Chapter III: Part 3

“As Freya was inclined to lend a favorable ear to lovers’ prayers, she was often invoked by them, and it was customary to indite love songs in her honor, which were sung on all festive occasions, her very name in Germany being used for the formation of the verb _freien_, i. e., ‘to woo.’”

From Guerber’s _Myths of Northern Lands_.]

When the conception of the mother goddess of antiquity began to decay, a new faith spread and under a new name the old ideal was revived as Mary, Mother of God, _Maria Theotokos_; the star of the sea, or _Stella Maris_; and the Italian fishermen sing to her the beautiful lines,

“_O sanctissima, O piissima,_
_Dulcis mater amata._”

THE ORIGIN OF WOMAN.

The problem of womanhood has found different expressions in different ages. In prehistoric times all great questions were answered mythologically. Cosmogeny and anthropogeny, including gynecogeny, were expressed in stories of gods, while in later periods the same facts remained and found different solutions in religious dogmas and still later in scientific investigations.

The same subjects have been treated in a different spirit during the Christian era and again differently still under the influence of a scientific world-conception. Socrates respected the gods but he no longer believed in them as personalities. He explained them as signifying some facts of experience. To him love found expression in a belief in Aphrodite and in her powerful son, Eros. Further, his disciple Plato explains to us the significance of love and devotes a special dialogue to a discussion of its meaning in every aspect. This dialogue of Plato’s, the Symposium, may truly be characterized as the most poetical and most interesting discussion of Greek philosophy. It tells of a banquet to which Agathon has invited his friends, among whom we find the philosopher Socrates, the poet Aristophanes (the disciple of Socrates), Pausanias, Phaedrus and some others. After dinner Phaedrus proposes to make speeches in honor of love, and Pausanias begins by drawing a distinction between heavenly and earthly love, extolling the former and giving scant praise to the latter. Aristophanes is the next speaker, but, being prevented by a severe hiccup from taking up the discussion, gives precedence to Eryximachus, the physician. This speaker approves the distinction made by Pausanias, but generalizes the conception of love by regarding it as a universal principle, bringing about the harmony that regulates nature in the course of the seasons in its relations of moist and dry, hot and cold, etc., and whose absence is marked by diseases of all sorts. Aristophanes, having recovered from his hiccup, proposes to offer a new explanation setting forth a novel theory of the origin of human nature. We quote extracts from the translation of Jowett:

“Primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backward and forward as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast.... Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained. At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: ‘Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.’ He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the center which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them--being the sections of entire men or women--and clung to that.”

This ingenious theory of primitive man as a union of two human creatures is perhaps older than Plato and may not be original with him. At any rate the Biblical passage in Gen. i. 27 and Gen. ii 21-22 may also have been given the interpretation of man’s creation of Adam and Eve. The oldest texts read plainly: “And God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them”; but it has been pointed out that the same primitive man is here spoken of, first in the singular as “him,” and then at the end of the verse in the plural, “them.” The idea that originally Adam comprised in himself the nature of Eve as well is suggested by the story that Eve was taken out of the side of Adam and was formed from one of his ribs.

Obviously the idea expressed here in this passage of Genesis is ultimately the same as that of the Greek poet Aristophanes, and from the standpoint of modern physiology neither man nor woman is an individual, but the combination of two, viz., the father and mother. Each one of them, man alone or woman alone, is but a one-sided half of human existence. Each, by itself alone, is doomed to die; both together are immortal.

The Genesis story of the creation of woman is portrayed in many of the artistic representations of the creation of Eve.

Suggestions made to explain the original story of the creation of man in the sense suggested by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, may not be tenable but they are not altogether senseless.

We must consider that primitive legends have originated from curiosity with regard to some problem that has presented itself to man in the childhood of the race. In our present case we have to deal with the question why the ribs of man’s chest do not entirely enclose the body, but leave unprotected an opening in the middle, the so-called procardium, where they turn upward. The primitive answer to this problem was the story we have been discussing, and thence the notion seems implied that before Eve, the feminine portion of man, had been taken out of his side he must have been an androgynous being, and we will add that there is a scientific truth underlying this primitive idea.

Living substance is originally asexual, or rather bisexual,[32] and in its primitive state it is immortal. A moner does not experience what we call death; unless it is crushed or destroyed by poison, it lives on and grows. When it outgrows its proper size it divides into two parts. It does not die; nor does it beget a young moner; it divides. There are two new moners, but there is not a mother and a child; the two are coordinate. Both are mothers and both are children. Death is not the original lot of life. Death comes into the world by birth. Life in itself can be destroyed by physical violence or by chemical means, but if it is not thus destroyed it is unending; or, in other words, immortality is a fact.

The differentiation of life into two sexes places a limit upon the existence of the differentiated parts. Each individual grows to a definite size and is limited to a definite span of duration: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength, labor and sorrow.”

The story of the garden of Eden was given a symbolical interpretation at an early date. We read in Origen’s refutation of Celsus (Book IV, Chapter XXXVIII):

“In the next place, as it is his object to slander our scriptures, he [Celsus] ridicules the following statement: ‘And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which he had taken from the man, made he a woman,’ and so on; without quoting the words which would give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used allegorically, although he says afterward, that ‘the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavor to give them somehow an allegorical signification.’”

It is not an accident that the fruit of the tree of life was conceived by Christians at an early date as an apple or pomegranate, the symbol of Aphrodite. We must assume that the apples of the Hesperides which Hercules was requested to obtain, and also the apples of Iduna bestowing immortality upon the Teutonic gods, possess ultimately the same significance as the apple of Eve.

