Babylonian-Assyrian Birth-Omens and Their Cultural Significance

Babylonian-Assyrian
Birth-Omens

And

Their Cultural Significance

by
Morris Jastrow, jr.
Ph. D. (Leipzig) Professor of Semitic Languages in the University
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

Gießen 1914
Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann (vormals J. Ricker)

Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten
begründet von
Albrecht Dieterich und Richard Wünsch
herausgegeben von
Richard Wünsch und Ludwig Deubner
in Münster i. W. in Königsberg i. Pr.
XIV. Band. 5. Heft

To
SIR WILLIAM OSLER
Regius Professor of Medicine
Oxford University
This volume is dedicated
as a mark of esteem and admiration.
“Most fine, most honour’d, most renown’d.”
(King Henry V, 2d Part, Act IV, 5, 164.)

Analysis

I

As a result of researches in the field of Babylonian-Assyrian divination, now extending over a number of years[1], it may be definitely said that apart from the large class of miscellaneous omens[2], the Babylonians and Assyrians developed chiefly three methods of divination into more or less elaborate systems—divination through the inspection of the liver of a sacrificial animal or Hepatoscopy, through the observation of the movements in the heavens or Astrology, (chiefly directed to the moon and the planets but also to the sun and the prominent stars and constellations), and through the observance of signs noted at birth in infants and the young of animals or Birth-omens. Elsewhere[3], I have suggested a general division of the various forms of divination methods into two classes, voluntary and involuntary divination, meaning by the former the case in which a sign is deliberately selected and then observed, by the latter where the sign is not of your own choice but forced upon your attention and calling for an interpretation. Hepatoscopy falls within the former category[4], Astrology and Birth-omens in the latter.

Each one of these three methods rests on an underlying well-defined theory and is not the outcome of mere caprice or pure fancy, though of course these two factors are also prominent. In the case of Hepatoscopy, we find the underlying theory to have been the identification of the ‘soul’ or vital centre of the sacrificial victim—always a sheep—with the deity to whom the animal is offered,—at least to the extent that the two souls are attuned to one another. The liver being, according to the view prevalent among Babylonians and Assyrians as among other peoples of antiquity at a certain stage of culture, the seat of the soul[5], the inspection of the liver followed as the natural and obvious means of ascertaining the mind, i. e., the will and disposition of the deity to whom an inquiry has been put or whom one desired to consult. The signs on the liver—the size and shape of the lobes, and of the gall bladder, the character or peculiarities of the two appendices to the upper lobe, (the processus pyramidalis and the processus papillaris), and the various markings on the liver were noted, and on the basis of the two main principles conditioning all forms of divination (1) association of ideas and (2) noting the events that followed upon certain signs, a decision was reached as to whether the deity was favorably or unfavorably disposed or, what amounted to the same thing, whether the answer to the inquiry was favorable or unfavorable.

In the case of Astrology,—a relatively more advanced method of divination,—the underlying theory rested on the supposed complete correspondence between movements and phenomena in the heavens and occurrences on earth. The gods, being identified with the heavenly bodies,—with the moon, sun, planets, and fixed stars—or as we might also put it, the heavenly bodies being personified as gods, the movements in the heavens were interpreted as representing the activity of the gods preparing the events on earth. Therefore, he who could read the signs in the heavens aright would know what was to happen here below. Astrology corresponded in a measure to the modern Weather Bureau in that it enabled one to ascertain a little in advance what was certain to happen, sufficiently so in order to be prepared for it. Compared with Hepatoscopy, Astrology not only represents a form of divination that might be designated as semi-scientific—only relatively scientific of course—but also occupies a higher plane, because there was no attempt involved to induce a deity unfavorably disposed to change his mind. The signs were there; they pointed unmistakably to certain occurrences on earth that were certain to occur and it was the task of the diviner—the bârû or ‘inspector’ as the Babylonian called him—to indicate whether what the gods were preparing would be beneficial or harmful. Both Hepatoscopy and Astrology as developed by the Babylonians and Assyrians bârû-priests exerted a wide influence, the former spreading to the Hittites and Etruscans and through the one or the other medium to Greeks and Romans[6], while Babylonian-Assyrian Astrology passing to the Greeks became the basis for Graeco-Roman and mediaeval Astrology, profoundly influencing the religious thought of Europe[7] and in a modified form surviving even to our own days. The chain of evidence has recently been completed[8] to prove the direct transfer of the cuneiform astrological literature to Greek astrologers and astronomers. The possibility also of a spread or at least of a secondary influence of both systems to the distant East is also to be considered. In fact considerable evidence is now available to show that Babylonian-Assyrian astrological notions and in part also astronomical data spread to China[9].

II

The observation of signs observed in young animals and in infants at the time of birth constitutes a third division of Babylonian-Assyrian divination, quite equal in prominence to Hepatoscopy and Astrology. Here too we are justified in seeking for some rational or quasi-rational basis for the importance attached by Babylonians and Assyrians, and as we shall see by other nations as well, to anything of a noteworthy or unusual character observed at the moment that a new life was ushered into the world. The mystery of life made as deep an impression upon primitive man and upon ancient peoples as it does on the modern scientist, who endeavors with his better equipment and enriched by the large experience of past ages, to penetrate to the very source of life. A new life issuing from another life—what could be stranger, what more puzzling, what more awe-inspiring? If we bear in mind that there is sufficient evidence to warrant us in saying that among peoples in a primitive state of culture, the new life was not associated with the sexual act[10], the mystery must have appeared still more profound. The child or the young animal was supposed to be due to the action of some spirit or demon that had found its way into the mother, just as death was supposed to be due to some malicious demon that had driven the spirit of life out of the body. The many birth customs found in all parts of the world[11], are associated with this impression of mystery made by the new life; they centre largely round the idea of protection to the mother and her offspring at a critical period. The rejoicing is tempered by the fear of the demons who were supposed to be lurking near to do mischief to the new life and to the one who brought it forth. The thought is a natural one, for the young life hangs in the balance, while that of the mother appears to be positively threatened. All bodily suffering and all physical ailments being ascribed to the influence of bad demons, or to the equally malevolent influence of persons who could by their control of the demons or in some other way throw a spell over the individual, Birth, Puberty, Marriage and Death as the four periods in life which may be regarded as critical and transitional are marked by popular customs and religious rites that follow mankind from primitive times down to our own days. A modern scholar, Van Gennep, who has recently gathered these customs in a volume and interpreted them, calls his work ‘Rites de Passage’, i. e., customs associated with the four periods of transition from one stage to the other and which survive in advanced forms of faith as Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage ceremonies and Funeral rites, just as the chief festivals in all religions are the ‘Rites de Passage’ of nature—associated with the transition periods of the year, with the vernal equinox, the summer solstice, the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice or, expressed in agricultural terms, with sowing time, with blossoming or early harvest time, with the later harvest time and with the period of decay.

The significance attached to birth omens is thus merely a phase of the ceremonies attendant upon the passage of the new-born from its mysterious hiding place to the light. The analogy between the new life and the processes of nature is complete, for the plant, too, after being hidden in the earth, which is pictured in the religions of antiquity as a ‘great mother’, comes to the surface.

