There is little or no ground for believing that the staff of Æsculapius was a wonder-working object. I am not aware that such a thing was placed intentionally in his hand by any artist. Hence, the references often made to the mystic wand of the god spring from misapprehension, a walking-staff being something very different.
One can obtain, I believe, from an examination of the Berlin statue and others,—in which Æsculapius is represented leaning on, or standing by, a post of variable thickness and more or less regular in shape,—a clue to an explanation of the origin of the staff. Between the two objects the difference is not great, certainly not radical; and as attributes they might be expressive of the same thing. The club shown in the picture ([Fig. 3]), from Maffei, might be viewed as intermediate.
Of course, I do not say that the prototype of the staff was the post present in some representations of Æsculapius, although the idea would not be entirely unreasonable. There is more ground for the opinion that both were, so to speak, the offspring of something else.
Any one familiar with the antique representations of Æsculapius, and who has also seen different ones of Apollo, might well be inclined to believe that both gods have essentially the same thing by their side, namely, a post with a clinging serpent. And when it is recalled that Æsculapius was the son of Apollo, the opinion might be advanced with some degree of reasonableness, that the emblem of the former was, in reality, that of the latter, somewhat modified.
Tracing thus the origin of the staff of Æsculapius to the related symbol possessed by his father, Apollo, it would not be satisfactory to rest here; one naturally wants to know something about the latter. A few words, however, on the subject must suffice.
Although it was not an uncommon thing for artists to give posts by the side of statues, the one bearing the serpent in, say, the Apollo Belvedere, was, it is thought, meant to represent the Omphalos, to which the Grecians attached much significance.
The Omphalos,[159] in the form of a conical stone, was kept, and was present within historical times, as Strabo explicitly states, at Delphi, a place which, he says, “was supposed to be the centre of the habitable earth, and was called the navel of the earth.”[160] Plato refers to Apollo as “the god whose seat is the middle point of the earth, its very navel.”[161] According to a legend,[162] Delphi was esteemed the centre of the earth, because two eagles sent out by Zeus, one from the east and the other from the west, met at that point. Says Strabo: “In the temple is seen a sort of navel, wrapped in bands and surmounted by figures representing the birds of the fable.”[163]
The etymology of the word Omphalos casts light on its meaning. Olympos, the mount of the gods, is a corruption of it. Omphi-el[164] is the oracle of the sun-god. Al-omphi was used to designate hills, or mountains. Holwell says that the word came from Egypt, and was originally Ompha-el, and related to the oracle of Ham, or the sun.[165] The idea of a sacred mount or elevation is thus the original meaning of the word. And here I may say that in Hindu mythology considerable is said of a mountain encircled by a great serpent.[166]
Let it not be supposed that the reasons in favor of the idea that the Omphalos became the staff of Æsculapius are entirely insubstantial. Remains of ancient art furnish excellent proof of it. Müller says: “In a Pompeian picture, Æsculapius has beside him the Omphalos, which is entwisted with the well-known net, composed of στέμµατα. We see from this that this symbol of Apollo was also transferred to his son. On the coins of the gens Rubria, likewise, it is not an egg, as is usually asserted, but the Omphalos placed on a circular altar that is encircled by the Æsculapian serpent.”[167]
To one versed in the history of Phœnicia and other Oriental countries, the Omphalos is very certain to be viewed in another light than as a symbol of a “high place,” or mount[168] of worship. In the great Tyrian Temple of Baal Melkarth, which Herodotus went to see and admired much, and of which that of Solomon, or, rather, of Jehovah on Mount Moriah was almost a copy, even to the two pillars in front,—symbols of the sun-god,—were certain similar stones, carefully preserved and duly reverenced. These, it is well known, were of procreative import; they were phallic in character.[169] Was the Omphalos of similar significance? There is little reason to doubt that it was often regarded in that light. “In the earliest times,” says Müller, “a conical pillar, placed in the street and called Apollo Agyicus, sufficed to keep in remembrance the protecting and health-bringing power of the god.”[170]