* * * * *

We do not mean to gather here all the traditions about the origin of woman, but we will quote two accounts from a modern book of Hindu tales, called _A Digit of the Moon and Other Love Stories from the Hindu_, and translated from the original manuscripts by F. W. Bain. Here we are told of a king who falls in love with a princess when he sees her picture. He leaves his kingdom in the hands of his ministers and travels out in search of his love, accompanied by his faithful companion Rasakósha.[33] The passage containing the story of the origin of woman reads thus:

“One day, as they rested at noon beneath the thick shade of a _Kadamba_[34] tree, the King gazed for a long time at the portrait of his mistress. And suddenly he broke silence, and said, ‘Rasakósha, this is a woman. Now, a woman is the one thing about which I know nothing. Tell me, what is the nature of women?’ Then Rasakósha smiled, and said: ‘King, you should certainly keep this question to ask the Princess; for it is a hard question. A very terrible creature indeed is a woman, and one formed of strange elements. _A propos_, I will tell you a story: listen.

“‘In the beginning, when Twashtri[35] came to the creation of woman, he found that he had exhausted his materials in the making of man, and that no solid elements were left. In this dilemma, after profound meditation, he did as follows: He took the rotundity of the moon, and the curves of creepers, and the clinging of tendrils, and the trembling of grass, and the slenderness of the reed, and the bloom of flowers, and the lightness of leaves, and the tapering of the elephant’s trunk, and the glances of deer, and the clustering of rows of bees,[36] and the joyous gaiety of sunbeams, and the weeping of clouds, and the fickleness of the winds, and the timidity of the hare, and the vanity of the peacock, and the softness of the parrot’s bosom, and the hardness of adamant, and the sweetness of honey, and the cruelty of the tiger, and the warm glow of fire, and the coldness of snow, and the chattering of jays, and the cooing of the _kókila_,[37] and the hypocrisy of the crane, and the fidelity of the _chakrawáka_;[38] and compounding all these together, he made woman and gave her to man. But after one week man came to him and said: Lord, this creature that thou hast given me makes my life miserable. She chatters incessantly, and teases me beyond endurance, never leaving me alone: and she requires incessant attention, and takes all my time up, and cries about nothing, and is always idle; and so I have come to give her back again, as I cannot live with her. So Twashtri said: Very well: and he took her back. Then after another week, man came again to him, and said: Lord I find that my life is very lonely since I gave back that creature. I remember how she used to dance and sing to me, and look at me out of the corner of her eye, and play with me, and cling to me; and her laughter was music, and she was beautiful to look at, and soft to touch: so give her back to me again. So Twashtri said: Very well: and gave her back again. Then after only three days, man came to him again, and said: Lord, I know not how it is; but after all, I have come to the conclusion that she is more of a trouble than a pleasure to me: so please take her back again. But Twashtri said: Out on you! Be off! I will have no more of this. You must manage how you can. Then man said: But I cannot live with her. And Twashtri replied: Neither could you live without her. And he turned his back on man and went on with his work. Then man said: What is to be done? for I cannot live either with or without her.’

“And Rasakósha ceased, and looked at the King. But the King remained silent, gazing intently at the portrait of the Princess.”

Another story, of like character, is told in the same book, on pages 372-374, only with the difference that it points out a lesson for woman that she must cleave to her husband because she possesses no independent existence by herself. (The same, however, in the Indian story is not true of man.) This is the explanation the faithful wife Wanawallari gives to the Brahman who tempts her to leave her husband. She says:

“Once there was a time when there were neither men nor women, but the universe existed alone. And then one day, when the Creator was meditating with a view to further creation, he said to himself: ‘Something is wanting to complete the creation which I have created. It is blind, and unconscious of its own curious beauty and excellence.’ Thereupon he created a man. And instantly the creation became an object of wonder and beauty, being reflected like a picture in the mirror of the mind of the man. Then the man roamed alone in the world, wondering at the flowers and the trees and the animals, and at last he came to a pool. And he looked in and saw himself. Then full of astonishment, he exclaimed: ‘This is the most beautiful creature of all.’ And he hunted incessantly through the whole world to find it, not knowing that he was looking for himself. But when he found that in spite of all his endeavors he could never do more than see it on the surface of pools, he became sad and ceased to care about anything. Then the Creator, perceiving it, said to himself: ‘Ha! this is a difficulty which I never foresaw, arising naturally from the beauty of my work. But now, what is to be done? For here is this man, whom I made to be a mirror for my world, snared in the mirror of his own beauty. So I must somehow or other cure this evil. But I cannot make another man, for there would be two centers to the circle of the universe. Neither can I add anything to the circumference of nature, for it is perfect in itself. There is necessary, therefore, some third thing: not real, for then it would disturb the balance of the universe; nor unreal, for then it would be nothing: but poised on the border between reality and nonentity.’ So he collected the reflections on the surface of the pools, and made of them a woman. But she, as soon as she was made, began to cry. And she said: ‘Alas! alas! I am, and I am not.’ Then said the Creator: ‘Thou foolish intermediate creature, thou art a nonentity only when thou standest alone. But when thou art united to the man, thou art real in participation with his substance.’ And thus, O Brahman, apart from her husband a woman is a nonentity and a shadow without a substance: being nothing but the mirror of himself, reflected on the mirror of illusion.”

* * * * *

Early Christian art took little or no interest in the parents of mankind. So far as we can discover neither the catacombs of Rome nor Christian sarcophagi are adorned with representations of Adam and Eve. Wherever they may occur they are rare exceptions. There is no trace of them in the _fondi d’oro_ (gold-bottomed glasses), nor in the mosaics. In painting they become more and more frequent in the beginning of the Middle Ages, and we reproduce here, as one of the oldest representations of the subject, a picture from the so-called Alcuin Bible preserved in the British Museum.

From the so-called Alcuin Bible (9th cent.)]

The name “Alcuin Bible” is not justified, for the work dates from some time after Alcuin; but after all it comes from his school, and the book was produced in Tours about the middle of the ninth century, still showing the influence of the brilliant scholar of Charlemagne’s court.

