THE GROUP OF THE CROSS. 



45 



ology, with tolerable correctness, insomuch that it is easily recognizable ; and 

 hence the Palenquean figure cannot be regarded as even a conventional repre- 

 sentation. But a still stronger argument against Dr. Brinton's opinion is found 

 in the last group of the Fejervary pictograph at Budapest, in which, as has been 

 stated, a design bearing a remarkable analogy — to say the least — to the Palen- 

 quean Group of the Cross is four times figured. The lower arm of the cross, rep- 

 resented as inverted in Fig. 9, shows a stem with horizontal branches surmounted 



Tio. 9. 



PART OF A FIGURE IX THE FEJERVARY MANCSCRIPT. 

 (After Kingsborough). 



by a bird, and two persons, apparently in the act of praying, standing near it. 

 The base of the stem is formed by an unsightly head, to which two forefeet 

 terminating in claws or toes are added, no other portion of the body being 

 visible. This creature certainly resembles more a fi'og than a snake.* 



Dr. Brinton is very hostile to the phallic theory, combating it with greater 

 vehemence than the occasion requires. In calling it " debasing," he seems to 

 overlook the fact that the pudency of Christian nations of our time is by no 

 means an innate quality, but simply the result of long-continued training. The 

 question is not, whether a conception or custom is repugnant to our sensibilities, 

 but whether it can be traced as having obtained at certain stages in the develop- 

 ment of man. Nothing, for instance, excites our horror in a higher degree than 

 cannibalism, and yet it is more than probable that in remote ages people akin 

 to our race indulged in that to us most detestable practice. Indeed, if the state- 

 ments of Herodotus and other ancient authors are to be credited, anthropophagy 

 still survived among certain European nations in historical times. No one can 



* In the second edition of his " Myths " (New York, 187G), which I saw for the first time after the above was 

 written, Dr. Brinton expresses a modified opinion concerning the character of the figure. He says: "The 

 descending arm (of the cross) rests upon a skull, possibly that of a serpent, but more probably human " (p. 124J. 



