erides. Apples are surrogates of the mandrake and _didi_.

We have now seen that the mandrake is definitely a surrogate (a) of the
cowry and a series of its shell-homologues, and (b) of the red substance
in the Story of the Destruction of Mankind.

There still remain to be determined (i) the means by which the mandrake
became identified with the goddess, (ii) the significance of the Hebrew
word _duda-im_, and (iii) the origin of the Greek word
_mandragora_.

The answer to the first of these three queries should now be obvious
enough. As the result of the confusion of the life-giving magical
substance _didi_ with the sedative drug, mandrake, the latter acquired
the reputation of being a "giver of life" and became identified with
_the_ "giver of life," the Great Mother, the story of whose exploits was
responsible for the confusion.

The erroneous identification of _didi_ with the mandrake was originally
suggested by Brugsch from the likeness of the word (then transliterated
_doudou_) with the Hebrew word _duda-im_ in Genesis, usually
translated "mandrakes". I have already quoted the opinion of Gauthier
and Griffith as to the error of such identification. But the evidence
now at our disposal seems to me to leave no doubt as to the reality of
the confusion of the Egyptian red substance with the mandrake. This
naturally suggests the possibility that the similarity of the sounds of
the words _may_ have played some part in creating the confusion: but it
is impossible to admit this as a factor in the development of the story,
because the Hebrew word probably arose out of the identification of the
mandrake with the Great Mother and not by any confusion of names. In
other words the similarity of the names of these homologous substances
is a mere coincidence.

Dr. Rendel Harris claims (and Sir James Frazer seems to approve of the
suggestion) that the Hebrew word _duda-im_ was derived from
_dodim_, "love"; and, on the strength of this derivation, he soars
into a lofty flight of philological conjecture to transmute
_dodim_, into _Aphrodite_, "love" into the "goddess of love". It
would be an impertinence on my part to attempt to follow these
excursions into unknown heights of cloudland.

But my colleagues Professor Canney and Principal Bennett tell me that
the derivation of _duda-im_ from _dodim_ is improbable;
and the former authority suggests that _duda-im_ may be merely
the plural of _dud_, a "pot".[383] Now I have already