fundamental
conception of these myths, which are only to be found complete in their
oldest forms, is of the universe as an immense tree, whose roots embrace
the earth, and whose branches form the vault of heaven.[73] The fruit of
this tree is fire--indispensable to human existence, and the material
symbol of intelligence; and the leaves distil the Elixir of Life. The
gods had reserved to themselves the possession of fire, which sometimes,
indeed, descends on earth in the form of lightning, but which men were
not themselves to produce. He who--like the Prometheus of the
Greeks--discovers the method of artificially kindling a flame, and
communicates this discovery to other men, is impious, has stolen the
forbidden fruit from the sacred tree, is accursed, and the wrath of the
gods pursues him and his race.

The analogy between these myths and the Bible narrative is striking
indeed. They are, really, one and the same tradition, only bearing a
quite different sense, symbolizing an invention of a material order,
instead of dwelling on the fundamental fact of the moral order, and
disfigured further by the monstrous conception, too frequent in
Paganism, of the Divinity as a formidable and adverse power, jealous of
the happiness and progress of man. The spirit of error among the
Gentiles had distorted the mysterious symbolic memory of the events by
which the fate of humanity was decided. The inspired author of Genesis
took it up under the form that it had evidently retained among the
Hebrews, as among the other nations where it had acquired a material
meaning, but he restored to it its true significance, and made it the
occasion of a solemn lesson.

Some remarks are still needed regarding the animal form assumed by the
tempter in Bible story, that serpent who, as figured monuments have
shown us, played the same part in the legends of Chaldea and Phenicia.

The serpent, or, more correctly speaking, different kinds of serpents,
held a very considerable place in the religious symbolism of the peoples
of antiquity. These creatures figure therein with most opposite
meanings, and it would be contrary to the laws of criticism to group
together confusedly, as some learned scholars were once wont to do, the
contradictory notions linked in old myths with different serpents, so as
to form out of them one vast Ophiological system,[74] referred to a
single source, and brought into relation with the narrative in Genesis.
But by the side o