The Good and Evil Serpent (9 page)

M. Lurker,
Lexikon der Götter und Symbole der alten Ägypter
(1974, 1987; reprinted in 1998)

P. Grimal,
The Dictionary of Classical Mythology
(1986, 1996; French of 1951)

G. J. Bellinger,
Lexikon der Mythologie
(1989, 1997)

G. de Champeaux and Dom S. Sterckx,
Einfürung in die Welt der Symbole
(1990; French of 1989)

M. Lurker,
Die Botschaft der Symbole: In Mythen, Kulturen und Religionen
(1990)

M. Girard,
Les symboles dans le Bible
(1991)

M. Lurker, ed.,
Wörterbuch der Symbolik
(1991 [5th ed.])

H. Biedermann,
Dictionary of Symbolism
(1992)

J.-P. Ronecker,
Le symbolisme animal
(1994)

M. Cazenave, ed.,
Encyclopédie des symboles
(1996; German of 1989)

G. Löwe and H. A. Stoll,
Lexikon der Antike: Griechenland und das römische Weltreich
(1997)

F. Glunk,
Das große Lexikon der Symbole
(1997)

P. Preston,
Metzler Lexikon antiker Bildmotive
(1997; English of 1983)

W. Bauer, I. Dümotz, and S. Golowin,
Lexikon der Symbole
(1998 [17th ed.])

M. Ferber,
A Dictionary of Literary Symbols
(1999)

J. C. Cooper,
Illustriertes Lexikon der traditionellen Symbole
(n.d.)

No publication can compare in depth and sophistication to the richly illustrated, multivolumed
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae
. It has been my source of inspiration and has helped me refine my thoughts and reflections, but, unfortunately, it is limited to Greek and Roman iconography.

As one examines these lexicons, one should also consult the data amassed in Stith Thompson’s
Motif-Index of Folk-Literature
and contemplate the language of art. Although Joseph Campbell’s work is not appreciated by many scholars, I have found his books to be often stimulating. Scholarly and informative are the insights by Mircea Eliade.
⁸⁸
I have found astute the many publications by Erwin Panofsky, especially the following:

E. Panofsky,
Studies in Iconology
(1939, 1962, 1972)

E. Panofsky,
Meaning in the Visual Arts
(1955, 1982)

E. Panofsky,
Perspective as Symbolic Form
(1991; original German of 1927)

Also extremely helpful in studying Panofsky’s method and perspectives are M. A. Holly’s
Panofsky and the Foundation of Art History
(1984) and J. Elkins’
The Poetics of Perspective
(1994).

The most sophisticated methodology for studying ancient iconography has been developed by O. Keel. He rightly stresses that images must not be read in terms of some mythology that has influenced us; they must be examined meditatively so that their silent language begins to speak. I have refined my research by visiting and talking with Keel in Freiburg and examining his numerous publications (cited in the following pages), especially the following:

O. Keel,
Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament
(1972)

O. Keel,
Deine Blicke sind Tauben
(1984)

O. Keel and S. Schroer,
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel
, vol. 1 (1985)

O. Keel et al.,
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel
, vol. 2 (1989)

O. Keel et al.,
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel
, vol. 3 (1990)

O. Keel,
Das Recht der Bilder Gesehen zu Werden
(1992)

O. Keel,
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel
, vol. 4 (1994)

O. Keel and C. Uehlinger,
Gods, Goddesses, and Images of Gods in Ancient Israel
, trans. T. H. Trapp (1998).

Also extremely important are books published in Keel’s series, especially U. Winter’s
Frau und Göttin
, H. Brunner’s
Das Hörende Herz
, and A. Berlejung’s
Die Theologie der Bilder.
⁸⁹

If we really want to hear the symbol “speak,” and if we seek to proceed so as not to read into the image our own presuppositions, we should study each detail on an image, observe the whole composition, and imagine the historical and sociological setting in which it was given and received meaning. Most important, we should seek to enter into the world of meaning in which the artist and his or her viewers lived. That means not merely to visit the places in which the symbol or similar images were employed, and perhaps revered. It demands more: sitting, for example, in Epidaurus and imagining how and why the devotees of Asclepius chose his symbol. It is the depiction of the serpent curled around his staff. Such informed imagination is supported if one holds in one’s hand a bronze image of Hermes, from Jerusalem at the time of the Fourth Evangelist. Especially stimulating for a perception of ophidian iconography would be evidence that he held in his left hand a caduceus (two serpents facing each other). As J. Milgrom urges us to engage “handmade midrash,” or visual theology,
⁹⁰
as I have elsewhere endeavored to show, exegetes need to join those like Michelangelo who tried “to imagine and live within the biblical scenes.”
⁹¹