We will say here that the so-called Alcuin Bible is severely criticized by Anton Springer on account of “the ugliness of its figures,” but there is more to be seen in this picture than mere awkwardness of style. The psychology of the picture here reproduced is exceedingly good. The eyes of Adam and Eve, and of the Lord in rebuking them, show real appreciation of the mental processes of the individuals. God walks into the garden with his finger raised, like a teacher who rebukes children caught stealing apples. God’s finger is not straight, a fact which presupposes a close observation of life. His eyes express kindliness as well as admonition, while Adam and Eve stand conscience-stricken by the side of the tree. They do not dare to look into the face of God, and Adam, with his clumsy hand, points to Eve as the cause of the evil, while her face expresses admission, though in her turn she lays the blame on the snake which stands erect at her left.

It is true that the technique is abominable. The heads are ridiculously large, and the hands are out of proportion. The bodies do not express the beauty generally credited to both Adam and Eve as the most perfect handiwork of God. The paints in the picture are reported to be no better than the drawing. The flesh is of a gray color shaded with maroon streaks. In contrast to the sickly and poverty-stricken appearance of the human couple the good Lord is dressed in gold, like a wealthy nobleman of the age, and the scene is shown to be in Paradise by the trees too being overlaid with gold. Nevertheless the situation is very clearly a garden, copied from nature, and the very story, with all its details, could be reconstructed from this picture.

In time, with the advance of art, the figures of Adam and Eve come more and more to assume the artistic appearance of natural beauty. Adam and Eve represent mankind in its primitive state, devoid of spirituality but perfect in health and vigor. It is noteworthy that Christian art portrays in them paganism in its rudeness and ignorance, and so they acquire a certain relationship to Greek antiquity.

In the Renaissance we reach a perfection in the figures of Adam and Eve which attains the ideal of classical beauty. Every painter believed it his duty to represent the two fatal scenes, the fall of man and the expulsion from Paradise. Similar scenes also begin to appear in sculptured reliefs. A scene on one side of the large pillars in the front of the cathedral at Orvieto is devoted to the subject of Eve’s creation.

The creation of man and woman is the first scene portrayed on Ghiberti’s great bronze entrance-doors of the baptistery at Florence. These beautiful

Relief on the cathedral of Orvieto (14th cent.)]

reliefs represent the beginning of a new and greater period of art. It is Ghiberti’s merit to have created an originally Christian conception quite different from the classical reliefs of plastic art. We observe in his work evidence of a close study of garments and draperies, and the attempt to bring out not only bodily beauty but a spiritual expression and allegorical meaning. Most of the characters presented are plainly portraits of men and women who have served as living models.

First panel.]

In the lower left corner of this panel on Ghiberti’s door God is creating man. In the center he is raising Eve from the side of the sleeping Adam, who lies prostrate on the ground. God is here always surrounded and assisted by angels, who lift up Eve while the good Lord watches her rise. In the middle left part of the picture we see Adam and Eve taking the apple from the serpent which is entwined about the tree between them. In the right corner our unfortunate ancestors are being driven out of Paradise. Eve stands in despair, while Adam is visible in the rear.

By Gustave Doré.]

Michelangelo’s Creation of Eve is represented on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, and is perhaps the most vigorous expression of the original strength of the mother of mankind. It will be observed that here too Eve comes from Adam’s side, although the picture seems to show her fully grown.

From among the more modern pictures we reproduce a drawing by Gustave Doré representing Adam and Eve. Here we see them in their state of innocence, Eve being pictured as reclining on the ground, while Adam looks upon her in love and admiration.

Of the more recent pictures we will mention only those of Schnorr von Carolsfeld, who has succeeded most effectively in striking the proper traditional note in Bible illustrations. He represents Adam and Eve according to the dogmatic belief of Protestant Christianity. In the scene here reproduced they are portrayed after their expulsion from Paradise in their comfortable primitive home, where Adam, leaning on his hoe, rests from his labors while Eve sits in the background with a distaff in her hand, and their two sons are playing about them.

* * * * *

And now, in conclusion, the question as to the place of this theme in the art of the future. Has not the present generation lost interest in our ancestors? Since the legend is no longer believed literally, our artistic imagination is not attracted so strongly by it. The story of the fall of man has become an allegory, an interesting tale, but it is no longer a truth. We believe now in evolution, and so Gabriel Max has pictured a new Eve for us which is the mother of modern man,--the mother who bequeaths to her son a deeper comprehension of life and a truer insight into the nature of things.

By Gabriel Max.]

The picture is at first sight repulsive, but the more we look at it and the more we study the artist’s intentions, the more it grows on us. Here is a primitive couple of the ape-man type, fossil remains of which have been found in the Neanderthal, in Cannstatt and in Spy. They must have been very savage, and we shudder at their appearance. How unpleasant it would be to meet such creatures in a lonely forest! The male is very brutish while the female shows traces of a dawning intelligence.

Verily, we discover in this scene represented by Gabriel Max a close resemblance to pictures of the holy family. And considered rightly, the similarity is by no means fortuitous, for here we have indeed a holy family. It is an uncultured primitive couple of a speechless tribe of forest men, yet the hope of progress and a brave determination to take up the battle of life for the sake of the babe that is born to them becomes visible in the mother’s eyes.

After all, the wife of _homo alalus_, of the primitive speechless man, is still the same Eve. There is the same sacrifice of motherlove, the same determination of bringing to life the man of the future, the higher, better, nobler man, whose life will be much more worth living than was her own.

This is the secret of life, that we live not for ourselves but for others. If mankind were one great immortal being, how monotonous life would be; how egotistical would all our aspirations become! But nature renders all egotism futile. None of us finds an abiding home here on earth; we pass away and new generations fill the places we leave vacant.

Daily the world grows older, and yet it remains ever young. There is the same happiness, the same bliss and joy that ever thrilled the heart of a mother. Christianity has abolished Venus, the great mother goddess, but Eve has taken her place; and if Eve too is to be deposed, mankind will still cling to the old idea of eternal womanhood, the patron of love and loveliness, of wifehood and of motherhood.

APHRODITE IN ART.