III

The field of observation in the case of the new-born among mankind and in the animal world is large—very large, and yet definitely bounded. Normal conditions were naturally without special significance, but any deviation from the normal was regarded as a sign calling for interpretation. Such deviations covered a wide and almost boundless range from peculiar formations of any part of the body or of the features, to actual malformations and monstrosities. The general underlying principle was, the greater the abnormality, the greater the significance attached to it; and as in the case of the movements in the heaven, the unusual was regarded as an indication of some imminent unusual occurrence. We are fortunate in possessing among the tablets of Ashurbanapal’s library, unearthed by Layard just fifty years ago and which is still our main source for the Babylonian-Assyrian religious literature, many hundreds of texts furnishing lists of birth omens and their interpretation[12], just as we have many hundreds of texts dealing with liver divination[13], and even more dealing with Astrology[14], apart from the many hundreds of texts dealing with miscellaneous omens of which up to the present only a small proportion has been published[15]. From this division of the great collection gathered by Ashurbanapal’s scribes chiefly from the temple archives of Babylonia, it appears that the bârû-priests made extensive collections of all kinds of omens which served the purpose of official hand-books to be consulted in case of questions put to the priests as to the significance of any particular phenomenon, and which were also used as textbooks for the training of the aspirants to the priesthood.

Confining ourselves to the birth-omens[16], the first question that arises is whether the signs entered are based on actual occurrences or are fanciful. In the case of many entries, as will presently be made evident, the anomalies noted rest upon actual observation, but with the desire of the priests to embrace in their collections all possible contingencies so as to be prepared for any question that might at any time arise, a large number of signs were entered which the diviners thought might occur. In other words, in order to be on the safe side the diviners allowed their fancy free rein and registered many things that we can positively say never did occur and never could occur[17]. With the help of hand-books on human and animal pathology, we can without difficulty distinguish between two classes. Thus, twins being regarded as significant and triplets even more so, the priests did not stop at this point but provided for cases when four, five six up to eight and more infants were born at one time[18]. Again in regard to animals, inasmuch as bitches and sows may throw a litter of ten and even more, the priests in their collections carried the number up to thirty[19] which is, of course, out of the question. For sheep and goats the number was extended up to ten, though it probably never happened that more than triplets were ever born to an ewe or to a mother-goat. Even twins are rare, and I am told that there are few authenticated cases of triplets.

Malformations among infants and the young of animals were of course plentiful, but here too the anomalies and monstrosities are not as numerous and varied as were entered in the handbooks of the Babylonian and Assyrian diviners. The factor of fancy to which I have referred enters even more largely in the entries of many actual malformations, through the assumption of a more or less fanciful resemblance of some feature or of some part of an infant or of the young of an animal with the features or parts of some animal.

An excess number of limbs—three legs or four arms in the case of an infant, or five or six legs in the case of a lamb, puppy, pig or foal, or two heads—is not uncommon. On this basis the priests entered cases of excess legs and arms and heads up to nine and more[20]; and similarly in regard to ears and eyes.

That, however, despite the largely fanciful character of the entries in the omen texts, these collections not only rested on a firm basis of actual observation, but served a practical purpose is shown by the examples that we have of official reports made by the bârû-priests of human and animal anomalies, with the interpretations attached that represent quotations from the collections[21]. A report of this kind in reference to an animal monstrosity reads in part as follows[22]:

‘If it is a double foetus, but with one head, a double spine, two tails and one body, the land that is now ruled by two will be ruled by one person.

If it is a double foetus with one head, the land will be safe.’

We have here two quotations from a text furnishing all kinds of peculiarities connected with a double foetus and we are fortunate in having the text from which the quotations are made[23]. Evidently an ewe has given birth to a monstrosity such as is here described, the case has been reported to the diviners who furnish the king[24] with this report, indicating that since the monstrosity has only one head, what might have been an unfavorable omen is converted into a favorable one.

Another report[25] regarding a monstrosity born of a sow reads:

‘If a foetus has eight feet and two tails, the ruler will acquire universal sway. A butcher, Uddanu by name, reported as follows: A sow gave birth (to a young) having eight feet and two tails. I have preserved it in salt and kept it in the house. From Nergal-eṭir[26].’

Here we have the name of the bârû-priest who made the report expressly indicated. The report begins with a quotation from the collections, indicating the interpretation to be put upon the occurrence, after which the report of the actual event that took place is given in detail; and Nergal-eṭir is careful to add that he has preserved the specimen as a proof of its occurrence, precisely as to-day such a monstrosity would be bottled and kept in a pathological museum. In another report[27] containing various quotations from the collections of birth-omens and closing with one in regard to a mare that had given birth to two colts, one male and one female, with smooth hair over the ears, over the feet, mouth and hoofs, which is interpreted as a favorable sign[28], the one who makes the report adds ‘Whether this is so, I shall ascertain. It will be investigated according to instructions’. Evidently, the facts had not been definitely ascertained and the diviner, while furnishing the interpretations for various possibilities, promises to inform himself definitely and report again as to the exact nature of the unusual occurrence. Frequently these omen reports contain interesting and important allusions to historical events which are then embodied in the collections[29]. In fact the event which followed upon any unusual or striking sign, whether in the heavens or among the newly born or what not, was carefully noted and on the principle of post hoc propter hoc was regarded as the event presaged by the sign in question. The definite indication of the interpretation to be put upon the omen itself was supplied by the actual event that followed upon the appearance of some sign, though it was not supposed that the sign would always be followed by the same occurrence. The point to which attention was primarily directed was whether the occurrence was of a favorable or an unfavorable nature. If favorable, the conclusion was drawn that the sign was a favorable one and hence in the event of its recurrence some favorable incident might be expected according to existing circumstances—victory in an impending battle, suppression of an uprising, recovery of some member of the royal household who may be lying ill, good crops at the approaching harvest or whatever the case may be—or in general a favorable answer to any question put by a ruler. The same would apply to a combination of signs, one of the fundamental principles of divination being—once favorable, always favorable.

Among the birth-omen reports we have one containing a historical reference of unusual interest[30].

‘If the foetus is male and female—omen of Azag-Bau who ruled the land. The king’s country will be seized.

If a foetus is male and female, without testicles, a son of the palace[31] will rule the land or will assert himself against the king.’

We must assume in this case that a monstrosity has been born, having partly male and partly female organs. The priest by way of interpretation notes a series of signs registered in the collections, all prognosticating an abnormal state of affairs—a woman on the throne, captivity, seizure of the throne by an usurper and revolt. We frequently find in the collections several interpretations registered in this way,—a valuable indication of the manner in which these collections were compiled by the priests from a variety of documents before them. The name of this female ruler, hitherto known only from this report and from a list of proper names in which Azag-Bau occurred, has now turned up in an important list of early dynasties ruling in the Euphratean Valley, discovered and published by Scheil[32]. We may conclude, therefore, that at the time that Azag-Bau sat on the throne or shortly before, such a monstrosity actually came to light. As an unusual occurrence it presaged something unusual, and was naturally associated with the extraordinary circumstance of a woman mounting the throne. Azag-Bau according to the newly discovered list is the founder of a dynasty ruling in Erech as a centre and whose date appears to be somewhere between 2800 and 3000 B. C.—possibly even earlier. As a founder of a dynasty that overthrew a previous one, Azag-Bau must have engaged in hostilities with other centres, so that the second interpretation that ‘the king’s country will be seized’ may well refer to some historical event of the same general period. Be that as it may, the important point for us is that we have here another proof of the practical purpose served by the observation of birth-omens.

