sign in sign up
<<
Home , Serpent (symbolism)

   205

CONCLUDING REMARKS

e immense cultural signicance of the serpent- that would usher in a new age and a new creation. is best demonstrated by the fact that its Serpents and thus came to be classed iconography was known and exploited through- as noxious beings (khrafstras), creatures of the out Western Asia in the medieval period. More- “hostile spirit” Ahriman and as such evil and over, it was not restricted to just one religious deserving of death. In spite of this the Greek creed. Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hin- writer Philo of Byblos (c. 64–141) records a saying dus and others were equally ready to employ its of the magus Zoroaster/Zarathushtra according likeness in textual and visual sources while con- to which the serpent is not only immortal but tributing, each in their own way, to the broad “the director of everything beautiful … the best repository of dragon and serpent iconography. of the good, the wisest of the wise … the father A wide semantic range of serpent-dragon ico- of and justice, self-taught … and perfect nography and iconology evolved during its imme- and wise …”2 e link between these statements morial history in Western Asia. Textual and visual and historical Iranian Zoroastrianism seems ten- sources reect the quintessential ambiguity of uous. Nevertheless, as well as reecting the - such imagery. Animated by the endless interplay lenistic reception of Zoroastrian ideas they may of dichotomous forces the creature revealed itself suggest that the Iranian denition of the serpent- as deliverer destroyer, regenerator or anni- dragon as unequivocally malecent was perhaps hilator, protector or adversary. e dragon thus not always as cut and dried as appears from sur- served to embody the eternal opposition viving scriptures.3 of two distinct forces, one seeking to preserve e serpent-dragon’s association with the mys- life, the other to destroy it, a polarity giving rise teries of and death is echoed in Philo’s to a kaleidoscopic diversity of function and sym- monograph Ethothion (now lost but preserved in bolism. excerpts by Eusebius) in which he claims that “it e serpent-dragon accrued a range of nega- is immortal and … dissolves into itself …; for tive aspects following changes brought about by this sort of animal does not die an death the rise of Zoroastrian cosmological dualism. A unless it is violently struck.”4 e serpent is known more robust symbolism was needed and the to be the animal most lled with the breath of life inherently powerful and combative serpent- (pneuma).5 Its connection with life is further sug- dragon aptly came to represent the Zoroastrian gested by the possible association of various terms evil spirit who declares to God: “I shall destroy for “serpent” with those of “life,” traceable espe- you and your creatures forever and ever. And I cially in Aramaic and Arabic. e case for tracing shall persuade all your creatures to hate you and such serpent names (iwyaʾ and ayya respec- to love me.”1 In its new guise the dragon thus tively) back to the root yw, apparent in the word assumed the mantle of eschatological opponent, ay[w]āt (“life”),6 as described by Ibn Manūr in the evil principle who would be destroyed, fol- the Lisān al-ʿArab,7 was explored above in chapter lowing a millennium of conict, in a nal battle 14. Such an etymology would elucidate the drag-