The oldest assured statues of Venus, of an all-nourishing mother goddess, are perhaps the little figurines frequently found in Mesopotamia representing “the Lady” or Beltis (the feminine of Bel, “the Lord”) in the shape of a naked woman, sometimes with a child in her arms; but we may fairly well assume that even the artists of the stone age took up this all-absorbing subject, and if this be the case we may be justified in calling the torso of a naked female figure discovered in Brassempouy, a Venus,--so far the oldest Venus that has come down to us.

In the Musée Guimet.]

In India the goddess of beauty was revered under the name of Lakshmi, and we need not doubt that she still finds worshipers among the Hindu population of to-day, but there are no statues left of the age of ancient Brahmanism. All monuments are of comparatively late origin; in fact the large mass of Hindu idols is quite modern, although it represents art and religious notions of a typically primitive character.

Another and, as it seems, independent development can be traced from the worship of stone pillars or bethels. A _bethel_, i. e., “house of God,” well known from the Bible as a monument of divine revelation, developed gradually into the representation of a stiff female figure like the Diana of Ephesus, but we cannot doubt that the primitive idea of it was the worship of an all-nourishing mother. From her the Greek conception of the chaste moon goddess, the virgin Artemis or Diana, developed in course of time; but the Diana of Ephesus still preserves symbols of a pantheistic conception of the All under the allegory of a mother goddess. (For illustrations see pages 152 and 153.)

Among the Semites the oldest bethels, or houses of God, were pillars of stone. We need not assume that they were gods or goddesses, for judging from Biblical information they may be interpreted as monuments marking a holy place, i. e., a spot where a deity had revealed himself in some way.

The primitive form of a bethel,[39] or as the Greeks transcribed the Phenician term, βαίτυλος, has often been represented on coins. Sometimes two columns are placed, one on each side, and the stone is frequently accompanied with the symbols of the goddess, fruit and eggs; sometimes doves perch on the sanctuary; sometimes the pillar is covered with a temple roof. We know one instance in which it bears the symbol of a Latin cross and gradually it assumes in a coarse style the features of a woman. Such is the beginning of the manufacture of idols which at first are extremely stiff and assume only gradually--indeed very slowly--an artistic shape.

At the dawn of the historic age the oldest Greek statues and paintings of Venus show her fully robed and draped. Great numbers of Aphrodite amulets of small size and made of glazed terra-cotta have been found mainly on the Ægean islands where her cult had spread from Babylon and Syria. They resemble the Babylonian Beltis statuettes in having

After a photograph.]

Alabaster statue now in the museum of Naples. (Roscher, _Lex._, I, col. 588.)]

the arms crossed over the breast, but as a rule their hips are unnaturally broad. Some of them have a bird’s (possibly a pigeon’s) head and all have large ears with earrings.

The very oldest real statues of Aphrodite, products of primitive manufacture, have been lost, and none of the temple idols have survived Christian iconoclasm, but we have information that Kanachus[40] in the sixth century before Christ, and Kalamis, Phidias and Alcamenes in the fifth, have represented the goddess as dignified and severe. We reproduce here drawings of archaic statues fully dressed. Some of them are still awkward but give evidence of the artist’s reverence. An archaic Venus of the style familiar in Pompeii was formerly regarded as a Moera but to-day after Gerhard’s interpretation it is considered as a Venus Proserpina.

]

The statue by Kalamis which once stood upon the Acropolis at Athens and was called Aphrodite Sosandra[42] is also fully dressed, but much more graceful. A veil is tied about her hair, and in her right hand the goddess is clasping some folds of her upper garment, while her extended left hand holds a pomegranate blossom.

Roscher, _Lex._, I, 409.]

Among the Attic votive reliefs there is one interpreted as Aphrodite and Ares,[43] which shows

From Roscher, _Lex._, I, col. 412.]

Aphrodite unveiling her face to Ares. She holds a pitcher in her right hand and is pouring its contents into a vessel in his hands. It is also to be noted that the action takes place above an empty altar. The child behind her in this connection can only represent her son Eros.

In the National Museum at Rome there is an Attic sculpture of the fifth century which is somewhat bolder in showing the outlines of the figure. This Aphrodite is clad in a very diaphanous garment, the left breast being quite uncovered.

Votive relief from _Monuments grecs_, Pl. I.]

In the beautiful statue by Alcamenes, a copy of

In the National Museum at Rome.]

which is still preserved in the Louvre, the dress seems to be of slightly heavier texture and the posture more simple and dignified. In her left hand the goddess holds a pomegranate and is lifting with

her right hand a corner of her drapery above her right shoulder.

It was in the days of the highest development of

In the Vatican Museum at Rome.]

Greek art that the greatest artists dared to show the goddess of love in perfect nudity. The statues of Phidias still retain the severe expression of her divine character, but Praxiteles endeavors to show her beauty as in primitive times without any dress, in a careless but graceful and artistic pose. So at least appears the most authoritative record of her appearance on the Cnidian coin. Other statues, especially the Vatican marble known as the Venus of Praxiteles, are partly dressed. It is assumed that many replicas of ancient masterpieces did not follow their originals in all details.

From Roscher, _Lex._, I, col. 416.]

This statue of Praxiteles was ordered by the Cnidians from the artist for public worship, and when finished they placed it in the temple of Aphrodite Euploia built especially to serve as a shrine for

this piece of art. The goddess was the patroness of the island of Cnidos and therefore her image was impressed upon the Cnidian coins as the great artist had depicted her. The best copies of the Cnidian

In the Vatican.]

Aphrodite are preserved in the Vatican and in the Glyptothek at Munich.

In the Vatican.]

The Vatican is rich in Venus statues of a similar type which have been worked out in the spirit of Praxiteles, and we here reproduce photographs of what has been called the crouching Venus and also the Venus with the unguent jar.