Figure 5
. Hermes. Jerusalem. Early Roman Period. Bronze. Note the caduceus on his staff. JHC Collection

When we immerse ourselves in antiquity, the sights we see are often astounding. We see gods that are part serpents; some have serpents as legs and feet (anguipedes). The Seraphim have wings and feet—but are they not also serpents? Some lions have serpents for tails. Serpents appear with beards and crowns. An odd serpent, Ouroboros, is shown in a full circle so as to swallow his own tail. Dragons appear in art and iconography, almost everywhere and in almost every century. Serpents as gods or accompanying gods appear in images or are described in literature among the Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Hebrews, Israelites, Egyptians, Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. Athena appears with serpents on her garments or around her neck. Marble sculptures, made by artisans who seem almost as skilled as the incomparable Michelangelo, have created living masterpieces out of marble: Asclepius with a serpent around his staff and Hygieia holding a serpent that drinks out of a cup. In European art alone we see a human with an elephant’s head, gigantic serpents struggling against elephants, and one trying to swallow a pachyderm (enacting a report found in Pliny,
Nat
. 8). We also see imagined worlds filled with indescribable beasts including reptiles and dragons, snakes devouring a tiger or a gazelle, and a seductive woman enveloped by a dark snake.
⁹²

What are the limits of the human imagination? What did these pictures and images symbolize? How did those who created them envision our world, the animal kingdom, and our place within it? Having explored almost all our globe, except the ocean’s floor, have we lost the poetry of imagination?

SUMMARY

It is certain that we have lost the origin of our language and the subtleties inherent in our words. Some of the lost meanings may be found in Italian, which is rooted in Latin. In Italian, for example, we find numerous words etymologically linked with the serpent.
⁹³
The word
serpènte
signifies the literary and mythological use of “serpent” in good and evil ways.
⁹⁴
The verb
serpènte
is the present participle of
serpere
and means “to move serpentinely” in a zigzag.
⁹⁵
The noun
serpeninamènte
denotes not only a perfidious creature but also the possession of great agility.
⁹⁶
The noun
serpentino
indicates that something or someone has the properties of a snake, can move in a zigzag manner; it also denotes the ability to move elegantly and with agility. It also has the meaning of being astute.
⁹⁷

What will be discovered in our search for the meaning of ophidian symbolism? Why is the serpent a universal symbol, appearing in virtually all creation myths, from the Australian Aborigines to the Israelites?
⁹⁸
If the serpent is primarily a phallic symbol, then why can B. Johnson conclude that “the predominant evidence from early times presents the snake as distinctly feminine, and etymology bears out this primal identification”?
⁹⁹
Is it true that the serpent is always a pejorative symbol in Christianity, as A. T. Mann and J. Lyle contend when they write that the snake “is always portrayed in Christian teachings as devilish and evil”?
¹⁰⁰
What credence should be given to M. Gimbutas’ claim that the “snake is life force, a seminal symbol, epitome of the worship of life on this earth. It is not the body of the snake that was sacred, but the energy exuded by this spiraling or coiling creature which transcends its boundaries and influences the surrounding world.”
¹⁰¹
Will the conclusions to our research prove what is reported by M. Girard: the serpent is the animal that has given to the world of symbolism the most varied and rich meanings?
¹⁰²

No work on symbolism is well researched if the object featured in art and metaphor is not examined physiologically. Consequently, ophidian symbolism must be grounded by studying and holding snakes. These creatures have no arms or legs, yet they seem to move effortlessly and swiftly.

The books that have informed me about this intriguing animal are the following:

C. Mattison,
Snakes of the World
(1986, rep. 1992)

J. Coborn,
The Atlas of Snakes of the World
(1991)

G. R. Zug, L. J. Vitt, and J. P. Caldwell,
Herpetology
(1993, 2001)

R. Bauchot, ed.,
Les Serpents
(1994;
Schlangen
, German of 1994)

C. Mattison,
The Encyclopedia of Snakes
(1995)

H. W. Greene,
Snakes: The Evolution of Mystery in Nature
(1997)

C. Mattison,
Snake
(1999)

THE PSYCHE OF MODERNS: THE SERPENT SYMBOLIZES EVIL AND SATAN

The failure of scholars in the humanities—and not only biblical experts—to appreciate the multivalent meanings of serpent symbolism is understandable. Beginning in the fourth century
CE
, as we shall see, the leading savants in the church triumphant began to disparage serpent imagery,
¹
as M. Martinek demonstrates in his book on how the serpent became equated with the Devil (Satan, Belial, Beliar, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Leviathan [the serpent], Samael).
²