IV

Passing now to some illustrations of birth-omens from the collections of the bârû-priests, let us first take up some texts dealing with omens from the young of animals. Naturally, the animals to which attention was directed were the domesticated ones—sheep, goats, cows, dogs, horses and pigs. Among these the most prominent is the sheep, corresponding to the significance attached to the sheep in liver divination where it is, in fact, the only animal whose liver is read as a means of forecasting the future[33]. As a result of this particularly prominent position taken by the sheep in birth-omens, the word isbu, designating the normal or abnormal foetus—human or animal—when introduced without further qualification generally indicates the foetus of a sheep[34].

A text[35] dealing with a double foetus, i. e., of a sheep[36], reads in part as follows:

‘If it is a double foetus with slits (?) on the head and tail, the land will be secure.

If it is a double foetus and enclosed[37], confusion in the country, the dynasty [will come to an end].

If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, the king will [subdue ?] the land.

If it is a double foetus and encompassed like an enclosure, confusion in the land, hostilities [in the country].

If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, with slits on the body, end of the dynasty, confusion and disturbances in the country.

If it is a double foetus, encompassed like an enclosure, with twisted necks and only one head, the land will remain under one head.

***

If it is a double foetus, the heads enclosed, with eight legs and only one spine, the land will be visited by a destructive storm[38].

If it is a double foetus with only one head, the land will be secure, the ruler will prevail against his enemy, peace and prosperity in the country[39].

If it is a double foetus with one head, a double spine, eight feet, two necks and two tails, the king will enlarge his land.

If it is a double foetus with one head, double spine, two tails and one body, then the land that is ruled by two will be ruled by one.

If it is a double foetus with only one head and one spine, eight feet, two necks and two tails, the king will enlarge his land.

If it is a double foetus with only one neck, the ruler will enlarge his land.

If it is a double foetus with only one spine, the ruler will enlarge his land.

If it is a double foetus with only one mouth, the land will remain under the command of the king.

If it is a double foetus with only one breast, the land will be enlarged, rule of a legitimate king.

In order to grasp the principles underlying the interpretation of such omens, we must take as our starting point the conceptions connected with the various parts of the body. Bearing in mind that the omens deal primarily with public affairs and the general welfare and only to a limited extent with private and individual concerns[40], the head of the foetus by a natural association stands for the ruler or occasionally for the owner of the mother lamb. One head to the double foetus, therefore, indicates unity—a single rule—whereas two heads point to disruption of some kind. If the double foetus is so entwined as to be shut in within an enclosure, a similarly natural association of ideas would lead to the country being shut in, in a state of confusion, the land in a condition of subjugation or the like. On the other hand, if merely the heads are enclosed so as to give the impression of unity and the rest of the two bodies is disentangled, the unfavorable sign is converted into a favorable one. A second principle involved in the interpretation results in a more favorable conclusion if the double foetus shows less complications. So, a single neck or a single spine or a single breast or a single mouth point again, like a single head, towards unity and therefore to flourishing conditions in the land. In the case of legs and tails, to be sure, the conditions seem to be reversed—the eight legs and two tails and two necks with one head pointing to enlargement of the land, whereas a double foetus with only six or five feet forebodes some impending misfortune[41].

Let us proceed further with this text.

If it is a double foetus, one well formed and the second issuing from the mouth of the first[42], the king will be killed and his army will [revolt ?], his oil plantation and his dwelling will be destroyed[43].

If it is a double foetus, the second lying at the tail [of the first], with two breasts and two tails, there will be no unity in the land[44].

If it is a double foetus, and the second lies at the tail of the first and enclosed and both are living, ditto.

If it is a double foetus, and one rides over the other, victory, throne will support throne.

If it is a double foetus and one rides over the other and there is only one head, the power of the king will conquer the enemy’s land.

If it is a double foetus, one above and one below, with only one spine and eight feet, four [Variant: ‘two’] ears, and two tails, throne will support throne.

If it is a double foetus with the faces downward, approach of the son of the king, who will take the throne of his father, or a second son of the king will die, or a third son of the king will die.

***

If it is a double foetus with five feet, serious hostility in the country, the house of the man will perish, his stall[45] will be destroyed.

If it is a double foetus with six feet, the population will be diminished, confusion in the land.

If it is a foetus within a foetus, the king will weaken his enemy, his possessions will be brought into the palace[46].

***

If a foetus gives birth to a second foetus[47], the king will assert himself against his opponent.

It will be observed that in quite a number of cases two alternative interpretations are given, one of an official character referring to the public welfare, or to occurrences in the royal household[48], the other of an unofficial character bearing on the welfare of the individual to whom the mother lamb that had produced the monstrosity belonged. One foetus issuing from the other, or one within the other, appears to have been a favorable or an unfavorable sign, according to the position of the second. If the one lay above the other, the association of ideas pointed to a control of the ruler over his enemy. In some cases, the association of ideas leading to the interpretation is not clear; and we must perhaps assume in such instances an entry of an event that actually occurred after the birth of the monstrosity in question. A certain measure of arbitrariness in the interpretations also constitutes a factor to be taken into consideration; and the last thing that we need to expect in any system of divination is a consistent application of any principle whatsoever.

The text passes on to an enumeration of the case of an ewe giving birth to more than two lambs. The ‘official’ interpretations are throughout unfavorable[49], and the priests were quite safe in their entries which were purely arbitrary in these cases, since such multiple births never occurred. It is worth while to quote these interpretations as an illustration of the fanciful factor that, as already indicated, played a not insignificant part in the system unfolded.

If an ewe gives birth to three (lambs), the prosperity of the country will be annulled, but things will go well with the owner of the ewe, his stall will be enlarged.

If an ewe gives birth to three fully developed (lambs), the dynasty will meet with opposition, approach of an usurper, the country will be destroyed.

If an ewe gives birth to four, the land will encounter hostility, the produce of the land will be swept away, approach of an usurper, destruction in the land.

If an ewe gives birth to four fully developed lambs, [locusts (?)] will come and [destroy] the country.

If an ewe gives birth to four, approach of an usurper, the country will be destroyed.

If an ewe gives birth to five, destruction will ravage the country, the owner of the house will die, his stall will be destroyed.

If an ewe gives birth to five, one with the head of a bull[50], one with a lion-head, one with a jackal-head, one with a dog-head and one with the head of a lamb[51], devastation will take place in the country.

If an ewe gives birth to six, confusion among the population.

