Lesley.] 144 [June. 



elude Dupuis'. The very nomenclature of sun- and planet-worship, 

 requires an older worship fur its explanation ; so does its architec- 

 ture; so does its syu)bolism. The ring, the bird's tail, the carpet of 

 Mithras, find no account of themselves in astronomy. Fire-worship 

 was evidently adopted and carried like a child by an older mountain- 

 worship. If the central triliths of Stonehenge have their tops cut 

 down to the plane of the ecliptic, the central sacrificial stone, sloped 

 for the draining off of human blood, is a structure suggestive of 

 quite a different system, — that of the arkite loggan and ambrose stones 

 of the whole druid world. Supposing Turner's views respecting the 

 great pyramid to have been made mathematically certain by the late 

 paper of the Astronomer Royal of Scotland, Turner himself insists 

 that the great pyramid differs from all other pyramids, in Egypt and 

 elsewhere, in this very fact, that it alone is astronomical ; the rest 

 must give some other account of themselves. Arkism embraces 

 and explains astronomical archaeology, but the latter cannot explain 

 the former. 



35. Then there is the Phallic system of Kanne, and all the learned 

 writers of that school. A theory of antiquity not to be despised — 

 a grand summary of indubitable facts — it has a philosophical basis 

 to stand upon. It has immense resources in philology. It is 

 written with the freest and coarsest hand on the monuments of east 

 and west. It explains, and is explained by, the experiences of mo- 

 nastic life. It appeals for justification, in fact, to the strongest of 

 all the energies of nature, both physical and spiritual, when it 

 affirms that the first astonishment man felt was at himself when he 

 began to cohabit with woman; and the second, at the birth of his 

 first child ; that thus all worship sprang from love, and all its sym- 

 bols from the organs of reproduction; replaced afterwards by such 

 objects of nature as mountains, caverns, and seas, for grandeur's sake. 

 If, however, the nomenclature, the architecture, and the ritual of 

 Phallism can be shown to have had an anterior existence, unmodified 

 by the gi'oss sentiments of animal love, and to be explainable on a 

 hypothesis, not personal to the individual man, but common to man- 

 kind, then the Phallic theory, like the astronomical, must take a 

 secondary rank, and be accepted only for what it is worth within its 

 just limits; while its formal origin and outer development will be 

 referable to that older and more general arkism, whose language it 

 had adopted, whose symbols it had modified, whose truths it had de- 

 graded, whose pure and simple worship it had debased and defiled, 

 but still continued to illustrate. 



