THE MIGRATION OF SYMBOLS. 783 



of their time. Of a higher order of ideas was the symbol adopt- 

 ed by the Brahmanists of the New - Dispensation — the Brahmo- 

 Somaj — who presumed to fuse all the existing sects of India into 

 a new religion, founded exclusively on conscience and reason. 

 The pediments of their temples bear a design in which the mystic 

 syllable of the Brahmans, Aum, is interlaced with the Mussulman 

 crescent, the Sivaite trident, and the Christian cross. It also fre- 

 quently happens that this confusion of symbols is not at all sys- 

 tematic. By virtue of reproducing certain forms,, the eye and the 

 hand seem to be assimilated to them to such a degree that they 

 are not able to rid themselves of the obsession when they attack 

 new themes. There is a symbol of this kind, engraved on Phoeni- 

 cian gems or painted on Cypriote vases, which recalls the winged 

 disk of Asia, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, and some of the 

 Greek thunderbolts. One can not turn the leaves of the descrip- 

 tion of the Buddhist bas-reliefs of Boro Boudour, in the island of 

 Java, published under the direction of the Dutch Government, 

 without being struck, at almost every page of the Atlas, by the 

 appearance of some curious figure which presents at once remi- 

 niscences of the Hindoo lotus, the Assyrian horns, the Greek 

 thunderbolt, the Buddhist fig-tree, and the Egyptian globe with 

 the Urseus. Such heteroclite mixtures have, moreover, been cus- 

 tomary in Oriental symbolism. Sir George Birdwood, an author 

 among the best versed in the industrial arts of modern India, has 

 recently shown that in the Hindoo art, in which all the details 

 have a symbolical bearing, certain decorative themes are com- 

 bined and exchanged with the disorder of a dream, without re- 

 gard to the distinction of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, or 

 of the organic and inorganic worlds. 



In most of the examples that I have cited it is easy to dis- 

 cover by what ways the symbol was transmitted from one people 

 to another. Under this relation the migration of symbols rises 

 directly from what may be named the history of commercial re- 

 lations. Whatever may be the resemblance of form and signifi- 

 cation between two symbolical figures, found among peoples of 

 distinct origin, it is proper, before asserting relationship, to de- 

 termine the probability, or at least the possibility, of interna- 

 tional relations that may have served as a vehicle for them. This 

 point fixed, it remains to be determined which has been the bor- 

 rower and which the lender. Thus, why was it not the Hindoos 

 who communicated the thunderbolt to Mesopotamia, the Phoeni- 

 cians who received the caduceus from Greece ? Here our advan- 

 tages over preceding generations appear. There was a time 

 when we might indistinctly place in India the origin of the gods, 

 myths, and symbols that are scattered all over the world ; another 

 when it would have had a bad air not to give Greece credit for 