These statues of Aphrodite in the Vatican and most others produced in the latter portion of the classical period of Greek art are entirely nude, but with the exception of the very latest ones we must grant that they are endowed with divine dignity. An improper feature enters only when nudity betrays either an intentional display, with a pretense of prudery, or an obvious purpose to excite sensuality. Originally these features are foreign to the Greek goddess and develop only with the decay of Hellenic civilization. They appear obtrusively in the so-called Venus of Medici, and worse still in the so-called Venus Kalypygos, in this way justifying to some extent the harsh opinion of Christian pietists who have vitiated our notion of Greek deities down to the present day. From the standpoint here taken I may be permitted to omit entirely any reproduction of pictures of this latest phase of the artistic conception of Venus.

Among the portrayals of Venus we deem two recent discoveries worthy of reproduction on account of their sweetness and gracefulness. One is the Venus of Panderma and the other a bust found in a wrecked ship by sponge divers at the bottom of the sea off the African coast in the Mediterranean. The former was found in a shipwreck near the coast

Front view.]

of Panderma in the year 1884, together with coins of the time of Lysimachos. It is made of Parian marble and shows the goddess standing near a small pillar over which her garment is hung. She is represented at the moment when her hands are tying a long ribbon around her head to hold up her curly hair which falls back behind the ears. Furtwängler and Salomon Reinach have devoted much attention to the statue, the latter in his _Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine_, and both praise highly the beauty of the goddess.

Rear view.]

The head of the goddess Venus now preserved in the museum at Bardos near Tunis must have lain hidden for over two thousand years. It had

probably been ordered by lovers of art living in Africa and never reached its place of destination. The shells which cover part of the bust have happily not attacked the features of the goddess and so the beauty of the face is left unmarred.

CLASSICAL HYMNS.

The worship of Aphrodite in the days of classical paganism is best characterized by two hymns attributed to Homer, but it must be understood that this whole class of poetry constitutes Homeric apocrypha of a comparatively late date. We quote the original from the Teubner edition:

ΣΙΣ ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΗΝ

Κυπρογενῆ Κυθέρειαν ἀείσομαι, ἥτε βροτοῖσι
μείλιχα δῶρα δίδωσιν, ἐφ’ ἱμερτῷ δὲ προσώπῳ
αἰεὶ μειδιάει καὶ ἐφ’ ἱμερτὸν θέει ἄνθος.

Χαῖρε, θεά, Σαλαμῖνος ἐυκτιμένης μεδέουσα
καὶ πάσης Κύπρου: δὸς δ’ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδήν.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς.

A versified translation of our own reads thus:

“My verse shall praise thee, goddess fair and mighty,
Great Queen of Cyprus, glorious Aphrodite
Who unto mortals love’s sweet gift bestowest
And in the charm of richest beauty glowest.
Thou holdest in thy hand the magic flower
Whose spell subjects us to thy gentle power.
Hail, gracious lady, soother of all woes,
Who conquerest by pleasing smiles thy foes.

Front view.]

As we thy beauty worship and admire
Inspire my song with thy celestial fire.
So shall my muse forever honor thee
And her whom thou commendest unto me.”

Here is another hymn, not less charming:

ΣΙΣ ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΗΝ

Αἰδοίην, χρυσοστέφανον, καλὴν Ἀφροδίτην
ᾄσομαι, ἣ πάσης Κύπρου κρήδεμνα λέλογχεν
εἰναλίης, ὅθι μιν Ζεφύρου μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντος
ἤνεικεν κατὰ κῦμα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης
ἀφρῷ ἔνι μαλακῷ: τὴν δὲ χρυσάμπυκες Ὧραι
δέξαντ’ ἀσπασίως, περὶ δ’ ἄμβροτα εἵματα ἕσσαν:
κρατὶ δ’ ἐπ’ ἀθανάτῳ στεφάνην εὔτυκτον ἔθηκαν
καλήν, χρυσείην: ἐν δὲ τρητοῖσι λοβοῖσιν
ἄνθεμ’ ὀρειχάλκου χρυσοῖό τε τιμήεντος:
δειρῇ δ’ ἀμφ’ ἁπαλῇ καὶ στήθεσιν ἀργυφέοισιν
ὅρμοισι χρυσέοισιν ἐκόσμεον, οἷσί περ αὐταὶ
Ὧραι κοσμείσθην χρυσάμπυκες, ὁππότ’ ἴοιεν
ἐς χορὸν ἱμερόεντα θεῶν καὶ δώματα πατρός.
αὐτὰρ ἐπειδὴ πάντα περὶ χροὶ κόσμον ἔθηκαν,
ἦγον ἐς ἀθανάτους: οἳ δ’ ἠσπάζοντο ἰδόντες
χερσί τ’ ἐδεξιόωντο καὶ ἠρήσαντο ἕκαστος
εἶναι κουριδίην ἄλοχον καὶ οἴκαδ’ ἄγεσθαι,
εἶδος θαυμάζοντες ἰοστεφάνου Κυθερείης.
Χαῖῥ ἑλικοβλέφαρε, γλυκυμείλιχε: δὸς δ’ ἐν ἀγῶνι
νίκην τῷδε φέρεσθαι, ἐμὴν δ’ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς.

Translated into English verse the hymn reads:

“The venerable Lady I adore,
Queen Aphrodite, owner of the shore
Of seagirt Cyprus. Thither Zephyr’s breeze
Had wafted her as babe with gentle ease.
While yet unborn, in briny foam lay she
Floating on billows of the surging sea,
Whence she came forth. The Seasons young and fair
With gold-embroidered bridles guided her,
They took her to their arms and they caressed
The little maid and had her beauty dressed
In garments of Ambrosian fabric wrought.
And then a crown of golden weight they brought,
Three-handled, which above her head they placed.
Her soft white neck with carcanets was graced,
The strands of which her silver breast adorn
In such a way as by the Seasons worn
At dances in sylvestrian resort
Or in Olympus at their father’s court.
They carried up the babe so fair and wee
To the immortals, who in ecstacy
Began at once to hug and fondle her
And kiss her hands. All vowed that they would wear
The sacred flower of this divine fair maid
At Hymen’s feast in festival parade.
Yea, such great charm the Gods e’en never saw;
They gazed and wondered and they stood in awe.
O goddess, dark-browed, sweet of voice,
In thee my song shall glory to rejoice!
On us poor mortals here on earth below
Life’s palm and heaven’s happiness bestow.

