[80] In connection with this subject, see St. Jerome, in his letter on “Virginity” to Eustachia. [81] The turning of Aaron’s rod into a serpent had, no doubt, a reference to the idea of _wisdom_ associated with that animal. [82] “The Fallen Angels” (1857). [83] Moor’s “Hindu Pantheon,” p. 101. [84] The Bo-tree. See _suprà_, p. 18. [85] Probably the _fruit_ is really intended. Higgins refers to “a peculiar property which the fig has of producing its fruit from its flowers, contained within its own bosom, and concealed from profane eyes,” as a reason why the leaves of the fig-tree were selected by Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. _Anacalypsis_, vol. ii., p. 253. [86] Hardwicke’s “Christ and other Masters,” vol. i., p. 305-6. [87] Mr. Hardwicke states that the sacred Indian fig is endowed by the Brahmans and Buddhists with mysterious significance, as the tree of knowledge or intelligence. [88] See Beausobre’s curious and learned work, “Histoire de Manichée et du Manichéisme,” Liv. vii., ch. iii.; Gibbon’s “Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire,” vol. ii., p. 186. [89] As already suggested, these may be the _ish_ and _isha_ of Genesis. [90] Lajard, “Le culte de Mithra,” p. 52. [91] Ditto, p. 60. [92] This is shown by Mr. Gerald Massey in his remarkable work, “The Natural Genesis,” and particularly the chapter entitled “Typology of the Fall in Heaven and on Earth.” [93] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 49. [94] “Ormazd et Ahriman,” by James Darmesteter, pp. 154, 159. [95] It may be objected that the “Boundehesch,” which gives the above details, is comparatively a modern work. It must be noted, however, that the destruction of purity in the world by the serpent _Dahâka_ is mentioned in the 9th Yaçna, v. 27, which is much earlier, and that Dr. Haug supposes the “Boundehesch” to have had a Zend original (“Essays on the Sacred Language, &c., of the Parsees,” p. 29). Windischmann, also, says that “a closer study of this remarkable and venerable book, and comparing it with the original text preserved to us, will induce us to form a much more favourable opinion of its antiquity and contents.” (“Zoroastrische Studien,” p. 282). The opinion of this latter writer is that, notwithstanding the striking resemblance between the narrative of the fall of man contained in the “Boundehesch” and that in Genesis, the former is original, although inferior in simplicity to the Hebrew tradition (_idem_, p. 212). The narratives are so much alike, however, that they can hardly have had independent origins, and the very simplicity of the latter is a very strong argument against its priority. [96] See _suprà_, p. 24. [97] Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London, vol. ii., p. 264, _et seq._, and compare with the Gnostic personification of “Truth,” for which see King’s “Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 39. [98] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 96.