If an ewe gives birth to seven,—three male and four female—, the king will perish.

If an ewe gives birth to eight, approach of an usurper, the tribute of the king will be withheld.

If an ewe gives birth to nine, end of the dynasty.

If an ewe gives birth to ten, a weakling will acquire universal sovereignty[52].

The general similarity of the interpretations may be taken as a further indication that the bârû-priests were simply giving their fancy free scope in making prognostications for conditions that could never arise; nor is it of serious moment that in the case of triplets the interpretation is favorable to the owner of the ewe, or that in the case of ten lambs, even the official interpretation is not distinctly unfavorable—in view of the purely ‘academic’ character of such entries.

An extract from a long text[53] furnishing omens derived from all kinds of peculiarities and abnormal phenomena noted on the ears of an animal—primarily again the sheep, though no doubt assumed to be applicable to other domesticated animals—will throw further light on the system of divination devised by the bârû-priests, and will also illustrate the extravagant fancy of the priests in their endeavor to make their collections provide for all possible and indeed for many impossible contingencies.

If a foetus[54] lacks the right ear, the rule of the king will come to an end, his palace will be destroyed, overthrow of the elders of the city, the king will be without counsellors, confusion in the land, diminution of the cattle in the land, the enemy will acquire control[55].

If the foetus lacks a left ear, a god will harken to the prayer of the king, the king will take the land of his enemy, the palace of the enemy will be destroyed, the enemy will be without a counsellor, the cattle of the enemy’s country will be diminished, the enemy will lose control.

If the right ear of the foetus is detached, the stall[56] will be destroyed.

If the left ear of the foetus is detached, the enemy’s stall will be destroyed.

If the right ear of the foetus is split, the herd will be destroyed or the leaders of the city will leave (it)[57].

If the left ear of the foetus is split, the herd will be enlarged, the leaders of the enemy’s country will leave (it).

If the right ear of the foetus is split and swollen with clay, the country [will have a rival].

If the left ear of the foetus is split and swollen with clay, the enemy’s country will have a rival.

If the right ear of the foetus is destroyed, the stall will be enlarged, the stall of the enemy will be diminished.

If the outside of the right ear is destroyed, the land will yield to the enemy’s land.

If the right ear of the foetus lies near the cheek[58], the enemy will prevail against the power of the king, the king will be without counsellors, a ruler will not inhabit the land, or the son of the king of universal sway[59] will be king.

If the left ear of the foetus lies near the cheek, an enemy will be installed in the royal palace.

If the right ear of the foetus lies near the jaw, birth of a demon[60] in my land, or in the house of the man[61].

If the left ear of the foetus lies near the jaw, birth of a demon in the enemy’s land, or the land of the enemy will perish.

The guiding principle of the interpretation in these instances is the natural association of the right as your side and the left with the enemy’s side. A defect on the right side is unfavorable to you, i. e., to the king or to the country or to the individual in whose household the birth occurs, while the same defect on the left side is unfavorable to the enemy and, therefore, favorable to you. The principle is quite consistently carried out even to the point that if the sign itself is favorable, it is only when it is found on the right side that it is favorable to you, while its occurrence on the left side is favorable to the enemy.

Defects of any kind appear to be unfavorable, whereas an excess of organs and parts are in many instances favorable, though with a considerable measure of arbitrariness.

If the foetus has two ears on the right side and none on the left, the boundary city of the enemy will become subject to you.

If the foetus has two ears on the left side and none on the right, your boundary city will become subject to the enemy.

If the foetus has two ears on the right side and one on the left, the land will remain under the control of the ruler.

If the foetus has two ears on the left side and one on the right, the land will revolt.

If within the right ear of the foetus a second ear[62] appears, the ruler will have counsellors.

If within the left ear of the foetus there is a second ear, the counsellors of the ruler will advise evilly.

If behind the right ear of the foetus there is a second ear, the ruler will have counsellors.

If behind the left ear of the foetus there is a second ear, confusion in the land, the land will be destroyed[63].

***

If a foetus has [four] ears, a king of universal sway will be in the land.

[If a foetus has four ears], two lying in front (and) two in back, the ruler will acquire possessions in a strange country[64].

***

If behind the right ear, there are two ears, visible on the outside[65], the inhabitants of the boundary city will become subject to the enemy.

If behind the left ear there are two ears visible on the outside, the inhabitants of the boundary city of the enemy will become subject to you.

If a foetus has three ears, one on the left side and two on the right side, the angry gods will return to the country.

If a foetus has three ears, one on the left side and two on the right, the gods will kill within the country.

If within the right ear of a foetus there are three ears with the inner sides well formed, the opponent will conclude peace with the king whom he fears, the army of the ruler will dwell in peace with him.

If within the left ear of a foetus there are three ears with the inner sides well formed, thy ally will become hostile.

If behind each of the two ears there are three ears visible on the outside, confusion in the land, the counsel of the land will be discarded, one land after the other will revolt.

If within each of two ears there are three ears visible on the inner side, things will go well with the ruler’s army.

If within each of the two ears there are three ears, visible on the outside and the inside, the army of the ruler will forsake him and his land will revolt.

If within each of the two ears there are three ears, visible on the outside and the inside, the army of the ruler will forsake him and his land will revolt.

If the ears of a foetus are choked up[66], in place of a large king a small king will be in the land.

In general, therefore, an excess number of ears points to enlargement, increased power, stability of the government and the like; and this is probably due in part to the association of wisdom and understanding with the ear in Babylonian[67], for as a general thing an excess of organs or of parts of the body is an unfavorable sign, because a deviation from the normal.

In the same way as in the case of the ears, we have birth-omen texts dealing with the head, lips, mouth, eyes, feet, joints, tail, genital organs, hair, horns and other parts of the body[68]. In many of these texts dealing with all kinds of peculiar formations and abnormalities in the case of one organ or one part of the body or the other, a comparison is instituted between the features or parts of one animal with those of another and the interpretation is guided by the association of ideas with the animal compared. A moment’s reflection will show the importance of this feature in extending the field of observation almost ad infinitum. A lamb born with a large head might suggest a lion, a small long head that of a dog, or a very broad face might suggest the features of a bull. From comparisons of this kind, the step would be a small one to calling a lamb with lion-like features, a lion, or a lamb with features recalling those of a dog, a dog and so on through the list, the interpretations being chosen through the ideas associated with the animal in question. A text of this kind[69], of which we have many, reads in part as follows.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, the abandoned weapons will make an attack (again), the king will be without a rival.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but with a head of a ‘rain bow’ bird[70], the son will seize the throne of his father.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are (also) human, the power of the king will conquer a powerful country.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those of a lamb, the young cattle will not prosper.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those of an ass, severe famine will occur in the country.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but (some of) the features are those of a dog, Nergal[71] will cause destruction.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion but (some of) the features are those of a khupipi[72], the ruler will be without a rival and will destroy the land of his enemy.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, but with the mouth of a wild cow, the rule of the king will not prosper.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion but with the mouth of a bull, famine will ensue.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the horny exuberance of an ibex on its face, prices will be lowered[73].

