THE ORIGIN OF TEE CONSTELLATION-FIGURES. 



55 



failed to show the prismatic colors. The theory 

 I have suggested above, without going so far as 

 to advocate it, is free at any rate from objection 

 on this particular score, which cannot be said of 

 the ordinary theory. I am not yet able, how- 

 ever, to say that " I cannot entertain the smallest 

 doubt " about that theory. 



We may feel tolerably sure that the period 

 when the old southern constellations were formed 

 must have been between 2,400 and 2,000 years 

 before the present era. This, period, by-the- 

 way, includes the date usually assigned to the 

 deluge, which, however, must really occupy our 

 attention no further. In fact, let us leave the 

 watery constellations below the equator of those 

 remote times, and seek at once the highest heav- 

 ens above them. 



Here, at the northern pole of those days, we 

 find the great Dragon, which in any astrological 

 temple of the time must have formed the highest 

 or crowning constellation, surrounding the very 

 key-stone of the dome. He has fallen away from 

 that proud position since. In fact, even 4,000 

 years ago he only held to the pole, so to speak, 

 by his tail, and we have to travel farther back 

 2,000 years or so to find the pole situate in a 

 portion of the length of the Dragon which can 

 be regarded as central. One might almost, if 

 fancifully disposed, recognize the gradual dis- 

 placement of the Dragon from his old place of 

 honor, in certain traditions of the downfall of the 

 great Dragon whose " tail drew the third part of 

 the stars of heaven." 



The central position of the Dragon — for even 

 when the pole-star had drawn near to the Drag- 

 on's tail the constellation was still central — will 

 remind the classical reader of Homer's descrip- 

 tion of the shield of Hercules : 



" The scaly horror of a dragon, coiled 

 Full in the central field, unspeakable, 

 With eyes oblique retorted, that askant 

 Shot gleaming tire." 



Elton's translation. 



I say Homer's description, for I cannot un- 

 derstand how any one, who compares together 

 the description of the shield of Achilles in the. 

 " Iliad " and that of the shield of Hercules in the 

 fragmentary form in which we have it, can doubt 

 for a moment that both descriptions came from 

 the same hand. (The theory that Hesiod com. 

 posed the latter poem can scarcely be enter- 

 tained by any scholar.) As I long since pointed 

 out in my essay, " A New Theory of Achilles's 

 Shield" ("Light Science," first series), no poet, 

 so inferior as actually to borrow Homer's words 



in part of the description of the shield of Her- 

 cules, could have written the other parts not 

 found in the shield of Achilles. " I cannot, for 

 my own part, entertain the smallest doubt" — 

 that is to say, I think it altogether probable — 

 that Homer composed the lines supposed to de- 

 scribe the shield of Hercules long before he intro- 

 duced the description, pruned and strengthened, 

 into that particular part of the " Iliad " where 

 it served his purpose best. And I have as little 

 doubt that the original description, of which we 

 only get fragments in either poem, related to 

 something far more important than a shield. 

 The constellations are not suitable adornments 

 for the shield of a fighting-man, even though he 

 was under the special care of a celestial mother, 

 and had armor made for him by a celestial smith. 

 Yet we learn that Achilles's shield displayed — 



" The starry lights that heaven's high convex 



crowned, 

 The Pleiads, Hyads, and the northern beam, 

 And great Orion's more refulgent beam, 

 To which, around the cycle of the sky, 

 The Bear revolving, points his golden eye, 

 Still shines exalted on th' ethereal plain," 



and so forth. The shield of Hercules displayed 

 at its centre the polar constellation, the Dragon. 

 We read also that — 



" There was the knight of fair-haired Danae born, 

 Perseus." 



Orion is not specially mentioned, but Orion, Le- 

 pus, and the Dogs, seem referred to : 



" . . . . Men of chase 

 Were taking the fleet hares ; two keen-toothed 



dogs 

 Bounded beside." 



Homer would find no difficulty in pluralizing the 

 mighty hunter and the hare into huntsmen and 

 hares when utilizing a description originally re- 

 ferring to the constellation. I conceive that the 

 original description related to one of those zodiac 

 temples whose remains are still found in Egypt, 

 though the Egyptian temples of this kind were 

 probably only copies of more ancient Chaldean 

 temples. We know from Assyrian sculptures 

 that representations of the constellations (and 

 especially the zodiacal constellations) were com- 

 mon among the Babylonians ; and, as I point out 

 in the essay above referred to, " it seems prob- 

 able that in a country where Sabianism or star- 

 worship was the prevailing form of religion, yet 

 more imposing proportions would be given to 

 zodiac temples than in Egypt." My theory, 

 then, respecting the two famous " shields " is, that 



