Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/248

Rh a long plaited lock (or later a lappet) on the side of their head in imitation of the youthful Horus, and the peculiar tonsure adopted by the later Arabs of Sinai was inspired by the desire to copy their god Orotal-Dionysus. Thus we perceive that ancient costume and toilet involves the relations between the gods and men, and also, what is extremely important, the political conditions among the latter. When the king symbolizes both the god and the extent of his kingdom, ceremonies which could appear commonplace often acquire a new significance, any discussion of which belongs to the intricacies of the history of religion and pre-monarchical society. It must suffice, therefore, to record the Pharaoh’s simple girdle (with or without a tunic) from which hangs the lion’s tail, or the tail-like band suspended from the extremity of his head-dress (above), or the panther or leopard skin worn over the shoulders by the high priest at Memphis, subsequently a ceremonial dress of men of rank. That the Pharaoh’s skirt, sometimes decorated with a pleated golden material, should become an honorific garment, the right of wearing which was proudly recorded among the bearer’s titles, is quite intelligible, but many difficulties arise when one attempts to identify the individuals represented, or to trace the evolution of ideas.

The well-known conservatism of religious practice manifests itself in ceremonial festivals (where there is a tendency for the original religious meaning to be obscured) and among the priests, and it is interesting to observe that despite the great changes in Egyptian costume in the New Kingdom the priests still kept to the simple linen skirt of earlier days (Erman, 206). Religious dress (whether of priests or worshippers) was regulated by certain fundamental ideas concerning access to the deity and its consequences. That it was proper to wear special garments (or at least to rearrange one’s weekday clothes) on the Jewish sabbath was recognized in the Talmud, and Mahommedans, after discussing at length the most suitable raiment for prayer, favoured the use of a single simple garment (Bukhāri, viii.). It was a deep-seated belief that those who took part in religious functions were liable to communicate this “holiness” to others (compare the complex ideas associated with the Polynesian taboo). Hence priests would remove their ceremonial dress before leaving the sanctuary “that they sanctify not the people with their garments” (Ezek. xliv. 19; cf. xlii. 14), and every precaution was taken on religious occasions to ensure purity by special ablutions and by cleansing the clothes. In the old ritual at Mecca, the man who wore his own garments must leave them in the sanctuary, as they had become “taboo”; hence the sacred circumambulation of the Ka’ba was performed naked (prohibited by Mahomet), or in clothes provided for the occasion. The old archaic waist-cloth was used, and at the present day both male and female pilgrims enter bare-footed and clad in the scanty iḥrām (c. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 479, 481, 537). In several old Babylonian representations the priests or worshippers appear before the deity in a state of nature. It is known that laymen were required to wear special garments, and the priests (who wore dark-red or purple) were sometimes called upon to change their garments in the course of a ceremony. Thus the temples required clothing not merely for the gods but also for the attendants (so at Samaria, 2 Kings x. 22).

In the late usage at Harran the worshipper, after purifying his garments and his heart, was advised to put on the clothing of the particular god he addressed (de Goeje, Oriental Congress, Leiden, 1883, pp. 341 sqq.). The reason is obvious, and the principle could be variously expressed. But we are not told whether the prophetess who wore bands on her arm and drew a mantle over her head (so read in Ezek. xiii. 17-23) actually used the clothing peculiar to some deity, nor is it quite clear what is meant when a Babylonian ritual text refers to the magical use of the linen garment of Eridu (seat of the cult of Ea). The Bishop Gregentius denounced as heathenish the rites in which the Arabs wore masks (W. R. Smith, 438), and one is tempted to compare the use of masks elsewhere in animal worship. Next, one may observe upon old Babylonian seals, eagle-headed deities with short feathered skirts attended by human beings similarly arrayed (Ball, 151) or figures draped in a fish skin (Menant, Rev. de l’hist. des relig. xi. 295-301) or a worshipper arrayed somewhat like a cock (Meyer, 63; cf. Lucian’s De Dea Syria, § 48; for “bees,” &c., as titles of sacred attendants, see J. G. Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 223, v. 621). Although there is much that is obscure in this line of research, it is a natural assumption that, in those ritual functions where the gods were supposed to participate, the rôle was taken by men, and the general idea of assimilating oneself to the god (and the reverse process) manifests itself in too many ways to be ignored (cf. W. R. Smith, 293, 437 sq., 474; C. J. Ball, Ency. Bib., art. “Cuttings”). But the deities were not originally anthropomorphic, and it is with the earlier stages in their development that some of the more remarkable costumes are apparently concerned.

Of all priestly costumes the most interesting is undoubtedly that of the Jewish Levitical high-priest. In addition to a tunic (kuttōneth) and a seamless mantle or robe (mĕ’īl), he wore the breastplate (ḥōshen), the ephod, and a rich outer girdle. Breeches were assumed on the Day of Atonement. His head-dress was as distinctive as that of the high priest at Hierapolis, who wore a golden tiara and a purple dress, while the ordinary priests had a pilos (conical cap, also worn in Israel, Ex. xxviii. 40) and white garments. But the various descriptions cannot be easily reconciled. The robe had pomegranates and golden bells that the sound might give warning as he went in and out of the sanctuary, and “that he died not” (Ex. xxviii. 35). According to Josephus they symbolized the lightning and thunder respectively. The “ephod of prophecy” (so Test. of Levi, viii. 2) was essentially once an object of divination (see ). The “breastplate of judgment” was set with twelve jewels engraved with the names of the tribes; the foreordained covering of the semi-divine being in the garden of the gods bore the same number of stones (Ezek. xxviii. 13, Septuagint). This breast ornament finds analogies in the royal and high priestly dress of Egypt, and in the six jewels of the Babylonian king. The sacred lots which gave “judgment” in accordance with the divine oracle (Num. xxvii. 21) have been plausibly compared with the Babylonian tablets of destiny worn by the gods and the mystic lots upon the bosom of Noah. The two jewels also engraved with the names of the tribes in a suitable setting, worn upon the shoulder (see p. 102, c.), served, like the twelve mentioned, for a memorial before the Deity, effectively bringing them to remembrance, without any action on the part of the bearer, and thus tacitly involving supernatural intervention as amulets are regularly expected to do. The golden plate inscribed “holy to Yahweh” placed over the head (the details are discrepant) had a mystic atoning force (Ex. xxviii. 38), and in general writers recognized the peculiar efficacy of the costume and its symbolical meaning (Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 14; Jos. Ant. iii. 7. 7; Talm. Zeb. 88b). Although Jewish tradition ascribed this gorgeous and significant array to the Mosaic age (if not to the pre-Mosaic days of Levi, so the Test. of Levi), its very character, in common with the high priest’s status, combines kingly and priestly powers in a manner which is impossible for the period (about 15th-13th cent.). Where the king is the human representative of the Deity he is theoretically and officially the priesthood, although the priests carry on the ordinary subordinate functions. The Hebrew