Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism 1915

by Thomas Inman

In this work, the Author is obliged to confine himself to the explanation of symbols, and cannot launch out into ancient and modern faiths, except in so far as they are typified by the use of certain conventional signs. A great many who peruse a book like this for the first time, and find how strange were the ideas which for some thousands of years permeated the religious opinions of the civilized world, might naturally consider that the Author is a mere visionary-one who is possessed of a hobby that he rides to death. Such a notion is strengthened by finding that there is scarcely any subject treated of except the one, which associates religion, a matter of the highest aim to man, with ideas of the most intensely earthly kind. But a thoughtful reader will readily discern that an essay on Symbolism must be confined to visible emblems. By no fair means can an author who makes the crucifix his text introduce the subject of the Confessional, the Eucharist, or Extreme Unction. Nor can one, who knows that Buddha and Jesus alike inaugurated a faith which was unmarked by visible symbolism, bring into an interpretation of emblems a comparison between the preaching of two such distinguished men. In like manner, the Author is obliged to pass over the difference between Judaism, Christianity as propounded by the son of Maryland that which passes; current Christianity in Rome and most countries of Europe.

212 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1869

Reviews

[The Overflowing Inkwell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Alternatively titled "How to See Dicks in Everything", I was intrigued by the author's insistence that all the typical symbols of Goddesses - in Europe, at any rate - trinity, eggs, snakes, etc., were all symbols of the male god. That the male god was represented in trinity, while his female consort was singular, as befitting each other's genitals, thus forming a 'mystic four.' I would have loved to see his take then, on the Europeans with their Triple Goddesses, the symbolism of eggs as (obviously) connected to female reproductive power, and so on. I suppose the symbolism Inman discusses could be restricted to the Middle East and the Mediterranean, as that is as far as his definition of 'Pagan' here stretches; and I would love to see more modern research on this topic to see how much of this is still held by the historical and archaeological communities that deal in them. I shall have to look it up!

Also had a laugh at this brilliant section near the beginning:

...we cannot doubt that the symbols, etc., of Paganism have a meaning, and that it is as lawful to scrutinise the mysteries which they enfold as it is to speculate upon the Urim and Thummim of the Jews. Yet, even this freedom has, by some, been denied; for there are a few amongst us who adhere rigidly to the precept addressed to the followers of Moses, viz., "Take heed that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods?" (Deut. xii. 30.) The intention of the prohibition thus enunciated is well marked in the following words, which indicate that the writer believed that the adoption of heathen gods would follow inquiry respecting them. It is not now-a-days feared that we may become Mahometans if we read the Koran, or Buddhists if we study the Dhammapada; but there are priests who fear that an inquiry into ecclesiastical matters may make their followers Papists, Protestants, Wesleyans, Baptists, Unitarians, or some other religion which the Presbytery object to. The dislike of inquiry ever attends those who profess a religion which is believed or known to be weak.

[Beryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informative, but the layout made it awkward to read.