If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the horny exuberance of an ibex on its face and if the eyes are open[74], prices will be high.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion with fatty flesh on the nose, the land will be well nourished.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and the right temple is covered with fatty flesh, the land will be richly blessed.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and the left temple is covered with fatty flesh,—rivalry.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion, and it is covered all over with fatty flesh, the king will be without a rival.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion but without a head[75], death of the ruler.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the gorge torn off[76], destruction of the land, the mistress[77] will die.

If an ewe gives birth to a lion with the gorge torn off and a mutilated tail[78], the land [will be destroyed (?)]

From texts like these it would appear that the phrase of ‘an ewe giving birth to a lion’ had acquired a purely conventional force to describe a lamb whose head or general features suggested those of a lion. It may have come to be used indeed for a newly born lamb of unusually large proportions. Hence one could combine with the description of a lion-lamb such further specifications as that it also suggested human features, or looked like an ass or a dog, or that while it came under the category of a lion-lamb, it yet had some of the features of a normal lamb. At all events we must not credit the Babylonians or Assyrians with so absurd a belief as that an ewe could actually produce a lion. Such a supposition is at once disposed of when we come to other texts where we find entries of an ewe producing a whole series of animals—a jackal, dog, fox, panther, hyena, gazelle, etc. and where we must perforce assume resemblances between a young lamb and the animals in question and not any extravagant views of possible cross-breeding[79]. To clinch the matter, we have quite a number of passages in which the preposition ‘like’ is introduced[80] instead of the direct equation, showing that when the texts speak of an ewe giving birth to a lion, a jackal, a dog, etc., the priests had in mind merely a resemblance as the basis of such statements.

The general idea associated with the lion in divination texts is that of power, success, increase and the like. The sign, therefore, of an ewe producing a lion is a favorable one; it is only through attendant circumstances that the character of the sign is transformed into an unfavorable or partly unfavorable omen. So in case the lion-lamb has a head suggestive of the variegated colors of the rainbow bird, the sign still points to power, but to a power exercised by the crown prince against the father. If some of the features suggest those of an ass or of a dog or of a pig, the ideas associated with these animals convert what would otherwise have been a favorable sign into an unfavorable one. The mouth of a wild cow or of a bull, thus interfering with the complete identification of the young lamb as a lion-lamb, similarly, brings about an unfavorable interpretation. Fatty flesh by a natural association points to increased prosperity, while mutilations of the head, tail or of any other part naturally carry with them unfavorable prognostications.

It is interesting to see from a long list of comparisons of a new-born lamb with all kinds of animals[81] the extent to which the association of ideas connected with the animals in question is carried.

If an ewe gives birth to a dog ... the king’s land will revolt.

If an ewe gives birth to a beaver[82] (?), the king’s land will experience misery.

If an ewe gives birth to a fox, Enlil[83] will maintain the rule of the legitimate king for many years, or[84] the king will strengthen his power.

If an ewe gives birth to a Mukh-Dul[85], the enemy will carry away the inhabitants of the land, the land will despite its strength go to ruin, the dynasty will be opposed, confusion in the land.

If an ewe gives birth to a panther, the kingdom of the ruler will secure universal sway.

If an ewe gives birth to a hyena (?), approach of Elam.

If an ewe gives birth to a gazelle, the days of the ruler through the grace of the gods will be long, or the ruler will have warriors.

If an ewe gives birth to a hind, the son of the king will seize his father’s throne, or the approach of Subartu will overthrow the land.

If an ewe gives birth to a roebuck, the son of the king will seize his father’s throne, or destruction of cattle[86].

If an ewe gives birth to a wild cow, revolt will prevail in the land.

If an ewe gives birth to an ox, the weapons of the ruler will prevail over the weapons of the enemy.

If an ewe gives birth to an ox that has ganni[87], the ruler will weaken the land of his enemy.

If an ewe gives birth to an ox with two tails, omen of Ishbi-Ura[88], who was without a rival.

If an ewe gives birth to a cow, the king will die, another king will draw nigh and divide the country.

One might have supposed that such omens represent a purely imaginative theoretical factor, but the introduction of the historical reference proves conclusively that the Babylonians and Assyrians attached an importance to the fancied resemblance of an animal to an other, and that in the case of such strange statements as that an ewe gives birth to one of a series of all kinds of animals, it is this fancied resemblance that forms the basis and the point of departure for the interpretation.

V

If, now, we turn to birth-omens in the case of infants, we find in the omen texts the same two classes, those in which all kinds of abnormalities and malformations are registered, and such in which the fancied resemblance of the new-born infant to some animal, or of some features of an infant to those of an animal is introduced as a factor. The principles underlying the interpretation, so far as they can be recognized, are naturally the same as in the case of birth-omens for the young of domesticated animals. A few illustrations will make this clear.

A text[89] dealing with twins, and passing on to multiple births up to eight, reads in part as follows:

If a woman gives birth to two boys, famine will prevail in the land, the interior of the country will witness misfortune, and misfortune will enter the house of their father[90].

If a woman gives birth to two boys with one body—no union between man and wife, [that house will be reduced][91].

If a woman gives birth to two boys of normal appearance, that house[92] ...

If a woman gives birth to a boy and a girl, ill luck will enter the land, the land will be diminished.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the spine, with the faces [back to back ?], the gods will forsake the country, the king and his son will abandon the city.

If a woman gives birth to twins without noses and feet, the land [will be diminished][93].

If a woman gives birth to twins in an abnormal condition, the land will perish, the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides[94], the land ruled by one will be controlled by two.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, (and) the right hand of the one lying to the right is missing, the weapon of the enemy will kill me, the land will be diminished, weakness will bring about defeat and my army will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left hand of the one lying to the left is missing[95] ...

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides and the right hands are missing—attack, the enemy will destroy the produce of the land.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left hands are missing, [the produce of the enemy’s land will be destroyed][96].

If a woman gives birth to twins, united at the sides, and the right foot of the one lying to the right is missing, the enemy will abandon the rest of my land, the land will be captured.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the left foot of the one lying to the left, is missing, I will [abandon] the rest of the enemy’s land, [and the land of the enemy will be captured[97]].

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides, and the right feet are missing, the seat of the country[98] will be overthrown and captured.

If a woman gives birth to twins united at the sides and the left feet are missing, the seat of the enemy’s land [will be overthrown and captured].

If a woman gives birth to two girls, the house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth to two girls and they die[99] ...

If a woman gives birth to three well developed girls, the land of the ruler will be enlarged.

If a woman gives birth to two girls with one body, [no union] between man [and wife, the land will be diminished][100].

If a woman gives birth to two girls of normal appearance ...[101].

If a woman gives birth to three boys, distress will seize the land ...

If a woman gives birth to [four (?)] boys, [destruction in the land][102].

