722.  This view is expounded by Kuenen in his Religion of Israel, II. 156.

723.  This appears to be Bunsen’s opinion: God in History, I. 101.

724.  See Max Müller’s essay Genesis and the Zend-Avesta (Chips, I. 143 et seqq.). The Dutch scholar Tiele occupies nearly the same position as Spiegel on this question, which he discusses fully in his book De Godsdienst van Zarathustra, Haarlem 1864, p. 302 et seq.

725.  Les Ruines, XX. 13. System.

726.  I must mention a third view on the concurrence of the Hebrew with the Aryan story of the primeval age; it is that which was first declared by Ewald in his History of Israel, I. 224 et seqq., and is adopted by Lassen and Weber among the Germans, and by Burnouf and (with some hesitation) Renan among the French. In this view the coincidences in the respective primitive stories are to be accounted for by common prehistoric traditions which the Aryans and the Semites formed in their original common dwelling-place concerning primeval history. Renan speaks shortly on the subject in his Histoire gén. des Langues sémitiques, pp. 480 et seq.

727.  Naturgeschichte der Sage, I. 8.

728.  Die religiösen, politischen und socialen Ideen der Asiatischen Culturvölker, etc., edited by M. Lazarus, Berlin 1872, p. 590.

729.  Commentar zur Genesis, 1st ed. 1838, p. 200; 2nd ed. 1871, p. 157.

730.  It should be observed that in the postexilian imitation of this sermon of castigations (now called in the Synagogue tôkhâchâ) in Lev. XXVI. 14–43, the circumstance that the people would be carried off by an enemy ‘whose language they understood not’ is omitted. Other points in the tôkhâchâ of Leviticus indicate that it was imagined by one who had a knowledge of the Captivity; so e.g. the especial accentuation of residence in the land of an enemy, as in vv. 32, 36, 38, 39.

731.  George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 158 et seqq.

732.  Fiske, Myths and Myth makers, pp. 71, 154. See Tylor, Primitive Culture, I. 357 et seq.

733.  From Sepp’s Jerusalem und das heilige Land, II. 157.

734.  In Yâḳût, Geogr. Dictionary, II. 893. The explanation of the name Thakîf in Yâḳût, III. 498, quite reminds one of the Old Testament way of giving etymologies of names.

735.  See some useful quotations in L. Löw’s Beiträge zur jüd. Alterthumskunde, Szegedin 1875, II. 388; and very interesting references in Pott’s Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin 1876, p. CIX. et seq.

736.  Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1853, VII. p. 28.

737.  See supra, pp. 133, 183.

738.  Ibn Dureyd, Kitâb al-Ishtîḳâḳ, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1853, p. 9.

739.  See Ewald, History of Israel, I. 19 et seq.

740.  I have referred to this in Zeitschr. d. D. M. G. 1870, XXIV. 207.

741.  According to Rabbinical views, Âbhôth V, Mishnâ 21.

742.  The author refers on p. 127 recto to his earlier work, Biġyat al-mutaʿallim wa-fâʾidat al-mutakallim. Ḥâjî Chalfâ does not know this book of the author’s.

743.  Berêsh. r. sect. 53; see Beer, Leben Abraham’s, p. 168, note 506.

744.  See Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei Griechen und Römern, p. 342.

745.  See on raḥmân and raḥîm al-Beyḍâwî’s Comm. in Coranum, ed. Fleischer, 5. 11.

746.  Kitâb al-aġânî, IV. 191. My translation differs from Sprenger’s.

747.  Sprenger, Leben Mohammed’s, I. 112.

748.  MS. of the Leipzig University Library, Cod. Ref. no. 357.

749.  See Sprenger, ibid. p. 111.

750.  See Lenormant, Premières Civilisations, I. 359.

751.  Aegyptische Studien, in the Zeitsch. der D. M. G., X. 683.

752.  De Iside et Osiride, c. LXXIV.

753.  Herod. II. 73: τὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ χρυσόκομα τῶν πτερῶν, τὰ δὲ, ἐρυθρά.

754.  On other animals, rather fantastic than mythological, belonging to Egyptian antiquity, see Chabas, Études sur l’antiquité historique, Paris 1873, pp. 399–403.