Praised be forever thy divinity,
And the fair sex which representeth thee.”

The nature of Venus as the mother of the universe, the mistress of existence, and the representative of all that is charming and lovely endeared her to the philosopher as well as to the poet, and so in Rome at a later day even the freethinker among classical poets, Titus Lucretius, dedicated to her his philosophical book of poetry, _De rerum natura_, in these often quoted words:[44]

“Mother of Rome, delight of Gods and men,
Dear Venus that beneath the gliding stars
Makest to teem the many-voyaged main
And fruitful lands--for all of living things
Through thee alone are evermore conceived,
Through thee are risen to visit the great sun--
Before thee, Goddess, and thy coming on,
Flee stormy wind and massy cloud away;
For thee the dedal Earth bears gentle flowers;
For thee wide waters of the unvexed deep
Smile, and the hollows of the sérene sky
Glow with diffusèd radiance for thee!
For soon as comes the springtime face of day,
And procreant gales blow from the West unbarred.
First fowls of air, smit to the heart by thee,
Foretoken thy approach, O thou Divine,
And leap the wild herds round the happy fields
Or swim the bounding torrents. Then amain,
Seized with the spell, all creatures follow thee
Whithersoever thou walkest forth to lead;
And thence through seas and mountains and swift streams,
Through leafy homes of birds and greening plains.
Kindling the lure of love in every breast,
Thou bringest the eternal generations forth.
Kind after kind. And since ’tis thou alone
Guidest the Cosmos, and without thee naught
Is risen to reach the holy shores of light,
Nor aught of joyful or of lovely born,
Thee do I crave co-partner in that verse
Which I presume on Nature to compose
For Memmius mine, whom thou hast willed to be
Peerless in every grace at every hour--
Wherefore, indeed, Divine one, give my words
Immortal charm. Lull to a timely rest
O’er sea and land the savage works of war,
For thou alone hast power with public peace
To aid mortality; since he who rules
The savage works of battle, puissant Mars,
How often to thy bosom flings his strength,
O’ermastered by the eternal wound of love--
And there, with eyes and full throat backward thrown,
Gazing, my Goddess, open-mouthed at thee,
Pastures on love his greedy sight, his breath
Hanging upon thy lips? Him thus reclined
Fill with thy holy body, round, above!
Pour from those lips soft syllables to win
Peace for the Roman, glorious Lady, peace!
For in a season troublous to the state
Neither may I attend this task of mine
With thought untroubled, nor may mid such events
The illustrious scion of the Memmian house
Neglect the civic cause.”

* * * * *

The temples of Aphrodite lie in ruins, and her worship is abandoned; but the ideal of womanhood which she represented has remained to this day, and will remain so long as mankind will continue to exist on earth. The artist of the statue of Milo has left us an unsurpassed interpretation of this ideal which even in its mutilated condition is noble and beautiful. At the same time nature does not cease to actualize the type in every living woman that has been born into the world. Each one of them with all her individual traits, her preferences and even her feminine faults is a specimen of the eternal ideal of womanhood--the divinity of love, of grace, of charm, of beauty, a source of inspiration as well as of physical and intellectual creativeness.

The ancient paganism has passed away and will never come back, but because its superstitions are gone we need no longer scorn its gods. We can recognize their grandeur, their nobility, their beauty, yea their truth; and if we contemplate the representation of their ideals in Greek art, we must own that the Venus of Milo is not the least among them.

INDEX.

Adonis, Death of, 76.

Æneas, 74.

Æschylus, 74.

Agesander or Alexander of Antioch, 14, 17, 20, 21, 51.

Alcamenes, 154, 157-159.

Alcard, 44.

Alcuin Bible, 133-135.

Amazon, Etymology of, 63.

Anchises, 68;
and Aphrodite, 74, 75.

Antiochus Euergetes, 150.

Antiochus Soter, 17.

Aphrodite, and Ares, 155-157;
as a universal principle, 65, 73;
Birth of, 62, 69;
Cypris, 65;
Etymology of the name, 62, 64;
Euploia, 162;
Pandemos, 67;
Sosandra, 154, 156;
Urania, 67, 74;
Worship of, 55, 68-75.

Apple, emblem of mother-goddess, 98;
emblem of Venus, 25;
held in hand, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 25, 30, 33, 44, 45, 47;
Melos means, 1, 25;
of empire, 39-40.

Archaic Venus, 154-155.

Ares, Aphrodite and, 155-157.

Artemis, 149.

Astarte, 69, 107;
A later, 105;
and the Dove, 100;
in Cyprus, 106, 110;
Sargent’s, 108, 110;
Worship of, 55.

Asurbanipal, 79, 80.

Athene, 69, 77, 79;
Worship of, 56.

Athens, 54, 56, 67.

Babylon, Trinity in, 98.

Bacchus, 14.

Bain, F. W., 128.

Bajot, 5_n_.

Bardos, 168, 169.

Battle on the beach, 43, 46-47, 49.

Bell, T., 31.

Bellona, 77.

Beltis, 73, 145, 151.

Benten, 110, 113.

Bethel, 148-150.

Birth, of Aphrodite, 62, 69, 70;
of Syrian goddess, 71.

Boghaz-Köi, 103-105.

Bottonis, Antonio, 2, 45.

Bottonis, Yorgos, a Greek peasant, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 44.

Bottonis, Yorgos, Jr., 45.

Brassempouy, Venus of, 146.

Brest, Louis, 3, 46.

Buddha, Kwan-Yon as the, 112, 115.

Cæsar, 74, 75.

Capua, 55.

Carolsfeld, Schnorr von, 140-141.

Carus, _The Bride of Christ_, 107;
_Soul of Man_, 126.

Castro in Melos, 2, 12, 45, 46.

