account? “They are,” he says, “_immense enclosures_, in the centre of which was erected an altar, where the Magi used to preserve, as well a quantity of ashes, as the ever-burning fire itself.” And could anything possibly be _more opposite_ to our Round Towers than all these accounts?

When, therefore, we are told[85] that at the city of Zezd in Persia--which is distinguished by the apellation of Darub Abadat, or seat of religion--the Ghebres are permitted to have an Atush Kidi, or fire-temple, which they assert had the sacred fire in it since the days of Zoroaster, we must be prepared to understand it as corresponding in architectural proportion with one or other of the instances just now detailed; and in truth, from recent discovery, I have ascertained--since the above was composed--that it is nothing more than a _sorry hut_.

But Pennant’s view of Hindostan is brought forward as at once decisive of the matter. What says Mr. Pennant, however? “All the people of this part of India are Hindoos, and retain the _old religion_, with all its superstition. This makes the pagodas here much more numerous than in any other part of the peninsula; their form too is different, being chiefly buildings of a _cylindrical_ or _round tower_ shape, with their tops either pointed or truncated at the top, and ornamented with something eccentrical, but frequently with a round ball stuck on a spike: this ball seems intended to represent the _sun_, an emblem of the deity of the place.”

To this ascription of this learned traveller I most fully, most heartily respond. Pagoda is a name invented by the Portuguese, from the Persian “Peutgheda,” meaning a temple of idols, in which they supposed them to abound, but which in reality were only so many figures or symbols of the “principle of truth,” the “spirit of wisdom,” the “supreme essence,” and other attributes of the Godhead, which, I believe, they in a great measure spiritually recognised. Those structures, therefore, as the very word implies, had no manner of relation to the sacred fire, but they had to the sun and moon, the supposed authors of _generation_ and _nutrition_, of which fire was only the corrupt emblem; and the different forms of their constructural terminations, similar to those elsewhere described by Maundrell, some being _pointed_, and some being _truncated_, harmonises most aptly with the _radial_ and _hemispherical representations_ of the two celestial luminaries, as well as with that organ of human _procreation_ which we shall hereafter more particularly identify. These are the two Baals dwelt so largely upon in the Scriptures--Baal masculine, the sun, and Baal feminine, the moon, from both of which the Hindoos derive their fabulous origin. Indeed it was from their extreme veneration for the “queen of night” that they obtained their very name; Hindoo meaning, in the Sanscrit language, the moon; and accordingly we find among them Hindoo-buns, that is, children of the moon, as we do Surage-buns, children of the sun, the other parent of their fanciful extraction.

Here then, methinks, we have at once a clue to the character of those Round Towers so frequent throughout the East, of whose history, however, the Orientals are as ignorant as we are here of our “rotundities.” Caucasus abounds in those columnar fanes, and it must not be forgotten that Caucasus has been claimed as the residence of our ancestors. On Teric banks, hard by, there is a very beautiful and lofty one as like as possible to some of ours. The door is described as twelve feet from the ground, level and rather oblong in its form. Lord Valentia was so struck with the extraordinary similitude observable between some very elegant ones which he noticed in Hindostan and those in this country, that he could not avoid at once making the comparison. The inhabitants, he observes, paid no sort of regard to those venerable remains, but pilgrims from afar, and chiefly from Jynagaur, adhering to _their old religion_, used annually to resort to them as the shrines of their ancient worship. Yet in the ceremonies there performed we see no evidence of their appropriation to the sacred fire--however _tradition_ may have ascribed them as once belonging to the Ghebres! Franklin mentions some he has seen at Nandukan, as do other writers in other sites. In short, all through the East they are to be met with, and yet all about them is obscurity, doubt, and mystery, a proof at once of the antiquity of their date, and of their not being receptacles for fire, which, _if the fact_, could be _there_ no secret.

Yes, I verily believe, and I will as substantially establish, that they were, what has already been affirmed, in reference to those in Ireland, viz. temples in honour of the sun and moon, the procreative causes of general fecundity, comprising in certain instances, like them, also the additional and blended purposes of funeral cemeteries and astronomical observatories. The Septuagint interpreters well understood their nature when rendering the “high place of Baal”[86] by the Greek στηλη του βααλ, or Pillar of Baal, that is, the pillar consecrated to the sun; while the ancient Irish themselves, following in the same train, designated those structures Bail-toir, that is, the tower of Baal, or the sun, and the priest who attended them, Aoi Bail-toir, or superintendent of Baal’s tower. Neither am I without apprehension but that the name “Ardmore,” which signifies “the great high place,” and where a splendid specimen of those Sabian edifices is still remaining, was in direct reference to that religious column; but this _en passant_.

In the _sepulchral_ opinion I am not a little fortified by the circumstance of there being found at Benares pyramids corresponding in all respects, save that of size, to those in Egypt, having also subterranean passages beneath them, which are said to extend even for miles together. A column also, besides a sphinx’s head, which has been discovered not long since in digging amid the ruins of an ancient and unknown city, on the banks of the Hypanis, bearing an inscription which was found to differ on being compared with Arabic, Persia, Turkish, Chinese, Tartar, Greek, and Roman letters; but bore “a manifest and close similarity with the characters observed by Denon on several of the mummies of Egypt,” gives strength to the idea of the identity of the Egyptian religion with that of the Indians, as it does to the identity of destination of their respective pyramids.