755.  Herod. II. 41: Τοὺς μέν νυν καθαροὺς βοῦς τοὺς ἔρσενας καὶ τοὺς μόσχους οἰ πάντες Αἰγύπτιοι θύουσι· τὰς δὲ θηλέας οὔ σφι ἔξεστι θύειν, ἀλλὰ ἱραί εἰσι τῆς Ἴσιος.

756.  E.A. Bowring’s translation of the Book of Songs, where the ‘Nordsee’ is rendered ‘Baltic’!

757.  Later Edda, I. 90, Gylf. 35.

758.  Lepsius, Aelteste Texte des Todtenbuchs, Berlin 1867, p. 42.

759.  Aġânî II. 118. 7.

760.  See especially Schwartz, Sonne, Mond und Sterne, p. 30 sq.

761.  See Gutschmid in Zeitschr. d. D.M.G. 1861, XV. 86.

762.  See W. Bacher’s Nizâmî’s Leben und Werke, p. 21.

763.  MS. of the Leipzig University Library, Suppl. 7. fol. 30 recto.

764.  Yâḳût. III. 92; Krehl, Vorislam. Religion des Araber, p. 12 etc. See also Ewald, History of Israel, I. 272. note 4.

765.  See Frankel’s Monatsschrift für jüd. Geschichte, II. 273. See on assonance of names, Zeitschr. d. D.M.G. XXI. 593.

766.  E.g. Ḥamâsâ, p. 221; compare Zeitsch. d. D.M.G., 1849, III. 177.

767.  See Gutschmid, l.c. p. 87.

768.  In Ewald’s Jahrb. für bibl. Wissenschaft, 1853, V. 139. note 53.

769.  Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, edited by Rödiger, § 141; Ewald, Ausführl. Lehrb. der. Heb. Spr. § 282. c.

770.  Paul Hunfalvy in the monthly magazine Magyar Nyelvőr, 1874, III. 202.

771.  Ibid., 1873, II. 179.

772.  Rückert, l.c., p. 62. v. 18.

773.  Such as Ḥamzâ al-Iẓfahânî; compare Yâḳût, I. 292–3, 791. 20; III. 925, 629. 18 sq., IV. 683. 10. and my Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachgelehrsamkeit bei den Arabern, Vienna 1871–3, no. I. p. 45 and no. III. p. 26.

774.  Leviticus rabbâ, sect. 12: ôthô hâ-ʿêṣ sheâkhal mimmennû Âdâm hâ-rîshôn ʿanâbhîm hâyâh.

775.  Ibn Iyyâs, in the book Badâʿi al-zuhûr fî waḳâʿi al-duhûr, Cairo 1865, p. 83: see my article Zur Geschichte der Etymologie des Namens Nûḥ in Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1870, XXIV. 209.

776.  Ibn al-Sikkît, p. 19, al-Jauharî, s. v. fṭḥl. On the proverbial longevity of the lizard see Kâmil, ed. W. Wright, p. 197. 18; al-Damîrî, II. 34; al-Jauharî, s. v. ḥsl; Burckhardt’s Reisen in Syrien, note by Gesenius in the German translation, p. 1077.

777.  Rosenzweig, III. 465.

778.  See A. von Kremer, Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete des Islams, Leipzig 1873.

779.  See Kitâb alʿikd, MSS. of the Imperial Hofbibliothek, Vienna, A.F., no. 84, vol. I. pp. 188 sq. The data bearing on this subject I have collected and published in a essay on the Nationality-question in Islâm, written in Hungarian, Buda-Pest 1873.