_Century Magazine_, 2, 6.

Charm of statue, 26, 27.

“Chevrette,” 3, 5.

Christian Trinity, 98-99.

Christianity, 56, 74, 144.

Chthonian Venus, 75, 83, 85.

Clarac, Count de, 13, 15, 50;
Report of, 48.

Cnidian Venus, 160-163, 172.

Cnidos, 73, 163.

Condition of statue, 9-10, 24, 43, 45, 48, 49.

Conybeare, F. C., 56.

Conze, 21.

Corinth, Hierodules in, 74.

Coronet, 24.

Creation, Greek legend of, 62;
Maori legend of, 63_n_.

Creuzer, 36.

Crouching Venus, 163, 164, 166.

Cyprian Aphrodite, 154.

Cyprus, 76, 107;
Astarte in, 106, 110.

Date of statue, 20, 52.

David, 15.

Debay, Auguste, 15;
Drawing of, 16, 21.

Del Mar, Alexander, 37, 39-40.

Del Mar, Francisca Paloma, 37, 38.

Demeter, 69.

Descent into Hades, 76, 83-95.

Description of statue, 6-8, 22-25, 41, 42, 45, 51, 52.

Diana of Ephesus, 149, 152-153.

Dionæa, 67.

Dione, 65.

Discovery of statue, 2, 5-6, 44.

Dodona, 67.

Doré, Gustave, 139, 141.

Dove, 98, 102;
Astarte and the, 100;
Venus sending out the, 36, 37.

Egypt, Trinity in, 98.

Eleusinian mysteries, 83.

Ephesus, Diana of, 149, 152-153.

Epithets of Aphrodite, 65, 67.

Eros, 27, 28, 65, 77_n_, 83;
in the underworld, 84;
Statue of, 28.

“Estafette,” 3, 4, 43, 46, 47.

Eve, Adam and, in art, 132-141;
Apple of, 127, 138;
Creation of, 125, 127, 135, 138, 140.

Fanaticism, 27, 60.

Farnell, Lewis Richard, 83.

Ferry, Jules, 52;
Report of, 45-47.

Figulus, Nigidius, 71.

Fish, 103;
Isis with the, 102;
Kwan-Yon with the, 110-111;
of the Euphrates, 71;
on Friday, 117.

Foam-born, 62, 69.

Fragments, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12_n_, 13, 43, 47, 53.

Freer, Charles L., 114.

Freya, 117-120.

Furtwängler, 167;
Restoration by, 33.

“Galaxidion,” 46, 48.

Gauttier, 5_n_.

Gerhard, 154.

Ghiberti, 135-138.

Gilchrist, Edward, 86_n_.

Glyptothek, 165.

Greek, legend of creation, 62;
philology, 63;
religion, 27.

Guerber, H. A., 117, 119.

Hades, Descent into, 76, 83-95.

Halo, 39-40.

Hasse and Henke, 32, 33.

Hawk, Human-headed, 98.

Heine, Heinrich, 27.

Helios, 40.

Hephæstos, 68.

Hera (Juno), 24;
Worship of, 56.

Heracles, 14, 127;
Etymology of, 63.

Hermae, 6, 7, 8, 13.

Hermes, 14;
(psychopompos), 83.

Hesiod, 62.

Hesperides, Apple of the, 127.

Hierapolis, 102.

Hirt, 77.

History of the statue, 52-60.

Holy Ghost, 98.

Homer, 65.

Homeric hymns, 171-176.

Hypatia, 60.

Idols, Beginning of, 150.

Iduna, Apples of, 127.

India, Trinity in, 98.

Inscription, on plinth, 15, 17;
Votive, 8, 13-14, 50.

Isis, and Horus, 99;
and the fish, 102, 103;
Worship of, 55.

Istar, 71, 79, 80, 81, 107;
and Tammuz, 86;
Carrying in procession the symbol of, 97;
on coin of Tarsus, 150;
Worship of, 55.

Istar’s Descent to Hell, 85-95.

Jeremias, Dr. Alfred, 85.

Jesus, 84.

Jowett, 122-126.

Kalamis, 154, 156.

Kalypygos, Venus, 166.

Kanachus, 154.

K’ang Hi, 116.

Kirchhoff, 17.

Kronos, 62.

Kwan-Yon, as the Buddha, 112, 115;
by Li Lung-mien, 114;
Poem on, 112;
with the fish, 110-111.

Lady, 69, 73, 78, 96, 145.

Lakshmi, 147.

Lang, Andrew, 63_n_.

Lange, M., 49.

Lenormant, Charles, 11, 50.

Lenormant, F., 99, 101.

Leonard, William Ellery, 176_n_.

Life, Secret of, 143.

“Lionne,” 4.

Louvre, 4, 10, 12, 25, 43, 48, 49, 53, 158;
Authorities of the, 14, 17, 42, 50.

Love, Goddess of, 22, 39, 64, 74, 75, 76, 83, 117-120, 144, 178;
Goddess of sexual, 67.

Lucian, 103.

Lucretius, Titus, 176.

Ludovisi relief, 70-73.

Lung-mien, Li, 114.

Lysimachos, 167.

Lysippos, 52.

Magna Dea, 96ff.

Man, Origin of, 122;
Primitive, 142.

Maori legend of creation, 63_n_.

Marcellus, Viscount, 3, 9, 14, 39, 43, 53;
Report of, 11-13.

Marduk, 105.

Mary, Virgin, 64, 69, 71, 110, 115, 120;
Worship of, 37, 56.

Matriarchy, 96, 97.

Matterer, Lieutenant, 44, 47.

Max, Gabriel, 141-143.

Measurements of statue, 7-8.

Medici, Venus of, 166.

Melos, 1, 2, 45, 46, 47;
Inhabitants of, 39, 53;
Name of, 1, 7;
Site of, 6.

Michelangelo, 138, 140.

Mirror, Venus with, 30, 31.

Montaiglon, M. A., 5_n_.

