The women of the former country carried in their religious processions, a movable Phallus of disproportionate magnitude, which Deodorus Siculus informs us signified the generative attribute. It has also been observed among the idols of the native Americans and ancient Scandinavians, while the Greeks represented the Phallus alone, and changed the personified attribute into a distinct deity, called Priapus. Phallus, or privy member (_membrum virile_), signifies, “he breaks through, or passes into.” This word survives in German _pfahl_, and _pole_ in English. Phallus is supposed to be of Phœnician origin, the Greek word _pallo_, or _phallo_, “to brandish preparatory to throwing a missile,” is so near in assonance and meaning to Phallus, that one is quite likely to be parent of the other. In Sanskrit it can be traced to _phal_, “to burst,” “to produce,” “to be fruitful”; then, again, _phal_ is “a ploughshare,” and is also the name of Siva and Mahadeva, who are Hindu deities. Phallus, then, was the ancient emblem of creation: a divinity who was companion to Bacchus. The Indian designation of this idol was Lingam, and those who dedicated themselves to its service were to observe inviolable chastity. “If it were discovered,” says Crawford, “that they had in any way departed from them, the punishment is death. They go naked, and being considered as sanctified persons, the women approach without scruple, nor is it thought that their modesty should be offended by it.” SYMBOLS OR EMBLEMS The Phallus and its emblems were representative of the gods Bacchus, Priapus, Hercules, Siva, Osiris, Baal, and Asher, who were all Phallic deities. The symbols were used as signs of the great creative energy or operating power of God from no sense of mere animal appetite, but in the highest reverence. Payne Knight, describing the emblems, says:— “Forms and ceremonials of a religion are not always to be understood in their direct and obvious sense, but are to be considered as symbolical representations of some hidden meaning extremely wise and just, though the symbols themselves, to those who know not their true signification, may appear in the highest degree absurd and extravagant. It has often happened that avarice and superstition have continued these symbolical representations for ages after their original meaning has been lost and forgotten; they must, of course, appear nonsensical and ridiculous, if not impious and extravagant. Such is the case with the rite now under consideration, than which nothing can be more monstrous and indecent, if considered in its plain and obvious meaning, or as part of the Christian worship; but which will be found to be a very natural symbol of a very natural and philosophical system of religion, if considered according to its original use and intention.”