* See above, § IV (2).
RELIGION OF GREECE
g ; | evidence, to the earliest forms of these sacred
myths and of the cult usages with which they are connected, it seems only reasonable to suppose that they began in a simple and self-consistent form. The view which forces itself on us is that the drama of the Divine life was at first understood and presented to the worshippers in some single and definite form at a time, and not in a confused mixture of different forms. In this ancient ritual the goddess is generally the important and essen- tial figure, while the god is an adjunct needed for the proper development of her life, who passes out of notice when he has fulfilled his part in the drama; and in many cases the union of the two is described as a crime against some law, or actu- ally as an act of fraud or violence even of the most abominable character, which sometimes entails punishment even unto death.
(3) Myths of the goddess and the god. —Some- times the union of the goddess and the god is pictured under the forms of agriculture, as of Demeter with Iasion ‘in the thrice-ploughed fal- low field.’ Thus the goddess bears the Divine child ; but Iasion is slain by the thunderbolt; for a life must be given in primitive ritual that the crop may acquire the power to grow. This cult myth (iepds Néyos) is connected with the Samothra- cian Mysteries and with Crete, two ancient centres of the primitive population, which we may now call Pelasgian, using the same name that the Greeks used, though modern scholars long ridiculed it.
Most important and most instructive as to the nature of the Anatolian religion is the idea, de- seribed above in § III (7), that the Divine power and the Divine life are revealed in the nature of the bee. As we have seen, the form of the Ephesian goddess (a form not restricted to Ephesus, but widely prevalent in Lydian and Phrygian cities) is modelled far more closely on the shape of the bee than of the woman. Now, the life of the queen bee (as described in the Encyclopedia Britannica®, whose account may be given more shortly in the fol- lowing terms) is the best explanation of the Attis legend. As regards reproduction, the opinion was once maintained that the queen bee was in herself sufficient without any male bee, or that the male principle was conveyed to the queen without her coming into contact with a male. But it has been clearly proved that the queen comes into relation with a male bee while taking a flight in the air; and if she does not find a mate within three weeks of her birth the power of intercourse seems to become lost. In the intercourse the male is robbed of the organs concerned; and thus mutilated is left to perish on the ground. His existence seems to have no object apart from the queen bee, and he fulfils no other function and no other duty in life. This description applies with striking exactness to the relation between the Mother- Goddess and the god, who (as we have seen) exists merely to be her consort, and is quite an insignifi- cant personage apart from his relation to her. We must here anticipate what is said in later sections as to the character and original import- ance of the Goddess-Mother, and as to the growth of the dignity of the god in historic development, in order to bring out the bee nature in her life- history. The god consorted with the goddess by stealth and violence: the goddess was angry at the outrage: she mutilated the assailant, or caused him to be mutilated (easectis virilibus semivirum tradidit), Even the false but not unnatural opinions about the impregnation of the queen bee have obvious analogies in the myths about the Mother- Goddess. F
The myths riot in variations on this ugly theme, and we need not allude to them, except in so far as they are necessary for understanding the facts.
RELIGION OF GREECE 123
a
The god, though mutilated, must still be living in perfect form, for the life of nature (whose annual bloom he represents) is renewed in perfection every year; and accordingly the myth sometimes tells that the penalty was inflicted vicariously, drocrdcas 6 Leds roO Kpiod rods Svdvmous pépwv év udoous Eppive rots kd\mows THs Anods, Tiuwplay pevdh THs Bialas cuumdoxjs exrivviwy, where there is an obvious reference to the treatment which the sacred instructions prescribe fordomesticated animals.* Further, purely fanciful developments in Greek myth produced such tales as that the goddess was a lover of the god, and mutilated him in jealousy, or that the mutilation was intended to compel and enforce chastity. Such tales are absolutely opposed to the original Anatolian idea, which is intended to account for the fruitfulness and new life of nature. The subject offered a good opening for attack to the Christian polemical writers, Clemens Alexandrinus, Firmicus Maternus, Arnobius, ete.; and they are our best authorities. The accounts which ‘they give, hideous as they are and concentrating atten- tion only on the evils, must be accepted as cor- rectly stating facts: it would have ruined their effect if they had not been recognized as true statement of facts. Moreover, they are corrobor- ated in various details by pagan authorities; and as a whole they bear the unmistakable stamp of truth, but not the whole truth.