Through another fragment[103], the list of multiple births is carried up to eight—a perfectly safe procedure on the part of the bârû-priests, since it is unlikely that the case of more than four births at one time ever occurred in the whole scope of Babylonian-Assyrian history. The interpretations in the case of more than triplets appear to have been consistently unfavorable. Even twins, as is apparent from the above entries, were generally regarded as unfavorable, because of the deviation from the normal involved; and this was certainly the case when monstrous factors were connected with the double birth—the two united at the backs or at the sides—or when the twins lacked a part of the body such as noses, hands or feet. The fundamental distinction between the right side as representing your side and the left as the enemy’s side intervenes to differentiate between the application of the omen to the king or to the country on the one hand, and to the enemy or his country on the other.

Corresponding to the text above discussed[104], in which interpretations are offered for all kinds of malformations or peculiarities, in connection with the ears of newly-born animals, we have a text[105] furnishing omens in the same way in the case of human births.

If a woman gives birth, (and the child has) a lion’s ear, a powerful king will rule in the land.

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear[106] is missing, the life of the ruler will come to an end.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is missing, the life of the king will be long.

If a woman gives birth, and both ears are missing, famine will prevail in the country, and the land will be diminished.

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is small, the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is small, the house of the man will be enlarged.

If a woman gives birth, and both ears are small, the house of the man will be overthrown.

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is detached[107], the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is detached, the house of the opponent will be destroyed, the house of the man[108] will be enlarged.

If a woman gives birth, and both ears are detached, the house of the man will encounter misfortune.

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear reaches to the cheek, a weakling will be born in the man’s house.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear reaches to the cheek, a strong one will be born in the man’s house[109].

If a woman gives birth, and both ears reach to the cheek, that land will be destroyed, protection will be withdrawn.

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear is deformed, a weakling will be born in the man’s house.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear is deformed, a strong one will be born in the man’s house[110].

If a woman gives birth, and the right ear of the child lies at the lower jaw[111], the son of the man will destroy the man’s house.

If a woman gives birth, and the left ear lies at the lower jaw, the son of the man will encircle the man’s house[112].

If a woman gives birth, and there are two ears on the right side and the left ear is missing, the angry gods will return to the land and the land will have peace.

If a woman gives birth, and there are two ears on the left side and the right ear is missing, the counsel of the land will be disturbed.

***

If a woman gives birth, and both ears are flattened,—revolt.

The principle consistently applied throughout these omens is that a defect or deformity on the right side is an unfavorable sign, and that the same phenomenon on the left side is unfavorable to the enemy, or favorable to you. A large ear—suggesting that of a lion—points by association to enlargement and increased strength.

The text then passes on to other peculiarities.

If a woman gives birth, and (the child has) the mouth of a bird, that land will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the mouth is missing, the mistress of the house will die.

If a woman gives birth, and the right nostril is missing,—injury.

If a woman gives birth, and both nostrils are missing, the land will experience distress, the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the jaws are missing[113], the days of the ruler will come to an end, the house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the lower jaw is missing, the enemy will take the boundary strip of my land.

If a woman gives birth, and the arms (?) are missing, the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the arms (?) are short, he will attain favor.

***

If a woman gives birth, and the upper lip rides over the lower one[114], he will attain favor.

If a woman gives birth, and the lips are missing, the land will encounter distress, the house of the man will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and one arm is short, that man will be preferred[115].

If a woman gives birth, and the right hand is missing, that land will suffer destruction.

If a woman gives birth, and both hands are missing, the enemy will conquer the city of the new-born[116].

If a woman gives birth, and the fingers of the right hand are missing, the ruler will be hemmed in by his enemy.

If a woman gives birth, and there are six fingers on the right hand, misfortune will seize the house.

If a woman gives birth, and there are six toes on the right and on the left foot, the children[117] will encounter misfortune.

If a woman gives birth, and there are six toes on the right foot, there will be injury[118].

***

If a woman gives birth, and the genital member is missing, the master of the house will be weakened, drying up of the field.

If a woman gives birth, and the genital member and the testicles are missing, the land will encounter misfortune, the woman[119] will suffer pain, the house[120] will control the palace[121].

If a woman gives birth, and the anus is closed[122], the land will suffer famine.

If a woman gives birth, and the anus [is missing ?], the king will be restrained in his palace.

If a woman gives birth, and the right thigh is missing, the land of the ruler will go to ruin.

If a woman gives birth, and the left thigh is missing, the enemy’s land will go to ruin.

***

If a woman gives birth, and both feet are missing, the course of the land will be checked, that house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the right foot [of the child] is like that of a turtle[123], the enemy will destroy the property of the land.

If a woman gives birth, and hands and feet are like those of a turtle, the ruler will destroy the product of his land.

If a woman gives birth, and the feet are attached to the belly (?)[124], the possession of the house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and the child has only one foot, which is attached to the belly (?) and does not [touch] the ground[125] the land will suffer misfortune, the house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth, and it has three feet of which two are entwined in one another[126] with the body, destruction will prevail in the land.

If a woman gives birth, and it has four feet and genital member and pudenda are there, the land will suffer misfortune, a strange ruler will appear on the scene.

If a woman gives birth, and the right leg is missing, the land of the ruler will go to ruin.

If a woman gives birth, and the left leg is missing, the enemy’s land will go to ruin.

In general, malformations are looked upon as unfavorable, as are also excess organs or parts e. g. six fingers or six toes; and it is only occasionally that a peculiarity such as shortened arms or a protruding upper lip, receives a favorable interpretation. The variations in the interpretations themselves are not numerous, and for the most part are probably selected in an entirely arbitrary fashion, though here, too, as has been pointed out several times, association of ideas enters as a factor, as, e. g., where large ears are made to point to increased power. At the same time, it is also clear that the great majority of the malformations and abnormalities in the text that we have just discussed are such as actually do occur and with the help of medical works on human malformations[127], many of the omens described in this and in other texts can be identified. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the collections of the bârû-priests dealing with birth-omens observed in infants, likewise, rest upon actual observations, though the field was extended by passing on from actual to purely fanciful and impossible abnormalities. The extent to which this attempt to provide for all kinds of contingencies was carried in the collections is illustrated by a portion of the first tablet of a series[128] dealing with human birth-omens. This section treating in part of the birth of shapeless abortions reads as follows:

If a woman gives birth to pudenda[129], the royal dynasty will be changed.

If a woman gives birth to a head[130], the land will encounter distress.

If a woman gives birth to a form of some kind[131], king against king,—his rival, will prevail.

If a woman gives birth to a foetus[132], the land will encounter distress.

If a woman gives birth to a foetus in which there is a second, the rule of the king and of his sons will come to an end ... the power of the land [will dwindle].

If a woman gives birth to a mass of clay[133], the king’s land will oppose him and cause terror.

If a woman is pregnant with a mass of clay and gives birth to a mass of clay, misfortune will come, the mother will close off her gate against the daughter, there will be no protection, the man[134] will go to ruin, the produce of the field will not prosper.

If a woman gives birth to a male still-birth, Nergal[135] will destroy, the man[136] will die before his time.

If a woman gives birth to a weak boy, distress, destruction of the house[137].

If a woman gives birth to a weak girl, that house will be destroyed by fire.