780.  See al-Nawawî’s Commentary on Muslim’s Collection of Traditions, ed. Cairo, I. 124.

781.  Compare al-Damîrî Ḥayât al-ḥaywân, II. 316 sq.

782.  Al-Masʿûdî, Les Prairies d’or, II. 148 sq.; al-Kazwînî, ed. Wüstenfeld, I. 199; Yâḳût, Muʿjam, II. 941.

783.  Al-Maḳrîzî, History of the Copts, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1847, p. 90.

784.  Petermann, Reisen im Orient, I. 147.

785.  Kremer, Mittelsyrien und Damaskus, p. 194.

786.  See W.K. Kelly, Curiosities of Indo-European Tradition and Folk-lore, London 1863, chap. II.—Tr.

787.  See Kelly, ibid., p. 74.—Tr.

788.  See Kelly, ibid., p. 83.—Tr.

789.  See Kelly, ibid., 163–5—Tr.

790.  See Kelly, Curiosities etc., p. 89.—Tr.

791.  See Kelly, Curiosities etc., p. 83–85, 151.—Tr.

792.  See Kelly, ibid., p. 83, 141–3.—Tr.

793.  See Kelly, Curiosities etc., pp. 37, 43.—Tr. The literal meaning of his name is qui in matre tumescit vel praevalet, i.e. a boring-stick like the lightning.

794.  In English mangle, substantive and verb. The verb mangle ‘to tear’ is probably the same, derived from the action of boring. To mantle—to winnow corn, to rave, to froth, may be from the same original root, represented by the Sanskrit, math, manth, in the sense ‘to shake.’ See Halliwell, Dict. of Archaic and Provincial Words. The Greek μόθος ‘tumult’ is connected with the same root by Gr. Curtius, Grundzüge der griech. Etymologie, No. 476.—Tr.

795.  The penis. The Latin mentula, as Prof. Weber reminds me, is clearly the same.

796.  The boring-stick and the penis.

797.  ṛ in Sanskrit is pronounced as r with a very short vowel, e.g. like ri in merrily.—Tr.

798.  Halliwell, l.c., gives in provincial English bliken ‘to shine,’ blickent ‘shining,’ and blink ‘a spark of fire.’—Tr.

799.  ć in Sanskrit is the English ch in church.—Tr.

800.  This is supported by the analogy of the French apprendre. It should also be noted that Plato, in defining the signification of μανθάνειν, says that it means πράγματός τινος λαμβάνειν τὴν ἐπιστήμην (Euthyd. 277. e.).

801.  On all this see my Einleitung in die Psychologie und Sprachwissenschaft.

802.  It is explained by Lazarus, Leben der Seele, II. p. 166, and by me in Grammatik, Logik und Psychologie, pp. 319–340, and in Charakteristik der Typen des Sprachbaues, pp. 78 et seq.

803.  The male is the Pramantha, the female the ἐσχάρα (the lower piece of wood and the female pudenda).

804.   See Kelly, Curiosities etc., pp. 35–38, 137–150, 158.—Tr.

805.  Num. XX. 12, XXVII. 13, 14.—Tr.

806.   Sage, a ‘saying’ or legendary story, which may have no historical foundation, but be produced out of mythic matter. Where, as here, it is sharply distinguished from history, I render it legend; elsewhere story, which is generally the best English equivalent, notwithstanding its derivation from historia.—Tr.

807.  The allusion is to the story of Bruin the bear and the honey, in Reynard the Fox: see Reinhart, v. 1533–1562, Reinaert, v. 601–706, in Jacob Grimm’s edition, Berlin 1834; and Goethe’s modern German version, canto 2.—Tr.

808.  Welcker, Griechische Götterlehre, I. 478.

809.  Welcker, ibid., 490.

810.  Studer, Buch der Richter, p. 320: Sachs, Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, II. p. 92.

811.  Preller, Römische Mythologie, p. 437–8.

812.  Ovid, Fasti, IV. 679 et seqq.

813.  Judges XV. 8.

814.  Judges XV. 15–19.

815.  VIII. 5. 1, p. 353.

816.  III. 22. 8.

817.  Judges XV. 19: ʿÊn haḳḳôrê.

818.  Judges XV. 16.

819.  Buch der Richter, p. 185.

820.  Judges XV. 17: Râmath Lechî.

821.  v. 19.