1 Boyce, 1984, p. 46. is may be compared with the tradiction to the classication of serpents as khrafstras. See antagonism between Jahweh and the serpent in the Genesis p. 58, n. 96, p. 61, n. 125 and p. 136, n. 42. narrative (2–4); see the interpretation by Rhodokanakis with 4 Philo of Byblos’ e Phoenician History (as quoted by addendum by Ehrenzweig, 1921, pp. 76–83. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.48), tr. and ed. Attridge 2 Philo of Byblos’ e Phoenician History (as quoted by and Oden, 1981, p. 65. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.52), tr. and ed. Attridge 5 Idem, p. 63. and Oden, 1981, p. 67. Cf. eidem, p. 95, n. 161 for reference 6 See Wilson, 2001, pp. 50, 97, 214, 221, 240. Also Astour, on Zoroaster in this text. 1965, p. 194; Wallace, 1985, pp. 143–72, esp. pp. 144, 148, 3 is supposition is further corroborated by the ongoing 151 and 160; also p. 108. Zoroastrian practice of ophiomancy which is in striking con- 7 Beirut, n.d., vol. 14, p. 211. 206    on’s a nity with symbols of fertility and fecundity ciples. is arresting visual trope serves as a short- in the vegetal world, which o en spring from its hand, alluding to the act whereby the dragon has mouth (hence are associated with his breath, issued or will devour the central element. e saliva and tongue), as well as, by extension, its processes of issuing and devouring are thereby guardianship of treasures hidden in the earth and intrinsically linked. In both the dragon is the sources of nature’s abundance. merged with that of the central motif. e out- At the same time the serpent-dragon is known come of this synthesis is probably to be seen as as the awful dragon of death. In medieval writ- empowering. e imagery of the dragon heads ings reference to its gaping mouth (as well as its anking a central motif thus may be presumed breath or saliva) frequently alludes metaphori- to represent a benecial iconography, serving as cally to impending calamity. It manifests par- powerful apotropaic device. ticular power in times of great danger, whether e association of the serpent with healing natural phenomena such as storm, ood or powers and in turn with magic is well-known as drought, or aspects of the heavens such as an evidenced, for example, in the classical and Punic eclipse, which may usher in calamity or disease. world by its symbolic relationship with Asklepios e dragon’s association with the heavens was or in the magical abilities of rita and raētaona, further underlined through its identication with the earliest healers of Iranian mythology, whose astronomical and astrological manifestations. invention of an antidote for poison is par- Its manifestly dual nature confers on the ser- alleled by their heroic dragon-ghting feats. e pent-dragon an intermediate status. e world- same symbolism could be associated with encircling marks the boundary between raising the bronze serpent in the wilderness to the ordered world and the around it and heal the victims of a plague of serpents. Mounted thereby appears itself as exponent of liminality on a pole, the serpent serves as antidote to death. situated upon the ambiguous dividing is homeopathic principle was a frequently between the divine and the demonic. us employed tool, also serving Iskandar according ʿ in trinsically linked with the idea of the thres- to al-Mas ūdī, when marine dragons obstructed hold, dragon imagery appears around entrances the building of the city of Alexandria. e prin- and portals of secular and religious architec - ciple of similia similibus curantur involving the dragon is complemented by that of transforming tural monuments, where it serves as liminal . In the symbolism of medieval Islamic marker and apotropaic device in the role of a alchemy paired interlaced dragons illustrate the guardian imbued with prophylactic and talis- fundamental polarity on which the cosmic rhythm manic power, warding o the dangers inherent is based, the solve et coagula of the alchemical in such places. process. e dragon here serves to embody the It has also been shown that a visual hybridisa- circular nature of the alchemical process and the tion resulted from a conation of the dragon with agency of transformation that both devours and other animals, mythical creatures or vegetation. restores. On yet another level Abū Maslama is fusion draws two juxtaposed principles Muammad al-Majrītī represents this in his trea- together into a unied being, so creating a dual- tise Ghāyat al-akīm as the opposing principles ity which simultaneously contrasts and fuses two of positive and negative bodily temperaments opposites. ese composites reect an amalgama- which are associated with the two celestial nodes tion not only of external, that is physical, but also (knots), the head and the tail of the “hidden of internal, that is innate, characteristics. is essence.” hybridisation nds an interesting parallel in the e dragon can also be said to function as a motif of the human face, animal head, vegetal representative of the unknown, o en conceived ornament or benedictory inscription anked by of as hostile and threatening. Resistant to ratio- two dragon heads. e visual pairing of the - nalising and civilising inuences, it came to rep- strous heads is an example of the conceptual dou- resent wicked foreign tyrants, a paramount bling aspect of representations so prominent example being the hominoid dragon aāk of throughout the medieval period, a device intended Iranian mythology who was turned into a his- to reinforce and augment the visual impact and toricised political entity, presumably blending potency of the symbol. is symbolism of gaping spheres of history and mythology. dragons’ jaws anking a central motif, which also Yet the frequent use of the dragon simile in entails an astrological aspect, similarly a ords a panegyrics addressed to heroes and rulers reects glimpse into the process of conating two prin- at the same time both the numinous fear and the