If a woman gives birth to a lame boy, distress, that house [will be destroyed].

If a woman gives birth to a lame girl, ditto.

If a woman gives birth to a cripple, that house will be plundered.

If a woman gives birth to a crippled girl, that house [will be destroyed ?].

***

If a woman gives birth to something that has no face[138], the land will experience sorrow, that house will not prosper.

If a woman gives birth to a weakling, that city[139] [will experience misfortune ?].

If a woman gives birth to a crippled being, the land will experience sorrow, that house [will not prosper].

If a woman gives birth to a deaf mute, the house will be shut in.

***

If a woman gives birth to a dwarf[140] of a half-shape, that city will be opposed.

If a woman gives birth to a half-shaped being with bearded lips[141], talking[142], and that moves about, and has teeth[143]—hostility of Nergal, the crushing force of a powerful attack on the land, a god[144] will destroy, streets will be attacked, houses will be seized.

One may question whether all of such monstrosities actually occurred, though they are all possible, if we add the factor of fancy to account for some of the descriptions. The conventional character of the interpretations and the constant repetition of the same prognostications likewise indicate the desire on the part of the bârû-priests to exhaust their medical knowledge of monstrosities and malformations that could occur, in order to swell the collections to the largest possible proportions. The first tablet of the series[145] of which an extract has just been given, begins with an enumeration of various animals to which a newly born infant bears a resemblance and which is expressed, similarly to what we found in the animal birth-omens, by the phrase that the woman gives birth to the animal in question. The series begins as follows:

If a woman gives birth, and the offspring cries in the womb, the land will encounter sickness.

If a woman gives birth, and the offspring cries in the womb and it is distinctly heard, a powerful enemy will arise and overthrow the land, destruction will sweep the land, the enemy will destroy the precious possession, or the master’s house will be destroyed.

If a woman gives birth to a lion, that city will be taken, the king will be captured.

If a woman gives birth to a dog, the master of the house will die and that house will be destroyed, confusion, Nergal will destroy.

If a woman gives birth to a pig, a woman will seize the throne.

If a woman gives birth to an ox, the king of universal rule will prevail in the land.

If a woman gives birth to an ass, the king of universal rule will prevail in the land.

If a woman gives birth to a lamb, the ruler will be without a rival.

If a woman gives birth to a Sâ[146], the ruler will be without a rival.

If a woman gives birth to a serpent[147], I will surround the house of the master.

If a woman gives birth to a dolphin (?)[148], the house of the [man will be enlarged ?].

If a woman gives birth to a fish-being[149], the rule of the king will prosper, the gods [will return to the land].

If a woman gives birth to a bird[150],...

These examples will suffice to show the part played by the supposed resemblance of a new-born infant with one animal or the other in the Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens; nor is it difficult to see how the thought of such resemblances should arise, for, as a matter of fact, the shape of the head of an infant easily suggests that of a dog or a bird. The ear if unusually large might recall a donkey’s ear; a small eye, that of a pig, and a large one, that of a lion[151]. The association of ideas with the various animals no doubt suggests the interpretation in most cases, though in others the interpretation appears to be of a purely conventional type and as a rule favorable.

VI

Now what does all this mean? Is there any larger significance in these elaborate collections of birth-omens? Do investigations of this character serve any purpose beyond finding out how foolish many millions of people were thousands of years ago, though to be sure it may be some satisfaction to ascertain for oneself that foolishness has so venerable an ancestry. Bouché-Leclercq says at the close of his introduction to his great work on Greek Astrology[152] that ‘it is not a waste of time to find out how other peoples wasted theirs’. But there would be small comfort even in such a reflection, if studies in the history of divination did not furnish a larger outlook on the development of human thought—if in short such studies did not have some important bearing on the cultural history of mankind. Let us see whether this is the case.

Such is the curious nature of man that his science starts with superstition. The intellectual effort involved in developing what to us at least must appear as a foolish and erroneous notion, nevertheless, results in some positive advantage. We often hear it said that medicine starts with religion, and this is true in the sense that the cure of disease was once closely bound up with the belief that all suffering was due to some demon or invisible spirit that had entered the body—a view that is after all not so far removed from the modern ‘germ’ theory holding for so many diseases, for the germs are practically invisible and their demoniac character will assuredly not be denied. The cure of a disease in primitive medicine consisted in driving the demon out of the body, for which again we might without much difficulty find an equivalent in modern medicinal methods. Incantations were supposed to have the power of frightening the demon or in some other way of inducing them to leave the body of the victim, but it was soon discovered that certain herbs and concoctions helped to this end—not that it was at first supposed that such herbs and concoctions were useful to the patient, but that they were obnoxious to the demons who preferred to leave their victims rather than endure the nasty and ill-smelling combinations that frequently form the medical prescriptions attached to the incantations[153]. What we would regard as medicinal remedies were originally given to the patient, with a view and in the hope of disgusting the demon that had caused the disease—a supplement therefore to the power attributed to the recitation of certain combinations of words, and all with a view to force the demons to release their hold on the sufferer by quitting his body. From such superstitious beginnings medicine, closely bound up with the prevailing religious beliefs, took its rise. In the same way, liver divination though as a practice it belongs to the period of primitive culture and rests on an asumption which from the modern scientific point of view is the height of absurdity, nevertheless, led to the study of anatomy and as a matter of fact, the observation of the liver for purposes of divination represents the beginnings of the study of anatomy[154]. Astrology led to astronomy, and in the same way the observation of birth-omens gave rise to another science or at least to a mental discipline that until quite recently was regarded as a science—namely, the study of human and animal physiognomy. The importance given to any and to all kinds of peculiarities in the case of the young of animals and in new-born infants naturally sharpened the powers of observation, and led people to carefully scrutinize and study the features of the new-born. The large part played in this scrutiny by the supposed resemblance of the features of an infant to those of some animal formed a natural starting point, from which it was not a very large step to the position that this supposed resemblance had a bearing on the child itself. In other words the birth-omens in so far as they referred to phenomena among infants had a double significance; they portended something of moment either to the general welfare or to the house in which the birth took place and also to the child.

It is certainly not accidental that in the study of Human Physiognomy as carried on among the Greeks and Romans as well as among mediaeval Arabic and Christian writers, the supposed resemblances of people to animals was one of the chief methods employed for determining the character of an individual. This phase of Human Physiognomy I venture to trace back directly to divination through birth-omens, which would by a natural process lead to the study of human features as a means of ascertaining the character of an individual. Among the Greeks, the great Plato[155] was supposed to approve of the theory that a man possesses to some extent the traits of the animal that he resembles; and it seems to be a kind of poetic justice that a philosopher holding so manifestly absurd a theory should himself, as will presently appear, have been compared by a celebrated physiognomist of the 16^th century to a dog—though to be sure to a dog of the finer type. Polemon and Adamantius many centuries after Plato are among the significant names of those who tried to work out the theory in the form of an elaborate science[156]. Aristotle who can generally be counted upon to have sane views on most subjects opposed this method of studying human character, though until a few decades ago a work on Human Physiognomy[157] based on the theory of a man’s possessing the traits of the animal that he resembles passed as a production of Aristotle. It is one of the many merits of modern scholarship to have removed this stigma from the prince of Greek philosophers. Aristotle, as a matter of fact, in a significant passage in his de Generatione Animalium (IV, 54) denies the possibility of the crossing of an animal of one species with that of another, and adds that malformations can produce apparent similarities between animals of different species, but which are to be explained through the workings of natural laws. These laws condition deviations from the normal as well as all normal phenomena. Nothing in nature, Aristotle sums up, can be contra naturam. It would appear from passages like this that in Aristotle’s days the resemblances between an animal of one species and that of another, and the resemblance between man and animals had led to the belief of cross breeds to account for such resemblances, while monstrosities among animals and among men were looked upon as omens sent by the gods as a warning or as curses for crimes committed—a point of view that, as we shall see, is likewise to be traced back to Babylonian-Assyrian influences.