822.  Schwartz, Ursprung der Mythologie.

823.  Makhtêsh, v. 19.

824.  I formerly saw in the Jawbone the representative of the Harpe (toothed sickle), with which Herakles cuts off the heads of the Hydra, and which Kronos and Perseus also employ—the latter when he beheads Medusa. I have changed my view in favour of that here propounded, through consideration of the ‘throwing,’ which undoubtedly is significant. But complete certainty is unattainable. What meaning can be attached to the circumstance that the jawbone is called a ‘fresh’ (new) one (v. 15)?

825.  Judges XVI. 1–3.

826.  Welcker, Griech. Götterlehre, II. 776; Preller, Griech. Mythol., II. 154, 167; Movers, Phönizier, I. 442.

827.  Welcker, ibid., II. 761.

828.  Judges XVI. 4: Nachal Sôrêḳ, i.e. Valley of the Vine.

829.  I formerly took Delîlâ, i.e. the ‘Worn out,’ to be a personification of Nature, worn out and no longer productive in the winter-season. Then the name Delîlâ might be compared with that of Aphrodite Morpho, supposing Movers (p. 586) to give the right interpretation of the latter, in discovering it to be the Syriac word for Fatigue, Flagging. Then Delîlâ would be the Winter-goddess, and might be a peculiar phase of Derketo, who was worshiped in conjunction with the barren Sea-god Dagon (see Stark, Gaza, p. 285). Pausanias (III, 15. 8) relates that there was at Sparta an old temple with an image of Aphrodite to whom it belonged—i.e. Astarte, Semiramis, etc. This temple (alone of all the temples that Pausanias knew) had an upper story, in which was an image of Aphrodite Morpho. She was represented sitting, veiled, and with her feet bound. Pausanias himself interprets the fetters to indicate women’s attachment to their husbands; but this reading is not binding on us. I regard this Morpho as a picture of Nature fettered and mourning in winter. Similarly, and also at Sparta (ibid. 5) the bound Enyalios signifies the restrained solar heat of Mars. However, this interpretation of Delîlâ as Winter stands in no contradiction to what is said in the text. Moon-goddess, Love-goddess, Chaste goddess, and Winter, are only different aspects of the same mythological figure, to which a name capable of many interpretations is very suitable. Stark (Gaza, p. 292) is right in asserting the hostility of Herakles to the descendants of Poseidon, the gloomy sea-god, who according to Semitic conceptions I believe to have been also the Winter-god (Dagon). But Movers (p. 441) appears to be also right in showing how, besides combating the creatures of Typhon, Melkart-Herakles is also hostile to the evil Moon-goddess. For she is only the female figure corresponding to the male Moloch, Typhon and Mars. In the Greek myth the place of the Semitic Lunar Astarte is occupied by Hera, the adversary of Herakles. She is confounded both with Ashêrâ the goddess of Love, and with Astarte. Thus there was in Sparta an Aphrodite Hera (Paus. III. 13. 6). To her goats were sacrificed at Sparta, and only there, as to the Semitic Birth-goddess; and she was called ‘Goat-eater’ (Ἥρα αἰάγοφάγος, ib. 15. 7; Preller, Griech. Myth., p. 111; but I am of opinion that the goats have not the same meaning in her case as in that of Zeus). In the character of Astarte, as an evil Moon-goddess, a female Moloch or Mars, she appears when she sends the Nemean lion, the Solar heat, into the land, and on other occasions when she is put into connexion with the powers of evil (Preller, p. 109). The conception which unites opposite natural forces in the same divine person, which then appears under a modified form, could not be better expressed in architecture than it is in the above-mentioned temple of Aphrodite. The lower story is a temple of the Armed Aphrodite; the upper a temple of Aphrodite Morpho: thus the whole is a temple of the strict goddess, below of the Summer, above of the Winter. The fact that a deity of the Solar heat and the Fire is regarded as also a deity of the Sea, may be explained not only by the equal barrenness of the Desert—a sea of sand, and the Sea—a desert of water, but perhaps also by the opinion, attributed by Plutarch (de Is. et Os. c. 7) to the Egyptians, that the sea is not an independent element but only a morbid emanation from fire. To Morpho or Winter corresponds Hera, as one at variance with Zeus, or as a widow (Preller, p. 108). Thus then it will be clear that Delîlâ may be both the Birth-goddess (Ashêrâ) and the evil Moon-goddess (Astarte), or more accurately the Winter-goddess (Derketo). If Semiramis exhibits a combination of Ashêrâ with Astarte, then Delîlâ shows a similar combination of Ashêrâ with Derketo, who is only a modification of Astarte.

