B] Note on some primitive conceptions 255 



occurs in so many forms of the name of God is really the 

 symbol for a god or king, representing the power of 

 causing life. The god or king is the life-giver. It also 

 represents the unity of the god. 



But soon it becomes combined with the feminine 

 symbol. IOVE, IOVAH. IOSHUA, IUNO, IUPITER. 

 probably show the two aspects of the divine nature in 

 the god-name IO. The two are combined in the orb 

 of our regalia $ , and in the ark of Isis j,, which may 

 represent the crescent moon, as perhaps does the open 

 O, or U in IUNO, IUPITER; and they may survive in 

 the broad arrow, Neptune's trident, the fleur-de-lys, etc. 

 This is at least suggested, I know not with what justi- 

 fication, in a letter from Mr H. A. Harris to the Numis- 

 matic Circular, Sept.-Oct. 1916. For us, the interesting 

 point lies in the combination of the two symbols in the 

 name of, or to represent one god. We seem to find a 

 similar significance in the planetary symbols for Jupiter 

 and Venus, and $ commonly used by zoologists to 

 denote male and female. The Logos-doctrine of Philo, 

 and the Demiurge of Persian and Gnostic theology, show 

 the existence of another aspect of the same mediatorial 

 conception; though both implicitly affirm a certain 

 degree of derivativeness, and so of inferiority, when 

 they are pressed to their logical issue. 



On the whole it is true to say that the causative and 

 mediatorial functions are quickly recognised as activi- 

 ties of one being; men instinctively rebel against their 

 separation in two gods, however closely united in the 

 ties of wedlock. 



But we can go still further. In very many religions 

 at any rate there is a brooding deity behind, less defi- 

 nitely pictured and again liable to be blended here is the 

 interesting point with the creator. Brahma lies behind 

 the Hindu pantheon. The spirit of God broods over the 

 waters. The Mana of savage religions is more than the 