There were others besides Aristotle who opposed the current views, but the curious thing is that even those who rejected the theory of a transition of one species to another still maintained that certain traits in an individual could be associated with and explained by features that they had in common with some animal or the other. Notable among these was Giovanni Porta, a most distinguished scholar of the 16^th century, who while a believer in magic was also a scientific investigator whose researches proved of great value in developing a true theory of light and who among other achievements invented the camera obscura. He wrote a work in Latin, de Humana Physiognomica (Sorrento, 1586) which he himself translated into Italian (Naples, 1598) and which subsequently appeared in French and German editions. It remained in fact the standard work on the subject up to the time of Lavater’s great work on Physiognomy at the end of the 18^th century. Porta opposed Plato’s theory that a man has the traits of the animal that he resembles, on the ground that a man may have features suggesting various animals. His forehead may recall that of a dog, while his mouth may be like the snout of a swine, and his ears may resemble those of an ass. In fact Porta maintains that no man has features all of which suggest a comparison with one animal only. Yet Porta is of the opinion that the resemblance between men and animals, which is self-evident, forms the basis for the study of human character, with this modification, however, which makes the theory even more complicated, that each feature,—the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the ears, the lips and even the eyebrows, and the color of hair of the head or the beard—betrays some characteristic. It is through the combination of all these features that the character is to be determined, but each feature is compared by Porta to the corresponding one of some animal and its significance set forth according to the idea associated with the animal. Porta’s treatise is, therefore, quite as largely taken up with comparisons between men and animals as are the treaties of other Physiognomists, only in more detailed fashion. Thus a long forehead or one not too flat or too even, suggested to Porta the character of a sagacious dog and by way of illustration (p. 114 and 118)[158] places the portrait of a dog side by side with one traditionally supposed to be a likeness of Plato. Dante, so Porta tells us, also had such a dog forehead. A square forehead suggests that of a lion (115) and points to magnanimity, courage and prudence—provided, he adds, the rest of the face is in proportion; a high, rounded forehead (117) is compared with that of an ass, and is an indication of stupidity and imprudence. In the case of noses, comparisons are instituted with the beaks of ravens, eagles and roosters, with the noses of oxen, swine, dogs, apes and stags, and horses. Since the raven is an impudent and rapacious bird, he who is endowed by nature with a nose that curves from the forehead outward will also show these unpleasant qualities; on the other hand, if the nose is shaped like an eagle’s beak, the person will share the magnanimity and royal spirit of the bird of Jupiter. The illustration (150) shows the picture of the Emperor Sergius Galba, side by side with an eagle’s face. Cyrus and Artaxerxes, too, are said to have had noses of this fortunate shape; and by way of confirmation of the theory, Porta gives illustrations of the magnanimity of these and of other rulers who had a beak like that of an eagle. A nose broad in the middle and sloping inwards (154), suggesting that of an ox, indicates a lying and verbose individual; a thick nose (155) is pictured side by side with a swine’s head with the usual uncomplimentary traits associated with that animal. In this way and in most detailed fashion Porta takes up in succession the mouth, the ears, the eyes, the teeth, the lips, the hair and the face in general[159]. A very large and broad face is compared with that of an ox or ass (172 seq.) and indicates ignorance, stupidity, laziness and obstinacy; a very small face resembles that of a cat or an ape (174 seq.) and prognosticates timidity, shrewd servility and narrowness; a very fleshy face is again compared with that of an ox (177); a very bony one with that of an ass, though Porta here as elsewhere is somewhat embarrassed by the variant opinions of his authorities Pseudo-Aristotle, Polemon and Adamantius and not infrequently has recourse to textual changes in order to solve difficulties. The doubt as to the reasonableness of the whole theory never appears, however, to have entered his mind, and he cheerfully proceeds with his comparisons in the course of which he introduces notable historical personages as illustrations. In this way Socrates is compared to a stag and because of his baldness is given a malignant, and, according to others, a lascivious nature (87); the Emperor Vitellius is likened to an owl (12); Actiolinus to a hunting dog because of the groove above his eyes (125); Plato, as we have seen, to a dog and Sergius Galba to an eagle, while the head of Alexander the Great, though only of medium size, is compared with that of a lion (72).

Such was the influence of Porta’s work that it remained the authority for the study of Human Physiognomy till towards the end of the 18^th century when Lavater’s four volumes of “Physiognomical Fragments”[160] appeared with their wonderful illustrations, to which the profound impression made by the work was largely due. Lavater constantly refers to Porta, but one of his main objects is to controvert the thesis that the comparison of human features with those of animals should form the means of determining the trait indicated by the feature in question. Curiously enough in a preliminary outline of his system of Physiognomy[161], Lavater had included a chapter on the resemblance between man and animals, but by the time he came to work out his system he had changed his mind and henceforth opposed Porta’s view. To be sure, the grounds on which he does so are more of a sentimental than of a scientific character. Lavater—a clergyman and a believer in the special creation of man by the Divine Power (Physiognomische Fragmente II 192),—protests against a possible relationship between man and the animal world, declaring that to see animal features in the human face is to lower the dignity of mankind. Man created as God’s supreme achievement can have nothing to do with the animal creation which represents a lower order of being. Even Lavater does not go so far as to deny all resemblances between human features and those of animals. He admits and sympathizes and enlarges on them in several passages (II 192; IV 56); but he ascribes them to accident or to fancy, and declines to draw therefrom the conclusion that the individual who has some feature or a number of features that suggest those of some animal must, therefore, have the traits associated with the animal or the animals in question. It is rather strange that Lavater should not have hit upon the real objection to Porta’s method which lies in the contradictions in which he necessarily involves himself by comparing the various features of an individual with various animals, the forehead with one animal, the eyes with another, the lips with a third and so on; and since the animals in question show entirely different and contradictory traits, it is manifestly impossible to reach any rational conclusions as to a man’s character by so absurd a method. However, although Lavater does not reveal the real weakness of the current theory of Human Physiognomy, yet he contributed to the overthrow of the theory itself which had reached the stage of reductio ad absurdum through the modifications introduced by Porta. It often happens that an outlived theory is set aside through arguments that are in themselves insufficient to do so.