830.  The derivation from the root shmn is impossible, that from the root shmm far-fetched. The simple derivation from shemes ‘sun’ appears to be rejected by Bertheau (Buch der Richter, p. 169) only ‘because the long narrative concerning Samson presents no reference to a name of any such signification’ (as ‘the Sunny,’ the Solar hero), and because, as he says, ‘we do not expect to find a name of this kind anywhere in Hebrew antiquity.’ But the matter appears to us now in a very different light, and the connexion with the Sun which Bertheau did not expect to find has now become clear.

831.  That Dagon really had the form of a fish, which Movers denies, surely appears certain from 1 Sam. V. 4 (see Stark, Gaza, p. 249). And it would be an excess of diplomatic accuracy, such as we are not justified in ascribing to the Hebrew writer, to suppose that his only reason for writing dâgôn was that the Hebrew dâgân ‘corn’ was pronounced Dâgôn in Phenician. Moreover, such a word as ‘Corn’ (dâgân) cannot well be a proper name. The formation of proper names of men and places by the termination ôn is excessively common, and requires no citation of examples.

832.  Judges XVI, 22.

833.  Judges XIII.

834.  1 Sam. I.

835.  Num. VI. 1–21.

836.  1 Sam. I. 28.

837.  1 Sam. II. 11, 18, III. 3, I. 11.

838.  Amos II. 11, 12.

839.  Lev. X. 9.

840.  Num. VI. 6, 7.

841.  The circumstance that this was ‘of Jahveh’ (Judges XIV. 4) is a fiction interpolated into the legend by the systematising author.

842.  It will be seen from the above, that I am far from subscribing to the judgment on the heathen religions which has in recent times been widely diffused among philosophers and philologians. I agree essentially with the judgment of the natural mind, which always sees delusion and superstition in heathendom. But it does not follow from this that the heathens were absolutely immoral: they invested with their own morality gods who were intrinsically representations of nature only.

843.  See Preller, Griech. Mythol. II. 97; Gerhard, Griech. Mythol. § 711.

844.  For this assertion I must for the present refer to what I have said in an article, Zur Charakteristik der semitischen Völker, in the Zeitschr. für Völkerpsychologie etc. Vol. I. p. 328 et seqq. In Liebner and others’ Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, V. p. 669 et seqq., there is a long article by Diestel, Der Monotheismus des ältesten Heidenthums, vorzüglich bei den Semiten. He also declares himself averse to the assumption of a primitive Monotheism, because it is destitute of all historical proof. He brings many points judiciously into the light, especially the absence of an accurate conception of Monotheism (p. 684). But when he objects to me, that in the above-quoted article (p. 330) I am too hard on the expression Instinct used by Renan, inasmuch as it is to be understood as implying only an individual disposition of the religious mind, not a momentum of half-animal physical life. I must observe in reply, that I can scarcely imagine how else instinct can be understood but as a ‘half-animal momentum’; and even reason, taken as an instinct, is eo ipso degraded to a momentum of half-animal physical life. And if Diestel here means by instinct a ‘disposition of the mind,’ I can see in such dispositions scarcely anything more than momenta of half-animal physical life. Moreover, I cannot admit any such ‘dispositions of the religious mind,’ which have the special object of their belief determined beforehand. A disposition to reasonableness in general, or to religiousness in general, does dwell in the human mind; but not a disposition so defined as to its object that a limited idea, such as Monotheism, could be a priori inherent in it.