Morusi, Nikolai, 3, 4.

Mother-goddess, The, 22, 68, 77, 96ff, 117, 120, 144.

Murillo, 109, 110.

Mutilation of statue, 7, 24, 27, 40, 42-43, 49, 53.

National Museum, 157, 158.

Navigation, Goddess of, 107.

Nebo, 81.

Nudity in art, 166;
of statue, 22, 24, 41.

Ohnefalsch-Richter, 106.

Oiconomos, 3.

_Open Court_, 110.

Oriental influence, 70-71, 96.

Original, Statue an, 20-21.

Orvieto, 135, 136.

Overbeck, 20.

Paganism, 55, 135, 178;
End of, 60, 68, 73.

Panderma, Venus of, 166-168.

Paphos, 73.

Paul, St., 84.

Pausanias, 54, 76, 154_n_.

Pedestal, 14, 17, 20.

Penitential psalm, 78.

Pergamum, 21, 52.

Persephone, 76;
Myth of, 83.

Phidias, 52, 54, 73, 154, 162.

Philology of Greeks, 63.

Pinches, Theodore G., 78.

Pindar, 74.

Plato, 62, 67, 121, 124, 128_n_.

Pluto, 83.

Polytheism, 68.

Pomegranate, 83, 98, 127;
emblem of Venus, 76;
held in hand, 158.

Pompeian Venus, 154-155.

Praxiteles, 52, 160-163.

Preller, 76_n_, 154.

Prometheus, Etymology of, 63.

Purchase of statue, 3-4, 9.

Queen of heaven, 64, 69, 74, 96, 116.

Rabbit, 103.

_Record-Herald_, 44, 50.

Reinach, Salomon, 167.

Restorations, 27-41.

Rivière, Marquis de, 4, 9.

Robert, Commander, 46.

Roscher, 63_n_, 71_n_, 153, 154_n_, 155_n_, 156, 162.

Sailors, French, 4, 10, 49;
Turkish, 46.

Saloman, Geskel, 20;
Restorations by, 34, 35.

Sargent’s Astarte, 108, 110.

Schliemann, 107.

Scopas, 52.

Sculptor of the statue, 13, 21, 51, 52, 53.

Selene, 40.

Semiramis, 101.

Shield and pencil, Venus with, 29, 31.

Sistine Madonna, 25.

Socrates, 121.

Sophia, 99;
The gnostic, 98.

Soul, Egyptian, 98, 99.

Springer, Anton, 134.

Star of the sea, 120.

Steinthal, H., 63_n_.

Swastika, 107.

Syrian goddess, 96, 103;
Birth of, 71.

Tacitus, 73.

Talbot, H. Fox, 79, 81.

Tammuz, 86.

Taylor, 63_n_.

Theodosius, 39.

Thiers, 45, 47.

T’ien Hou, 116.

Titian, 66, 67.

Tiumman, 79, 80;
Head of, 82.

Tomb of Aphrodite, 76.

Toulon, 5.

Tralles, Head of, 19, 20, 21.

Tree of life, 127.

Trinities, 98.

Turkish brig, 43, 46, 48.

Unguent jar, Venus with the, 165, 166.

Uranus and Gaia, 62.

Urville, Dumont d’, 3, 13, 14, 42-43, 44, 47;
Report of, 5-9.

Valentin, Veit, 25;
Restoration by, 37, 41.

Vatican, 152, 160-163, 164, 165.

Venice, Doves of, 103.

Venus Erycina, 77_n_;
Genetrix, 69, 75, 159;
Kalypygos, 166;
of Milo; full figure, 16, 23;
of Milo; head, _fr._, 18, 57, 59;
of Milo; restored, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38;
on the swan, 55, 56;
Proserpina, 154;
Urania, 74;
Victrix, 75, 77, 78, 79;
Victrix, Statue called, 45, 47, 48;
Vulgaris, 74.

Victory, Venus of Milo as, 31.

War, Goddess of, 77-82.

Wings, 99.

Woermann, 102_n_.

Woman, Origin of, 127-132.

Zealotry, Outbursts of, 58.

Zeus, 65.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Published under the title “Relation d’une expédition hydrographique dans le Levant et la mer-Noire de la gabarre de Sa Majesté la _Chevrette_, commandée par M. Gauttier, capitaine de vaisseau, dans l’année 1820,” in _Annales maritimes et coloniales de Bajot_, 1821, and reprinted in _Archives de l’art français, publiés sous la direction de M. A. Montaiglon_, II series, Vol. II, 1863, pp. 202ff.

[2] “Un dernier mot sur la Venus de Milo,” in the _Revue Contemporaine_, 1839, XIII, pp. 289ff.

[3] These fragments are preserved in a glass case at the window in the same room of the Louvre where the Venus of Milo stands.

[4] Geskel Saloman, _Die Restauration der Venus von Milo, den Manen de Claracs gewidmet_. Stockholm, 1895. Plate IV.

[5] Conze, _Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon_.

[6] _The Venus di Milo, Its History and Its Art._ New York, Cambridge Encyclopedia Co., 1900.

[7] As we might suppose in reading Hesiod, _Th._, 195ff, and Plato, _Crat._, 406 c.

[8] Taylor mentions this Maori legend in his _New Zealand_, 119. Cf. Andrew Lang, _Myth, Ritual and Religion_, I, 302, and Roscher, _Lex._, s. v. “Kronos,” col. 1542.

[9] H. Steinthal, “Die Sage von Prometheus,” in _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft_, II, ii, 8-9.

[10] Διὸς κούρη.

[11] As reported in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, s. v. “Aphrodite.”

[12] Preller, _Griechische Mythologie_, I, p. 364.

[13] The original is written in a Sumerian dialect with a translation into the Semitic Babylonian. See _Records of the Past_, New Series, Vol. I, p. 85.

[14] Literally, “I do not take counsel, myself I am not wise.”

[15] _Records of the Past_, Vol. VII, p. 67.

[16] II, Pl. XLVIII, p. 697.